Sitting of 21 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Staff Dispersal
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy on dispersing staff to the regions; and what proportion of his staff now work outside London.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Newton): The Government's policy is that Civil Service work should be located where it can be done most cost-effectively and provide the best service to the public, taking account also of the Government's urban and regional policies.
    The Department has some 12.670 staff in post, of whom just over half work outside central London. A further 650 Patents Office posts will move to Newport by 1991, and the location of a number of other units is under review.
    Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is the willingness to move outside the south-west evenly distributed across the Civil Service grades or have middle-aged middle management demonstrated greater reluctance to move? If so, what are the implications of that?
    Mr. Newton: The implications of any differences, whether described by grades or individuals, are that they must be taken into account when considering both whether a move should take place and the arrangements under which it should do so.
    Mr. Ingram: Has the Minister given any consideration to relocating any of the staff in his Department to Norfolk house in my constituency, which has a long-term lease held by the Property Services Agency at a cost of £166,000 per annum, has lain vacant for a considerable number of years and could accommodate approximately 400 staff?
    Mr. Newton: As I indicated, there are a number of reviews of possible further relocations taking place. Clearly, we shall bear in mind the availability of office accommodation and the supply of labour in particular locations. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Harris: Of the 6,000 or so members of my right hon. Friend the Minister's staff based in central London, how many were able to turn up for work today? Does he agree that the experiences of millions of people in this capital today underline the absolute necessity of dispersing more Whitehall staff to the regions? In that context, will he look at the claims of Cornwall, particularly in this age of modern information technology?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact breakdown that he seeks, but a number of my staff are absent. I also take note, as I hope will the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, of what my hon. Friend said about the disruption needlessly caused to so many thousands of people by today's events. As always, I shall be mindful of Cornwall's needs.

    Tameside
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to encourage new industries to come to Tameside.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am tempted to reply, "lots". The north-west is booming economically as a direct result of Her Majesty's Government's policies, and Tameside is no exception. The demand from domestic and foreign companies to invest in the north-west is a true measure of the faith that they have in the British economy.
    Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister's words will not encourage the large numbers of my constituents who have been out of work for 12 months or more. They particularly resent the way in which the Government invest so many resources in the south-east and, so far as they can see, very few in Tameside. Will the Minister particuarly impress on his Government colleagues the need to complete the motorway around the east side of Manchester and to develop a freight terminal in the Tameside, east side, of Manchester to take full advantage of the Channel tunnel when it is operational, and so as to be prepared for harmonisation in 1992?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my constituency is further north than his. My hon. Friends who represent northern and north-west constituencies and I find a totally different picture from that painted by the hon. Gentleman. The north-west is doing extremely well at the moment, and long may it continue to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the points that he raised about infrastructure are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will draw their attention to the points that he makes.
    Mr. Jack: Is not the validity of my hon. Friend's answer borne out when one considers the investment made by companies such as British Aerospace, Fox's Biscuits, Leyland Daf and many others in the Preston area and the capital expansion and employment programmes that they are following?
    Mr. Atkins: As usual, my hon. Friend is spot on. He will know, as I do, that the local paper in Preston pointed to how the local Labour council had problems because business was booming to such an extent that there was congestion and more space was needed for offices, but that all in all they were problems of success—something that the council recognised even if Labour Members of Parliament do not.

    Trade Deficit
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Economic Community members Britain's trade is in deficit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): In the 12 months to April the United Kingdom was in deficit on visible trade with Belgium and Luxembourg, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.
    Mr. Williams: The length of that list is impressive. The Minister scarcely missed out any EC country. How can the Government claim that we have the strongest economy in Europe when we have a trade deficit with virtually every other Community country?
    Mr. Maude: The question of with which countries we have a deficit is wholly irrelevant. The fact is that three-quarters of the imports into this country are either semi-manufactured capital goods or intermediate goods. They reflect not just increased consumer demand, which is itself an example of the prosperity which pervades this country, but are a consequence of the high investment boom that has been going on. The hon. Gentleman should welcome those signs of strength.
    Mr. Hill: Is it not nonsense to continue producing figures of deficits with Community countries when we are supposed to become one major trading bloc after 1992? What use are such figures to anybody in the Community, and should we not dispose of them in 1992?
    Mr. Maude: I find no difficulty in the continued existence of the figures, but many people like figures for their own sake. When we place on businesses the requirement to fill in extremely detailed forms, we have to consider the use for which such information is gathered. As my hon. Friend will know, discussions are going on within Europe about the extent of detail that should be collected after 1992. We take the view that, while it may be right that there should be broad measures of trade between Community members, an excessive amount of detail is unnecessary.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister realise that the large part of that deficit which is in textiles—23 per cent.—is worrying people who work in the industry, and that the Government are making things far worse by their policy of high interest rates? People in my constituency are not happy when the Minister trivialises a serious situation.
    Mr. Maude: I have not trivialised it, but a percentage point on interest rates places only a third of the cost on industry of an extra percentage point on earnings. Those industries which are seeking and working extremely hard to increase their exports are not helped by the prospect of a dock strike, nor by the transport strikes today.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no real danger of this country being forced to live on Brussels sprouts and that the advent of the single market in 1992 presents British industry and services with tremendous opportunities?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we have mounted a campaign to alert British businesses to the opportunities. However, we have also not sought to hide from British businesses the dangers that may be involved, and the dangers which flow from enhanced competition. The message has been that, for a business to succeed, it must be more competitive, which means containing its costs as best it can and developing its market, services and products to provide what the customer wants.
    Mr. Henderson: How does the Minister explain what he would no doubt regard as the wholly irrelevant increase in our trade deficit with EC countries from £5·4 billion in 1979 to £18 billion in 1989, and what new steps does he intend to take to continue his economic miracle in Britain's trade with European countries?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman missed out of his potted economic history all the years between those two dates when Britain was in substantial surplus. I do not recall him or his colleagues popping up at every Question Time in those years saying what an economic success that was.
    Mr. Marlow: There is some debate about joining the European monetary system, I believe. If we were in it, as I understand it, either sterling would be higher or interest rates would be lower, which would mean that either more money would be spent or foreign goods would be cheaper. What would that do to the trade deficit?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend raises a most interesting question which, as he will realise, falls outside my responsibilities. At this stage of the year it may be unwise for me to venture into that area.

    Departmental Records
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where Sir Brian Hayes's personal records of the departmental events of January 1986 will be stored on his retirement.
    Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir Brian Hayes made no personal record of these events.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the permanent secretary and the Chancellor still interested in integrity in British public life in the highest echelons of the DTI? As Colette Bowe and John Mogg have both put their accounts of events in bank vaults, would it not be wise and in the interests of posterity for Sir Brian Hayes to make a record and explain why he advised Leon Brittan not to leave the DTI? Did he know that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham had approved, quite improperly, the disclosure of the Law Officer's letter? Will Sir Brian reveal his personal view of the Prime Minister's behaviour during the course of those events?
    Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take the fact that I shall not comment on every part of his question as in any way endorsing the assumptions on which it was based. I can only say, as I have said before,

    321
    that I have nothing to add to the very full account given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some three years ago.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a long tradition of this House that right hon. and hon. Members do not criticise civil servants, who serve all shades of Government so loyally? In view of the monocular mentality of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he no bad thing if the hon. Gentleman were placed in storage long before retirement?
    Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend suggests, and no doubt the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has also done so.

    ERDF Grant
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current figures for ERDF grant in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1988–89.
    Mr. Atkins: In the financial year 1988–89, ERDF commitments to Yorkshire and Humberside were valued at £26 million.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Scunthorpe borough council on creating so many jobs in the borough—more, in fact, than its neighbouring Conservative-controlled authority, even though it has exactly the same access to exactly the same grants? Is the Minister aware of the difficulty facing Yorkshire and Humberside, including Scunthorpe, because of the way in which the integration development operations programme has overrun its plans? Has Commissioner Milian said what help he will give through transitional assistance for current schemes in both Scunthorpe and Bradford borough councils?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he and two of his colleagues came to discuss this matter. We managed to resolve the misunderstanding that occurred—to his satisfaction, I hope, and to that of his hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). To date, I have no information to give him on what Commissioner Milian is doing, although we are ensuring that the commitment that I honoured in my letter to his hon. Friend will be maintained. I do not wish to be drawn on the comparison between one borough council and another, except to say that I am delighted if any borough is able to create more jobs. After all, whether boroughs are controlled by the Labour party or any other party, it is the Conservative Government's overall economic policy which has provided the environment in which those jobs have been created.
    Mr. Riddick: Although as a Yorkshire Member I welcome the money coming into Yorkshire from the European Community, may I point out that we need to keep the whole matter in perspective? Are not Yorkshire companies, and British companies generally, making substantial contributions through the tax system to the European Community and helping to fund the £2 billion net contribution that Britain makes each year to the European Community? As we get only £26 million back
    322
    through regional funds, does not that pale into insignificance compared with the net contribution that we have to make?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. As a Lancashire Member, I would not wish to be drawn on the subject of the money being given to Yorkshire. In the context of friendly rivalry, I merely hope that Lancashire is doing as well if not better than Yorkshire and Humberside.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the change in competitiveness of British industry in the last 10 years.
    Mr. Newton: Competitiveness involves numerous factors, including quality, reliability, assurance of delivery and after-sales service. In relation to price competitiveness alone, unit labour costs in United Kingdom manufacturing compared with those in other industrial countries, allowing for the effects of exchange rate movements, are thought to have been on average the same in 1988 as in 1979.
    Mr. Bell: To translate that into real terms, 51,000 jobs were lost on Teesside alone between 1979 and 1981 and although we welcome British Steel's £600 million profit, we should not forget that it was achieved at the cost of the loss of 130,000 jobs, many of them on Teesside. Will the Minister confirm that we have lost about 9 per cent of world trade since 1979, a loss which has been greater than that of our industrial competitors? Does the Minister think that that reflects a supply side economic failure or success?
    Mr. Newton: On the specific point raised, the indications are that in recent years the decline in Britain's share of trade has stopped, and may even have been reversed after many years—indeed, decades—in which there was a persistent tendency to decline. With regard to the north-east, there is no doubt that there have been substantial changes in the pattern of employment over the period in question, but they reflect an increase in the competitiveness of the relevant industries, including steel, which means that there are now secure jobs whereas previously there were insecure jobs.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not a fact that Britain has nothing to fear while the spirit that is obvious today abounds in the many people who have come into London and other industrial cities in the face of the most extraordinary difficulties? An example is the young lady I saw in a baker's in Strutton Ground today, near my London accommodation, who had come into work at 5 am. Despite having had a six-hour journey to reach home last Friday, she is back again today.
    Mr. Newton: I have not had the opportunity to make that young lady's acquaintance, but I am happy to pay tribute to her efforts and to those of many others who have overcome needless industrial disruption to get to work today.
    Dr. Reid: On the subject of security in the steel industry, the steel workers of Bellshill will be grateful to the Minister for his assurance that their jobs in the Clydesdale Tube Works are guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that competitiveness is often a function of investment at plant

    323
    level and that no matter what efforts are made by the work force, in the absence of that investment and technological capital equipment the work force often comes off worst? Is the Minister aware that in the Clydesdale Tube Works at Bellshill over the past two years the workers have increased quality, delivery times and productivity beyond all recognition, but we understand that there is still a threat over their heads due to lack of investment in the mills? How does the Minister intend to ensure that his assurance today that steel jobs are secure will be maintained now that he has privatised the steel industry so that it is outwith our control?
    Mr. Newton: Eight or nine years ago the steel industry gained a mention in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the largest corporate loss ever made. It has now been privatised, is making substantial profits and has far greater capacity to invest than would have been the case if the previous policy had been allowed to continue.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate about the effect on the competitiveness of British industry if we had a policy of increasing company and personal taxation, imposing import controls, increasing regulation and bureaucracy, and subsidising inefficient industries—all policies that have been espoused by Opposition Members during the past few years?
    Mr. Newton: The result would have been the same dismal performance that we saw between 1974 and 1979, when Britain's international competitiveness declined by about 25 per cent.

    Enterprise Initiative
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have so far been received for consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative.
    Mr. Newton: More than 28,000 applications for assisted consultancy projects have been received since the launch of the scheme in January 1988. Building on this success, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced improvements to make it easier for smaller firms to obtain the advice they need to improve their performance, and to extend the role of enterprise counsellors to cover single market issues.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is encouraging to see the emphasis being placed on marketing in these consultancy projects, quality seems to be falling back to second in line although it is impossible to sell and market things if they are not of sufficient quality? With regard to the trade deficit and competitiveness, would it not be helpful to put extra emphasis on the importance of quality so as to ensure that we deal with the real reason for the trade deficit, which is that some countries are producing higher quality goods than we are?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the improvements that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday was greater emphasis on total quality management in one of the consultancy initiatives.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister tell us how much the television advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative
    324
    has cost? Will he do the arithmetic and tell us how much each successful application has cost as a proportion of total television advertising costs?
    Mr. Newton: There would be no point in an initiative of this sort if it were not brought extensively to the attention of those at whom it is aimed. The response has been substantial. Our surveys have shown that many of the firms which have acknowledged the benefits that they have gained from the consultancy initiative would not otherwise have sought that advice and help, which is improving the competitiveness and quality of British industry.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my area several small firms have taken advantage of the scheme and have benefited from the Government-aided consultancy? Does he agree that every effort should be made to increase the take-up among small firms because many are sceptical and some are frightened of consultants? Does he further agree that one way of doing that would be to have a register of small firms which have used the scheme satisfactorily and which would be available to act as referees for other small firms sceptical about the scheme?
    Mr. Newton: I note and will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are aiming the scheme at small firms. It is satisfactory that of the 28,000 applications to which I have referred, about 90 per cent. have been from firms employing fewer than 100 people. One of the new measures announced in the past two or three days is designed to make the scheme even more user-friendly to small firms.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer a direct question and tell us the cost of that television advertising and the cost per application take-up?
    Mr. Newton: I have already made that clear to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The point about such a scheme is that because of the advantages that it entails we should bring it to the attention of those at whom it is aimed, and that has been achieved.

    Trade Barriers
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking to ensure that the European Economic Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.
    Mr. Maude: The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that our experience of the economic benefits of free markets and deregulation is reflected in Community policy. The Community is also working in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations to achieve a further substantial liberalisation of international trade.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's opposition to protectionist trade runs to opposing vigorously any moves to protectionism emanating from within the Commission, despite recent improvements within the Commission? Can he also confirm that the best way to tackle competition from places like Japan and Korea is to look to our own problems, particularly in education and our attitude to industry, rather than imposing quotas, voluntary restraint

    325
    agreements and spurious anti-dumping duties, which only push up prices to consumers and compound the inefficiencies of European industry?
    Mr. Maude: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that the attitude of the European Commission on these matters is increasingly liberal. Certainly, the new Commission takes the view that free trade is very good and that we should work hard to pursue it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important to open trade in other markets outside the Community. I believe that those markets are opening. It is now up to British businesses to seek to exploit those markets and to get into them and sell hard.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that after 1992 it will be essential for the survival of the clothing and textile industry that there is a burden-sharing agreement between all 12 member states on the import of textiles and clothing into the Common Market? Does the Minister further agree that the easiest market to penetrate is the United Kingdom market, with six main suppliers supplying every major town and city throughout the United Kingdom? That is not the position in any other member state. Therefore, on the basis of equality, a burden-sharing arrangement should be made. It is vital for the continued success of the British textile industry in areas like mine in Bradford.
    Mr. Maude: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the multi-fibre arrangement was never intended to be more than a temporary measure to protect industry during a period of disruption and major changes worldwide in the industry. He will know that it is the intention of the Community in the GATT negotiations to consider ways of returning to ordinary trading. He knows also that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is well seized of the point that he raised about burden sharing within the Community and is working hard at it. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will want to recognise that the effect of protectionism in textiles—for that is what it is—is to increase the cost of clothing, which affects worst the poorest in society, and to inhibit the industrialisation of developing countries.
    Mr. Aitken: If we are so opposed to protectionist trade barriers in Europe, can my hon. Friend kindly explain our humiliating acrobatics over the recent EC broadcasting directive? How did it come about that we supported the directive requiring all media companies in this country to take more than 50 per cent. of their programming from EC sources? Having supported that protectionist measure at 2 o'clock in the morning in the House, how did it come about, since we were arguing that it is more communitaire to support the EC party line, that when we got to Brussels the following day, we were out-voted by our communitaire partners and ended up with egg all over our faces?
    Mr. Maude: I have to tell my hon. Friend that he has got it wrong. We were actually extremely successful in achieving a common position on the broadcasting directive which was very much more liberal than that which was proposed by many of our partners in the Community.
    Mr. Aitken: Nonsense.
    Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will contain his impatience for a little while, I will tell him that we have by no means lost the agreement. It is of great regret to us, having discussed it in good faith, that two countries in the
    326
    Community, which pretend perhaps a greater adherence to European idealism than we do, went back on the agreement that they had already reached. But that does not mean that the broadcasting directive will be renegotiated. There is still a numerical majority for the common position that was reached, and I have no doubt that the qualified majority will be reasserted.

    New Businesses
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new businesses have been established in Northumberland in the past three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to reply yet again, "lots".
    In the three years 1985 to 1987, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax in Northumberland was 1,946. The net increase in the VAT-registered businesses in the period was 211—in fact, a 3 per cent. rise.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Does he agree that that is further proof of the Government's economic success in laying permanent foundations for the revival of the north-east, especially for small businesses and for self-employment? That success is now being broadcast far and wide throughout the region by all the media—Tyne-Tees Television, the Evening Chronicle, The Journal and the BBC. We are grateful to the Government for their policies.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is well known for his championing of the case which is represented in his constituency. He has summed up succinctly the success story that is Northumberland.
    Mr. Beith: What practical support is the Minister prepared to give to ensure that European aid goes to businesses in areas of Northumberland to ensure that they benefit after 1992 from more direct communications and other investment projects that will help them to prosper?
    Mr. Atkins: I paid a visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I saw just how much is required to be done as well as what is being done to benefit his part of the world. He will continue to put his case and we will seek to reflect his concern within European circles. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the successes of Government policy are being shown even in his part of the world.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the 52 recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on information technology have been accepted by his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government have broadly accepted 28 of the 52 recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT.
    Mr. Brown: Is not the Government's record a disgrace, bearing in mind that we still have a very high level of

    327
    unemployment in this country, which is especially true of Leith where more than 20 per cent. of my constituents cannot get a real job? Can the Minister explain that?
    Mr. Forth: I confess that the direct connection between employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT escapes me for the moment.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about computer hacking in relation to information technology? Is he also aware that, in spite of pressure from various sources about the need for legislation on this subject, it is the view of the police that they are capable of dealing with computer fraud under existing legislation?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is obviously aware that there has been a lot of discussion on the subject and much concern has been expressed. The Government, however, are taking a measured view of the problem. They are examining the evidence and they are assessing how far the existing provisions are adequate to meet the problem or how far new measures may be required. I am confident that a decision will be reached shortly, so that we can give the necessary assurances on this important matter. No one will be rushed into a decision. We want to get it right rather than arrive too soon at what may be the wrong decision.
    Mr. Stott: When looking into the question of information technology, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the deficit in electronic goods. I am sure that the Minister is aware that last year the trade deficit in electronics was £3·9 billion, which is an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year, and accounts for almost one third of the total trade deficit. In the past four years alone, the deficit in electronic goods—which includes computers, telecommunications and audio equipment—has risen by a staggering 40 per cent. The Minister will be further aware that that pathetic record was remarked upon extensively by the Select Committee. The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the brewing industry. Is it not time that they got around the table with the IT industry to work out how Britain can begin to remedy that £4 billion trade gap in one of our most important industries?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman exhibits the delight that the Opposition have in producing what they believe is bad news on every possible occasion. But what the hon. Gentleman has not told the House is that—it is important to understand this—every major OECD country, with the exception only of Japan, has an IT trade deficit. He has also not told the House that—this is another important figure—the United Kingdom has a trade surplus with the rest of the EC in IT products; something that the Opposition were trying to portray as an adverse picture not a few moments ago. Rather than fall into the trap that the hon. Gentleman is trying to set for the House in asking whether we shall take action to remedy one particular item that he regards as being bad news, we should acknowledge the excellent work that has been done in the IT industry, acknowledge a success story when we see one and not be driven off course by the sort of selective bad news offered up by the Opposition on these occasions.

    Export Growth
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on the rate of growth of British exports.
    Mr. Maude: Since 1979, visible exports have increased in volume—that is in real terms—by 30 per cent., and invisible exports by about 40 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join us in congratulating all those businesses that have worked hard to achieve that major success story.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the Budget prediction that trade will be in balance by 1992 depends upon an annual export growth of 7 per cent. and an import growth 4 per cent. lower than that? By how far are we currently failing to achieve that and has the prediction of the balance of trade by 1992 been revised?
    Mr. Maude: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to be told that during the three months ending in April 1989, non-oil exports have risen by 7·5 per cent. compared with the equivalent three months a year ago, and that represents the sort of growth in exports about which the hon. Gentleman will be relieved and delighted to hear.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work in establishing and promoting the 1992 programme in Europe has been of great benefit to our exporting companies, but is he also aware of the considerable confusion that is caused to British industry by the rather garbled and confused message that appears to have emanated from the Government on European policy since then? Will my hon. Friend clarify to the House what steps the Government intend to take to stabilise the exchange control mechanism and when they will all be singing one song?
    Mr. Maude: I am sure that if my hon. Friend has been listening carefully he will have heard not only one song but a very good song. We are fully engaged in the EC, we have led in many respects and we have achieved a great many successes. In continuing to improve our exports, nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to produce the goods and services that their customers want, but we have done a great deal in providing the sort of help that is needed to do that.
    Mr. Morgan: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), which did not fully comply with the EEC brown nose directive, unlike the question from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), in what year does the Minister expect our trade to be in balance and to be able to make good the accumulated trade deficit of the past three or four years?
    Mr. Maude: I see no reason to divert from the most recent forecast of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Page: While welcoming the increase in the volume of our exports, may I ask what effect a reduction in soft loans will have on their rate of growth, and do any of our foreign competitors intend either to increase or to decrease their support in that respect?
    Mr. Maude: Clearly, changes in the amount and extent of soft loans available do have an effect. However, that

    329
    matter is not one with which I deal directly, but no doubt my hon. Friend will receive at some stage a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I make no apology for repeating that nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to compete in the market place.
    Mr. John Garrett: What does the Minister have to say about the Confederation of British Industry survey published this week, which shows that our export prospects are the worst for two and half years? Is not that directly attributable to the Minister's right hon. Friend the one-club Chancellor, whose policies are crippling British exports?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. As I said in an earlier answer to one of his hon. Friends, the effect of interest rates on business is considerably less than the effect of unjustified increases in earnings. As to the competitiveness of exchange rates, the hon. Gentleman will recollect that Japan increased exports considerably even when the value of the yen doubled. I say again that it is the ability of businesses to win markets that matters, not what the Government do.

    Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Report)
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many reports produced by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the last five years have been prompted by him; and how many have been initiated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself.
    Mr. Maude: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has no power to initiate investigations. It can investigate and report only on matters referred to it by Ministers, the Director General of Fair Trading, Director General of Telecommunications, Director General of Gas Supply, or the Civil Aviation Authority. In the last five years some 78 reports by the commission have been published. Of those my right hon. and noble Friend and his predecessors were responsible for initiating 54.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be manifest evidence of widespread discontent before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decides to investigate matters that are at the heart of our national life? Can my hon. Friend say whether his postbag or his constituency surgeries are bulging with letters or with discontented pub-goers, because mine are not? Is the commission short of work, or is Government policy perhaps dictated by liberal interventionism, as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs?
    Mr. Maude: As I told my hon. Friend in my original reply, the MMC does not initiate investigations. The inquiry to which my hon. Friend makes oblique reference was referred to it by the Director General of Fair Trading in the belief that certain matters required investigation. The report that the commission produced bears that out. As to the contents of my postbag, I can tell my hon. Friend that I received at least as many representations in favour of implementing the MMC's report as I did against. We are weighing those representations very carefully to arrive at the right answer. When a report containing trenchant findings, as that report did, is produced it is clearly not an option for the Government to do nothing.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend say out of the long list of people that he gave, which of them is the lunatic who referred the merger between William Hill and Mecca to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Whatever the outcome may be, the fact remains that William Hill, for which I had the pleasure of working for six years, no longer exists in its previous form. Its directors have either retired or resigned, and anything that the MMC does is now a complete waste of time and money.
    Mr. Maude: No doubt my hon. Friend will make his observations, in whatever form he feels is appropriate, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is carrying out that investigation. The reference was made on the very firm advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

    Information Technology White Paper
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responses his Department has received to the White Paper on information technology (Cm. 646).
    Mr. Forth: I have received written comments on the White Paper from one firm, a United Kingdom computer manufacturer.
    Mr. Dunnachie: The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the breweries. Is it not time for the Government to get around a table with the information technology industry to try to find a way for Britain to reduce the £4 billion trade deficit in this vital industry? Why has the House not debated the White Paper on information technology, and when can we expect to see a trade surplus in IT?
    Mr. Forth: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being present for the debate that we had on information technology a couple of months ago. Perhaps he did not notice that there was to be a debate, or perhaps his interest was not as great then as it seems to be now.
    The Opposition's record has stuck in a groove. The same phrases and the same prompts have been used twice in fairly quick succession, and, if I may, I shall give the same answer. Of all the major OECD countries, only Japan has a surplus in IT products. The proud record of the United Kingdom is a trade surplus in IT with the rest of the European Community. We shall not contemplate the old-fashioned and time-worn answer of sector plans: we threw that out years ago, and as a result our economy has boomed and become successful.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the cost to industry of recent rises in interest rates.
    Mr. Newton: Bank base rates have risen by one percentage point in 1989. The estimated cost to industrial and commercial companies of such an increase is about £0.4 billion in a full year.
    Mr. McAllion: What is the point of the DTI running a £12 million publicity campaign to raise industry's awareness of 1992 when at the same time the Treasury's high interest rates policy is undermining any investment boom that the Minister thinks that he sees, and crippling

    331
    the long-term capacity of British industry to compete? In recent months, as we have seen, the Chancellor has been prepared to sing a different song and to stand up even to the Prime Minister. When will the Minister stand up for British industry and take on the Chancellor in the interest rates battle?
    Mr. Newton: The latest survey of manufacturing industry's investment intentions suggests a further rise of some 15 per cent. in the present year, following a rise of about 15 per cent. last year. That reflects the continuing financial strength of British companies. I have here, and would read out if I had time, a string of investment projects in the hon. Gentleman's own city which, as he must know well, have been announced in recent months or are already going ahead.
    Mr. Gow: If interest rates were reduced as the Opposition recommend, would not domestic inflation increase and the value of sterling diminish, and would not that in itself add to inflation?
    Mr. Newton: I see no reason to quarrel with my hon. Friend's analysis. He has made the point well that the real threat to the future of British industry would be a resurgence of inflation, taking it back to the levels run consistently by the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What factors does the Minister believe will lead to a reduction in inflation, and what is going on now that will result in such a reduction?
    Mr. Newton: The damping down of the pressure of domestic demand, which is the objective of the Government's policies, has, I think, been acknowledged —for instance, in a number of recent surveys and speeches by the CBI—to be having an effect, not least in the much slower rise in factory-gate prices, which will feed through to the retail prices index in due course.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that, given the 15 per cent. increase in investment in this country, it ill behoves the Opposition to give us lectures on advances and investment in industry when their own leader, when asked by Mr. Naughtie on BBC radio whether they had any answer to the problem of inflation, replied that he had no such answer. We recognise that interest rates present the only way of curbing inflation.
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gould: In view of the continuing damage done to British industry by the Chancellor's attempt to buck the markets through high interest rates, what representations has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made to him on the subject?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman refers to "the continuing damage to British industry". I invite him to explain why we now have a dramatically greater investment boom, a dramatically greater improvement in productivity and a dramatically greater improvement in output than when the Administration that he supported left office. That is the strengthening of the British economy that has taken place.

    Single Market
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what monitoring he has
    332
    undertaken of the level of awareness among business men of the single market achieved by his Department's "Europe—Open for Business" campaign.
    Mr. Maude: The Department of Trade and Industry carries out a detailed survey of 100 different firms every week. The results show that 90 per cent. of business throughout the country is aware of the single market.
    Mr. Hughes: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the CBI survey which shows that three quarters of British companies have taken action on 1992? Surveys in France and Spain show that half the companies have taken action, a survey in Italy shows that a third of companies have taken action and another survey in West Germany shows that one seventh of companies have taken action. Does my hon. Friend take some comfort from the fact that the action that his Department is taking is having some success?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the CBI survey. He is also right to say that it bodes very well indeed for the future, but that is not to say that British firms can become complacent and relax. The opening of the single market by the end of 1992 will, as I have said before, create much sharper competition. Every firm will have to intensify its activities and increase its cutting edge. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the extent to which British firms are doing better, and doing it faster, than other firms in the Community.
    Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that neither the British people nor British industry are fooled by glossy television advertising? [Interruption.] It may have escaped the attention—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Gould: It may have escaped the attention of Government Members that we are not permitted to advertise during election campaigns in this country. Does the Minister accept, however, that glossy television advertising does not fool either the British people or British industry? They understand very well that the legacy of 10 Tory years has left British industry woefully ill prepared for the single European market. That is one of the major reasons for the Government's disastrous showing in last week's Euro-elections.
    Mr. Maude: I can think of no better demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's first proposition than the result of the 1987 general election. As for the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, the fact is that British business is now in better shape. It is fitter; productivity is better; output is higher. In every way British business is better fitted than it has been for a generation to take advantage of the opportunities. The one thing that British business does not need is advice from the hon. Gentleman on how to conduct itself.

    Estate Agents
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in the regulation of estate agents.
    Mr. Forth: After an extensive review of estate agency issues, I have concluded that the best way to achieve a significant improvement in the practices of estate agency is

    333
    through a combination of self-regulation and statutory provision. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss with the industry the introduction of a code of practice for estate agency. He has agreed to report early next year.
    We will need to support this code by acting against a number of undesirable practices, including tie-in sales where the agent refuses to pass on bids unless the purchaser agrees to arrange finance or insurance through him. I intend to do this by introducing an order under section 3 of the Act which would define certain practices as "undesirable." I have also asked the director general to review the arguments for extending the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to misdescriptions of property.
    Copies of my report have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that the people of this country have been ripped off too often by estate agents and that it is time that there were statutory, not voluntary, regulations to curtail the cowboys among estate agents?
    Mr. Forth: I assure the House that this was not a planted question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider carefully the answer that I have given rather than make a pre-prepared response. I am sure that he will find in my proposals and in the report that I have placed in the Library and Vote Office that I am dealing firmly but fairly with estate agency problems.
    Mr. Latham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that any legislation that he introduces will contain a provision that
    334
    recognises that organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are governed by proper professional standards?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, I am pleased to acknowledge the role that the RICS and many other bodies have played in bringing forward their own positive suggestions to make the property transfer market work as efficiently as possible. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are not contemplating new legislation. I am using the provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979 in what I regard as appropriate ways.
    Ms. Quin: Has the Minister found time to respond to some of the criticisms levelled at the voluntary, self-regulatory approach by some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) who said that the rules of conduct should be enshrined in law and backed up by full powers of the law? Furthermore, will the Minister's proposals for regulating estate agents deal with the worst abuse at present—estate agents preferring purchasers who are also getting financial services from those estate agents?
    Mr. Forth: I can confirm that that is precisely one of the matters that will be covered by my invocation of the statutory powers under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act. I am sure that when the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) study my proposals in detail, they will find that they are to their entire satisfaction.

Madrid Summit
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Heads of Government meeting in Madrid, with particular reference to monetary and social policy of the European Community in the light of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which was published yesterday."
I raised under Standing Order No. 20 the matter of the agenda of the Heads of Government meeting last Thursday and was also able to set out, on the third Adjournment debate on that day, the parliamentary and procedural reasons why there should be a debate. Since then I have received no communication from the Government concerning a change of business this week which would have permitted a debate, nor have I received any adverse comment on the case that I made.
It is generally agreed that debates on EEC matters recommended by the Select Committee should be held as early as practicable and when the debates in the House can influence Ministers. That principle has been endorsed recently by the Leader of the House in a letter to the Select Committee.
The Committee made a recommendation for debate in respect of the Delors report on economic and monetary union as long ago as 10 May. We reported that
"this debate should be held in good time before the European Council on 26–27 June, when the report is expected to be discussed by the Heads of Government."
336
Yesterday the Treasury and Civil Service Committee published its report on the Delors proposals, having heard evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. The final paragraph 40 reads:
"We greatly regret that the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the European Legislation Committee that there should be a debate on the Delors Committee's Report before the European Council meeting at Madrid on 26 and 27 June. If the Government attaches significance to arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament it ought not to be selective in its attachment to them. The House must have an early opportunity to debate the far-reaching proposals of the Delors Committee before Her Majesty's Government adopts a position on them at high-level European meetings."
The only way in which the recommendations of those two Select Committees can be followed and a debate can be held is by making to you, Mr Speaker, this submission under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Heads of Government meeting in Madrid, with particular reference to monetary and social policy of the European Community in the light of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which was published yesterday."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 1 have to decide whether this application meets the criteria of the Standing Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said but I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 5 May the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that he had reached agreement with the BMA negotiators over the GPs' contract. He said at the time that that was a sign of agreement by the doctors to his proposals for the Health Service.
This morning, the BMA, meeting in full session, rejected the proposed changes to the GPs' contract. In the light of the earlier statement to the House that the Secretary of State had obtained the BMA's agreement, has there been any application made to you, Mr. Speaker, for a statement now that the contract has been rejected by the BMA?
This must be a matter of particular concern to the House, as it is evident to anyone watching the broadcast media that correspondents are being briefed that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Health to impose the GPs' contract. Would it not be a courtesy for the House to hear first whether the Government intend to embark on such a confrontation with the Health Service?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no application for a statement from the Government.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have been told that at the beginning of last night's debate on the DNA testing scheme and changes in immigration rules I and other hon. Members raised a number of points of order about leaked documents from the head of the immigration and nationality department at the Home Office and about a letter from the Home Secretary to the Leader of the House saying that last night's debate was deliberately arranged by the Government so as to avoid, in the words of the leaked document,
"two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession".
The leaked documents also made it clear that, contrary to last Wednesday's statement by the Home Secretary that no decisions had been reached on the funding of the centrally organised DNA testing scheme, the Government had decided to increase entry clearance fees on 1 November.
Lastly, and most importantly, it was made clear in the leaked document and the letter that last night's debate was arranged by the Government deliberately to divert
338
attention—in the document's words—from the absence of any new provisions or promises being made by the Government for and to the people of Hong Kong.
Leaked documents are becoming more and more common, but this latest one is serious because it is clear that the Government intend to deny the House any opportunity of debating in principle or in detail whether charges for DNA testing should be introduced and by how much they should be increased—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on this matter this evening. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Madden: The point of order is that the documents make it abundantly clear that, rather than announcing a centrally organised DNA testing scheme in a written reply, last Wednesday the Home Secretary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter in his Adjournment debate. I was not present when the points of order were raised yesterday, but I have heard about them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate yesterday arose in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not a Government motion.
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more I can say on this. The hon. Gentleman must pursue the matter in his Adjournment debate tonight.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Tony Newton and Mr. Douglas Hogg, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the entitlement of British citizens resident outside the United Kingdom to vote at parliamentary elections and elections to the European Parliament and to increase the maximum amount of candidates' election expenses at parliamentary by-elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the first year of the Valleys Programme, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dorrelli.]

Greyhound Betting Levy
3.40 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the functions of the Horserace Betting Levy Board to include the sport of greyhound racing; and to make consequential amendments to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
My Bill is designed to end the ridiculously unfair anomaly that currently exists in Britain between the two premier betting sports of horse racing and greyhound racing. Both sports produce billions of pounds in turnover annually, yet they are treated totally differently by the bookmaking industry, particularly in respect of the mechanism which exists under statute to enable moneys to be collected by the industry, which I shall henceforth refer to as a levy.
The bookmaking industry pays over collected amounts produced from bets placed on horse racing, but it refuses to pass on equivalent moneys deducted from punters' winnings in betting shops on greyhound racing.
My Bill seeks to amend the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1981 to make provision for a levy scheme for greyhound racing similar to that enjoyed for a number of years by horse racing. The measure would be totally self-financing, as off-course bookmakers would pay contributions out of the bets that they take on greyhound racing to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which would distribute the proceeds to the sport. As a result, membership of the levy board would be increased to include two representatives from the greyhound industry.
The need for such a measure is clear when it is borne in mind that, while betting offices off-course deduct the same amount from winning bets on horse and dog racing, greyhound racing does not receive its share of the revenue from those deductions. Considering that in any one year a turnover of at least £1 billion is involved in off-course greyhound racing bets, the need for such a Bill is obvious.
In practice, the bookmaking industry quietly deducts the extra 2p in the pound on winning bets, not explaining that, unlike horse racing, they keep the money on greyhound bets, a practice with which they have got away for many years. There is no rational argument for continuing with the present system, which is unfair and which borders on deceit of customers by the bookmaking fraternity.
The need for my Bill is clear in view of the level of support for the sport of greyhound racing. According to the 1989 edition of "Social Trends", greyhound racing as a spectator sport came second highest in attendance levels, being surpassed only by football. That survey showed that, in 1987, 4·8 million people attended greyhound racing events in the United Kingdom, compared with 1·38 million who attended rugby league events; 2·5 million for rugby union; 713,000 for test and county cricket; and, more important, only 4·3 million for horse racing.
The need for such legislation is clear. Greyhound racing is popular but is greatly under-financed. That has led to the loss of 13 nationally registered stadiums in the last 10 years. But while those who have made millions of pounds out of the sport—I refer, of course, to the bookmakers—get richer, the sport gets poorer. Standards of stadiums, their facilities for spectators and for racing greyhounds are getting worse.
340
The owners of greyhounds pay for the maintenance, training and racing of their dogs. Unlike in horse racing, their prize money does not run into thousands of pounds. It is, on average, between £14 and £26, but only if their dog comes first in the race. If they race during the day, the rate of off-course betting on those races can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the greyhound racing industry is unable to get a fair price for its services from off-course bookmakers. Because bookmakers can exploit greyhound punters in that way, it makes sense for them to maximise their greyhound racing betting, thereby putting more pressure on the sport. Proof of that can be seen from the fact that between 1977 and 1988 the amount of off-course betting turnover on greyhound racing increased from 17·6 to 26·7 per cent., while betting on horses went down from 82 to 72 per cent. of the total.
The bookmakers argue that they do not pay the levy because most greyhound business is conducted at afternoon meetings. But that does not stop them taking bets from punters in their shops at evening racing. Nor does it stop them continuing to deduct 10p in the pound, rather than 8p, as they should be doing if they did not intend to pass on the money to the sport.
Nor do they argue with the claim that all racing is subject to National Greyhound Racing Club rules relating to stewardship, licensing, discipline and registration. That organisation continually calls for a levy for the sport of greyhound racing. In other words, they are willing to take the service but are unwilling to pay even the dues deducted for the sport.
The purpose of my Bill is to give justice to the sport of greyhound racing. The levy for the sport would not come from the bookmakers, who would merely pass it on, having taken it from the punters. That would be far preferable to allowing them simply to pocket it, as they are doing now. The money generated at current rates would mean at least £10 million per year to the sport and would enable stadiums to obtain loans to better the facilities for spectators, increase prize money in races to acceptable levels, fund necessary veterinary work, and improve security and the sport in general.
The greyhound racing industry, which is supported by millions of people, badly needs such help. Unlike the horse racing industry, it has no Jockey Club to invest, no Racecourse Association, advisory council, equine research centre, Racecourse Security Services or levy board to help it. A levy for greyhound racing would provide the necessary finance to improve the sport and protect the public who support it. The House has already agreed that horse racing needs such a levy. Surely, since it has more supporters than does horse racing, greyhound racing deserves the same treatment as horse racing.
The bookmakers argue that the sport
"has no logical right to a levy and is not entitled to be subsidised by bookmakers."
The aim of this measure is to expose such statements for the nonsense that they are. The purpose of the Bill is to enshrine in law the sport of greyhound racing's undoubted moral right to a levy.
Unless we approve this motion today, we shall allow the punters, spectators, owners and trainers of greyhounds to be further deceived, as they have been so cruelly and unjustly in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Martin Redmond, and Mr. George J. Buckley.

Greyhound Betting Levy
  GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY
  Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to extend the functions of the Horserace Betting Levy Board to include the sport of greyhound racing; and to make consequential amendments to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
Opposition Day
  I4TH ALLOTTED DAY, IST PART

    Food Safety, Research and Health
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Fourteen hon. Members have so far expressed an interest in speaking in this debate. If their speeches are brief, most of them, I hope all, will be called.
    3.48 pm
    Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
    That this House, noting Her Majesty's Government's failure to address the growing problem of food safety, deplores the decision to close the Institute of Food Research at Langford near Bristol with the corresponding loss of scientific expertise; believes that this will further reduce Her Majesty's Government's ability to protect the health of the British people; regrets that, two years after the Department of Health issued a consultative document on the control of food hygiene, regulations have still not been laid before Parliament; expresses concern at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's decision to reduce veterinarians in their employ by one quarter and at the national shortage of Environmental Health Officers which leaves many posts unfilled; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce more effective safety and hygiene regulations, to increase the monitoring of food production and safety and to reverse its short sighted policy of cutting research and development work.
    This is a timely debate which, in a sense, is proven by the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in it. It is also timely because, after 10 years of Conservative administration, we have a food poisoning outbreak of epidemic proportions. Only last week, we had the worst outbreak for years of botulism, which is a particular nasty and deadly toxin. Last Wednesday, the Government gave what can only be described as a bizarre response to this immensely serious problem. Their response was to close the Institute of Food Research at Bristol, which ranks among the premier meat research institutes in the world.
    Mr. Robert Key rose—
    Dr. David Clark: With respect, Mr. Speaker has asked us to be fairly brief, but I will give way on this point.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but surely he knows that that particular infection and toxin was not identified at Bristol, but at the public health laboratory service—the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down—which has nothing to do with the closure of which he spoke.
    Dr. Clark: I will treat the hon. Gentleman's intervention with the disdain that it deserves and ignore it as being absolutely irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman ought to think before he gets to his feet. No one suggested that botulism research was being done at Bristol—those were the hon. Gentleman's words-—but I will return to that point in due course.
    The act of closing the Bristol institute is typical of Government's response, which is illogical, short-sighted and plain stupid. We should not be surprised that we have these food poisoning epidemics. After all, we have a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose driving philosophy is the enterprise culture and the profit motive.

    343
    She has weakened food regulations and opposed modification of them, reduced the number of staff involved in safety monitoring and slashed research into food hygiene and quality. The ethos of her Administration can be summarised in the title of the White Paper that she produced, "Lifting the Burdens". She responded positively to that theme in her speech in Nottingham during the European election campaign.
    The folly of that approach can be seen most clearly in connection with food. Experience worldwide has taught us that regulation and controls are vital if food safety standards are to be maintained. As recent elections have shown, the British people have not been fooled by the Tory policy. They recognise that that approach is a recipe for an epidemic of food poisoning and a lowering of standards. That is exactly what we have in Britain in 1989.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Clark: I have already given way once, after only 30 seconds, and that intervention wasted my time and that of the House.
    I know that Conservative Members object to my comments, but the facts speak for themselves. In February of this year, the National Consumer Council commissioned a poll on consumer perception of food safety. The results show that 40 per cent. of those questioned were not confident that they had sufficient information to ensure that the food that they bought was safe. Consumers have every justification for being suspicious. Basic food hygiene regulations have not kept pace with changes in food technology. Most of them were made in the days before microwave ovens, cook-chill and convenience food. The facilities for storing food in retail outlets just cannot cope.
    There are horrific stories. In one food manufacturing unit in Birmingham, the owner kept an air rifle to shoot the rats running about the establishment. That is true. Practically the whole of the Royal Air Force strike command in north-east Scotland was laid low after eating oysters. It transpired that these had been supplied not from the Soviet Union but from Japan, and were labelled in Japanese, so no one preparing the oysters could read the instructions. That emphasises the need for more sensible labelling.
    Those are interesting, if not amusing anecdotes, but there is a serious aspect to the problem. In 1980, a mere —I use the word advisedly—10,318 cases of food poisoning were notified, while last year that had nearly trebled to over 28,000 cases.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Clark: I know that the hon. Lady participates in these debates, usually with a great deal of intelligence, but I wish to press ahead because I am conscious of the time.
    Already this year, there have been 12,396 cases of food poisoning, while in the same period last year there were 7,930. I know that Tory Members deride statistics, but they are serious and, on occasion, represent deaths.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Many of my constituents are keen on green-top milk, which is unpasteurised and
    344
    contains a helpful enzyme. They are extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has given way and will allow us to retain green-top milk.
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady has made an ingenious intervention. I am sure that her right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board those plaudits.
    The House will recall that the Government's initial response to the salmonella crisis six months ago was to curtail research into salmonella at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol. The Governments folly on that occasion was astounding, but that is not the whole story. The Government were also caught unaware by botulism. They should not have been because the eminent microbiologist Professor Richard Lacey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should tell Conservative Members that Professor Lacey is an official adviser to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He actually predicted in his book, "Safe Shopping, Safe Cooking and Safe Eating" that botulism
    "could return unless the catering industry addresses the problem."
    Professor Lacey was not being clairvoyant—he was reading the book, so to speak. Only last year, Europe's biggest botulism outbreak among cattle occurred in the United Kingdom. It was caused by a herd being fed a mixture containing chicken carcasses. Ironically, last year the Government ordered the Institute of Food Research to stop work on a project involving the feeding of chicken carcasses to cattle and the links with botulism. That is why there was no work at Bristol last week to detect the outbreaks of botulism. The Government actually stopped that work. They had learnt nothing—having stopped research into salmonella, they compounded their folly by doing the same with botulism.
    What is the Government's response to the food crisis? Deep analysis reveals a twin approach. First, they believe that the interests of the public can be protected, in some perverse way, by cutting research and development and closing research establishments. Secondly, to compensate for the resulting huge gap in public health protection, the Government think that they have discovered a new panacea—irradiation. On both counts the Government are wrong.
    —During recent years research projects into food safety and hygience have been axed one after another. Recently the Government decided on further closures and cuts following the so-called Barnes review. The effect of the review is to cut by £30 million the money spent on research and development in agriculture and food. The latest example of that was the closure of the institute at Bristol. That was absolutely incomprehensible. Not only will many excellent projects disappear, but more than 100 scientists will lose their jobs. With those jobs will go the experience and expertise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] If that is not true, I hope that the Minister will say so and give us more information. My information is that only six out of more than 100 jobs at Bristol will be relocated. The Minister should deny that if I am wrong.
    In an attempt to cover up their folly, the Government have given the impression that jobs and projects will be transferred. That is a travesty of the truth. Only six jobs will be transferred and of the 80-plus projects, many involving food safety and hygiene, not more than a

    345
    handful will be transferred. If I am wrong, I challenge the Minister to say which projects will be transferred. I am sure that there will not be more than a handful.
    We shall lose vital work on meat hygiene. Neither the abattoir at the Bristol institute, which allows practical experiments, nor the highly praised food processing hall are being transferred. Work on refrigeration, which is vital to food hygiene and safety is being terminated. Not only expertise, but facilities which exist nowhere else in the United Kingdom are being lost.
    In the long run, the main loser from the Government's obsession with cost-cutting will be the consumer. The closure has been forced by the Government's obsession. On 22 May 1989, the Minister announced, with great pleasure, that he had managed to save £379 million in agricultural spending last year.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): In the CAP.
    Dr. Clark: When one compares that figure with the £111 million expected expenditure on research and development for this financial year, it places Government priorities in perspective. To put it another way, the Minister's annual savings last year would have kept the Bristol institute open for 100 years. That puts the Government's policies in perspective.
    The Minister has completely misjudged the position on food irradiation. Does he know that one of the foremost members of his advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods, which produced the report on irradiation in 1986 on which he places so much store, has now changed his mind about the process and has said that it is "unnecessary" and doomed to commercial failure. To quote from a recent interview with Professor Philip James, in The Press and Journal Aberdeen:
    "The real dilemma now is that people no longer have confidence that a Ministry of Agriculture linked to the producer and processor is going to safeguard the public interest. The public have been overwhelmed by the knowledge that certain companies have been using irradiation to salvage rotten food … It is a sad reflection of how the Government and some food manufacturers don't appear to understand how to manage affairs of public interest in the fields of health and safety."
    That is a damning indictment of the Ministry by one of its top advisers.
    Professor Philip James is not the only person to express concern. Various organisations, including the National Farmers Union, which is dear to the Minister's heart, and the British Medical Association, which is not so dear to the Government's heart, and prominent food retailing companies such as the Co-op, Tesco and Marks and Spencer have also expressed concern about irradiation. People not only now demand to know whether their food is to be irradiated, but why it needs to be irradiated. That is the key question that the Government should answer.
    The Labour party does not believe that irradiation is the answer to our food poisoning problems. It is no alternative to ensuring that cleaner food is on sale in the shops. Irradiation would be no incentive to ensure that high hygiene standards are maintained throughout the food chain. Irradiation will leave food more open to subsequent bacteriological contamination. There is no easy and effective method of detecting whether food has been irradiated or, even more importantly, reirradiated.
    346
    To return to the recent problem of botulism, perhaps the Minister will confirm that irradiation would have had no effect on wiping out that botulism as it is a toxin.
    Another point about irradiation, which has been expressed clearly by Professor James, is that it could be used to make bad food clean. The Minister will be aware, for example, that there have been verified reports of seafood being imported into Britain, mainly from the far east, which has subsequently been found to be substandard. That food has then been exported to Holland, irradiated by Gammaster and then re-imported into Britain and sold illegally—the same food that had been found to be substandard. The incident occurred three years ago, but we have good reason to believe that the trade continues. I have in my possession a letter from Gammaster dated 10 May 1989, agreeing to supply irradiated seafood to Britain. The letter states:
    "Our quality assurance include taking samples of each shipment of prawns before irradiation. The Dutch Food Inspectors also take samples before and after irradiation. I would like to emphasize that the irradiation of food products is not yet allowed in the United Kingdom".
    However, the letter also suggests the name of the Dutch transport company which would arrange delivery of that food. A telex from the transport company—Allways Transport BV—the following day states:
    "in order to enable Gammaster to irradiate this consignment, it is necessary to arrange import of the goods temporarily (without paying duties or VAT of course). Before we can arrange this customs clearance we will have to present a `health certificate' in acordance with the EEC 'shrimp decree'."
    Several of my hon. Friends have tabled an early-day motion on this serious matter. As it is clear from the correspondence that the trade is well organised, I hope that the Minister will pursue the case. Unfortunately, when we passed similar correspondence to his predecessor three years ago, the Government refused to act. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will respond positively.
    I know that the Minister is alert to the problem because the research consultative committee residues sub-group of the Ministry of Agriculture revealed in its minutes last year that it was aware of the
    "potential for some commodities to arrive in the UK which already have been subjected to irradiation."
    I stress that that point was made by one of the Minister's own sub-committees last year.
    It is because of such uncertainties that the Labour party opposes the introduction of food irradiation in Britain. It is like using gloss paint to cover rotten window frames.
    To sum up, the Government's approach to protecting the nation's health from contaminated food has been abysmal. As we have seen in the past few months, they have adopted a crisis management approach. Indeed, it is hard to understand their actions in recent months. When confronted with a food poisoning epidemic what do they do? They cut the number of staff who monitor and control diseases; they close a food research institute; they introduce food irradiation, which nobody wants; and as a final insult, they produce a leaflet putting the blame for food poisoning where it certainly does not belong—on the consumer. I hope that the House will join us in condemning the Government.
    4.7 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    `commends the Government for implementing a comprehensive range of measures to maintain safety throughout the food chain and to improve the scientific knowledge on which these are based; notes with approval the Agricultural and Food Research Council's decision to strengthen the work of its Institute of Food Research at the Norwich and Reading sites by expanding programmes on food safety and nutrition; endorses the Government's policy of transferring responsibility for near market research and development to industry, enabling more Government funds to be channelled into strategic research; congratulates the Government on the substantial increase in resources for research into food safety during the past ten years; and expresses confidence in the Government's policies on food safety and research and development.'.
    The speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was fragmentary in the extreme and extremely fragile in its evidence. I shall demonstrate both those points.
    As this is a general debate on food safety, I shall begin by setting out in framework the main elements of the Government's food safety policy. That is necessary because of the hon. Gentleman's spasmodic speech. Indeed, the main elements of our policy are consistent and thorough and are worth restating. I shall do that briefly because the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), dealt with this at length in his speech in the food safety debate earlier this year, on 21 February, and because I have done so on many previous occasions. Furthermore, you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us that this is a short debate.
    The essential elements are, first, a careful and thorough monitoring of the food supply so as to be certain that whatever we do is based on a factual assessment of the situation as a whole; secondly, thorough surveillance to detect any trends that need analysis or policy action of one sort or another; and, thirdly, continuous and in-depth assessment of the facts that emerge using the best possible scientific advice.
    In view of the highly selective scientific examples given by the hon. Member for South Shields, I stress that we use the best possible scientific advice over a wide range, using many people.
    Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
    Mr. MacGregor: This is a short debate; I will give way once.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that if he wants the best and most independent scientific advice, by definition any scientists who are also paid by the food industry should not be employed by the Government to give advice?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall be able to demonstrate shortly that we use a much wider range of scientific expertise, so that is a feeble attack.
    The fourth essential element is decisive action, which could be legislative or advisory on the basis of the expert advice that we have received, and sometimes further research is called for. The fifth essential element is the provision of full information and guidance to the public. Indeed, we publish so much that often the problem is to get even a small proportion of it over. My hon. Friend the
    348
    Parliamentary Secretary illustrated that graphically in the last debate. The sixth essential element is proper monitoring and enforcement to ensure that legislative obligations are carried out by all in the food chain.
    I have available to me substantial resources to carry out these tasks. In my Department I have more than 500 staff engaged in work on policies that relate to consumer protection. Many of them are highly qualified specialists in one branch of science or another. They provide the sound scientific basis to our assessment, enforcement and research activities.
    As the House by now will know—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) —we are assisted by a wide range of expert committees covering pretty well every area of food matters—to which we have just added the Richmond committee on the microbiological safety of food—to advise us on the many technological developments that are now such an important feature of modern food production. Together we have available some hundreds of independent scientists and experts drawn from the universities, medical schools, research bodies, industry, consumer backgrounds and so on—all leading experts in their particular fields and chosen for their experience and the breadth of knowledge they can bring to bear. They assist us in the assessment of risks of all kinds that are faced by any modern food producing industry, and my colleagues and I rely heavily on their advice. The Opposition keep mentioning one or two scientists. I have been emphasising that we have hundreds of scientists available to us. All aspects of the subject are considered, expertly and in considerable depth, and I stress again the scientists' independence.
    The reports that are produced are published. In the case of the steering group on food surveillance there have been no fewer than 25 reports in recent year,. covering a wide range of subjects. Each of them is an authoritative scientific document on the subject under consideration. I repeat that the reports are published. But we do not just listen. We act, and we act promptly. In the last six months or so we have announced decisions on salmonella, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mineral hydrocarbons and aldrin, and given advice on a number of other subjects. Often the action goes comparatively unnoticed in the media, but it is taken notice of by the industry and the consumer is therefore protected.
    Mr. Conal Gregory rose—
    Mr. MacGregor: This will have to be the last time that I give way.
    Mr. Gregory: In acknowledging, as the Opposition did not, that some £20 million was spent last year in support of food safety, I think that any hon. Member would accept that there is independent advice which the Department uses skilfully, but that it is implemented at the sharp end by environmental health officers. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will issue central guidelines to the environmental health officers? Otherwise they will go off at different tangents and will interpret the expert advice in different ways which could be misleading to the public. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention.
    Mr. MacGregor: We try to give advice and guidance wherever we can. If my hon. Friend has particular points in mind, perhaps he will write to me about them and I shall consider them.

    349
    One interesting example of the action that we take relates to certain chemical substances in cling film. Following analysis, our scientists in the Ministry advised that there was a small risk of some leaching to the food contained therein. In immediate consultation with the industries the substances were changed and even any potential slightest risk to the consumer was removed. All this demonstrates that there is no complacency whatever, only constant vigilance.
    With the rapid changes in consumer habits these days, including the trend to fast and convenience foods and one-stop weekly shopping on the one hand, and the rapid developments in food technology and processes on the other, there can never be any cause for complacency. I point that out to the hon. Member for South Shields. Most of the Governments of Western Europe, the United States Government and others are finding new salmonella problems with particular types-—in the end we are talking about two types out of more than 2,000 strains—with listeria and with campylobacter at present.
    As for botulism, with which the hon. Member for South Shields began his speech, if its continued existence is thought to be a sign of failure—the word in the Opposition motion—then it must be said that we in this country have achieved a measure of success that most other countries would be only too pleased to emulate.
    The current outbreak, highly regrettable as it is, is nevertheless only the tenth in more than 65 years. The citizens of such countries as the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands—often held up, and rightly, as examples, like ourselves, of countries with high safety records and standards—are many times more likely to suffer from botulism than we are here.
    I heard what the hon. Member for South Shields said about Professor Lacey and his book. Professor Lacey did not predict a botulism outbreak. In fact, the evidence to date of the present botulism outbreak points to a canned hazelnut preparation. Professor Lacey stated that
    "the risk of food poisoning by canned food is tiny."
    The action that we have taken on salmonella and BSE is typical of the serious and determined way in which we pursue our responsibilities.
    As the House knows, the Government have adopted to date a comprehensive package of 19 measures to tackle this new salmonella problem in order to minimise the potential risk to public health.
    Dr. David Clark: Seventeen measures.
    Mr. MacGregor: It was 17, but we are constantly doing what we believe is right to add to them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Shields cannot keep up with our pace on this matter.
    One of the 19 measures is the food safety guidance leaflet. I was extremely sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Shields, who is normally very responsible in these matters, say that that was shifting the blame—or words to that effect—on to the consumer. He knows that research has shown that, because of the modern developments to which I have referred—such as weekly one—stop shopping —and the new food technologies, much of the risk of food poisoning can take place after the manufacturing process. Therefore, any responsible Government should give advice to consumers as to how, at their end of the food chain, they can protect themselves from food poisoning. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman denigrates our
    350
    action of supplying the food safety leaflet. That is a sign of gross irresponsibility. I believe that he has been proved wrong by the fact that it is a best seller, and we shall almost certainly have to reprint it shortly. It shows that we are meeting a positive and, I think, a desirable demand.
    Dr. David Clark: I noticed that the Minister moved quickly away from the 17 salmonella measures. He knows that he announced 17, but in a written answer, dated 19 June, that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary I was told that two of the key issues still wait to be laid before the House. When will we get the document—three months later?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have not moved off the subject yet, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am still dealing with the 19 measures. We have announced all the measures. We have nearly all of them in place and we are carrying all the others through with all due speed. As he knows, some of them require consultation and then parliamentary action. We have announced that we are taking 19 specific measures on the new salmonella problem.
    Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest information from the public health laboratory shows that, despite a recent increase in the consumption of chicken and poultry generally, the incidence of salmonella has dropped considerably? Does that not show that the measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend and the industry have been a great success?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, like other countries, we were faced with a new problem. It is obviously encouraging if there is a change in the trend of cases. We must maintain our vigilance, and the measures remain important. I do not believe that the measures will fully bite for some time—not until they take full effect. I want to be clear about that.
    We have taken those 19 measures at all possible stages in the chain from the animal feeding stuffs level, through breeding flocks and hatcheries, to laying flocks and on into the home.
    All in all, we are making extremely good progress in introducing those important measures in Britain. No other country in the world has such an impressive range of measures to tackle this exceptionally complex problem.
    On the totally new disease of BSE, the moment our veterinary scientists identified what the problem was I set up the Southwood committee; then stopped the feed protein source of the disease, again as soon as our scientists—they were ours—concluded that this was the most likely source; and acted immediately on all the interim and final recommendations of that committee.
    Last week I announced that further measures would be taken. Those will ensure that brain and spinal cord, together with certain other bovine offals, cannot be used for human consumption in any way.
    I can assure the House that if the scientific evidence and advice suggests that other actions are needed we shall take them. In resource terms the commitment to BSE alone is likely to be in excess of £6 million this year. That, too, is a demonstration of how speedily and responsibly we act.
    The emergence of new diseases, like the rapid rate of technological change in the food chain, places increasing demands on the flexibility of the system. It was for that

    351
    reason among others that we felt that it was desirable to undertake a substantial review of the existing food legislation, which has generally served us well but which needs to be appropriate for all the demands of the 1990s, including developments on the European Community front. I suspect that the hon. Member for South Shields is with me on that.
    That is why we have been undertaking a major consultation exercise with over 500 organisations, including many consumer groups, and, as a result, have concluded that the law should be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. We shall be bringing forward new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
    I would expect new legislation to include strengthened controls in the areas of food hygiene—notably powers to require food premises to register with their local authority and powers to require the training of those who handle food; the introduction of emergency control orders to improve our ability to act in food emergencies, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already taken some action in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, introduced by the Government, which enabled me to deal with the Chernobyl situation; and powers to control novel foods and processes as well as a whole range of other changes designed to make food law and its enforcement more effective today to meet any new challenges that may arise.
    Just as new technical problems can arise from new processes, so technology can give us new weapons in our armoury to enhance food safety and consumer protection. Let me deal with one such new weapon which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I want to begin by stressing that it is only one of many weapons in our armoury; it is not the panacea that the hon. Gentleman claimed it would be. In doing so, I hope that I shall answer all his points on food irradiation.
    The House is aware that last year on 4 February we announced that the Government accepted in principle that the ban on irradiated food should be lifted, provided that —this was an important proviso—the proper control framework could be established. Therefore, we set up a working party to consider all the issues related to that control system and to make recommendations, and the House knows that I recently received its report.
    I am today publishing that report. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office and in the Library. Based on the recommendations in the report, the Government intend to make available to the consumer and to the food industry the option of that additional measure for protecting certain foods. As I shall elaborate in a moment, there will be a number of opportunities for the House to consider that further in full. But I think it would be helpful if today I outline some of the key points.
    First, I want to stress that the Government are basing their decision fundamentally on food safety and consumer grounds—on food safety, that irradiation has a useful contribution to make—a contribution, not the total answer—to the reduction of food—borne disease in certain products, and in some cases better than by other means; and for consumers, provided that we have the proper control and information framework, that it would be wrong to deprive consumers of the freedom to choose
    352
    food treated by that safety method if they wish to avail themselves of it. It will not be thrust upon anyone. I repeat, it will not be thrust upon anyone.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. MacGregor: No. I have already given way a lot in this short debate.
    I know that some have drawn attention to the ability of the process to extend the shelf life of some fruits by delaying their ripening processes. That, too, is a consumer benefit in that what the housewife buys will last longer in the home. But that is not why the Government are proposing to legalise this process, and I wish to underline that. It was considerations of food safety that were predominant in reaching our decision.
    It may be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the subject. There is a mistaken impression that food irradiation is something new about which we ought to learn much more before permitting its use in this country, but that is far from being the case. The first patent on food irradiation was taken out as long ago as 1921, so it saw the light of day well before the birth of most current right hon. and hon. Members of this House, myself included. Considerable research on the process has been undertaken over more than 40 years, and scientists tell me that it has been subject to much closer scrutiny worldwide than any other food process.
    The safety of the process was established long ago by distinguished authorities of unimpeachable international standing. Top level joint expert committees of the principal international agencies, including the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, carried out in-depth safety evaluations over a period of years in the 1970s and confirmed in a report in 1980 that food irradiation up to an overall average dose of 10 kilogray is safe and introduces no special nutritional or microbilogical problems. That report was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1983.
    Similar conclusions were reached following full assessments by other national and international bodies. The process's safety, for example, was confirmed by the European Community's Scientific Committee for Food and by the United State's Food and Drugs Administration.
    Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
    Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to continue because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
    Nevertheless, we adopted a thoroughly careful attitude and put in hand our own independent expert assessment. In 1982 we established the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin college, Cambridge. The committee comprised distinguished specialists in all aspects of the subject. Its report, published in 1986, concluded that if correctly applied and up to the level of dose stipulated in the international research of 10 kilogray, irradiation is an effective and efficient form of food preservation treatment.
    The committee was satisfied as to the safety and wholesomeness of the food that would result from irradiation and made it clear that for all practical purposes

    353
    there would be no change in the low level of radioactivity that food naturally contains. In 1987 the committee was reconvened to consider scientific responses to its report and, having done so, reaffirmed its conclusions.
    I set out that history to make absolutely clear one basic point—that the safety of food irradiation has been assessed repeatedly over the years by people both in this country and abroad whose highly specialised training and experience best qualifies them to assess all aspects of the technique. The process has been cleared through the most comprehensive set of evaluations.
    Mr. Wilson: But who is asking for it?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to that point shortly.
    No qualifications have been expressed, and no areas of safety remain outstanding. That is demonstrated by the number of countries that already allow use of the process. It is permitted in 35 countries around the world, and is already in operation in 21 of them. Those countries include the United States and four member states of the European Community. It may come as a surprise that we too permit irradiaton and have done so for the past 20 years or more. Throughout that time, irradiated food has been supplied to a limited number of cancer patients who, by reason of their disease or treatment, are at high risk of infection. We have recognised that those vulnerable members of our society, who require the most carefully controlled and safest diet that we can secure, have found it through irradiated food.
    What are the advantages of irradiation for consumers generally? I shall deal shortly with the question of choice but first I must set the important scene of safety as a whole. The World Health Organisation is clear that by killing or greatly reducing the number of micro-organisms naturally present in food, irradiation has a useful contribution to make in reducing some—and I stress some—food-borne disease. Obviously, it cannot be used to treat all food products because in some cases it can affect taste and other qualities. Nevertheless, it is important in reducing some food-borne disease.
    Irradiation has, for example, been shown to be effective in dealing with bacteria such as salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. It is not suitable for all foodstuffs, as I have already emphasised, but it has proved its value as a treatment for poultry meat. It is so used already in France and other countries, and the BMA's recent publication "Infection Control" mentions its particular effectiveness for the purpose. Some shellfish can also be successfully treated.
    Second, for certain produce such as herbs and spices irradiation can be used to destroy insects, pests and bacterial contamination in place of the existing chemical fumigation methods, about some of which there are concerns on health grounds. For example, the chemical ethylene oxide, which is used for that purpose, is now banned in many countries of the European Community and will shortly no longer be available for use. Manufacturers and consumers need some means of being able to continue to make herbs and spices available without infestation.
    All this is extending consumer choice, not damaging it. It is an effective way of dealing with some bacteria and hugs, but of course the essential pre-condition is a proper control mechanism. The Food Act gives the possibility of providing for the registration of irradiation facilities by
    354
    local authorities. The Government have concluded, however, that it is preferable to have a full licensing system under central Government control, rather than through local authorities. Closer and more specialised supervision will he achieved through the concentration of the powers by central administration than if the responsibility is diffused. This will permit detailed inspection by specialists and the imposition of precise conditions with the granting of licences. It will mean delaying the introduction of food irradiation until we can obtain more extensive powers in the new food Bill, but we think it right to do so.
    Conditional upon the licence will be the maintenance of clear and full records, which will be regularly inspected and will allow for the tracing of consignments treated and the verification, through the recording instrument readings, of the dose applied. A further provision will be a requirement that full documentation must accompany each consignment leaving the irradiated plant, so that recipients of irradiated food at any point in the distribution chain are aware of the treatment that has been given.
    Apart from inspection of the documentation and of the measuring instruments—the dosimeters—the premises would also be subject to the normal local authority controls on food hygiene. It would be necessary for local authorities to satisfy themselves that good manufacturing practices were being followed and that, in particular, there was proper segregation of treated and untreated foodstuffs and the possibility of contamination after treatment was avoided.
    For imported supplies it will be necessary for us to make arrangements to check that the control systems applied and the standards achieved by countries wishing to export to the United Kingdom are equivalent to the controls and standards to be applied in this country. If the European Community's proposal goes ahead, action will of course follow on a Community basis, but, whether Community or national arrangements need to be made, we are quite clear that proper reassurances must be obtained.
    As important as the control framework is that consumers should be able to make an informed choice, so that those who do not want irradiated food can be assured that they are not buying it.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that I must move on as I must also answer the debate.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?
    Mr. MacGregor: There will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to speak. In any case, I am about to give the answer: making consumers aware whether they are buying irradiated food means labelling.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way on that point?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman can make his contribution during the debate, and there will be many other opportunities.
    I assure the House that the Government will insist on a firm requirement for full and clear labelling of all irradiated food and listed ingredients. We want wording that will be clearly understood, and the options that we have in mind, are "irradiated" and "treated with ionising radiation".

    355
    I am sure that the House will want to debate this issue in full, and as we must seek new powers there will be plenty of opportunities to do so. There may also be a chance to debate it before the summer recess if time can be found to consider European Community document No. 10377/88 on this subject, which the European Community Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate. There will thus be many occasions to respond to the concerns and to dispel the myths, but today I should like to deal with the two most common ones.
    First, it is argued that the treatment should not be allowed in the absence of a detention test that can confirm its use. There are plenty of views to the contrary. The World Health Organisation did not consider that necessary; nor did Codex or the United States Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, our own advisory committee gave particular attention to the point. It concluded that, while a detection test could be a useful supplement to a control system based on licensing and documentation, such as we shall have, it was not necessary for the satisfactory operation of controls. Furthermore, none of the 21 countries already allowing irradiation and operating control systems around the world considered it necessary to wait for the availability of a diagnostic method. The crucial factor is the control system, but given that a diagnostic method could be a useful supplement we shall continue to fund the research work that we are doing on this.
    Second, it is argued that irradiation can somehow be misused to make bad food good. I am advised that this is simply nonsense. Irradiation cannot improve appearance, it cannot disguise taste, it cannot mask unpleasant odours. If food is not of acceptable microbiological standard, then these factors will give it away. Food irradiation will not save it.
    Moreover, we intend to provide for the examination of food prior to treatment, and we shall be providing that food that does not meet the normal acceptable standards of the industry shall not be irradiated. It will remain an offence to sell or offer for sale unfit food, whether irradiated or not.
    Therefore, I commend the working party's report to the House and the Government's decisions upon it. I repeat that irradiation is not a panacea for food safety. I do not, and never will, suggest that it is. It is only one weapon in our large armoury. All the other measures I have talked about today and on other occasions continue to be important parts of the whole surveillance, regulatory and legislative framework that we have to ensure the highest standards of food safety. However, it does offer for certain products a further and successful way of enhancing safety. It can provide clear consumer benefits. In our view, it is now wrong to deprive the food producer and the consumer of the free choice to avail themselves of it, if they wish to do so, and it is on that basis that I am making this announcement today.
    Let me underline that point once and for all. Consumers in Britain, under a Conservative Government, enjoy a right to safety, a right to be informed and a right to choose. Irradiated food is safe, irradiated food will be properly labelled and consumers will have the right to buy it and the right to refuse to buy it. Only an irresponsible Government, neglectful of consumer interests, would deny
    356
    British consumers the same protection as is already afforded to consumers in over 20 other countries. All this demonstrates the responsible and carefully considered approach of the Government to food safety matters. I can hardly say the same about some of the allegations of the Opposition.
    The other day the hon. Member for South Shields alleged on "The World this Weekend"—and he has said it again, in part, today—that they have documentary evidence—repeated examples, he said—of seafood coming into this country, being declared as unfit for human consumption and then being exported, irradiated and reimported back here. He said that these companies had actually been flouting the law and that
    "the Government has known about it, has turned a blind eye and indeed appear to be encouraging these companies to break the law."
    These are serious allegations. I shall therefore be quite fair with the hon. Member for South Shields—and, I hope, quite clear. I should be concerned about any allegations of companies flouting the law. I have therefore checked whether we knew about them. We did not. I have made clear publicly that I would be happy to look at any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can give us.
    In the same programme the hon. Gentleman said that he would pass this information on to me. That was 11 days ago. So far I have not received anything from him, but I hope that I shall do so shortly. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Frank Cook rose—
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been "repeated examples" of seafood coming into this country, and he said that they were recent repeated examples. The only allegations that I can find are in early-day motion 950, signed by a number of his hon. Friends, making allegations about named companies. Is that the evidence that the hon. Gentleman had in mind? I should be very interested to know whether that is the evidence.
    Dr. David Clark: I did not pass it on to the Minister previously—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient for a little longer I shall explain why. Three years ago we passed information to the Minister's predecessor —[Interruption.] Hon. Members must let me finish—including the certificates of irradiation from Gammaster. The Minister's predecessor refused to act upon that information. I have the information and I shall pass it on to the Minister. I made it quite clear today that I would pass it on to the Minister, but I wanted to make sure that it was on the record in the House before I did so. Only by doing so could I guarantee a response from the Minister. I think that the Minister will look into the matter seriously in view of the Government's record. That is why I did not pass it on to him.
    Mr. MacGregor: That is a frightfully feeble answer. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it suggests that he is more interested in grabbing headlines than in dealing with serious issues responsibly.
    Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was one case, involving Young's, in January 1985. The company received a severe warning at the time and there is no evidence that anything has happened involving that company since. That is the only case of which I and my Ministry know. That was only one example four years ago and the hon. Gentleman has never suggested otherwise.

    357
    The hon. Gentleman said on "The World this Weekend" that we had evidence of repeated examples. We have no such evidence; therefore, I had to turn to the early-day motion.
    Some of the companies named are Dutch, and some of the imputed actions referred to in the early-day motion took place in other countries. It is not for me to comment on those since they would he matters for other authorities. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if this is his evidence, all three British food importing firms referred to have firmly denied the stories, and indeed my Department's regular contacts with the authorities in the Netherlands have provided no information that would support the Opposition's claims.
    I repeat that 1 am ready to look at any evidence. But I think it is disreputable to name companies in an early-day motion without firm evidence, and I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has firmly, on the Order Paper, rejected the allegation made against one of the firms. I shall look at any evidence, but ultimately the best guarantee of dealing with the issue and ensuring that irradiation is used responsibly and properly is to have the new control system that we have in place.
    I ask the House to contrast the difference in the approach of the two parties—the Government's careful, thorough consideration based on the fullest scientific evidence, the establishment of a proper control framework, making a very useful device for food safety available to consumers who want it, and the irresponsible allegations by the Opposition.
    I turn briefly to some of the other charges made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech today. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will deal with one or two other matters in winding up. I shall turn first to research and development on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated and in which he knows I have a particular interest.
    I make no apology for the Government's approach to the funding of near market research and development because I am sure that it makes sense. It is right that the Government should review their priorities on research and development across the board from time to time, and that is what we have been doing. It is right to ask the agrochemical and farming industries to fund the near market development work, that is that which is close to commercial exploitation—as they do in any other industry. That work is to their benefit—they can better assess the commercial possibilities and are more likely that way to carry the results through to full development in the market place—and it avoids duplication. We estimate the industry itself is funding more than £300 million a year of R and D, most of it probably near market.
    But that is a different matter from research on food safety, which is not affected. Indeed we are now spending over £10 million a year on food safety and nutrition research, and it has been steadily increasing. It is noteworthy that expenditure on food research has more than doubled in real terms under this Government and since the Opposition left office.
    Last week's decision by the Agricultural and Food Research Council to consolidate the work of its Institute of Food Research at its Norwich and Reading sites has to be seen in this context. The near market research from which Government support is being withdrawn at the food research institute is work on eating quality, flavours, shelf life and non-food safety aspects of food processing. That
    358
    work is of interest to the industry and we hope it will fund it, but it is not related to food safety or other public good issues and I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
    So far as food safety is concerned, the decision to restructure the IFR means: more scientists working together on food research at Reading and Norwich, in a more focused way, using the most sophisticated equipment and technology available; an enhanced capacity to deal with a wide range of micro-organisms, including salmonella, listeria and those causing botulism; and increased funding for research in these and other food safety areas.
    In Norwich and Reading, the United Kingdom will continue to possess a world-class Institute of Food Research. It will ensure a sound science base which can address and resolve issues of concern to the consumer, the housewife, the man in the street, the producer and industry. For food safety there are real, positive gains.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is absolutely wrecking the national fruit variety collections at Brogdale.
    Mr. MacGregor: I want to move on.
    Had time permitted, I should have liked to deal with a number of other issues relating to early-day motions and my hon. Friend will try to deal with some of them when he replies to the debate.
    Finally, I want to touch on one matter not raised by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, pesticides. The Government have taken more action than any other on pesticides. We have a proper statutory system of approval, registration and control for the first time. No one has the right to sell a pesticide, to store it, advertise it or use it unless it has been given safety clearance and approval by Ministers. That is all in the interests of consumers and users.
    Before there is any possibility of approval the company has to have tested the safety of the product in terms of health and the environment and its efficacy in use. And there is thorough independent, scientific evaluation.
    An independent committee, the Advisory Committee for Pesticides, makes a scientific assessment.
    Detailed monitoring takes place thereafter, not least by the working party on pesticides residues. Regular sampling takes place. From time to time concern about pesticides emerges and it is important to set out what we have in place.
    Such a control system needs to be completed with an enforcement regime and a policy of public information and guidance in which our agricultural inspectorate plays a crucial part.
    Against the background of a control system which is as comprehensive as we can devise and as expert as we can get I have to report to the House an extraordinary incident which occurred last week.
    A few days before that, my officials became aware that the Labour party was advertising in one of its magazines two insecticides. My officials established to their satisfaction that the products advertised had no approval, and that the advertisement showed no regard to the legal requirements. Without reference to Ministers my officials did what they would do to any other trader who appeared to be breaking the law, and issued a notice requiring that the Labour party ceased selling non-approved products, and ensured that advertisements observe the established regulations.

    359
    Imagine my astonishment when the first I heard of this was, via the press, a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party demanding that I repudiate the actions of my officials immediately. So there we have it from the party professing such environmental and safety concern —one law for the Labour party on pesticide regulations and another for everybody else; great moral huffing and puffing as far as everyone else is concerned and unrighteous indignation when the law is applied to the Labour party.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about deregulation. It is the Labour party's version of deregulation. For the Labour party it means deregulation beyond the law. That sums it up.
    The Opposition spokesman has admitted that his party came to food issues very late. He said that it was a huge field that the Opposition had neglected. The Opposition are willing to throw about wild allegations without proper assessment of the facts and throw their weight about to get me to ask my officials to bend the law in their favour. The Government devote very substantial resources to food safety matters and give them high priority, have a well-established set of mechanisms for obtaining the best scientific evidence and advice, take effective action promptly and give the highest priority to consumer protection and consumer choice. That is why I have no hesitation in commending the Government amendment and urging the House to reject the Opposition motion.
    4.49 pm
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: In a long and dismal procession of incompetent Ministers who have paraded themselves before the House in recent months we have surely heard one of the worst this afternoon. The only "green" thing about the Minister's Department is probably the tie worn by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Two aspects stand out from today's debate: first, the woeful incompetence of the Ministries entrusted with responsibility for public health in this country; secondly, the need to define clearly the objectives that we should be pursuing. The failure of the relevant Ministries is most clearly shown by the disjointed, defensive and reactive approach adopted by the Minister this afternoon. I shall pass over his speech, except for a reference to the irradiation of food, which is a disturbing development.
    In passing, I should say that I am sponsored by the Co-operative movement and thus represent the major food producer in this country. It has come out clearly against irradiation. I hope that other hon. Members who speak today will also declare their interests and tell us which of them are in the pockets of big business and which represent the interests of the farmers. People should not imagine for a moment that Conservative Members will not be speaking from prejudice or self-interest, just like the lap dogs in the Ministry who are in the pockets of the agricultural companies and of food production interests. Speaking of lap dogs, the Minister's parliamentary private secretary might be called the rottweiler of big business, although, come to think of it, rottweiler is not a good description of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).
    We must examine the whole of food policy, not just parts of it. The Minister selected a few non-diseased trees from the wood and concentrated on them, but we must
    360
    look at the whole picture—the production, distribution, processing and consumption of food, and its impact on our health.
    First, let us examine the direct effects which cause illness. The Minister rightly touched on many of the worrying items. Salmonellosis is still the single largest cause of major food poisoning—at least of notified cases, if not of all cases seen in clinical practice. Other conditions are related to the consumption of milk—brucellosis, tuberculosis and campylobacter are all still major causes of ill health. I deprecate any attempt to retain the sale of unpasteurised milk in England and Wales. Such attempts are shameful. We have not had this problem for many years in Scotland and that is exemplified by the much lower incidence of these conditions there. I hope that the Minister will not listen to the more foolish among his hon. Friends—and among mine—who are trying to persuade him that people should be allowed to consume unpasteurised milk. There is compelling evidence that they should not. I know of no public health authority in this country or in any other that would recommend the drinking of unpasteurised milk, which affects not only the health of the individual consumer but can play a part in a chain of infection leading to the infection of innocent people.
    There are other direct causes of illness—the contamination of food, the use of hormones in production, the over-use of antibiotics and the largely unknown and ill-defined effects that they may have on the quality of our food. I know that the Government and the EEC are closely examining additives, although perhaps not in as well co-ordinated a way as they might.
    I do not blame only the Minister or this Government. This problem has gone on for a long time and is hardly new. The problem of food poisoning did not begin with the rather warped description of a diseased chicken by a former Under-Secretary of State for Health last year. A succession of Ministers and civil servants have failed to protect public health for a long time.
    We must also look into the introduction of more sinister elements to the equation. Growth hormones are being used in meat production, not necessarily in this country, but in others from which meat may be imported to this country. The use of irradiation and of new processes such as cook-chill require close attention to detail. I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing a food Bill in the next Session of Parliament and I look forward with interest to reading it, but I still contend that it will not solve the major problem, which is that there is no co-ordinated food policy in this country. Until we have one, problems will continue to arise and need to be dealt with. I grant that some problems have been dealt with promptly, but they were unforeseen. We should look for problems before they arise and try to prevent them from occurring in the first place.
    A bad diet indirectly affects people's health. I have mentioned that before and shall go on mentioning it until Ministers of whichever party happens to be in power listen. Bad diet has a sinister, persistent and all-pervasive effect on health. The fat and sugar content of such diets is still far too high. Bad diet can lead to diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer. We tend to forget that poverty leads to the inadequate consumption of calories and to an insufficiently balanced diet, and so to ill health. For all their denials, the Government have introduced

    361
    poverty in full measure to this country over the past few years to an extent that we never thought possible in a civilised society.
    From the vast range of problems that I have attempted to outline it must be clear that major improvements in health will only follow action to create a proper food policy which has as its primary objective the improvement of our national diet, not the protection of the interests and well-being of food producers. Confusion reigns at present. Many Ministries are involved—the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, which deals with aspects of the poverty 1 have mentioned, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, which ultimately controls what we are allowed to spend. The Minister, with his familiarity with that Department, is only too well aware of the problems that it can create for the best intentioned of schemes.
    All these Departments have conflicting objectives and lack definition and the co-ordination of a common purpose. We have three choices: we can do nothing; we can examine the possibility of setting up a food Ministry —with all the difficulties that that would entail—in an attempt to co-ordinate the work of the different Departments; or we can follow the example that the Government set two years ago when alcohol problems became so manifest. They used the auspices of the Leader of the House to set up a ministerial committee to co-ordinate the efforts of different Departments. That has proved much more successful than I—somewhat sceptical of this type of approach—was at first prepared to admit. Such a committee might be a means of ensuring proper developments.
    The Government's record is unsound and is best shown in two areas—first, in their attitude to poverty, of which I shall mention one specific example. Many young pregnant women cannot purchase an adequate diet because they have low incomes. This has been borne out time and again by observers and it is a problem that will not go away. It damages not only the woman's health but the future health of her child. The Government should look into this problem carefully.
    The second aspect has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The Institute of Food Research in Bristol is a good example of this. The Minister did not mention it today; perhaps he merely overlooked it and the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it later. The Government are pursuing the mirage of near-market research. They believe that, merely because something will clearly benefit the public, it will be picked up by commercial organisations, which will perceive it as being of benefit to themselves.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I am anxious to correct the hon. Gentleman because in what appears to be his peroration he is going from one pinnacle to another without bothering to stop to consider a problem and to find proper solutions. In the last point to which he referred he was wrong, as he has been wrong all along. It is not a question of near-market research meaning that when something is of public benefit it will be taken up by commercial companies. The idea of near-market research is that when something is of commercial benefit companies will take it up and pay for
    362
    that research. When it is for the public good and demonstrates no immediate, near commercial benefit, the Government will continue that research.
    Dr. Moonie: Unfortunately, what the Government define as near-market research and how companies define it are very different, as can be seen from the number of projects that are dropped by the Government and not taken up by the companies concerned, despite a clearly demonstrated value to public health. Companies are in business to make money, not to care for Members of this House and their constituents. The balance sheet at the end of the day is their objective, and that determines their activities, not any altruistic concern for the public health.
    Even so, some companies, particularly the one with which I am involved—but also companies such as Marks and Spencer—have gone out of their way to develop sound practices in the handling of food. I accept that, but they have not gone out of their way to share them with any other companies because, obviously, to do so would not be to their commercial advantage.
    Not only near-market research is important. The Government are also attempting to cut back on research which is seen by most people to be of limited value to the market but which is of vital importance to the future well-being of, for example, plant research in Britain. I refer to reports that the Government are cutting back on research at several plant stations, particularly at Wellsbourne, Rosemaun and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned, Brogdale.
    Those stations, Brogdale in particular, contain genetic material which, if not kept, will be lost to the world for ever. This material stretches back to different varieties of fruit and vegetables for centuries, much of which has not been properly explored. Much of it could provide cross-breeding of different varieties of fruit and vegetables which could then be developed for consumption in this country and perhaps improve the quality and variety of food to which we are exposed.
    It is shameful that the Government will not maintain research at those plants. The issue has been taken up by the scientific press, in particular recently by the New Scientist. Wellsbourne has been described by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources in Rome as one of the most important temperate vegetable gene banks in the world. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not simply a matter of my concern. It affects the public generally and it is regrettable that the organisation is not receiving the funds that it needs to keep going.
    I have tried to demonstrate how, in a wide variety of areas, the Government have failed to act responsibly. They have failed to perceive that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts, particularly the few parts to which the Minister referred today. Until the Government accept that principle, we will not develop the type of food policy that our people deserve.
    5.3 pm
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: About 10 years ago I found myself with junior ministerial responsibility both for the food industry and for agricultural research. The then Agricultural Research Council was funded equally by the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    363
    I took the opportunity at that time of visiting many research institutes to look at their work. I am not a scientist, but as a practical farmer and having visited university and research institutions over the years, I feel practically qualified—I put it no higher than that—to make a judgment about the quality of work being done in, and of the scientists working at, those institutes 10 years ago.
    I found that all was not well. Where the scientists were excellent—and there were many—they were grossly underpaid and were reluctant to stay in the employment of the ARC. They were leaving in large numbers to go to industry and into outside research. Where they were elderly and burnt-out, they were being feather-bedded into retirement by an organisation that was well capable of extracting funds from the Government, whether for basic or practical research.
    I expressed my concern about that state of affairs over a lengthy period, and although hon. Members will appreciate that two years is too short a time to turn round such a vast ship as a research council, I am sure that those civil servants who were responsible in the Ministry had no doubt of my concern and displeasure. That subsequently was translated by my successor into a welcome change when the ARC became the AFRC, recognising the importance of food and reorganising the way in which it allocated funds for research.
    Mr. Marland: During his time as a Minister and while visiting laboratories, did my hon. Friend discover much duplication of research? Did it occur to him that there might be possibilities of saving money because one job was being done in two or three different places?
    Mr. Wiggin: That was the case. For example, the ARC ran two fruit research stations. Given the size of the industry, that did not seem necessary, but many matters of that type have been put right. I am referring to the situation 10 years ago. The recent changes in funding, in the first instance, and, more important, the approach of the AFRC in putting out much of its work to universities and outside institutes, as well as in supporting individuals in the work that they are doing, is to be welcomed, and I totally support the action that the Government have taken.
    I hope that in dreaming up projects for near-market application, civil servants will not become too imaginative because there have been some examples where there is no possibility of industry being interested. That is where a common-sense approach must be taken.
    The change is deeply traumatic to those who work in the institutes, and the frustration felt and the insecurity in general has frequently meant that many leading scientists in institutes have left, either leaving research altogether or going to work for private industry. When leading scientists leave an institute, that has a demoralising effect on others, and a damaging cycle begins.
    Well-informed though they are in the AFRC, the news of closures and changes spreads rapidly. The morale of many employees has been poor for some time, and nowhere worse than at the food research institute at Langford in my constituency. I have always enjoyed excellent relations with the staff of the institute and I have been a visitor there on many occasions. Although
    364
    forewarned for a considerable time, I was extremely sad to learn last week of the final decision by the AFRC to close the institute in its present form.
    Few of the scientists will be offered jobs elsewhere. Some will be, and naturally I am worried about the local employees—the laboratory assistants and staff who work on the farms and in the abattoir—who will not be able to move. But I feel that I am insufficiently informed—as is the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr, Clark)—to tell the AFRC how to run its business.
    That organisation is deliberately at arm's length from Government, and I therefore find the wording of the Opposition motion strange, since it is the responsibility of the AFRC, not of the Government, to administer its funds and to decide to which projects to put its work. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture funds its projects through the AFRC as an arm's length operation. I am not qualified to tell that body, in acting with taxpayers' money, how best to operate.
    But I am keen to assist those who believe that they can save some of the specialist facilities at Langford. There is a unique opportunity for another organisation to take over the institute's facilities and building. I have in mind Bristol university, the veterinary school of which is world famous and which is also sited at Langford.
    There is a possibility that with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture—I hope that the Minister will be in a position to comment positively on this matter—the Meat and Livestock Commission and the AFRC, some of the unique work carried out at the special facilities will be able to continue.
    Ms. Dawn Primarolo rose—
    Mr. Wiggin: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady who last week made no attempt to offer me the most elementary courtesy before she raised in the House the matter of the institute, which is in my constituency. In view of the time, I shall continue.
    The obvious merit in being able to carry out this special work is not only that it will continue, but will be conducted in a university atmosphere, which is right and proper. Furthermore, local employees may well be able to find work.
    The Opposition's suggestion that there is to be a serious and total change in all food research is patently rubbish. While I accept that some work will cease, who are we as non-scientists and non-experts to decide on this allocation of funds? It is irritating to me that we appoint extremely expert people, indeed we have a fine chairman of the AFRC, but do not then leave them to decide how their funds should be allocated.
    I strongly welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the irradiation of food. Much of the original checking of the safety of irradiation was done at Langford and I hope that the expertise will remain within the AFRC. One of our difficulties is that we are approached by scientists whose projects have been terminated and who, naturally, greatly resent that. They have been bound up in the work and believe it to be worthwhile. They resent a committee or outside body saying, "Sorry, it is no longer worth continuing with your research," or "You are not making sufficient progress." Therefore, we sometimes receive a distorted story.
    Not however in one case, and I particularly want to mention one aspect of the work at Langford refrigeration.

    365
    The House will know that the Low Temperature Research Station was originally set up in Cambridge but moved to Langford, and the expertise contained within that department is very special. I hope that there are plans for continuing work on this facility. If there are, the staff concerned are not aware of them. I hope that the Minister will look with particular care at this aspect. The suggestion that there is nothing further to learn on the subject is patently absurd, and I understand that such work is not being carried out elsewhere.
    During the Select Committee's recent inquiry into salmonella in eggs it became clear that, although much is known about food poisoning, the subject is ever changing. The ability of bacteria to change and mutate needs constant vigilance. The dividing line between the responsibility of doctors at the Department of Health, the public health laboratory service and the vets is narrow. It would not be right for me to detain the House by repeating that argument, but those interested may find it worthwhile to study the Committee's report on the subject.
    Ensuring the health and cleanliness of our livestock is an expensive business. The poultry industry is counting the cost of recently introduced measures to combat salmonella in eggs. That cost will, unquestionably, be passed on to the consumer. Nevertheless, I believe that the public will be willing to pay. However, it is absurd that other countries in which standards are appreciably lower than ours—this means all other countries because we now lead the world in this matter—can export to this country eggs from flocks which do not meet our health standards. The Government must insist on ending such unfair practices which discriminate against the United Kingdom's egg producers.
    Despite all the problems of the past few months, the British public have never enjoyed a wider, more attractive and safer range of foodstuffs than are currently on sale. Some 66 per cent. of all our food is now bought from six main supermarket chains. We have only to see the efforts which they make to confirm the purity of their food to realise that the public is well protected, not just by officials or the Government but by extremely competitive retailers who rely on the quality of their produce to beat the competition down the road.
    We shall never totally eliminate food poisoning, any more than disease. Recent events have unquestionably had a salutary effect on all involved, but in the long term we shall have had a most beneficial look at the subject, which must be in the interests of all consumers.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Much of what I said in this House on 21 February during the debate on food safety and water is relevant today. Despite the Government's attempt to dispel fears and to look as though they are taking action by announcing, for example, the appointment of the Food Safety Committee and the ban on bovine offals for human consumption, the fact remains that the Government's prime motivations behind their policy are profit, economic gain and a reduction in public spending.
    The order of the day is a menu that is quicker, cheaper and more efficient. Without the ingredients to ensure quality and safety, it is a recipe for disaster. As I said in the previous debate:
    "in our rush to progress and our haste to produce food more efficiently and profitably … certain people and industries have been allowed to cut corners. Consumers' rights have
    366
    been neglected and the dangers to their health have become much more prevalent."—[Official Report, 21 February 1989; Vol. 147, c, 883.]
    Incidences of food poisoning have risen dramatically since that debate. My sources claim that they were investigating at least one and a half times as many cases this spring as last spring. In the second week of May there were 240 reported cases of salmonella poisoning, and everyone is aware that the vast majority of cases of gastric enteritis go unreported. With the prospect of a long hot summer in front of us, as most of us hope, more concerted and organised actions are required from the Government.
    At the moment, Government food policy appears to be in a shambles. For example, Ministers cannot make up their minds whether they should ban green top milk. One minute they say that they will and the next that they will not. I welcome the most recent decision that consumers will retain their right of choice to buy untreated milk and I hope that the Government will extend that right to bovine somatotropin-treated milk by bottling separately milk which has been treated with the genetically engineered hormone, and clearly labelling it as such.
    New technologies in agriculture, food production and processing make it important for the Government to be aware of the repercussions on consumers' health and the environment in general. That requires research, quality and hygiene standards, regulations and monitoring services. Instead, the Government have decided to cut public spending on food research by as much as 27 per cent. by 1993–94 and to reduce their commitment to experimental husbandry farming.
    The closure of the Institute of Food Research at Langford, near Bristol, is part and parcel of the Government's reorganisation of agricultural research and development. The withdrawal of funds for near-market research projects in the belief that the private sector will pick up the tab is naive in the extreme and an example of what blind faith in the market will do. The Government also ignore the fact that many projects cannot: be separated, and their attempts to identify near-market research, and to reduce or withdraw their funding, are having a devastating effect.
    The Government's action is symptomatic of their entire policy towards research and development. Scientists are leaving Britain on an unprecedented scale. Only last week, a microbiologist involved in food research at one of our universities said to me:
    "I do not see any way forward. Research is now seen as a source of income to the institute. If it is left to the private sector, the only research that is likely to be funded is that which follows the goals and objectives of the specific organisation providing the funds."
    British industry is not well known for its investment in research and development, and many of the projects which are funded and founded involve pre-marketing research paid for by the sales and marketing departments. Needless to say, their guidelines are fairly stringent. This could be disastrous for the food safety aspect.
    What guarantee is there that the findings will ever be published? I note that the large food chains such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's have refused to inform the consumer of the results of their massive testing programmes into chemical contamination of food. Sainsbury's justify this by saying that it considers the information to be confidential to itself and to its suppliers. Surely the consumer, who is the one most likely to be affected, has the right to know what this information is. I

    367
    do not see why, if the retailer is doing a good job and is satisfied that the food being sold is safe, it should not want the consumer to know the results of the tests. The consumer has a right to know what pesticides are used on foods. There is a clear case for labelling to give such information—a factor that the Minister hardly mentioned.
    The Government's stated objective is to roll back the state. I do not think they have achieved that. All that they have done is to concentrate power at the centre. However, another topic for debate—something that the Government must not forget and must remember in their pursuit of their objectives, whatever they are—is their responsibility to those whom they govern. The Government are responsible for the protection of public safety, which is threatened not only by outside factors, but by all sorts of other hazards. Where there is a threat to public safety or health that any action by the individual cannot remove, it is the Government's responsibility to find the cause and the means to eliminate the danger. The production of a glossy food hygiene booklet aimed at the housewife, at a cost of £750,000, as a response to the recent outbreaks of food poisoning is a poor effort by the Government to carry out their duty, and in many cases is an insult to the consumer.
    The consumer, by using proper cooking methods, can kill whatever bacteria are present in the food, but we have to address the question of how the organism got into the food in the first place, and how to prevent it doing so in the future. Prevention can be achieved only through research, detection and control throughout the food chain. The Government must no longer rely on self regulation by the industry. When demands are moving and changing as fast as they are today, with fads coming and going and competition rife, the industry must not and cannot be expected to regulate itself to an extent that ensures safety in food production, processing and retailing. The Government must introduce more regulations and the means to enforce them. Parliamentary time for whatever legislation is necessary to enable sufficient regulation, monitoring and control to take place must be set aside. Self regulation is not the ideal way to ensure safety in food products.
    More rather than less research is required. It is no good the Government trotting out statistics and numbers to back up claims that spending in this sector is higher than it ever has been before, because I do not care whether it is or not. I care about whether the amount being spent is adequate to meet health and safety needs. The answer is quite obviously no.
    The Government must give food safety top priority. The decision, announced by the Minister today, to allow irradiated food to be sold in Britain without full knowledge of the long-term effects and without other back-up measures to protect the consumer is an example of other considerations having priority. If irradiation is to remain, then the Government should consider such moves as a ban on fractionalised dosage and the proper funding for environmental officers to inspect premises regularly.
    I am also concerned about Government action on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. Can the Minister assure the House that the banning of cattle offal for human consumption and the move to have all cattle suspected of having BSE slaughtered and destroyed is
    368
    adequate protection against all aspects of the disease and its human health implications? Can the Government say with confidence that the risk to humans from the disease is remote? Although I am told that the fundamental science on this has not been carried out, can the Minister say that the Government have done all in their power to prevent any such risks? I cannot believe that the Government are so satisfied with the standards of health and animal hygiene that they see their way clear to reducing the complement of veterinary surgeons in the public service. Are the Government content that the standards of hygiene in all abattoirs is safe and something of which we should be proud?
    Is the Secretary of State for Health satisfied that the level of environmental officers in post, and even the establishment number, is adequate to do all the follow-up work that is required as a result of the recent outbreaks of food poisoning? Where is the follow-up work that should be done if we wish to ensure that lessons are learnt and mistakes not merely repeated? Does the Secretary of State believe that there are enough officers with enough power to deal with the expansion in the numbers of small manufacturers, retailers and caterers and the many other types of premises that they have to inspect?
    The Government must now think in terms of prevention, which is one of the most cost-effective of measures. Food poisoning, other diseases and illness could be avoided with the proper foresight, organisation, co-operation and resources. The cost to the nation as a whole in terms of the costs to the Health Service, to social security and to industry from days off work could easily be avoided.
    In the debate last February, I called for the lines of responsibility within and between various Government Departments to be clarified. When various Departments are involved, it is too easy to claim non-responsibility, too tempting to fight one's own corner and too difficult to co-ordinate objectives. Therefore, today I issue a challenge to the Prime Minister. When she reshuffles her Cabinet in the near future, she should set up a Ministry of Food to establish a mechanism to make and carry out a coherent policy on food, and to give the safety and interests of the consumer the utmost priority.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I must immediately declare an interest as a council member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I attended last week's meeting at which the decision to close the Bristol laboratory was taken. In saying that, I put myself forward neither as a lightning conductor for, nor as a clone of, Government policy. No one need think that the decision was taken lightly, or without consideration of the staff situation, which was sensitively touched on by the constituency Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
    The Opposition motion rests on two fundamental misconceptions. The first and major one is a rehash of the old philosophical confusion about the belief that, because one event follows another, the first must cause the second. For instance, if one believes that night follows day, one ends up believing that day causes night. It is very much the same with food safety. It needs only some accident to happen—accidents in food safety can be extremely unpleasant, as the recent outbreak of botulism has been

    369
    —and for there to be the coincidence of that accident with some development in agricultural research for the two to be inevitably put together by the Opposition. I am not quite sure of their view of the direct causation in this matter. For example, I am not sure whether last week was seen as a Government plot to infect their citizenry with botulism or as a plot by the bacillus to embarrass the Government on the eve of the European election. One way or the other, that is the way they see it.
    Mr. Frank Cook: We infected them, did we?
    Mr. Boswell: I did not say that.
    Sometimes things go wrong with food safety. They have done in the past and they will do in the future. Our interest is in minimising their occurrence. Equally, decisions sometimes need to be taken in food policy and food research. It is inexusable to take those two coincidental happenings and to link them by a chain of causation which does not exist.
    My second criticism of the Opposition motion is that for all their efforts, about which we read so much, to modernise and bring themselves up to date for the 1990s, they have not come to terms with the need for restructuring in the wider economy. We would not have made very much progress as a nation in the past 10 years, or even previously, if we had never had to make hard decisions to close a factory or to restructure a business. Anyone with an element of business experience appreciates the central importance of overhead costs. It is a matter of common sense that the number of sites on which an activity takes place, whether it be research or manufacturing, has a close bearing on the level of overhead costs—as, for example, my two district councils found when they consolidated their activities on one site. The larger the number of sites, the higher the overhead costs. That has been a major underlying theme in the decisions that the AFRC has taken to rationalise each of its institutes on one or two sites, and to modernise its operations.
    I acknowledge the impact of the withdrawal of the MAFF contribution to near-market research. That could build up to a significant element in the total budget for the AFRC and the IFR during the next three years. However, I must stress that not all the work necessarily has to be done at the same location as the central science activities of the IFR. It need not all be carried out under the same organisation or funding umbrella. Much of it can go to other organisations, whether in the public or private sector. Insufficient attention has been paid to the tremendous increase in funding for AFRC institutes on contracts for the private sector. Much of the work might well be carried out elsewhere or under the funding of other bodies. An example of that is the important work on carcass quality—not that it need necessarily move from Langford—which could appropriately be funded by the industry.
    On the public good aspect, I would cite the facilities for the welfare of animals at slaughter—a very sensitive issue —which are sited at Bristol. I understand that MAFF is prepared to continue with that as an item of public good, and so it should.
    The result of making such difficult decisions will be a somewhat slimmed down IFR on two sites instead of the current three. The concentration will shift from the somewhat old-fashioned commodity-by-commodity approach, because modern developments have overtaken
    370
    that, not just in technology but in consumer taste. For example, a TV dinner is not just meat. A number of different items have to be put together and cooked appropriately. With chicken Kiev, different indgredients are mixed, widening the range of consumer choice and taste.
    A multi-disciplinary approach is required, looking at the basic science and applying it to all situations. The new institute will concentrate on the disciplines of central science underlying that—safety; the early, rapid and effective diagnosis of bacteria, nutrition, consumer acceptability, the avoidance of taint, and bio-technology.
    As an example of the way in which that can be done under the new arrangements, Dr. Roberts and the appropriate members of his microbiology team at Bristol will be transferred to Reading. All the relevant work on food safety can and will continue. It is interesting to note that there were 40 MAFF-funded food safety projects within the research system last year, which is a high number. I have every confidence in the leadership of Professor Georgala at the IFR and a chance for a new, modern activity under the new structure.
    This debate concentrates upon the more general aspects of food safety. If nothing else, the events surrounding egg production earlier this year have highlighted the problem, which in general is still growing. However, it is interesting to note that as a result of Government action the salmonella problem has now stabilised. With respect to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), the Government will have to consider a balance of a number of important issues such as consumer safety, consumer confidence and product innovation to meet consumer taste and choice. There is also a need to get the regulatory structure right, as I am confident the Government will do in their forthcoming food legislation.
    I call on Ministers to bear three points in mind when preparing this autumn's work. First, they should work actively with their colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the necessary funds are available for the full restructuring of the IFR. Secondly, they should ensure that the resources are adequate for the monitoring and regulation of food safety both at national and at environmental health officer level. Thirdly, the campaign for food safety should be applied at all levels so that all the gateways through which bacteria can get in are closed. One that has not been mentioned today, and about which I feel strongly, is food and hygiene training in restaurants.
    The bugs that cause food poisoning—which are over, around and within us—are more varied and ingenious than we could ever imagine. We need to close all the possible pathways into the human food chain. Simple slogans and simple assumptions of priority will not work. To take the necessary action, we need the best possible structure for the basic science. I believe that the Government have acted to secure that structure.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Earlier in the debate the Minister would not give way on the question of irradiation of food. It is a pity that he has left the Chamber because he could have put me right. We were given assurances that any irradiated food would be labelled, but what will happen in cafés and restaurants? Will there be labelling on

    371
    the menu or on the restaurant door? That will not happen. Irradiated food brought into this country will end up on the consumer's plate—
    Mr. Frank Cook: In the Strangers Dining Room.
    Mr. Martlew: I should be sorry if that happened as it is an excellent Dining Room.
    The Government are deliberately misleading the public. If the Minister is prepared to say that irradiated restaurant food will be labelled, I will give way to him.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The silence is deafening.
    Mr. Martlew: The record will show that the Minister has refused to give that assurance.
    The Government have shown a great deal of complacency today. During the past century consumers have never had a better chance of suffering from food poisoning. The choice is whether it should be from salmonella or campylobacter. The Government's food policy is unfit for human consumption.
    I am glad that the problem of salmonella in eggs is improving. A letter from the British Poultry Federation today says that it has improved considerably since the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee can take credit for that, but the Government cannot take any credit because they have done nothing to stop the import of contaminated foreign eggs.
    The Government's own chief officer of health said that the worst area in the European Community was Spain. Yet there is no ban on Spanish eggs coming into this country. Only last week, there was a positive test of salmonella in Dutch eggs. Why are the Government doing nothing about that? Those countries do not have our strict standards. They will now undercut us, the consumer will buy foreign eggs and our poultry industry, which has started to put its house in order, will suffer as a result of unfair competition.
    Last year, there were 30,000 cases of food poisoning —or so the Government said. There is a question of reporting and whether the figure might be 10 per cent. or 100 per cent. higher. A further 30,000 reported cases of food poisoning did not go into the statistics—the cases of campylobacter which were recorded and blamed on food —so there were really 60,000 recorded cases of food poisoning last year. The problem is worse this year. June and July may be the strawberry season, but it is also the campylobacter season. There is an epidemic at present, which did not happen 10 years ago. Fortunately, it is rarely a fatal disease, but it is unpleasant, as anyone who has suffered from it will testify. What are the Government doing about food safety? The answer is that they are doing very little.
    To take the fiasco of green-top milk, last January I asked in a written question whether the Minister intended to ban green-top milk. The answer was that there were no plans to do so. In February, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked the same question and the reply was reported in the west Yorkshire evening press. I am sorry that the junior Agriculture Minister is not here.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: The big one.
    Mr. Martlew: Yes, the big one. I refer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). The local paper said:
    "MP backs green top milk ban. Plans to ban the sale of green top milk, which will affect the livelihoods of up to 40 Calderdale farmers, have the backing of junior minister Mr. Donald Thompson.
    He said the ban was necessary in the interest of public safety. Green top milk"—
    [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. We should not joke about the next part!
    "Green top milk was blamed for the deaths of five elderly people and a baby in Calderdale in 1984".
    In fact the figure was seven adults and one baby. That was the year after the Government banned the sale of green-top milk in Scotland. Had they taken action in England at the same time, those people would have lived. The article was written in February. The Minister continued—
    Miss Emma Nicholson: If the hon. Gentleman follows his train of thought logically, would he want to stop people driving and to close all roads on the ground that 300 people die every week on the roads? The public want the choice to drink green-top milk. With proper consumer labelling, they now have that choice in England and Wales, and I am delighted that that is so.
    Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that the hon. Lady delights in continuing to advocate a product which has killed people in the past and will kill people in the future. The Government decided that the pressure groups to which the hon. Lady answers—
    Miss Nicholson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given way.
    Mr. Martlew: Those pressure groups have deceived—
    Miss Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that statement? I am answerable to nobody. I assume that the hon. Gentleman means financially answerable, as other Labour Members have made that statement. He is incorrect to say that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has got her point on the record.
    Mr. Martlew: Pressure groups in this country have persuaded the Government to continue to allow the sale of a lethal mixture. I was asked last week whether I would drink green-top milk and I answered that I would not even give it to my cat. It has created terrible problems. The Government are not fit to run a food policy if they do not have the courage to ban green-top milk. The old advertisement said that milk had a lot of bottle. That is certainly more than the Government have.
    The Government said that they had no evidence of the irradiation of products. I spoke to local health inspectors who had had a complaint about some prawns which did not smell right. The prawns were sent to the public laboratory in Glasgow, which found there were no bacteria in them, so the only conclusion was that the prawns had been irradiated. The Government have been allowing irradiated food in Britain for years and have

    373
    given only one warning. They are not in a position to put forward creative policies to protect people from food poisoning. They have failed to do so and, as a result, 2 million people will suffer this year. I have no confidence that the legislation that they intend to propose in the autumn will do anything but continue to protect vested interests.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Robert Key: It falls to me to bring the debate down to earth. We seem to have been groping in Utopia for the past hour or so. I regret the sharp exchange that I had with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at the beginning of the debate. It was probably rather uncharacteristic and the hon. Gentleman is far too nice a man for me to treat his remarks with disdain. However, it is important to get the matter into proportion. I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the virtue in not just the duplication but the triplication of scientific procedures which would have resulted if the influence of the Langford institute had remained. I do not wish to dwell on the matter, so I will go on to the important issues facing the consumer. Consumers have not been mentioned much so far. I declare an interest in that I represent many food producers and many food consumers. I also represent the scientific researchers at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down.
    Shopping is not just a chore. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Shields will accept the challenge to accompany me to seek out the freshest ingredients, the best value for money and the best food for health. If he came to my home in the Wiltshire countryside, which I would be delighted to put at his disposal, he would find that my chest freezer was empty, that the cupboards tended increasingly to be full of beans and that my garden was full of vegetables and rather too many weeds.
    I suggest that we need to address ourselves more to the question of whether we, as consumers, are going down the right path. Is it virtuous to be told that more than 60 per cent. of all food is bought in supermarkets in some sort of processed form? Should we not seek instead to extol the virtues of food in season and the value of natural foods, and should we not look rather more seriously at organic farming?
    I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I am sorry that he has had to slip out temporarily. I was interested in and impressed by his comments. 1 should like to expand on one point that has been missed so far—the role of education of the consumer. It is a matter of health education, which is crucial, and also of good, old-fashioned domestic science, or home economics. I hope that it is taught to boys as well as girls, as all the best chefs in the world are men.
    Another point raised was the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. We cannot consider the issue before us today without looking at the institutions concerned. The decision to preserve the former microbiological research establishment at the Ministry of Defence was taken by Parliament in 1979 with the full agreement of all parties in the House. The Labour Government took that decision and the Conservative Opposition agreed with it. The management of the renamed Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
    374
    —CAMR—was entrusted to the public health laboratory service and became funded on the health Vote. That point is crucial.
    In 1985 CAMR's remit was to generate income. Agreements were signed between CAMR and Porton International and the public health laboratory service board covering the marketing of CAMR products and the building of a much-needed new fermentation pilot plant. The question of building a production centre was also raised, but I regret to say that that was something of a fiasco with severe design failures. That fiasco had nothing to do with either PHLS or CAMR. It was sub-contracted work. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), can tell us what is happening about that as there is clearly a role for an expanded CAMR and, indeed, future employment in my constituency could be affected.
    There have been many ministerial visits to CAMR in recent years, for which I am grateful. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne came in 1982 and directed that CAMR should maximise its income generation and aim for economic self-sufficiency, which was the first new trend in research in that area. The second visit was made by my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington in 1987. She gave the centre a new remit. It was to have four corners to its work. The first related to public health laboratory service work, such as AIDS research; the second was work for the then Department of Health and Social Security, such as the development of new vaccines; the third, which has not yet been mentioned, was research for the Department of Trade and Industry into multi-company work; the fourth related to income generation, including money from marketing its scientific expertise.
    The present position was outlined both last week and this week in articles in the Financial Times. There is much interest and speculation at the moment. It is widely believed that one option is the complete privatisation of CAMR. That would create considerable difficulties in the present contractural arrangements with Porton International in CAMR's other functions and commercial relationships, such as that with Wellcome, and in its remaining public health responsibilities.
    There is also the unwelcome possibility that privatisation could close down the centre's work on AIDS and on food poisoning and lead to the destruction of its unique, important and successful European collection of animal cell cultures, as such things would not be attractive to private sector investment companies.
    If we are looking for income generation, and since we are increasingly concerned about the destruction of tropical rain forests, not only because of their climatic importance but also because of the loss of genetic diversity, CAMR could be encouraged to set up a new forest cell culture centre which could be internationally self-financing. There could be a number of roles for CAMR in the future, but a key principle must be its ability to retain and develop its multiple relationships with United Kingdom companies, while in no way seeking to derogate from its contractual relationship with Porton International.
    The organisation also has a strategic role which can never be divorced from the role of Government, especially in areas such as AIDS research and food poisoning research. One solution could be for the institution to be allowed to become a free-standing agency as part of the Government's review into all their research institutions.

    375
    As that is feasible, it is possible that CAMR could become financially self-supporting within about five years, so great is its income-generating potential.
    Today was supposed to have seen a lobby of Parliament by scientists working in the National Health Service, but it was cancelled because some of their union colleagues decided to have a railway strike instead and the lobby has been rearranged for next month.
    When talking about food research, we must remember that we are talking not about a few highly qualified specialist expert scientists but about whole teams including everyone from the scientist to the man in the boiler house. I should take this opportunity to point out that there are two completely separate organisations at Porton Down —the chemical defence establishment and the public health laboratory service, CAMR. There are 700 employees at Porton Down, the vast majority of whom provide support services to scientists. This country faces a demographic problem in relation to man and woman power in the coming years. There is a severe problem with the recruitment and retention of staff, especially at that scientific and technical level in the National Health Service.
    Several scientists at Porton Down—and, indeed, representatives of other interests there—have drawn my attention to problems to which I draw the attention of Ministers. The first is the problem of retention and recruitment of younger scientific staff. It is caused by a combination of what I acknowledge is relatively low pay in those institutions and by the high price of housing. I can only conclude that the Whitley Council system of national pay bargaining is serving my constituents badly when the national averages are taken into account in determining pay. It would be very much in the interests of my constituents if an agency for local pay bargaining were established.
    The second great difficulty—I suspect that it is faced by many similar institutions throughout the country—is that the people who are employed directly by the National Health Service at CAMR often carry out identical jobs or jobs with nearly identical specifications and requiring identical qualifications, but receive lower pay rates than those employed at Porton International, for example. That means that some people working in the same institution, doing almost the same jobs, receive lower rates of pay. On the other side of the road, scientists who do the same or similar jobs for the Ministry of Defence are on different rates of pay because they are not NHS staff but are civil servants. Furthermore, even within that establishment there are differential pay rates between Army personnel and civil servants. All those differences exist on the one site and present an increasing problem.
    Porton Down CAMR is dealing with the important fight against infectious diseases. Salmonella has already been mentioned, but there are also legionella, botulism, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and AIDS.
    I should like my hon. Friends to spare a thought for the small poultry producers in my constituency who produce eggs from flocks of just over 25 birds. At the moment—rather ludicrously—Ministry vets are rushing around the country sticking swabs up chickens' backsides to see whether there is any salmonella infection. However, severe doubt has been cast on that test because it is possible for
    376
    poultry to lay eggs that are infected but for the infection not to show up on a test of the bird, and it is also possible for the reverse to happen and for an egg to be uninfected when the bird is not free from infection. That discrepancy has never been denied by the Government. They have always been completely honest and have said that internationally no test is foolproof. They are right. However, is it worth all the hassle if our small poultry producers have to face the possibility that if infection is discovered their flock will be destroyed and they will be compensated at only one third or one half the market replacement value of their flocks?
    In conclusion, it would be to the advantage of the work force at CAMR, which is crucial to food safety in this country because it was there that scientists discovered the source of the hazelnut yoghurt infection within just three hours, if consideration were given to its future within the whole equation of food safety in this country.
    5.59 pm
    Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister took 41 minutes to respond to the robust and probing opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He devoted 25 minutes to a ministerial statement that should have been made in Government time. I shall not be churlish about that because I was pleased to hear it at long last. We have waited long enough for it. He made one or two challenges that I will answer quickly because many of my colleagues want to speak, despite some of the delaying tactics on the Government Benches.
    The Minister referred to early-day motion 950 in my name. I want to alert the House to the fact that after I tabled the motion I did an interview with Central Television. That interview was cut, as interviews are. Part of a leading statement by Central Television last week was that I had said that irradiation could cause illness—I will not quibble with that—and even kill. I have never said that about food irradiation and I never would, because it could not be substantiated. What I said was that there is a huge question mark over the technique and its application.
    I hope to outline briefly the nature of that question mark. It is not only I who say that, but the Consumers in the European Community Group which, as the House should know, is made up of 29 voluntary and professional organisations in the United Kingdom, with an interest in the impact of European Community legislation on the British consumer. Irradiation is also opposed by the Retail Consortium, by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. So it is not a light-weight reservation that we seek to put on the record.
    I want to tackle some of the challenges made by the Minister when he referred to the early-day motion. I am surprised that the Minister should make such efforts to challenge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about the nature of an early-day motion that refers to a practice that the Minister seeks to legalise. It is topsy turvy that he should expend so much energy on it.
    The Minister asked for evidence. The evidence will be made available. I have always found the Minister to be most candid and I have paid tribute to him on more than one occasion. I have found the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is to reply to the debate, to be the same, so I expect similar treatment from him.

    377
    The investigations that lay behind the early-day motion were set up by people working for a national newspaper. They established a dummy company to import consignments of food that had previously been irradiated —in other words, in contravention of existing legislation. I note that the Minister did not challenge early-day motions 713, 714 and 715 which were tabled in 1986 when we supplied documentary evidence that proved conclusively what was happening, but no action was taken. Further copies of that evidence are available. That explains our lack of confidence in Government action this time.
    As I said, a national newspaper set up a dummy company. Contacts were made with Gammaster BV and Hank de Bruijne. Gammaster BV provided the information that Allways Transport could get the consignments into this country and distribute them wherever they were needed, without fail. Not only did the company do that, but it undertook to give a guarantee of bona fides to Allways Transport. In other words, it was prepared to say that the dealer was a good Indian who was not likely to sprag the game or squeal on the practice.
    Hank de Bruijne went further. The daughter of the proprietor said that not only would there be no problem with the consignment but that if the intended trader was worried about discovery by port health authorities because the load was too clean bacterially the company had the answer. Instead of giving the consignment the full dose of irradiation, it would apply only a partial dose, irradiating to only 2 kilogray, thereby killing only some bacteria and leaving some creeping and crawling so that the port authorities would be put off the scent, if scent there was to be—an unfortunate phrase in the context.
    I doubt whether people will derive any confidence from the controls that the Minister proposed. If we are to be confronted with traders who are likely to adopt practices and subterfuges such as I have outlined, what confidence can we ask the British consumer to have in the measures that the Government propose? In any case, what good will the Government measures do? Everyone agrees that irradiation will kill some bacteria, but I was pleased to hear the Ministr say that it is not a panacea. He said that three times. I hope that he keeps on saying it. It is far from being a panacea. It cannot he used in isolation. The Minister also said that irradiation would not make bad food good. That is right. But it stops bad food from looking and smelling bad. That is the main point that we should emphasise.
    I am trying to rush through many points and it is proving difficult. The bacteria that is removed by irradiation will not affect clostridium botulinum because it is not susceptible to irradiation. It is a spore-borne organism which thrives better out of oxygen. That is why the American authorities will not allow irradiation of vacuum-packed meat; that would be the perfect environment for clostridium botulinum. The Minister earlier, and the Secretary of State in his statement on botulism last week, claimed that we have a better resistance to botulism and that the incidence of botulism in other countries is higher.
    The Government are trying to claim credit, but I put this riddle to them. If consignments of food are irradiated, the yeasts and moulds that are in competition with clostridium botulinum are killed and clostridium botulinum is allowed free rein to develop even more virulently. There will be more vigorous toxins which may increase the incidence of botulism. The Government
    378
    cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim better health because of the low incidence of botulism and at the same time seek to introduce a technique which, if used freely, could give botulism free rein.
    Consumers want healthy, wholesome food that is produced, prepared, stored, distributed and retailed in healthy and hygienic conditions; there is no substitute for that.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: That is what they get.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says that that is what they get. The evidence indicates that that is not what they have been getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has already made an effective point about catering establishments.
    My point is that the consumer has a right—not a choice —to expect healthy and wholesome food. Choice is determined by the amount of money in the pocket and the wherewithal. It is all well and good for Government Ministers to tell us that we can go out and buy the food that we want, but they cannot say that to a person living on social security who has a limited income. It is strange that we should be prepared to invoke penalty on social security miscreants when we are not prepared to invoke penalty on people who have transgressed against the rules of food irradiation.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Pesticide advertisements.
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has returned to the Chamber in a state of consciousness.
    Choice is not an answer to hygienic standards.
    I made some points in a letter to the solicitors who are seeking to have a go at me on the basis of the early-day motion, and perhaps this is the right note on which to finish. I said in that letter:
    "I note too your unequivocal assertion that your 'clients have never imported or sold any product which has been subjected to the irradiation process'.
    Given that there is no reliable method devised as yet to determine whether or not food has been irradiated prior to examination might I counsel the use of the word 'knowingly' after 'never' in any further statements.
    One must assume from the content and tone of your letter that"
    —until contacted by the reporter—
    "your clients were completely ignorant of the practices identified in my EDM. Is this so?
    Had you known of them what would have been your reaction?
    You will have noted from my interview with Central Television that I act not only for the benefit of the consumer but also at the behest of parties interested in the British food industry who are anxious to ensure that those trading in that sector employ routinely the same proper and effective standards of hygiene as they do themselves in the production, preparation, distribution and retail of healthy and wholesome food for the consumer both in the UK and abroad.
    I'm sure that if you … feel as concerned for these ends as you are for the standing of … in the eyes of the consumer, … you will join with me in pursuing energetically measures to eradicate totally such abuse at the earliest date."
    If we expect the consumer to choose between irradiated and non-irradiated food, we must at the same time give them a good reason for irradiating it—not the end result but the need for irradiating food in the first place—because at the moment for me there is none.
    6.11 pm
    Mr. Christopher Gill: I support the Government's amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister has outlined the very positive, professional and responsible aspects of this Government's policy in relation to food safety, which is in sharp contrast to the sparseness of the Opposition policy, as expounded by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The hon. Gentleman spoke about oysters, and I for one found very few pearls in the oysters to which he referred. Regardless of the language and the country of origin, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no known method of salvaging rotten food, nor of making that food good. It is mischievous and irresponsible of him to suggest otherwise.
    Having worked in the food industry for about 30 years, perhaps I should declare an interest. That interest is the same interest that everyone working in the food industry would declare, which is in seeing safe food products of a consistent quality provided for the consuming public. If we do not provide safe consistent products, we will go out of business.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the rapid changes in consumer habits. Over the 30 years in which I have been involved in the industry, we have seen food—far from being the major purchase that it once was—relegated to a fairly insignificant part of the family budget. Meals and meal times are also less structured than they were years ago. Above all, 30 years ago ingredients were almost exclusively fresh. Food was prepared in a domestic kitchen, cooked immediately prior to consumption, and eaten at regular times; but that is no longer the case.
    First, the food that we eat is no longer fresh; it might be frozen, dehydrated or cooked and chilled. Secondly, less and less food is prepared in a domestic kitchen. More and more of the demand is for convenience food of which there is little or no preparation at home. There has been a dramatic increase in eating out, where the restaurateur or caterer does the preparation and the cooking. All that is quite predictable, having regard to the greater number of housewives and mothers who go out to work, and, indeed, the greater prosperity that people enjoy as a result of 10 years of Conservative government. At this stage I pay tribute to the great British food industry, which has risen to the challenge of satisfying the modern demand for a greater diversity of interesting, wholesome, nutritious, affordable and convenient food.
    Thirdly, meals are no longer necessarily cooked immediately prior to consumption. The advent of the microwave and the concept of cook-chill meals means that the cooking process is often remote from the domestic situation. It is remote both in time and place, in the sense that the cooking process has probably taken place in a factory many days or even weeks in advance of consumption.
    Fourthly, the notion that meals are taken at regular times is a thing of the past; so too, regrettably, is the notion that meal times are a significant family occasion. We have become a nation of browsers. We eat irregularly in a completely unstructured manner and we eat whatever appeals to us at the time.
    As a consequence of those habits—this is the point I wish to underline—we as a nation have a reduced knowledge of buying, preparing, cooking and presenting food. As a nation, we have less understanding of the properties of food, the nutritional values and, specifically,
    380
    as far as it relates to fresh food, the keeping qualities of food. We have a less than satisfactory understanding of the importance of good hygiene. Indeed, the confidence of consumers in their own ability is so depreciated that in a recent National Consumer Council poll more than half of those interviewed thought that the Government, health education authorities and manufacturers should be
    "doing the most to provide clear advice and information to consumers on Food Safety."
    Never once, for example, was it mentioned that mothers would be the most important influence in guiding families in how they should produce food for their offspring.
    The question is what, if anything, those three groups of people, who have been identified in the National Consumer Council poll, should be doing to redress that situation and, especially, what could and what should the Government be doing. There is always a danger—certainly the Opposition would lead us down this dangerous path —of trying to do too much. There is a danger, as a result of trying to do too much, that we will dilute the responsibility of the consumer. There is a danger, too, of being too prescriptive in our legislation. That holds the hazard of stultifying one of the United Kingdom's most successful and innovative industries and, directly following from that, restricting consumer choice and variety.
    What should we do? My right hon. Friend the Minister reminded us of the need at all times for constant vigilance —and there is no gainsaying that at all. We must take swift and effective action wherever problems manifest themselves. I fully endorse the Government's policy that we must act only on the basis of the best scientific information available at the time. We must uphold the law which at the moment states that all food should be safe and that all consumers should not be misled. I for one would be happy at the prospect of the Government and the enforcing authorities throwing the book at those who offend those laws. We should continue to publish and disseminate straightforward, simple-to-read common-sense advice to consumers, and I commend to the House the recent booklet on food safety which satisfies all those criteria in good measure.
    The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is no longer in his place, spoke about diet, but we should beware the false prophets. A diet industry is becoming prominent which says that some food is good and other food bad. But there is no such thing as bad food, only a bad diet. A good diet is a balanced and varied one. In the words of the old maxim, one might say moderation in all things.
    I know that moderation does not always appeal to Opposition Members, but let me leave them with this thought. If, in their estimation, so many things are wrong in Britain today, why do we have a higher proportion of old people than any other country bar one? As they know, as I know and as the Minister knows, it is the old and the young who are most at risk from food poisoning. There cannot be anything terribly wrong with the British diet when so many live to such a ripe old age.
    6.20 pm
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Secretary of State said that the Government act quickly to ensure that people eat safe food, but I hope to explode that myth. I have plenty of evidence to show that the Government do not act quickly and that their approach to the problem of food

    381
    safety is cavalier and irresponsible, particularly on the safety of airline passengers, and, in the next few months, there will be hundreds of those as the holiday traffic increases. It is utterly disgraceful that the Government have not addressed that problem.
    In February 1989, the three local authorities responsible for environmental health standards at Heathrow completed a report on airline food safety. They discovered that excessive levels of potentially dangerous bacteria have been found in nearly a quarter of all the meals tested at Heathrow airport—a quarter of the meals on the ground, before they even reach the aircraft.
    Only last weekend it was reported that
    "air travellers are being exposed to the risk of a 'disastrous outbreak of food poisoning' because of long flight delays and poor hygiene."
    The Institution of Environmental Health Officers was reported as saying that
    "lack of hygiene training among cabin crew, combined with the rapid increase of bacteria during flight delays, poses a serious threat to passengers' health. It demands new powers to monitor the safety of food on aircraft, which escape controls because the food is given away."
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), was reported as saying that
    "he would review regulations in the light of the report."
    He said:
    "I am looking forward to being briefed further on this to see what can or should be done."
    I want to illustrate how, despite having a report from the environmental health officers responsible for environmental health at Heathrow, the Government have ignored those reports and have refused to take any action.
    More than 1,000 separate foods were examined by environmental health officers at Heathrow who found some of the worst contamination in paté, appetisers, main courses of beef and rice puddings. The tests were conducted by the airport's local boroughs on freshly made meals which had not even reached the aircraft. By the time that the meals reached passengers, bacteria levels would often be much higher because of poor temperature control.
    Most of the foods were prepared by the cook-chill method, which has been implicated in many of the recent cases of food poisoning, but those particular foods were not tested for listeria, which was not looked on as a problem when the tests were carried out. The three London boroughs are beginning a second survey to try to determine whether listeria is present.
    Of the foods tested, 24 per cent. harboured 1 million bacteria per gramme—100 times more than the maximum recommended by the Department of Health. E. Coli, the bacteria associated with faecal contamination, was found in 209 separate dishes and salmonella was found in four dishes tested by the environmental health officers.
    In case hon. Members think that those are isolated cases, the reported outbreaks of food-borne infections over several years have involved large numbers of people. On one flight from Tokyo to Paris 197 people were affected. On 11 charter flights from Las Palmas, 550 people were affected. In one year on several flights from London 766 people were affected, and on another flight 304 people were affected. This is not a small problem. It is a large problem at the moment and a potentially large problem in the future.
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to the figures that my hon. Friend gave
    382
    of the number of people affected. An outbreak of salmonella in my constituency resulted last week in the tragic death of Benjamin Walker, aged two. One of his friends, also aged two, is currently in hospital, and a third child of the same age from an adjoining village has recently been hospitalised. That is the human face of the tragedy behind those figures.
    I have heard much talk of responsibility during the debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not responsible for the Government to cut research programmes into salmonella, including the one led by Dr. Meade in Bristol dealing with eradication programmes? That cut was heavily criticised by the Select Committee's report into salmonella, the members of which were unanimous that the Government should undertake more research into salmonella. The Government cannot be held responsible for that child's death, but a Government who do not face up to their responsibilities to undertake such research will have the deaths of other children and people on their hands.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is irresponsible to cut research when, over the past few months, it has been clearly shown that the number of food poisoning cases in Britain is growing rather than decreasing. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
    Let me return to the Secretary of State's claim that the Government act quickly. In March, the three environmental health officers responsible for Heathrow sent the Secretary of State for Health a copy of their report. In April, I asked him whether he would make a statement and he said:
    "I have just received a copy of the report and I will give it due consideration."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150. c. 290.]
    In May, I asked the same question and the Under-Secretary of State said:
    "We have recently received a copy of the survey … It is still receiving careful consideration within the Department." —[Official Report, 2 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 100.]
    In June I asked the same question, and the Under-Secretary of State said:
    "I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible."
    One would think that the Government were studying a massive report, but in fact it is slim and its recommendations are clear. I should not have thought that this urgent problem needed four months' consideration before the Government could make a statement on what they intended to do about it.
    Not only that, but as long ago as 1986, at the second world congress of food-borne infections in Berlin, the Government's central public health laboratory service said that the provision of meals on aircraft, particularly on those travelling long distances, posed many food hygiene problems, and that outbreaks of food-borne infections had been reported associated with in-flight meals and had involved a wide range of organisms, including salmonella. It reported the results of that survey at some length. As long ago as that, the Government's own agency had the necessary information, yet the Government refused to take any action.
    Heathrow environmental health officers are concerned about the present situation and its potential. The hundreds of thousands of people using Heathrow and other airports throughout Britain are entitled to Government protection. The health officers produced clear reports and suggestions.

    383
    They argue that the aviation catering industry ought to adopt a common standard for meal production, which should be the guidelines on pre-cooked and chilled foods published by the Department of Health in 1980. The Department has since issued new guidelines, but how will it compel caterers to observe them? That should not be the responsibility of EHOs, who are already hard pressed.
    Heathrow health officers also published a long list of deviations from the required standards. Guideline 2e, for example, states:
    "Reheating of the food to be done immediately upon removal from chilled conditions and raised to at least 70°C."
    The report comments:
    "This raises the question as to whether the food is still in a chilled condition on the aircraft as this depends upon the time of leaving the catering unit, ambient temperature, the length of the flight, any delays … There appear to be no international checks on these matters."
    Guideline 2g states:
    "+ 10°C is regarded as the critical safety limit for chilled foods."
    According to health officers,
    "Temperature variances with or without botulism during production, storage and delivery are tremendous."
    Recommendation 4 is:
    "All raw materials to be of good quality."
    The Minister himself stressed the importance of quality control. The deviation noted by health inspectors was:
    "Most caterers check out their suppliers, but the degree to which this is done varies enormously. On occasions this is not done at all."
    Can the Minister say how the Government will make their new guidelines stick better than the old?
    Environmental health officers would like a reply to their report, which the Government have taken so long to consider. The hundreds of thousands of airline passengers who believe that the food they eat is safe should either be advised that fears to the contrary are groundless or that they should take sandwiches for the time being. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will address himself to the problem of ensuring airline food safety.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) in her concern about the health hazards posed by airline meals. I have some interest in that subject, as on average I eat two airline meals per week while travelling to and from my constituency. The report to which my hon. Friend drew attention is particularly interesting and provides striking evidence that even in a catering establishment which might be regarded as up-market there is no guarantee that it is free of the health hazards that frequently exist in the food that we buy and eat.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made a thoughtful and considered speech, as one would expect of one with his background as a community physician. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made a forceful case for exploring the Government's contradictory attitudes to green-top milk. As to his observation concerning the Government's reversal on that issue, I was struck by the report that the Government backed down on green-top milk after receiving 1,200 objections. We understand from a written answer that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received 6,000 objections to food irradiation.
    384
    Unfortunately, it seems that that number of objections —five times the number received in respect of green-top milk—is somehow not so conclusive.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) fluently put a well-informed case for not regarding food irradiation as a total solution and pointed to the paradox that at this moment irradiation is being offered as a solution when the particular incidence of food poisoning that we currently have in mind was caused by botulism, to which irradiation is almost irrelevant. In so far as it is relevant, it is in the sense that irradiation may contribute to an environment in which the botulinum bacterium will thrive.
    The first comment that I have to make is, very sadly, that I understand that during the course of the debate one of the 26 victims of the botulism outbreak in the north-west has died. It is perhaps regrettable that the Secretary of State referred to that outbreak as being one of only nine this century. That may be so, but as many people were affected by the latest outbreak as by all the previous eight outbreaks put together. That is the gravity of the latest occurrence. We must now try to grapple with the serious problem of combating food health hazards.
    Throughout the debate there has been a division between Government and Opposition Members. While my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are undoubtedly exercised by the threat, having listened to most of the speeches made by Conservative Members I am not persuaded that they are seized with the gravity of the crisis.
    The first step to finding a solution is to admit that a problem exists. The Government's own figures should alarm them. Formal notifications of food poisoning rose from 10,000 in 1978 to more than 20,000 in 1987. Even more alarming than that doubling of cases in a decade is that since 1987 notifications have doubled again. In the first five months of 1989 there were 16,700 recorded cases, giving an annualised rate of more than 40,000.
    Fortunately, we have a way of expressing the cost to society of food poisoning in terms that Conservative Members should find easy to grasp. Bradford university's food policy unit conducted a study which concluded that productivity losses from food poisoning cost employers £350 million and that twice as many working days are lost by it as through strikes. The Government's most visible response to date is a consumer leaflet of which we were informed in February. After being briefed by the Government, the press faithfully reported that the Government want housewives to "cook just like mother". The problem is that the Government are still trying to control the food industry with the same regulations that were around at the time when mother went shopping.
    Food hygiene regulations for shops effectively date from 1938, although they have been much consolidated. It is breathtaking that while a revolution in food retailing has taken place, with the conversion to open display and self-service, there are no regulations covering the temperature at which such food is stored. We know that the Department of Health is uneasy about that because it produced a consultative document on food hygiene, the background note to which comments:
    "In recent years there has been increasing criticism of the absence of regulations on the temperature control of food in retail shops."
    The background notes containing that sentence and the consultative document itself were published on 22 June 1987—two years ago tomorrow—but nothing has been

    385
    heard since. No regulations have been laid before the House in those two years, during which there have been 73,000 recorded cases of food poisoning.
    Last February, weary of waiting for the Government to produce regulations, we drafted our own regulations on food hygiene. The response of the Secretary of State at the time was that he was "on the point" of introducing regulations. That was on 15 February. Four months later, the Secretary of State is still ambling around the point, although I was advised in a parliamentary answer received this afternoon that I shall now have to wait at least another four months until the autumn for any draft regulations from the Government.
    Instead, the Government have issued a leaflet to shoppers providing advice on what they should do with products after buying them. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to test how shops themselves followed the advice offered to the consumer. One of the key pieces of advice in the leaflet is
    "Make sure the fridge is cold enough—and stays below 5 deg C.… buy a fridge thermometer to check."
    Yesterday I carried out a survey of shops in north London. They were not major supermarkets, but they were not corner shops either—some were parts of local and regional chains or mini-markets. The results of the temperature tests were appalling. Of the seven shops that we inspected, only one was displaying food at less than 10 deg C. One offered tuna pate at 19 deg and was selling chicken pieces at the same temperature. In another the meat pie freezer was running at a temperature of 17·5 deg. In a third, sausages were on sale at 24 deg and ham at 15 deg.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley observed, the most remarkable feature of such tales is that none of the premises is committing an offence or breaking existing regulations, although, in microbiological terms, the temperatures at which the food is offered for sale are hair-raising. There is no point in spending £750,000 on beautifully drawn leaflets advising consumers to store food at temperatures below 5 deg C. if the food bought from the shop is not safe to be put in the fridge, let alone eaten.
    There are obvious ways in which the Government could regulate the food industry to provide the consumer with more confidence and safety. Instead, this afternoon we have heard them reach once again for the technical fix—in this case, irradiation. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should announce that he is introducing that measure to respond to consumer demand for choice when every opinion poll confirms that consumers do not want their food irradiated. The most recent poll carried out by Marplan found 83 per cent. against it.
    Moreover, the irradiation proposal is wildly irrelevant to the problem. Irradiation cannot be applied to fatty foods, because it turns them rancid. It cannot be applied to eggs, although they have been the single most obvious source of concern to the public. Nor can it be applied to yoghurt—if it is, the result is a taste defined by the experts as that of burnt wool. If it is applied to meat of the kind that I found being stored at such high temperatures, the taste is described by the experts as "wet dog smell". It is true that it can be applied to hazelnut purée, but that will not stop botulism—it may destroy the bacteria, but it will not destroy the toxin which causes food poisoning.
    The most profound reason to oppose irradiation, however, is that it does not deal with the root causes of the increased incidence of food poisoning. It does not offer a
    386
    remedy for the results of intensified farming methods and the growing practice—which I, as a layman, find rather bizarre—of recycling one animal's waste as another animal's feedstock. Nor does it address the pressure from the food industry for a longer shelf life, although it is clearly intended as a response to that pressure. It does not address the problem of the varying standards of hygiene in food outlets which have resulted from the explosion in the number of vast fast food chains. It merely provides a technical fix which enables the Government to pretend that it is possible to go on living with all those trends when it is clearly not possible. Food poisoning will continue to increase until we bring in regulations which compel shops to apply the same standards that Ministers are urging on housewives.
    We know why the Government dare not do that. It is no accident that they keep putting it off. It is not because the regulations have slipped their mind, or have been put in a file marked "mañana". It is because the present Prime Minister's ideology is flatly opposed to tighter regulations. In her influential intervention in last week's European elections, she denounced what she described as more regulations, more bureaucracy and more state intervention. One of the Ministers present today will have to pluck up courage to explain to the Prime Minister that the consumer is to be protected adequately from being poisoned by the food on sale in the shops, more regulations will be required, along with more state intervention and—yes—perhaps even a touch more bureaucracy to ensure that the regulations are enforced. I know that it is demanding a good deal of Ministers to ask them to find the courage to storm Downing street with that message, but I offer them a spur, sharpened by the glorious results of last Thursday: if the present Government persist in their refusal to protect consumers, those consumers will increasingly look for a Government who will protect them.
    6.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall answer as many questions as I can. If I cannot deal with all of them today, I shall write to hon. Members.
    The Government's policy on food hygiene is to put the consumer first. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the consumer's interests must be our main priority. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) began by referring to botulism, and I shall deal with that first. We have received no reports of any new cases this week; a total of 26 have been reported. I understand that six patients are still on ventilators, and that five are stable and improving. I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing my regret to the family of the 78-year-old lady who, sadly, died of complications this afternoon, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in my hope that the remaining patients will make a complete recovery.
    My Department is continuing to co-ordinate exhaustive investigations into the outbreak of botulism, in close collaboration with the food industry. The lessons that may be learnt from that investigation will be directly relevant to our review of food legislation. Let me take this opportunity of congratulating all who work in the Health Service, the public health laboratory service, and local authorities which have contributed so magnificently to the investigation and control of the outbreak and the treatment of patients.

    387
    The country's excellent record for rapidly identifying and dealing with food poisoning outbreaks owes much to the work of the public health authority Service and its component bodies. In particular, their pioneering work on the detection and identification of the different kinds of salmonella have formed the scientific foundation that has made it possible for the Government to identify the nature of the problems and introduce the advice and measures necessary to combat the bacteria. The resources available through the laboratory service have increased significantly under the present Government, and this year alone will see a 14 per cent. cash increase. I believe that the service is probably the most efficient and effective of its kind in the world.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to deal—by implication —with listeria. New cook-chill and cook-freeze guidelines for catering are to be published tomorrow, 22 June, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The guidelines sharpen and clarify existing advice. Copies are also being sent to all health authorities, which are being asked to review their operational procedures to ensure that they conform. We believe that all health authorities conform. We are drawing the publication to the attention of relevant trade organisations, and I hope that all who operate or propose to operate cook-chill or cook-freeze catering systems will follow the principles set out in the guidelines.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the review of the food hygiene regulations. The regulations are statutory, and we are proposing to issue, within two weeks, draft regulations for consultation with the industry and the public. That consultation will take some three months, and we expect to lay regulations before the House in the autumn. The regulations will deal with the temperature controls for food that is required to be kept chilled in the retail distribution system.
    We propose to base the legislation on a stratified temperature regime, requiring a maximum of 5 deg C for products where the risk of the growth of pathogenic organisms is high, such as soft cheeses and ready-cooked products intended to be eaten without cooking or reheating, and a maximum of 8 deg C where, although it exists, the risk is lower. In both cases there may need to be a tolerance margin to allow for fluctuations over short periods—for example, during the defrost cycles. We shall need to allow a reasonably brief implementation period to give industry time to re-equip as necessary to meet the new temperature controls. I commend this firm action by the Government as evidence of our determination to protect the consumer, with the co-operation of the food manufacturer, preparer and distributor.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the regulations come into force environmental health officers will have the power to enter shops and ensure that the regulations are being fully implemented?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Perhaps I may now deal briefly with the points raised by several of my hon. Friends about environmental health officers.
    Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I might just explain to the House that, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department is consulting local authorities, which are responsible for recruiting and controlling environmental health officers, about a review of whether their staffing is satisfactory, both now and prospectively, for the changes that are to come.
    The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to a number of matters. I recognise the importance of the gene banks at Brogdale to which he referred. We are taking steps to protect those resources.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), whose important position as Chairman of the Select Committee I respect and understand, asked a number of questions about Bristol, as did a number of hon. Members. We are hoping to transfer not six but 70 posts in food research from Bristol to the other two locations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare in some detail about Bristol.
    My hon. Friend also asked me about current arrangements which he thinks are unfair to United Kingdom producers, who are required to meet the cost of rigorous control measures that do not apply to competing importers. It is a very important subject. Our primary and overriding concern must be to protect the consumer against the risk of infection. Over 97 per cent. of the eggs consumed in the United Kingdom are from domestic production.
    The most essential point must, therefore, be to ensure that effective measures are taken at every point in the chain from farmer to consumer. That is what we have done. We cannot just ban imports from other member states, as some people have simplistically assumed. We do not have the power to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is tackling any possible risk from imports on two fronts. First, we are systematically sampling imports of eggs and testing them for salmonella infection. We shall take up with the member state concerned any case which is found of contamination with salmonella enteritidis. My right hon. Friend has already done so, on the one occasion that we found an infected sample.
    Secondly—this is most important—we are working towards the establishment of effective controls at the point of production in other member states. That is the fundamental safeguard for the medium and longer term, but it can be achieved only by agreement on a Community-wide basis, which inevitably takes time.
    The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked me about sell-by dates. The Government intend to phase out sell-by dates and to replace them with the use of use-by dates which will be compulsory for highly perishable foods. I hope that the House will welcome the change.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about environmental health officers. I hope that I have already answered his question, but I shall write to him in greater detail.
    The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked about green-top milk. I hope that the House will accept and welcome the Government's decision to permit the sale of green-top milk. That is clearly in accord with the wishes of consumers, but we shall ensure that the milk is properly labelled so that the risks, such as they are, are properly understood.

    389
    My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked me a detailed question about the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. I shall write to him, but may I say to him now that we shall ensure that essential public health and food safety work continues, under Government control. As to the management of the control of the centre, we are still reviewing what to do, but the important point is that we want the centre to continue and to prosper.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asked about food irradiation and made an interesting contribution, but may I correct him about a point that he made when he intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food irradiation is used and has been used within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Has been.
    Mr. Freeman: No. It is being used tonight at the Royal Marsden hospital. Food irradiation makes safe the food that is prepared for patients who are at particular risk.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Freeman: No. I have only four minutes left.
    The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) asked about airline meals. There are two aspects to her question. 1 share her concern, and that of other hon. Members, about airline meals. First, are the existing regulations being complied with? We have a range of regulations covering aircraft on the ground and in United Kingdom air space. We expect aircraft flying in international air space to follow the code of practice of the International Air Transport Association. I should be very pleased to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and also environmental health officers, to pursue further her concerns, which I share.
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) opened the debate. His thesis was that changes in food research have led to an increase in food poisoning. There are three reasons why his thesis is false. It deserves good marks for effort but very low marks for logic.
    First, food research in this country has not been curtailed. It is running now at twice the level, in real terms, as in 1978–79—at £26 million. We have an excellent record on food research. The difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman is that we do not share his prejudice towards the near market research that is conducted by the private sector.
    Secondly, food poisoning and the increase, which I concede, in the last two years in food poisoning is not unique to the United Kingdom. It is a common factor—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, North may laugh, but it is common to the countries of western Europe and to the United States. What is unique about this Government is the series of tough measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken to eradicate salmonella.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Freeman: Thirdly, and finally, the hon. Member for South Shields attempted to draw a conclusion from the change in research into botulism at Bristol and the recent incident. There is absolutely no connection between the
    390
    two. The recent outbreak of botulism was due to the lack of heat treatment by the food processor. It had nothing whatsoever to do with research at Bristol.
    The Government have taken firm action as regards food safety and food research. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for recognising that. We have set up the Richmond committee, and we have agreed to review food legislation and that review is well in hand. We have an excellent public health laboratory service which is the envy of the world, and we have increased resources for research. We are working in partnership with the private sector.
    I urge the House to support the Government amendment and to throw out the Opposition motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 318.

    Division No. 256]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dixon, Don

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Dobson, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Doran, Frank

    Alton, David

    Douglas, Dick

    Anderson, Donald

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Eadie, Alexander

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Fatchett, Derek

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Fearn, Ronald

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Fisher, Mark

    Battle, John

    Flannery, Martin

    Beckett, Margaret

    Flynn, Paul

    Beggs, Roy

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Beith, A. J.

    Foster, Derek

    Bell, Stuart

    Foulkes, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fraser, John

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

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Galloway, George

    Blair, Tony

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Blunkett, David

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Boateng, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Boyes, Roland

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Gould, Bryan

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Graham, Thomas

    Buckley, George J.

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cartwright, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Heller, Eric S.

    Clay, Bob

    Henderson, Doug

    Clelland, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Home Robertson, John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbett, Robin

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howells, Geraint

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ingram, Adam

    Darling, Alistair

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    391

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Kennedy, Charles

    Richardson, Jo

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, George

    Leighton, Ron

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livsey, Richard

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAllion, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McFall, John

    Short, Clare

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McLeish, Henry

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

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McWilliam, John

    Snape, Peter

    Madden, Max

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Marek, Dr John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Strang, Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wall, Pat

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wallace, James

    Morley, Elliott

    Walley, Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Mullin, Chris

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Murphy, Paul

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Nellist, Dave

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Winnick, David

    Patchett, Terry

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Prescott, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

    Redmond, Martin

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Body, Sir Richard

    Alexander, Richard

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Allason, Rupert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Amos, Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Ashby, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkinson, David

    Bright, Graham

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Bellingham, Henry

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burns, Simon

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Burt, Alistair

    Benyon, W.

    Butcher, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Butler, Chris

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Butterfill, John

    392

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hayward, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heddle, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Cash, William

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hill, James

    Chope, Christopher

    Hind, Kenneth

    Churchill, Mr

    Holt, Richard

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howard, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

    Colvin, Michael

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Conway, Derek

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Couchman, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Cran, James

    Irving, Charles

    Critchley, Julian

    Jack, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jackson, Robert

    Curry, David

    Janman, Tim

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

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kilfedder, James

    Dover, Den

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Evennett, David

    Knox, David

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lamont, Pt Hon Norman

    Fallon, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Favell, Tony

    Latham, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Franks, Cecil

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    McCrindle, Robert

    French, Douglas

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fry, Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, George

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Maclean, David

    Gill, Christopher

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Madel, David

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mans, Keith

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maples, John

    Gorst, John

    Marland, Paul

    Gow, Ian

    Marlow, Tony

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Gregory, Conal

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Grist, Ian

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Ground, Patrick

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grylls, Michael

    Mellor, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hague, William

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mills, Iain

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hannam, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Moate, Roger

    Harris, David

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    393

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Neale, Gerrard

    Steen, Anthony

    Needham, Richard

    Stern, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Neubert, Michael

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stokes, Sir John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Norris, Steve

    Summerson, Hugo

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thorne, Neil

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Price, Sir David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Raffan, Keith

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Redwood, John

    Tredinnick, David

    Renton, Tim

    Trippier, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Trotter, Neville

    Riddick, Graham

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Viggers, Peter

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Waller, Gary

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Rost, Peter

    Ward, John

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ryder, Richard

    Warren, Kenneth

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Watts, John

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whitney, Ray

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Wilkinson, John

    Shelton, Sir William

    Wilshire, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Wood, Timothy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Yeo, Tim

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Speller, Tony

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Squire, Robin

    Mr. Tony Durant and

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mr. David Lightbown.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    `That this House commends the Government for implementing a comprehensive range of measures to maintain safety throughout the food chain and to improve the scientific knowledge on which these are based; notes with approval the Agricultural and Food Research Council's decision to stengthen the work of its Institute of Food Research at the Norwich and Reading sites by expanding programmes on food safety and nutrition; endorses the Government's policy of transferring responsibility for near market research and development to industry, enabling more Government funds to be channelled into strategic research; congratulates the Government on the substantial increase in resources for research into food safety during the past ten years; and expresses confidence in the Government's policies on food safety and research and development.'.

Local Government and Housing Bill
Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
7.13 pm
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Government see this as the last of a group of Bills which reform local government, to strengthen it for what will be an increasingly important role for it to play. There has been a tendency for Opposition Members—when there are many of them here—to claim that the Government are less than enthusiastic about local government, and for Conservative Members to point to the extreme examples of the destruction of local government by extremist Labour councils. Neither of those assessments properly represents the whole spectrum of local government. It is the duty of the House to recognise that local government plays a crucial role in the government of the United Kingdom—a role that cannot and ought not to be replaced by any other part of Government.
Secondly, the extremist exceptions rather than the general run of good and well-managed councils have tended to be the focus of attention. The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the ability of local councils to carry out their role of protecting the people for whom they are responsible and to enable them to provide properly the services that are necessary.
For this reason, we started with the measures that derive from the Widdicombe report. We did not go as far as the committee wanted us to in imposing restrictions on what is known as twin tracking; we were less radical than the committee would have had us be. As most members of it were local government people of real understanding, none of our proposals can undermine local government in the way that the Opposition sometimes suggest that they do.
We sought to strengthen the independence of officers and to ensure that they are seen as non-party political figures. It would be a cause of great sadness if we allowed the efforts of the past 100 years to be overcome. In the middle of the 19th century and thereafter local government officers established their independence at a time when in Birmingham, for instance, Conservative authorities dismissed officers because they were Liberals and Liberal authorities dismissed officers because they were Conservatives. However, we got over that; we grew up and differentiated clearly between the party-political role of elected people and the independent advisory role of officers. That distinction is a crucial part of democracy in Britain—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
It was to establish this independence that the Widdicombe committee suggested its reforms which, in large measure, and with certain improvements—in the sense of having softened some of the proposals—we have introduced here.
We have witnessed a remarkable transformation in the Opposition's attitude to the Widdicombe measures during the passage of the Bill. In the early stages of the committee, they tabled a range of amendments which would have

395
removed all our requirements and undermined the entire proposal—including the part that referred to chief officers. Many of these amendments were so close to being wrecking amendments that they were not selected for debate.
On Report, a new attitude was expressed. The Opposition now accept that the restrictions on the political activities of chief officers are acceptable and reasonable—
Dr. John Cunningham: We always did.
Mr. Gummer: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that. If it is true, were the Opposition amendments which were tabled to remove these restrictions tabled with his agreement? If the Opposition always agreed with these restrictions, why did they table the amendments? Why do they not say publicly that it was wrong for the chief executive of a Welsh local authority to be the chairman of the local Labour party at the same time?
Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Minister acknowledge—he must be aware of this, having examined the evidence given to Widdicombe—that the Labour party placed on record, before Widdicombe reported, its belief in precisely the proposals that were contained in amendments in the names of Labour Members last week, proposing that the restriction should apply to chief officers and their deputies? I know that is so because I gave that evidence to Widdicombe.
Mr. Gummer: That makes nonsense of all the amendments that were tabled in Committee. It suggests that originally, while that may have been the position, pressure from—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the Minister is not now seeking to open a debate on amendments that were neither selected nor debated in Committee.
Mr. Gummer: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now, on Third Reading, we have in the Bill clear distinctions between party political activity and independent advice. Those distinctions should be supported by Members in all parts of the House. They are now more clearly supported than they were at the time of the Committee deliberations. So different is the position that many of us were surprised to hear what was said on Report, but we welcome those who have reformed.
If it is right for chief officers and assistant chief officers to be independent politically, it must also be right for those other officers who give advice to the council, who deal with the public and who are representative of the council. That is what Widdicombe suggested and what we are doing.
Mr. Tony Banks: Widdicombe looked at the whole matter of so-called political abuse and could find no evidence to support the various wild allegations that have been made by the Minister and his hon. Friends. If it were a matter of looking at individual officers in local authorities and seeing what they did, and then deciding whether they should be excluded from political activity —because of their position and the advice that they gave —there might have been a meeting of minds on the issue.
396
But the Government have not taken that approach. They have taken the crude approach of salary level without any reference to the functions of the officers concerned.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman was present for much of the Committee deliberations, but obviously he was not listening if that is what he thinks happened. The Widdicombe committee investigated these matters and suggested that there should be an absolute bar on all local government officers of principal officer level or above. The salary figure merely reflects the level at which that recommendation applies throughout the country.
But we have softened that suggestion by removing the absolute bar and enabling people to appeal to an adjudicator so that he will specifically take into account the type of job done by the individual, which is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made. I am sad that there was not a meeting of minds. There was no meeting of minds because of the closed minds of Opposition Members, compared with the open minds of Members on the Government Benches.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill will do much to restore the credibility of local government and of some of its officers? Great damage was done to the whole of local government when Derbyshire county council appointed a former Labour MP, who survived in his job for only nine months. That extremely expensive job training scheme did great disservice to the whole system of local goverment in that a chief officer said that he would not work for a Conservative administration.
Mr. Gummer: Hence a sadness which could have been overcome in Committee. If the Labour party takes the view that we are told it takes, why did not Opposition Members condemn the appointment of Mr. Race—[Interruption.] Why do they want to exclude Mr. Race by supporting the political restrictions on chief officers? They cannot have it both ways.
We wish to ensure that there is a real distinction between those who seek to serve the public party politically and those who seek to serve the public independently in local government. Both are honourable callings, but they are different and there should be no way in which they could be confused. That is the British principle. It may not be the German or French principle, but it is the British one. It has been hard fought and we should be supporting it.
Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister continues to make wild statements and sweeping references about people who advise councils. Will he now spell out the category and numbers of people involved? The amendments that we tabled in Committee were designed to elicit that information from the right hon. Gentleman. We are still waiting for it.
Mr. Gummer: The criteria are not only in the Bill, but we extended the Bill at the hon. Gentleman's request with an amendment which showed that those criteria specifically apply to the terms under which the adjudicator would make individual and group decisions. The hon. Gentleman asked for that to be done and we have done it.
Another way in which the Bill strengthens local government—the first being the way in which it gives real

397
strength to the independence of officers—is that it clarifies the opportunities and powers by which local authorities are able to assist economic regeneration.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Concern is being expressed by my hon. Friends and others about councillors, being members of authorities, who owe rent as council tenants or rates as ratepayers. Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to think about how we might tackle that problem to ensure that when the community charge comes in next year those councilors—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Are those matters within the scope of the Bill?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They come under Widdicombe—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Will councillors who do not pay the charge be brought to account and—
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having already committed the offence of misleading the House into believing that certain things, such as councillors who may or may not owe money, come within the scope of the Bill, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), having been called to order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, then to go on to pretend that such matters come within the scope of the Bill? All those who were members of the Committee know that that is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must admit that a Bill which contains 164 clauses and 11 schedules is not one that I grasp instantly. However, I find it difficult to discover any reference to these matters in the Bill, and I trust that we shall not have any further references to them in this debate.
Mr. Gummer: I was saying—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members, including Ministers, will allow the Chair to make some observations on a matter that is before the House.
Mr. Gummer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were sitting down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can well understand the Minister not being certain whether I was sitting down or standing up. I assure him that I was on my feet.
Mr. Gummer: I share that problem with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I not only apologise but sympathise. I do not regard the point that has arisen as being part of the Bill. That was the reason, no doubt, why you did not allow a certain amendment to be selected and as the Bill stands there is no reference to that subject. But I am sure, as a matter of general principle, that those who seek to enforce the law should themselves regard the law. It is more difficult to ask people to pay bills if one does not pay them oneself.
Mr. Allen McKay rose—
Mr. Gummer: We must get off that subject. I do not wish to court other than the pleasure of Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will not give way.
Another way in which the Bill supports and strengthens local government is the way in which it increases the clarity with which we are able to use local government powers to
398
encourage economic regeneration. That has been widely supported and is now thought in general to be a useful provision.
The Bill also changes the capital finance scheme so that, in future, more reasonable account can be taken of the needs for capital spending of local authorities, and also their resources. Up to now, there has been a problem because the rules have been laid down so that local authorities with large capital resources have had to have capital allocations similar to those of local authorities with small capital resources. That has militated against directing capital allocations to those with the greatest capital needs. The proposals in the Bill will strengthen local democracy because local authorities with real needs will no longer be unable to get the capital allocations necessary simply because the system makes it so difficult for them to do so.
This Bill also provides additional strengthening for local authorities because of the changes that it makes to local authority companies. It is crucial that the public should know what is going on. The accountability of the electorate is a central part of general democratic accountability. There has been insufficient accountability to the electorate by local authorities for their companies. It has not been clear whether the companies are arm's length organisations or merely a convenient way of carrying out local council decisions through a company structure. In future, that will be made clear and will strengthen accountability.
Mr. John Battle: I welcomed the announcement last Wednesday when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Government had already exempted from part V of the Bill registered housing associations, which was news to us. Will the Bill be altered in another place to bring that into effect?
Mr. Gummer: That is correct. It is a pleasure for Conservative Members to hear the hon. Gentleman welcome that move. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that, on several occasions during these debates, we have sought to meet one or two—not all, I agree—of his suggestions.
I hope that it will be clear to the local electorate exactly how local authorities organise themselves. If they have an arm's length company, it will be a company. However, if it is not arm's length it will quite properly be seen as part of the local authority's capital structure.
The Bill also strengthens local authorites through the housing finance arrangements. Up to now, the accountability of local authorities has been extremely difficult to unearth because of the way in which the housing is arranged. Some local authorities have taken money from their housing account and used it on the general rate fund. Other local authorities have taken money from the general rate fund and generally supported council tenants with their rents, regardless of whether those tenants were in need. That has made it difficult for the local electorate or tenants to know whether the housing was properly and efficiently run and whether they were getting value for money. The new housing finance arrangements will strengthen local accountability. The Bill will certainly give considerable strength to local authorities by enabling local councils to deal with renewal areas and renovation grants so that they can concentrate the help on those in need, instead of spreading it across larger numbers of people.

399
In all those ways, the Bill sets out to be earnest of this Government's support for local councils and local authorities throughout the country. It strengthens officers' independence, cuts away at the politicisation of the independence of advice, gives greater clarity to the discretionary spending of local authorities, brings capital financing much closer to the needs of local authorities, ensures that local authorities' companies are properly controlled and clearly states what sort of companies they are. Its housing finance arrangements ensure that the local authorities' way of dealing with their income is clear to the electorate and their tenants. Above all, it ensures that aids and help are directed to those in need, both through its capital finance changes and in the way in which it deals with housing, renewal areas and renovation grants.
When the Bill is enacted it will be the third of the triumvirate of Acts which will revolutionise the basis on which local authorities operate in this country. There is no easy answer to the problems of local democracy, and no wholesale reorganisation has ever achieved the wonderful results which people seek. We need a new basis upon which local authorities can become better enablers, facilitators and servants of the communities which they are elected. Local authorities will be able to perform those functions all the better because of the passing of this Bill.
7.37 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: If there is one matter on which we agree with the Minister, it is that there is a difference of attitude between Opposition Members and Conservative Members on the care and development of local government. At least we believe in local government whereas the Minister's contribution suggests that the Government are bent on its demise.
With this Bill, the Government reach their half century of legislation undermining the basic tenets of local democracy. The time is fast approaching when the batsmen of this game of cricket—those people responsible for the demise of local government—should all be sent back to the pavilion and out of the game. In last Thursday's election, the electors gave an overwhelming vote of no confidence to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that that will be repeated to other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Council tenants and other owner-occupiers who are buying their homes face ever-increasing mortgage rates. On 24 May, interest rates rose to 14 per cent.—the tenth jump in borrowing costs since last summer. This Bill deals with housing. It is significant to note that in the past 12 months people have had to find £40, £50 or £60 per week extra for mortgage repayments. The sum of Tory economic policy has been to make the people who can least pay, pay more. People who got on their bikes to look for work in line with Ministers' suggestions are fortunate if they can afford to purchase a bike shed to live in because of the policies of this Tory Government.
The poll tax bears no relation to people's ability to pay. We do not want the usual tired intervention from the Minister about people in top income brackets paying 15 times as much towards local government costs as the poorest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I can see, the Bill contains nothing about the community charge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to what is in the Bill.
Mr. O'Brien: I think that if we examine the Bill we will find that there is a reference to the community charge as introduced by the Minister. However, I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to the Scottish part of the Bill involving legislation which deals with the poll tax.
It is true that the colleague of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Security, does not believe that there are any poor people. We know perfectly well who has had the greatest benefit from the recent Budgets—Tory supporters who are well off and do not have to worry about inflation.
This is a sorry patchwork of a Bill, a hotch-potch of a Bill. It might as well say, "Whatever the Secretary of State does is deemed to be right and whatever local government does is deemed to be wrong." Local government is always wrong, whether it is in partnership with the private sector to attract business investment and create real jobs or employing an accounts clerk who puts a political poster in his window at home. Local authorities and people who work in local authorities just cannot win.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State for the Environment more than 120 new powers. Perhaps when he cannot get to sleep at night, instead of counting sheep he counts the powers that will accrue to him from the Bill. He can decide by regulation what constitutes political activity or how much a local authority can spend on economic development, or what falls within and what falls without the housing revenue account. The Prime Minister has often said how important it is to trust the people, and that the Government intend to trust the people more and more, but we do not hear much about that nowadays. On the evidence of the Bill, the Prime Minister is saying that we should trust the Secretary of State. Like many people outside this House, we feel that we cannot trust the Secretary of State—he is far too busy taking power away from democratically-elected and accountable local authority councillors and concentrating it in the hands of central Government. That is a result of the Bill.
Part I involves civil liberties and reshapes local government, at least until after the next general election. The Minister has talked at length about the so-called twin-tracking, citing every example as though it were automatically a significant abuse. We do not believe that that is necessarily so. Almost all the examples that the Minister gave involved people at chief executive or chief officer level. We accept that the head of an authority's paid service, its chief officers and its deputies, should not be serving as councillors in another authority and a new clause that we moved in Committee would have ensured that that did not happen. The Minister has not answered the arguments that we put in Committee about the injustice of the proposed restrictions on political activity. He has not even told us what those restrictions will be, although on the basis of the Government's White Paper we can hazard a guess that they could cover everything but the right to belong to a political party, so people employed in local authorities will be prevented from undertaking any activity involving community matters.
We can also guess when the House is likely to have the chance to debate the regulations. Our experience has led us to assume what many Tory Members will have realised —that we shall be debating the regulations on the future of

401
local government at midnight or 2 o'clock in the morning. That is when the Government always introduce regulations to control local government.
Mr. Allen McKay: I understand that the starting point for disqualification is a salary of £13,500. As a result of these regulations, many colleagues in the fire service who have helped me will not be able to do so or even put up a window poster. The Government's measures will thus be an abuse of people's civil liberties because they will be denied the right to belong to a political party just because they earn that amount or more.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is correct, and I shall draw attention to that later.
When the Government allow us to debate these regulations, if we are lucky we shall have one minute of debate per page. When we debated the poll tax regulations, we dealt with 89 pages in 90 minutes. If the Government talk of democracy and freedom of speech, the House is entitled to a better opportunity to discuss these matters, which are important to local government. So much for the parliamentary process, if this is the way the Government treat the future of local government.
The Minister has repeatedly referred to the Government's generosity in providing for an adjudicator, although the amendments that he introduced on Report do not address the civil liberties issue. He said:
"I suspect that large groups of people will be excluded because of the nature of their activities. Many individuals will also be excluded."—[Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 780.]
We are talking about the rights of ordinary people who work in local authorities to participate in politics and to be the active citizens of whom the Prime Minister speaks so highly.
Under clause 18, a local authority is not just a county, district or London borough council. The phrase includes fire authorities, transport authorities and waste disposal authorities, not to mention the national parks boards. According to the Government, it is acceptable for the chairman of the London residuary body to be a prominent Tory and for the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority to be an active Tory and a one-time Tory candidate. It is hypocritical of Conservative Members to vote to suppress the right of local authority employees to play an active part in a political party—especially as senior posts are appointed by the Government—when a fireman of firewoman will not be able to act as treasurer of his or her local Tory party or Labour party because of these restrictions.
What about education staff who are not teachers, lecturers or principals? What about Soulbury advisers, who generally earn more than £13,500, and youth and community service workers? As we saw in Committee, the Government who so blithely take away the rights of council employees are happy for an officer in the Department of Social Security to speak at a National Front rally. To add insult to injury, that civil servant could appeal, as of right, to a tripartite panel including a trade union representative. Only those local government officers caught by the salary restriction can appeal to the adjudicator. We understand that there will be no one adjudicator for England and Wales and, so the Minister says, one for Scotland. Will the Minister spell out the nature of the political restrictions and the groups of people likely to be exempted? People in local government want
402
answers to those questions. It is grossly unfair to leave thousands of them in suspense simply because the Government will not answer our questions.
I want to spend a little time considering the role of local authority councillors. Double standards apply to them as compared with Members of Parliament.
Mr. Gummer: The House would benefit from a little clarification. The hon. Gentleman and I agree about the political activities of chief officers and chief executives. He said that he was not in favour of them serving as elected members of other authorities. He did not say whether he believed that they should not have political affiliations. Will he publicly state that he does not think that a chief executive should also be the chairman of a local political party?
Mr. O'Brien: The Labour party submitted evidence to the Widdicombe committee. Those who serve in local government, like those who serve in this House, are entitled to some freedom. They are entitled to please themselves in certain matters. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe that there should be freedom for the individual, including many of those working in local government.
Mr. Gummer: Is the House to conclude, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman thinks it perfectly proper for the chief executive of a local authority also to be chairman of the local Labour party?
Mr. O'Brien: It is obvious that the Minister was not in the House last night when many Conservative Members were campaigning for freedom of speech in colleges, polytechnics and universities. The House suffered more than 40 minutes of their rhetoric. Tonight the Minister is saying that there should be no freedom for those in local government. How hypocritical can the Government be?
Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman thinks it perfectly proper for the chief executive of a local authority, who is supposed to advise all parties within that authority, also to be chairman of the local Labour party. The public will be astounded by that and the Society of Local Government Chief Officers will be appalled.
Mr. O'Brien: The public will recognise that the Opposition stand square in everything that we do. In contrast, last night Conservative Members campaigned for freedom of speech in colleges, polytechnics and universities, but tonight they do not want freedom of speech for people in local government. Those are the facts on which the public will judge this debate. They will understand that the Tory view of freedom for the individual is that it is right for some but wrong for others.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Many chief officers and chief executives of local authorities hold strong political opinions. Whether or not they keep their opinions secret is surely a matter for them. I served for some considerable time as a councillor and as chairman of a major committee of a major local authority. I had very good professional advice from chief officers, regardless of their political views. I was happy for chief officers to be members of the political party of their choice—not necessarily the Labour party—because I felt that they were exercising their democratic rights.
Mr. O'Brien: When I served in local government we never asked the officers about their political views; we asked for professional views on certain issues. The Government want chief officers to outline their political views before obtaining a position.
Both in Committee and on Report we discussed at length the need for a proper system of remuneration for local authority representatives. The Government would prefer local government to be run by wealthy and retired people. Councils would become elite clubs. Perhaps the Secretary of State envisages councils that meet once a year to hand out contracts, having been given no doubt a good meal. The Opposition attach greater value to local government. Members of Parliament are paid a salary, and those who struggle to live on that salary can line their pockets with lucrative directorships and consultancies. The Government, who have a 100-plus majority, ignore the need for a proper, practical system of remuneration for councillors.
Mr. McLoughlin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about remuneration. Does he agree that many councils could make it easier for people to attend meetings and not lose money if they held meetings in the evenings? Many councils refuse to do that.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of experience. If councils meet in the evening, the officers have to be present. They then take time off in lieu. If they are not at their desks during the day, they are letting down the community and in many instances also their colleagues. Evening meetings are not necessarily good for a local authority.
Under the Bill, councillors could face a £1,000 fine if they fail to declare their direct and indirect pecuniary interests in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State. There is a threat to local authority representatives of a £1,000 fine if they do not declare their interests. There is no doubt that we support accountability and value for money, but councillors already have to register their interests and declare them at meetings when necessary. They can then be barred from speaking and voting and may be required to leave the meeting.
In contrast, Members of Parliament have simply to declare an interest and may then carry on with business as usual. They are not subjected to a £1,000 fine. It is no good the Government and Conservative Members saying that it is the Opposition's responsibility to bring forward appropriate measures. If the Government are really concerned about probity in public life, they should seek to set this House in order and to put the matter straight before they begin to criticise local government.
Consultation is another important issue. Whenever a contentious issue arises, the Government promise that they will consult local authority associations. When they are feeling especially generous, they say that they will also consult the relevant professional bodies. We are not convinced one bit by the Government's protestations on the issue. The Government's new clause on Members' interests was brought forward without proper consultation and at the expense of other key amendments, which had been promised in Committee. Where is the amendment specifying the criteria that the adjudicator will use in hearing appeals? Where is the promised amendment on the question of when the adjudicator will hear appeals? Where is the promised fitness standard for houses in
404
multiple occupation? What guarantee is there of meaningful consultation on the range of issues that the Bill pretends to address? The Government's attitude to consultation is the same as their attitude to Parliament —a cross between "Nanny knows best" and outright contempt.
The Bill, with all its clauses and schedules, provides once again only for the privileged as opposed to the under-privileged. As a result of the spurious, false and devastating attitude shown in the Bill and by Conservative Members towards local government, we shall be voting against Third Reading, and we ask Conservative Members who have any respect for local government to join us in the Lobby.
8.2 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: As the first speaker to follow the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I should note—and I am sure that it was noted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government—that no reply was given to his clear challenge.
Mr. Gummer: I received a clear reply. The Labour party is committed to the principle that the chief executive of a local authority can be the chairman of a local party.
Mr. Nicholson: Indeed, my right hon. Friend did not receive the assurance he requested. That is a point that will be remembered about the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton.
I welcome two of the changes made on Report. Declaring an interest as a consultant for the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, I welcome the concession on amendments and the role played by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) last week in ensuring that people who provide their services voluntarily as directors and secretaries to local authority controlled companies will not be regarded as associated with the parent authority by virtue of that connection alone. I welcome the amendments tabled by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).
I also welcome the power introduced on Report, as proposed in the Widdicombe report, to set up a register of local authority members' interests. I tabled a written question on the subject some weeks ago and I can confirm that people in local authorities welcome the protection against the possible abuse of powers. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government made the matter clear last week when he distinguished the considerable powers, especially in planning matters, that local authority councillors have from those of Members of Parliament.
I welcome the general thrust of part I of the Bill on which the hon. Member for Normanton has concentrated much of his attention this evening. In recent weeks, I have become aware that twin tracking has crept in even in areas such as Somerset, both in my own constituency and nearby. To be fair, it is an area where possibly valuable use may be made of the right of appeal to the independent adjudicator, and I welcome that role. However, to use the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) used in the debate on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill last night, it is most important that certain protections should exist, even if the abuse is not currently widely prevalent. We need that protection.

405
I will give an example to show why that protection is necessary. I note that the Democrat party, or whatever it has decided to be called now, is not represented in the debate. I guess that in southern England the Democrat party is now in a terminal state and I observe, therefore, that in the south-west the Labour party may have passed its electoral nadir. If the Labour party is likely to gain county and district council seats from the Democrat party, we need to be prepared and protected against the use and abuse of twin tracking to which, as shown in the speech by the hon. Member for Normanton, the Labour party is still very much committed.
No speech of mine on this Bill would be complete without a reference to housing. I note that the hon. Member for Normanton referred to housing only in passing. I will speak briefly on the subject because I want to pursue my objectives with my right hon. and hon. Friends by diplomacy. Without claiming any particular virtue, because I may be wrong in my concern on this issue, I must say that, apart from the amendment moved so ably last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), which was well supported by those who spoke in the debate, I am the only Conservative Member to raise that particular concern during the Bill's progress. When considering my right hon. Friend's proposal and the Government's counterproposal, I hope that there can be some meeting of minds on the subject in another place. However, I must emphasise that the proposal affects only the margins. We are considering perhaps only dozens of homes per constituency in national parks and similar areas.
I have made it clear all along that my concern has been for those seeking rented accommodation, whether council, private sector or housing association, in the urban areas of constituencies such as mine. I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), about this. I do not especially care whether it is the Genghis Khan district council or the St. Francis of Assisi housing association that provides the homes. They are needed at a cost that the tenant, the taxpayer and the community charge payer can afford. I leave that thought with my hon. Friend. However, I believe that he recognises that need and that he also recognises that the position has been made more difficult over the past year by the increase —for which we all understand the reason—in house prices, especially in the south, as a result of which those who originally would have bought into the private sector are now obliged to seek rented accommodation.
Finally, I welcome the measures in the Bill on home improvement grants and renewal areas. I look forward to seeing the ways in which they will help some of my constituents who own their own homes, but whose homes were not traditionally built so that my constituents are now facing problems with resale and mortgageability. I am not referring to the BISF housing that was spoken about in Committee and about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was so helpful.
I hope that the Bill will be the foundation for a new, positive and constructive concordat between local government and central Government. I hope that following this Bill and the major Local Government Finance Act 1988, we will allow the waters to settle over the 10 years of what has been an extremely turbulent relationship between central Government and local government over the sharing of powers. I am sure that my
406
right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench know the difficulties that some of those contests have caused to those who seek to serve our party in local government. I support the Bill.
8.10 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I had not intended to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) because I always found him to be a reasonable and fair member of the Committee who always had interesting things to say, but when he declared his interest as a consultant to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—a fine organisation, in my experience, and I have no bones to pick with it—it occurred to me that there was a strong element of hypocrisy in the hon. Gentleman rising to declare his interest and to thank the Government for the concessions that they have made in that direction, while supporting the provisions in the Bill that would take civil liberties away from many people who work in local government. Can the hon. Gentleman not see that there is a direct parallel between the power that he is exercising as a Back-Bench Member of the governing party and the powers being taken away from ordinary individuals who do not seek to peddle any influence, but simply to serve their political beliefs and to serve in local government? I am sure that it was unintentional, but it was hypocritical and mirrored the stinking hypocrisy of what the Government are doing.
Mr. David Nicholson: I do not accept that point at all. Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred me not to declare my interest? In doing so, I was paying a tribute to the role played in this matter by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
Mr. Howarth: I was anxious not to make a direct attack on the hon. Gentleman and prefaced my remarks by saying so. I was simply saying that the hon. Gentleman has the freedom to stand up in the House of Commons and to declare an interest in the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I respect the fact that he made such a declaration. However, he was able to do that at the same time as the House is taking democratic rights away from members or would-be members of local authorities who happen to serve in local government.
The Government seem to have got themselves in an extraordinary mess. They have not sat down rationally and said, "What are we to do about local government? What reforms are necessary? What shall we do about housing policy? What are the problems and how should we proceed?" The Government seem to indulge in policy making not by rational analysis but by the pursuit of prejudice. That prejudice permeates every part of the Bill and all that the Government have done in the past two to four years or in some cases their whole 10-year period in office. That is what I find most alarming and that is why in the long run—it is already starting—the electorate of the British people will decide that they should like something more rational than a Government who operate purely on blind prejudice instead of by serious consideration of any given set of problems.
What we would have liked to see in the Bill, but which does not appear, is a systematic, logical and coherent look at the powers and functions of local government in a modern society. We would have liked consideration of all

407
the things that are happening in housing policy and an objective look at the housing needs of the country. But no, there was nothing of the sort. What we got instead were lurid examples from the Minister of State. I notice that he is not in his place—no doubt he has something else to do.
The basis of the provisions on twin tracking did not proceed from any great national outrage or even national concern about what was happening in local government. They proceeded because of a handful of examples of which the Minister of State painted a lurid picture and on the basis of which he then sought to justify his legislation. At no time in our Committee discussions of the relevant clauses did the Minister of State ever give any rational or thoughtful justification for what the Government were doing. It came down to the half dozen individuals in local authorities around the country who the Minister of State, or those who were winding him up, felt should be controlled by legislation. It is extraordinary that a Bill should be placed before Parliament merely because certain people—including the Minister of State—are concerned about what is happening in half a dozen places because of half a dozen people who happen to be local government officers and who happen to serve on local authorities at the same time.
The Bill does not proceed from a consideration of the real problems. It reflects the prejudice not only of the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State, but of those other members of the Government who are more vocal and who paint an even more lurid picture than those Ministers do.
I want to speak mainly about the provisions relating to housing. I sat through three and a half months of deliberations on the Housing Act 1988 as it passed through the House and came back from the House of Lords. I recall rising on Third Reading to say that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), knew—as did his civil servants and the Secretary of State that the Bill was irrelevant and would make no difference to any of our housing problems. I spoke again last week on a clause which made exactly the same point about this Bill. The 1988 Act has made no difference whatever to our housing problems. The Ministers know, as their Back Benchers, civil servants and all the experts know, that that Act has been a complete and utter flop. So what did the Government do? Having once legislated on the subject, instead of saying, "Perhaps we got that a bit wrong and should now look at it this way", they are piling on more legislation which is even more defective and which is adding to the problems created by their previous legislation. I hesitate to think where we shall end up. Bad legislation will probably be added to and added to again until ultimately we have a morass of appalling housing legislation.
What does this legislation actually do about the country's housing problems? Over the past 10 years the amount of investment in our housing stock, irrespective of tenure, has reached record low proportions. I grant that the Government have made some alterations in the way in which improvement grants are to be administered and that they have marginally improved the way in which the capital allocations to local authorities are to be
408
administered. I hope that my constituents will see some benefit from that because I am obviously concerned that there should be some benefit for areas such as Merseyside.
There is no strategy, no framework and no logical approach in the Bill to putting right the major problems of our aged housing, such as the problems that have been stored up because of the system-built techniques of the past. We have major problems of disrepair in our local authority stock because of historical difficulties over repairs, which were largely if not completely to do with resources. The Bill does nothing about the disrepair problem nor about the straitjacket of tenures which is almost unique in Europe and is not to the benefit of those in housing need.
The financial provisions which are supposed to help people are so unequal that tenants get stuck in a tenure type. Any pretence that there is choice in the system goes out of the window. The Government cry freedom, but choice in housing is circumscribed. There is no equality between tenures, nor even within a tenure type. Housing finance should have been reformed. Instead of going along that road, the Government are placing even greater penalties on council tenants. The inevitable consequence will be rent increases because the Government have to make part IV of the 1988 Act work. To do that they have to make council housing ever more unpopular. Unfortunately, that is what it is all about. They have made a mistake and now they have to make somebody pay for it.
What does the legislation do about providing for the homeless? The answer is that it does nothing. We can walk through any major city, not least the capital, any night of the week and see the appalling spectacle of young people sleeping in cardboard boxes under railway arches. Yet we are almost at the end of the 20th century, not in Victorian or Dickensian times.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Third Reading is not an occasion to debate what might or ought to have been in the Bill. We are debating what is in the Bill.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have strayed, but I think that I have made the point effectively.
The Government have got themselves into a mess on housing. They have offered no solutions to the real problems. They have merely piled predjudice on existing prejudice. The Bill is cheap, shoddy and useless.
Mr. Tony Banks: Like the Secretary of State.
Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend says, it is like the Secretary of State. The Government will pay a sorry price not just for the legislation but for all that it represents and all that goes with it.
8.22 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Bill. Having listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) one would think that everything was fine in the garden and that there was no need for legislation on the conduct of local authorities. Part I of the Bill has already had quite an effect on some local authorities in regard to representation on committees.

409
The hon. Member for Normanton told us that basically the Bill said that anything that local government did was wrong and anything that the Secretary of State did was right. If that were the case, we would have needed only a one-clause Bill. In fact, we have a Bill with 164 clauses. We believe in local authorities and in the structure of local government. We want local government to operate fairly under the law.
Some local authorities are deliberately excluding opposition parties from committees. That cannot be justified by anyone, and no one should attempt to justify it, whether it be a Tory or a Labour authority. I want reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on clause 15 and the duty of a local authority to allocate seats to political groups.
My hon. Friend may not know that since the county council election in May, Derbyshire county council still refuses to allow any Conservatives to sit on the police authority. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that when the Bill becomes effective that will not be possible. A Labour-controlled county council should not be able to say that no Conservatives will serve on a police authority. That assurance is important for my constituents and for the people of Derbyshire.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I wish strongly to support what my hon. Friend says. It is a disgrace that a police authority does not represent all political parties and all the people. That is the function of the authority.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that everyone should have confidence in the operations of the police committee and the police authority.
Mr. O'Brien: In view of the comment by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), will the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) confirm that the views of Tories and other parties can be represented through magistrates who serve on those committees as co-opted members?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am amazed by that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify that there should be no elected representatives of minority groups on a police authority. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are talking about elected members of a county council. The intervention by the hon. Member for Normanton portrays the attitude of the official Opposition. He tells us that the Opposition believe in the role of local government. Yet they are justifying the refusal of a local authority to allow minority group representation on a particular committee. I am amazed because I would have thought that there was common ground on that. Obviously there is not. I thought that it was a minor, uncontroversial point, but clearly it is not. Therefore, I am glad that I made it and I hope that I get reassurance later from my hon. Friend.
I also seek reassurance on schedule 1, page 147, line 29, which refers to national parks committees. Derbyshire county council appoints eight people to the Peak Park national planning board. Only one is a Conservative. I want an assurance that there will be greater sharing of the representation.
Mr. George Howarth: This is pathetic.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that it is pathetic. May I point out that of the eight people
410
appointed by the county council, only one lives in the area of the national park? I do not think that that is a good way of having local representation on the planning board. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any other planning authority in the country where a person can serve on the planning authority without being a resident in the area that is covered by that authority?
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because we share the same difficulties.
Mr. Hawkins: Again I wish strongly to support my hon. Friend. He has brought up a most important point that I have raised in the House several times. There are a number of national parks where there are very few residents. It is right that a national park is seen as a national asset and that people from outside the area of the park should be on the planning authority. The Peak district national park has a very large population, and it is the planning authority controlling people's day-to-day lives. It is the major planning authority in many areas of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). It is greatly resented that there are so few local representatives on that board.
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) explained his position on the representation on the board. We both share national park areas and we both know how important this issue is to our areas. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not be possible for such a small minority representation to be given to opposition parties, and that there will be a fairer distribution.
I do not disagree with everything that the Labour party is saying about local government. This is one area in which I would depart from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), because I agree with the Labour party about something that it has announced in one of its policy documents. The Labour party did quite well in the county council elections in May. The Labour party is so horrified about the antics which its councils get up to in local government that, understandably, it wants to abolish the county councils. I agree with it on that.
Mr. David Nicholson: I believe that what inspires those Opposition parties, who are hostile to county councils—I believe it is also true of the Liberals or whatever they call themselves—is that they would like to establish a structure of regional government. Will my hon. Friend tell me from which regional capital he would like his constituency to be governed?
Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend tries to send me down an avenue which, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, will cause you to call me to order. I do not support the setting up of regional councils, but I would like to see devolvement down to district councils. I believe that district councils are far better and far more accountable to their local areas.
Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a perfect model already exists in outer London boroughs—most of them, incidentally, Conservative controlled?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentlemen are now concerning themselves with matters that are not in the Bill.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for drawing me into line. I was a little worried that we might get drawn down that particular road.
A number of points in part I of the Bill should really have received the almost total support of the House. It is with great regret I say that that they have not. I believe that the structure of local government, and local government operating under certain guidelines, is important for the future of local government. We do not need any lectures about the future of local government and its importance. I go along with the future, the structure and the importance of local government. I do not go along, however, with its abuse.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Normanton rejected my idea that councils should sit in the evenings. He said that, if councils met in the evenings, the chief officers would not be at their desks the next day, because they would have to take time off in lieu. However, if the councils meet in the day time, those same chief officers will be away from their desks and not available to the public. Some district councils already meet in the evenings and some meet in the mornings. I do not see any difference in the kind of service that they provide to the public. More district councils and county councils meeting in the evenings would mean that many people could stand for local government election who are currently barred from doing so. It is a great shame that there is not a clause in the Bill which positively encourages that to happen.
I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it gets a Third Reading.
8.33 pm
Mr. John Battle: The Bill is entitled "Local Government and Housing Bill", but our debate on housing, as happened the last time round when we discussed what became the Housing Act 1988, has become marginalised and buried in the rest of the detail of the Bill. After embarking on the major debate on housing last week, we were interrupted by, admittedly, an important debate on dog registration. Just before that debate on dog registration, however, there was a brief debate on shared ownership in rural areas. I believe that the Secretary of State's comments then reveal how out of touch and far off the ground he really is. The Secretary of State was keen to emphasise the principle of shared housing. He said:
"we should allow shared ownership housing in certain rural areas to be retained as low-cost housing for future generations of local people."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1032–33.]
He also agreed that we need a way to retain shared ownership housing as low-cost housing once the beneficiary has moved on.
In the Secretary of State's efforts to persuade us that the Government were making arrangements for the passing on of low-cost housing, he produced a sheet of sample calculations which he said would show a typical case. The only problem was that, in real terms, the typical case that he presented was based on a house price exchange value of £174,900, which can hardly be described as a low-cost house. Under that scheme, the new resident's 40 per cent. share would be at least £69,960. The Secretary of State has a fundamental problem. Committed as he is to market values, it is not easy to square basing everything on market
412
values with subsidising and supporting low-cost initiatives. There is an essential conflict between the market and, as at last the Secretary of State is beginning to acknowledge —under pressure from his Back Benchers in rural areas—the need to treat rural housing as a social policy in Britain. People need decent homes in which to live at prices that they can afford. I believe that that comment was echoed by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). It showed that the Secretary of State has no concept of how to square a theory of the free market with the need of people for housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said that here is another Housing Bill—for example, parts V, VI, VII and VIII and 59 clauses—that does not address the issues of homelessness, the absolute shortage of housing for families, house price inflation, and people's problems in having paying their mortgages. It does not improve the chances of people renting a council house, if they are not already in one, but rather it intends to ring-fence. The Minister said that that would strengthen local authority housing. The word "strengthen" should be replaced by the words "squeeze and strangle", because that will be the reality. We can see how that ring-fence account will, as we spelt out last week, include some housing benefit—the rebate payments too—and, that therefore, some of the poorer tenants will have to pay the rent of the poorest through the housing benefit system. Council rents will be forced up and people will be priced out of the right to rent. They will then have to move out of the expensive council housing and into the private deregulated sector in which the landlords have far more power as a result of the 1988 Act to gain repossession and then put up the rents to what the Secretary of State has referred to throughout as "market levels".
In the middle of the debate last week the Secretary of State had the effrontery to make under clause 71 a major statement. He introduced his capital value rents formula, which will again force up rents. He did not grant us the courtesy of a proper statement at the Dispatch Box and at the proper time; he tagged it on to his comments in response to clause 71. His message to council tenants was "Buy or get out, because you will not be able to afford to rent." The only option will be to move into the private rented sector. The Government have been exposed in their attempt to deny people the right to rent. People will not be allowed to rent; they will be priced out by the market. It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members that some people choose to live in council housing. Every week, people visit Opposition Members in an effort to move into council housing. Some of us remember council housing as a dream means of getting out of the appalling and highly priced private rented sector of the past into a decent and affordable home with an inside lavatory and bathroom.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is not often that I have any kind words to say about my Labour-controlled Nottingham city council housing department, but in all fairness to it I must ask whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that a well-run local authority housing department, where there is proper and reasonable maintenance and all the other things that the hon. Gentleman would seek, with a housing revenue account that is in balance, not subsidised, like Nottingham's will be forced falsely and unnecessarily to raise its rents as a result of the Bill. The inquiries and the assurances that I have received show that that will not be the case and that the

413
formula exists only for those councils who, in some way or another, are trying to draw in subsidy in order to charge falsely low rents. Rents in Nottingham do not require that subsidy, so the council will not he forced unreasonably to raise its rents.
Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is a remarkable contrast to those Conservative Members whom I have heard refer to council housing as evil empires. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about Nottingham. He is willing to acknowledge and boast about the situation there. However, I advise him to re-read the Secretary of State's statement because he is introducing capital value rents. Four years ago the Secretary of State said that every council rent in Britain should be at least £35 a week. He has now produced a formula which will nudge rents in that direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking about a formula to be used in calculating the new housing subsidy which will play a major part in balancing the equation with regard to the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account. In the specific circumstance referred to by my hon. Friend, it is highly likely that rents will remain exactly the same. It is even possible that in his authority, or in some others, they will fall. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not use the scaremongering tactics that we are so used to from the Labour party to suggest that rents will increase substantially. He will look pretty stupid if the rent demands that go to tenants do not substantiate that suggestion.
Mr. Battle: In time the truth will out. We have heard the same on property price values, mortgages and private sector rents. The same arguments were put forward for the Housing Act 1988. It was said that private sector rents would not go up, but they are doing so. The Minister's colleagues in the Department of Social Security know that and they are watching them with interest.
The Minister may be able to stand at the Dispatch Box now and pledge that rents will not necessarily go up. We shall have to wait to see what happens, but since the Secretary of State said that he would base rents on capital values, what other option is there when the average value of property is rising? Conservative Members want to finish off council housing. That is the real agenda. The Secretary of State is on record as saying that councillors should not manage local authority housing.
We should reflect on the roots of council housing. Where did it come from in the first instance? My city of Leeds had the highest number of back-to-back houses-172,000. There were unique reasons for that, not least that the fields were sold off in strips for house building and houses were built along the river. The blocks were then connected and the midden block with the toilet facilities was connected to the drains of the local inns and pubs round about. In other words, corners were cut on sanitation. The result was typhoid and tuberculosis.
Then we had public health legislation which suggested that there should be public housing to give people space, light and sanitation. That was the real history of public housing. The private landlords failed to deliver and everybody suffered. What surprised the councillors—they
414
were not loony Left councillors at the turn of the century —was that the tuberculosis germs did not observe the city boundaries and remain in the poorer areas downtown, but rather moved up the hill on the wind. At that point they decided to introduce legislation to build council housing.
The Government are seeking to price out the public housing sector and send the tenants back to the landlords, weakening conditions and tenants' protections against eviction and repossession. We are entitled to ask why they are so determined to re-run history. Why are they so determined to put the clock back?
The Government have promised a major amendment on standards in the other place. We could not debate that amendment on Report, but a 10-point habitation standard was spelt out. Before the Minister tells us that we were asking for gold taps and the rest, let me say that housing standards were set in the 1930s and we need new standards now to take us into the next century.
The 1986 English house condition survey showed that there has been little improvement in disrepair in recent years. At best the situation is static. There are still well over 1 million unfit houses and houses in a serious state of disrepair. Our housing stock, whether private or public, should not be allowed to deteriorate.
The Minister might do worse than to look at a report published by the Royal Institute of British Architects which says that the Government's drive to get value for money and to achieve private sector funding
"totally disregards achieving the required standard cost in use or long-term maintenance…The increase in the number of households has not met with a corresponding increase in house-building. An ever-increasing number of people are being forced into poorly-built or badly-converted accommodation."
We have a long way to go on home improvements before the Government adopt a system of standards. The standards that we set out in the other place should be welcomed and would go some way to tackling the backlog. It remains to be seen whether the Government are committed to improving housing or whether this is simply another tag on to a local government Bill.
The Government may be having second thoughts on the National Health Service, the poll tax and the water proposals. I urge the Government to think again on these proposals in the Local Government and Housing Bill. Some of us remember that in 1983 the Tory party's election manifesto said:
"Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe."
That rings hollow now, not only in the light of the Government's significant failure in Europe but their failure towards the nation's housing, witnessed by the hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who are homeless or likely to be homeless because they currently live in overcrowded conditions with no hope for the future.
8.49 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I want to make a few brief remarks about a subject which was debated in this House last week, and which I think received as much if not more publicity than anything else that has been debated on this Bill and on which I believe the Government intend to introduce further amendments later on in another place—that is the subject of dogs.
For a long time I have favoured a registration scheme, but no longer.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Bill, which has nothing to do with dogs.
Mr. Marlow: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, clause 138 states that
"a charge may be imposed in respect of anything…which is done by any relevant authority."
That is the text to which I refer.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may intend to amuse the House, but I insist that he keeps to the subject of the Bill.
Mr. Marlow: You put me in great difficulty, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I perhaps try another text?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that you better had.
Mr. Marlow: Clause 7, on page 10 of the Bill, states:
"Every appointment of a person to a paid office or employment…shall be made on merit."
One of the paid offices that would most merit being made by local authorities would be that of a dog warden. Any dog warden so appointed should be appointed on the basis of merit.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to amuse us with a very lively speech, but I am serious in suggesting to him that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak to the Bill, and he must do likewise.
Mr. Marlow: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Briefly, I believe that my right hon. Friend is quite right in seeking to bring forward amendments at a later stage in another place, which he suggested the other day. There has been a lot of talk about registration on this subject, and I believe that the powers that my right hon. Friend is going to give to local government with regard to this particular nuisance will solve the problem that we are all seeking to solve. I believe that that is the right way to proceed. It gives powers to local people to insist that those powers are used, and it will at a later stage enable the country to be rid of a great nuisance which has been afflicting us and affecting us for a great deal of time. I believe that on this issue my right hon. Friend has got it right.
8.51 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I shall come straight to the point. I do not like the Bill. It is like the Secretary of State—brutal, graceless, and almost a complete waste of space. Typical of its kind, it is yet one further turn of the screw in what appears to my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to be the liquidation of local democracy and accountability.
The Bill is also an unholy mess. Any right hon. or hon. Member who sat through the Committee or Report stage will realise just how much of a mess it is. It is the legislative equivalent of a blunderbuss. The only coherence that seems to run through its clauses is one of unalloyed nastiness to local councillors, councils and council tenants. In its generality, the Bill will deprive tens of thousands of council officers of their civic rights. I suspect that that provision will be tested elsewhere, in the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill will also deprive a significant number of councillors of their ability either to earn a living or to remain councillors. It seeks to extend further into the
416
day-to-day running of local authorities the choking embrace of centralisation, giving ever more powers to the Secretary of State and the faceless grey gnomes of Marsham street.
Mr. Trippier: Withdraw!
Mr. Banks: I was trying to be complimentary.
I am still waiting for a clue from the Minister as to the political activities that will be off limits to council officers earning more than £13,500 per year. We do not even know how that figure will be calculated, and whether it will include allowances, bonuses or overtime.
The ban on political activities takes no heed of the work that council officers do in giving advice to elected councillors and to the public, and decisions about those activities will be left to the adjudication officer, who will have to exercise the judgment of Solomon. The House is entitled at least to a clue as to the matters that the adjudication officer will take into account when deciding whether or not a council officer's work places him in the category of being a political eunuch.
It is typical of the Government to set a cash limit democracy with a price tag of £13,500 or more. It is typical of a Government of free market spivs to understand much about money but nothing about values.
The Government say that they are taking this action with the backing of Conservative Members to end so-called abuses in local government, but their evidence is anecdotal. Even Widdicombe, after all the inquiries, could not come up with hard evidence of political abuse in respect of appointments. Much of the anecdotal evidence that Ministers trot out is largely culled from the pages of Right-wing tabloids written by grubby and mendacious hacks.
One appreciates how hypocritical the Bill is, coming as it does from a Government who cannot refrain from abusing power. I refer, for example, to political appointments to public bodies, which are full of Tory stooges these days. The great and the good have been replaced by the stooge, the hack and the lickspittle—all of whom subscribe to Tory values. Such people pack every body to which Ministers have the power to make appointments.
The phrase used by the Government is "Jobs for the boys in local government." Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will pardon that sexist phrase. Perhaps it does not bother you, but it does bother me. Such an accusation defies logic. In terms of giving jobs to the boys, local government is like a bunch of political virgins by comparison with this Government of sybarites. When it comes to jobs for the boys and political abuse, no one can teach the Government anything. Nothing in local government remotely approaches the level of political abuse that the present Government practise in public life.
The Government demand a whistle-blower in the town hall. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House—many Conservative Members have served in local government—agree that our local government system is remarkably free of corruption by comparison with those of other countries, and by comparison even with our own Civil Service. Yet there are to be no statutory whistle-blowers in Whitehall, where there would be a considerable amount of work for them to do—in respect of everything from the overpricing of Ministry of Defence

417
contracts to the Property Services Agency and the out and out corruption of the common agricultural policy. The hypocrisy of the Bill is of staggering proportions.
Ministers speak of the need for impartiality in council officers, but that comes from a Government who have done more than any other in living memory to politicise the Civil Service—to the point where the Government's own information officers protest about the way in which they are used to do party political dirty work on the instructions of Ministers and of No. 10 Downing street. One need only think of Bernard Ingham. Who would retain him once the present Government have gone? My right hon. Friend the next Prime Minister would be mad to retain Mr. Ingham, who has been behaving like a deputy Prime Minister for so long. In view of the things that information officers were getting up to over the Westland letter, how can Conservative Members talk of the abuse of political power in the town halls? How can they talk like that when we can point to their own terrible record?
Conservative Members have mentioned ratepayers' money being used for council newsletters and publicity campaigns. That is a bit much, coming from a Government who spend some £150 million a year of taxpayers' money on politically motivated, party-politically inspired campaigns under the guise of public information.
Finally, let me deal with the aspect of the Bill which will directly affect my people in Newham, especially council tenants. The combining of the rate fund subsidy, rate rebate subsidy and Housing Act 1980 subsidy places that single subsidy wholly within the control of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has tried to argue that the inconsistency between the rents of one authority and those of another was an overwhelming argument for them to be evened out. Despite what the Minister has said, we know what will happen. The level will rise rather than fall. I shall be the first to apologise to the Minister if that does not happen, but history points to rents going up rather than down.
There is a simple reason why one local authority should have lower rents than another. Some authorities, at the instigation of their residents, decided to build houses for rent at an early stage. That was a wise investment decision. They did not know that the Secretary of State would come along and expropriate, without compensation, their prudently acquired capital assets. I should like to see what Conservative Members would say if a Labour Government decided to expropriate private resources and assets without compensation. Indeed, I should very much like to see a Labour Government do precisely that.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Hear, hear.
Mr. Banks: I knew that my good friend the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) would be on my side, but I suspect that we should be in something of a minority as we are now.
Mr. Nellist: An honourable minority.
Mr. Banks: Honourable, indeed, but a minority none the less. One day I should like to be in the majority—one does not always want to lose gloriously.
Public housing was first built and let out for rent to supply a need that could not be met in the market place. Even in Victorian times, homes were needed for the working-class families of those who drove the trains,
418
worked the docks and built the sewers; yet London then, as now, was a high-demand area, so the philanthropists of that age built housing for low rents. Now nurses, cleaners, social workers and teachers cannot afford to buy property in London, and it seems that soon they will not be able to rent it either, because they will always be squeezed out of the market by richer people.
What has become of the Government's economic policy? Countless people are attracted to London by the prospect of work, thus creating a high-demand area, but those are the people least able to afford the higher rents or house prices produced by the Government's proposal to allow rents to reflect house prices—for that is what this proposal amounts to.
Council housing was meant to step in and break the force of the market—to ensure that people were allocated homes according to need rather than ability to pay. That was one of its essential objectives—to ensure that poverty in housing was not passed from one generation to another, and that the poverty of the parents did not mean that the children had to live in squalor, in overcrowded conditions without basic amenities. With this one proposal the Government are twisting the original pure aims of council housing—to house those in greatest need—into a grotesque reflection of that grotesque animal, the house purchase market. No one who has watched with horror the spiralling prices of the past two years—up to August last year, when it became less and less possible for anyone on a modest income to buy the smallest broom cupboard—which displaced people in the cheaper areas such as Newham could possibly wish this to happen to council rents.
The movement of rents towards capital values has an even more dangerous impact on areas such as my borough of Newham, where incomes are lower than the average. Housing benefit is received by 67 per cent. of council tenants in Newham, and 60 per cent. of those tenants are on full income support. The people of Newham suffered significant losses as a result of the changes in the social security regime in April 1988. There were 7,800 transitional payments and, as we all know, only certain categories were entitled to receive transitional protection.
The proposal to move rents towards the market place takes no account of the poverty trap being created and deepened by the significant increase in rents that is likely to ensue. It presupposes that tenants in high-demand areas are likely to be in work, with the benefit of wage increases. What about people on fixed occupational pensions? What about single parents dependent on a mixture of maintenance and low-paid work? What about the unemployed who want to take a job—any job—but find that they are worse off because rents are so high and wages so low? They might be willing themselves to take the risk of being worse off for a time, but can they risk that for their families?
Rent arrears are related purely to poverty and to the level of rents. Despite what we are told about local authorities not collecting their rents, in 1987–88 Newham collected more than 100 per cent. of its rent roll. Rent arrears dropped in that year by 5·6 per cent., but following the massive drop in incomes and the increase in rents that was forced through by the Government, rent arrears inevitably increased in Newham, as elsewhere in the country. In Newham the increase was 30 per cent. It is to the credit of the people of Newham that the increase in rent arrears—from 5·6 per cent. to 30 per cent.—was not

419
far worse, because the level of poverty to which the people of Newham have been reduced by the benefit changes is absolutely appalling.
Council housing had an honourable beginning. Among the Victorian philanthropists Octavia Hill was a person whom we might have expected the Victorian moralists of today to admire. It is sad to see that council housing has come to a sordid end, mauled by lesser men who do not understand what they are doing. If they did, their sins would be unforgivable.
The Bill is petty and mean minded. It has been put together by a megalomaniac whose only concern seems to be control of local government, without regard to individual merits or faults. I ask my local government colleagues to hang on. In two years' time they will be free from the clutches of this vicious, nasty, mean-minded Government because a Labour Government will set local government and local democracy free. I look forward to the day when I shall greet them from the Government Benches where I shall hold a place of honour, although unfortunately I shall probably still be at the back.
9.6 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I should like to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) towards the end of his speech. It contained few facts and it is a great pity that he grievously misquoted a great figure. Miss Octavia Hill opposed the building of council houses. She said that London county council was wrong to build council housing—that there were other ways of providing housing for people. She believed that housing associations ought to do it. If the hon. Gentleman had ever bothered to read her very interesting and important writings, or the biography written by her nephew, he would know that she said that the classic mistake was to mix up the collection of rents and the collection of votes. It is an outrage that the hon Gentleman has had the cheek to misrepresent that great lady.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is quoting her sister.
Mr. Hughes: I shall not even try to answer the hon. Gentleman because I want to make some serious points.
My experience in local government, and of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, has led me to believe that the Labour party collectively does not understand that there is an important difference between councillors and officers of the council. The Labour party has sought to smudge the dividing line in all the amendments that they have tabled and in all the arguments that they have used. The Opposition have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is they who have poisoned the well and made it necessary for the Government to introduce this measure.
It is not surprising that some of the clauses in a 164-clause Bill have not been discussed. As far as I can remember, clause 145, which came out of Committee as clause 155, has not been discussed at all. That is the clause which relates to race relations and the code of practice.
I congratulate the Government on producing clause 155 which will do so much to widen the scope of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Department of
420
the Environment in laying down codes of practice. I apologise if some hon. Members have heard my arguments before but I think that they bear repeating, particularly in the light of some of the remarks in the Chamber during the early hours of this morning.
I do not believe that we know the size of the problem of racial abuse. Some tenants who face harassment report it only when it gets out of hand. Clause 155 will enable a much clearer picture to be produced. The report published last year by the Commission for Racial Equality, entitled "Living in Terror", states that it is not enough to have a vague notion of certain estates where harassment is a problem. When a code of practice has been produced, authorities will need to focus more clearly on the estates where it is happening and ascertain clearly when and where incidents occur. Local authorities should work out a plan of action. They should talk to their tenants, find out where the abuse is coming from and why it happens and decide what to do about it.
I will quote the London borough of Newham, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West knows much more about and which has been mentioned several times in connection with these matters. Every hour there is an abuse of a black household, and one in four black residents in Newham faces abuse over a 12-month period.
Abuse is not restricted to inner London or to the London borough of Newham. Far too many cases of racial abuse in the London borough of Harrow are reported to me. The problem needs to be tackled, and I am genuinely delighted that the Government have produced clause 155, which will enable them to go further than they could last year. Last year, during the passage of the Housing Bill —now the Housing Act 1988—the Government wanted to go further but were restricted by the long title of the Bill. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was then the housing Minister, said in Committee:
"I am signalling that the Government are considering the possibility—positively, we shall want to cover all housing…I give a commitment today…to put the CRE in a position to produce a code with all the implications referred to by my hon. Friend." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15 March 1988; c. 1626.]
The Minister was referring to me. I am very grateful to the Government for sticking to their word.
I recognise that it is not easy to put together a code of practice that will work. It is not easy to find out the source of the serious racial abuse to which I have alluded. It is not easy to work out the best solution. Now we have started a process whereby we can start looking seriously at these things and make sure that we do something to help the many black and Asian people who suffer abuse daily on housing estates, in private housing and in owner-occupied property.
Secondly, I wish to discuss the housing revenue changes which seek to prevent councils using ratepayers' or community charge payers' money to underwrite rent arrears or to subsidise artificially low rents. The Labour party has suggested that we are overrating the problem and that it is not happening. I should like to prove that the Bill is necessary and that something has to be done by alluding to what was said by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in the Standing Committee considering the Local Government and Housing Bill.
"In the cities it is just not Labour councils that make rate fund contributions"—
So do

421
"Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Harrow, Barnet" —[Official Report, Standing Committtee G, 18 April 1989; c. 936.]
The hon. Gentleman was challenged about this, but stuck to his guns.
Let us look at the facts behind the hon. Gentleman's allegations. He said that Kensington and Chelsea makes a rate fund contribution. That is not true. Figures produced by the Department of the Environment show a blank in this area; that council makes no rate fund contribution.
The hon. Gentleman sought to put Barnet and Harrow in the same league as Labour councils, which I shall mention in a moment. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was told that Barnet made a £20,000 rate fund contribution. What we did not know at the time was that Harrow's contribution was much bigger—£24,000, hardly a significant sum.
Mr. O'Brien: What about Westminster?
Mr. Hughes: Granted, Westminster made a contribution of more than £2 million. I do not comment on Westminster council; it seems to comment on its own problems enough—
Mr. O'Brien: It is a Tory council.
Mr. Hughes: So it is alleged.
I want to talk about councils which are milking the system—councils in London which are misusing their power in two ways. Let us examine some examples of the budgeted rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account in 1989–90. Camden contributed £39 million, Hackney, £27 million, Islington, £46 million, Lambeth, £32 million, Southwark, £23 million and SLD-controlled Tower Hamlets, £24 million. Brent council contributed £9 million.
Alongside some of these rate fund contributions goes the inability, in some cases, to collect rate arrears. Southwark is the winner in this league, with arrears of £19 million. How can these people say that they seek to make a genuine contribution to good housing in their areas when they run their housing revenue account so badly and milk the ratepayers for a problem that does no good for the provision of decent housing?
In the context of the combination of the housing parts of the Bill with those which implement the Widdicombe report, it is interesting to consider the case of the vice-chairman of Lambeth's housing committee, Miss Josie Byrne. In her case, what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West describes as the gutter press has done a good job. On 8 June she was reported as owing £2,000 in rent arrears, having claimed £20,000 in expenses as a councillor during that year. Magically, within days of the report, she discovered that she could repay those arrears. The Today newspaper did a good job in exposing this classic example of the Labour party's misuse of its position to run council housing empires which can be described—I have done so before—as evil.
The Bill will ensure that every council concentrates on running council housing well and on making a contribution to good housing, so that housing will not be merely a political toy of the Labour party.
I welcome the Bill.
9.18 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I agree with the first part of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He deplored racial abuse and attacks. I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with that. The sort of poisonous rubbish that was heard in an outburst last night from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) disappointed a number of Conservative Members—I do not know whether a majority—and outrages all Opposition Members. We on the Labour Benches are wholly opposed to racism in all its manifestations. Whether that stance is electorally popular at any given moment makes no difference. We have made our principles clear and we shall stand by them all our lives, in the House and outside it.
This is in essence a thoroughly bad Bill which again shows the malice which the Government feel towards large sections of the community, such as council tenants. One of the Bill's main purposes is greatly to increase council rents. That is the purpose behind the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account. The Secretary of State's statement last week again showed how right we were when we talked of large rent increases to come. They will not come all at once. They will come over a period, but there will be substantial rent increases because the objective of the Government so far as possible is to bring council rents to the level of market rents in the privately rented sector.
Another aim of the Bill is substantially to reduce the existing public sector, which has been reduced substantially already. Normally when we say that Conservative Members laugh and say that that is not their aim. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, when responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks):
"First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has advised such people that they should have exercised the right to buy and that they can still do so, thereby avoiding the trap of paying rent for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing".—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 175.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wants a substantial reduction in council dwellings arid no replacement by new building. In my borough there has been no new council house building for 10 years, and the same applies to most parts of the country.
Council tenants are to be punished because they wish to remain in that position. The Government say in effect to them, "If you do not like what we are doing, and if you do not like substantial rent increases, the remedy is in your hands. Buy the dwelling." Labour Members say that there will always remain a need for a sizeable public rented sector. There will always be a large number of people—a minority, but a large number nevertheless—who will not be in a position to buy their dwellings, and they have every right to decent accommodation. That can come only from the public sector and genuine housing associations.
Another aspect of the Bill which we find offensive is the part of the ring-fencing of the housing revenue accounts which is designed to ensure that housing benefits, rebates, for poorer council tenants come from the higher rents of other council tenants. The poorer elements will subsidise the even poorer ones, and that is totally offensive to us. The relief of poverty should come of course from central Government. Why should some council tenants pay much higher rents to ensure that those who are less well off are assisted by those higher rents?

423
The Government refuse to recognise that there remains an acute housing shortage. If it is said that that is only propa ganda on the part of Labour Members, consider what was said on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who also spoke today. He said:
"Last Saturday, half my surgery cases had come to me because of housing problems. That was the highest proportion I had encountered in my 18 months as a Member of Parliament. I am finding that it is increasingly difficult to accommodate the housing needs of my constituents—for example, young people, perhaps with a baby, who are living with their parents."[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 220.]
I think I see the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) nodding in agreement with that sentiment. At my surgeries, on the first and last Saturdays each month, the majority of my constituents who come to see me do so over housing problems. The majority of letters that I receive from my constituents are about housing matters. That shows that this is not Labour propaganda or mischief-making. As I said, many people are desperately in need of housing, but as a result of Government policy, with no new council houses being built, we are witnessing a substantial decrease in the public rented sector.
Our fellow citizens in acute housing need are being penalised. That is why we are so opposed to the Government's housing policy. We make no apology for the fact that we believe that we have a duty and responsibility to voice the concern and anger of our constituents with housing difficulties who, as I have said at other times, have as much right to decent accommodation as any hon. Member. If they cannot buy a home because they are on small incomes, why should they be unable to obtain adequate rented accommodation? Why should they be punished?
I am also totally opposed to discrimination against those people employed in local government who, because they earn £13,500 or more, will no longer have the right to be elected to another local authority. That undermines civil liberties. I accept that there can be abuse from time to time; there is no aspect of life, I suppose, in which abuse does not sometimes occur. However, that is no reason why everyone who falls into that earnings bracket should be penalised. I do not wish to defend the indefensible, and if abuse occurs on either side it is wrong. However, I do not want to take away people's democratic rights. As I said only last week, one of the main functions of the House is to defend people's civil liberties.
From time to time Conservative Members make remarks about civil liberties. However, I doubt whether a single Tory Member will tonight rebel against the taking away of the democratic rights of large numbers of people. Perhaps it is wrong to suggest that this would happen to large numbers of people, but the figure does not matter. The important point is that they will no longer be entitled to exercise their democratic right because they happen to work in local government. That is basically wrong. This policy change comes from a Government who have given jobs to all their sympathisers and supporters up and down the country. In the past 10 years, people have been appointed merely because they are members of the Conservative party or closely connected with it.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—I am sure that Government Members know to whom I am referring—recently said that the way in which the
424
Government conducts their press office is corrupt. How right he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West referred to the role of Mr. Ingham. I doubt whether there has ever been a Government chief press officer who has so abused his position, and with the direct encouragement of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The House is often given the impression that the only twin tracking which this Bill seeks to eliminate is the kind of outrageous abuse seen in some London boroughs and, occasionally, in Liverpool and one or two other places, but I believe that the abuse is more widespread. In the last county council elections two employees of Nottingham city council were successful. I wish them good luck in their Labour seats on the county council. Will the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) comment on the fact that the Labour city council has given consent not just for normal leave to attend to their duties at county hall, but has said that they can have as much time off as they like to carry out whatever length of duties on however many committees of the county council? That permission was granted on the ground that the city would be proud for them to do so. Surely that cannot possibly be right.
Mr. Winnick: Even if the hon. Gentleman were right—
Mr. Martlew: I was a county councillor for 15 years and I was given as much time off as I liked to carry out my duties, which included two years as chairman of the county council. I worked for a company in the private sector.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend's intervention effectively answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). My hon. Friend also implied that those in the public sector should not be given worse treatment than those in the private sector. Even if the hon. Member for Nottingham, South were right, there is no reason to take away everyone else's political rights because of alleged abuse. There is no justification for that.
The Bill helps to explain the deep feeling of revulsion that was demonstrated in last Thursday's vote. Many people believe that the Government have abused their office and that they are completely out of touch with the lives of millions of ordinary people and with the matters that affect them—council rents, the poll tax and many other measures. If Conservative Members do not understand that deep feeling of revulsion, which has brought about such great Labour success in the European elections, I suggest that they study the Bill and much of the other legislation passed in recent years, because it explains only too well why people have come to the conclusion that enough is enough.
9.30 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that one of the main objectives of the Bill was to strengthen local government. He used that phrase several times. Either he does not understand what "strength" means because he has the wrong dictionary, or he is taking too much note of the current political advisers at the Department of the Environment. The Government are pushing through legislation which curtails the activities of local government and local government employees, but they are doing the opposite with their own Departments.

425
More political appointees are working in Government Departments than ever before, dealing with matters such as water privatisation and the regulations that will result from the Bill. No other Government have done this to such as extent. We all know the amount of money that the Government are spending on publicising their programmes under the vague notion of public information. Yet when a local authority does the same such information immediately becomes political.
This is another Bill in a long chain of legislation to shackle local government. Ever since they were elected in 1979, the Government have said that they would give freedom to local government, but all that they have done has been to put shackles on local government with legislation such as this and with financial restrictions. The Minister fails to recognise that democracy and freedom in local government are important to many who serve in local government as officers and to local councillors, whether Conservative, SLD or Labour. The Government should recognise the importance of local government.
Because of the way the Bill has been timetabled, last week we had only two days to debate Report stage. It would have been better to have three days, because we could then have had a shorter Third Reading debate. The difficulty with the debate on Third Reading is that we cannot refer to the amendments, whether Government or Opposition, we had insufficient time to debate last week. We can refer only to the Bill as it stands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said last week that the debate on some important issues was a sham because there was not sufficient time to discuss them. We all know that on Wednesday evening a major debate on the dog registration scheme took place in the early hours of the morning. I hope that the other place will reconsider that issue, because the Government got it wrong. Many other items put into the Bill by amendments and new clauses forced through by the Government have not been properly debated.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned the problems of ring-fencing. The main purpose of some aspects of the Bill is to force people either to buy their council homes or to opt out and thus enhance the private rented sector. Another purpose is to encourage the growing business expansion scheme. While the Bill might, in certain areas, deal with certain problems, it is nevertheless the wrong way to try to solve the housing problems. Rather than giving tax incentives, the Government should make the necessary funding available to deal with the problems.
The current difficulties in both the public and private housing sectors will not be solved by the Bill. The Government are not prepared to allocate sufficient funds to deal with the problems. We are arguing for funds not just for the public sector, but also for the private sector, which suffers from the same problems. The unavailability of land has led to a deterioration of housing standards. The Minister has only to look around his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies in north-east Lancashire, such as mine, to appreciate the problems of decline in the private sector. People cannot improve their homes because their value is so low that they cannot obtain loans. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned defective housing. There are problems with Spooner houses in my area. They are of a wooden frame structure —not all that old—and because of problems with the ties the gable ends need to be rebuilt. Those who bought their council houses in good faith under the right to buy cannot
426
afford to repair them. Building societies will not lend them any additional money because of the low value of their houses. I hope that the Minister will seriously take on board the problems with housing in north-east Lancashire.
I wish briefly to discuss part I of the Bill and the implications of Widdicombe. They have rightly been dealt with already at some length because the Bill goes far beyond what is required to deal with the minor problem of political involvement by certain key officers. The Bill is a serious erosion of people's rights and civil liberties and of democracy. It moves in the wrong direction and the Government are treading a dangerous path. The arbitrary figure of £13,500 is nonsense and the Government should think again.
Even more important, the Bill gives yet further powers to the Secretary of State to act through regulations. We have been given no idea what will be contained in those regulations, especially the provisions relating to council employees. Will canvassing be forbidden? Will they be prevented from putting up election posters? It is wrong that, time and again, half-baked legislation is pushed through the House without the Government providing crucial information. When the Government introduce regulations they do not allow sufficient time for debate. Of course, they do not want them to be debated, but if they have to be debated they make sure that that happens at a time when they will not receive any publicity. Not only do the Government not believe in local government democracy—they do not really believe in parliamentary democracy.
The Association of District Councils has expressed concern about economic development and discretionary expenditure by local authorities, which is covered in part III. It says:
"The Association wishes to ensure that restrictions to be included in Regulation are kept to a minimum and do not inhibit sensible, constructive and imaginative initiatives."
Again, the association is referring to proposals that will be introduced through regulations, and which are not specified at this stage. The association makes the point that the proposal could result in around 40 per cent. of the 333 non-metropolitan district councils being prevented from giving crucial help to start-ups of small and medium businesses, as they do at present.
Another crucial concern is the companies owned by local authorities and run by local authorities. The Minister is well aware of what I believe is valuable work carried out with Lancashire Enterprise. Many aspects of part III give rise to serious concern about whether the local authorities will be able to continue to provide money and to do all that they wish for such developments.
The Minister for Local Government spoke of the Bill "strengthening" local government. I believe that it will weaken the powers of local government. It could be his swansong as a Minister at the Department of the Environment. Year after year, we have had Bills on housing or local government. Every year, when the Government come back with the next Bill, a different Minister comes forward. Some Ministers have gone sideways, some have gone upwards and some have just gone. Let us hope that whether he goes upwards or not, the present Minister will go and that the Minister who takes his place will look at local government in a more positive and constructive manner.
9.41 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: In the past 10 years, a decade of this Government, we have had 50 Bills on local government. Like the others, this Bill does nothing to widen genuine local democracy and local choice for working people. The twin areas of greatest concern in the Bill are the proposals leading to further substantial rent increases for tenants and the draconian restrictions, about which my hon. Friends have spoken, on the freedom of council workers to participate in political activity. We understand that about 70,000 council workers will be affected, but we do not yet know. The regulations to enact that aspect of the Bill will, undoubtedly, come some months hence in the dead of night. We shall have an hour and a hairs debate, as we had a couple of weeks ago when we discussed 96 pages of poll tax regulations.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was speaking, again along the theme of so-called jobs for the boys. He made unsubstantiated allegations about councils in London and the council in Liverpool. He was on very thin ice. He supports a Government half of whose supporters are not just Members of Parliament, but have one, two or 10 other jobs, who often pick up thousands of pounds a year for each of those jobs and for whom Members' wages become pocket money. In the last Parliament, the former right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, was a Member of Parliament, a Queen's counsel and a director or chairman of 45 companies. I will never know how he ever had time to come into this Chamber. The voting record of many of those Tory Members is 10 per cent., 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. In the words of the good book, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should take the beam out of his own eye before worrying about the mote in somebody else's eye. When it comes to twin tracking, Tory Members in this Tory Government have got it down to a fine art.
We do not know whether exactly 70,000 council workers will be affected, but we understand that it is those who are at present working for local authorities who will be prevented from holding office in political parties, from canvassing at elections—and we can understand that after Sunday's Euro results—or even from commenting publicly on matters of party political controversy, including through letters to newspapers. We can imagine the scenario when a council worker, just as the member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Sutton Coldfield some years ago, has a knock at the door from two Special Branch officers because of a letter written to a local newspaper. That is what the Bill will introduce.
As drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State—a single individual—the power to prevent 70,000 people in this country from exercising their democratic rights. The Bill is fundamentally anti-democratic. It will not only apply to those people who earn more than £13,500 per year —incidentally, we understand that that figure will be frozen for the future so that more and more people will be caught year after year—it will also apply to many lower-paid council workers who give advice to the council or to its committees or who talk to the media.
The Government are taking the road of Stalin. While ostensibly criticising the lack of democracy in China, Cuba and eastern Europe, they are taking precisely the same powers politically to determine the opinions that this
428
country's working people can hold or, if they do not hold opinions favoured by the Government, the jobs that they are allowed to hold.
I turn now to the clauses relating to housing. The Bill is called a housing Bill, but it does nothing for the housing crisis that has developed in the past 10 years. There has been a 17 per cent. fall in the completion of new houses over that period from 244,000 down to 202,000. Local authorities have a 75 per cent. fall in their completions. Furthermore, at today's prices, local authorities have seen their investment budgets cut from £5,000 million in 1978–79 to £1,000 million in 1988–89. One million council houses have been sold, but over the period 1983 to 1987 the waiting list for those council houses grew by 70 per cent. from 0·75 million to 1·25 million people. Yet this Bill does nothing to redress the problems either of the people who want a house or of those who want their home repaired, improved or modified in some way.
Shelter estimates that 150,000 single young people are homeless in this country. In central London, where this Parliament is situated, over 40,000 young people sleep rough. That is a topic to which I intend to return on an Adjournment debate when I shall refer also to the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Like the Housing Act 1988, this Bill does not mention homelessness, but it will cause it—[Interruption.] I am doing my best to ensure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can hear what I am saying even if Tory Members are patently not interested in the homelessness of young people or of any other age group, especially the Minister who seems to have much better things to do than to listen to a speech about homelessness. Perhaps I could have his attention for a moment or two.
Part VI will cause homelessness. The housing finance sections of last year's Housing Act did nothing to help. That legislation was an enabling Act. In my six years in this madhouse, I have become less and less worried about enabling Acts and I can see more and more merit in giving a future Labour Secretary of State for Industry an "Industry Bill" to give him the power to nationalise companies and then, at 10 o'clock at night, night after night, I can see no problem in bringing forward the names of the companies that will be taken into public ownership. I have learnt from Bills such as this that enabling legislation gives Ministers powers which are then enacted in future orders.
As my hon. Friends have said, part VI deals with the ring-fencing of housing revenue accounts and receipts from council housing rents to stop cross-subsidisation with the general rate account. In 1987–88, £122 million nationally went from rents into the general rates account and £382 million went in the other direction, from councils' general rate fund accounts towards keeping down rents. I am quite happy for the Government to bring in a law to stop Tory councils from making profits out of council tenants and to stop them from transferring profits from rents into the general rate accounts.
The Government have not, of course, given the major reason why rent and housing revenue accounts have been affected and why rents have doubled in the past few years. The reason is the Government's cut in rent subsidies.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), whose attention I am seeking to gain, attacked cross-subsidisation and said that it represented bad running of the housing account and that it was the equivalent of milking the ratepayers.

429
You have been here longer than I have, Madam Deputy Speaker. You can remember that prior to this Government every Government accepted the general premise that support of the poorer sections of the community was a charge on national Governments, not on individual local authorities. It was central Government that had to bear the burden. That premise was established by the battles of councils such as Poplar, and tested in later years by Clay Cross and Liverpool.
The Bill will force councils to fund rent rebates from housing revenue accounts. In Coventry that means that two thirds of council tenants who get housing benefit will have that funded by the one third who do not get housing benefit. That will mean massive rent rises in Coventry and for 5 million council tenants nationally. Rents will rocket to such an extent that the Government's true aim in the Bill will come about and council tenants will be forced to try to buy their homes so that they may get public subsidy —that is, mortgage interest tax relief, which amounts to £5·5 billion nationally, or they will have to accept that their homes be sold to another landlord.
This is where all the legislation starts to be tied together. The Housing Act 1988, which brought in so-called tenants' choice, was extended by the Rent Office (Additional Functions) Order 1989, laid in February and debated on 21 March. It will take effect when part VI of the Bill gets Royal Assent. Part VI will force tenants to consider selling their houses to another landlord, probably a private landlord. When they do so, they will lose the protection of council rents. Their rents will become market rents. If the market rents are different from what the council's rent officer says that the council is allowed to pay, they will lose housing benefit.
I want to give a few examples. Recently we have had 300 cases in Coventry, some of them in my constituency. For a first-floor flat in Hugh road the asking rent is £35 and the market rent assessed by the council rent officer is £23. For a first-floor rear room in North street, just outside my constituency, the asking rent is £51·96 and the assessed market rent is £31. For board and lodging accommodation in Warwick road, in the constituency of the junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the asking rent is £100·42 and the assessed market rent is £60.
What the 1988 Act, the rent offices order and this Bill, taken together, mean is that my council, in the last example, where the asking rent is £100·42, can claim 97 per cent. of the housing benefit from the Government on the £60 of assessed rent for which it pays housing benefit. It can claim nothing on the £40·42 of the asking rent which is above the assessed rent. The council has two choices. If it does not pay the person claiming for private accommodation the extra money, the result will be that the person will be made homeless. Let us not forget clause 138, as it was when the Bill went into Committee; it discharges all local authorities from having any duty to provide housing. People will be made homeless by the provision. The council's alternative is to pay the extra housing benefit and get nothing from the Government. What will the Minister do? What will his gaffer, who is sitting next to him, do? He will rate-cap Coventry. Coventry would be going outside the regulations. It would be paying housing benefit that the legislation says it should not pay.
I have gone into some detail on the examples because the matter has not been referred to so far in the debate. Hundreds of people in Coventry and tens of thousands
430
nationally could be made homeless because of part VI of the Bill. Councils will not want to risk being rate-capped by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not provide for the building of more houses or for the release of houses for people to rent. It does nothing about the appalling and tragic waste of life on building sites. It is not about housing. It is about further privatisation, shoving up rents and removing the democratic rights of council workers. It is a thieves' charter. The Secretary of State is stealing the democratic rights of 70,000 council workers, and he is stealing too the housing benefit and the very accommodation of tens of thousands of tenants in council and private sector housing. The House should treat the Bill with the contempt that it deserves by kicking it out on Third Reading.
9.54 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: In the early hours of last Thursday I thought that the longest day had become 14 June, but as today's debate has worn on I realise that this is really the longest day of the year. Coverage of the Bill by the media last week concentrated on dog registration. Much as I have a commitment to that subject and care deeply about it, I hope that the coverage of today's proceedings by the media tomorrow, especially the BBC, which did not cover the debate last Tuesday at all in "Yesterday in Parliament", will acknowledge that what is happening to people's democratic and civil rights, to economic and industrial investment in companies, to the capital investment in our infrastructure and to rents and housing, have some importance even if those who frequent the portals of the Palace of Westminster do not always feel that those matters impinge on them immediately. One day some of those issues will catch them up.
The Minister has an ironic sense of humour which I did not know he had until we were in Committee and he started cracking little jokes. On 28 February, he said:
"We are introducing the Bill because of our commitment to democracy."
In the same debate, he said:
"I am committed to local government".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1989; c. 95.]
In his cheeky little way, he said that again tonight—that he supports local government. Like Dracula offering a blood transfusion, he offers local government a quick way out of what was previously accepted by all parties as local democracy. The purpose of the Bill is clearly to undermine our commitment over generations to the kind of local political democratic system that people have respected.
When the Bill was first introduced, it was described as the 50th Bill dealing with one or more aspects of local government. The Government boasted that it would be their last major local government Bill. I can promise the House that local government is not dead and that it will fight back against the Bill, as it has fought every other major measure introduced by the Government. There is life there, and we shall support our colleagues in local government in retaining and maintaining their commitment to their local electorate.
Only one thread unites the disparate and miscellaneous elements—albeit they are important—encapsulated in the Bill. That is the Government's obsession with replacing representative political democracy with the laws of the market place. The Government are intent on market forces dominating all our lives. That is not the free market, but

431
a distorted and specially manipulated market that will ensure that the Government's values and ideology are implemented in place of those decided by local people for local people. That is why we are opposing a whole range of measures in three major areas.
First, there is the restriction on basic civil democratic rights. The Government believe that we can have impartiality only if people hide their true political feelings. We believe that independence and impartiality can never be achieved by suppressing the expression of honest political opinions. Democracy can never be safeguarded by undermining basic democratic rights. If, as we said last week, those rights have to be sustained by appeal to the institutions of Europe, people will have to take that road in order to secure, as was described in the House on Monday night, the freedoms that the Government are only too prepared to take away.
It is obvious that anyone who seeks to take away the democratic rights of more than 130,000 people—the rights to speak or to canvas on behalf of a political party—cannot believe in democracy. The Government cannot take away existing rights and replace them with restrictions and at the same time claim that they believe in democracy. That is simply not possible. [Interruption.] I understand why those Conservative Members who are braying believe in doing that. If one does not believe in representative political democracy, and if the laws of the market place and the value of one's bank balance are more important than people obtaining their will through the ballot box, one will feel contempt for those institutions and practices which implement that democracy. That is why Conservative Members jeer and show contempt for such rights.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Ways and Means Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Local Government and Housing Bill
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr. Gummer: Is it democratic for the chief executive of a local authority, who advises all parts of a local council and who is duty bound to give impartial advice to all members of that authority, also to be chairman of the local Labour party?
Mr. Blunkett: The Opposition made it clear in new clauses 2, 3 and 4 that we were in favour of a code of practice which differentiated between, first, the restrictions that should be imposed on senior council officers standing for other authorities—what is generally known as twin-tracking—as we made clear again tonight, and, secondly, how people should maintain probity and sensibility in undertaking their tasks outside their working life in pursuing their democratic rights. We said that such a code of practice should be tried for one year.
Many of us would consider it inappropriate for a chief executive to hold a high-profile political position in a political party, but we would not seek to legislate to
432
remove the rights of 130,000 people in order to prevent that happening. We do not believe in dealing with the worries about the few by removing the rights of the many. That is what we are talking about. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) must be heard.
Mr. Blunkett: There are some advantages in not being able to see the distorted faces of the Ministers.
It is because we believe that in a democracy there is nothing more fundamental than the right to express a view openly that we are putting forward our view that the Bill is unacceptable. What could be worse than someone asking a fellow member of the council to put a poster in a window, knock on a door or write a letter, only to be told that it is more than his job is worth and that he will be sacked for exercising his democratic right?
The vindictiveness expressed against local authority officers applies equally to councillors. The only suggestion as to how local councillors should carry out their duties under the new regulations is that they should have more evening meetings. Some Conservative Members may have carried out their duties as councillors effectively and understood that, in order to be in touch with their electorate, to have surgeries and to take part in their own political party, they should have evening meetings, while running cities, counties and boroughs during the day. Councillors should be given time off to do that, and they should be properly remunerated—not the £51,000 per year that the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority reaps, nor the £57,000 that the chairman of the London residuary body reaps, but a small and reasonable remuneration to ensure that they can do their job.
We see the same restrictions and market forces implied in respect of economic development, joint companies and capital investment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for his comments, but he must not be under any illusions. Last week's Government amendments leave very much in the balance joint partnership ventures, economic regeneration and investment in the future. Local authorities will not easily be able to enter into partnerships with the private sector, and voluntary bodies are under threat. The arts lobby is very concerned that the very act of being associated with and receiving investment from local authorities will bring it and the local authorities within the ambit of the Bill's restrictions.
The Bill contains many pernicious provisions, but that which outstrips all the others is the Government's attack on the public rented sector. In Committee, the contribution made by the Minister—I was intrigued to discover that he is a warm-blooded being after all—was to inform right hon. and hon. Members that he did not need central heating because he could wear a woolly vest. That was the Minister's contribution to the issue of public sector housing.
Tonight we have debated the proposition that if market forces do not achieve Government ends, they should be manipulated until they do. The cost of housing in a particular district and the average value of council sales, bearing in mind that the properties being sold are the most expensive, will be interpreted in fixing rents from the centre. The Government will determine rents, and when they have done that they will determine subsidy. When income from rents goes into surplus and the local

433
authority makes a profit, that money must be used to meet the cost of paying housing benefits for other council tenants. The poor will be made to pay for the very poor. Private sector tenants and owner-occupiers enjoy subsidy and tax relief for which we all pay, but local authority tenants will be subsidised by their neighbours and the people on the street.
That twisted logic, which The Times described on 3 February as social engineering, will ensure that in high-cost areas rents will increase still further. By increasing rents and, as the Secretary of State described it last week, bringing them in line with the market, the Government will contribute to higher house prices as well. People seeking housing will not be able to afford to rent or to buy. If they are just above the poverty line they will pay full rent, but if they obtain a mortgage they will be hit by the Chancellor's high interest rates. Young people will be hit whichever way they turn. If that is social engineering with the aim of pushing people out of the south-east, the electorate will have none of it.
We want to see a return to affordable, attainable housing so that people can have a decent roof over their heads. Tonight we shall vote on whether we believe that distortion of the market and Government intervention to implement Government values is acceptable to the country, or whether people should determine for themselves local politics, economic development and investment, and be able to ensure affordable rents. We shall vote on whether such matters are to be decided through our system of political democracy or whether the restrictions and laws of the market place should be imposed on everyone from the centre.
Last week we saw the electorate's decision in respect of the European elections. In next year's local council elections and in the next general election, the Bill's provisions will contribute to the downfall of the Conservative Government.
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Let me begin by saying to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that I am relieved not to have experienced a repeat of the last occasion when there was a major rail strike. The Bill was in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that at 10.30 am the Conservatives had a full house, while the Opposition Benches were completely empty.
Mr. Tony Banks: We were all walking to work, of course.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) certainly was not there. He was probably talking to his parrot at the time.
I felt compelled to jump on to the other side of the Committee, because the hon. Member for Brightside felt a little lonely and I knew that he needed some help and advice. Now the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to accuse Ministers responsible for the Bill of being vindictive. When he stood alone and we bailed him out by delaying discussion, I do not think that our behaviour was vindictive. We could have completed the remaining stages of the Bill in 20 minutes, which would have been a record by any standards; but we chose not to do so.
434
Having heard the contribution of his hon. Friends tonight, I bet that the hon. Gentleman wishes that some of them had stayed away today as they did then. In particular, I do not think that he would have missed the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist): indeed, I do not think that anyone would miss them.
We have heard from the Opposition the usual mix of exaggeration, half truths and downright misinformation. Of course, they have a huge problem. Apart from the proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, which stem from the independent Widdicombe committee, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has come up with the revelation—which will be on the record for everyone to see—that the Labour party believes in political chief executives. There is a direct conflict between what he said and what has been said by the hon. Member for Brightside.
The truth is that the Bill will achieve greater accountability, encourage better management and strengthen the local democratic process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said so clearly in his excellent speech.
The Opposition's other problem is that one of the principal aims of the Bill is to focus resources on those in greatest need. It seeks to direct improvement and repair grants to those on lower incomes, and to give more support to the poorer owner-occupiers. It seeks to focus capital expenditure on the areas of most need, and to relate current subsidies to needs so that authorities in poorer areas with more poor tenants will receive a higher proportion of the available subsidy.
Speaker after speaker this evening has attacked that as unfair. What do they want? What is their policy? Do they want to keep improvement grants for the better off-, at the expense of poorer owner-occupiers? Do they want to give fewer resources to the inner cities, and to the poorer authorities of the midlands and the north? Do they really want to retain a central rents system or formula which, by incorporating flat-rate increases regardless of cost, means higher rent increases than necessary in poorer districts and proportionately larger subsidies to richer districts?
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: I shall refer specifically to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments. He may wish to intervene then, and I shall certainly give him the opportunity. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will have the courtesy to listen to the Minister when he is winding up this important debate.
Mr. Trippier: Perhaps Labour Members want all the things that I have mentioned. Perhaps they want to spend more taxpayers' money on everyone. That is a strange thought, however. If it is true, Labour party housing policy is based on taxing poorer people and regions to provide grants for owner-occupiers who do not need them, extra resources for the richer southern authorities that draw in higher capital receipts, and increased subsidies to rents in richer areas with higher average incomes and lower unemployment.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has returned to his favourite topic, minimum housing standards. He is nothing if not persistent. Let me remind

435
the House about his minimum standards. There are 18 of them—enough to keep every environmental health officer in the country busy night and day. It would make the enforcement of income tax seem like a picnic. One of his standards stipulates that
"Any dwelling shall be so located that the immediate environmental factors are tolerable."
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that if I do not like the view from my kitchen window I can claim that my house is unfit? If the traffic on the road outside my house is heavy at certain times of the day, does that also mean that I can claim that my house is unfit?
Another of the hon. Gentleman's standards is that
"The habitable room of any dwelling shall comprise a minimum size as specified by the Secretary of State."
I see that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is nodding.
Mr. Battle rose—
Mr. Trippier: All this is from a party that claims conversion to consumer choice and that has attacked the Bill throughout its passage as giving the Secretary of State unacceptable powers.
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly give way, but the hon. Gentleman must be patient for just a little longer.
The hon. Gentleman suggested in Committee that the Secretary of State is being given unacceptable powers. However, he wants to give the Secretary of State more powers. Is he seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State should prescribe a room size that might condemn thousands of highly desirable houses to unfitness?
I ask the hon. Gentleman this simple question: how many properties in his own constituency would conform to his minimum standards? Would his own house conform to them? Mine certainly does not, nor does the home of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government or of my other ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I give him this undertaking. I shall willingly, on any occasion that is convenient to both of us, visit his home. I know that he is a very hospitable chap. He boasts about Yorkshire hospitality, and I am sure that he will be hospitable, even to a Lancastrian like me. I know that I shall get a cup of tea, or even a little bit more. I am even prepared to bring with me my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West. I shall enjoy inspecting the hon. Gentleman's home. If it fails any of the standards on the list of 18, I shall ask his local environmental health officer to provide an estimate of how much it would cost to bring his house up to standard and to multiply it by all other houses in a similar condition in his constituency and throughout the land. His proposal sounds reasonable, but it is totally unworkable, impracticable and interventionist in practice.
Mr. Battle: I am surprised to hear that the Minister has not heard of the Parker Morris standards which specify area, that there should be no dampness and that there should be adequate natural lighting, all of which are in the catalogue of 18. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will restore the Parker Morris standards that his Government have removed and that the environmental health officers are calling for?
Mr. Trippier: So many additional standards have been laid down by the hon. Gentleman that, if we are not careful, we shall have everything, short of gold taps. It is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—[Interruption.]
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may very well be that the Minister is talking rubbish, but we are entitled to hear it. I should be grateful if you would call the House to order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already drawn the attention of the House to the fact that far too many conversations are taking place while the Minister is speaking. I appeal to those hon. Members who wish to continue to hold conversations to do so on the other side of the swing doors.
Mr. Trippier: Of course until very recently Opposition Members had no alternative but to attack our policy. They had no alternative policy to offer. But the famed Labour party policy review has now been published and the cat is out of the bag. Opposition Members rebutted criticisms a score of times by referring to the clear statement of Labour's housing policy that was to come. It is the alternative to the Bill. Now that we have it all our questions can be answered. Now we learn how more grants for all and more subsidies for all regardless of need will be achieved. Calculating what rents will be under our policy, according to the hon. Member for Brightside, takes only a matter of minutes, and presumably can be worked out on the back of an envelope. So one can assume fairly safely, given the time that Opposition Members spent putting together their alternative to the Bill, which is referred to in their document, that that would be their answer.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to publicise the Labour party's excellent housing policy which appears in the review. However, as the Labour party's policy is not contained in the Bill, is the Minister in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can leave it to the occupant of the Chair to determine whether the Minister is in order.
Mr. Trippier: I am most anxious to stay in order.
I have heard a number of Opposition Members refer to their alternative policy, which is precisely what we are discussing.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: I shall not give way. I have taken a number of interventions from Opposition Members, and as it is after 10 o'clock I am anxious to wind up.
I hope that Opposition Members will explain to the House and to the rest of the country who will pay for the extra subsidies that they would make available. It is clear that people in the midlands and the north will pay, as the Bill seeks to give fairer treatment to local authorities in the greatest need.
The Labour party's policy is a jumble of vague platitudes, a nod in the direction of every conceivable interest group. It was supposed to have been a review, but it is a recipe that has not changed one jot. It proposes to spend more money on everything and everyone. In direct contrast, the Government are proud to be the champion of

437
greater efficiency in local authorities, greater accountability in housing management and the directing of resources to those in greatest need. The Bill enshrines those policies, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 206.

Division No. 257]

[10.22 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Cran, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Critchley, Julian

Alexander, Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David

Allason, Rupert

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

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amos, Alan

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Dorrell, Stephen

Ashby, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aspinwall, Jack

Dover, Den

Atkins, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Eggar, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Emery, Sir Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Batiste, Spencer

Evennett, David

Bellingham, Henry

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bendall, Vivian

Fallon, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Favell, Tony

Benyon, W.

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forth, Eric

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

Franks, Cecil

Bottomley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

French, Douglas

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardiner, George

Bowis, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brazier, Julian

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bright, Graham

Goodlad, Alastair

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gorst, John

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gow, Ian

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Gregory, Conal

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butcher, John

Grist, Ian

Butler, Chris

Ground, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Grylls, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cash, William

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hannam, John

Chapman, Sydney

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

Chope, Christopher

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Churchill, Mr

Harris, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hawkins, Christopher

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hayes, Jerry

Colvin, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Conway, Derek

Heddle, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Cormack, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Couchman, James

Hill, James

438

Hind, Kenneth

Norris, Steve

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Holt, Richard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hordern, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Howard, Michael

Paice, James

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

Patnick, Irvine

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Pawsey, James

Hunter, Andrew

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Irvine, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Irving, Charles

Price, Sir David

Jack, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jackson, Robert

Redwood, John

Janman, Tim

Renton, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rhodes James, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kilfedder, James

Rossi, Sir Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rost, Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knapman, Roger

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shelton, Sir William

Lang, Ian

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Latham, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sims, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Speller, Tony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McCrindle, Robert

Squire, Robin

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stevens, Lewis

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Madel, David

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Major, Rt Hon John

Stokes, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maples, John

Summerson, Hugo

Marland, Paul

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maude, Hon Francis

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mellor, David

Thome, Neil

Miller, Sir Hal

Thornton, Malcolm

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Moate, Roger

Tracey, Richard

Moore, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Trippier, David

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Needham, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nelson, Anthony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Neubert, Michael

Waller, Gary

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walters, Sir Dennis

Nicholls, Patrick

Ward, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Warren, Kenneth

439

Watts, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Whitney, Ray

Yeo, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wiggin, Jerry

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mr. Tony Durant and

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. David Lightbown.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Darling, Alistair

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Allen, Graham

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Alton, David

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

Anderson, Donald

Dewar, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dixon, Don

Armstrong, Hilary

Dobson, Frank

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Doran, Frank

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Douglas, Dick

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Eadie, Alexander

Battle, John

Eastham, Ken

Beckett, Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Beith, A. J.

Fearn, Ronald

Bell, Stuart

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

Fisher, Mark

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Blair, Tony

Flynn, Paul

Blunkett, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, John

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Galbraith, Sam

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Galloway, George

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Buckley, George J.

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Callaghan, Jim

George, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Cartwright, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Gordon, Mildred

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gould, Bryan

Clay, Bob

Graham, Thomas

Clelland, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cohen, Harry

Grocott, Bruce

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corbett, Robin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Haynes, Frank

Cousins, Jim

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cox, Tom

Henderson, Doug

Crowther, Stan

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Bob

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Cummings, John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Home Robertson, John

Cunningham, Dr John

Hood, Jimmy

Dalyell, Tarn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

440

Howells, Geraint

Prescott, John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hoyle, Doug

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Redmond, Martin

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Reid, Dr John

Illsley, Eric

Richardson, Jo

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Robertson, George

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Rooker, Jeff

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Rowlands, Ted

Leadbitter, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Leighton, Ron

Salmond, Alex

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sedgemore, Brian

Livingstone, Ken

Sheerman, Barry

Livsey, Richard

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Short, Clare

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

McAllion, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAvoy, Thomas

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

McFall, John

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

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

McKelvey, William

Snape, Peter

McLeish, Henry

Spearing, Nigel

Maclennan, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

McNamara, Kevin

Steinberg, Gerry

McWilliam, John

Stott, Roger

Madden, Max

Strang, Gavin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Straw, Jack

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Martlew, Eric

Turner, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Vaz, Keith

Michael, Alun

Wall, Pat

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wallace, James

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Walley, Joan

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Morgan, Rhodri

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Morley, Elliott

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mullin, Chris

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Nellist, Dave

Wise, Mrs Audrey

O'Brien, William

Wray, Jimmy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter L.

Mr. Frank Cook and

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

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

Ways and Means

  CAPITAL GAINS (SHARES AND SECURITIES HELD BY COMPANIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made about the treatment, in determining chargeable gains or allowable losses, of transactions involving the holding of shares in, and securities of, companies by other companies.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  10.36 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The charitable view of these four ways and means resolutions is that they are a sign of the Government's flexibility and their welcome willingness to listen to representations. The uncharitable view is that they illustrate what a mess the Government are in over the Finance Bill. The Government have already voted down three clauses of their own Finance Bill and have had to delay the proceedings on other clauses in order to make time to rewrite other substantial sections of it.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to representations, but what they have done has strengthened the argument for having a separate technical Finance Bill
  442
  in which complicated matters of this kind are dealt with and are the subject of widespread consultation before they are brought to the House, as have been some other parts of the Finance Bill. I hope that the Government will learn that lesson for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  GROUPS OF COMPANIES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending sections 272 and 278 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and section 97 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  TRUSTEES AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the purposes of income tax about trustees and personal representatives.

  TRADING COMPANIES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending the definition of 'trading company' in section 136 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and section 576 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Community Charge (Scotland)
10.37 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 361), dated 7th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be revoked.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the next two motions:
That the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 507), dated 15th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 476), dated 14th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
Mr. Dewar: The regulations which we are discussing tonight make unfortunate and unhappy reading. As the House will know, they deal with the poll tax and the enforcement machinery designed to extract an unfair tax from one of the most vulnerable groups in the community, people who have, almost by definition as recipients of income support, suffered under this Government in half a hundred different ways. I am aware that we are not having a general debate about the demerits of the poll tax, and I wish to concentrate fairly briskly on the regulations and some of the salient points which arise from them.
Will the Minister say a word or two about the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989, particularly paragraph 14? This is the paragraph that deals with the 56-day rule. In their doubtful wisdom, the Government decided that the payment of the poll tax would start on 1 April this year, and if an eligible person applied for a rebate within 56 days of the starting point, the rebate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of distracting sedentary noise. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), as I am seeking to do.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now go back to the fascinating subject of the 56-day rule.
I use the word "fascinating" in some seriousness, because it is an illustration of the Government's approach. Let me recapitulate. If one applies within 56 days, one is held to have applied as at 1 April 1989, and any rebate to which one is entitled will be taken from that date. The 56 days have now expired, so anyone who now applies for a rebate will receive one, only from the date of application. As three months have already passed, anyone who failed to apply in that period has already lost three months' worth of rebate. We must not assume that the people who are involved are those entitled to the maximum rebate, but many will lose substantial sums.
The rebate system is a difficult and complicated jungle, and the pain and confusion that have followed its introduction have made it difficult to know exactly how matters stand. I am told by Strathclyde region,which is by far the biggest levying authority in Scotland, that it estimates that around 580,000 people are eligible for rebates. It told me that, on its best estimate, only 480,000 have applied. It looks as though some 100,000 applicants,
444
many of whom have dependants, will have to suffer because of the 56-day rule. They cannot now catch up, and have lost at least three months' rebate this year. Every day that they delay, mostly because of confusion—there is no doubt about the confusion and misunderstandings that the complexities of the system have produced—means that they will suffer financially even more. That is not an unhappy situation, it is an intolerable one, and one that the Government have consistently refused to remedy, although the remedy was simplicity itself.
I and many of my hon. Friends, and many people who are not politically inclined but know the social realities, have pressed on the Minister the need to extend that 56-day period and to allow a more generous approach towards rebates. We have done so in vain. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has borne the brunt of the argument, has reinforced his reputation for not being a man of spontaneous warmth. He is not noted for relating to, and understanding, the problems of the deprived, and he has made it clear that the Government will turn a deaf ear to these proposals. That is a tragedy of which he and his colleagues should be ashamed.
The 56-day rule is formalised in these regulations. If that were the only point at dispute between ourselves and the Government, it would fully justify a vote against them. I hope that the Minister will say something about paragraph 15. For the sake of simplicity, I shall merely quote the explanatory note. It says:
"This paragraph extends the information which may be provided by the Secretary of State to levying authorities to include a person's date of birth."
I mention it because I know that there is a great deal of genuine puzzlement in Scotland as to why the system in England is organised without a person's date of birth being used as part of the poll tax information package, but this has had to be imposed as a statutory requirement in Scotland, and further powers are being taken. This is not the most important point that we shall be debating. It does not have the social implications of the 56-day rule, nor its capacity for damage, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will say a word or two about it.
I do not often face the Under-Secretary across the Dispatch Box, and I do so tonight with an open mind. He will gain valuable brownie points in my eyes if he can provide the explanation that his colleagues in the Scottish Office were unable to provide in the many hours of debate that we had about the machinery of the poll tax.
The real crux of the debate, and the point of particular concern to me and my hon. Friends, is that the main drive of the principal order is to allow the deduction of poll tax arrears from benefit, especially from income support. It is a mean measure that will force the worst off in our community to fall below even the subsistence level of income support as presently calculated by the Government.
We know from recent exchanges with Ministers—and even with the Prime Minister—that the Government do not think that the basic pension is designed to provide comfort or to be an adequate income in itself. If that is true of the pension, it is very much more true of income support, which allows no gracious living, no room for the little luxuries that mean so much to morale and the quality of life of families. I know from constituency experience—as, to be fair, must Conservative Members—that those

445
on income support have to struggle and do not have the decent sufficiency that almost all of us want accorded to those in the greatest difficulty.
It is a shabby proposition to claw back poll tax out of income support. There is no real defence and no social justification for it. I appreciate that the Minister will no doubt advance a number of arguments, one or two of which I can anticipate. He will say that it is perfectly fair because those in receipt of income support have had a special supplement to cover the cost of the minimum poll tax contribution. Of course, the calculation of that is an arcane art, and one that I cannot pretend to have mastered. My understanding is that it is calculated on a United Kingdom basis, which is odd because the poll tax does not yet apply throughout the United Kingdom. It is also odd because in Scotland there are substantial variations, based upon local policy and local needs, in the amount of poll tax to be paid. In a broad-brush approach, everyone apparently has the same supplement—£1·15 this year for a single applicant under the age of 25; £1·30 for those over 25 and, strangely, for a couple it is £2·30, although we might reasonably have expected it to be £2·60.
All that is most unconvincing. I know from conversations with many people that few will believe that it is adequate cover to allow people living at that economic level to meet their poll tax commitments without difficulty or financial embarrassment. I have tried explaining that first, we take the income support personal allowance for the current year, take out the rates element, uprate it by the retail price index less the housing element, arrive at the magic figure of 4·7 per cent.—which sounds suspiciously low compared with the real rise in the cost of living—and then add on the special supplement. There is no credibility in that exercise. Any such argument is blown away by the pressures of reality, the pressures of poverty and the true condition in which those who will be victimised by the rules actually live. No one will think that justifiable, because nothing can justify the tax itself and the basis on which it is levied. There is no doubt in my mind that many people, faced by the clawback authorised in the orders, will find themselves living at a subsistence level that none of us should be prepared to accept.
The Minister may argue that there are many precedents for clawing back from benefit. The main precedent is where there has been overpayment of benefit, and because it must be reclaimed it is taken out of that same benefit in subsequent months. That may have unfortunate financial consequences, but there is a logic in it. It is all in the same benefit payment and there is a rough consistency which most people can understand.
There are occasions on which the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, if not too outré or faraway organisations for the Minister to contemplate, have direct deductions to meet debt. It is, of course, theoretically possible for that to be done without the consent of the debtor, as I understand it, although the Minister may want to comment on that. However, in almost all cases in which I have been involved, which must run to many scores, such a step has been taken with negotiation and consent. The debtor is, of course, anxious to reach that consent because he has a specific service—the supply of electricity or gas—that he wants to maintain. There is a logic in that and a benefit for the person concerned, which is understandable.
Under the 1988 regulations for housing benefit, it is possible to deduct an overpayment from income support.
446
However, talking as I did with a number of local authorities in Scotland, I believe that, very properly, that power has never been used. If it were used, it would lead to bitterness and a lack of confidence in the system, which would do none of us any good. I do not believe that, in terms of precedents or in terms of the financial calculations of income support personal allowances, there is a case for what the Government are doing. I perceived justice, and in term of social impact, there is no case at all.
I recognise that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute, so I will not make a long speech. However, I want to ask a couple of technical questions about the regulations. Perhaps it is my curiosity that is to blame, and there may be simple answers to my questions. I want to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2(2)(a), which deals with the issue of a summary warrant in the name of a couple. Perhaps the Minister could give an example of a circumstance in which it would be likely that a summary warrant would be issued in the name of a couple. I understand that a husband and wife living together or a man and a woman living together may be jointly and severally liable for the poll tax debt of each. However, as I understand it, there would be an attempt to recover from both individually and only if one failed to pay would a bill be issued for the debt to the other. It is unlikely, although I may have misunderstood the matter, which is why I am raising it, that summary warrants would go out in the name of both parties, as a couple. Perhaps the Minister could explain when that would happen.
I hope that he will also say a word about the appeal procedure. There will be appeal to the commissioners and in certain circumstances not to one commissioner but to three commissioners, and on a point of law ultimately to the Court of Session. It is an interesting comment on the complexity of the system and on the labyrinth we are constructing that that mass of overlapping and extending appeals is being erected. Perhaps the Minister—
Mr. Dick Douglas: There is no Scottish Minister present.
Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Minister could say a few words about the availability of legal aid in such cases.
Perhaps the Minister could also say a few words about deductions, which are the key to the matter. As I understand it, if a single debtor is involved, the deduction is 5 per cent. of the personal allowances for a single claimant aged not less than 25. Although it is not slated, because it may vary from time to time, I believe that it is £1·75 a week at present. For a couple who are both over 18, the relevant allowance is £54·80, I believe that the deduction is rounded up to £2·75. There is a reference to another claim and another test that has to be met. The unfortunate victim of the scheme is left with a minimum of lop of income support.
I accept immediately—I do not wish to mislead anyone—that if someone is living on income support alone, the £2·75 maximum if he is living as part of a couple will still leave him with quite a significant income, not merely 10p. If someone is left only with 10p, he clearly has a significant amount of other income. However, I repeat the important charge that, even so, many people will be in a difficult situation because they will be living significantly below the very basic level which has been laid down by the Government, who are not noted for their generosity i n this area. They are a Government who openly argue that the

447
poor need the spur of poverty so that they will better themselves in the market place. If we are driving people below even that standard, all hon. Members, whatever their political convictions, should take time to pause and to consider.
As the Minister no doubt knows, about 150,000 old-age pensioners in Scotland have to supplement their income with income support payments. Some of them will doubtless be driven near to the 10p rule and test by the deductions. In effect, they will then be living on that basic pension which the Prime Minister herself made clear that the Government recognise as not being sufficient for a decent standard of living. Is it right that we should force people into what the Prime Minister has recognised as an inadequate situation simply to recover 20 per cent. of a tax that has no valid basis and that is almost universally seen as unfair and unjust? The answer to that question is a resounding no.
I object strongly to the fact that, typically, it is the local authorities that are being put in the firing line. They are being given the duty of administering a scheme that they neither like nor want. Under the regulations they have to apply in writing to the Department to have the deduction machinery put in motion. As Ministers have doubtless calculated, it will be the local authorities that will be left to take the flak and the burden of the protests.
Having spoken again to the local authorities in my part of the world, which I do frequently, I can report that they have a good record in dealing with those in genuine poverty who find themselves wrestling with the problems of debt to statutory authorities. Strathclyde's record will stand any examination because, sensibly, that authority does not make dilettante political statements about policy, but takes each case on its merits and applies humane and sensible tests, while avoiding the rigours of civil diligence, which is naturally repugnant to public opinion and is a disaster for the individuals concerned.
I expect the same understanding to be applied in this case. However, I believe that on behalf of my hon. Friends I am entitled to protest that local authorities with such records are put again in this embarrassing and difficult position in defence of a system that they regard as an anathema.
Once again, it is a case of the poorest in the community being made to suffer—people who, by definition, are in unfortunate financial circumstances. It is another example of social legislation—because there are important social implications in this—further dividing society and driving a greater and greater wedge between those that have and those that have not.
One third of my constituency—one of my regional wards—has an unemployment rate of over 36 per cent. I am not talking about a couple of streets chosen at random but about large swathes on the west side of the city of Glasgow. Many people there are living in genuine poverty, dependent on benefit. Thoughtless, mean-minded legislation such as this exacerbates that problem, yet Ministers wonder why they face alienation and a level of dislike in Scottish politics that is almost unique in my experience.
Measures such as this are not simply about the mechanics of a collection system. A social principle is involved. A difference of approach is built into this legislation and it shines through the debates and
448
arguments on this matter. If the regulations are forced through by the Government—I accept they will be tonight, perhaps by many hon. Members who have not had any opportunity of considering them—the House should be ashamed. Even now, the Minister should think about drawing back.
I wish that the Scottish Office was represented on the Treasury Bench to try to defend a system which the vast majority of the people of Scotland regard as unrelated to the ability to pay, which is unjust and which shifts the burden of taxation on to those who can ill afford to bear it. In reinforcing that essentially unjust system, this mechanism has on its shoulders all the disadvantages, all the difficulties and all the shame of the grand design.
10.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised some points which it seems sensible for me to deal with straight away. He asked particularly about the date of birth. Inclusion of the birth date was requested to make it more convenient and easier for the local authority to distinguish between individuals of the same name—[Interruption.] Local authorities may not have asked for it—I do not know—but certainly it is being put in for their additional convenience. That is the reason for it. I am glad to be able to answer one of the first points about which the hon. Gentleman asked.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Minister agree that the real reason why the date of birth has been made a statutory requirement is that local authorities will have to trace people as they move around the country and every individual in Scotland has been given a computer tag? Does he agree that that is why the date of birth has been made a statutory requirement?
Mr. Lloyd: It makes it easier for local authorities to distinguish between people of the same name living in the same household.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden asked about appeals. The appeal system is the normal social security appeal system. First the adjudication officer is involved, then the social security appeal tribunal and finally the commissioners on a point of law. It will be exactly the same as in the usual procedure. That is the method with which the social security system and local offices are familiar, and that people on social security who have appealed before know well.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about summary warrants. It will be possible to take out a warrant against one individual when there is a debt in respect of a couple, and it will be possible to proceed against the couple. That is for the local authority to decide.
Mr. Douglas: What a lot of dirty work local authorities are being asked to do.
Mr. Lloyd: The local authorities will want to recover the community charge owing to them in exactly the same way as they want to recover rates that are owing to them. There is no difference in principle or in the final procedure. On behalf of all its rate or charge payers, the local authority will need to collect what is due. There is nothing new in that.

449
With regard to the regulations before us, I will begin with the Community Charge (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 which were laid before Parliament on 17 March and came into force on 8 April. They reflect the intention that there should be equality of treatment, wherever possible, between those in employment and those receiving benefit. The hon. Member for Garscadden rightly made the point that deductions from income support for those receiving benefit represent a parallel and equivalent measure to arrestment of earnings for those in work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in October last year, as part of his uprating statement, that there would be a once-and-for-all adjustment to income support levels to meet the minimum 20 per cent. contribution which recipients will have to make to the community charge. Because this extra amount has been included in income support it is only right to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose.
As it has to with those in work, the levying authority must first obtain a summary warrant, to prove it is owed the money. This will be the trigger for these regulations. Principally, they provide that an authority, having obtained a summary warrant, may apply to the DSS for deductions from income support to meet that debt. In asking for such deductions the authority has to provide sufficient information to enable the local social security office to identify the debtor. Here the birthday date helps. We shall only consider deductions for the amount specified on the warrant or the authority requires.
Mr. Thomas Graham: My wife telephoned me tonight and told me that she had a letter saying that the Government want young people in YTS schemes. Such young people would probably receive about £35 per week, and would then be expected to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, plus 15 per cent., which exceeds their income support of £27·40. Therefore, a young person who gets, say, £35, which the Government are encouraging, is now expected to pay another £1·14 per week. Does the Minister not think that it is tragic that the Government are encouraging young people to come off the dole and into training schemes for which they will be given some money, but then taking some of that money back? Young people are really being sent to the graveyard, because they will not be able to pay the poll tax. Does the Minister realise that letters have been sent out to the managers running the schemes, and the managers are putting their hands up in horror, because young trainees are expected to live on the trainee allowance? What does the Minister say about that?
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says that the purpose of the community charge is that everybody should make a contribution. The rate will be set by the local authority and there are rebates for those on low incomes. Those who are on YTS obviously come into the category of those on low incomes, and they are likely to get a substantial rebate.
Mr. Graham: Does the Minister not realise what I am saying? The Government have implemented a programme to encourage young people to go into employment training schemes—YTS—by saying that, from the guaranteed income support of £27·40, they would be expected to pay a 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax. The Government are now saying, however, that because they receive additional money for travelling costs, the
450
Government will take that amount off in poll tax, which comes to a loss of £1·14 a week. Will the Minister answer that? Young people in Scotland will have that amount deducted, while those in England will not have that money deducted until next year. The young people in England will be far better off on the YTS scheme. Will the Minister tell the young people in Scotland what they are expected to live on?
Mr. Lloyd: The young people on YTS are earning above the income support rate for their age group, so they have a rebate in exactly the same way as anybody who is on income support, but adjusted for their actual earnings. That appears to be a much fairer system than the one we have now—the one that the hon. Gentleman appears to be defending—where some people pay heavy rates bills and some people pay absolutely nothing. In our system the burden is spread across the whole of the population. It is adjusted for those on lower incomes to suit those incomes. That appears to be basically fair and I should think that the hon. Gentleman would find it very easy to explain that to YTS trainees.
Where there is an outstanding community charge debt and sufficient income support, as decided by the adjudication officer, the rate of deduction will be, as the hon. member for Garscadden said, £1·75 a week for a single person and £2·75 a week for a couple, if both partners are debtors. Those weekly deductions are fixed by the regulations. There is no provision for them to be varied. The adjudication officer will decide that there is sufficient entitlement to income support only—again we come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Garscadden—if, after the deduction, the person is left with lop or more of that part of his income which comes from income support.
This is easy to misrepresent—the hon. Member for Garscadden sailed near to it, but he did not quite go across the line—but this safeguard, which appears in existing provisions for deductions to pay third parties, is there to ensure that we do not extinguish entitlement to benefit. The fixed flat rate deduction for a single person is £1·75 a week, and it is totally wrong to suggest that we propose to make that deduction and leave someone with an income of only 10p. Benefit can be reduced to 10p only if income support was very low to start with and the individual relies mainly on another source of income.
Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman would concede that I was very careful not to make that suggestion. If he reads my speech, he will see that I spent some time establishing that point. Will the hon. Gentleman, however, address himself to the example that I cited, which is that of the many thousands of old-age pensioners in Scotland who have the basic pension and income support? Some of them might well be taken down to an income near the basic pension, if not down to 10p above it. We know from the Minister for Social Security and the Prime Minister that it is accepted that that is not sufficient for a comfortable living. Is it necessary that they should be driven into that situation in order to recover the poll tax in the way that is outlined?
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was referring not just to income support but to housing benefit. The amount taken away will not be more than the income support element of their social security benefits. That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about.
Mr. Dewar: What level could the income be taken down to?
Mr. Lloyd: It could get down to a level 10p above the basic pension, but the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that that pensioner may have housing benefit and may well be paying 20 per cent. of the rates now. The point that my hon. Friend was making was that not all the household outgoings have to be met by the single person's pension alone. There are other benefits in addition to income support.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Department is about to introduce the scheme into Macclesfield, Scarborough, Cambridge, Bolton and all sorts of other places. With that in view, would it not have some sort of report from the Scottish managers on how matters have worked out in practice? Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), is the Minister saying that the managers think that things have worked out as smoothly as he has suggested to the House?
Mr. Lloyd: I have not suggested that it has or has not worked out smoothly. I have not reached that issue yet. The community charge has started extraordinarily well in Scotland. It was an enormous change. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I have sat in this Chamber listening to Opposition Members explaining how registration would be a complete disaster, how it could not be managed by Scottish local authorities and was administratively impossible. But I understand that Scottish local authorities have done much better than Scottish Members ever believed possible and that the numbers registered range from 99 to 100 per cent.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know how familiar the Minister is with recent Scottish newspapers, but is he aware that, in a report in The Scotsman last week, local authority finance officers in Scotland estimated that at least 1 million Scots have not paid their poll tax? What does the Minister think about that?
Mr. Lloyd: One cannot rely on such figures put out in the newspapers. What I do know is that the expectations for registration have been fulfilled, that many of the bills have been sent out, on time and rebated, but not all of them. There is a large backlog to be made up, as one would expect with any substantial change in a system such as this. Our estimates of the case load for rebates was 780,000, which includes couples and individuals. That means over I million individuals. At the end of the 56 days to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, we had about one and one third of a million applications. If one grosses that up for the individuals we find that our predictions for the caseload look as though they are being fulfilled.
Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I am talking about figures that were carefully prepared by my Department for our guidance.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to intervene again, but this is important. I took the trouble to speak to senior officers of the biggest authority, Strathclyde region, today. Their genuine and best estimate was that the authority was about 100,000 short of its estimate. In other words,
452
somewhere out there in Strathclyde there are about 100,000 applicants who are probably eligible who have not yet applied. Even if there were only a handful, would there not be a strong case in humane terms for extending the 56-day rule and not penalising those people, particularly in view of the extraordinary confusion that all Scottish Members find in their surgeries every week, when constituents come in with a mass of incomprehensible papers that they do not know what to do with?
Mr. Lloyd: The 56-day concession was suggested by Scottish local authorities and we were happy to adopt it, knowing that there would be difficulties at the beginning of the changeover. The total arrangement comprises those 56 days, eight weeks, allowing for two demands for payment, and three spare weeks afterwards. The most vulnerable—those receiving housing benefit—automatically transferred on to the rebate. Those receiving income support were sent a personal letter with a claim form well before 1 April, so they received not a general but a specific notification. Since then there have been television advertising, press advertisements, and a great deal of editorial comment, assisted by the attacks made by Opposition Members, for which I give due credit and for which, in this context at least, I am very grateful.
Applications for rebates not only match but exceed our expectations. The number arriving now is quite small, but one expects applications to continue as people move or become entitled to rebate for the first time. However, from the figures that I have seen and on the basis of our calculations, there is no justification for extending the 56-day period. Other people may produce different calculations, but I am sceptical of the basis on which they were made.
There remains the good cause provision for backdating entitlement, available to those who can show good reason for not having yet made an application. It is for the local authority to judge whether or not the individual had a valid reason for not knowing that application could be made, or for not being able to apply, or was totally confused by wrong information or propaganda—or even by the advice that he should have nothing to do with the community charge.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As one English Member to another, may I ask the Minister how many Scottish local authorities he has visited to discuss at first hand with officials the difficulties that are arising?
Mr. Lloyd: Speaking as one English Member to another, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the likely answer to his question. Of course I have not visited local authorities in Scotland. I rely, as all Ministers do, on information from not just one, two or three local authorities but, through the system of reporting, from every Scottish local authority. I have information from them all, which is far more valuable and a much sounder basis on which to form a judgment than dashing up on a train or plane to spend a few days in Scotland talking to just one, two or three local authorities.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the degree of confusion that exists in Scotland has been brought about by politicians making comments about non-collection of the community charge? I refer

453
particularly to members of the Scottish National party, yet the only district council that it runs is collecting the community charge. Is it surprising that confusion exists?
Mr. Lloyd: It is not surprising at all. As I said earlier, local authorities in Scotland have done extraordinarily well to introduce the system with such efficiency and effectiveness, given the tirade of propaganda from Opposition Members. I am certain, however, that those efficient local authorities will be able to judge whether some individuals have been confused—retirement pensioners, for instance—and will take that into account and allow them to backdate their rebates to 1 April.
The Community Charges (Information concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 permit the Secretary of State, through the staff of DSS local offices, to pass certain specified information to community charge registration officers. As people on income support are receiving additional money to help them pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, it is reasonable that they appear on the community charge register. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that that happens. I will explain to the House why the regulations take the form that they do.
Community charge registration officers need access to certain sources of information so that their registers are as accurate as possible at any given time. They are able to require the information that they need from the authorities which administer housing benefit and community charge rebate, so they have access to the names, dates of birth and addresses of everyone who has claimed either or both those benefits. If it were not for the regulations, however, the CCROs would not have access to information from DSS offices, as information about income support is held on a confidential basis. That information may be passed to CCROs so that they can check it against their registers and ensure that there are no discrepancies.
I stress that the information that is specified is the minimum necessary for the purpose, and that the CCRO may not use it for any purpose other than for maintaining his register.
The Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 make a number of changes to the arrangements for rebating the community charge in Scotland. Some were necessary to maintain alignment between these regulations and the Housing Benefit (General Amendment) Regulations 1989. It is important that the two schemes should be as closely aligned as possible so that they are as simple as possible for local authorities to administer, and as easy as possible for claimants to understand.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The rather dry manner in which the Minister is dragging his way through his brief gives me the impression that he may be having a dummy run for this time next year, when he will be applying the same regulations to England. Will he have a shot at convincing me that he is not simply using Scotland as a guinea pig? Can he also convince me that he knows something about what he is talking about by naming just three local authorities in Scotland which administer the poll tax?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly Scotland is not being used as a guinea pig. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the reason why legislation was applied to Scotland first was that there
454
was a larger and earlier demand for a change in the rating system there after the revaluation. That is why Scotland is lucky enough to be experiencing this excellent change first.
If Scotland were being used as a guinea pig, we should have delayed the provision for England and Wales for another year. It might then have been possible to learn some lessons from Scotland—if there are any lessons to be learned. The English legislation is already on the statute book, however, and the preparations are well down the track, so we are treating England in exactly the same way.
The hon. Gentleman asked for three examples of Scottish authorities administering the poll tax. Well, Strathclyde is certainly one. Another is Central. How about that?
Mr. Bill Walker: Tayside, Grampian and Fife.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. I suspect that if hon. Members asked me to name three English counties now, I should be hard put to do so.
There are a number of other points which might be touched upon, but I have already commented on the main issues that have been raised by Opposition Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Garscadden and I wish to leave time for other hon. Members to make their points, which may be different from those that have already been made. I have confidence, nevertheless, in commending these excellent regulations to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I appeal for brief speeches in the short time that is left.
11.25 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, try to be brief. As you very well know, I tabled a motion on the poll tax that was not taken, for good or bad reasons, on Friday.
I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the 56-day rule. The Minister was somewhat sceptical about who speaks for Scottish local authorities. It is unfortunate that, once again, no Scottish Minister is on the Treasury Bench to instruct other Ministers about what happens in Scotland. I assume that the Minister knows that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its president speak for Scottish local authorities. Mr. Milligan, the president, made a speech on 12 June in which he said:
"It is extremely likely therefore that a good number of those not paying at that time will be eligible for a rebate which authorities will be unable to backdate as the relevant period for doing so will have expired. These categories of potential claimants plus the general conclusions from our trawl"—
that is, of all local authorities—
"suggests that there may be up to 200,000 or so individuals who will lose out unless the 56-day rule is extended."
That is the view not of one local authority but of all Scottish local authorities, and 200,000 is not an insubstantial number.
The Minister is under an obligation to redress the imbalance. People may not have cottoned on to all the sophisticated advertising. It may be that there has been obfuscation and that people do not understand it. Notwithstanding that, 200,000 people who ought to be receiving benefits that the Government suggest are generous should have their benefits fully backdated.
Those who are really suffering from the poverty trap are just above the income limit for claiming rebate. Scottish

455
local authorities have a great deal of sympathy for personal circumstances, but they are required by the legislation to carry out the appropriate debt recovery procedures.
What we are talking about was highlighted yesterday during the Prime Minister's exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We are talking about taking money away from people who are on income support and benefits that provide them not with a luxurious standard of living but with a bare minimum standard of living. By the use of obnoxious procedures, any income support that they receive from the state will be taken away from them, probably leaving them with only 10p. The fact that only a few hon. Members are here this evening demonstrates the lack of knowledge about the subject. Only one Scottish Tory who might know something about it is here this evening. The rest of the Tory Members might know something about the theory, but we are talking about the practice.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Douglas: I shall not give way. Front-Bench speeches have taken up an hour of our time, so Back Benchers are due their time to speak.
We are talking about taking money back from people who are just above the poverty line to impose a tax that is completely unrelated to ability to pay. The Minister may shake his head, but it is the truth. It is not a charge for local authority services. All hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies could adumbrate their own experiences. I shall give one or two examples of what can happen.
An old woman came to me for advice. She has moved two doors down the road to look after her 90-year-old mother. The local authority deemed her to be living with her mother and so asked her for four lots of poll tax—two because she was living with her mother and two standard charges for the housing that she had vacated. That is not a charge for local authority services; it is a property charge, as it applies to the house that has been vacated. It may be that the multiplier is wrong, but if the multiplier is wrong, why the hell do the Government use that multiplier for the rate support grant?
You know quite a lot about taxation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I put it to you that this is the first tax that the Government claim has no anomalies. I suggest that it is riddled with anomalies. The Government will have to bend and review those anomalies, some of which bear most heavily on a section of the population which I have mentioned before and which I make no apologies for mentioning again—the severely mentally impaired.
I have a letter from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped which has issued a leaflet at a cost of £725. I hope that the Minister will arrange through the Scottish Office for that sum to be reimbursed. The letter states:
"There are also cases where disabled people who are not exempt may be required to pay a Community Charge out of a personal allowance of £10 per week. This has happened in some hostels which have been treated as residential care homes for income support purposes but are classed as domestic homes by Registration Officers."
456
Why are we removing the burden from those who are most able to pay and putting it on the backs of those who are least able to pay?
I know that I am at odds with some of my hon. Friends in the stance I have taken, but I know what is happening in my area. The position in Scotland is unlike the theories for England and Wales. It does not apply to Northern Ireland where the same social security legislation applies. The Government will not apply the poll tax in the Falls road or the Shankill. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. They should try it there.
Mr. Edward Leigh: That is because they cannot collect it there.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should not intervene from a sedentary position because he is one of the proponents of a united kingdom. If we are a united kingdom, we should all be treated equally.
An explosion is coming in Scotland. It is not that people want to defy the law. They will have no choice.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Rubbish.
Mr. Douglas: Hon. Gentlemen should not say, "Rubbish." If they want to intervene, they should stand up and do so. It is not rubbish: it is fact. People will not be able to meet the obligation. I challenge any of my colleagues who have any responsibility for dealing with local authorities or any communication with them to tell me what is happening to housing debt. I know that it is soaring in Dunfermline, because people cannot meet their obligations. The poll is first call on them. It is automatic. It is an instrument whereby a button is pressed to take away their income support.
The House is empty of Scottish Tories tonight; indeed, Scotland is nearly empty of them. One solitary Scottish Tory is here tonight, and he will vote for this, knowing that many people in his area do not want to defy the law, but will have no alternative, because this is an automatic process. The button is pressed, and income support is taken away. The button is pressed, and warrant sale takes place. It is pressed again, and wage arrestment will follow. The procedure will malign local authorities. If the Government want to implement this, let them take the stick. Let them administer the tax and do the dirty work.
Scottish local authorities cannot stand back another two or three years until the next general election, hoping for a Labour Government then. I dearly want a Labour Government to remove this burden. In the meantime, the people whom I represent will suffer all the more because of the passing of regulations such as these.
11.36 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: At least the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had the courtesy to accept that I know something about the situation in Scotland. I do not doubt the integrity with which he looks after his constituents. I hope that he does not doubt the integrity with which I look after mine.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman highlight the problem of the lady who moved two doors down. I accept his worry on that score. I too am deeply concerned about that aspect of the community charge. I believe that the problem could have been resolved if the local authority had handled it a little more sympathetically. I have had the local authority's decisions reversed in one or two cases in

457
my constituency. In fact, that has happened on four or five occasions. I am not sure of the fifth occasion, because I have not had it confirmed in writing.
When a person moves to stay with a child—as is normal within families—he should not have to pay a double community charge on his usual nearby home. To have to do so is nonsense, as we all know. This anomaly has been created by the way in which some local authorities have handled certain cases. But this is not a long-term criticism. It was inevitable, during this dramatic change, that problems and anomalies would be highlighted. I have shown that many of them can he dealt with at local level.
These regulationss are to do with rebates and clawbacks, and the principles involved in them. The taxpayer is the chap on average income, with two children, who lives next door to someone who is in receipt of public support because his circumstances require that support. The person who pays for that support is the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Minister intimated, we should not deviate from the principle that taxpayers' money should be used for the purpose of support for which it was allocated. We have a duty to protect those on low incomes who pay income tax. Many do, and I wish that they did not.
I draw this to the attention of constituents who come to see me. I know where they live, and ask them whether they expect their taxpaying next-door neighbours to pay their dues.
Taxpayers are not the rich and wealthy. Instead, they are average individuals who form the majority. We must protect them, and that is why it is right that clawback powers should be provided in the regulations. We must deal with individuals, and my hon. Friend the Minister told us that each individual would be receiving a letter telling him how the system would operate and how claims could he made. It is right that each individual case should be treated on its merits.
I acknowledge that a small minority will cheat deliberately. We all know who they are. Our constituents come to us to complain about cheats. Those who live near them—perhaps in the same street—know who they are. My constituents tell me about them. When reports have been made to me, I have taken the matter further to the proper authorities. Where necessary, I have ensured that prosecutions follow. That is right and proper.
Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has had his fair share of the batting—of the evening's activities—and there are others who want to make a contribution.
I do not believe that any hon. Members want those who cheat deliberately, who milk the system, to get away with it, whoever they are and at whatever level they operate. That is why I think it right that, when we use public funds we should—
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the position of someone such as Lord Vesty, who is famous for cheating the taxpayer out of several thousands of pounds? Lord Vesty will stand to gain huge sums from the introduction and implementation of the poll tax in Cirencester, where he lives. The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to those on low incomes when he talks about cheats, but he has not yet addressed himself to those who have not paid the poll tax because they cannot afford to do so.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady protests too loudly. If we live in a civilised society, and I hope that we do, and if there are genuine problems—I have said that individual cases must be examined on their merits—we must recognise them. I deal with each problem as it relates specifically to the individual who has brought it to my attention. I think that all hon. Members adopt that approach. I think also that we all find that not everything is as it is presented to us.
An irate constituent came to me to draw attention to the problems that his mother was facing. He told me that his mother was required to pay the community charge in full. He argued that that was shameful as she was a pensioner, a widow and living alone. I told him that I would examine the circumstances. I did so, and found that the lady had £30,000-worth of equity. When my constituent returned to see me I asked him—I shall not give the names of these people because I am sure that they would not wish me to disclose them—"Do you think that Mr. So-and-So who lives next door, a bus driver with two young children, should pay your mother's community charge? That is effectively what you are saying. You are expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill." That is why each case must be examined individually.
I have no doubt that in some instances something will have to be done to recognise the special circumstances in which an individual finds himself, possibly as a result of events over which he does not have full control. It is essential that there are provisions within the system to allow for that. We must recognise that there will always be individuals, sadly, who will have to be helped out of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there was confusion, I pointedly drew attention in an intervention to the fact that the confusion in my constituency, in Dundee, West and in Dundee, East had been caused by the situation in Tayside. Nobody is in any doubt about where the Labour party stands on this issue. There is confusion in Tayside because the leaders of the Scottish National party are telling the public at large—including those in receipt of housing benefit, those on public support and those who will be affected by the instruments before the House tonight—not to pay the community charge.
But the SNP in office locally—the administration in Angus district—is collecting the community charge. Indeed, additional staff are being taken on to deal with it. So on the one hand SNP members are saying that they will bring in enforcement orders and issue warrants, and on the other, the SNP at the highest level is telling people not to pay. It is no wonder that there is confusion. That is why—for example, in Dundee, East, Dundee, West, Angus, East, Perth and Kinross and in my constituency—we have this problem.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was right to talk about confusion. The people of Tayside have no idea what the SNP—in or out of administration—is telling people, and that is causing the most awful confusion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of my earlier appeal for brief speeches.
11.47 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: Frequently it seems to be my unfortunate duty to speak following the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I hope that the bus driver of whom he spoke is voting for him, after all the hon. Gentleman's heroic efforts on his constituent's behalf.
After examining the instruments Nos. 507 and 476, my hon. Friends and I would like to know why people on income support for their basic income are being asked to pay the poll tax at all. The progenitor of the poll tax, former Councillor Douglas Mason, is quoted in an interesting article in the Aberdeen Evening Express of 14 June last—[Interruption.] I gather that Conservative Members would rather I called it the community charge. In that article, Mr. Mason revealed that he had called it the poll tax, and he added disarmingly:
"I wish I had thought of calling it the community charge. It sounds so much nicer."
He went on to say that, from the point of view of the poll tax, he had three main criticisms of the measure that the Government had introduced. The report said of his second criticism:
"Secondly, because he designed the tax to make sure local authorities were accountable to the people they serve, he proposed that those who were on benefits should be made to pay the full amount"
of the poll tax. We find, therefore, that ex-Councillor Mason, the progenitor of the poll tax, is disappointed that the Government have gone only as far as making those on income support pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, plus the community water charge.
It would not have been so bad had the Government arranged matters in such a way that those in receipt of income support and facing the poll tax charge were fully compensated for the amount of poll tax that they must pay. We can only conclude that a Minister who cannot even name three local authorities in Scotland is not aware that in Scotland there are many people whose uprating of income support will not cover the poll tax bill that they face. In my constituency, a single person loses by 31p a week, a married couple by more than 60p a week. In many other areas of Scotland where the poll tax is higher, the loss to those people on income support who face the poll tax is much greater. The Minister must say why, depending on where they live, those on income support in Scotland should find that the poll tax eats into their basic income levels.
This evening we must ask ourselves why the Government are bringing in statutory instruments which require more information and the direct deduction of poll tax from income support. The answer is given in the recent publicity about the I million people in Scotland who are not paying the poll tax.
This Sunday's Observer contained an interesting comment from the leader of the Labour group on Lothian regional council, Councillor John Mulvey, who said:
"the non-payment campaign is alive and well and going from strength to strength. There is clearly a sizeable number of people who are not prepared to pay the poll tax and their ranks are being swollen by those who cannot afford to pay.
In spite of council officials saying that things are going well, the reality is that they're really quite worried by the scale of opposition that is developing."
Not everyone in the Labour group on Lothian regional council shares his opinion. Councillor Eric Milligan was
460
mentioned earlier in this debate. In the words of Councillor Tony Kinder, the Labour councillor for Broxburn in the Lothian region, Councillor Milligan is the
"self-appointed poll tax collector-in-chief to the Conservative Party."
Mr. George Galloway: What about Grampian?
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member mentions Grampian region. It is interesting to note that the Scottish National party finance convenor of Grampian region was the one finance convenor in Scotland who was prepared to go to the wall to stop warrant sales in the poll tax, while members of the Labour party in the Grampian region sat on their hands and allowed the Democrats and the Conservatives to vote him out of office. We all know that that is not something which "warrant sale Milligan" is likely to do in the Lothian region.
Statutory instruments Nos. 507 and 476 are signs of Government panic in face of the strength of the non-payment campaign in Scotland. There is no breach of civil liberties which the Government would not be prepared to encounter. There is no imposition on the poorest in the community that the Government would not be willing to consider to try to keep the poll tax show in Scotland on the road. However, the poll tax in Scotland will be ground into the dust of history where it belongs. That will be done by the strength of the non-payment campaign which is under way at the moment.
11.53 pm
Mr. George Galloway: We have just heard the red Clydesider from Banff and Buchan talking about the great and stalwart fight which his colleagues in the Grampian region are conducting. His colleague sitting next to him, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) comes from the local authority which is one of the most assiduous collectors of the poll tax in Scotland. However, I would be wasting the five minutes available to me if I talked any longer about this farce to my left.
I found none of the farce on the Conservative Benches at all funny this evening. These proceedings have been an outrageous mockery. We were talked down to by a Minister representing the rolling downs of Hampshire, who would not know a Scottish local authority if it hit him in the face. No Scottish Office Minister was present until the Whips went into the back shop and dragged the Minister responsible for the poll tax in Scotland away from his bottle of port. As soon as the Scottish press left the Gallery, the Minister returned to his drinks party in the back shop. Only one Tory Scottish Member of Parliament has sat through this farce from beginning to end, and that is the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whom it is not easy to embarrass.
This farce typifies the sad position to which the government of Scotland has been reduced. These regulations will allow the poorest people in Scotland to be hunted down for a few pence and in the name of the community charge. It is only a few pence to Her Majesty's Government, who are sitting atop billions of pounds worth of surplus. The tax, and the farce associated with it, exemplify the reasons why each election and each opinion poll bring home—or ought to—to Her Majesty's

461
Government the extent to which they are now virtually bereft of popular support in the country of Scotland, which they purport to govern.
The Government, and their comprador in the Scottish Office, are a Government of Scottish Bourbons, who have learnt nothing and are forgetting nothing. There are no prizes for guessing who the Marie Antoinette is. I thought about who the Secretary of State might be, and the only figure I could come up with was Cardinal Rohan, whose patch was Strasbourg, but perhaps that is a delicate subject in these troubled times for the Tory party. The Government, who are implementing their mean-spirited, dire and pathetic regulations, are doing so without the slightest scintilla of popular support. As others have said, they are taking money from people on benefit, which, by definition, gives a level of financial support that is the very lowest that can be accepted in a civilised society of the Prime Minister's type. Even by this Government's standards, that is shameful.
Robin Small of the Low Pay Unit described the regulations as scandalous. He said:
"The whole notion of arresting Income Support which is considered to be subsistence level is scandalous.
How can the Government say they are keeping people off the poverty line by giving them Income Support and then take it away in certain circumstances?"
The Evening Times in Glasgow has fought a courageous campaign against the poll tax. It said in an editorial:
"The community charge is a tax without pity. Today we expose how it will be collected from many poor families who won't, or can't afford to pay … Is this the sort of heartless society we truly want?"
It describes the Minister's memorandum in this way:
"This is a brutal, oppressive memorandum. It shows how hard-nosed official channels are becoming about poverty. The State will have its pound of flesh, come what may, and never mind if people starve in the process."
There are people in Scotland who are pretty nearly going hungry, and this poll tax and these mean-spirited regulations will make it even harder for people living on the breadline to make ends meet. I hope that that is a pretty sight from the rolling downs of the Minister's constituency, because from where I sit, it is a pretty ugly one.
11.59 pm
Dr. John Reid: It speaks volumes for the concern of the Scottish National party that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is given the opportunity to criticise the perpetrators of the poll tax in Scotland, he instead spends his time attacking the only potential Government, the Labour party.
During my short career in Parliament I have sat through debates on shameful pieces of legislation, but none more shameful than what we are discussing tonight. It might benefit the season ticket holders who have arrived late for the vote, and who were not here to watch the match, if I explained what the legislation is all about. Tonight we are contemplating taking powers to withdraw from essential benefits the anticipated arrears in payment of an unfair tax from those who can least afford to pay it.
If there was ever an admission of the callousness of the poll tax and of the Government who introduced it, this statutory instrument is it. We were told that it was a fair tax, that it took account of ability to pay, that it was designed to encourage individual responsibility and individual dignity. What a sham, what hypocrisy. What is fair about a tax for which arrears can be anticipated and
462
which will deprive the poorest in society of a minimal subsistence benefit designed to keep them not in comfort, not even in the less than comfort of the pension, but just minimally above the poverty line? How can a tax that takes any real account of ability to pay anticipate that the poorest will fall into arrears and inevitably will have to be punished by withdrawal of benefit? How can a tax encourage independence and dignity when, even before it is three months old, the Government are laying regulations that will reduce even further the little economic independence and dignity that anyone on income support can muster?
This is not simply a technical measure. It shows why the poll tax is absolutely rotten to the core. The poll tax already flies in the face of all progressive legislation by treating women as the chattels of their husbands. It stands on its head the Government's claim of individual responsibility by lumping husbands and wives together, even when the wife has only a minimal income. This measure is the most ignominious of all the aspects of the poll tax. It is no wonder that the Scottish Office Ministers did not have the guts to sit on the Front Bench while the Minister defended it.
This is not a tidying-up measure; it is an open admission of the bankruptcy of the Government's social morality. It is an open admission that the poor will fall into arrears and will be punished for it. How much have we heard tonight about the technicalities of the regulations? We heard much about 10p and 56 days. We cannot possibly portray the misery of a family on the poverty line through some chap in a Civil Service office. We cannot possibly understand what families on income support who face the poll tax are going through simply by reading some fancy footnote from the Department of Social Security. We need to live with those families to understand what they face. The Minister's kids do not go to school with the kids of families on income support. The Minister does not have meals with those families. A Minister who cannot name three local authorities in Scotland and cannot name three families in poverty in Scotland has no right to introduce legislation that will so adversely affect them.
I have many criticisms of the poll tax legislation. It is as needed in Scotland, as popular in Scotland and as useful in Scotland as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I have searched all night for a worse criticism, but I cannot find one.
12.3 am
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am glad to have this opportunity to point out that when the memorandum from the Secretary of State for Social Security was sent to DSS offices in Scotland—it was based on statutory instrument No. 507—it was kept secret from Members of Parliament. When I asked to see a copy, I was told that I could not have one. I asked that it be placed in the Library, but that was refused. Another hon. Member asked whether it would appear in Hansard, but was told that it would not, on the grounds that it was only an interim order and that further instructions would be issued at a later date.
The Government were hoping to hide their iniquitous action. They were also hoping to hide the incompetence of the Ministers concerned. I managed to get hold of the memorandum and I have it here with me tonight. On page 2, it says that if a person fails to pay the poll tax, one of

463
the options open to obtain the poll tax from him is confinement in prison. One point about the poll tax that is well known in Scotland is that people do not go to prison in Scotland for not paying the poll tax. We have the spectacle of the Department of Social Security sending out a memorandum telling officials that people in Scotland go to prison for failing to pay the poll tax although that is clearly wrong. It is hardly surprising—
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Fyfe: No.
It is hardly surprising, considering that the Minister could not name three of the Scottish local collecting authorities. It would help if he could at least manage to consult his Scottish Office colleagues to get right the law in Scotland and to avoid the embarrassment of the reaction that rightly came from people when the Evening Times exposed the fact that the Government were prepared to leave people in desperate need of money with as little as lop of their income support. I do not know why they bother to leave 10p. Why not leave nothing, or at least 19p, so that those people can at least put a stamp on a letter to their Members of Parliament to take up their case? There is nothing more to say except that the regulations are one of the main reasons why this Conservative bunch who come in late and hear nothing of the debate—
Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mrs. Fyfe: Those Conservative Members will vote for the regulations. They have nothing but contempt for the people of Scotland.
12.5 am
Mr. John McAllion: I would—
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McAllion: I would consider giving way to the hon. Gentleman if he had had the courtesy to come into the Chamber and listen to the arguments about these regulations and the Scottish response. He has spent his time in the bar or somewhere else. He should go back there now and make no more attempts to intervene in this important debate.
We have seen here tonight the best possible argument for the establishment in Scotland at the earliest possible date of a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish matters. Conservative Members have shown an absolute lack of appreciation not only of the Scottish issue—
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman alleged that I have been in the bar. In fact, I have been in the Library, and I hope that he will give way to allow me to answer some of the criticisms that have been made on the subject—
It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [16 June]:—
The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 280.

Division No. 258]

[12.07 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Allen, Graham

Grocott, Bruce

Anderson, Donald

Harman, Ms Harriet

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Henderson, Doug

Armstrong, Hilary

Hinchliffe, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Battle, John

Home Robertson, John

Beckett, Margaret

Hood, Jimmy

Beith, A. J.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Bell, Stuart

Howells, Geraint

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

Hoyle, Doug

Blair, Tony

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Blunkett, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Boateng, Paul

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Boyes, Roland

Illsley, Eric

Bradley, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Kennedy, Charles

Buckley, George J.

Kirkwood, Archy

Callaghan, Jim

Leadbitter, Ted

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Leighton, Ron

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Clark, Or David (S Shields)

Livingstone, Ken

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Livsey, Richard

Clay, Bob

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clelland, David

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Loyden, Eddie

Cohen, Harry

McAllion, John

Corbett, Robin

McAvoy, Thomas

Corbyn, Jeremy

Macdonald, Calum A.

Cousins, Jim

McFall, John

Cox, Tom

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Crowther, Stan

McKelvey, William

Cryer, Bob

McLeish, Henry

Cummings, John

Maclennan, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Dr John

McWilliam, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Madden, Max

Darling, Alistair

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Marek, Dr John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dewar, Donald

Martlew, Eric

Dixon, Don

Meale, Alan

Dobson, Frank

Michael, Alun

Doran, Frank

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Douglas, Dick

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eadie, Alexander

Morgan, Rhodri

Eastham, Ken

Morley, Elliott

Fatchett, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mowlam, Marjorie

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

Mullin, Chris

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Paul

Flannery, Martin

Nellist, Dave

Flynn, Paul

O'Brien, William

Foster, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Foulkes, George

Patchett, Terry

Fraser, John

Pike, Peter L.

Fyfe, Maria

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Galbraith, Sam

Prescott, John

Galloway, George

Primarolo, Dawn

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Radice, Giles

George, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Reid, Dr John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Richardson, Jo

Gordon, Mildred

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Gould, Bryan

Robertson, George

Graham, Thomas

Rooker, Jeff

465

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dennis

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Salmond, Alex

Wall, Pat

Sedgemore, Brian

Wallace, James

Sheerman, Barry

Walley, Joan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wareing, Robert N.

Short, Clare

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Spearing, Nigel

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wray, Jimmy

Steinberg, Gerry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Straw, Jack

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mr. Frank Cook.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Allason, Rupert

Colvin, Michael

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Amos, Alan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Couchman, James

Ashby, David

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Day, Stephen

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dicks, Terry

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Bob

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dykes, Hugh

Bevan, David Gilroy

Eggar, Tim

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Emery, Sir Peter

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Body, Sir Richard

Evennett, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Favell, Tony

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forman, Nigel

Bowis, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Forth, Eric

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Franks, Cecil

Brazier, Julian

Freeman, Roger

Bright, Graham

French, Douglas

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

Fry, Peter

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gardiner, George

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gill, Christopher

Budgen, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Burns, Simon

Goodlad, Alastair

Burt, Alistair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butcher, John

Gorst, John

Butler, Chris

Gow, Ian

Butterfill, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gregory, Conal

Carrington, Matthew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carttiss, Michael

Grist, Ian

Cash, William

Ground, Patrick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Chapman, Sydney

Hague, William

Chope, Christopher

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Churchill, Mr

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hanley, Jeremy

466

Hannam, John

Nicholls, Patrick

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

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Harris, David

Norris, Steve

Haselhurst, Alan

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hawkins, Christopher

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Hayward, Robert

Paice, James

Heddle, John

Patnick, Irvine

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Pawsey, James

Hill, James

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hind, Kenneth

Price, Sir David

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hordern, Sir Peter

Redwood, John

Howard, Michael

Renton, Tim

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

Rhodes James, Robert

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Riddick, Graham

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Irvine, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jack, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Jackson, Robert

Rost, Peter

Janman, Tim

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shelton, Sir William

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Speller, Tony

Latham, Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lilley, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stokes, Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David

Summerson, Hugo

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Madel, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Major, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Thorne, Neil

Maples, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Marland, Paul

Thurnham, Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tracey, Richard

Maude, Hon Francis

Tredinnick, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Trippier, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Mellor, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Miller, Sir Hal

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mills, Iain

Viggers, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Moate, Roger

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Ward, John

Moss, Malcolm

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Warren, Kenneth

Neale, Gerrard

Watts, John

Needham, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Nelson, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Neubert, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wiggin, Jerry

467

Wilkinson, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Tony Durant and

Wood, Timothy

Mr. David Lightbown.

Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the first year of the Valleys Programme the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

DNA Testing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
12.18 am
Mr. Max Madden: Home Office watchers, especially those of us who are closely involved in immigration and nationality matters, never cease to be amazed at the breathtaking arrogance of successive Home Secretaries or at the sustained efforts of their senior officials to manage and manipulate the House and the national news media. But the propensity of Home Secretaries to try to mislead the House at the behest of senior officials has been revealed this week in precise detail. That the issue at the heart of this attempted Home Office deception concerns DNA testing and the immigration rules is all part of a pattern of events concerning immigration and nationality which has unfolded since 1979.
The Government, in concert with senior Home Office officials, have carefully planned and introduced a series of laws, rules, regulations and procedures which, in total, now mean that many black and Asian people find it extremely difficult—even when they have clear rights to live in this country—to enter the United Kingdom, and in recent years even to visit relatives and friends in this country.
The Government's "firm and fair" immigration policy is a euphemism for racist laws which discriminate on the basis of race and colour and against those who suffer the dual misfortune of being black or Asian and poor.
I accuse the Government of trying to mislead the House about a centrally organised DNA testing scheme. Last week, when announcing such a scheme, the Home Secretary said that decisions about how the scheme was to be funded had not been reached. However, a Home Office document, written by the head of the immigration and nationality department, Mr. G. N. Stadlen, makes it clear that a decision on funding has been reached. Indeed, it makes it clear that an increase in entry clearance fees will be introduced on 1 November. It is also clear, from this document and from a draft letter to the Lord President from the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary has been and is plotting to deny the House any opportunity to debate either the principle of raising entry clearance fees, which are now £60 per person, to fund a centrally organised DNA testing scheme, or, indeed, to debate and
Last night the Government deliberately arranged a debate to discuss DNA testing and changes in the immigration rules together so as to avoid—I quote from the Home Office documents which were leaked this week—
"two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession."
As is also clear from the draft letter and from Mr. Stadlen's document, the Home Secretary had planned the controversial DNA announcement with the immigration rule changes to "divert some attention" from the absence of any further provisions or promises for the people of Hong Kong.
I believe that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that last night's debate on DNA testing and the immigration rule changes was a shambolic farce. Many hon. Members who wished to participate in that debate had no opportunity to do so and the Minister, who happily

469
is with us again tonight, was left with fewer than 10 minutes to reply to the many questions put to him by hon. Members from all parts of the House.
The Minister said that he would speak about DNA testing in reply to this Adjournment debate. I have many expectations of Adjournment debates, but never before have I witnessed a Minister from a Department which had deliberately contrived to arrange a debate to discuss two issues—DNA testing and the immigration rule changes—tell the House that as he did not have time to talk about DNA testing he would make a statement on it in an Adjournment debate the following evening.
In reply to questions from journalists today, the Home Office has made it clear that the Minister of State will say little about DNA testing tonight, so I am left with no alternative but to believe that the Home Secretary's attempt seriously to mislead the House of Commons has backfired badly. We are left with the Minister of State who, despite all his considerable powers of bluff and bluster, which were fully deployed last night, cannot conceal the Government's embarrassment. He has been left with egg all over his face as a result of the Home Secretary's and the Home Office's attempt to mislead the House of Commons and to arrange the business of the House for their convenience.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. On previous occasions Mr. Speaker has made it clear that hon. Members must not accuse Ministers of deliberately seeking to mislead the House. That is a reflection on their integrity and honour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that accusation.
Mr. Madden: In a moment I shall quote extensively from the document to which I have already referred. Any objective view of that document can only lead one to the inevitable conclusion that the Home Secretary, in concert with other senior Ministers, was actively seeking to mislead the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker will not tolerate remarks in the House which reflect on the integrity of hon. Members, whether they be Ministers or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman may well adduce his evidence and leave it for the House to draw its own conclusions, but he must not make that allegation. He must withdraw it.
Mr. Madden: I shall gladly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister of State and his officials should now do what they should have done at the start and make a statement on DNA testing and the centrally organised DNA testing scheme that the Government wish to announce. They should follow that statement with a full debate in the House—I would not dare to say during daylight hours, but at a reasonable hour. Last night we had a non-debate on DNA and a short debate on immigration rule changes in the early hours of the morning, and tonight this debate is taking place well after midnight.
I hope that the Minister of State will readily accept my suggestion, because it would enable the Home Secretary to give full and accurate information about a centrally organised DNA testing scheme which is vital to divided families who desperately want to be reunited in Britain. It would enable all those hon. Members who have many
470
questions to ask about how the scheme will be funded and operated to put those questions with a reasonable expectation of receiving full and accurate replies.
I quote briefly from the draft letter to the Lord President of the Council for signature by the Home Secretary, which is annex A to the document written by Mr. Stadlen and discusses the timing of last Wednesday's written answer to a parliamentary question on DNA testing. It says:
"I have considered carefully whether there are countervailing Hong Kong factors which justify postponement. My conclusion is that postponement would, if anything, Increase speculation on that score rather than diminish it: it will be better to proceed on the basis of 'business as usual' for immediate purposes explaining as necessary that any Hong Kong proposals will be forthcoming separately. Since I shall, with H colleagues' approval, be simultaneously making a possible controversial announcement about the use of DNA in immigration cases, it could well be that that will divert some attention.
I have however removed from the new Rules a measure to increase to £200,000 the minimum sum of £150.000 at present required for entry as a businessman or person of independent means. The current sum has been widely mentioned in recent days in the Hong Kong context, and increasing it now could undermine our current Hong Kong policy.
I attach a copy of the Written Answer and Press Release which have been prepared for the announcement. Our officials have already been in touch about the timing of a debate on the Rules. At that stage, too, it will be very important to consider the Hong Kong dimension and I will, of course, be keeping in close touch with the Foreign Secretary for that purpose.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Employment, for Education and Science, and to Sir Robin Butler."
The memorandum from Mr. Stadlen, referring to the timing of last Wednesday's announcement, states in part:
"postponement would arouse expectations which we cannot at this stage be sure of meeting, leading to possible presentational problems later on. Proceeding with the rules now, by contrast, enables us to say that they have been in the pipe line for sometime and are being introduced without prejudice to the outcome of the consideration being given to the position of the people of Hong Kong."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk about DNA. So far he has wasted 13 of the 30 minutes allocated to an Adjournment debate quoting a leaked Home Office document that has very little to do with DNA. Shall we be given a chance to discuss DNA tonight, or is the hon. Gentleman's intention once again frivolously to waste the time of the House, as he did last night?
Mr. Madden: I hoped to discuss DNA testing last night. I hoped for an opportunity to ask questions about it after the statement that I had presumed would be made last week, and in a debate in Government time at a reasonable hour. As this is my debate, I shall deploy my arguments and make my speech in my own way. The Minister must contain himself, but if he is so anxious to debate DNA, I hope that he will join me in persuading his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House to provide time for a full debate on DNA testing.
The memorandum makes it clear that the immigration rules are not being changed to allow the amount required of business people to be increased to £200,000 because of the Hong Kong dimension. It adds that a later date of laying would enable the Home Secretary
"to develop a defensive line or outline proposals on Hong Kong before the debate. But the Home Secretary's decision to

471
proceed with the rules changes is premised on our ability to present them as a matter quite separate from Hong Kong, and on the desirability of disposing of the debate before the Government comes under pressure to announce its conclusion. Accordingly, I recommend that the rules be laid on Wednesday."
A section entitled "Handling the announcement" contains the statement:
"The press will now be looking out for the rules changes. I propose therefore that we publish them on the same day as laying, to put us in a position to respond promptly to enquiries and press reports."
In another headed "The debate" there is the comment:
"Because the consolidated rules cover the whole of immigration control, the debate will be wide ranging and we shall prepare briefing accordingly. Mr. Renton will speak at the end. B2 are putting together a draft speech to cover the main rules changes (visas for Turkey and Haiti, students sex discrimination), Hong Kong (briefly) and DNA".
The document goes on to deal with the Government's DNA scheme, which is a serious matter:
"It does not indicate how the scheme will be financed, beyond reiterating that the cost will not be met by the taxpayer. The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in the settlement fee.
Although no part of the DNA proposals involves changes in the rules, it is certain that the Opposition and the lobby will use the opportunity offered by the rules changes to argue the case for over-age reapplicants. Consequently we see advantage in combining the two announcements, thus avoiding two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession."
And so it goes on, in much the same vein.
I know that the Minister is anxious to discuss DNA. May I, therefore, put six questions to him—very quickly—which I very much hope that he will try to answer either tonight or in the debate that I hope we shall be allowed shortly?
First, by how much will entry fees increase on I November, as foreshadowed in the internal Home Office document? Secondly, will applicants be required to pay anything for undertaking DNA tests? Thirdly, will there be a flat-rate increase in entry clearance, or a variable increase? Fourthly, what are the projected public expenditure savings to the Home Office and appellate authorities?
Incidentally, I put down two questions for answer today—to the Home Office and Foreign Office—seeking that information, and have as yet received no reply. That is not surprising; obviously the Minister will be falling over himself to give the information tonight.
Fifthly, will the Minister publish full financial details of the operation of entry clearance, bearing in mind that the total cost of an entry clearance officer was given in 1986 as £100,000? Sixthly, will he give a firm assurance that so-called "over-age children" who confirm their application to join their families here by positive DNA tests will be treated sympathetically? Like many other people, I feel that it would be a tragedy if the position set out in the internal Home Office document were translated into reality.
I believe that the way in which the Home Office has sought to deal with the matter raises serious issues. I do not think that anyone who gives a fair and objective interpretation to the Home Office document or to the way in which the Government have sought to orchestrate the
472
announcement of the matter—in my view, there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead and conceal—can feel anything other than grave concern.
This is a crucial matter, to which many divided families have been looking forward for many years. I believe that they deserve better treatment than they have been given by the Home Office and the Government. I hope that the Minister of State will do what he did not do last night and give some clear and full information about the way in which the scheme is to be operated.
12.37 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have rarely known such an abuse of the procedures of the House as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). He spoke for 17 of the 30 minutes allocated to an Adjournment debate, simply quoting from a leaked Home Office document which, while it certainly bears on DNA, has very little relevance to it.
In his final remarks the hon. Gentleman described DNA as "a crucially important matter", yet in the rest of his speech he went out of his way to show that his only interest in the subject was to stir up political trouble. He has no real interest in it; if he had, he would have given me time to answer serious questions rather than try to stir a political pot. He talks as though he is simply—in his own words—out to frighten the black, the Asian and the poor.
Why this contemptible attitude? Is the hon. Gentleman so frightened of his own position in his constituency that that is all that he can do? At the end of last night's debate I had only seven minutes in which to answer, rather than the 15 for which I had asked. Why? Because the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) went on and on talking. When I rose to reply I was constantly interrupted by points of order, not least by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Leader of the House, who said that I was speaking for the second time in the debate when I had not even spoken for the first time. It showed an extraordinary lack of knowledge of what was happening in the House. By his contempt of the House, the hon. Member for Bradford, West has shown that his only interest in the matter is just to try to stir up a bit of political trouble. I feel sorry for his constituents if that is the only service that they can get from him.
I return to the ludicrous charge by the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary misled the House about charging for DNA tests. There is no question of that whatsoever. We made it clear from the outset that any DNA scheme will not be funded out of taxpayers' money. Our policy is that the cost of the entry clearance process should be met by the applicants themselves rather than by the taxpayer. I see no reason why the costs of DNA tests should be treated any differently.
We recognise, of course, that the tests are expensive, particularly where several members of the same family are applying. With this in mind, my right hon. Friend made it clear last week that
"The level of the fee to be charged for"
settlement
"applications will need to strike a balance between not imposing too great a burden either on the individual applicant or on the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 464.]
If, for one moment, the hon. Member for Bradford, West would unblock his ears and listen I should tell him that,

473
beyond this, no final decision has been taken, whatever he may have read in national newspapers. Once we have worked up the detailed arrangements—
Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only a few minutes left. He took up a great deal more than half the time and, unlike him, I want to talk about DNA.
Once we have worked out detailed arrangements for financing the DNA scheme, we will of course make a further announcement to the House. That announcement will be made before the scheme is implemented overseas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are conscious of the need to avoid erecting a financial barrier which might constitute a deterrent to genuine family applicants. There has been no deceit whatsoever. Quite the contrary. My right hon. Friend has set out in full the way that we are going. Certain steps now have to be taken. For example, we have to negotiate contracts and prices with commercial suppliers. I repeat that when we have reached a final decision on the matter a further announcement will be made to the House. I hope that for once the hon. Gentleman will give up a little of his sound and fury and that he will go home and think seriously about DNA.
Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No.
The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, have argued that special consideration should be given to over-age re-applicants who were refused as children on relationship grounds and who do not meet the requirements of the rules relating to adults. I accept that this is a particularly difficult issue. For that reason, we gave it a great deal of thought. I listened very carefully to the points that were made in the debate on the immigration rules last night, but again I say to the hon. Member for Bradford, West that the subject of the debate was not DNA but the immigration rules. DNA is not mentioned in the immigration rules.
Mr. Madden: The Minister mentioned it.
Mr. Renton: I did not mention it; the hon. Gentleman raised it. In the very short time that was available to me last night I made it absolutely plain that I intended to talk about DNA tonight, not in a debate on the immigration rules.
In particular, I listened to a characteristically thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). However, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend or with the hon. Member for Bradford, West that this is simply a matter of reversing decisions that have turned out to be wrong. It is not as simple as that.
Mr. Madden: Why?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman should know, because he studies immigration matters quite carefully, that dependency lies at the heart of the question as to what decides who, other than spouses and fiancés, are allowed to join family units in the United Kingdom. That means that, under normal circumstances, only young children or elderly dependent relatives are given leave to enter.
474
The immigration rules now make generous provision for the admission of children on the basis that it is desirable for children to spend their formative years with their parents. Once a child has reached the age of 18, however, he is regarded as an independent adult. The rules provide for the admission of children over the age of 18 to join parents or relatives settled here only in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances. It seems to me that a person who once applied as a child cannot automatically be admitted regardless of his present age and circumstances. Many of those involved, after all, have now settled into independent adult life and will have established jobs and families of their own overseas.
This said, and having considered the matter very carefully, we decided that it would be right to relax the requirements of the rules in certain circumstances where a person previously refused entry as a child is now able to establish relationship by means of DNA evidence. A re-applicant will be expected to show that he is still wholly or mainly dependent on his United Kingdom sponsor, as that was the basis of his original application as a child. We will also look for some compassionate circumstances which distinguish the particular case from the generality of over-age re-applicants.
Subject to those requirements, we will be prepared to consider each case on its merits with a view to exercising discretion in suitable cases. I hope that this goes a substantial way towards reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, and I hope that it will go some way towards reassuring the hon. Member for Bradford, West—although I doubt it, as his ears are permanently blocked—that we will approach these difficult cases compassionately and sympathetically, while maintaining the basic distinction between children and adults which has been a settled feature of our immigration policy for many years.
DNA is a powerful and important new technique. There is no doubt that it has a good deal to offer in the immigration context. But I believe that the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week and which I have outlined tonight will go a long way towards making disputes about relationships, which have dogged so many immigration cases, a thing of the past. I do not anticipate any immediate reduction in Home Office expenditure, but I remember going on Sylhet village visits with our entry clearance officers from Dacca and I know the great lengths to which they went to establish whether relationships were genuine and as claimed. I hope that, when DNA is rooted and bedded down in our system, some of those village visits will not be necessary in future.
I am sure that most fair-minded people will regard our proposals as a fair and reasonable way forward. I should like to think that even the hon. Member for Bradford, West, with all the bile and anger that he appears to find it inevitable to bring to these difficult immigration matters, on mature reflection will accept the reasonableness of our proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give details of the financial aid available to send handicapped children and their parents to the Peto Institute in Hungary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision is included in the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill to enable education authorities in Scotland to pay all or part of the fees, travelling, maintenance and other expenses in respect of a child's attendance at an establishment which makes provision wholly or mainly for persons with pronounced, specific or complex special education needs. The Peto Institute in Hungary is such an establishment. The assistance can include, where appropriate, the expenses of parents or another accompanying person.

  Blind People
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered blind persons there are in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional figure for March 1988 is 13,760.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a report on environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is pleased to announce that a first report on environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland was published today and a copy placed in the Library. The report sets out the background to the designation of ESAs in Scotland, the main characteristics and objectives of each of the Scottish ESAs and the arrangements for monitoring the scheme.

  Forestry Commission (Wildlife)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the last advice he received from the Nature Conservancy Council concerning the practice of blocking of badger setts and digging of fox earths by fox hunters on Forestry Commission land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no advice from the Nature Conservancy Council on this subject, although it is possible that council staff have given informal advice to the Forestry Commission on a local basis. I understand, however, that the Nature Conservancy Council is preparing a report which will include discussion of the issue.

DEFENCE

  HMS Cambridge
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to give instructions to the Property Services Agency with regard to the erection of a proposed fence around HMS Cambridge at Wembury, Plymouth.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Property Services Agency, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, submitted a notification under the provisions of circular 18/84 to the South Hams district council of a proposal for the erection of new boundary fencing around the gunnery school at HMS Cambridge. The district council has objected to this proposal. No instructions will be given to the Property Services Agency for the erection of the proposed fence until the matter has been determined in accordance with normal planning procedures.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time from an appeal being notified to his Department from(a) Bombay high commission, (b) other Foreign Office outposts, (c) the Foreign Office itself, (d) the Home Office to (i) the date of the appeal being set and (ii) the hearing taking place.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not recorded in the form requested. Currently, however, it is estimated that the time taken from receipt of the notice of appeal by the immigration appellate authorities in London to the despatch of the appeal papers to both parties' representative in the United Kingdom is four to eight weeks. Appeals cannot thereafter be listed for hearing until both parties' representatives indicate that they are ready to proceed: this is in the hands of the parties, and times vary from a few weeks to several months. If no response is received within nine months the appeal is automatically listed for hearing.

  When both parties have indicated their readiness to proceed, the IAA are generally able to list the case for hearing within the following eight weeks, although where a party requests an expedited hearing such requests can usually be met. However, where a party seeks an adjournment, the hearing may take place more than eight weeks after the parties have indicated their readiness to proceed.

THE ARTS

  Exhibitions (Private Funding)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what contribution private funding has made to new exhibitions at national museums and galleries in the last 12 months, in addition to public funding.

  Mr. Luce
  Full details of private funding of new exhibitions are not held centrally but notable examples of such funding over the last 12 months are The British museum's "Treasures for the Nation" exhibition attracting £150,000 from British Gas. The Tate gallery successfully raised £423,000 in sponsorship for exhibitions, and the
  131
  Science museum's new "Food for Thought" gallery has attracted over £950,000 in commercial sponsorship. Such initiatives are to be encouraged.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mechanically Recovered Meat
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce regulations to control the use of mechanically recovered meat in food products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Mechanically recovered meat is used in a number of meat products. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require that a treatment given to a food, or food ingredient, should be shown in the appropriate place on the label if the omission of such an indication would mislead the purchaser.

  Food and Wine Exports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by the European Economic Community and by member states in subsidising the exports of food and wine in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will include in the total the moneys spent on exporting food and wine from intervention stores.

  Mr. Ryder
  Expenditure on export refunds for food and wine in 1988 was £6,638 million (provisional), of which £165 million was for food aid.

  This includes refunds on exports of commodities from the free market and from intervention stocks. The breakdown between member states is shown below.

  Mecu

  £ million

  Belgium

  297

  201

  Denmark

  689

  467

  Germany

  1,543

  1,047

  Greece

  76

  52

  Spain

  395

  268

  France

  2,577

  1,748

  Ireland

  317

  215

  Italy

  557

  378

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  2,698

  1,830

  Portugal

  2

  1

  United Kingdom

  636

  431

  TOTAL EC

  9,787

  6,638

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the progress on the case for extending the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, handed over to Mr. Raymond MacSharry the EC Commissioner for Agriculture a case to the EC Commission for an extension of the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas by 95,000 hectares of land in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This extension will require the agreement of the Commission before payment of any benefit can be considered. At this stage, I cannot say how 132
  long it will take to secure that agreement. The form of the submission follows from the initial discussions we have held with the EC Commission, which has made it clear that it will be examining our submission rigorously against the criteria on economic and demographic performance laid down in directive 75/268.

  I am arranging for copies of the results of our application of these criteria, together with an illustrative map of the areas submitted to the Commission, to be placed in the Library at the House and in local Ministry offices in the areas concerned. Farmers, who made representations following the 1984 extension, will be notified individually whether their land has been included in the submission.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish a report on the environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The first report on the environmentally sensitive areas scheme is being published today by HMSO, meeting our obligation under section 18(8) of the Agriculture Act 1986.

  The environmentally sensitive areas scheme has been warmly welcomed by conservation bodies and farmers alike. Since going to press we have received further applications from over 300 farmers wishing to bring over 9,000 hectares (22,230 acres) of their land into the scheme this year. Overall, this gives us a total of 2,708 applications and agreements covering 110,495 hectares (273,000 acres) of land in England alone since the scheme was introduced in 1987. This represents over 90 per cent. of the land which we considered likely to enter the scheme and shows overwhelmingly the farming industry's commitment to environmentally conscious farming. It points to real progress in conserving some of our most beautiful countryside.

  My colleagues the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland have made similar announcements. The report sets out how the scheme operates in each of the designated areas and how we intend to assess its impact. I hope it will add to a wider understanding of environmentally sensitive areas and what they are designed to achieve.

  Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available from HMSO bookshops.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The main item on the agenda of this Council, at which I represented the Government, was the Commission's proposal for changes to the support arrangements for sheep. The Commission indicated ways in which it might be prepared to adjust its proposal. I emphasised the main points which would be necessary for the proposals to be acceptable to the United Kingdom including the conditions which are necessary for a unified regime. Discussion showed that major differences of view persist and the Council will return to the matter at a subsequent meeting.
  133
  The arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom, which some member states regard as closely linked to progress in the support system for sheep, were rolled forward for a further month (July) on the basis of unchanged quantities and prices.

  The Council adopted a directive laying down health and hygiene standards for egg products. This will bring legislative standards for pasteurised egg in the Community as a whole up to the level of the best practices already applied by the major United Kingdom egg producers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Broadcasting in the 1990s"
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the United Christian Broadcasters letter to him on the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the 1990s"; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Renton
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of my private secretary's reply of 8 June.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department as to the requirements of each prison in England and Wales to report the finding of drugs; and how often such reports are required to be made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All prison service establishments are required to report to their regional office every find which is made of an illicit drug. A report on each incident should be submitted as soon as possible after the find is made.

  Voting Rights
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to introduce legislation giving full voting rights indefinitely to Britons abroad for both United Kingdom elections and European Parliament elections, in line with the rights accorded to other European nationals.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached any conclusions, in the light of responses to Home Department consultation papers No. 1 Representation of the People: British Citizens Overseas, issued on 29 April 1988, and No. 2 Representation of the People: Absent Voting, issued on 2 March 1989; and if he has any proposals to amend electoral law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Representation of the People Act 1985 brought the United Kingdom into line with most other western democracies by making provision for British citizens to vote whilst living abroad. This step was greatly welcomed by many British citizens worldwide. The detailed arrangements represented a cautious, evolutionary approach. They had the effect, amongst other things, of limiting in time the right to be registered as an overseas elector to five years from the date for which a British citizen was last registered as a United Kingdom resident; requiring the applicant to make a declaration, including a prescribed statement about residence intentions; requiring 134
  the declaration to be attested by a consular official; and requiring the overseas elector to make a fresh declaration annually. These provisions, stricter than in many other countries, considerably restricted the numbers abroad who could have access to the franchise and imposed significant burdens on those who did. The Government made a commitment, at the time the legislation was passing through Parliament, to review the new arrangements once they were in operation, and, in particular, to reconsider the five-year time limit.

  It is evident from the under-use of the franchise during its first three years of operation, and from replies to consultation paper No. 1, that the measures introduced in 1985–86 are unduly restrictive. They exclude from the franchise British citizens working on longer-term contracts abroad, often in the United Kingdom's interests, and they exclude completely anyone who left the United Kingdom before he was old enough to have been included in a register of electors. In addition, applicants are discouraged by the procedures for registration, and they are not reminded of the need to be registered annually, as are their counterparts resident in the United Kingdom.

  The overseas electors' franchise deprives too many British citizens abroad of the right to vote and the existing application procedures should be simplified. I am presenting today a Representation of the People Bill to amend the law relating to overseas electors. This would extend to 25 years the period abroad during which British citizens may apply to be registered to vote in United Kingdom parliamentary and European Parliament elections. The Bill would extend the overseas franchise to include those not previously registered as electors in the United Kingdom by reason of age; and it would remove from the declaration which overseas electors must now make the statement about residence intentions. Proposals to amend the relevant representation of the people regulations, so as to simplify further the registration procedures for overseas electors, will be brought forward.

  The Representation of the People Act 1985 also extended, for the first time, the right to a postal or proxy vote to any United Kingdom resident, registered as an elector, who cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at his allotted polling station at a particular election. This reform meant that holidaymakers, people who had fallen ill, and those whose work took them away from home on polling day could nevertheless exercise their right to vote. Detailed conditions, which applicants for the new absent voting facility must satisfy, are specified in regulations. These include a requirement that applications for an absent vote at a particular election must be attested and, for the most general case, that the attester must not be related to the applicant and shall not have attested any other application in respect of the election for which the application is being made. The general election in 1987 provided the first major test of these new absent voting arrangements, and the attestation requirement gave rise to considerable difficulty with many applications being rejected as a result. We have already greatly simplified the application forms in the light of that experience, but it is clear from the response to consultation paper No. 2 that there should be some easing of the application procedures themselves. Accordingly, proposals to amend the relevant regulations will be brought before this House; it will be convenient to deal with them at the same time as the regulations relating to overseas electors.
  135
  The Bill which I am presenting seeks also to deal with a pressing difficulty which has developed over the limits on candidates' expenses at parliamentary by-elections. Electoral law makes no distinction for the purposes of such expenses between a parliamentary general election and a by-election. The character of parliamentary by-elections has changed considerably since the law on which the existing scheme is based was passed, over a century ago. They are, increasingly, national events which focus the attention of political commentators and the media and which, consequently, attract the close involvement of the various party organisations. This trend, which is unlikely to be reversed, has implications for the system of controls on candidates' expenses set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. I propose to review these implications, in consultation with the representatives of the political parties and the returning officers who have responsibility, under the law, for conducting parliamentary elections. As a first step, I am putting in hand the preparation of a public consultation paper which will set out the background and promote consideration of the issues and options involved. Such a review will take time. In the interim it is important that the limits on candidates' expenses at parliamentary by-elections are realistic and take account of the campaigning activity which takes place. Accordingly, the Bill I am presenting today sets a new limit on candidates' expenses at parliamentary by-elections. The new limit, which is four times the one currently specified (which will continue to apply at general elections), is without prejudice to the outcome of the longer-term review I have described.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Kurdish asylum seekers from Turkey who have arrived since the beginning of May were refused admission at airports and removed immediately; and to which countries they went.

  Mr. Renton
  None; immigration officers are required to refer all applications for asylum to the refugee unit of the Home Office for decision.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were made in 1988; and what were the nationalities of the applicants.

  Mr. Renton
  This information will be contained in the 1988 issue of the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" which will be published next month.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kurdish asylum seekers from Turkey have arrived since the beginning of May; how many are currently held in(a) prison, (b) Harmondsworth detention centre and (c) elsewhere; and if he will list the institutions where they are being held.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not readily available in the precise form requested since records do not identify different ethnic groupings. As of midnight on 19 June, 2,838 Turkish nationals had arrived since the beginning of May and had sought asylum; 81 were detained in prison establishments at Winchester, Dorchester, Exeter and Gloucester; 92 were detained in Harmondsworth detention centre, Gatwick beehive and Latchmere house remand centre.
  136
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kurdish asylum-seekers from Turkey who have arrived in Britain since the beginning of May have been interviewed about their claim for asylum; and how many of these have been(a) given refugee status, (b) given exceptional leave to remain, (c) refused leave to remain and removed and (d) refused leave to remain and are awaiting removal.

  Mr. Renton
  By 19 June the asylum applications from 138 Turkish nationals had been considered in detail. The results of this consideration are:12: met the criteria of the 1951 UN convention and have been recognised as refugees;
  38: have been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom on an exceptional basis;
  5: are receiving further consideration;
  3: departed voluntarily before a final decision was reached;
  61: have been notified of a provisional decision that they do not qualify for asylum and any further information/representations are awaited;
  19: did not qualify for asylum or leave to enter under the immigration rules, were refused entry and have been returned to Turkey.
  In addition, 128 have made voluntary departures after withdrawing their claims for asylum.

  EC Broadcasting Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Council of Ministers did not approve the broadcasting directive on 14 June; and what plans the Commission has to pursue the matter.

  Mr. Renton
  The directive was not approved on that occasion because not enough member states were in a position to adopt it. It is proposed that the discussion of the Commission's re-examined proposal on the directive will continue under the French presidency.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many overseas visitors were initially refused entry to the United Kingdom in(a) January to May 1988, inclusive, and (b) January to May 1989, inclusive, and what were their nationalities;

  (2) how many Jamaican citizens were initially refused entry into the United Kingdom as not being genuine visitors in (a) January to May, inclusive 1988 and (b) January to May, inclusive, 1989.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The total numbers of passengers by nationality who were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom between January and April of 1988 and 1989 are given in the table; figures for May 1989 are not yet available. It is not possible from the information available centrally to ascertain how many sought entry as visitors.

  Of the 113 Jamaican citizens removed between January and April 1988 and the 307 removed between January and April 1989, 108 and 273 respectively failed to satisfy the immigration officer that they qualified as genuine visitors under paragraph 17 of the rules. Some of the remainder may also have sought entry as visitors but have been refused for other reasons.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested as
  137
  being illegal immigrants in the first five months of 1989, and in the corresponding five months in 1988; and what were their nationalities.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The available information is of persons against whom action was commenced as illegal entrants, which is published quarterly in table 13 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. The latest available figures relate to the fourth quarter of 1988 (in Bulletin 10/89). The figure for the first quarter of 1989 will be published in the next issue around the end of this month. A breakdown by nationality of the figures for the first and second quarters of 1988 is given in the following table.

  Persons against whom action was commenced as illegal entrants by nationality

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  1988

  1st Quarter

  2nd Quarter

  Europe

  182

  162

  Austria

  3

  2

  Bulgaria

  1

  —

  Cyprus

  10

  4

  Czechoslavakia

  2

  —

  France

  5

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  —

  2

  Hungary

  2

  4

  Italy

  2

  2

  Malta

  —

  1

  Netherlands

  —

  1

  Norway

  —

  1

  Poland

  2

  4

  Portugal

  20

  51

  Romania

  —

  —

  Spain

  15

  4

  Sweden

  3

  1

  Switzerland

  2

  1

  Turkey

  108

  72

  Yugloslavia

  6

  12

  Americas

  51

  55

  Brazil

  11

  6

  Canada

  3

  —

  Chile

  —

  4

  Colombia

  11

  13

  Jamaica

  12

  16

  Mexico

  1

  1

  Peru

  2

  4

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  2

  United States of America

  11

  9

  Africa

  265

  287

  Algeria

  21

  23

  Egypt

  4

  10

  Ethiopia

  1

  1

  Ghana

  93

  112

  Libya

  —

  3

  Mauritius

  5

  3

  Morocco

  15

  13

  Nigeria

  118

  111

  South Africa

  1

  2

  Sudan

  1

  4

  Tunisia

  3

  2

  Uganda

  1

  —

  Zaire

  2

  —

  Zambia

  —

  3

  Asia

  210

  223

  Bangladesh

  43

  65

  China

  1

  1

  Hong Kong BDTC

  9

  3

  India

  63

  55

  Iran

  8

  4

  Iraq

  1

  4

  138

  Nationality

  1988

  1st Quarter

  2nd Quarter

  Israel

  3

  4

  Japan

  8

  2

  Jordan

  —

  4

  Malaysia

  8

  15

  Pakistan

  33

  39

  Phillipines

  2

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  —

  Singapore

  1

  1

  Sri Lanka

  26

  20

  Syria

  1

  1

  Thailand

  2

  3

  Australasia

  Australia

  2

  3

  Other

  30

  38

  British Overseas Citizens

  4

  —

  Other countries not otherwise specified

  14

  27

  Stateless

  12

  11

  All Nationalities

  740

  768

TRANSPORT

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list year by year for the last 10 years how many tonnes of radioactive material were imported to Sellafield; what method of transport was used to convey the material to Sellafield; and from what countries the radioactive material was imported.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During the past 10 years, over 2,500 tonnes of irradiated fuel have been imported for reprocessing at Sellafield from the following countries:Japan, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Switzerland.

  The bulk of this material has been transported by sea in BNFL's own ships with the balance being sent by rail/sea from European countries. To break this information down by individual years would involve disproportionate effort.

  Blood Testing (Motor Accidents)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the remarks by the chief constable of Gwent, echoing those by petitioners in Nottingham, of 11 May 1987,Official Report, column 150, he will seek to review the ban against blood testing of unconscious persons involved in motor accidents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cmnd. 576) published in February this year recorded in paragraph 2.41 the conclusion that the case for taking blood samples from unconscious drivers was not generally yet felt to be sufficiently strong to overcome the present serious legal and ethical issues perceived to be involved.

  Bus Services (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what powers he has permitted commercial bus companies to operate in the Greater London area which are not under the auspices of London Regional Transport; and if he will state the conditions under which such services now operate.
  139
  Mr. Portillo
  Local bus services in London other than those controlled by London Regional Transport are licensed by the metropolitan traffic commissioner under part II of the Transport Act 1985. Between October 1986 and March 1989, 101 licences for local services were granted together with 72 licences for excursions or tours. Conditions attached to licences vary according to the case, and are for the traffic commissioner to decide.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what records are maintained of accidents occurring on the public highway involving registered blind or visually handicapped persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our records of injury accidents occurring on the public highway do not include details of the disabilities of people involved. The Department works closely with local authorities and with organisations of blind and partially sighted people to improve facilities available to those who are visually handicapped so that they can go out with greater safety and confidence.

  Great Central Railway Line
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the withdrawal from auction, on 6 July, of sites on the Great Central line.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are commercial matters for the British Rail property board and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the action he is taking to secure the route of the Great Central line as far as Rugby as a potential route for trains from the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Securing land which may be required for potential rail routes to the Channel tunnel is a matter for the proposers of the route.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan (Non-proliferation Treaty)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information on the terms and conditions set out by Pakistan that need to be met before Pakistan would sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  Pakistan has stated on several occasions that it will accede to the non-proliferation treaty if and when India agrees to do so.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to ensure that holders of Hong Kong British passports are given equal treatment with holders of full British passports in the matter of exit in emergency situations from the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.
  140
  Mr. Eggar
  Our policy is to give Hong Kong people holding British nationality exactly the same treatment for consular purposes as any other British national. This approach was demonstrated by the help and advice given to Hong Kong people by the British embassy in Peking and the consulate general in Shanghai during recent weeks.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Trade Deficit
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the manufacturing trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the manufacturing trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 8 June at column 204.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the deficit in manufactured trade for 1989–90.

  Mr. Major
  The Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1989–90 provides a forecast for trade in manufactures for calendar year 1989 only (table 3.5).

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the trade deficit in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 6 June at column 115.

  Composite Rate Investigations
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make an announcement on the next composite rate investigation under section 483(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have asked Inland Revenue to consult the savings institutions on arrangements for conducting a survey in respect of 1991–92.

WALES

  Perinatal Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report by Professor Sir Eric Stroud on the perinatal services in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that the expert advisory group on perinatal intensive care services in Wales, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Eric Stroud, is presently concluding its deliberations and expects to report shortly.

  Education Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a special allocation of cash to
  141
  local education authorities in Wales to enable them to meet their legal obligations consequent upon the enactment of the Education Reform Act;

  (2) if he will make a special allocation of cash to local education authorities in Wales to enable them to meet their obligations concerning the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a special allocation of cash to local education authorities in Wales to enable them to meet their obligations concerning local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  LEAs' expenditure requirements arising from the Education Reform Act are considered in the context of the revenue support grant negotiations. Specific additional support for aspects of ERA implementation is provided through education support grant and the LEA training grant scheme and through direct Welsh Office funding of the Curriculum Council for Wales.

  River Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue a direction to the Welsh Water Authority to prosecute all alleged industrial polluters of south Wales' rivers.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that when prescriptions are supplied in a combination pack of two or more items which cannot be taken in isolation and therefore are supplied only to he taken together as one course of treatment, only one prescription charge should be levied on the patient.

  Mr. Grist
  Unless the patient is entitled to exemption a prescription charge is payable in respect of each quantity of a drug prescribed and the fact that, for convenience, two or more individual preparations may be supplied in one pack does not affect the liability for payment. It would be wrong to allow manufacturers packaging arrangements to determine the amount a patient is liable to pay.

  Blind People
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered blind persons there are in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There were, in Wales, 8,564 people registered as blind on 31 March 1988.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish a report on environmentally sensitive areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am very pleased to say that the first report on ESAs in Wales has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Similar announcements are being made by my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The report explains the reasons for designating the Cambrian mountains and Lleyn peninsula ESAs and
  142
  describes the way the schemes are operating. It sets out progress on implementation and outlines our plans to monitor the effects of the schemes.

  Progress with the scheme is very encouraging. Almost two-thirds of the holdings in the original Cambrian mountains ESA have applied to join the scheme. Fifty-four per cent. (13,931 ha) of the semi-natural rough grazing in that area is already subject to management agreements, and this proportion will increase when further applications are processed. I anticipate similar success in the Cambrian mountains extended area in due course. In little more than a year, 15,403 ha (38 per cent.) of the 39,700 ha of agricultural land in the Lleyn peninsula ESA has been the subject of applications to join the scheme. This progress is a sign of considerable interest in the scheme, and of the industry's commitment to farming in an environmentally conscious way.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Mrs. Phyllis Bateson was appointed as a member of the Northern Ireland Police Authority; whether her position as a member of the authority was a matter of consultation or discussion with the Government of the Republic of Ireland under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and what was the proposed period of her membership of the authority.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: For security reasons it is not our policy to disclose the names of members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority. Nor is it normal practice to disclose whether any views have been put forward on the composition of individual public bodies under article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his advice issued to local authority associations that access by community charge registration officers to the schools admissions register was not allowed because the register is under the control of school governors still applies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. The advice on this subject issued in a letter from the Department to the local authority associations dated 2 May, repeated in a letter dated 17 May from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member, remains valid.

  National Curriculum (Heritage)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration has been given to the needs of archaeology and the conservation and protection of the British heritage in the development of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 13 January the establishment of a working group to make recommendations on attainment targets and programmes of study for history within the national curriculum in
  143
  England and Wales. He asked the group to take into account, amongst other things, the cultural heritage of Britain; it will also consider links between history and related fields such as archaeology. The group's interim report is to be submitted to him by 30 June, and its final report by Christmas.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many people are on employment training schemes whilst studying at college;

  (2) if he will list all employment schemes, other than educational training, which are based in the further education sector; how many students are on these schemes; and how they are funded.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for administering and funding most training programmes. The information available for the number of students training in public further education colleges in England on 1 November 1987 (the latest year for which information is available), excluding YTS and TVEI, is as follows:

  Thousands

  Industrial Type Training Course1

  7

  Adult Training Scheme2

  13

  Other Courses3

  12

  1 Industrial type training courses are courses at a college consisting entirely of training without a further education element, mounted at the behest of an industrial training board or employer, for which an economic charge is made.

  2 Adult training scheme, includes students enrolled under the job training scheme, training for enterprise and wider opportunities training programmes.

  3 Other courses include access to information technology and local grants to employers schemes.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much each of the local authorities in England and Wales spend on discretionary awards as a total and as a percentage of their total budget; and what is the maximum and minimum awards given by them.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows provisional outturn figures for the total amount spent on discretionary awards by each local education authority in England in 1987–88; and for the percentage this represents of their total net expenditure on education in each case where the latter figure is available. Policy for discretionary awards including the amount of support which should be given in each case is for each local authority to determine in the light of its own priorities and information about the value of individual awards is not collected centrally. Expenditure on education by local authorities in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Local education authority

  Total expenditure on discretionary awards

  (i)

  (ii)

  (£000's)

  As per cent. of total net expenditure on education

  Barking

  163

  0·26

  Barnet

  561

  n.a.

  Bexley

  264

  0·44

  144

  Local education authority

  Total expenditure on discretionary awards

  (i)

  (ii)

  (£000's)

  As per cent. of total net expenditure on education

  Brent

  3,342

  3·31

  Bromley

  613

  0·90

  Croydon

  355

  0·42

  Ealing

  805

  n.a.

  Enfield

  110

  0·16

  Haringey

  385

  n.a.

  Harrow

  237

  0·43

  Havering

  192

  0·30

  Hillingdon

  194

  0·33

  Hounslow

  200

  n.a.

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  155

  0·28

  Merton

  179

  0·44

  Newham

  389

  n.a.

  Redbridge

  297

  0·54

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  348

  1·06

  Sutton

  97

  0·25

  Waltham Forest

  591

  0·79

  ILEA

  20,156

  1·89

  Birmingham

  852

  0·28

  Coventry

  350

  0·31

  Dudley

  226

  0·28

  Sandwell

  399

  0·43

  Solihull

  212

  0·41

  Walsall

  276

  0·32

  Wolverhampton

  211

  n.a.

  Knowsley

  19

  0·03

  Liverpool

  30

  0·02

  St· Helens

  128

  0·22

  Sefton

  357

  0·49

  Wirral

  1,051

  1·15

  Bolton

  325

  0·49

  Bury

  380

  0·77

  Manchester

  878

  0·45

  Oldham

  227

  0·37

  Rochdale

  222

  0·35

  Salford

  212

  n.a.

  Stockport

  378

  0·51

  Tameside

  201

  0·33

  Trafford

  425

  0·80

  Wigan

  385

  0·40

  Barnsley

  578

  0·99

  Doncaster

  503

  0·58

  Rotherham

  193

  0·26

  Sheffield

  1,016

  n.a.

  Bradford

  1,777

  1·15

  Calderdale

  394

  0·73

  Kirklees

  1,023

  0·77

  Leeds

  1,124

  0·52

  Wakefield

  720

  0·79

  Gateshead

  129

  0·24

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  352

  0·34

  North Tyneside

  235

  n.a.

  South Tyneside

  5

  0·01

  Sunderland

  798

  0·83

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  0·29

  Avon

  1,905

  0·74

  Bedfordshire

  883

  0·57

  Berkshire

  1,164

  n.a.

  Buckinghamshire

  776

  0·44

  Cambridgeshire

  1,159

  0·69

  Cheshire

  3,349

  1·26

  Cleveland

  1,216

  0·63

  Cornwall

  390

  0·35

  Cumbria

  1,558

  1·13

  Derbyshire

  538

  0·20

  Devon

  3,896

  1·58

  Dorset

  1,479

  1·04

  Durham

  381

  0·24

  East Sussex

  725

  0·46

  Essex

  2,251

  0·57

  Gloucestershire

  2,182

  1·67

  Hampshire

  4,586

  1·16

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,007

  0·62

  145

  Local education authority

  Total expenditure on discretionary awards

  (i)

  (ii)

  (£000's)

  As per cent, of total net expenditure on education

  Hertfordshire

  1,442

  0·53

  Humberside

  2,500

  0·97

  Isle of Wight

  330

  1·08

  Kent

  3,702

  1·06

  Lancashire

  2,547

  0·65

  Leicestershire

  3,463

  1·32

  Lincolnshire

  1,388

  1·01

  Norfolk

  988

  0·58

  North Yorkshire

  3,341

  1·96

  Northamptonshire

  845

  0·53

  Northumberland

  400

  0·49

  Nottinghamshire

  1,305

  0·43

  Oxfordshire

  957

  0·65

  Salop

  1,202

  1·12

  Somerset

  546

  0·48

  Staffordshire

  1,232

  0·43

  Suffolk

  1,818

  1·20

  Surrey

  1,126

  0·51

  Warwickshire

  1,125

  0·90

  West Sussex

  364

  0·26

  Wiltshire

  1,094

  0·78

  Further Education
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much each of the local authorities in England and Wales spend on further education as a percentage of their total budget.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information in the form requested is not available. According to returns made to the Department of the Environment by local education authorities in England the percentage of the total net expenditure on Education spent on maintained establishments of further education other than polytechnics in 1987–88, the latest year for which actual expenditure is available, was as given in the table. The figures include the expenditure incurred on higher education within the other maintained establishments. Nationally, this represented some 20 per cent. of the total.

  Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Net Expenditure on other Maintained Establishments of Further Education as a Percentage of Total Net Expenditure on Education

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage

  Barking

  7·9

  Barnet

  n/a

  Bexley

  7·7

  Brent

  10·8

  Bromley

  10·7

  Croydon

  10·8

  Ealing

  n/a

  Enfield

  9·4

  Haringey

  n/a

  Harrow

  21·8

  Havering

  7·6

  Hillingdon

  4·4

  Hounslow

  n/a

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11·1

  Merton

  12·1

  Newham

  n/a

  Redbridge

  4·1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  21·4

  Sutton

  8·8

  Waltham Forest

  8·6

  ILEA

  12·1

  146

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage

  Birmingham

  8·0

  Coventry

  10·2

  Dudley

  14·6

  Sandwell

  13·8

  Solihull

  11·4

  Walsall

  7·8

  Wolverhampton

  n/a

  Knowsley

  6·3

  Liverpool

  10·3

  St. Helens

  12·9

  Sefton

  9·0

  Wirral

  12·0

  Bolton

  16·2

  Bury

  10·2

  Manchester

  11·9

  Oldham

  9·2

  Rochdale

  6·0

  Salford

  n/a

  Stockport

  10·9

  Tameside

  8·6

  Trafford

  12·2

  Wigan

  13·7

  Barnsley

  7·0

  Doncaster

  9·7

  Rotherham

  10·7

  Sheffield

  n/a

  Bradford

  12·1

  Calderdale

  6·2

  Kirklees

  9·5

  Leeds

  7·8

  Wakefield

  13·2

  Gateshead

  7·8

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  8·9

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  South Tyneside

  14·6

  Sunderland

  6·4

  Avon

  10·5

  Bedfordshire

  13·4

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  10·4

  Cambridgeshire

  13·2

  Cheshire

  11·5

  Cleveland

  9·5

  Cornwall

  11·2

  Cumbria

  9·9

  Derbyshire

  8·6

  Devon

  12·6

  Dorset

  16·0

  Durham

  9·6

  East Sussex

  9·3

  Essex

  10·3

  Gloucestershire

  14·1

  Hampshire

  13·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  14·4

  Hertfordshire

  12·1

  Humberside

  12·7

  Isle of Wight

  10·3

  Kent

  9·0

  Lancashire

  11·7

  Leicestershire

  9·0

  Lincolnshire

  9·2

  Norfolk

  10·4

  North Yorkshire

  8·7

  Northamptonshire

  11·5

  Northumberland

  5·5

  Nottinghamshire

  8·6

  Oxfordshire

  9·9

  Salop

  9·6

  Somerset

  14·6

  Staffordshire

  9·4

  Suffolk

  9·7

  Surrey

  11·1

  Warwickshire

  12·6

  West Sussex

  9·8

  Wiltshire

  14·3

  England Total

  10·8

  147
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent in England and Wales on further education in each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested in respect of spending on further education, formerly non-advanced further education, in England, is set out in the table. The corresponding figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Financial year

  Cash (net) £ million

  1979–80

  546

  1980–81

  688

  1981–82

  790

  1982–83

  878

  1983–84

  931

  1984–85

  998

  1985–86

  979

  1986–87

  1,054

  1987–88

  1,148

  11988–89

  1,225

  1 Provisional outturn spending.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on how many further education colleges in total and as a percentage of all further education colleges have(a) subsidised creche facilities for students, (b) free creche facilities for students, (c) no creche facilities for students, (d) subsidised meals for students, (e) sabbatical officers of student unions and (f) a student union office.

  Mr. Jackson
  No information is held centrally on the number of further education institutions providing creche facilities, subsidised meals or a student union office. Although we have no record of the total number of sabbatical officers, the DES survey of student unions suggested that it is unusual for mainstream further education colleges to have sabbatical officers.

  YTS Trainees
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the number of YTS trainees based in further education colleges (a) in total at any one time, (b) five days a week for the duration of the academic year, (c) five days a week for a limited period, for example, one term, (d) two to three days a week for the duration of the academic year, (e) two to three days a week for a limited period and (f) one day a week on day release.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for administering and funding YTS programmes. The information available for the number of trainees in public further education colleges in England on 1 November 1987 (the latest year for which information is available) is as follows:

  Thousands

  Total

  141

  Trainees attending full-time for the duration of the course

  42

  Other trainees

  99

  University Funding
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements have been 148
  made to wind up the University Grants Committee following the assumption from 1 April of full funding responsibilities by the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The terms of office of the last members of the University Grants Committee expired on 31 March. To allow for the orderly winding-up of the UGC's affairs, the secretariat will continue to have an existence until 14 July 1989, exactly 70 years after the committee's inception. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the way members and officers of the committee have, over that long period, discharged their responsibilities to help steer our universities steadily through periods of great change.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his latest estimates of the median weekly incomes, net and gross, of couples with(a) one child aged under five years, (b) single pensioners aged 75 years or over and (c) couples with one child under 16 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is set out as follows:

  Median net and gross weekly incomes in 1986

  Net £

  Gross £

  Single pensioner aged 75 or over

  59

  60

  Couples with (just) one child aged under five

  171

  209

  Couples with (just) one child aged under 16

  186

  239

  Notes:

  1. Gross income is defined as income from all sources (earnings, benefits, investment and other income).

  2. Net income is defined as gross income from all sources less income tax and national insurance.

  3. The median is defined as the middle case in the distribution. Half the number of cases fall below the median and half above.

  4. These figures are derived from the family expenditure survey. The figures may, therefore be subject to sampling errors.

  5. Figures are given in cash terms rounded to the nearest £1.

  Income Support
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action is being taken to ensure that adjudication officers are aware of the relevant case law in relation to suspension of income support through claimant's misconduct or leaving without good cause;

  (2) what guidance he issues to his officials with regard to 26 weeks being the maximum figure for disqualification from income support on the grounds of misconduct or leaving without good cause, and not the standard figure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Written guidance, which takes account of relevant case law, is given to adjudication officers by the chief adjudication officer in paragraphs 28901–28966 of the adjudication officers' guide. The adjudication officers' guide is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of disqualification from income support for claimants who have lost their job through their misconduct, or leaving without good cause.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No one is disqualified from receiving income support because they have either lost a job through
  149
  their misconduct or left it voluntarily without just cause. In such cases the claimant's personal level of income support is reduced—usually by 40 per cent. but by 20 per cent. if the claimant or a member of the family is seriously ill or pregnant and the family has less than £200 in savings. The average length of such reductions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the rates bill estimates used to calculate the adjustments made in income support to cover claimants' 20 per cent. liability.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The calculations in April 1988 were based on details of rates paid by housing benefit recipients in 1986 uprated to estimated 1988–89 levels. Income support levels were further adjusted from April this year to include help towards the minimum 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge that recipients would be expected to pay. The amounts included continue to provide help towards the minimum contribution to domestic rates for people living in England and Wales.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average domestic rates bill in England and Wales for 1989–90 of people in receipt of income support.

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

  Family Credit
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claims for family credit were approved and resulted in payment of this allowance since 1 March; and what proportion of those claims resulted in payment of £2 per week or more.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 58·9 per cent. of claims decided from 1 March 1989 to 16 June 1989 have been successful.

  Information about the proportion of these claims where the award was £2 a week or more is not available, but 97·6 per cent. of all families receiving family credit on 18 June were receiving £2 a week or more.

PRIME MINISTER

  Abortion
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will publish in the Official Report a copy of the letter she sent to a Pro-Life group about the Government's intention to allow a clause on the upper time limit for abortion to be added when the Warnock Bill is introduced;

  (2) what response she has given to the letter she was sent by a local anti-abortion group claiming that 12,000 abortion notification forms are returned each year with no medical condition recorded.

  The Prime Minister
  On the basis of the information in the questions I regret that I am not able to identify the correspondence mentioned.

  European Community Directives
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will outline the arrangements made for the Cabinet Office to 150
  co-ordinate the consideration of European Economic Community directives; when the arrangement was established; what existing procedures within Government have been replaced; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office provides support to the Cabinet and its committees on European Community issues as it does in all other key areas of Government business. A European secretariat was established in 1973 within the Cabinet Office specifically to handle Community issues and under the direction of Ministers to co-ordinate the United Kingdom's approach to the Community. Its work includes ensuring that all Community developments of importance are examined in good time; that policy is co-ordinated between the relevant Departments; and that the processes required to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of Community legislation are properly observed by Departments.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to her reply of 8 June,Official Report, column 368, if she will give details of the beneficial measures that Her Majesty's Government are taking in relation to the rain forests.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the Overseas Development Administration's activities to protect rain forests are given in a supplement to the December 1988 issue of "British Overseas Development", copies of which are in the Library. More recent activities were described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 23 May, at columns 932–936. Following a visit by a team of British experts my hon. Friend hopes to reach outline agreement on a package of environmental and forestry assistance when he visits Brazil in July. We are discussing the provision of technical co-operation in the forestry sector with the Indonesian Government and sent a mission on a successful visit last month.

  European Community (Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of the size of the net contributions made to the European Economic Community by the various member states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The review of the Community's finances concluded at the European Council in Brussels on 11–13 February 1988 confirmed the arrangements for abating the United Kingdom's contributions. The Fontainebleau mechanism remains totally intact; and it will last as long as the new own resources arrangements, reducing the United Kingdom's payments to the Community by over £1·3 billion in 1989–90.

HEALTH

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 314, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, he can now make an announcement as to which other hospitals in the Trent regional health authority are to be involved in the resource management initiative.
  151
  Mr. Freeman
  I announced on 20 March the names of 50 hospitals which have been chosen to prepare for resource management in the coming months.

  Those hospitals in the Trent regional health authority are listed as follows:

  Hospital

  District

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  North Derbyshire

  Glenfield Hospital

  Leicester

  City Hospital

  Nottingham

  Royal Infirmary

  Doncaster

  Northern General Hospital

  Sheffield

  Children's Hospital

  Sheffield

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there will be any implications for the doctor-patient relationship arising from the increased capitation element in the general practitioners' contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  By increasing the proportion of GPs' income which comes from capitation payments, we will be encouraging greater competition in the family doctor service. This will ensure a better service for patients by giving GPs a greater incentive to provide the best possible range and quality of services geared to patients' needs. As a result, the relationship between doctor and patient will be improved.

  North Western RHA
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Chairman of the North Western regional health authority; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met the chairmen of regional health authorities, including the chairman of the North Western regional health authority on 17 May 1989. Topics discussed included management of the service and implementation of the White Paper "Working for Patients". I have had no recent separate discussions with the chairman of the North Western regional health authority. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State both met the chairman of the North Western regional health authority on 19 June, and discussed health authority appointments and a capital project issue.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why applications for exemption from prescription charges are now centralised through Newcastle; when this new system was introduced; what representations he has received about its functioning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  In line with a recommendation of an efficiency scrutiny, all claims for exemption from prescription and other NHS charges on low income grounds have, since 11 April 1988, been dealt with centrally by the agency benefits unit of the Department of Social Security which administers the scheme on our behalf. Operational matters are the responsibility of that 152
  Department. On other matters the Secretary of State has received one parliamentary question, 17 letters from Members of Parliament and two letters from members of the public referring specifically to exemption from prescription charges.

  Stored Blood
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking, what research he is supporting, and what sums from the estimates approved by Parliament for the current year are being expended in respect of the extension of the usable life of stored blood.

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of improved anti-coagulants since 1981 has extended the usable life of whole blood to 35 days under standard conditions. Experience has shown that this is adequate to ensure that most blood can be used before it reaches its expiry date. In the case of rare blood groups it is possible and worthwhile to extend the usable life further by freezing, and facilities to freeze and store red blood cells have been set up at some regional transfusion centres. The Department is not currently supporting any research on further developments to extend the usable life of stored blood.

  Consultations (Waiting Time)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will undertake a study into the waiting time to see a consultant following referral by a general practitioner.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to mount a special study, although we do intend to begin to collect, for the first time, information about out-patient waiting lists and times. In and out-patient waiting times in the 22 districts with serious waiting problems are already being investigated by a team of management consultants. Under the waiting list initiative regional health authorities have been asked to agree with their district targets for reducing waiting times for out-patient treatment.

  Doncaster Community Health Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by name and nominating organisation, the current serving members of the Doncaster community health council.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. It is contained in Doncaster community health council's register of members which the hon. Member can inspect at all reasonable hours at thier offices.

  Hospitals (Flowers)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the Trent regional health authority during the current financial year of supplying(a) plastic flowers and (b) natural cut flowers, to hospital wards and other establishments.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. I suggest that the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

  Physicists
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to which health authorities currently experience difficulties in the maintenance of services involving adequate staffing of graduate physicists.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Margaret Pyke Centre
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is now in a position to make a statement about the future funding of the Margaret Pyke centre.

  Mr. Freeman
  In recognition of its role as a national centre of training family planning doctors and nurses and its work in preventing the spread of AIDS I am discussing with North East Thames regional health authority ways of making up the shortfall of £100,000 which would otherwise have arisen in its funding this financial year. These steps are being taken as an interim arrangement before the new funding arrangements proposed in "Working for Patients" comes into operation in 1991–92. There will be further discussions with the region about funding arrangements for 1990–91.

  Childhood Cancer
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area will be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report has been published today and copies placed in the Library. The committee concludes that there is a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemias and other childhood cancers in the vicinity of the atomic weapons establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire. In the committee's judgment, the authorised and accidental radioactive discharges from these two sites, and from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire, are far too low to account for the observed increase in childhood cancer incidence in the area. COMARE has considered a number of possible explanations for its findings, including other mechanisms by which radiation may be involved, but the committee's view is that there is insufficient evidence to point to any one particular explanation and it is possible that a combination of factors may be involved.

  More generally, the committee states that
  "the findings set out in this report, taken with those in previous reports, indicate that there is a statistically significant increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinities of Sellafield, Dounreay and Aldermaston and Burghfield".

  Although the committee cannot exclude completely the possibility that these observations are due to chance, or due to the selection of sites referred to them for consideration, it concludes that these findings warrant further investigation.

  COMARE has recommended that studies of the geographical distribution of childhood cancer incidence on a nationwide basis be carried out (recommendation 4). In relation to sites not so far examined by COMARE, the committee has stated that
  154
  "We consider it unlikely that useful information will emerge from further detailed investigations of alleged childhood cancer incidence around individual nuclear installations".

  COMARE has pointed out that such investigations would be difficult to interpret until the results of national studies of childhood cancer incidence, referred to in recommendation 4 of the report, are available. Once the results of these national studies are available, COMARE has recommended that it be asked to participate in a review of the evidence relating to the incidence of childhood cancer and nuclear installations (recomrnendation 5).

  COMARE's other recommendations relate to:
  The case-control study in West Berkshire and North Hampshire, which is already underway (recommendation 1);
  Studies of any possible effects on the health of children of employees at the nuclear installations studied by COMARE (recommendation 2);
  Improvements to the national cancer registration scheme (recommendation 3).

  The Government are grateful to the committee for its comprehensive report and accepts all the recommendations made for further work. The case-control study of childhood cancer in west Berkshire and north Hampshire, is already underway and is being funded by the Department. This study will aim to identify possible factors which may have contributed to the excess incidence of childhood cancer in the area.

  Abortion Agencies
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list all agencies which are currently licensed by his Department to counsel or refer women for abortions; what are the names of the owners; and whether they are run by a registered charity.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux

  Name of Proprietor

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Basingstoke Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Church Grange Health Centre

  Bramleys Drive

  Basingsloke RG21 1QN

  Birmingham Pregnancy Consultation Service

  Fraterdrive (PAS) Ltd.

  848 Bristol Road

  Selly Oak

  Birmingham B29 6HW

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Birmingham Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Guildhall Buildings

  Navigation Street

  Birmingham B2 4BT

  Blackpool Pregnancy Testing and Counselling Centre

  Sister Rose Ltd.

  Stanley Buildings

  3 Caunce Street

  Blackpool

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Bournemouth (Pelhams) Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Pelhams Clinic

  Millhams Road

  Bournemouth

  155

  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux

  Name of Proprietor

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Bournemouth (Dean Park) Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  23 Ophir Road

  Bournemouth

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Brighton Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Wistons Site

  Chatsworth Road

  Brighton

  Sussex BN1 5PA

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Chester Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  98A Foregate Street

  Chester CH1 1HB

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Coventry Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Coundon Health Clinic

  Baker Butts Lane

  Coventry

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Doncaster Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  The Bungalow

  1a Avenue Road

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  Rosslyn

  Pregnancy Advisory Service Ltd.1

  17 Rosslyn Road

  East Twickenham

  Middlesex

  TW1 2AR

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Hull)

  Sister Rose Ltd.

  139 Beverley Road

  Hull

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Hull Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  32 Beverley Road

  Hull HU3 1YF

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Leeds Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  8 The Head row

  Leeds

  Yorkshire

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Leeds)

  Sister Rose Ltd.

  4 Albion Street

  Leeds 1

  Marie Stopes Centre

  Population Services1

  10 Queens Square

  FP Programmes Ltd.

  Leeds 2

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Liverpool Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  20–22 Rodney Street

  Liverpool L1 2TQ

  Pregnancy Advisory Service Fourth Floor

  Fraterdrive (PAS) Ltd.

  Hepworth Chambers

  Church Street

  Liverpool L1 3BG

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service London Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  7 Belgrave Road

  London SW1

  156

  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux

  Name of Proprietor

  Birth Control and Pregnancy Counselling

  Population Services

  10 Coptic Street

  FP1 Programmes Ltd.

  London WC1

  London Youth Advisory Centre

  London Youth Advisory Centre

  26 Prince of Wales Road

  London NW5

  Metropolitan Pregnancy Control Centre

  Population Services

  40 Mortimer Street

  FP Programmes Ltd.1

  London W1

  Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Pregnancy Advisory Service Ltd.1

  11–13 Charlotte Street

  London W1

  Preterm

  Population Services1

  40 Mortimer Street

  FP Programmes Ltd.

  London W1N 7RB

  The Well Woman Centre

  Population Services1

  Marie Stopes House

  FP Programmes Ltd.

  108 Whitfield Street

  London W1

  The Well Woman Centre

  Population Services1

  114 Whitfield Street

  FP Programmes Ltd.

  London W1

  Pregnancy and Gynaecological

  Detingen Ltd.

  Advisory Service

  26 Fouberts Place

  London WIN 1HG

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Luton Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  3A Upper George Street

  Luton LU1 2QY

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Manchester Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Suite F, Ground Floor

  Fourways House

  57 Hilton Street

  Manchester M1 2EJ

  Marie Stopes

  Population Services1

  1 Police Street

  FP Programmes Ltd.

  Manchester M2 7LQ

  Pregnancy Advisory Service—Manchester

  Fraterdrive (PAS) Ltd.

  5th Floor

  Newton Buildings

  Newton Street

  Manchester M1 2EJ

  Sister Rose Pregnancy

  Sister Rose Ltd.

  Advisory Centre (Manchester)

  Fifth Floor

  2 St. John Street

  Manchester 3

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Milton Keynes Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  First Floor

  Eaglestone Health Centre

  Standing Way

  Milton Keynes MK6 5AZ

  East Midland Pregnancy Advisory

  East Midlands

  Service

  Pregnancy Advisory Service Ltd.

  The Grange

  1 Private Road

  Sherwood

  Nottingham

  157

  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux

  Name of Proprietor

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Sheffield Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service 1

  160 Charles Street

  Sheffield S1 2NE

  408 Young People's Consultation Centre Ltd.

  408 Young People's Consultation Centre Ltd.

  408 Ecclesall Road

  Sheffield S11 8PJ

  Pregnancy Advisory Service 1A George Street

  Dalreagh Nursing Home Ltd.

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Staffordshire

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Swindon Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Carfax Street Health Clinic

  Carfax Street

  Swindon

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service Leamington Spa Branch

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service1

  Holly Walk Welfare Clinic

  Holly Walk

  Leamington Spa

  Warwickshire

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Wolverhampton)

  Sister Rose Ltd.

  Second Floor

  19–21 Queen Street

  Wolverhampton

  Marie Stopes Centre

  Dr. G. Richman

  North London PAB

  Dr. M. Oliver

  65 Shoot up Hill

  Dr. S. Mitchley

  London NW2

  Marie Stopes Centre

  Dr. S. V. Nathan

  Gosburyhill Health Centre

  Orchard Gardens

  Chessington

  Surrey

  KT9 2EU

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per 1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  1970

  Under 111

  2

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  11

  14

  0·0

  8

  7

  1

  6

  12

  51

  0·1

  24

  22

  2

  27

  13

  312

  0·9

  160

  157

  3

  152

  14

  1,446

  4·5

  842

  823

  19

  604

  15

  5,888

  18·4

  4,223

  4,181

  42

  1,665

  Total under 162

  7,713

  7·9

  5,258

  5,191

  67

  2,455

  16

  16,234

  49·5

  13,250

  13,064

  186

  2,984

  1971

  Under 11

  2

  0·0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  11

  6

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  4

  12

  41

  0·1

  17

  17

  0

  24

  13

  302

  0·9

  158

  157

  1

  144

  14

  1,763

  5·3

  952

  938

  14

  811

  15

  6,711

  20·5

  4,444

  4,390

  54

  2,267

  Total under 162

  8,825

  8·8

  5,575

  5,505

  70

  3,250

  16

  17,292

  54·1

  13,122

  12,956

  166

  4,170

  158

  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux

  Name of Proprietor

  Marie Stopes Centre

  Dr. G. Dunckley

  The Surgery

  32 Devon Road

  South Darenth

  Dartford

  Kent

  DA4 9AB

  Options

  Care Incorporated Clinic Ltd.

  Population Control Clinic

  45 Fitzwilliam Street

  Huddersfield

  HD1 5LG

  Pregnancy Advisory Service—Blackpool

  Fraterdrive (PAS) Ltd.

  93A Abingdon Street

  Blackpool

  FY1 1PP

  Pregnancy Advisory Service—Leicester

  Fraterdrive (PAS) Ltd.

  120A Granby Street

  Leicester

  Regents Park Clinic

  Mrs. B. A. Binding

  184 Gloucester Place

  London

  NW1 6DS

  1 Registered Charities.

  Pregnancy Statistics
  Mr. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list(a) the total number and rate of pregnancies to girls aged 16, 15, 14, 13,12,11 and 10 years for each of the years 1970 to 1988, respectively, (b) the figure broken down into stillbirths, livebirths and abortions and (c) the total figure and rate for pregnancies to all girls aged 15 years and under for each of those years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. 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 (pregnancies which led to spontaneous abortions are not included.) The latest figures which are available relate to conceptions which occurred during 1986.
  159

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per 1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  1972

  Under 111

  1

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  11

  2

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  12

  40

  0·1

  23

  22

  1

  17

  13

  349

  1·0

  169

  167

  2

  180

  14

  1,874

  5·4

  950

  934

  16

  924

  15

  7,342

  21·9

  4,535

  4,471

  64

  2,807

  Total under 162

  9,606

  9·3

  5,679

  5,596

  83

  3,929

  16

  17,612

  53–5

  12,607

  12,476

  131

  5,005

  1973

  Under 111

  1

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  12

  0·0

  4

  4

  0

  8

  12

  38

  0·1

  20

  18

  2

  18

  13

  345

  0·9

  156

  153

  3

  189

  14

  1,987

  5·6

  963

  950

  13

  1,024

  15

  7,409

  21·4

  4,249

  4,197

  52

  3,160

  Total under 162

  9,792

  9·2

  5,392

  5,322

  70

  4,400

  16

  18,034

  53·4

  12,419

  12,282

  137

  5,615

  1 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 10.

  2 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 13–15.

  3 maternities which result in one or more live or still births are counted only once. Such multiple birth maternities are classified as "live" if at least one live birth is included and "still" if all the births are stillbirths.

  4 Legal terminations under 1967 Abortion Act.

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  1974

  Under 111

  0

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  5

  0·0

  4

  4

  0

  1

  12

  45

  0·1

  24

  24

  0

  21

  13

  343

  0·9

  157

  155

  2

  186

  14

  1,922

  5·3

  878

  862

  16

  1,044

  15

  7,056

  19·8

  3,780

  3,731

  49

  3,276

  Total under 162

  9,371

  8·5

  4,843

  4,776

  67

  4,528

  16

  16,553

  47·6

  10,722

  10,603

  119

  5,831

  1975

  Under 111

  1

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  11

  6

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  4

  12

  45

  0·1

  23

  22

  1

  22

  13

  349

  0·9

  133

  132

  1

  216

  14

  1,919

  5·1

  837

  831

  6

  1,082

  15

  6,861

  18·8

  3,398

  3,359

  39

  3,463

  Total under 162

  9,181

  8·1

  4,394

  4,347

  47

  4,787

  16

  15,278

  42·8

  9,447

  9,339

  108

  5,831

  1976

  Under 11 >

  1

  0·0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  11

  8

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  6

  12

  37

  0·1

  14

  14

  0

  23

  13

  331

  0·8

  136

  134

  2

  195

  14

  1,898

  4·9

  782

  771

  11

  1,116

  15

  6,916

  18·2

  3,363

  3,321

  42

  3,553

  Total under 162

  9,191

  7·9

  4,298

  4,242

  56

  4,893

  16

  14,567

  39·7

  8,761

  8,661

  100

  5,806

  1977

  Under 111

  1

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  11

  7

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  6

  12

  37

  0·1

  14

  14

  0

  23

  160 161

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per 1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  13

  331

  0·8

  122

  121

  1

  209

  14

  1,916

  4·9

  792

  775

  17

  1,124

  15

  6,711

  17·2

  3,296

  3,259

  37

  3,415

  Total under 162

  9,003

  7·6

  4,226

  4,171

  55

  4,777

  16

  14,940

  391

  8,895

  8,7882

  107

  6,045

  1 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 10.

  2 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 13–15.

  3 Maternities which result in one or more live or still births are counted only once. Such multiple birth maternities are classified as "live" if at least one live birth is included and "still" if all the births are stillbirths.

  4 Legal terminations under 1967 Abortion Act.

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per 1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  1978

  Under 111

  3

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  11

  8

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  7

  12

  43

  0·1

  18

  18

  0

  25

  13

  341

  0·8

  142

  140

  2

  199

  14

  1,822

  4·5

  810

  803

  7

  1·012

  15

  6,886

  17·5

  3,439

  3,410

  29

  3,447

  Total under 162

  9,103

  7·6

  4,412

  4,374

  38

  4·691

  16

  15,770

  40·3

  9,422

  9,343

  79

  6,348

  1979

  Under 111

  7

  0·0

  5

  5

  0

  2

  11

  16

  0·0

  7

  7

  0

  9

  12

  39

  0·1

  16

  15

  1

  23

  13

  319

  0·8

  116

  115

  1

  203

  14

  1,904

  4·7

  760

  756

  4

  1,144

  15

  6,823

  16·8

  3,175

  3,153

  22

  3,648

  Total under 162

  9,108

  7·5

  4,079

  4,051

  28

  5,029

  16

  16,106

  40·6

  9,307

  9,220

  87

  6,799

  1980

  Under 111

  14

  0·0

  11

  0

  11

  3

  11

  5

  0·0

  2

  0

  2

  3

  12

  35

  0·1

  13

  0

  13

  22

  13

  298

  0·8

  99

  0

  99

  199

  14

  1,714

  4·3

  669

  6

  663

  1,045

  15

  6,513

  16·0

  3,140

  3,107

  33

  3,373

  Total under 162

  8,579

  7·2

  3,934

  3,113

  821

  4,645

  16

  15,210

  37·4

  8,600

  8,536

  64

  6,610

  1981

  Under 111

  3

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  11

  11

  0·0

  3

  3

  0

  8

  12

  65

  0·2

  22

  21

  1

  43

  13

  356

  0·9

  146

  145

  1

  210

  14

  1,817

  4·6

  684

  682

  2

  1,133

  15

  6,309

  15·8

  2,839

  2,811

  28

  3,470

  Total under 162

  8,561

  7·3

  3,694

  3,662

  32

  4,867

  16

  15,410

  37·7

  8,782

  8,713

  69

  6,628

  1 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 10.

  2 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 13–15.

  3 Maternities which result in one or more live or still births are counted only once. Such multiple birth maternities are classified as "live" if at least one live birth is included and "still" if all the births are stillbirths.

  4 Legal terminations under 1967 Abortion Act.

  162 163

  Year and age at conception

  Number of conceptions

  Rate per 1,000 girls in age-group

  Outcome of conceptions

  Maternities3

  Total

  Live

  Still

  Legal abortion4

  1982

  Under 111

  0

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  4

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  2

  12

  39

  0·1

  15

  15

  0

  24

  13

  385

  1·0

  121

  120

  1

  264

  14

  1,868

  4·9

  702

  693

  9

  1,166

  15

  6,703

  17·1

  3,035

  3,013

  22

  3,668

  Total under 162

  8,999

  7·8

  3,875

  3,843

  32

  5,124

  16

  15,030

  37·6

  8,331

  8,285

  46

  6,699

  1983

  Under 111

  0

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  3

  0·0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  12

  29

  0·1

  12

  12

  0

  17

  13

  335

  0·9

  133

  133

  0

  202

  14

  2,034

  5·4

  790

  781

  9

  1,244

  15

  6,968

  18·3

  3,108

  3,085

  23

  3,860

  Total under 162

  9,369

  8·3

  4,046

  4,014

  32

  5,323

  16

  15,229

  38·7

  8,431

  8,370

  61

  6,798

  1984

  Under 111

  1

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  1

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  12

  30

  0·1

  15

  15

  0

  15

  13

  346

  0·9

  135

  135

  0

  211

  14

  2,018

  5·5

  794

  790

  4

  1,224

  15

  7,253

  19·1

  3,333

  3,312

  21

  3,920

  Total under 162

  9,649

  8·6

  4,278

  4,253

  25

  5,371

  16

  15,995

  41·9

  8,842

  8,788

  54

  7,153

  1985

  Under 111

  0

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1

  0·0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  22

  0·1

  13

  13

  0

  9

  13

  302

  0·9

  126

  126

  0

  176

  14

  2,063

  5·5

  836

  828

  8

  1,227

  15

  7,018

  19·1

  3,194

  3,169

  25

  3,824

  Total under 162

  9,406

  8·6

  4,169

  4,136

  8

  1,413

  16

  16,146

  42·4

  9,107

  9,040

  67

  7,039

  1986

  Under 111

  2

  0·0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  11

  1

  0·0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  12

  24

  0·1

  10

  10

  0

  14

  13

  265

  0·8

  107

  107

  0

  158

  14

  1,980

  5·7

  809

  805

  4

  1,171

  15

  6,922

  18·5

  3,293

  3,280

  13

  3,629

  Total under 162

  9,194

  8·7

  4,222

  4,205

  17

  4,972

  16

  15,425

  419

  8,933

  8,898

  35

  6,492

  1 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 10.

  2 Rate per 1,000 girls aged 13–15.

  3 Maternities which result in one or more live or still births are counted only once. Such multiple birth maternities are classified as "live" if at least one live birth is included and "still" if all the births are stillbirths.

  4 Legal terminations under 1967 Abortion Act.

  Maternal Deaths
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the number of maternal deaths each year from 1968 to 1988 from(a) all causes, (b) abortion, illegal, legal and spontaneous and (c) unknown methods of abortion; and what are the percentages for the same years of maternal death due to abortions of all types.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information for England and Wales is set out in the table.
  164

  Year

  A

  B

  C

  D

  B as per cent. of A

  1968

  200

  49

  39

  10

  24·5

  1969

  155

  35

  33

  2

  22·6

  1970

  145

  32

  28

  4

  22·1

  1971

  132

  26

  22

  4

  19·7

  1972

  112

  26

  19

  7

  23·2

  1973

  88

  12

  10

  2

  13·6

  1974

  81

  9

  8

  1

  11·1

  1975

  77

  8

  7

  1

  10·4

  165

  Year

  A

  B

  C

  D

  B as per cent. of A

  1976

  78

  7

  4

  3

  9·0

  1977

  74

  6

  6

  0

  8·1

  1978

  68

  5

  5

  0

  7·3

  1979

  74

  5

  3

  2

  6·8

  1980

  70

  3

  2

  1

  4·3

  1981

  57

  3

  2

  1

  5·3

  1982

  42

  3

  3

  0

  7 1

  1983

  54

  2

  2

  0

  3·7

  1984

  52

  3

  1

  1

  5·8

  1985

  46

  5

  4

  1

  10·9

  1986

  45

  1

  1

  0

  2·2

  1987

  46

  1

  1

  0

  2·2

  1988

  41

  3

  3

  0

  7·3

  A = All maternal deaths 1968–78/ICD* 630–678

  1979–88/ICD 630–676

  B = All abortion deaths 1968–78/ICD 640–644

  1979–88/ICD 634–638

  C = Spontaneous, illegal, legal abortion deaths

  1968–78/ICD 640–643

  1979–88/ICD 634–636

  D = Unspecified abortion deaths 1968–78/ICD 644

  1979–88/ICD 637

  *ICD — International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision.

  Abortion
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will state for each of the past five years, the cost to his Department of replying to parliamentary questions about or related to abortion.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not maintain a record of expenditure on replies to parliamentary questions and any attempt at retrospective estimation would be disproportionately expensive. The cost varies widely according to the nature of the question, the availability of the information requested and, where statistics are involved, the amount of computer time required.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define locality as it relates to the provision of core services by self-governing hospitals under the terms of his White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  "Self-Governing Hospitals: an Initial Guide", published yesterday, gives further information about factors to be considered by DHAs in deciding what services should be core services. It explains that a decision on what is acceptable as a definition of local will vary from place to place depending on geography (especially urban versus rural), historic patterns of referral, and social factors such as travelling time and cost.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under the proposals contained in his White Paper "Working for Patients" what role patients will have in influencing the placing of contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  Providing patients with better health care and a greater choice of service should be the overriding consideration in the placing of contracts. The ability of hospitals which are popular with patients, and in demand, to win further contracts and expand their service will be a166
  major factor in increasing the patient-responsiveness of the NHS. It will be supported by the close involvement with GPs either as budget holders or as users of DHA contracts.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under the proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients" what role community health councils will have in the placing of contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are still considering the overall role of community health councils in relation to contract funding. They will however continue to be consulted on substantial developments or variations in health care provision.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what element of additional cost required for the administration of the placing of contracts he has estimated is needed to ensure that district health authorities, hospitals and doctors have the knowledge and expertise to negotiate satisfactory contracts under his White Paper proposals.

  Mr. Mellor
  The administrative cost of contract funding cannot be assessed until detailed plans for implementation have been drawn up. Over time any extra costs will be offset by the improved efficiency that contracts will bring. In the meantime the Government have made it clear that the cost of implementing the White Paper proposals will not be met at the expense of patient care. Over £82 million has been made available to cover implementation work in the current financial year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role community health councils will have in influencing the decisions of new district health authorities and the running of hospital trusts as envisaged in his White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  Community health councils will as now have the opportunity to comment on the overall pattern of services which district health authorities will secure on behalf of their residents, including in future any provided by NHS hospital trusts.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role local people will have in influencing the decisions of the new district health authorities and the running of hospital trusts as envisaged in his White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  The non-executive members of health authorities will normally live, work or have some other connection with the area covered by the health authority. At least two of the non-executive directors of NHS hospital trusts will be drawn from the local community. Community health councils will continue to play an important role in representing the views of the local community on health service matters, while health authorities themselves will be encouraged periodically to test consumer opinion and to act on the findings. Health authority meetings will remain open to the public as now and NHS hospital trusts will be required to hold at least one public meeting a year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role patients will have in influencing the decisions of the new district health authorities and the running of hospital trusts as envisaged in his White Paper "Working for Patients."
  167
  Mr. Mellor
  Under our proposals the role of health authorities will be enhanced as they switch from the provision of care to the identification of the health needs of their resident population and the purchase of care and services to meet that need. This enhanced role will enable them to focus on the needs of patients. Individual GPs—especially those with practice budgets—will be involved in the direct placement of contracts to meet their patients needs. This brings the provision of care closer to the level of the individual patient, whose agent the GP is. In the future patients will have more say in choosing and changing their GP.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any element of quality of care or accessibility of services will be built into a contract between a hospital trust and a district health authority or general practitioner's practice.

  Mr. Mellor
  "Self-Governing Hospitals: an Initial Guide" sets out the minimum contents of contracts and makes it clear that they will specify the measures of quality, relating to both the process and outcome of treatment that will be applied. District health authorities and general practitioners will be expected to use contracts to ensure that patients get the best quality of services available and that where necessary standards are raised. Among measures of accessibility waiting times in particular will be an important aspect or quality.

  NHS Policy Board
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of his new policy board for the National Health Service were chosen to represent patients' interests.

  Mr. Mellor
  The policy board is not a representative body; every member will be aiming to promote patients' interests.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received asking him to extend the proposed tax relief on insurance cover for the private health needs of over 65-year-olds to support elderly people living in their own homes purchasing supported lifelines to connect them with back-up facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any such representations, which would be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider.

  Medical Scientists
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many relevant hospitals there are vacancies for medical scientists; and how many such vacancies existed 10 years ago.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Blind Persons
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered blind persons there are in England.
  168
  Mr. Mellor
  At 31 March 1988 there were 126,828 people registered as blind with local authority social services departments in England. This figure is provisional.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Rights
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he now has plans to bring forward legislation affecting consumer rights.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he now has plans to bring forward legislation affecting consumer rights.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications at bureaux de change and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss the progress in implementation of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board on 24 May. The discussion ranged widely over a number of topics concerning the regulation of financial services.

  World Trade
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which industrial countries have lost a larger share of world trade in the last 10 years than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  The most recent information available for OECD countries is for the first three quarters of 1988. Since 1978 the Netherlands, France, Greece and Norway recorded larger reductions than the United Kingdom in their shares of world trade.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the United Kingdom share of world trade 10 years ago; and what it is at present.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest figures of world trade refer to the first three quarters of 1988, when the United Kingdom share of total world visible exports was 5·2 per cent. In 1979 the United Kingdom share was 5·3 per cent.

  Information Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade in information technology in 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The United Kingdom had a trade deficit in electronics and information technology manufactured goods of £440 million in 1979. Provisional figures indicate a deficit of £2,460 million last year.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations he has received on his response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on information technology.
  169
  Mr. Forth
  I have received only one written representation on the White Paper.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress of implementation of the Government's policy for information technology.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department continues to pursue a wide range of activities within the policy framework for IT set out in the Government's response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on IT (Cm 646).

  New initiatives within the last two months have included:
  — the launch of a programme to stimulate greater business awareness of the benefits of open IT systems
  — a new LINK R&D programme in opto-electronic systems supported by £15 million of DTI and SERC funding; and
  — the announcement of the £20 million second call for proposals under the information engineering advanced technology programme.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects Britain to have a trade surplus in information technology.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects Britain to have a trade surplus in information technology.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave on 19 April, at column 332 to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).

  Communications Infrastructure (Report)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Macdonald report on communications infrastructure.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received a number of representations on the communications steering group report "The Infrastructure for Tomorrow", sometimes referred to as the Macdonald report. The report sets out the conclusions of the group which was established to advise Ministers on ways in which the United Kingdom electronic communications infrastructure may be expected to develop over the next two decades. The report represents the views of the group and not necessarily those of the Government.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his recent proposals for the future of the national engineering laboratory.

  Mr. Newton
  To date, I have not received any representations on the proposals for the laboratory, which I announced on 17 May. However, there will shortly be a further meeting of the departmental Whitley council with the Department of Trade and Industry council of Civil Service unions to discuss the proposals.

  North East Shipbuilders
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders to discuss the future of North East Shipbuilders.
  170
  Mr. Newton
  I met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 5 June. A number of matters of current interest were discussed, including the disposal of the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Aerospace Industry (Output)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what, in the north-west of England, was the value of the output of the aerospace industry in 1979 and the last full year for which information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1979 the gross value added (at factor cost) by the aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing industry in the north-west (standard region) was £276 million. The corresponding figure for 1987, the last year for which data is available, was £682 million.

  Inflation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effects of the level of inflation on industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  A number of representations which I receive refer to inflation. The great majority of these recognise that the control of inflation must remain the prime objective of economic policy.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from industry on matters affecting competitiveness.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from industry on matters affecting competitiveness.

  Mr. Maude
  Most contacts which my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.

  Civil Research and Development
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have reduced the share of gross domestic product spent on civil research and development between 1983 and 1986; and which countries have increased it.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information relates to gross expenditure on research and development in the fields of science, technology, social science and humanities as a percentage of gross domestic product. On this basis, of the OECD countries for which the information is available in both years only Turkey shows reduction in the percentage.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which OECD countries the proportion of gross domestic product spent by Government on civil research and development has fallen since 1983.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which OECD countries the proportion of gross domestic product spent by Government on civil research and development has fallen since 1983.
  171
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on 15 March at column 265.

  Japanese Overseas Investment
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been Britain's share of total Japanese overseas investment in Europe since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Based on information published by the Japanese Ministry of Finance on overseas investment projects notified to them, the United Kingdom received a third by value of Japanese overseas investment projects in Europe over the period 1980 to 1988 inclusive.

  Beer (Supply)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how near he is to forming his conclusions about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to implement the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make a decision relating to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to be able to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewing industry.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will make his response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

  Mr. Maude
  We are anxious to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. I made a statement on our preliminary intentions in a written answer on 8 June and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry developed this in a statement in another place on 14 June.

  CBI
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I last met the Confederation of British Industry on 5 June 1989 at the launch of the CBI's initiative 1992 series of seminars on information technology.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects Britain's trade to be in balance.
  172
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects Britain's trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what forward estimate he has made of the monthly trade deficit over the next nine months.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Forecasts of Britain's trade have been made up to the end of the first half of 1990. The results are in the Financial Statement and Budget report.

  Base Rates
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the estimated cost to industry of the rise in base rates since April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The cost to industrial and commercial companies to date of the changes in bank base rates since April 1988, compared with the cost if bank base rates had remained the same since April 1988, is estimated to be about £1·5 billion. The hon. Member should bear in mind, however, that a one percentage point increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, costs companies far less than a one percentage point increase in pay settlements.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Report)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his response to the Kemp report on the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  An inter-departmental working group of officials, chaired by ECGD, has been established to provide advice to Ministers on the options examined by Mr. Kemp. This will report to Ministers as soon as possible.

  Direct Investment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the balance of inward and outward direct investment; and what it was 10 years ago.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the balance of inward and outward direct investment; and what it was 10 years ago.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, net direct investment overseas by United Kingdom residents was £15·1 billion, compared with overseas net direct investment in the United Kingdom of £7·8 billion, giving a net outflow of £7·3 billion. The corresponding figures for 1978 were £3·5 billion and £2·0 billion respectively, giving a net outflow of £1·5 billion.

  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice his Department is giving to export industries regarding the exchange rate of sterling.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our consistent advice to exporters on exchange rates has been that they should consider protecting themselves against the risk of exchange rate fluctuations and consult experts about the best way of doing this.

  Eden Committee
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Eden committee which were accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Forth
  Those recommendations accepted in the Government's response (Cmnd. 9850) to the report of the Eden committee which did not require primary legislation have already been implemented. It remains my Department's intention to introduce legislation to implement the remaining accepted recommendations when parliamentary time is available.

  EC Consumer Affairs Committee
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Economic Community Consumer Affairs Council held on 1 June.

  Mr. Forth
  As I announced to the House on 12 June, the Council reached agreement on a number of issues, including amendment to the consumer credit directive on December 1988 and continued support into 1990 for the European home and leisure accident surveillance system.

  The Commission presented a proposal for a general product safety directive which was discussed for the first time by EC Ministers. Council also noted a report by the Commission on consumer education.

  The United Kingdom was unable to support adoption of a draft resolution for the relaunch of consumer policy because of its proposals relating to product quality, which would constrain consumer choice without benefit in terms of additional protection.

  Goods (United Kingdom Manufacture)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage people to purchase goods made in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The greatest encouragement to purchasing from United Kingdom sources is the availability of competitive United Kingdom products. My Department's policies are geared to helping businesses achieve this.

  Natural Environment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to require the annual publication by firms of the effects of their business on the natural environment.

  Mr. Newton
  No. We believe the emphasis should be on increasing business awareness of environmental issues and helping firms to improve their environmental standards. This is what the DTI environmental programme launched last month is designed to achieve. Details of the programme are set out in the booklet, "Your Business and the Environment", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office and Library.

  Motor Manufacturers (Investment)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the level of investments in the last financial year by indigenous motor manufacturers.
  174
  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent reliable estimate of investment is from the annual census of production for 1987. In that year it is estimated that net capital expenditure by the United Kingdom motor industry' amounted to £612 million.

  1 Class 35 of the standard industrial classification, revised 1980.

  Trade Deficits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development countries are running a smaller trade deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  According to the most recent OECD figures, of the 14 countries which recorded deficits on their visible trade in 1988, those of the following were smaller, as a proportion of their GDP, than that of the United Kingdom:Austria, Turkey, Switzerland, Iceland, United States of America, France, Italy, Norway, Australia and Belgium.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Economic Community members Britain's trade is in deficit.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the 12 months to April the United Kingdom was in deficit on visible trade with Belgium/Luxembourg, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.

  Inner-city Task Forces
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further progress has been made in the 16 inner-city task forces.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the inner-city task forces.

  Mr. Forth
  The inner-city task forces have continued to make good progress in meeting their objectives of securing more jobs and training for local people and encouraging local enterprise. Since the task forces began their work in 1986 they have committed about £33 million in support of nearly 1,100 projects. These generate, or safeguard, nearly 4,000 jobs, facilitate over 23,500 training places and provide support for over 2,600 businesses. Over 450 private sector companies have supported task force projects.

  We have always made it clear that task forces would not be permanently located in any one inner-city area. One of their aims is to promote the long-term capability of local organisations so that eventually these bodies can take over from them, thus releasing resources for task forces to be set up in other inner city areas.

  I announced on 9 March, as part of the Government's action for cities anniversary announcements, that the task forces would be withdrawing from Leicester, Wolverhampton and Preston; and that new task forces would be opening in Bradford, Granby/Toxteth in Liverpool and Deptford in Lewisham.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has as to the number of firms which have now been assisted as a result of the activities of the inner-city task forces.
  175
  Mr. Forth
  Task forces provide a variety of assistance to existing local firms and start-up businesses; for example, by providing loans through task force development funds and by supporting local enterprise agencies and other organisations offering business advice. Through these and other ways, task forces are estimated to have assisted over 2,600 businesses.

  Single Market
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the help which is being given to companies to enable them to take full advantage of the establishment of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Our 24-hour "1992 hotline"—01–200 1992—provides business with access to a wide range of information and advice on the single market, including detailed factsheets, booklets on standards, and an action checklist. Practical help and advice is available through our enterprise initiative; the consultancy initiatives and the export initiative are particularly relevant for firms seeking to take specific steps to prepare for the single market.

  The CBI's "Initiative 1992" is a major private sector source of help on the single market; whilst a number of trade associations, Chambers of Commerce and professional bodies are providing their members with guidance on how the single market will affect their activities.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to ensure that British firms are made fully aware of the opportunity to become a member of an European economic interest grouping as a means of preparing for 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Full details on the form of a European economic interest grouping are given in our main single market booklet "The Facts" and in an article in the current edition of "Single Market News", copies of which are available through our 24-hour "1992 hotline": 01–200 1992. The rules on registering an EEIG in Great Britain are given in the statutory instrument SI 1989/638.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress with regard to arrangements made by his Department to assist British firms to take full advantage of the completion of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  Our "Europe Open for Business" information service is constantly updated and expanded to help business prepare for the single market. Recent additions include: a booklet and video on the decision-making process in Brussels ("Brussels Can You Hear Me?"); new standards booklets ("construction products", "simple pressure vessels", "directives under discussion"); a checklist on progress on single market legislation ("White Paper Checklist"). This material, together with our comprehensive single market information pack, can be obtained free of charge, through our "1992 hotline"—01–200 1992. Two new booklets—an action guide for smaller firms and a guide to public purchasing—will be available later on this summer.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent estimates his Department have made of the effects of 1992 on each of Britain's regions.
  176
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further estimates his Department has made on the effects of 1992 on each of Britain's regions,.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 19 April at column 177.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the level of personal consumer credit.

  Mr. Maude
  At the end of March 1989 the amount of consumer credit outstanding on the broad definition, which includes bank lending, was £43·4 billion. The vast majority of household borrowing is accounted for by mortgages.

  Sunderland Shipyards
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last discussed the future of the Sunderland Shipyards with the chairman of British Shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 5 June. A number of matters of current interest were discussed, including the disposal of the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Toys (CE Mark)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had recently from the toy trade about the length of time to dispose of stocks which do not have CE marks.

  Mr. Forth
  Representations have been received from various bodies about the length of time needed to dispose of stocks which do not carry the CE mark. The toy industry has sought a longer period than 1 February 1991 or that no cut-off date should be imposed. Consumer organisations are of the opinion that the proposed cut-off date in the draft regulations should not be extended. My Department will carefully consider all the representations received before making final decisions.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the levels of regional selective assistance to applicants in the north-west of England in 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the year 1988–89, for the DTI north-west region, offers of regional selective assistance totalled £32·1 million and payments totalled £21·8 million.

  China
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement about trade with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the light of the recent events in China the Government have announced the suspension of ministerial and high level military exchanges and a ban on
  177
  arms sales. The ECGD is maintaining cover for the China market, but awaiting clarification of the economic position before taking decisions on respect of new businesses.

  Company Liquidity
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of company liquidity; and when it was last lower.

  Mr. Maude
  The liquidity ratio for all large industrial and commercial companies is estimated by the Department's survey to be 72 per cent. at the end of the first quarter of 1989 on a seasonally adjusted basis. It was lower at the end of the third quarter of 1982.

  However, profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies has risen in each year since 1981 and the sector has been a large net saver.

  Takeovers and Mergers
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the expenditure on takeovers and mergers in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what has been the spending on research and development, training and manufacturing investment on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Maude
  Expenditure by industrial and commercial companies on acquisitions and mergers within the United Kingdom during 1988 is estimated to be £22·1 billion. During the same period gross domestic fixed capital formation by industrial and commercial companies is estimated to have been £37·4 billion. No directly comparable figures are available for spending on training or research and development.

  Shops (Closing Down Sales)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to introduce legislation to prevent shop owners from misrepresenting their closing down in order to attract customers.

  Mr. Forth
  Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it an offence to give misleading price indications. The code of practice for traders on price indications issued under section 25 of the Act gives guidance on good practice to help traders avoid giving misleading price indications. The code makes it clear that use of the term "sale" normally implies a price comparison and the basis for such a comparison should be made clear to the customer.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in the regulation of estate agents.

  Mr. Forth
  Over the past 11 months I have carried out an extensive review of estate agency issues. In the course of this review I have had meetings with the major bodies representing estate agents and other interested parties.

  The main objective of the review was to identify ways in which the practices of estate agents could be significantly improved to provide a better service. I have concluded that the best way to achieve this is through a combination of self-regulation and statutory provision. I
  178
  have asked the Director-General of Fair Trading to discuss with the industry the introduction of a code of practice for estate agency to improve consumer protection and enhance standards of service. The code will need to include some form of disputes procedure and a system for monitoring compliance with its provisions. This should create a strong incentive, not least on commercial grounds, for estate agents throughout the industry to comply in order to attract public confidence. The director general has agreed to report to me early next year.

  I have also concluded that we need to act against a number of undesirable practices identified in the review of the working of the Estate Agents Act 1979 recently published by the Director General of Fair Trading. I intend to do this by introducing an order under Section 3 of the Act which would define certain practices as "undesirable". I expect these to include, for instance, tie-in sales where the agent refuses to pass on bids unless the purchaser agrees to arrange finance or insurance with hin, "bidding-up", misleading advertising and unfair or misleading contract terms. If an agent is found to be engaging in "undesirable" practices, the director general will have the power to prohibit that person from doing estate agency work. The exact wording of the order will follow from how the code of practice is set out, and I hope to lay an order soon after the director general makes his report next year.

  I have also asked the director general to review the arguments for extending the Trade Description Act 1968 to misdescriptions of property.

  In the course of my review discussions of the problems and potential solutions have gone wider than estate agency, and have touched on other aspects of the property transfer system. I look forward with interest to announcements by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the subject of competition in conveyancing, and by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland on the conclusions to their reviews on the position there.

  Copies of my report have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effects of current interest rates on industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effects of current interest rates on industry.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received a number of representations from business about the effects of interest rates on investment. Investment has continued to rise strongly and the DTI's June survey of investment intentions shows that a rise of 13 per cent. of total investment is expected in 1989, with a further increase in 1990.

  Brewing Industry (Report)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewing industry.

  Mr. Maude
  I have had meetings with the Brewers Society and with a number of brewers individually. I have
  179
  also met representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association, the Campaign for Real Ale, the Consumers Association and others. In addition, the Department has received a number of letters, representing a range of views.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the British footwear industry; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I attended, and spoke at, the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation's annual luncheon on 14 June. Various issues arose, including the EC Commission's investigation into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea and United Kingdom objectives for the GATT Uruguay round.

  Mergers and Acquisitions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the percentage increase in mergers and acquisitions since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Expenditure on acquisitions and mergers by industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom in the 12 months to March 1989 is estimated to be about £191/2billion. In current prices this is about 12 times greater than the 1979 total of about£1¾billion.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  Inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988 was £11·4 billion of which £7·8 billion was direct investment and £3·6 billion was portfolio investment.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any changes are planned in the collection of trade statistics after 1992.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any changes are planned in the collection of trade statistics after 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  A proposal for an EC Council regulation, which sets out a revised methodology for the collection of trade statistics between member states of the European Community after 1992 to replace the current procedure based on Customs documentation, has been prepared by the EC Commission and will be considered by EC Ministers later this year.

  The Government are seeking to ensure that the collection of these statistics does not impose unnecessary burdens on businesses who are involved in trade between member states and who will be required to provide the relevant data. Recently, this Department has started a consultation exercise seeking the views of trade associations and industry on the possible impact of the proposal.

  Statistics of trade with countries outside the European Community will continue to be collected as at present.

  Regional Initiatives
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to announce any new initiatives to benefit Britain's regions.

  Mr. Atkins
  Major changes in the focus of DTI's policies were made only last year. Regional policy now operates within a framework designed to encourage enterprise and economic growth in all parts of the country but with extra help available for firms in the regions.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the productivity of manufacturing industry; and what were the comparable figures one year ago.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the three months to April 1989 manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was at a level of 119·3, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is six per cent. more than the level of 112·5 for the first quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same month in 1973.

  Mr. Atkins
  In April 1989 manufacturing output was at a level of 118·5, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is 81 per cent. more than the level of 108·8 for April 1973. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. A firmer based comparison would he that in the three months to April 1989 manufacturing output was 9½ per cent. higher than in the same period in 1973. Manufacturing output is now at is highest ever level.

  Postal Monopoly
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last consulted the chairman of the Post Office on the lifting or easing of the postal monopoly.

  Mr. Newton
  We have not consulted the chairman of the Post Office on the lifting or easing of the postal monopoly since 1981. In 1981 the monopoly was suspended for 25 years to permit time-sensitive mail to be delivered by private carriers, provided that they charge a minimum fee of £1 per letter.

  Goods (Labelling)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department is intending to make any new proposals for the labelling of goods.

  Mr. Forth
  Additional labelling requirements will come into force over the next year for furniture and furnishings, and toys.

  Manufacturing Output
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the output of manufacturing industry; and what was the comparable figure one year ago.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the three months to April 1989 manufacturing output was at a level of 118·0, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is 6½per cent. more than the level of 111·0 for the first quarter of 1988.

  British Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met Mr. John Lister, chairman of British Shipbuilders Ltd.; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 5 June. A number of matters of current interest were discussed.

  Japanese Market
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about improving access to the Japanese market for British exporters.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government continue to attach great importance to Britain's trade with Japan. Representations on market access are received from time to time and, Where appropriate, we take them up vigorously with the Japanese authorities, both directly and through the European Commission. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State continued to press the Japanese Government on problems of access during his visit to Japan last month.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he is able to report towards achieving a satisfactory outcome for investors in Barlow Clowes in respect of(a) the United Kingdom-based and (b) the Gibraltar-based operation; what fresh initiatives he intends to take to speed up settlements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Following judgment given on 16 June in respect of the May court hearings, I understand that it has been determined that Barlow Clowes International investors are entitled to recover from Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers (the United Kingdom operation) BCGM assets representing gilts of £16·2 million to the extent that such assets can still be identified in BCGM's hands. Further judgment gives certain BCI investors, who invested after 29 February 1988, the entitlement to recover the relevant part of their investment (after expenses). I understand that the joint receivers are returning to court on 28 June to determine the basis upon which each individual BCI investor's entitlement to any distribution will be calculated.

  Although the judgments do not affect those BCGM investors whose funds were placed with Lloyds Bank plc, the outstanding issue of quantification of BCGM investors' claims will be dealt with when counsel for all other categories are present. The joint liquidators have informed me that they will return to court as soon as possible to obtain direction on the outstanding issues.

  EC (Discussions)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to discuss trade and industry matters with his counterparts in the other EEC member states.
  182
  Mr. Newton
  I have just returned from a Research Council and a meeting with EC counterparts to discuss the Eureka initiative and I am planning to attend the next Industry Council on 26 September.

  Manufacturing and Service Industries (North-West)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the health of manufacturing and service industries in the north-west.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to report that the manufacturing and service sectors in the north-west are both performing impressively.

  At current prices, the north-west standard region's gross domestic product in manufacturing rose by almost 27 per cent. between 1984 and 1987 (from £8,653 million to, provisionally, £10,961 million) with financial and business services sector showing an increase of 48 per cent. over the same period (from £3,549 million to £5,268 million).

  Major new investments programmes by companies such as Pilkington and ICI, the decision by the Sanwa and Fuji Banks to establish northern offices in the region, and the contract-winning performances by British Aerospace and Simon Engineering, are all evidence of the excellent health of the region's manufacturing and service sectors.

  Trade Fairs
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any changes are proposed in the terms under which the Department of Trade and Industry provides support for United Kingdom companies participating in overseas trade fairs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. and noble Friend and I are concerned that the Department's support for exporters at trade fairs abroad should be focused more sharply on its main purpose of assisting new exporters to become established in overseas markets. We have therefore decided to raise the overall level of assistance to such exporters but to limit the number of times that a company is supported at trade fairs within any country. The total value of assistance on offer will be unchanged.

  The new arrangements for assistance to firms in groups supported by the Department at overseas trade fairs will be as follows:

  (i) Subject to the exceptions referred to in sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) below, support will be limited to three participations per country. Firms which have already received assistance in three or more participations in a particular country will no longer be eligible for support in fairs in that country.

  (ii) The level of support for eligible companies will be 50 per cent. of the Department's estimate of the cost of providing stands and certain services at the trade fair in question. This compares with the present level of support which varies between 60 per cent. for the first time participants to 25 per cent. for third time participants.

  (iii) Support in the form of travel grants for events outside western Europe will continue for a maximum of three participations, instead of the present four.

  (iv) Because it is more difficult for firms to enter the Japanese market, the limit of the number of times on which support can be given there will be five. Assistance will be at the level of 50 per cent. of costs on each occasion. Similarly, the limit on the number of times that firms qualify for travel grant will also be five.

  183

  (v) A limited number of fairs are of major international significance and are the principal event for the product sector concerned. Because these fairs are aimed at buyers from all over the world rather than the market of the country in which they are held, firms will be eligible for support in two extra participations in successive events of this sort, in addition to the three participations per country described in sub-paragraph (i) above. The level of support will be the same as in sub-paragraph (ii).

  The new arrangements will come into effect for group participations in overseas trade fairs which commence after 31 March 1990, except where the Department has already made a formal offer of support.

  Telephone Systems
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has on the extent of provision of leased circuits in Wales, including kilostream and megastream, on the number of towns in Wales catered for by these services and in the case of megastream, on the number of local exchanges equipped with pulse code modulation;

  (2) what information he has on the extent to which and the places in which, trunk and local exchanges in Wales have been converted to digital switching and as to which areas are serviced by integrated digital access;

  (3) what information he has on the number and location of packet assemblers and disassemblers in Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  These are commercial and operational matters for British Telecommunications plc.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Firms (Report)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee report on assistance to small firms.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's response to the Public Accounts Committee's eighth report is set out in the Treasury minute dated 17 May 1989 presented to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (command 697). A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce the allocation of funds for training and enterprise councils by area.

  Mr. Cope
  The allocation of funds for an individual TEC will relate to the business plan that the TEC agrees with my Department and will be announced when the TEC is fully approved.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trends in unemployment in Hendon, South since 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1989 there were 1,343 unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Hendon, South. This compares with 2,562 in May 1987,184
  a fall of 1,219 or 47·6 per cent. over two years. The comparison is slightly affected by the change of coverage in the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting people aged under 18 years.

  Rehabilitation Service
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how are the processes of assessment and rehabilitation differentiated within the work of the employment rehabilitation service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The assessment process carried out by the employment rehabilitation service results in individual action plans being agreed with clients. For some clients the agreed action plan can include subsequent attendance on a course of employment rehabilitation which is a longer process and normally modular in form.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many clients have passed through the assessment process of the employment rehabilitation service over the last two years; and how many through the rehabilitation process.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987–88 the employment rehabilitation service helped about 16,000 people in total. About 13,400 attended assessment courses and 12,200 attended rehabilitation courses. In 1988–89 the ERS helped about 26,000 people in total. About 25,300 attended assessment courses and 11,800 attended rehabilitation courses. In each year a number of people attended both types of courses.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many organisations other than the employment rehabilitation service have the facilities to provide residential employment rehabilitation services to disabled people such as are currently provided by Egham and Preston employment rehabilitation centres.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are a number of organisations with facilities which potentially could be used for the provision of residential rehabilitation services as currently provided by Egham and Preston employment rehabilitation centres.

  My Department has contracted with a number of residential establishments for the provision of services and is conducting negotiations with others.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies currently exist in the employment rehabilitation service for each of the following grades(a) occupational psychologists, (b) social workers, (c) ERC nurses and (d) physiotherapists; and how many staff in each group are in post.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information sought in the first part of the question is not available in the form required.

  The number of staff in post by grade at 8 June 1989 is:

  Number

  (a) occupational psychologists

  63

  (b) social workers

  28·5

  (c) ERC nurses

  24

  (d) physiotherapists

  5

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what publications are available which give guidance to training agents and training managers on the
  185
  services provided by the employment rehabilitation service; and how training agents and managers can obtain copies of such guidance.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to references in the training agents' and training managers' handbooks, the services of the employment rehabilitation service have been outlined to training agents and training managers through the Training Agency publication "Employment Training News" and through the publicity leaflets of the employment rehabilitation service.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the report of the ministerial review of employment provision for disabled people.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 8 November 1988 at column 54.

  Student Union Fees
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage the Training Commission pays of student union fees of those students on Government training schemes whilst at college.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency (formerly the Training Commission) is not responsible for payment of student union fees for students on Government training schemes whilst at college.

  Visually Handicapped Employees
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered blind or other visually handicapped persons are employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available. My Department provides a wide range of help to visually handicapped people including specialist placing, rehabilitation and training provision, a personal reader scheme, provision of special aids and equipment and sheltered employment.

  We work closely with the Royal National Institute for the Blind in developing these provisions.

  Part-time Education
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people studied part-time in further education in each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Available estimates from labour force surveys show that the number of unemployed people (using the ILO/OECD definition) receiving part-time education in Great Britain was as follows:

  Year

  Thousands

  1984

  74

  1985

  68

  1986

  79

  1987

  81

  11988

  70

  1 Preliminary estimate

  186
  This includes those on a part-time course at university, polytechnic or college, including day release and block release, studying through the Open Tech, Open University or Open College, or studying on another correspondence course. The term "further education" is not specifically used in the LFS question. Data on unemployed persons receiving part-time education were not collected in labour force surveys prior to 1984, on a basis comparable with later years.

  Unique Fish (Employees' Award)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the employees of Unique Fish in Swansea have waited six months and have not yet received their protective award; and what part of the delay has been attributable to his Department transferring the administrative work from Cardiff to Birmingham and then to Manchester.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Following my reply to the hon. Member on 10 April 1989, the insolvency practitioner has submitted a statement of the amount due. This has been approved by my Department's Birmingham office, and I expect payment to be made shortly by the regional finance office in Manchester. Cardiff office was closed prior to this case and was not involved.

  Council for Social Aid (ET Scheme)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibility he accepts for payment to staff on the Council for Social Aid employment training scheme for work done prior to the liquidation of the training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages owed to CSA Ltd's staff are the responsibility of the company and the employees concerned are its creditors. As such their interests are now a matter for the company's liquidators.

  The Training Agency has provided CSA Ltd. with all the funding due under its contract, including amounts to cover wages costs up to the date the company ceased trading.

  Job Club (Walkden)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (I) what are the circumstances which led to the decision to close the job club at the Walkden jobcentre;

  (2) if there are any plans to offer alternative job club facilities in the Walkden are a consequent upon the recent closure of the job club at Walkden jobcentre.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answers 16 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 27 January 1989, at column 810 in which I announced that we would be able to increase numbers helped by job clubs while streamlining the network.

  The job club located in the jobcentre at Walkden closed on 28 April 1989. A second job club in Walkden remained open and had enough spare capacity to take on members from the job club which closed. There is also a job club in nearby Swinton.

  Employment Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what implications his policy of privatising employment services have on future receipts of grants for those services from the European social fund; and if he will make a statement.
  188
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: Professional and Executive Recruitment has already been privatised, and arrangements for the sale of the Skills Training Agency are well advanced. Such initiatives do not affect support under the European social fund.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford): The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

Sizewell C Reactor: Public Inquiry Proposal
2.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a public inquiry will be held into the proposed building of the Sizewell C reactor and, if so, what will be its terms of reference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has directed the CEGB to advertise its application for his consent to construct a second PWR nuclear power station at Sizewell. Until the response to the advertisements is known it is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary or what matters are likely to be relevant to my right honourable friend's consideration of the application.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether it is the case that the CEGB's application will be made on Friday of this week and that only eight weeks will be allowed for objections to be addressed to the local district council? Can she also tell the House whether there is any firm intention of holding a public inquiry before any final decision is taken on Sizewell C, in the same way as at Hinkley and in the case of the previous Sizewell plant?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the application from the CEGB in respect of Sizewell C was made on 14th June 1989. The Secretary of State, who has a statutory obligation to give a period of at least 21 days in which objections can be made to him, has indicated that he will allow a period of three months for objections to be made. As the noble Lord will no doubt be aware, the Secretary of State will have a statutory obligation to call for a public inquiry if either of the relevant local planning authorities objects to the Sizewell C application. Even in the event that local planning authorities do not object, the Secretary of State still has the
216
discretionary power to call for a public inquiry to be heard in the light of all the other objections received.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what will happen after privatisation? Are we to assume that Sizewell C, as a project, will be passed over to National Power? Is it not the case that after privatisation National Power will be under an obligation under the legislation to provide a certain amount of nuclear plant capacity in order to satisfy the non-fossil fuel quota which we have been discussing in Committee? If that is the case, what will the public inquiry be about? It cannot be about whether or not there should be a plant. It cannot look at any of the options. What will it be about? Will it just be about local and environmental planning matters?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, it is true that the obligation to proceed with the construction of the Sizewell C plant will pass to National Power after privatisation. The matters before the inquiry will depend, as always, on the objections which are raised. Until we know what those objections are it is not possible to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, exactly what matters would be discussed at a public inquiry.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will not the principal matter to be considered at the inquiry be whether the site proposed for the reactor is in every way suitable?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Obviously that is a major consideration. It has to comply with the requirements of Section 34 of the Electricity Act 1957. However, as I have said, the inquiry will also take into account the objections which are made by registered objectors in the period allowed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but is she not aware that the Hinkley C inquiry covers a much wider range of issues than whether the site is the right one in the circumstances? It covers the question of whether there should be a nuclear plant anywhere in the United Kingdom at this time, given our power requirements. Am I right in understanding that if the non-fossil fuel quota is written into the Bill as at present drafted that will no longer be a subject which can be discussed by a public inquiry?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is jumping to conclusions. Certainly there will be a non-fossil fuel obligation which will require the supply companies to use a certain amount of non-fossil fuel. That will be substantially nuclear but may be provided from other renewables. Unfortunately from the Government's point of view, there is no foregone conclusion that that will embrace the fourth of the projected PWR plants. There are many other possibilities for nuclear generation if it is borne in mind that our aim is to cover the gap that would be left by the phasing out of the Magnox stations by the beginning of the next century.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, whatever commitments may follow the so-called obligation, local authorities in the areas concerned will still have powers to give their views as to what should happen in the development of the site?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is part of the statutory obligation imposed on the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the total destruction of the life of a rural county such as Suffolk caused by the building of plants A, B and C in succession? The unfortunate inhabitants of the district of Saxmundham—where my daughter happens to live—have had their communications totally disrupted. Does the noble Baroness agree that while it may make good sense to site a B next to an A to follow it up with a C is asking a lot of the local inhabitants?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Earl. Nevertheless, the application made by the CEGB has been accompanied by an environmental statement, and the environmental information must therefore form part of the considerations which the Secretary of State will take into account.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify her answer to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel? Will it be within the remit of the public inquiry that it would be able to report that the Sizewell C reactor should not be built?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand the rules applying to a public inquiry, the answer must be, "yes, my Lords".
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that three months is sufficient for the organisation of objections in the area? Am I not correct in thinking that the period for Wylfa B is four months? Is either three months or four months sufficient for local objections to be organised? Further to the point made by my two noble friends on the Front Bench, would it not be sensible to delay any decision on Sizewell C until the report of the public inquiry at Hinkley is published? Obviously, that has a direct bearing on whether or not there should be a third reactor at Sizewell.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there were a number of supplementaries there. I believe that the time allowed for objections to be registered for Wylfa B and Sizewell C is three months. But, going back in history, in the case of Sizewell B, no time limit was specified for objections because the Government had announced in advance that a public inquiry would be held since that was the first of the four planned PWRs. As for Hinkley C, the time allowed to register objections was four months.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that those of us who are anxious about
218
the environment—presumably, that includes most of the Green Party, at least those who are not members of CND—would like to see modern nuclear power stations brought into operation sooner rather than later? In that way, the fossil fuels that contaminate our atmosphere to such a considerable extent can be progressively reduced and we can become more reliant on nuclear fuel which does not contaminate the atmosphere in any way at all.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly very concerned about the environmental consequences of fossil fuel burning. Nevertheless, we are no less concerned about the need to ensure security of supply. The Government believe that new nuclear capacity is necessary to replace the Magnox stations that will be phased out by the year 2000.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if I may be permitted a second supplementary, will the noble Baroness consult the evidence given to Sub-Committee F by, I believe, a spokesman for Electricité de France? When asked why France has streaked ahead with nuclear power until it is 70 per cent. nuclear, he replied, "Because we do not have committees of inquiry like Sizewell B".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall certainly note that recommendation and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the planning aspect of this public inquiry is sufficient to deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether the reactor should be built, and the environmental question raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, the relevant planning regulations come under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 with respect to deemed planning consent. As I have said, the environmental factors are now required as a result of the European Community directive on environmental impact. The environmental statement has already been made, has accompanied the application and will be published.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will answer the second question that I asked her, which I am sure that she forgot. Will any decision be made on Sizewell C before the report on Hinkley is published?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the noble Lord asked a variety of supplementaries on the previous occasion. It is too soon to say. The Hinkley C inquiry is certainly not completed. I think that it is unlikely that the report will be received within the three-month period, although there is always likely to be a time lag between the end of the three-month period and the start of the new inquiry for processing objections. I can give the noble Lord no assurance that there will be no public inquiry before the Hinkley C report has been received.

Palestinian Casualties and Medical Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many children have been killed or injured by shooting or beating in occupied Palestine since the start of the intifada; what medical facilities have been available; and whether they will support the work of Medical Aid for Palestine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, precise statistics are not available, but we estimate that over 90 children have been killed and over 20,000 injured by shooting or beating since the intifada began. Medical facilities in the occupied territories include Israeli Government hospitals, private hospitals and clinics, and United Nations relief and work agency clinics in the refugee camps. We are currently considering whether to give financial support to the work of Medical Aid for Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that action is being considered is very welcome and that help for the work of that admirable charity would encourage it a great deal? Is he further aware that it has won worldwide respect for the courage and good spirit of its doctors and staff?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is pleased with the bit of information that I have been able to give him. Certainly, that excellent organisation has some very promising ideas. There are one or two difficulties over details, but those are being looked at. I very much welcome the noble Lord's words.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether those tragic and appalling events were discussed when Mr. Shamir was here last month and whether any proposals were made which might bring them to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot say whether that particular matter was discussed, but the whole problem was certainly discussed when Mr. Shamir was here. So far as his visit is concerned, it confirmed our good relations with Israel. The talks comprised thorough discussion of the Arab-Israeli dispute and other regional issues and bilateral questions. We look forward to keeping in close touch with him. But I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord's point was not lost on Mr. Shamir.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while I recognise the difficulties and tragic circumstances of that conflict, I do not know whether the Minister is now able to put the picture in its right perspective. Can he give any idea of how many Israeli soldiers have died and how many Israeli civilians have been hurt or killed?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I am unable to give that information, but the facts that I gave in the original Answer are a shocking indictment of Israeli practices.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the PLO has obviously utilised children in its battle against the Israelis? Is it not therefore fair to record that point in any discussion that we have?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am beginning to become fairly familiar with the difficulties on both sides of that difficult issue. That is why we have deplored violence from whatever quarter, and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, to return to the earlier question, as I imagine that no one in the House can object to medical aid, whatever their other views, may we expect an early decision on whether the Government will support Medical Aid for Palestine?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are in close touch with the organisation at the moment. As I indicated in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, there are one or two points to be sorted out. But the noble Lord should be aware that we also support the health projects of many non-government organisations in the occupied territories, including the Order of St. John's clinics in Gaza and the West Bank, Save the Children Fund's physiotherapy training and Oxfam and Save the Children Fund projects for the mentally and physically handicapped. So there is a lot going on in addition to Medical Aid for Palestine.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the figure given in his original Answer? Have 20,000 children in fact been injured? It seems an extraordinarily high total.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; 20,000 is the figure that we have. That information came from the Palestinian Human Rights Information Centre. Naturally, the figures vary and many cases are never reported. But, as I said, whatever the source or accuracy, they are close enough to be a shocking indictment of what has gone on.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House anything about the representations that we may have made to the United States about military aid for Israel and whether those representations have fallen on receptive ears?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question is narrowly worded in connection with injuries and deaths to children and the medical aspects. I shall certainly look at that point.

Cigarette Smoking
2.50 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to reverse the increase in cigarette smoking in 1988 in view of the fall in real terms of the price of cigarettes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no firm evidence that there has been an increase in cigarette smoking. Although the Central Statistical Office recently

221
released figures showing a very small increase in consumer expenditure on cigarettes in 1988, this does not necessarily mean that more people have taken up smoking. The price of cigarettes has fallen slightly in real terms since 1986, but it is still far higher than it was in 1980.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for those remarks but is he not disappointed with his own Answer? Was he not looking for a continued steep fall in the use of tobacco? In any event, will he convey to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if there is a campaign to discourage the use of a dangerous drug such as nicotine, it may be a good idea to make sure that it does not become available more cheaply?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like my figures. As I said, one cannot read too much into a 0·6 per cent. increase in consumer expenditure on cigarettes. It is too close to the margin of error. At the same time as that rise we have seen a fall of 4·6 per cent. in the number of cigarettes released for home consumption by the Customs and Excise. The figures therefore are rather confusing. I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments about taxation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that one of the images that may have influenced the way in which people voted in the European elections on Thursday was the Secretary of State for Health refusing to co-operate in a European campaign against smoking which used frank and explicit health warnings? May we assume that the Government will be prepared to think again on this matter as well as the important taxation issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's ingenuity in bringing in the European elections yet again. We voted against the labelling directive because we felt that it went far beyond what was necessary for single market harmonisation. It is also over-prescriptive and will damage our system of voluntary agreements. However, as the noble Lord knows, we support the health objectives of that measure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the United Kingdom was once again on its own on this particular issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, quite honestly I do not see what that has to do with the matter. We were on our own but I have explained why we were on our own.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if there has been an increase in the incidence of smoking, could it be because the 40 per cent. of people who are smokers in this country are becoming fed up with being persecuted by the faddist lobby whose supporters often have habits which are more obnoxious than smoking? Does he agree that a period of silence on this matter might persuade young
222
people that smoking is not such a daring thing to do? Will the noble Lord also confirm that the EC, while tinkering about with notices on cigarette packets, is also subsidising the growing of tobacco by no less a figure than £2,000 million a year? Does he not think that we should take health warnings from the EC with a large pinch of nicotine, if not salt?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and not for myself I do not think that I ought to comment on some of the noble Lord's remarks. He gave the number of smokers as 40 per cent. of the population. That figure has fallen from 40 per cent. in 1978 to 33 per cent. in 1986.

Soft Loan Facility
2.55 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make an early Statement on the future of the soft loan facility in view of its importance to United Kingdom exporters.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the aid and trade provision soft loan facility was launched in 1986 for a five-year period. A mid-term review is currently under way to assess the achievements of the scheme so far and make recommendations for the future, after the present facility has expired. A decision on the future of the scheme is unlikely before the autumn.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this facility provides considerable assistance to British exporters particularly in heavy industry, while at the same time to some extent discharging our aid obligation to third world countries? In view of these circumstances and the fact that British contractors have to be competitive with other countries, can he give some assurance that the Government are likely to continue this facility at least in its present terms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly aware of that view but of course that is something which Ministers will wish to consider as they review all the relevant aspects of the current scheme before reaching a conclusion later in the year.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister name the development criteria used in deciding whether or not to grant soft loan facilities? Are the Government satisfied that the schemes which they fund are those which alleviate the very poorest?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the criteria are fairly complex. I do not think that it would be possible just now to go into the full detail for which the noble Baroness asks. So far as concerns the alleviation of the poorest, the answer is yes, to a very large extent, but there will of course be other methods of providing aid which are particularly targeted on the very poorest conditions. I do not think that one

223
ought to imagine that there is any difficulty in reconciling the ATP with the poorer conditions about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this facility has generated orders to the extent of £400 million for British contractors? Since many of those contracts involve long-term negotiations, does he agree that it would be wise to make an early announcement in that regard so that the client countries as well as the companies competing for those contracts know where they stand?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that point and representations on the commercial and industrial aspects of the scheme have been made by British industry. The views of those who have made representations will be taken into account. The autumn is not too far away.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like, as usual, to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lady Turner of Camden. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Hong Kong
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the problems facing the government and people of Hong Kong and to the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it was only 10 days ago that Sir David Wilson addressed the Hong Kong Association here in London. He brought three messages from Hong Kong. First he described the depth of shock felt by Hong Kong citizens as they watched incredulously their television screens on that first day of the massacre in Tiananmen Square and listened hourly to their radios to obtain more news. He then spoke of the dignity of Hong Kong's response as, with good order and with great discipline they marched in their thousands—half a million people marched—to show their solidarity. His last message concerned the people's expectations of support in their present perilous position from the British Government.
Significant as the first two messages were, nevertheless it is on the third one that this debate will focus. It is for that reason that I am very grateful that there are so many speakers who have put down their names who have a great deal of experience and knowledge of Hong Kong. I am also very happy that this debate has attracted a maiden speaker. I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I should add that when I put down this Motion for debate before the crisis in China erupted little could I foresee the poignant —indeed tragic—significance that the subject would have acquired today.
I should like at the outset of this debate to register my great sympathy—and indeed my feeling of great sorrow—for the people of Hong Kong in their despair and sense of isolation. They had hoped for so much from China after the joint declaration and in one day those hopes were dashed. They now look to Britain to revive their confidence in the future, but so far have found little to relieve those anxieties. Indeed, Britain's standing in the colony—her last colony—is at the present moment at a very low ebb.
Perhaps I may say a few words to give background to our debate today. Starting with China, it is now only too painfully apparent, following the initial massacre, the killings and subsequent stream of arrests, that Deng Xiaoping and China's political leaders are bent on a path of brutal repression. Indeed, the situation is now even more terrifying than the tanks of Tiananmen Square as show trials are shown on television, people just disappear, and families are made to inform on each other. This has shocked countries thoughout the world, and has attracted a great deal of sympathy and concern for the people of Hong Kong preparing as they are for the colony to be handed back to China in 1997. Although it is clear that represssion is the order of the day in China now, there is nevertheless speculation that the leadership struggle is far from over, and it is therefore too early to predict the political path that China may take over the next eight years. It makes decisions regarding Hong Kong's future even more difficult to take at this stage.
Some have called for the cancellation of the Sino-British joint declaration signed in 1984. Fortunately there is now a consensus of established opinion that to leave the colony with no agreement at this point could hardly add to our safety. Next, and most significantly, there is a widespread and justifiable anxiety among the people of Hong Kong regarding their future security should their worst fears be realised and, as the governor described, an Armageddon scenario prevail in the colony. As a result, much pressure is being put on the British Government to take action to safeguard the position of Hong Kong residents by offering a right of abode to holders of British passports. They asked for it as an assurance policy. Much has been said about it. Perhaps I may therefore take one minute to describe the facts of the nationality and immigration position of Hong Kong residents.
Those estimated 3·28 million residents of Hong Kong who are entitled to British dependent territory citizenship were either born in the colony or have a

225
parent or grandparent who were. But of those 3·28 million, only 1·53 million are in possession of British passports at the present time. The other 2·75 million of the Hong Kong population are almost all immigrants, both legal and illegal, from the Chinese mainland. They will become Chinese nationals after 1997. However, in addition there are approximately 10,000 non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens, mainly Asians, who will become effectively stateless after 1997. They are not entitled to become Chinese citizens because they are not of Chinese origin and their BDT passports will not enable them to claim right of abode in the UK. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this minority is the cause of very great concern.
The position on the right of abode at the moment is that only serving or former Crown servants can apply for the right of abode in Britain under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act. While approximately 700 people have made applications under this section since it came into effect, only 59 had been successful by March 1989.
Finally, under the present immigration rules, any non-EC resident with capital assets of a minimum of £ 150,000 may be allowed to reside in this country. This could provide an escape route for a well-off Hong Kong businessman in the event of a crisis in relations with China. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny the press report yesterday that there had been a plan to raise the minimum amount of capital required from £150,000 to £200,000.
In addition, in our long colonial history the case of Hong Kong is unique. First, the colony has no option of independence. Secondly, it is the first time that a territory has been handed over to a Communist regime in which, moreover, the situation has changed so dramatically since signing the treaty that if 1997 were today it could not be observed.
What is to be done? The Government face a dilemma. However, we on these Benches believe very strongly that the Government's first priority is to take action to restore confidence in the colony. If this is not done quickly, the position in Hong Kong will become more precarious, possibly even ungovernable, meaning that the prosperity and stability, on which Beijing's tolerance of the colony ultimately depends, would be undermined. There are many voices from Hong Kong, and indeed also in Britain, which say that the only way to restore confidence is to grant the right of abode in the United Kingdom for the 3·28 million Hong Kong passport holders. At the same time, they maintain that the take up would be low.
However, on the one hand, policies cannot be made on the assumption that they will be unnecessary. On the other, if, after amending our nationality and immigration legislation, a large number of Hong Kong people were driven through a worsening situation at home to take up their new rights, a British Government would be in a difficult position facing their responsibilities not only to the people of this small island but also to those other BDT passport holders outside Hong Kong who have been in the queue to enter Britain as well as the relatives of immigrants who have been waiting to
226
come. Above all, therefore, we do not want Her Majesty's Government to enter into a commitment now, at this early stage, that in the end they would be unable to honour.
As George Walden, a former student at the Hong Kong University and diplomat in Beijing wrote in the Independent,
"With China in turmoil it is the worst possible moment to let British policy swing in the gale of events".
For the present time, in order to bolster the confidence in Hong Kong, to relieve pressure, and to help move things forward in the colony, we ask the Government to do the following. First, we ask them to reiterate Britain's unequivocal condemnation of the violent oppression and reign of terror in China and thereby ensure that the colony is left in no doubt as to Britain's view of the Beijing Government.
Secondly, we welcome the Secretary of State's visit to Hong Kong on 1st July, as indeed I believe that he was pressed to do by my right honourable friend Mr. Gerald Kaufman. However, I ask the Minister whether Sir Geoffrey Howe plans a visit to China. In this way he would confirm to the colony that Britain is committing herself to the support of Hong Kong in all the ways possible and within her reach.
Thirdly, will the Government now go further in defining the flexibility mentioned by the Prime Minister on 8th June? She said in another place that the Government were prepared to see whether they can obtain increasing flexibility from the present rules in order to allow an increasing number of people in here under the several different limbs of the immigration rules and the British Nationality Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to be a little more specific about that now.
Next, from an international viewpoint, we believe that although Britain has a primary responsibility for Hong Kong, Her Majesty's Government should consult with other Commonwealth countries. Some of them, such as Canada and Australia, are better able than Britain to absorb the entry of a considerable number of people. We should also like the Government to consult immediately with our EC partners at the forthcoming Madrid meeting. After 1992—which brings freedom of movement between members states—surely the level of immigration to each country can affect only the other.
I turn to the Basic Law on which negotiations have been suspended, with the resignation of members of the committee in protest at events in Beijing. Although we find that utterly understandable, we now urge that negotiations should resume and the British Government should take a more robust attitude towards ensuring that the Basic Law reflects the joint declaration. There is scope for amending and reinforcing some of the articles, and we hope that that will come about.
With regard to direct elections in the colony, the Labour Party has always advocated that the pace of democratic reform should be accelerated. It is a pity that that was not done earlier. We now ask the Government to give serious consideration to the unanimous view of a legislative council that at least

227
50 per cent. of the council should be directly elected by 1995 or before. However, mindful of the retaliation which a fully democratic system in Hong Kong might draw from the extremists in Peking, we believe that the actual pace of change should be left to the Hong Kong Government and the people.
In speaking of the need to relieve Hong Kong of additional burdens, I should like to mention the Vietnamese boat people. It is a heartbreaking problem which so far has confounded the international community. It has imposed a heavy cost on Hong Kong. The difficulties in resettling the refugees gives an indication of the kind of problem which will be caused by mass immigration from Hong Kong in the event of a crisis concerning the handover to China.
By 10th June this year 42,766 boat people had arrived in Hong Kong, half of them being under the age of 20. It is a migration of families. The colony is no longer able to find sufficient space to put new camps. It should be remembered that Hong Kong has a population density of over 5,000 people per square kilometre compared with 230 in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, since 1980 offers of resettlement from other countries have steadily fallen. For example, in 1988 over 18,000 Vietnamese arrived in Hong Kong and fewer than 3,000 left for resettlement.
On 13th and 14th June the crisis was discussed at a Geneva conference. The decision was taken that the UNHCR should agree a programme of voluntary repatriation. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the agency has been given enough time and resources to work out a plan to resolve such an enormous problem? Will he also give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will press for an internationally agreed solution involving United Nations member states to receive genuine political refugees; and to move forward towards drawing Vietnam back into the international community and establishing aid programmes with that country?
It must be of benefit to gain the participation of Vietnam both to prevent departures as well as to accept the repatriation of the economic refugees. However, we on these Benches are most concerned about the prospect of forced repatriation towards which the Government appear to be leaning.
Hong Kong is our last colony and in many ways it is the most successful. The purpose of the debate is to express to the people of Hong Kong the concern of this House. It is also to demand an assurance from the Government that they will genuinely do everything within their powers to safeguard Hong Kong's interests in the interim period to 1997 in order to bring Britain's long history as a colonial power to an honourable close. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am fully aware of the great privilege accorded to me in making my maiden speech in this historic House. I trust that I shall not overstep the boundaries of convention which bind maiden speakers, but I share with the noble Baroness her concern for the future of the people and territory of Hong Kong.
228
In December 1984, during the debate on the joint agreement with China, my great friend Lord Birkenhead made his maiden speech. Sadly, Robin Birkenhead is now dead but I should like to remind your Lordships of his words. On that occasion he said:
"we do not have to live, except in our consciences, with the consequences of this agreement; the people of Hong Kong do. Many of them have risked their lives and abandoned everything to escape from Communism. One cannot possibly expect enthusiasm at the prospect of being handed back to a Communist power, however many safeguards are built into their return".—[Official Report, 10/12/84; col. 32.]
That was four and a half years ago and today we must address ourselves urgently to the same question.
Appalling as were the recent events in Peking, they should not have come as a surprise. There had already been a dress rehearsal in Tibet for the brutalities committed in Tiananmen Square. On at least four separate occasions during the past three years—and most recently in March of this year—Chinese troops and police opened fire on and killed unarmed demonstrators. That happened in spite of the fact that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration are protected under Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. But to its shame the world ignored the warnings from Tibet until minds were wonderfully concentrated by the events on 3rd and 4th June. If the mask had slipped in Tibet, it has now been ripped away and the face of totalitarian China has been exposed.
That is the power to which we are to hand over Hong Kong and with no more guarantee than the hope that China will abide by the joint agreement. gut after the experience of the past three weeks the people of Hong Kong need more than hope to persuade them that they are not to be delivered defenceless to the mercies of the People's Liberation Army. They need the assurance that if the worst comes to the worst they have in the last resort somewhere to go; an alternative to the bullet and the confession.
Whereas under the process of decolonisation other Crown colonies were led to or took the path to independence, as the noble Baroness has said, that option was denied to Hong Kong. The right of domicile in the United Kingdom was progressively removed between 1962 and 1981 under the Commonwealth Immigration Act and its subsequent amendments.
Over the past three weeks the people of Hong Kong have experienced kaleidoscopic emotions: first, of pride and happiness for their fellow countrymen in China as the prospect of greater freedom rose before them; then of anger, shock and compassion; and, finally, of apprehension and fear that what happened in China and Tibet today would happen tomorrow in Hong Kong.
What is now needed to restore the confidence of Hong Kong is the recognition that we have certain inescapable obligations and that the necessary steps will be taken to meet them. Speedier progress to democratic government, yes; a Bill of Rights, yes. However, they are the icing and what is needed is the cake. They can be no substitute for the fundamental need for an ultimate sanctuary.

229
The course advocated by the present Governor, Sir David Wilson, is that we should grant full British passports to the 1·25 million people who currently hold British National (Overseas) passports and to the further 2 million people who are eligible to hold them. I do not believe that such a generous step would mean an unmanageable influx of immigrants from Hong Kong. Their lives are in Hong Kong and they would wish to continue to live there. Paradoxically, the assurance that people could leave would have the effect of encouraging them to stay, for a prison to which you have the key is no longer a prison.
For my part, I do not believe it quite necessary to go so far as to give immediate right of abode to those 3·25 million who are potentialy eligible in Hong Kong. Certainly those most at risk should have that right and I urge the Government substantially to increase the degree of flexibility in awarding full British passports.
If Portugal with its smaller population can give to over 100,000 of the citizens of Macao the right of abode in the EC, we can surely give several hundred thousand passports to the people of Hong Kong. I mention the EC because of course by 1992 a British passport will also be a passport to Europe and not all the Hong Kong people will wish to make their home here in the United Kingdom.
The numbers may seem daunting but this Government have never shirked a challenge. If France has absorbed nearly 2 million immigrants from its overseas territories, we can surely do no less for our subjects in far more deserving circumstances. If Europe's population is increased by a maximum of 1 per cent., that is a tiny price to pay for saving a brave nation from the worst horrors of communism.
I do not say that Armageddon is coming. However, I say that if it does come we should be prepared. I urge the Government to take the decisions which will satisfy both our honour and our responsibility.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, from the reception given by the House to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, I am sure that your Lordships will want me to congratulate him on a speech which was both elequent and fell within the conventions of the House. I hope that he will forgive me if my appreciation is somewhat abbreviated by the fact that I have only six minutes in which to speak. That brevity in no way represents a lack of sincerity in the congratulations which I wish to convey.
The subject which we are discussing today is not simple. It requires rather careful and intricate argument. In the time at my disposal I shall concentrate on the central issue of what we are to do for the people of Hong Kong in order to provide them with the assurances which they justly demand for their lives and liberties in the future. If what I say is said in rather crude language, that is simply because there is not the time or the space in which to set the matter forth in all its complexity.
230
I am one of those who had argued that in this country we were under a moral obligation to offer those people in Hong Kong with British passports an unrestricted right of abode in this country. That view was based on a number of assumptions: first, that the Chinese Government would fulfil their obligations; secondly, that the negotiations on the Basic Law would reach a satisfactory conclusion—an assumption which led one to conclude that, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, indicated, relatively few would wish to take up the option to settle in this country. I believed that, by providing that right, we should stem the drain of immigration from Hong Kong which is so serious for its economy.
The events which have been and are taking place in China which were so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, make one apt to face the fact that some of those assumptions which I and others made have to be called in question. Matters in China are bad and may become worse. We must face the possibility of what the Foreign Secretary calls "a cataclysmic situation" and what the governor calls "Armageddon", or what might be called the worst possible case. It is in such circumstances that an insurance policy is so necessary because in the worst possible case it is conceivable that there may be a mass exodus.
In those situations I do not believe that it is reasonable for the British Government to give an undertaking which, in point of fact, they would be unlikely in the event to be able to fulfil. I do not believe that it is reasonable for this country to undertake that in those circumstances it could accept such numbers. Yet, it is against those very circumstances that an insurance policy is required; hence the demand by the Hong Kong Chinese that their lives and liberties should be safeguarded.
The Prime Minister has suggested that our response should be flexible. Attempts which have been made to get a definition of that flexibility have proved fruitless. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that flexibility must mean generosity and must mean including more people within the categories of those who can be accepted within this country in the immediate future. It must also not be allowed to be simply a question of money. Public service, intellectual distinction and industrial and entrepreneurial skills must all be regarded as qualifications. It must not be money and only money which is the criterion.
The fact is that in the worst possible case, in face of a mass exodus, it is possible to conceive of only one solution; that must be an international solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, suggested. It seems to me a matter of urgency that we should raise this issue with the EC at the summit, with the Commonwealth and with other interested parties at the earliest possible opportunity, so as to prepare a plan which can safeguard and provide the assurances to the people of Hong Kong which they rightly and legitimately demand.
At the same time, we must be prepared to set an example in the numbers and the categories which we are prepared to take. Only by providing such a safeguard can we provide the confidence that the inhabitants of Hong Kong are rightly demanding

231
and on which the maintenance of the prosperity of Hong Kong depends. On that prosperity depends the leverage that we can exercise to ensure a reasonable Chinese treatment of Hong Kong in the long run.
I cannot say more without encroaching on the time of other speakers but I hope that we shall receive from the Government a more positive response to this situation than we have had hitherto.
3.28 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on his admirable maiden speech. I am very much in accord with his sentiments.
There is some difficulty about the time in speaking in this debate. However, I should like first to say that to overcome the shock of the terrible events in Peking, a great deal needs to be done by the Chinese Government themselves, by the British Government and by the Chinese and British Governments acting together. One way or another, implementation of the joint declaration through the Basic Law will have to be, as the Foreign Secretary said, fortified and buttressed to stand up to the new pressure of credibility under which it is suffering.
In the time available I cannot go into all the details as I should like to do. However, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her admirable introduction to this highly topical debate. I shall confine myself only to the demand of Hong Kong people that we boost their failed confidence by a guarantee of an alternative home—the same theme concentrated on by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, although he reached a slightly different conclusion.
There seem to be three levels of responsibility which we should distinguish. There is the Armageddon scenario. That involves mass flight. I do not think we need spend much time on that. I am sure that it is common ground that in such a circumstance the British Government of the day would have to take the lead in the huge international operation which would be necessary. There is nothing that can be done about that now, other than to say so.
There is the second level, which I think is much the most difficult: the smaller number of British nationals in Hong Kong and their demand for recovery of their rights of entry and abode—now called British citizenship—which was lost in 1962. This has now emerged as, I believe, the key, crucial issue. I now believe, and I have not thought this previously, that without satisfaction on this issue faith in the whole enterprise of Hong Kong is liable to fail. It will fail through the uncertainty, disillusion, emigration or preoccupation with emigration, of the people who would otherwise make the Hong Kong of the future. Of course, commercial confidence and support would ebb away with them.
The decisive solution would be to amend the British Nationality Act to provide Hong Kong British nationals with British citizenship. The object of doing that would be an insurance to encourage them to stay at their work in Hong Kong, as most
232
wish to do. In the past I have asked for a home of last resort. Others have asked for the right of entry or the right of abode. It all comes down to the same thing in the end—citizenship. To grant that would be the greatest contribution that the British Government could make to the success of their hitherto very successful policy in Hong Kong. Of course I realise the difficulty, but we should not be outfaced by the numbers. The figure of 3 million potential British nationals is unrealistic. The governor said that at present there are only 1·2 million holders of British passports and only a proportion of those are potential emigrants. Moreover, with the Act amended to give these people citizenship, the freedom of movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome would apply.
I accept that this is a big problem but we have our friends in the Commonwealth and I suggest—like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—that we should now start discussions with our partners in the EC and with the potential host countries of the Commonwealth, as well as with the leaders in Hong Kong. With such a group we should be able to come up with a solution, provided we give a clear lead and a clear commitment to take many of these people. However, time is of the essence. These objectives will take a long time to fulfil, and within two years from now there will be only six years to the passage of sovereignty.
The British Nationality Act also provides for flexibility, as do the immigration rules; and yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that the Government are looking at what could be done under them. That, of course, is extremely welcome and I hope that early progress can be made. Nevertheless, I do not think that either morally or practically it offers an alternative to the wider arrangements that I have suggested, though it is some action that we could proceed with now.
In reaction to what has happened in Peking I hope that I have not exaggerated the problem or unnecessarily talked down the bright prospects of Hong Kong as we saw them two months ago. I believe the problem is real and urgent. If the solution I have suggested is judged to be unrealistic I will listen with great interest to what your Lordships have to say in criticism; but I hope that a constructive alternative will be offered because this problem will not wait.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this important debate today and also by congratulating my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on his maiden speech.
This debate comes almost exactly one year since we last debated Hong Kong and it is difficult to overstate the change in the situation since that occasion. We have all been appalled by the actions of the Chinese Government over the treatment of the peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square, and no one can ever forget the spectacle on our television screens of the Chinese army literally crushing students who were peacefully trying to express their point of view. We are horrified at the death penalties

233
carried out, with more unquestionably to come. Those actions have shocked and appalled the entire world. I express for everyone, I am sure, our deepest sympathy and understanding for the very real concerns of the people of Hong Kong.
Arising from that dreadful background it is all the more important to consider carefully what the reaction of Her Majesty's Government should be to this issue of Hong Kong. I start by placing on record my support for my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and the measures that he has already taken against China: a ban on arms sales; a suspension of all scheduled exchanges between Britain and China; a suspension of the visit by the Prince and Princess of Wales; and suspension of all high-level military contacts. I also think that we greatly benefit from my right honourable friend's wise counsel on the situation in Hong Kong and his unwillingness, in my view quite properly, to be pushed precipitously into actions which in many cases have not been fully thought through.
I am glad that my right honourable and learned friend is to visit Hong Kong shortly. He can then judge for himself the situation on the ground and, above all, can assure the people of Hong Kong that we shall fulfil our obligations and responsibility for the administration of Hong Kong up to 1997. I also place on record my support for the governor, Sir David Wilson, in these difficult times and for the excellent job that he is doing.
What, then, should we do? The fact is that the historic and geographical realities of the situation of Hong Kong remain. Any viable future for Hong Kong must be dependent upon its co-operation and coexistence with China. Nothing can alter those facts, disagreeable though they may be. Under the lease, 92 per cent. of Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997. I recall, as a Foreign Office Minister, commending to your Lordships the Hong Kong agreement—the Sino-British Agreement on Hong Kong. I believe it to be a good agreement. Some people have suggested that we should either scrap it or try to renogotiate it. I believe that that would be a great mistake. We want to see it implemented. Nor is there any evidence that if we did reopen negotiations we would get a better agreement.
One further positive point remains. It is in China's long-term interests to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. As all speakers have said, we must try to keep up that confidence in Hong Kong. I welcome the proposals that have been made for an increase in democracy. I also welcome the fact that the Hong Kong police force has been strengthened under the control of the Hong Kong Government. I hope that on the tragic situation of the Vietnamese refugees there will be some improvement arising from the discussions at Geneva. That seems to be the case.
Attention has focused on the question of whether, given the changed situation, we should give an undertaking of the right of abode to some 3·25 million people from Hong Kong. It is a matter of much regret to me that I have not been able to speak, before this debate, to Dame Lydia Dunn, who I
234
know is in London, and to hear, first hand, her concerns. Of course we all understand their fears. Who could not? I shall therefore listen with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister has to say this afternoon on the point raised about a further examination, particularly under the nationality Acts, of the position of Crown servants and key business people. I was also interested to read what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday, when she referred to increased flexibility under the nationality Acts. Both statements I welcome, and I hope that my noble friend can say something further on this matter.
On the wider issue of whether or not we should give a right of abode to the 3·25 million people in Hong Kong I would like to expand further, but time does not allow. But I say this: it is an immensely difficult issue. The British Parliament must not only consider its obligations to the people of Hong Kong, real and important as those are, but also its obligations to the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as the representatives in another place are elected to represent the people of the United Kingdom, their first duty must be to the people whom they represent. In answering this question I believe it must be clear that Britain could not guarantee a right of abode to all these people.
I believe there is a danger as regards the insurance argument because no government could make that commitment without being prepared to make arrangements to receive for right of abode 3·25 million people. It really would not be fair to the people of Hong Kong, let alone to the people in this country, to pretend otherwise. Those who have to take responsibility often have to say things that they would rather not say and that are very painful and disagreeable. I believe that this is one instance of them. That said, we have all referred to what is called the Armageddon situation. We must profoundly hope and pray that it does not happen. From what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, I recognise that should that situation arise we shall seek the help of the rest of the world in trying to resolve what will be not only a desperately tragic situation for Hong Kong, but a tragedy for the whole world.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, had I just a month ago started my notes for today's most valuable and timely debate with the phrase "whilst there is nothing new or original to add" it would have been largely true though the strength of the argument for the BDTC and the BN(O) right of abode in the United Kingdom would not have been the less. Now, almost daily, there is something new. Even today we have received the appalling information that three Shanghaiese have been executed for setting fire to the train that had killed their companions. That is something new, and it adds to the very real concern expressed in Hong Kong regarding the actions of the authorities in the PRC.
We have heard all the arguments. I suppose that the two principal ones are, first, that 1997 is still eight years away; the second being that the United

235
Kingdom cannot possibly absorb three-plus-million Hong Kong Chinese "just like that". But what if the United Kingdom and effectively all of its population were to be returned, albeit with quite tolerable paper assurances, in eight years' time to an authority from whom over the previous 40 years most of us, or our parents, had fled? Would not we want to know that, if the proverbial push comes to the Sino-shove, we had a haven to which we could escape? We take our full British nationality for granted. Are we happy at the thought of going down in history as the "we are in the boat, shove off" brigade?
As I have said in your Lordships' House on many occasions, Hong Kong has one asset only—and a mighty one that is—which is its people. Without its people having full confidence to remain in Hong Kong, Hong Kong is at best—and I repeat "at best"—nothing. I agree that the arrival of three-plus-million Hong Kong Chinese over a short time period would cause just as many problems in the United Kingdom as that exodus would cause in Hong Kong. But it would not happen. I cannot prove that statement and nor indeed can anyone else prove it. But I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that it is true.
I am delighted that Dame Lydia Dunn is listening to this debate today. She more than any, with her leadership of OMELCO in Hong Kong, is championing this cause. The British Government and the British people have such a burden of responsibility—legal, moral and practical—to Hong Kong that they must take the gamble, or in the words of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in his excellent maiden speech, take up the challenge and grant at the very minimum perpetual and indefinite right of entry to the United Kindom for all Hong Kong BDTC and BN(O) passport holders. That would give them the right to earn full British nationality under the rules of domicile without, as I understand it, the necessity to amend the British Nationality Act 1981.
It really is the very least that we can do and, as has been said already this afternoon, we must do it now, before the apparently inexhaustible patience of Hong Kong finally evaporates, and with it the all-important confidence of its people.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, if there is for Hong Kong a silver lining to the ominous cloud that hangs over China, it is that the people of this country can now be seen by the people of Hong Kong to have woken up to their responsibilities for what may happen there after 1997 instead of perhaps giving the impression that the agreement signed with China enabled them to forget some of the intense human problems which might arise when sovereignty is due to pass. I believe that every noble Lord in this House will agree that the people of Hong Kong certainly deserve all the understanding and interest that we can muster since their confidence has been so badly shaken in the arrangements that this country has been making for them.
Much of the interest has centred on the question of nationality and right of abode. I do not discount
236
these issues one little bit. As has been said, they are clearly matters of the utmost significance and urgency to Hong Kong's morale and stability as a last resort measure, if nothing else. But as a former Commander British Forces Hong Kong, I would like to concentrate on the steps that might be taken inside Hong Kong, particularly as they affect security. Surely the greatest service that we can do for the people there is to continue to encourage Hong Kong to prosper, with the citizens, by and large, remaining to maintain its success story and not leaving to bring about an untypical failure. Then we should do everything we can in further bilateral negotiations with the rulers of China and with international backing, to ensure that the spirit of that original agreement on true autonomy until the year 2047 is still achieved. We shall be doing the people of Hong Kong no service to pretend that, because of harrowing events in Peking in 1989, the longer-term future can no longer lie within the orbit of mainland China.
But, equally, no one in their senses can imagine, without more adequate guarantees on the Basic Law and individual rights than we have at the moment, that we could commit over 5 million people to the tender mercies that we saw perpetrated in Tiananmen Square. So we have a considerable job to do to convince Hong Kong that the arrangements being made will provide adequate safeguards within the original spirit of that agreement. To achieve this could it not be that we have advantages that we did not have before? In the past, when negotiating with the Chinese, we convinced ourselves that we had considerably fewer cards to play than they did. But now I suggest that the situation may have changed. The Chinese Government, instead of basking in the goodwill of the international community, are generally condemned. They have lost face and, after the first frenzy of riding roughshod to maintain the power of the existing leadership, they will find that a Pandora's Box has been opened which they can never completely close. They will therefore need friends to help them solve their accumulating problems, otherwise modernisation will be dead for decades.
Therefore our negotiating position should have been strengthened. So cannot now, for instance, the Basic Law which still has a number of ambivalent loopholes, be negotiated, as the noble Baroness said, in a way that will be much more reassuring to the people of Hong Kong? Then there is the question of actually stationing the so-called People's Liberation Army on Hong Kong territory and that must surely be looked at again. From a military point of view, and distances being what they are, it has always seemed quite unnecessary for China actually to garrison Hong Kong which will have its own security force and, with its autonomous status, will be responsible for its own internal security. Very early on in the negotiations it looked as though the Chinese leadership might accede to this point. Therefore it is only right that we should insist on returning to it. After seeing how the PLA dealt with peaceful protest and free speech, nothing could be more guaranteed to destroy confidence and morale in Hong Kong and deter international investment than the prospect of

237
formed bodies of Chinese troops being stationed in Hong Kong itself.
During the period up to 1997 I hope there will be no question of prematurely reducing the garrison or cutting the size of the Gurkha units. The scenarios which could in the interim threaten the stability of Hong Kong are legion, not least the prospect of a greater influx of refugees, not only from Vietnam but from China itself. The Royal Hong Kong Police Force could find itself quite unable to cope without the fullest support of the military. Minimum force has always required maximum numbers, a point seemingly lost on the People's Liberation Army. Moreover, we must be careful to do nothing to indicate any premature weakening of ties with this country or of Britain's resolve to see this thing through to a proper and peaceful conclusion, which is the passing back of sovereignty of a stable going concern, but with the strongest possible guarantees that, for 50 years at least, Hong Kong will co-exist with the rest of mainland China as a separate autonomous area, with the same currency and similar legal rights and freedoms as it possesses at the moment. That was the agreement—no less.
If when the time comes there is no stable central government, or we could not deliver that package with confidence, we must face the fact that all bets might have to be off and we would be honour-bound to do our duty by the people of Hong Kong in whatever way seemed right and appropriate at the time. We should be working out now what that responsbility might entail if Armageddon came, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said in his excellent maiden speech. But first and more optimistically, let us by our deeds in negotiation, the strength with which we play our hand, our leadership, our flexibility and the extent to which we remain actually concerned about and involved in Hong Kong's future seek to reassure its people that we will keep faith with them.
For its part, I hope that Hong Kong will continue to conduct itself with dignity, not interfering outside its borders but confident and fully backed by Britain inside them. Then perhaps common sense and reasonableness in the implementation of the agreement will still prevail, as we always hoped it would.
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness has initiated this highly important and topical debate. I congratulate her on her speech and feel sure that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will give her a sympathetic reply, as he did to me last week in an encouraging Answer in regard to Chinese students in this country. He said that no Chinese national would be required to return to China until the situation there was clarified. I was grateful to him for that statement. It showed the Government's human face and their generosity.
As far as concerns Hong Kong, I was very glad yesterday to attend a meeting with Dame Lydia Dunn, the senior member of the Executive Council, and the Honourable Allen Lee, senior member of the Legislative Council, both highly respected in
238
Hong Kong and here. I have been interested in relations between Hong Kong and the People's Republic for some 25 years—that is to say, since 1963—and more closely since 1977 when I visited Beijing at the time of the return of Deng Xiaoping. That was a time, believe it or not, of euphoric celebration. I also spent some 10 days going round many factories, mainly in the industrial north and the Taching oilfields. Then again in 1984 I was there at the time of the signing of the joint declaration, and on that occasion had many high-tech discussions in the People's Republic as well as in Hong Kong.
When Deng Xiaoping returned, many of us thought that he would liberalise the People's Republic. Never did we imagine the kind of situation occurring as we have seen in the past few weeks, leading to the massacre on 4th June which shocked the whole world. It is also distressing in another way to think how some of the joint ventures and high-tech agreements which we advocated may now in many cases be in a state of limbo. As members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong say: Hong Kong is an economic miracle. It is twice the size of the Isle of Wight yet ranks eleventh in the league of trading nations. It is the largest container port in the world and the largest exporter of watches and radios as well as second in garments and toys. And it is of course one of the leading financial centres of the world with an average per capita income second only to Japan in Asia. It also has a most industrious people.
Although many would like to remain in Hong Kong, it is understandable in the circumstances that many people would like an insurance policy in the form of a second passport so that if the promises of the joint declaration are not kept they will at least have an alternative home. I do not feel that we in Britain should fear that suddenly 3.25 million people will flood into Britain. Many of these will want to continue living in Hong Kong which is their home. Someone has calculated how many Jumbo aircraft would be needed to evacuate 3.25 million people. At a rate of three Jumbos a day it would, I think, take eight years. Of course the immediate flood of refugees will not happen, and any who feel that they must leave, as some have already done, should find jobs in other parts of the Commonwealth as well as in Britain. They have been much welcomed in Canada and in the United States and in other countries of the United Nations. In view of their industriousness they should be welcome in many parts of the world. Am I not right in thinking, like my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, whom we have all congratulated on his admirable speech, and also in view of what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said, that if in 1992 they hold a British passport they would have access to the other 11 member states of the European Community, where I believe they would also be welcome? I hope that my noble friend can confirm that.
So let us not in Britain be too fearful of what may happen. At all events I hope that more Hong Kong citizens will come here and I hope that an organisation might be set up in which people who would welcome them would also help them to find homes.
3.58 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on the manner in which she opened her speech. She must appreciate the wide support she received from different sides of the House. Anyone listening to the debate will know that we as a country and as a House are deeply committed to the welfare of Hong Kong.
I should like to take a slightly wider angle in looking at this issue. Anyone who has been for a time in South-East Asia knows that the Chinese are astonishing people. They have enormous ability. They work hard and are people of great courtesy and cleanliness in their way of living. Secondly, they do not want to return to China. I do not know of any other people who do not want to go home. The Chinese do not. This is a feature unique to them. In some countries it is actually a punishment to send people back to the country from which they came.
China has had a bad century. I do not want to go into detail but one can look back to the days of Sun Yet-sen and the revolution of 1911 to see that the hopes of that time have wholly disappeared. The Chinese have been through a period of war. Eventually they seemed to settle for Communism, in about 1948 or 1949. That has been a failure. They tried two things: they tried the "great leap forward" and then they tried the Cultural Revolution. Mao Tse-tung agreed that it was a complete failure. Now, I am afraid that one must say that Deng Xiaoping is using the situation as a sort of smokescreen to explain their further failures.
Of course we see on television programmes that the Chinese want to enter into international trade agreements; they want the benefit of foreign technology, and so on. However, what we do not hear quite so much about—although, the people of Hong Kong know something of this—is iron bureaucracy, both ruthless and determined, which is really running China, very much, if I may say so, as it did in the days of the emperor. This is an issue which we must tackle. I say "tackle", but it is something at which we must look most closely. Nepotism, corruption and control of thought are the objects to which they are working.
I have not lost heart in the matter. I do not think that all is finished and that we can do nothing about it. I think that we can do something about the matter. That is what really matters. The wording of the treaty which we have made is outstandingly successful. I am amazed at what the Chinese have agreed to; and I am amazed at the skill, if I may say so, of the Foreign Secretary, and also that of the present Governor of Hong Kong. I am amazed that they have managed to achieve this agreement. I believe that this should be our primary effort because it is in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. They do not want to come to this country. Have we thought about what the people of Hong Kong would think living in some of our great cities? They would of course have a life; but it would be a disagreeable life for which they would not care in the least.
We find many factors in this whole issue. Some 20 years ago Chou En-lai said that all nations are entitled to fundamental rights and must not be
240
maltreated. Was that statement cynical, or was that a willing hope in regard to that which he had not succeeded in doing? I am inclined to say that we should not exclude the second consideration. For instance, we find China ratifying the convention against genocide. Yet, two years later, Amnesty International reported that 10,000 people were executed in four months. Was that a wishful act or was it a situation that was out of control? Is that an example of iron bureaucracy working, or is it not?
I do not think that we should lose too much heart over the matter. I shall tell your Lordships why. We would like to help China on its way, and that is something we can do. After all, we have made a worthwhile treaty with China. I think that there is at least a chance that the winds of freedom could blow from Hong Kong into China. We should not exclude that possibility. I believe that if we have confidence in the Chinese Governnment in this regard, it is more likely that they will fulfil absolutely what they have undertaken to do.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was quite right in saying during her speech that the agreement which we signed in 1984 with the Chinese was a good and fair one: that is, on the important assumption that the regime in power in Beijing would continue to be a pragmatic and moderate one which did not renege on its promises.
The crucial Chinese promise was, and is, that Hong Kong's capitalist system and lifestyle will remain unchanged for 50 years after the transfer of power, and that for a like period the socialist system and socialist policies will not be practised there.
That highly unusual, but in the Hong Kong context, very helpful undertaking is summed up in Deng Xiaoping's formula of "one country, two systems". Four years ago, in 1985, I visited Beijing with a small team from Stanford University in California. We had a longish talk with the then Prime Minister of China, Mr. Xao Xiyang. He is of course the same moderate leader who fell foul of his octogenarian colleagues over how to handle the student protests and is apparently about to be disgraced. He, and other senior Chinese officials whom we met made no secret of their belief, and hope, that after 1997, if the people of Hong Kong could be kept in a contented and co-operative mood, the colony would continue to play a key role in China's economy. They had clearly concluded—for good Chinese reasons—that this would be much more likely to happen if they gave the undertaking which they did.
Moreover, it was also apparent to the Chinese that the same formula could one day be helpful in persuading the Taiwanese also to throw in their lot with the mainland. Those two long-term pragmatic and commonsensical considerations are just as valid today as they were then for the Chinese. Therefore I see some grounds for hope in the present situation, although I am not starry-eyed about the matter.
However, we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that on 4th June last, the regime in Beijing

241
was finally provoked into using methods of lawless cruelty against its own young fellow citizens. The massacre of the students has, very understandably, caused the people of Hong Kong to look for reassurance from this country. We are in duty bound to provide it. Indeed, I am sure that there is no disagreement on this point in any quarter of this House. How can we best do so?
Again, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I can see no sensible grounds and no demand that I am aware of in Hong Kong, for us to abrogate or seek to re-negotiate the agreement. Indeed were we to do so, Hong Kong's position could well be impaired, not improved. As we all know, what most Hong Kong people do not now have, and fervently hope to be granted, is the right of abode in Britain. That is not so much because they want to exercise that right now, but because they fear that one day they may desperately need to do so.
In my view there are three considerations we would do well to bear in mind when deciding how to respond to the anxious appeals of which a crescendo is currently reaching us. First and foremost, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs quite rightly told us, Hong Kong's situation is indeed unique. Never before during the whole process of British decolonisation did we plan to hand over a sizeable number of British citizens to an uncertain destiny under foreign rule. So we should not consider ourselves as tied to precedent, or inhibited from developing special solutions to a special problem.
Secondly, on balance Britain has gained by taking in people from abroad, and enabling them to blend their talents and culture with our own. Not perhaps all, but at any rate the large bulk of immigration into this country during my life-time has been a success story of which the immigrants and ourselves can be proud. Thirdly, I believe that we have a special obligation to the young people in Hong Kong; namely, those between the ages of 15 and 25, who stand at the threshold of their careers. Their elders have already lived much of their lives under British rule in conditions of freedom and justice. Rightly or wrongly, the young people—and we have all seen their worried faces on television—fear that after 1997 freedom and justice will be denied them.
I should very much like to see a scheme or an organisation—such as the one suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—brought into being in this instance. It would perhaps be an example of the flexibility which the Government have undertaken to show. By virtue of such a scheme a substantial number of these young people, or perhaps all of them who care to apply—and not on a once-and-for-all-basis, but on an ongoing basis over the next years—would be given the chance of coming to Britain in order to complete their education and to fill their first jobs. They would gain by recovering the hopes of a better life, which many of them now expect to forgo, and we should gain by adding a vigorous, gifted (and incidentally English-speaking) young element to our society. I believe that by encouraging generous private giving by individuals and firms, in order to fund scholarships, for instance, we could add a useful bipartisan element to the
242
scheme. It could also include family hospitality on a nationwide scale. Some such scheme could be made flexible time-wise by phasing, and the incoming numbers could be reviewed and adjusted according to absorbability, into which a special inquiry should be made.
My Lords, as I have said, it is the youngsters in Hong Kong who form a major element in the chorus of dismay that the thought of 1997 is now triggering off. It is clearly in their minds that there is anxiety and fear. It is by easing the plight and reducing the claustrophobia of these young people whose hopes have been so cruelly dashed, that I feel we should now in the first instance proceed.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for enabling us to debate Hong Kong today. I should declare an interest in view of my close association with one of Hong Kong's largest business groups, one controlled by Hong Kong Chinese and one whose commitment to Hong Kong is total.
I should like to comment on only three of the main points, much more ably covered by previous speakers. First, on the moral question, which is loosely called the question of honour: in recent days I have been asked by many noble Lords why we should give to the people of Hong Kong something which we have refused to some of the people from our other colonies. The answer is that our disposal of Hong Kong cannot be compared with our disposal of any other parts of the empire. In all other cases, we have moved towards independence. In this case, we are giving up Hong Kong because our lease of part of the land runs out, and Her Majesty's Government can in no way be criticised for that; but it is the land that is leased, not the Hong Kong people.
Britain has no legal obligation, or moral right, to dispose of the people without taking account of their wishes. We should be conscious that we are handing them over not only to a foreign country but to one from which many themselves and their families are refugees. That is why the British Government have tried so hard to find a formula satisfactory to the people of Hong Kong as well as to Britain and China, and full credit to them. Unfortunately, recent events have caused the Hong Kong people to lose faith in that formula. We cannot salve our consciences merely by pretending that we have no legal choice.
Secondly, I wish to say a word on the issue of democracy. There are many views on how fast it is wise for Hong Kong to move towards democracy. In certain circumstances, too rapid progress could even be counterproductive. However, of one thing I am certain: it is for the Hong Kong people to decide the pace at which they want to move, and it is not for us in Britain to gainsay them. I am therefore delighted that Ministers have committed themselves to give priority to ascertaining the current views of the people of Hong Kong and have indicated that on that issue at least they are prepared to listen.
I now come to the third and by far the most important point upon which I want to comment. Here I speak not for the Hong Kong business

243
community but as one closely involved with it. Clearly, every Hong Kong business wants to keep its executive and workforce in Hong Kong for as long as possible and, it is to be hoped, well beyond 1997. Our group alone has over 50 Chinese managers who already have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. They have had it for years. Not one of them is talking of leaving now. Other firms have a similar experience.
If our other key men go, Hong Kong cannot prosper. Of course, out of self-interest we should not be urging the British Government to give a right of entry to Britain to any of the population if we believed that that would lead to early wholesale emigration. No, the reason that we are so insistent is that we are confronted by a serious situation, not in 1997 but in the immediate future. Many of those most responsible for the success of Hong Kong are looking urgently at whether they should leave now in case they cannot get out later.
Unfortunately, the only insurance policies available today involve moving out of Hong Kong now, for example, to go to Canada to qualify for residence so as to obtain a Canadian passport. That is just what they and we want to avoid. That is why all Hong Kong businessmen urge the Government to provide a safety net now which would allow people to stay. The governor has publicly urged the British Government to take positive steps to restore confidence. Of course it is unreasonable—I wholly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this point—to try to work out a long-term scheme for the whole population within the next few weeks, although that must clearly be the long-term aim, probably in an international context.
I beg my honourable friends to extend a lifeline now as an interim measure to the key people who keep the territory prosperous. In that category I include those with technical, financial and managerial skills. If we do not do so, I fully endorse the view of those who say that we risk an economic crisis, in one or perhaps two years' time, possibly followed by civil disorder, and long before 1997. If by 1997 Hong Kong is no longer a prosperous international centre, the Chinese Government will have no incentive to abide by the joint declaration. The goose will no longer be laying the golden eggs.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest. I am the managing director of a subsidiary of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. I am of course proud to be connected with that group, but the views that I express this afternoon are mine and mine alone.
The recent tragic events in China have focused attention on the problems of Hong Kong, but there has always been an inherent weakness in the arrangements that we made with China because of the tightening of our nationality regulations from the 1960s until 1981. It is that which has made it inevitable that at some time we would continue to debate what has now become the Hong Kong question.
244
I should like to make it clear that I believe that we should grant the right of abode to the Hong Kong people who are qualified. The difficulty that we all see and upon which we have touched this afternoon, is how we underwrite that right. Those against have argued on the grounds of practicality: how can we absorb so many over possibly such a short time? But the question is: will they all come, and what are the probabilities of that being a requirement? Is there not some way to combine pragmatism with our obligations, or, as The Times said today,
"honour and self-interest, can they not go together?".
In terms of pragmatism, perhaps I may quote the words of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this year, when he said:
"Our objective then as now has been to secure for Hong Kong the prospect of prosperity and stability on an expanding scale into the future".
I believe that there is a common acceptance of that objective. The reality of the objective is that in the past few years Hong Kong has experienced a great economic growth. But the reality is also that that economic growth will at some time in the future—we do not know when—possibly be placed in jeopardy.
As noble Lords have heard this afternoon, Hong Kong is losing skilled people. Our own organisation is losing its skilled people to Australia and Canada, and I think that the paradox on which my noble friend Lord Derwent touched is that it is the people without the security of right to abode elsewhere who seek that security, while those who have it remain behind. That point has been made many times to me by my Chinese friends in Hong Kong, sometimes quite heatedly in conversation over dinner. Hong Kong's success depends on its people. Their motivation, their confidence and their view of the success of Hong Kong is critical in the future. I have already said that this motivation and confidence are in jeopardy. The people of Hong Kong have a legitimate right to look to us. The Chinese Government, at least publicly, have said that the right to abode is a question for our own Government to resolve, difficult though that resolution may well be for us.
Since the signing of the joint declaration, the people of Hong Kong have seen a number of events taking place. They have seen the Portuguese agreement with China on Macao. They have heard about the French and, on a small scale, Italy, issuing the right of citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese people who work for their banks and industrial concerns in Hong Kong. More important, they have seen how within the Community we are moving towards freedom of movement of people within our own economic area. They see all this in stark contrast to our own existing policy. Even though in the last few days we have seen some movement within the Government, they have seen it in stark contrast to the policy which we have had in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in his excellent maiden speech, and other noble Lords have already mentioned that we should not forget that Hong Kong is different from all our other areas in de-colonisation. There is no question of

245
independence for Hong Kong. If one speaks to the Hong Kong Chinese, they do not even contemplate independence. But there is no choice for the majority of the Hong Kong Chinese; the colony will revert to China in 1997. I believe that this is a unique experience for us.
Having said that, I believe that there are sound reasons for reviewing our policy. These encompass generosity and humanity, questions of legality, morality, obligations, practicality and straightforward expediency. These are all difficult areas for my noble friends in the Government to measure and balance, but they need reviewing for these reasons.
If we do not give a lead, then I believe that two events are likely to follow. One is the slowdown in the economy of Hong Kong which is inextricably linked to the economy of South China and will therefore have a poor effect on China itself. Secondly, if we talk about other countries taking part in any agreement with China or Hong Kong, I believe that where we do not lead and take up our obligations, why should others who have no obligations take up where we fail? I urge my honourable friends in the Government then to give the necessary lead.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I rise to put a suggestion: whether it will be of any use, others must judge. What do we all wish to do? We wish to hand over Hong Kong in the best possible state. The people there want to continue with their lives in the splendid manner in which they always have. The Government of China have shown, through many years, one consistent desire only and that is that they do not want just a bit of territory littered with a number of dissident people. They want to receive Hong Kong as a fat and healthy goose, laying golden eggs. They do not want to receive just a dead bird.
Since that is so, it is clearly our duty to carry out the wishes of these people, so far as we can. The difficulty is that the people of Hong Kong have, rather understandably, lost all confidence in the Government of China. Our problem is to give them some confidence: we certainly do not wish to destroy Hong Kong.
If this were a transaction between individuals and not between sovereign states, one could see an answer to the problem. There are many times when somebody has to hand over valuable property to somebody else and finds that, through sudden serious illness or possibly death, the final recipient being a small child, the property cannot be handed over without it being destroyed. In that case, it is invariably necessary to hand the property to trustees.
I suggest that what we should now do is to seek a trusteeship group, under the United Nations, which could sit in, look over our shoulder and possibly take on some functions in the years of the run-up to the handover. I do not have enormous confidence in every single part of the United Nations, but I have far more confidence in any part of the United Nations than I have in the present Government of China. If a group could be put together, it would reassure the Chinese that everything would be in
246
order. It would reassure the people of Hong Kong that everything was being done that could be done, and if it came to any question of there not being a Government of China able to take over, it might be possible to hand over to the trustees for a limited period.
Personally, I do not think that it would come to that because that time is eight years from now. Things are moving very fast in this world; Russia has moved enormously in eight years. The collapse of Communist economies all over the world, including that of China, is going faster and faster, and these events tend to speed up. I believe that within much less than that period of time we shall see a great deal of movement in China. The Government there have even possibly speeded up the process in attempting to switch off the steam of revolt by screwing down the safety valves. That usually leads to rather fast movement shortly afterwards. It is my belief that we shall see a great change in China long before the date that matters. In the meantime, and possibly soon—as noble Lords have said, something needs doing—we should call in all the help that we can get to help reassure the people of Hong Kong so that when the date comes we can hand over in proper form.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this short debate. I think it is right and fitting that Her Majesty's Opposition should draw your Lordships' attention to this grave issue, in which the honour and integrity of our country are at stake. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on a quite outstanding maiden speech. If I had known what he was going to say I might have kept my seat and shut up, but perhaps I shall say what he said a little more forcefully because mine is not a maiden speech.
Briefly I should like to support those both inside and outside your Lordships' House who believe that a British passport, issued to British citizens in Hong Kong, ought to give those people the right of abode in Britain. As other noble Lords have observed, Hong Kong is not being given independence, and I believe that it is unique among our former colonies. I think we are agreed on that. It is also unique that its people have not been consulted about the sovereignty of the land in which they live. They have no choice in the most fundamental issue of who shall rule them. At present they are part of the leased land on which they live, much as mediaeval serfs were part of their landlords' land. And though they, unlike serfs, are allowed to leave it by the landlord they have no right to go anywhere else, so it appears to come to rather the same thing.
"Britons never shall be slaves" does not apply to them. They are to be handed over in eight years' time to a state in which, as we meet here today, brave young men and women are being persecuted and judicially murdered for the crime of expressing their opinions too openly and forcefully. Even to suggest that we ought to hand over British citizens in such circumstances with their homes, their families,

247
and everything they have, and to lock the door on them with a passport which permits no escape, is a cause of national dishonour and national shame. It is shameful that we should have come to this position. I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again about what they are proposing to do to the honour and good name of this country.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the debate this afternoon calls attention "to the problems facing the government and people of Hong Kong". Most speakers have concentrated on the two issues that have now acquired a high profile: the right of abode in this country of Hong Kong people with BDTC and BN(O) passports and the extension of democracy in Hong Kong before 1997.
I intend to leave these two subjects for further reflection over the weeks ahead when it becomes clearer what practical dialogue can be achieved with the new leaders in China. It is, however, a time for reappraisal, and I hope we shall hear that the Government are looking closely at the details of the Basic Law to see whether topics need to be opened up for reinspection again during the remaining negotiation period before enactment by the National People's Congress in 1990. I am delighted that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit Hong Kong on 1st July.
Today I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another difficult and vexing problem facing the government and people of Hong Kong: the Vietnamese refugees. The boat people have been arriving in ever-increasing numbers since the beginning of March, when the weather conditions began to allow the perilous journey. Most of them are economic migrants from the south and the north of Vietnam. Some are fleeing an oppressive regime, but most a bankrupt country.
More than 42,000, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, are in camps in Hong Kong, having braved the perils of a long journey along the China coast (they call it "coast hopping"), often in open boats, until they reach Hong Kong, the country of first asylum. This concept of the country of first asylum places an immense burden on Hong Kong, an area of high density living. Where can these refugees be housed and contained sometimes for periods of up to six or seven years?
I had the opportunity of visiting Tsham Tsui Po refugee camp in Kowloon earlier this year and saw for myself the cramped conditions in which families have to eat, sleep and multiply without any vestige of privacy. The camps are sad places of wasted lives, broken spirits, exhausted hope. But they are there, and they have to be provided for.
Hong Kong people feel frustrated by this problem, I was told, and, with their own tight control of ethnic Chinese immigration, have no wish to integrate these people into their society. That is also the desire of the boat people themselves, who, in the camp that I visited, living under the flight path of the international airport, dream of getting on a jumbo to California. This is an unwelcome fallout of the war in Vietnam.
248
The government in Hong Kong have, since June 1988, started to classify the boat people into genuine refugees as laid down by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and mere economic migrants. However correct the asylum rules may be, they allow less than 10 per cent. of the current 42,000 to qualify for refugee status. The rest must be repatriated to Vietnam. This makes the disposal problem of genuine refugees more manageable for the rest of the world to accommodate, and success on this front should not be overshadowed by the weight of the numbers remaining.
I was assured by the immigration department in Hong Kong that the screening process would deter the remainder from setting out if they knew that the only alternative would be repatriation to Vietnam. Herein lies the problem. The fewer recognised as refugees who can be taken by other countries, the greater the number who will have to remain in Hong Kong.
The present rate of voluntary repatriation means that the problem will get worse and worse. The screening process has not deterred, the threat of being interned has not deterred, and forced repatriation is at present unacceptable. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Hong Kong government would be prepared to be more flexible in its screening approach.
The reason why this problem must be tackled now is that, as 1997 approaches, more drastic measures may have to be taken in Hong Kong, as it is implicit in the Sino-British joint declaration that the boat people will have been dealt with. If there is to be an end to this misery and suffering it must come from tackling the problem at the source—stopping the exodus; preventing the flow. Steps are currently being taken at international level with Vietnam, America and Britain in an effort to seek the assistance of the Vietnamese government in stopping the outflow, to provide international aid to encourage a more prosperous economy, and to secure a declaration by the government in Vietnam that punitive measures will not be taken against the returnees.
More than that is required, however, to counteract the problem in the short term. China plays a part in this story by allowing the boats to refuel and reprovision in the little ports along its southern coastline. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Vietnamese and the Chinese, perhaps with United Nations assistance, should effectively police the area of the South China Sea that forms the route from Vietnam so that the boats and their passengers are returned to the starting point almost at once. That would be the best deterrent. That would save the many who would otherwise perish, and it would avoid the misery of years spent in soulless camps in Hong Kong. I ask my noble friend the Minister to encourage his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to press on with the international negotiations required to solve the problem.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, like so many other speakers in this excellent debate, I too should like

249
to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this very important topic, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke on his maiden speech. I hope to hear many more speeches from the noble Lord.
My background and interest in this subject stem from 15 or 16 years' involvement in Hong Kong: first with the Government's University and Polytechnic Grants Committee, and secondly with two charitable trusts which are concerned with education and research and the arranging of conferences and collaboration between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China.
I was in Hong Kong when it became clear that we were to be involved in hostilities in the Falklands. It is a very interesting contrast—almost the other end of the spectrum. How wonderfully elated the people of Hong Kong were that Britain intended to stand by international law and act on the invasion of the Falkland Islands! Remarks were occasionally made on the side to the effect, "I wonder what would happen if Hong Kong became involved with the People's Republic of China". I have learnt enough wisdom to know that it is best to keep one's mouth closed under such provocation, and I did my best to do so. However, I wish to make the point that what we do is watched very closely in that far-off colony. I am devoted to the notion that somehow we have to re-establish the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, the colony where the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, served so ably as Governor. I liked very much the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, of a scheme offering help and hospitality here to people from Hong Kong. I was moved and intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that we needed some form of trusteeship. However, at the end of the line people will be left behind in Hong Kong. It is with them that I am primarily concerned.
I have been to China many times. On one occasion when I was on a steamship in Shanghai harbour, a professor told me that the origins of the stars on the flag of the People's Republic of China should encourage people like me who are involved in educational matters. He said: "That great big star stands for the Communist Party, which was nurtured here in Shanghai. The other four represent the workers, the peasants and the army. The fifth star is concerned with cognoscenti".
I should like to make a declaration. The trusts with which I am concerned hope desperately that we shall avoid the disappearance of that remaining, rather small, cognoscenti star on the red flag. We believe that bringing young people from Hong Kong—and in the past from the People's Republic of China—to the UK to work and study in our universities and polytechnics and to become involved in joint research projects can only increase intellectual traffic and friendship between young people. We believe implicitly that it is imperative that whatever happens we sit tight administratively in Hong Kong and continue to interview people who want to win scholarships or research projects. We believe that it is important to continue visiting the universities and polytechnics, which are increasingly
250
strong in Hong Kong. That is perhaps the only way in which we academic folk, who are relatively impotent in these matters, can convey to the people of Hong Kong our belief in them, and our recognition of their nimbleness of wit and their nimble fingers, which are their greatest heritage. In that way we show them that we can offer them the kind of friendship and support implicit in the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
It is important, however, to recognise that the folk we see represent merely the tip of the iceberg. We are very conscious that below the high achievers in the academic and scholastic world there are many who are of less economic significance who we have somehow to reach and help, too, We believe that the best way to help them is in part through language. The Croucher Foundation has joined recently with the BBC and Chinese Central Television to produce an instructional series of television programmes about learning technological and scientific English. It is being shown in Hong Kong in Cantonese, and in the People's Republic in Cantonese and Mandarin.
There is a great deal of long, hard and patient work ahead re-establishing the necessary spirit among the people in that gallant colony.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, not only on her speech, but also on her initiative in raising this important subject at this very timely moment. I should also like to join in the congratulations on the excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Naturally, as a former Minister responsible for Hong Kong between 1970 and 1974, I share the concern expressed by many noble Lords today for the people of Hong Kong and about the deplorable and cruel behaviour by the Peking Government that we have recently witnessed on our television screens during the early days of this month. However, I believe that now is the moment for caution in our dealings with China. Any thoughtless move by the United Kingdom could result in Hong Kong being engulfed, not in 1997 but in 1990 or even this year.
I very much support the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who mentioned the defence aspects of the colony and the worrying situation that could arise with regard to security if we do not move with great care.
There is no possibility at this time of reviewing the 1997 agreement with China. Any move in that direction might seriously destabilise Hong Kong as the uproar in China can fall out on the colony at any time. Many of us will remember the events of 1967 when the Cultural Revolution spilled onto the streets of Kowloon. In addition, it is always open to a hostile Peking Government to allow mass immigration from the Guandong Province. That could immediately overwhelm the colony and cause confrontation with the provincial government, affecting food and water supplies, which are drawn from China.
Those of us who, like myself, were in China, Hong Kong, and Macau during the cultural revolutionary

251
period in the 1960s know from first hand how swiftly China can get out of control. However, that does not mean that we should not embark on serious contingency planning immediately.
What areas do I suggest that we cover? There are two that I should like to mention this afternoon. The first concerns our relations with China itself if that great nation deteriorates again into chaos. I believe that the present hardline leadership in Peking will consolidate its control—at any rate until Deng Xiaoping dies. There is little support, perhaps regrettably, in the Chinese countryside for the students' action against the current regime. But one cannot forecast Chinese political developments.
There is one wild card. If the hardliners lose control in Peking, China could revert to the position that it has known for the past 3,000 years, except for the 40 years since the 1949 Communist takeover; namely, real power shifting to warlords in the provinces.
In Chiang Kai Shek's time, there was nominally a central government; but in practice real power lay with different warlords and their armies in those provinces not occupied by the Japanese. I suspect that there has been more "warlordism" under the Communists than has been generally recognised. It was mentioned to me the other day that it was, for instance, curious that Mao Tse-tung, after being ousted by Liu Shao Shi, could live freely in Shanghai for some years, plotting against the Peking Government, and presumably protected by whoever controlled Shanghai. There have now been reports that Deng Xiaoping left Peking for Wuhan to call together the generals and to recall the veterans of the long march who may have influence in particular provinces. If that provincial influence exists, the implications for Hong Kong could be important and possibly positive.
It is also interesting to look at the dogs who have not barked, or perhaps have only whimpered. Taiwan has publicly shown considerable restraint, but the Soviets have taken a subdued and supportive line for Peking, no doubt due to Gorbachev's recent visit. But, as George Walden—an honourable Member in another place and a distinguished parliamentarian who knows China well—wrote in an impressive article in the Daily Telegraph on 8th June:
"While gun law persists on the mainland, hasty change to the present delicate balance in Hong Kong could inadvertently topple the entire structure".
The second point that the Government should cover is possible action on passports for right of abode in a situation of last resort, a subject which has been raised by many noble Lords this afternoon. We have a duty to live up to our moral obligations to the colony, as many who have spoken this afternoon said in the debate in this House on 23rd March. I am encouraged by the Foreign Secretary's recent statement, confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday in another place, and we must take the lead and conduct urgent negotiations in confidence with our European and Commonwealth friends in order that we can provide succour and relief if the worst happens. That is the grave problem that faces
252
us now and underlines the need for a deep-seated view of the action that we can realistically take, and indeed are duty bound to take, if the situation does not develop in the way that we hoped it would when the agreement was signed in Peking.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the leaders of the Hong Kong community in these dangerous times, particularly Dame Lydia Dunn's outstanding skill and leadership. Hong Kong owes her and her colleagues a great debt.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for enabling us to debate the position in Hong Kong at this crucial time, and for her opening speech. She discussed the major problems facing the colony, and other noble Lords with wide experience of Hong Kong have expressed their concern and made important suggestions. I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on his well informed and interesting maiden speech. We shall look forward to hearing him again on many future occasions.
My noble friend has been particularly concerned about the boat people and she made a moving plea on their behalf today, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. That problem of the influx of refugees from Vietnam has grown over the last two years until it has reached its present crisis point. Before I come to the main subject of the debate, I would like first to deal briefly with that point. The Hong Kong Government are no longer able to cope with that problem and the Legislative Council has now refused to approve extra funds to accommodate new refugees. The inevitable result is that those who do come have to live in appalling conditions.
We are aware that those unfortunate people are allowed to sail away by the Government of Vietnam. It comes as a shock when we realise how callous and unscrupulous the leaders of some unhappy countries can be. At the Geneva conference on the 13th of this month, the Foreign Secretary said that mandatory expatriation should be introduced by October if not enough Vietnamese had volunteered to go home by then. The nature of the problem makes an internationally agreed solution essential and we hope that United Nations member states will agree to receive genuine political refugees. As my noble friend suggested, some settlement with Vietnam itself is also probably necessary, although that may not be too easy to negotiate when the time comes. However, we are not attracted to the possibility of enforced repatriation and we shall be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will clarify the Government's policy on that point when he winds up.
That leads me to the reaction of the world in general, and of Hong Kong in particular, to recent events in China. Noble Lords with great experience have spoken movingly and have adequately expressed the views of this House. We have been profoundly disappointed. I remember our debate on the Hong Kong Bill on 19th February 1985 and the hopes that we had then that Mr. Deng Xiaoping and his Government would honour the joint declaration

253
in letter and spirit. He then spoke of one country, two systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, reminded us.
Our confidence has been shattered and I hope that the Chinese Government can be made to understand that. I remember Mao Tse Tung's much publicised prophecy that,
"A thousand flowers would bloom"
in China under his dispensation. In Tiananmen Square, many more than a thousand flowers—the future hope of China—were mercilessly mown down. The immediate and natural reaction was that we, Britain, should reject the joint declaration. But, as my noble friend and others have said, we should, on reflection, wait to see what government develops in China during the next few years and whether there is a possibility that they will adhere to the agreement and keep their word about the future of Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong know China better than we do. They do not want to leave their homes, and those who have foreign passports still hope that they will not need to use them. They want to continue their lives and businesses so long as that is reasonable and tolerable.
My noble friend and other noble Lords have gone into some detail on immigration and the right of abode. That issue is, of course, central to the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will explain the Government's policy to us when he replies. We have already had a number of exchanges in this House on the subject and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made statements upon it. My noble friend referred to what the Prime Minister said in another place on 8th June; namely, that the Government were prepared to see whether they could obtain increasing flexibility from the present rules. That point has been discussed by other noble Lords and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, to whom we listen with great respect. He made an important suggestion about the possibility of amending the nationality Act. I am sure that the Government will wish to give very careful thought to his proposal.
The word "flexibility" has been used on several occasions. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to be more specific about its meaning. On 8th June in this House, he said:
"all categories—that includes the entire range of people in Hong Kong—will have to be considered in this way".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 942.]
He then went on to imply that the matter might be clarified after talks with the governor. Now that those talks are over, perhaps we may be told whether the Government are able to give a definitive reply. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, we must be generous as well as flexible. We are glad to understand that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Hong Kong next month and we wish him well on that important mission.
There has been a great deal of discussion here and elsewhere during the last few weeks about the responsibilities of the Government in these exceptional circumstances. A good deal of advice has been proffered, most of it with good will. But it is one thing to give advice; it is another to operate
254
a practical solution. I shall come to that in a moment. For my own part I must say that, while recognising our very real responsibilities, I do not think at this time, 8 years before the agreement becomes operative, the Government can grant an immediate right of abode in Britain to 3·25 million people. These islands are small and already over-populated. To grant this right forthwith to so large a number—far more than the population of Wales—is not immediately feasible.
In my view it would be wrong, indeed it would be dishonourable, to say that one is granting a right of abode to 3·25 million people in the hope that they will not come. Because of the numbers which may be involved the problem is huge and the logistics are complex. If, in the last resort, mass emigration became essential, then the international community as a whole would need to be involved in a major planning operation.
I agree again with the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord MacLehose of Beoch, that we should start talking about a possible scheme now to our partners in the European Community, to our fellow members in the Commonwealth and to the United States of America; and we should also consider whether there are any United Nations channels which might be explored. In my view it is to these possibilities that the Government should apply themselves at this time.
When I was last in Hong Kong I was taken to the border with China to observe the measures taken to deal with illegal immigrants. That problem has now changed in character because the Hong Kong Government must consider what to do about political refugees. The governor said—and I quote him—that "if there are individual special cases, then they will be dealt with individually". We must agree with that. Those who are genuinely fleeing from the terror cannot be sent back.
Lastly, what the Government can now do is to help Hong Kong along the road to fuller, practical democracy. The changed situation calls for new measures and the Hong Kong Legislative Council, whose views we must respect, have come to the unanimous view that by 1995 at least 50 per cent. of the council should be directly elected. If we carry on with our present plan it means that the installation of effective democratic institutions will be postponed until the next century. I believe that most, if not all, of us—and I include the noble Lord opposite—would like to see an effective elected council in place and working by 1997. I do not think that we need to be too sensitive to the Chinese Government's susceptibilities about democracy at this time. The people of Hong Kong have wrought an economic miracle in 40 years and they can teach other lessons as well. We must help them in every way, and specifically by advancing the date of direct elections.
We often debate foreign affairs in this House when our responsibilities on the various issues are limited, shared or in some cases vague. This is not the case with Hong Kong. As noble Lords have said, it is a unique case. It is a British colony and our responsibilities are absolute. They are heavy and difficult, and they call for special measures.

255
Our objective on this side of the House is to help the Government in every possible way to achieve a just solution to these problems. However, our policies must be clear. They must be practical and just, and we must seek for them the understanding and co-operation of the international community. It is in that spirit that we participate in this debate.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I join with all those who have paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for providing this opportuniy to debate Hong Kong at a time when the thoughts of so many people in this country are acutely focused on the Territory and her people. The debate has once again demonstrated the experience, concern and sympathy, which your Lordships bring to bear on matters affecting Hong Kong, and has provided much food for thought.
I should like to join all those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on an excellent maiden speech which was full of feeling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I too hope that we shall have the benefit of his interventions soon and often.
What today's debate has done above all—and I hope this will not be lost on Hong Kong—is to underline the keen commitment of us all to maintain the welfare, prosperity and security of Hong Kong and all her people, safeguarding their achievements and way of life up to 1997 and beyond.
Memories of the appalling and tragic events in Peking are still at the forefront of our minds. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said that all the signs were there when we watched what was taking place in Tibet, Her Majesty's Government made clear their concerns and those of this House. Those concerns were reflected clearly in remarks that I made here on many occasions to the Chinese authorities. We expressed our regret at the imposition of martial law in Tibet and have consistently urged that dialogue should take place between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan people.
On the 6th June I made clear that the Government condemn unreservedly the indiscriminate massacre of unarmed civilians in China. Now we see policies of systematic repression, such as those described by my noble friend Lord Geddes, following in the wake of the bloody violence in Peking and elsewhere. We deplore these events just as vigorously as those which occurred on 3rd and 4th June. The whole world has been horrified by these developments, but understandably the impact has been felt most in Hong Kong.
Against that shocking background it is natural that many should speak today about ways of helping Hong Kong. It is right that we should help. As the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, said, it is a duty on us. Our fundamental objective is to give the people of Hong Kong a future in Hong Kong that they want and deserve.
Much of our debate has focused on what we should do to relieve the most obvious and immediate concerns of Hong Kong people: uncertainties about
256
nationality and right of abode; progress towards democracy; the heavy burden of Vietnamese boat people. It is easy to react emotionally, to say "Something must be done" and to make superficially attractive suggestions. But we should be under no illusion. These are very complex problems and they are made a thousandfold more difficult and pressing by the outrages in China. We must find measures which offer a prospect of practical and durable solutions. When we have decided what is best, we shall not hesitate to act. However, I have to say that we shall shun "quick-fix" options which relieve the anxieties of today only at the expense of storing up chronic distress for the future. I was glad to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and indeed to have the support of my noble friend Lady Young on that point.
We cannot undo history or geography. Hong Kong's future has to take account of both. I welcome the wholesale support voiced today for the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and my noble friend Lord Fanshawe. With its provisions for Hong Kong to keep its freedoms and all its present systems, legal, economic and social, and with powerful international links and a high degree of autonomy, that treaty is the cornerstone of Hong Kong's future.
I noted the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, about trusteeship, but the pitfall to that idea lies, I believe, in China's views about its ultimate sovereignty over Hong Kong. That is why we have told the Chinese very clearly that we shall fulfil our obligations under the joint declaration. We insist that they continue to fulfil theirs. Not only is there a solemnly binding international obligation on them to do so, but also it is manifestly in their own interests that they should. But it would be folly to pretend that the current violence and uncertainty in China do not affect our work on the joint declaration and Basic Law. Consultations on the latter have already been suspended. We have also made clear to the Chinese Government that under present circumstances it would not be appropriate to continue normal business connected with the implementation of the joint declaration. Accordingly, the next meeting of the Joint Liaison Group planned for July has been postponed sine die. We have not acted irresponsibly in this matter, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry has suggested. We will meticulously observe our obligations with regard to consultation laid down in Annex II to the joint declaration.
In deciding the way forward—I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent—we must be careful not to sacrifice good judgment for the sake of speed. Nowhere is this more important than in consideration of Hong Kong's future political system. I can see the attraction of the agreement that now is the time to accelerate progress towards fuller democracy. Even before the events of 3rd and 4th June, opinion on this was clearly evolving in Hong Kong. OMELCO called in May for the proportion of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council to rise to 50 per cent. in 1997 and 100 per cent. by 2003.

257
If Hong Kong can reach a consensus on faster progress towards representative democracy, then—I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—this would be a significant development to which we should certainly wish to respond. It will be essential that the Basic Law fully reflects the views of the Hong Kong people in this as in all other respects, and that its provisions command their confidence.
But as the governor pointed out on his visit to London last week, the process of crystallising views in Hong Kong is still far from complete. We should not rush to judgment while the people of Hong Kong themselves are still digesting the issues involved. Our aim is to establish a political system in Hong Kong that we can be confident will work in the run up to 1997 and well beyond. Setting up a system that cannot last would be an abuse of our responsibility. It would be a tragic waste of the opportunity we have been offered.
To talk of continuity is to underline the importance of the Basic Law. It is not clear how suspension of consultations on the second draft of the Basic Law will affect the timetable for producing the final version. But as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the need to get the law right is now more important than ever. After all, that document will translate the joint declaration into a detailed constitution which will protect Hong Kong's special status. Of itself it may not give Hong Kong's people all the confidence they seek. But it is the bed rock upon which that confidence must be based. The recent events in China have thrown some of the articles into stark relief. As the noble and gallant Lord, and my noble friend Lord Ullswater indicated, stronger safeguards are demanded and we are considering now how those might be taken forward.
Together with the Hong Kong Government, we are looking urgently at ways of giving more detailed and specific legal protection to fundamental human rights in Hong Kong. One possibility would be the enactment in the territory of a Bill of Rights. The precise form of any such legislation and the timetable need to be looked at. But one merit of this approach would be to provide a codified and readily available body of law, giving very clear effect to the international covenants which already apply in Hong Kong.
Some of the strongest feelings in this debate have been expressed on the subject of nationality and the right of abode for Hong Kong people in the United Kingdom. Of course I understand why this should be a subject of the keenest concern in Hong Kong, and why Hong Kong people should be pressing for some form of assurance for themselves and their families. But as well as being an emotive issue with, as some have said this afternoon, moral overtones it is one with the most serious practical consequences on all sides, as we have discussed on many occasions, and as was so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Young this afternoon. I hope that my noble friend Lord Geddes will understand the force of that argument, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, clearly does.
I have listened with care to what has been said today. However, your Lordships will not expect me
258
to make any announcement this afternoon. But I think from what we have heard that we are all well aware of the very real difficulties which would be posed by a massive new immigration commitment for this country. Granting automatic right of abode here to all people from Hong Kong cannot be a realistic option. There may however be scope for arrangements to enhance Hong Kong people's security and indeed their confidence. What I can say is that considerable effort and indeed imagination are being devoted to finding solutions which tackle the problem.
We are well aware of the proposals for international guarantees to provide a home for all Hong Kong people and will give these full consideration, although I have to say that I do not believe that this would be a viable way forward in the present circumstances. I have noted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and my noble friends Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Fanshawe on this point. Some countries are already taking significant numbers of Hong Kong people for settlement, but they also have other immigration commitments of their own. I believe, frankly, that it would be unrealistic to expect other countries to make a commitment of the order of magnitude necessary to accommodate the entire population of Hong Kong. That said, however, we shall be in touch with our partners in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and elsewhere about the developments in China and their implications for the future of Hong Kong.
To answer one point of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, once a Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen has been granted British citizenship, he would then enjoy freedom of movement within the European Community.
Let me also add that if the worst came to the worst, and the future we plan for Hong Kong became untenable—the Armageddon scenario of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke—then, as my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary said to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of another place recently, the British Government would clearly be under a very strong moral obligation to act. If at some point in the future—although I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that this is unlikely—people had to flee Hong Kong in great numbers to escape disaster, then we would do everything in our capacity to help them and I am confident that any future British Government would do everything they could to mobilise the international community to provide a response as comprehensive and as effective as the circumstances demanded.
However, while Hong Kong grapples with these anxieties about the future, it faces another very real problem now, described vividly by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. It is no exaggeration to say that Hong Kong is in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by the continuing influx of Vietnamese boat people. Recent arrivals have hit an all time record—on one occasion more than 1,200 in one day.

259
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has described how the burden that this has imposed on Hong Kong's resources is intolerable, in particular at a time of so many other pressures. We have been keen to help Hong Kong free itself of this burden as fast as possible, and to help in material and practical ways. That is why we have committed over £12 million to help: £6 million towards the capital costs of a new refugee centre at Pillar Point; £2 million in support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees activities in Hong Kong; and £4·5 million for emergency accommodation, including tents and huts.
We have played an active and constructive role in international efforts to promote humane and durable solutions. My right honourable friend and I attended the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees held in Geneva last week, which marks a very significant step forward.
Generous commitments were made to resettle 57,000 refugees from the region over three years. As part of this effort Britain will take a further 1,000 refugees from Hong Kong in addition to the 1,000 we announced earlier this year.
The Philippines Government have agreed in principle to establish a regional processing centre to which all refugees in the region could be transferred prior to resettlement within three years. We have announced our readiness to contribute £5 million towards the cost of such a centre which would provide early and urgently needed relief for Hong Kong.
The conference also marked international acceptance of the reality that all those boat people who do not qualify as refugees must find their future in Vietnam. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ullswater. What could be more inhumane than the prospect of their indefinite detention in camps in Hong Kong and elsewhere? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the task now is to work for arrangements to enable them to return to their country of origin safely and without fear of punishment. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that we shall be holding talks with the Vietnamese later this month—including during the visit to London next week by the Vietnamese Foreign Minister—with this aim in mind.
There has been criticism that the screening procedures in Hong Kong have been too slow and that there is a need to make them more flexible. The Hong Kong Government have recently introduced a new screening and appeals procedure which will take only three months. It is intended to screen all the boat people currently in Hong Kong within 12 months.
I hope that I have been able to show that the interests of Hong Kong are of the deepest concern to the Government. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary will be paying a visit to Hong Kong early next month. He will want to hear at first hand the views of the people of Hong Kong and to seek to reassure them of our continuing commitment and determination to work for their prosperous and stable future. However, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that for
260
my right honourable and learned friend to visit China now would be quite wrong and entirely inappropriate in the light of recent events there.
We have been talking today about the practical challenges facing Hong Kong and our efforts to find practical answers. We all know that these are not the only factors involved. The intangible but overwhelmingly important question of confidence is also crucial to our chances of success.
Confidence in Hong Kong has taken a battering in recent weeks. It is not the only rough passage that Hong Kong has been through, but it is a severe one and like no other in its particular complications. Hong Kong has the strength to surmount it, but not without help, and not easily.
Confidence cannot be rebuilt overnight. It cannot even be built on quite the same basis as before. It will depend crucially on how China acts both towards Hong Kong and towards her own people. As a matter of plain fact, confidence cannot be as strong as it should be unless and until China has an open, stable and civilised government which finds peaceful and constructive ways of meeting its people's concerns.
That is one major reason why we have made clear our utter condemnation of recent brutalities in China, both in words and through a series of practical measures. My noble friend Lord Selkirk expressed concern about China's history throughout this century and I agree with many of his remarks. Therefore, it is right that we must use what influence we have to guide China's leaders back on to better paths. It would be wrong as well as defeatist to assume that what we do and say can make no difference. Our actions have, of course, a much better chance if they are not taken in isolation: and that is why we have concerted so closely in this crisis with other EC member states and a variety of western partners.
Our international friends can do much to help rebuild Hong Kong's confidence too. But the first and main responsibility rests with us. That is a responsibility and a faith that we are fully committed to uphold.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Many thoughtful and well informed contributions have been made. Different points of view have been put forward, together with specific proposals and many thoughts and ideas about the situation in Hong Kong. However, I believe that a common thread has run through all the different speeches. It is a firm determination that a fair and equitable solution should be found for the people of Hong Kong.
I hope that those from Hong Kong who have heard the debate this afternoon and those who may read about it will feel that their interests are central to our preoccupations. I believe that today's discussion has paved the way for a further debate on the definite proposals and ideas which have been put forward. We are all aware of the well known determination and vigour of our Prime Minister. Therefore, I cannot believe that she would wish the curtain to be

261
run down on an empire with any accusation of betrayal from the people of Hong Kong. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Working Women: Care of Dependants
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the case for action to be taken to improve child care facilities and the care of the elderly in the community to enable more women to join the workforce should they wish to do so; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of opening today's debate on an important subject about which I know many noble Lords are also concerned. As my starting point I should like to take the Government's White Paper, Employment for the 1990s. Noble Lords will be aware that I am not at all enthusiastic about the White Paper, particularly about some of its conclusions. However, there is a paragraph with which I concur. At page 8, paragraph 1.8 states:
"The number of women in the labour force will increase. Two-thirds of labour force growth between 1983 and 1987 was made up of married women, and by 1995 the projected increase in the size of the female labour force is some three-quarters of a million, over 80 per cent. of the total. Employers must recognise that women can no longer be treated as second-class workers. They will need women employees, and must recognise both their career ambitions and domestic responsibilities. This will involve broadening company training policies, much more flexibility of work and hours and job-sharing, to facilitate the employment of women with families and help adapt to their needs".
It must be said that the White Paper does not follow up that paragraph with anything indicating that the Government believe in public provision of support services. We still live in a society where most of the caring of children and the elderly is done by women. Poor child care facilities are the main reason why women are forced into part-time, low-wage jobs. However, when their labour power has been needed employers and government can act quickly. During the last war from 1939 to 1945 provision of child care facilities grew rapidly. In 1940 there were 14 state nurseries. Within three years there were 1,345 offering places for more than 60,000 children. That is twice today's number. However, as soon as the war ended it was not felt necessary to keep women at work and in large part the nurseries were closed.
As the White Paper makes clear, demographic trends suggest that we may be moving into a situation in which once again women are necessary and vital in the workforce. But it does not look as though child care provision will be adequate unless firm steps are taken and, in particular, unless the Government decide to take a greater part in ensuring such provision. At present, less than 10 per cent. of under-fives attend a local authority nursery or school and the majority of those only benefit from part-time provision with just 4 per cent. of three and four year-olds in full-time local authority nurseries.
Women who want child care facilities often have to pay quite highly for them. There are now
262
more private than local authority nurseries. Sometimes as much as £80 per week is charged for a place. In the main, as a recent report shows, day care is provided by relatives and child minders. There are currently about 100 workplace nurseries in the UK, mainly in the public sector, such as hospitals, local authorities and colleges. Only 20 private companies provide workplace nurseries.
Moreover, I should like to raise an issue here which has been raised many times before in your Lordships' House. As regards workplace nurseries, under current government policy such provision is regarded as a perk and tax is levied accordingly. That applies to any employee earning £8,500 or more per annum which is hardly a high salary nowadays. The Government persist in their attitude despite opposition from the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Personnel Management and a number of Peers from all sides of this House.
It should be said that in contrast other countries in the EC, notably France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, offer parents special tax advantages as well as help with child care costs. Of course, there were once tax allowances in the UK. Those disappeared with the introduction of child benefit. That is no bad thing except that the value of child benefit has been eroded because of the Government's policy of freezing it. Again, that is an issue repeatedly raised in this House and is likely to be raised again on the debate in Committee on the Social Security Bill. However, I cannot talk about child care provision in the UK without making a reference to it. It is an important element in child care policy.
Apart from relatives, there is a substantial reliance in the UK, as I have already said, on child minders. Those are defined in the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 as any person who for reward looks after children under the age of five for more than two hours a day. Most child minders provide care throughout the year. It is known that there are a number of illegal unregistered child minders. It has been estimated that about 20 per cent. of child minders are not registered. Although the majority of women are compelled to use child minders if they do not have relatives, their express preference is for nursery provision. The UK report to the European Commission called Caring for Children found that while 80 per cent. of parents at work used child minders, only 3 per cent. believed that to be the best provision.
Local authorities are empowered to provide day care services under the National Health Service Act. However, provision varies enormously from place to place. A recent survey conducted by the Independent newspaper showed that while 85·6 per cent. of three and four year-olds in Salford had a pre-school place, only 8·2 per cent. in West Sussex had that benefit. Overall, the top 24 providers were Labour-controlled—so much for some of the criticisms often unjustly leveled at Labour-controlled local authorities.
As it is, the UK has less publicly-funded child care services than any other EC country except Portugal. Here are some interesting figures. West Germany has 60 per cent. of children aged 3 to 5 in publicly-funded child care while France has 95 per cent.; the

263
Netherlands has 50 per cent., Italy has 88 per cent., Ireland has 52 per cent., the UK has 44 per cent. and Portugal has 25 per cent.
The attitude of the Government has been made clear on a number of occasions. In response to a Question for Written Answer in the other place the Minister stated:
"Our view is that it is for the parents who go out to work to decide how best to care for their children. If they want or need help in this task they should make the appropriate arrangements and meet the costs.
"Our objective is that there should be a range of day care services so that parents can make a choice. Public provision by local authorities should concentrate on the particular needs of children from families with health or social difficulties".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/88; col. 150.]
Of course, it is a laudable objective that parents should have a choice. However, the reference to public provision appears to limit that only to problem families. No one disputes that such families should be assisted but that should not rule out provision for families who although they cannot be classified as problem nevertheless need child care facilities.
The absence of such facilities bears of course most heavily on women. A recent report produced by the European Commission entitled Child care and Equality of Opportunity found that throughout the EC women bear the main responsibility and the cost of having a child. In the UK it has been calculated that having children can cost a woman up to half her lifetime's potential earnings. On the other hand, men tend to maintain their wages when they have children. Women may be forced to leave the workforce altogether, at least temporarily. When they return they will have lost their place on the career ladder.
Furthermore, pension entitlement based on number of years worked will also suffer. That is why it is such a pity that this Government decided to alter the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) by removing the provision which calculated pension entitlement on the best 20 years' earnings uprated. Private personal pensions are not likely to offer women with a chequered work pattern a better deal. When they return to work, women may have to take part in part-time employment in order to cope with domestic responsibilities. In the UK, which has 40 per cent. of all part-time workers in the EC, 80 per cent. of part-time workers earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £3.25 per hour. Many are not covered for basic employment rights. The report to which I have already alluded concludes that on the evidence:
"the conditions under which men and women supply their labour to the labour market are not equal and this inequality is neither inherent nor inevitable but is socially determined. Wage rates and occupational position are not determined purely by market forces but by the social costs of reproduction which are unequally distributed … Lack of power within the market place reinforces powerlessness within the home and in the political arena which in turn, feeds back into the labour market".
There would appear to be a clear correlation between the participation of women in the labour force and the availability of child care. For example, in Denmark where the level of child care provision is high, 75 per cent. of mothers of young children are employed whereas in the UK, which has a low
264
figure of child care provision, it is 28 per cent. The coming demographic changes and the prediction that by the end of the century 80 per cent. of the growth of the workforce will be made up of women underlines the importance of ensuring that employers give assistance to employees with domestic responsibilities.
That point is made strongly in the White Paper. However, not many appear to have come to terms with that need. Despite evidence that good maternity provision can play a role in helping employers to retain women workers, most firms only offer the minimum statutory maternity benefit. A survey recently undertaken of facilities provided by 120 employers showed that only one in five provided more than minimum maternity provision. Only four organisations in that sample provided child care facilities for employees. Six organisations had introduced career break schemes.
Here, I should say that a number of banks and insurance companies have been at the forefront of such provision. Those schemes are very valuable to employers as well as employees. They enable the employer to retain trained employees. They enable the employees to keep in touch during the period of leave, normally up to five years, and thus avoid the damaging break in service which otherwise hampers career development.
Of course, while of particular value to women, these schemes are unisex; that is, open also to male employees. Indeed, there would now appear to be a growing tendency which I welcome, particularly in EC countries, for men to take more of a share in the care of children. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the UK Government should persist in blocking the EC directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons. It is to be hoped that the Government would reconsider their attitude in that regard.
To summarise on child care, we could do a great deal more. The care that is available is often inadequate, expensive, or both. Local authorities do not, with some notable exceptions, provide facilities at an adequate level. There is inadequate public funding. Too few employers heed the Government's injuctions to make assistance available to employees with domestic responsibilities. It is not a matter that can be left to fragmented private and voluntary provision. Unless provision is made, many women who might otherwise contribute to the economy will be prevented from doing so, even though they themselves may wish to do so. Training, which is expensive, will be wasted. Women themselves will fail to achieve fully equity despite UK and Community law.
The second part of the Motion deals with care of the elderly in the Community. I was moved to include this in the Motion after I went to a meeting to talk to a group of women about the Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I was a member for six years, and equality law. I talked about the need for child care facilities. At the end of the meeting one woman approached me and said, "That is all very well. I really do sympathise with younger women with children. Of course they ought to have proper facilities. But look at me"—the woman was in her late 40s— "I have a mother who

265
needs constant care. I cannot leave her. Sometimes it nearly drives me crazy. I would love to work outside the home. I would like a break occasionally but I cannot even manage that. So what about women like me?" What indeed? There are many women in that position.
The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that there are around 1·25 million informal carers in Britain. The Carers' Association estimates the figure at even higher than that. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the work undertaken by a number of voluntary organisations in this field and, in particular, to the Carers' Association, the president of which is the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The demand for informal care is likely to increase even without any change in policy direction. The population aged over 65 has risen from 1·5 million to 7·5 million since 1900. By the year 2000, 38 per cent. of the elderly population will be aged over 75 compared with 25 per cent. at the turn of the century. Many of those elderly people will require care.
Between the ages of 35 and 64 roughly half of all women can expect at some time to give help to elderly or infirm persons. That is the period of life when women expect to be most active economically. In addition to the direct costs of caring for someone in the home, the woman who is doing the caring will almost certainly experience loss of income. There may well be a need to change to part-time work, involving a reduction in status and career prospects. That may result in the loss of employment-related benefits such as pension entitlement, to which I referred earlier. In recent years there has been emphasis on care in the community rather than institutional care. There is no doubt that many elderly and infirm people would prefer to be cared for in their own homes and by people whom they know. However, the cost is likely to be borne by the women who do the caring.
Concern about community care policy led the Government to ask Sir Roy Griffiths to conduct a review. As we know, the Griffiths Report was published in March of last year. Key recommendations were that there should be a Minister of State responsible for community care. Further, an enhanced role was envisaged for local authorities so that they would be enabled to identify and assess individual needs including the needs of informal carers. The report also said that local authorities should be enabled to assess the need for residential care and ensure that the costs of caring were met if people could not pay. Clearly much more is needed in the way of resources. Care in the community should not be seen as a cheap option. If it is, informal carers, mostly women, will pay the price for it.
Carers can sometimes become quite desperately harassed by the demands made upon them by elderly and often difficult relatives. I received a letter this morning from the Alzheimers Disease Society. I was surprised to learn that there are an estimated 750,000 sufferers from this disease and other dementias. The society is extremely concerned at the lack of support services for carers who are looking after such people at home.
The Government have still not said what they intend to do about the Griffiths Report, although according to newspaper reports this morning they are apparently reaching some conclusions and we may expect to hear what they propose to do. The report does not provide the full answer but it would at least, if the recommendations were put into operation, provide some alleviation of the desperate problems faced by many carers. My Lords, I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for her excellent speech. We are all accustomed to hearing very well-informed speeches from the noble Baroness, and she has certainly not disappointed us today. Indeed, she has perhaps overstepped the mark in that she has said everything that I wanted to say. However, I shall do my best to take perhaps a different line.
We must surely all be aware that in the foreseeable future this country will be short of employable people. The number of children now at school and who will fill the enlarging gaps in our workforce is now dwindling at an alarming rate. This means that the employers will have to pull out all the stops to entice young people to work for them. It also means that the Government will have to encourage young people to fill the vacancies. I fear that the Government are at present not giving sufficient encouragement to young people.
This Motion deals primarily with child care facilities. It also mentions care of the elderly, but I shall not deal with that part as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, with her wide experience, is dealing with those problems in her speech. Similarly, my noble friend Lady Faithfull will be dealing with the excellent idea put forward by the National Child Minding Association.
Although my maternal instincts persuade me that during a child's formative years the mother should have the responsibility for bringing up her baby, we now living in—and, I hope, passing through—a particularly difficult age in family life. An increasing number of girls—by that I mean aged under 18—are having children. They are often left on their own with no support from the father. However helpful the welfare state tries to be in providing the essentials of life for the single mother, the strains of coping (often at a young, immature age) are great indeed. In my view that is where the enticements offered by employers are of vital importance.
Many large employers provide crèches for pre-nursery school age. Other employers encourage their employees to work part-time, to suit the employees. Other employers stagger the working times. Among those who do that is the hospital service which seems to go out of its way to encourage nurses back to their chosen career. Yet other employers offer to pay part of the child minder's fees which, as the noble Baroness told us, can be very large indeed. There are now very many more nursery schools, and these must be encouraged, both in the private and local authority sectors.

267
When a child reaches the age of five years, it may well be difficult for working mother to be at the school gates on time to see her child home; but that is important to both parent and child. Both the employers and the schools must be asked to make it possible for the mother to keep her times flexible. I entirely agree with those who say that the parent-child relationship should be paramount, and that the upbringing of the child is vital to its future.
I shall be brief now. We wish to encourage, as I believe we must, the young parent who wishes to return to work after having one or more children. The employers and the state will have to do much more than they are doing at the moment to encourage them.
5.50 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for introducing this important topic. I also join in congratulating her on a very well informed and clearly argued speech. Perhaps I may cap the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. I too found that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said most of what I wanted to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said the rest. That puts me in a certain amount of difficulty.
But it allows me to engage in a certain amount of general reflection. Were the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, here, he would doubtless say that I was ranging wide of the field. I assure my noble kinsman that I intend to tie it down strictly to the words of the Motion in front of us. When looking at the social security system, I admit that from time to time I become concerned at the amount that it costs, which is very considerable. I do not see a way to reduce that by a process of cutting. Where the loss of £1 a week is such a painfully large proportion of a person's income, the pain caused is usually altogether disproportionate to the amount saved. It is very difficult to provide a Benthamite justification for that kind of cutting.
What we really need to be looking at is what the demographers call our dependency ratio; namely, how many of us are supporting how many? That is the area to which the noble Baroness has drawn our attention. We have a situation of an increased and increasing proportion of the population who are retired, and a more rapidly increasing proportion of the population who are over the age of 80. We also have a falling proportion of teenagers entering the labour market. In this situation, if we are to keep up our workforce to a point where our dependency ratio remains economically manageable, it is vital that women should have the opportunity, without let or hindrance, of entering the labour market. I am delighted that the noble Baroness included in her Motion the words,
"should they wish to do so".
That is a vital liberal point.
The combining of family life and work is difficult enough already without external pressure. We should be thinking of creating opportunity and not of directing. It is because the Motion does that, among many other things, that I welcome it so strongly. It
268
becomes more difficult with the increasing mobility of labour. I have seen this situation among graduate students in the United States. A married couple discusses earnestly whether they can accept a situation where he is offered a job at Harvard and she a job in Los Angeles. It is a further effect of this situation that the couple increasingly find, through mobility, that they become cut off from grandparents. Grandparents can provide a vitally important part both in giving the children experience and in relieving the parents. This absence of grandparents so often caused by mobility, puts even more strain on the provision of child care. That makes it even more vitally important.
At the other extreme we can also consider greater flexibility regarding the retiring age. The word is "flexibility'. I am not speaking about raising or lowering a compulsory retiring age, but about giving people the opportunity to work if they are fit, able and willing to do so. I recall one case, and the right reverend Prelate may know to whom I allude. An Oxford Professor of ecclesiastical history was appointed when there was no retiring age. His colleagues arranged a dinner to celebrate his 85th birthday. It was clearly intended as a hint. The professor began his speech in reply by saying, "Gentlemen, I am a modest but not a retiring man". He died in harness at the age of 92.
I see no useful purpose in stopping such people working. I also agree very strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said about caring. "Care in the Community" is an excellent slogan but it raises the question of who cares for the community? I have seen plenty of people worn out by caring. For a very short period I once myself gave housing to a paranoid schizophrenic. Even after that short period I knew something of what that exhaustion means. There must be support and means of giving the carers relief even if it is only just a few hours. They must be given time to go off and breathe. That is an important aspect.
I come back to what I consider to be the central thrust of this debate; namely, the question of allowing women to enter the labour force. It raises economic problems which are perhaps illustrated by all those costings that one reads from time to time of the value of a wife. Almost invariably and most persuasively those costings add up to a great deal more than the whole of her husband's income. In free market principles, I believe that there may be some conclusions to be drawn from that; but I am not exactly sure what they are. They need thinking through. There is a great deal to be done regarding child care. I have deliberately decided to take a self-denying ordinance and not to plug today any amendments that I might be debating tomorrow. We shall have plenty of time to return to those.
Throughout the area of child care there is the problem of funding. I was looking at a recent remark made by Sue Owen of the National Childminding Association. She said:
"Local authorities are already approaching breaking point. The Children Bill does no provide for any additional funding to pay for inspection and support".
It is an uncomfortably familiar story. The issue of funding is one to which we keep returning. We

269
cannot get away from it. I also agree strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said concerning the taxing of workplace nurseries. That seems to be typical, shortsighted Treasury thinking, particularly since the Treasury, by great effort, is depriving itself of potential revenue from the earnings that those people might achieve were their children satisfactorily cared for. The Treasury is really the Old Man of Thermopylae of the body politic, and it needs to be put in its place from time to time. We should be thinking instead of tax allowances for the cost of childcare rather than taxing it as a perk as though it were a form of income. Children need to be cared for.
I am reminded from time to time of my great grandfather's remark in 1831 that the disposal of the Tuscans and the Molynese, as if they were so many firkins of butter, is really somewhat too profligate. Sometimes one hears childcare discussed by Treasury thinkers very much in that spirit. I deplore it. Where we find a quite different and much more imaginative spirit is if we consider what is on the menu when we take a diet of Brussels. I have come to the conclusion that the cuisine Flamand really has a good deal to be said for it.
I have been reading today a 1983 EC directive which is still held up by the opposition of what the EC coyly describe as "certain member states". I find that a very attractive document. The notion of parental leave that can be taken by either parent is one that I find extremely attractive. It is one that I should have been very glad indeed to take advantage of. Apart from the advantages to the mother and the child, it is an advantage to the father to be able to get to know the child properly during the first few weeks. However, one cannot do that without doing some work. I like the notion of leave for family reasons. It is proposed that there should be 10 days a year, to cover those terrible days when nobody can take you to the hospital. There must be some arrangement for those situations.
I have been looking at this year's report of the child care network. It is an imaginative document. It is not awfully happy with us. Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands are the worst countries it has looked at. An EC Commissioner recently remarked on this subject:
"The Community is not some sort of expensive restaurant which allows diners to choose a la carte what they want from the menu and leave the rest behind".
Here we have genuinely imaginative thinking, just the kind of thing we seem to be missing. When I think about a diet of Brussels, I realise that there are in this country a good many hungry sheep who, if they could have that diet, would be a good deal better fed than they are now.
6.1 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for raising this important subject for debate. A recent survey carried out for Manchester City Council found that nine out of 10 mothers thought that the council should provide more child care facilities so that mothers who wished could return to work. One problem
270
encountered by mothers is that they have to pay tax. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already mentioned, if their child care is provided by their employer and they earn more than £8,500 a year, they cannot claim that back. Child care is expensive if it is good. Therefore, of necessity, the mother has to be well paid, or financially she does not gain. No one can expect the Government or voluntary organisations to run child care single-handedly, but a combination of both should lead to better facilities.
The National Childminding Association finds that many businesses are interested in establishing day-care schemes for the children of their employees. The Government support this. However, some companies are, I understand, keen that there should be standardised legislation containing clear criteria on quality of care as a solid foundation on which they can build. Most particularly, however, the current tax on employer supported child care is a brake on more business initiatives. This is a pity as a scheme for businesses to provide day-care schemes is a good one.
One very good idea that has just emerged is child care cheques. On 14th June, the National Childminding Association, in conjunction with Mercer Fraser, launched a scheme of child care cheques. It heralds a major advance in the provision of quality child care. Child care cheques are paid by the employer to the employee to help cover all or part of the cost of child care to enable the employee to remain in or take up employment. One point of importance is that cheques can be redeemed only with child minders who are accredited to the National Childminding Association and registered with local authorities. As the need approaches for more women in the workforce in the 1990s, so the need for good child minding care is essential. The chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission sees child care as a perk of the future.
In the area of day care for young children there is no standardisation of resources around the country. Equally, for the care of older children, the National Out of School Alliance is already concerned about low standards of care, and also of premises in many out of school schemes. A removal of the registration of such schemes for children over eight, as is suggested in the Children Bill, will serve only to worsen the position in terms of available resources. In June 1988 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Science into provision for under-fives. The NSPC register of research for 1977–86 revealed a number of trends, in particular that under-fives continue to represent the majority of failure to thrive, of neglect and at risk cases. This underlines the value of provision for under-fives. The NSPCC feels that abused children may derive special benefit from intervention or support from outside the home.
The National Out of School Alliance is the only national organisation supporting and initiating care and play schemes for children over five before and after school and in the school holidays. It is concerned at the new Government clauses to the Children Bill which remove over-eights from registration legislation. This means that local

271
authorities will have no duty to register or monitor standards for after school and holiday schemes for children over eight. This is very worrying, especially in cities. Last Thursday the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked a supplementary question on the subject of crack. At col. 1519 he asked whether the Minister was aware that television pictures, especially in New York, have shown children selling crack to other children. In view of the fear of this terrible drug coming to Britain in greater quantities than it already is, surely it is vital that provision is made for the older children.
There are several reasons why day care for children over five is as important as day care for those under five. One reason is the sad growth of one parent families. I understand that one family in eight is now headed by a lone parent. Another reason is the need for a safe place for children to be cared for when parents are unable to be present. Studies show that more than 20 per cent. of five to 10 year-olds are left alone during school holidays, and 15 per cent. are left alone after school. The National Out of School Alliance feels that there is a variety of reasons why children over the age of eight and up to the age of 14 remain vulnerable. Children in this age group are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse, as has been shown by statistics from the NSPCC and others. They are also more prone to accidents it the streets and in the home. As the law stands at present, no child under 12 may be left alone with an open fire, which I imagine to mean a coal fire. This law surely needs to be updated. Today there are electric fires, gas fires and paraffin heaters, all of which are a potential danger to a child. Should not the age of the child be raised to 14 rather than 12? Will the Minister bring this question to the Government's notice?
With an ageing population, the care of the elderly in the community is a concern to all of us. As has been pointed out to me, many of the carers are not young themselves and see life passing by without the opportunity to return to work or get out of the house and do some other form of voluntary work if that is what they wish. In rural areas the difficulty is increased by the problem very often of small populations spread over a larger area. The migration into towns and cities of young people seeking work and the migration into the countryside of pre-retired and retired people has in many areas caused quite a dramatic change in the age structure of local populations. In very remote rural areas many of the large voluntary advice agencies do not operate. This can lead to people not always knowing what help is available. It is estimated that 58 per cent. of all carers have physical or mental problems or emotional problems from caring, especially in remote areas.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes is looking into the problems of child care and nursery provision for children in rural areas. In Hampshire the Rural Community Council is carrying out research into the availability of child care facilities to allow mothers who so wish to return to work. The problems of child care in rural areas is obviously more difficult than in urban areas. The Women's Institute also does valuable work in keeping an eye
272
on the elderly who can no longer get to its meetings. It also helps with meals-on-wheels.
Child care provision could come from voluntary groups, local authorities or the private sector. We need to ensure that it is all well regulated and of high quality. Effectively, the only way that this can happen is if the Government take the lead, draw on the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector which already exists and encourage the private sector to co-operate.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I followed the noble Lady, as always, with close attention. However, I am sure that she will forgive me if I move on to other ground. I rise with even more than my usual diffidence. I was told just before I came into the House that I had completely misunderstood the Motion. If that proves to be so in the view of the House, and someone cares to move a Motion that I no longer be heard on the grounds of irrelevance, I shall not take it amiss. I can only hope that the Motion will not be carried; but we shall have to see what happens.
I was so eager, as I always am, to support the noble Baroness that when I saw the reference in the Motion to community care for the elderly I jumped at the chance to participate in the debate. I then prepared some remarks on the subject which will no doubt, fit in with the general discussion. Another reason for my diffidence has occurred within the last few days. When I last spoke on this subject, I followed the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. On that occasion she made a striking speech when initiating the debate on the infirm and elderly. I boasted, if I may put it this way, that I was the only person taking part who was aged over 80. However, that qualification has now been challenged by virtue of a letter which appeared in yesterday's edition of The Times. It is a long letter from two gentlemen, one of whom is a Member of this House. It is headed "Unfit to govern after 80?" These two writers have become very worked up about the whole Chinese business. It has upset them so much that they say:
"is it not time for all governments"—
including ours, no doubt—
"to set up machinery, so that when leaders attain (say) their 80th birthday they automatically relinquish the fullest powers which go with responsible representatives of the people?"
That would rule out, at any rate, a certain number of Members of this House. One of the authors of the letter is, I believe, an eminent Liberal. It may be that he has forgotten that Mr. Gladstone formed his last Cabinet when he was 83 years of age.
However, leaving that issue aside, I ask the House how much we would have lost if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, had been banned 10 years ago under this rule. Indeed, we have only to think of all the valuable contributions he has made. Therefore I am pleased to be absolutely silenced by these eminent gentlemen who wrote to The Times.
I should like to quote from one or two speakers who spoke during the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I shall pass over the admirable contributions made by my own party colleagues, and

273
others. But I should like to quote some remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sure that she has apologised to the Minister for her absence. However, she told me that she hopes to be present in the House later. As was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Turner, she speaks with special authority on the subject of carers. She is president of the National Carers' Association. I am not sure when the word "Carers" came into being. It is not perhaps a very attractive word; but I think it is probably the best one available. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was very blunt in her account of the present situation. She said that good community care at the moment, except in a few cases, is a mockery. She said that it does not exist. Well, so spoke the president of the National Carers' Association, and surely she ought to be listened to.
The truth of the matter is that most of us by this time would agree that the whole idea of community care came into existence as what seemed to be an easy alternative. The phrase, "an easy alternative" means an alternative to keeping large numbers of people in institutions. Indeed, everyone agreed that these people should be taken out of the institutions and it was just assumed that something called community care would take care of them.
The concept of community care is full of ambiguities. It is of course true that all of us in a sense, as members of the community, have some responsibility for all these disadvantaged people, or for people who need help. On the other hand, when we talk about community care we mean in practice something which is carried out at the sharp end, so to speak, by carers. In that same debate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, summed the matter up when she said, among other things, that she wanted to raise the issue of the need for more carers, more support for existing carers and appropriate education for them. She also emphasised the need for more facilities to meet the varying needs of the elderly and the families and friends who care for them.
That pinpoints, as you might say, the issues with regard to carers. However, I should like to reflect for a few minutes on the subject of carers which I hope will be linked to what the noble Baroness had in mind. When we think of carers we can of course include people who care for others in the home. I quite agree with those who say that that is at least as friendless as any other form of care. Indeed, I would not say that I was capable of any form of care. However, I think that I would be more capable of caring for someone in a community as part of a team than I would be if living at home with a sick relative with no one to turn to. I think that I would be quite hopeless in that situation. Moreover, that is probably true, if I may say so, of quite a few of the male Members of this House. I am not for a moment underestimating the need for such care in the home, but in these few remarks I am talking primarily about community care in the sense of the kind of care which is provided in one sort of community centre or another.
274
A week or so ago I visited a splendid old persons' centre run by that marvellous organisation, Age Concern. There I saw, among other activities, ladies from 60 to 90 performing vigorous exercises; indeed, at least one of them was in her eighties and claimed to be older than me, and that is saying something. Nevertheless, these ladies between the ages of 60 and 90 were performing vigorous physical exercises. They had been working up to the event for almost a year. It was now the summer term and there they were going at it for an hour in a way which would have done credit to any Member of this House, however young. That is one form of care for the elderly; namely, keep fit classes.
I then asked about the gentlemen, because there was only one man present—although, in theory, the centre was open to both sexes. He seemed rather somnolent. Indeed, I am no sure whether he woke up to the proceedings at all. I was told that the men come for lunch, but after that not much is seen of them. Noble Lords can draw whatever conclusions they wish from that example. I know it is argued that women live longer than men and we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, that they are more vigorous than men. The fact of the matter is that anyone can go to a keep fit class. But, in the one that I visited recently the only active people present were women. However, no one can doubt the dedication of the carers, the members of staff, who were looking after those people. It must be said, however, that in that instance they were dealing with fairly vigorous people.
A few days later I visited a hospice for the dying. I understand that we shall be discussing this issue within the next few days in connection with an amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. There was of course tremendous dedication in that hospice. People were there for about three weeks before they died. Obviously that is a different sort of care. I asked one of the devoted staff how she coped with the situation of dealing with dying people day after day. She answered under 3 headings. I suppose that she had been asked the question before; but she certainly knew what she thought about the matter. She said that in the first place she was one of a team and that she offered this care, shared the suffering and tried to alleviate the suffering as much as possible. She said that when she shared their suffering she did not do so as an individual; she did so as part of a team. As I said earlier, in that respect she is more fortunate than someone caring for a stricken person in the home.
Secondly, she said that she needed respite. That was a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the earlier debate; and, indeed, it was used by many other speakers in today's debate. She said that it was impossible to provide this care continuously without a break of some kind. She could continue day after day, month after month and even year after year; but she always needed a regular respite. Of course that means that someone has to organise things or provide the resources so as to enable such respite to be given.
Thirdly, she said—and she was a religious lady—that at the end of the day she offered the work which she had done to God and said, "This is no

275
doubt insufficient; I leave you to do the rest." I am not saying that a government can cope directly with the last of those aspects. They can cope with the first two. The Government could make it possible for carers to have far more support. I am sure that is where the present Government, and no doubt previous governments, have failed.
On the last occasion I made what I suppose would have to be called a party speech in the sense that I was critical of the Government. I said—and I believe it—that the Government are trying to cope with the elderly on the cheap. I repeat that. I do not want to kick a man when he is down. Still less do I want to kick a woman when she is down; and so I shall not say anything nasty about the Government tonight.
I shall quote one or two figures which should be borne in mind that have been passed to me by Age Concern. The Family Policy Study Centre has estimated the value of care provided by informal carers as between £15 billion and £24 billion a year. The invalid care allowance is currently £26·20. It is poor compensation. It is not available to carers earning more than £12 a week. In other words, great stinginess is shown towards carers. The noble Lord can hardly put that right this evening, but I hope that he will tell his colleagues that there is a strong feeling that greater generosity is needed. I said generosity, but perhaps I should call it justice.
I gave the noble Lord notice of another aspect that I wished to mention; but he has hardly had the time to look into it deeply. When I visited that fine centre the other day, not all the people were doing PT. Some of them were playing bingo, which is much more restful. They were all apparently able-bodied. It was impossible for a disabled person to make his way into the centre because it was not built for that purpose. I am not sure whether someone on a couple of sticks would have fitted in very well. There is a problem. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the question although he will not have had time to look into it. Even in their more generous moments, how do the Government see the future of the disabled elderly? I am not talking of people who are so disabled that they are in a home. I am talking about when they can be taken to a centre as some are at present. There are centres where the disabled mix with other people. What guidance can the Government give about the disabled elderly?
I shall end on a different note. I wish to emphasise that I agree with the general thrust of what the noble Baroness said. I speak as an ardent feminist. I am a complete feminist in everything except abortion, if that is a feminist cause. I almost always support the noble Baroness.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating the debate, and for introducing it so well. I am always delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he is one of those brave men who always speak in a women's debate. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has joined him because all the other Back-Bench speakers are women, which is a shame. Apart from those summing up, 25 per cent. of the speakers are men.
276
This is an interesting and apt subject for us to be discussing, because earlier this year the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Norman Fowler, urged women to seize the job opportunities waiting around the corner; and John Patten, as we have all read in the newspapers, has been charged with getting women back to work and seeing what can be done on that issue. He is chairman of the ministerial group on women's issues. He has indicated that the 1990s will be a decade in which childcare will form a substantial part of a package for working women. The important point was that he said that it would be more important than health insurance, mortgages or company cars.
Company cars are the big issue. Men and women alike are entitled to have a company car and pay tax on the benefit of that company car. They do not pay the full value of the cost of the company car but merely the assessed value, according to the size of the car. There are scales. On the other hand, women who have a workplace nursery facility are taxed on the total cost per child. There is no parallel with the company car. I believe it is as important. I see that John Patten has also indicated how important it will be. Why is there no parallel between the tax on a company car and the tax on the benefit of a workplace nursery? The Inland Revenue cannot say that there is no precedent to follow. There is a precedent. That is a good parallel.
I am not sure that workplace nurseries are the complete answer. I went to speak at a women's conference in Yokohama last year. It was one of the items that we discussed widely there. It was agreed that if where a person worked was in easy reach of home then a workplace nursery was suitable. Anyone who has seen the Underground system in Tokyo realises that it is even worse than London Transport. There are officials pushing one on to trains. It is not suitable to have to take one or more small children on public transport and to travel any great distance at peak hour to a nursery. A crèche within easy reach is in many cases much more suitable than a workplace nursery. Similar tax arrangements or benefits should be offered to women who use such a facility rather than only those attached to the workplace.
I understand that the average cost is now about £5,000 per child per creche place. It is an expensive benefit on which women are taxed. If they are earning only a little above £8,500, they have to pay a terribly large slice of additional tax out of their income.
The position of the elderly is different. The only point in the wording of the Motion with which I might have taken issue is that it refers to "join the workforce". I believe that it should be to join and rejoin the workforce. In many cases someone who has given up work to have a child or care for an elderly relative may wish to go back to work. They may need to go back to work to earn an income.
With regard to the elderly, I came across an interesting case a few weeks ago. It relates to a neighbour of mine aged 90. She lives on her own and copes marvellously well. She could just as easily have a daughter with her or someone who wanted to go back to work. To maintain herself alone during

277
the day, she needs easy access to a telephone so that people can telephone her and she can telephone out. Her one difficulty is mobility. If the telephone rings, she takes a long time to walk to the telephone, and by the time she gets to it the person may have given up ringing.
I telephoned British Telecom to ask what could be done. Before I telephoned, my neighbour had telephoned. She told me that she could not get anywhere at all. I then suggested to a friend of mine that she telephoned British Telecom. She did not get anywhere. Being an Australian and rather disbelieving, I said that there must be an answer and that they must be getting on to the wrong department. I went through everyone at British Telecom. Its staff will run round and fit anything one wants, if one knows what one wants. I asked whether they had anyone who could act as an adviser t o an elderly or disabled person who could assess the situation of the 90 year-old lady in order to see what should be done. I was told that there was no one. I said that I could not believe that. I know that the gas and electricity authorities have special advisers who will visit and show one what to do and what to fit in order to make life easier if one is disabled, ill or unable to reach things.
To me it was staggering that there was no assistance with telecommunications, which is perhaps one of the lifelines to people left at home during the day. Anyone leaving an elderly relative who could cope quite well at home might wish to be reassured that they were all right by being able to phone them, or by having them able to phone and say that they were all right. It seemed amazing to me that there was no assistance. I asked who was responsible for that and they said, "Oh, we think you should have your local social services round to do that". The social services are very willing to come; but they are not experts on telecommunications. It seems to me that there is a need for some liaison there. Fortunately, we eventually solved the problem. We found a solution, a way round it. But we had to do it ourselves. It seems wrong to me for it not to be easier for people to obtain advice on the problem.
While on this subject of British Telecom, I feel that the survey carried out about a year ago on women's willingness to take managerial posts was interesting. There was a great reluctance on the part of women. About 35 per cent. said that they would not consider taking on managerial responsibilities because their commitments to child care or for elderly relatives was so great that they could not really afford promotion unless better social facilities and help were available to enable them to combine their commitments at home and at work.
Child minders have been mentioned. I was most interested in what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said about the check that could only be carried out on the properly registered child minders. When I was chairman of the social services committee locally, one of our greatest problems was the illegal child minder who was neither checked nor assessed in any way. No one knew whether or not the safety standards existed. It seems to me that the system
278
whereby the money can only be used if it goes to a child minder who has been checked and approved is very good. I was pleased to hear about it.
Another minor point on the taxation issue is that, as noble Lords know, there will be separate taxation for men and women from 1990. One of the provisions is that allowances will be transferable between husband and wife. That is quite a significant point. It means that the woman who chooses to stay at home, and who may be making a financial sacrifice to do so will at least have some provision in tax terms to help her. The other provision which I am suggesting would help the woman who wishes to return to work. I think that both sections of society should be assisted.
Child illness is a great problem for the working mother. If a child is ill unexpectedly, or possibly has an infectious disease, he will not be accepted at a nursery, and the mother immediately has to miss work or make arrangements for a relative or someone else to stay with the child. That is a real problem.
The other considerable problem is school holidays. Very few employers can merely employ someone seasonally during school terms. Again, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised the point about care after and during school. I believe that it is essential that ways should be developed of keeping children occupied and safe, as well as doing interesting new activities which broaden their education during the school holidays. It is not fair for a working mother to be faced with the worry, "Where is my child when I am at work?" As regards the child sent home unexpectedly from school, a number of schools have told me that they find it safer to keep the child at school because of the danger of sending him home to an empty house.
There are many other points which I should have liked to cover but I do not have the time. For example, the situation of war widows. I shall bring that up under the social security Bill because I should like them to receive a better deal. Many of them are elderly and a lot could be done to help them, particularly in terms of the housing benefit.
I have been asked by women elected to local government to raise another point. They feel it is very important for more women to be elected not only to local authorities but to Parliament. In the past the provision was that a woman who either had to employ someone to look after small children or to care for an elderly relative could claim an allowance. For example, magistrates can now claim an allowance for that, but at present it is not allowed for most women. Therefore it goes against women who have such responsibilities and deprives them in many cases of the opportunity to be elected. I gave my noble friend notice that I intended to raise that point because I believe that the more women are elected to different bodies, the more help will be provided regarding the subject of the debate. That is why it is relevant to bring it in here.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like other speakers in the debate, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for introducing the debate on a subject of central importance to us

279
all, not just to women, not just to mothers but also to fathers; not just to daughters but also to sons; not just to employees but also to employers.
Social policies can no longer rely on the unpaid labour of millions of women caring for those sections of the population who are unable to care for themselves. Women, like men, wish to contribute to the wider society by taking their place in the world of work outside the home as well as inside it. Only by doing so can women achieve fulfilment in their lives as well as the measure of economic independence which all of them deserve.
To deny them this opportunity is socially unjust. To asume that they do not want it is completely false, based on an old-fashioned and reactionary view of gender differences which is totally out of tune with the world of the 1980s. But not only is denying women the opportunity to have jobs discriminatory and unfair, it is also economically wasteful. Women have qualifications and skills which the economy cannot afford to ignore. This is already apparent. As my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden has already said, it will become even more apparent in the next decade as the number of young people entering the labour force declines steeply. Labour shortages will certainly emerge unless we employ the maximum number of women possible. So there are issues of principle about the need for greater equality between the sexes and issues of a pragmatic kind about the future needs of the labour market.
I wish in particular to focus on the needs of women with young children and the need for massive improvements in day care provision for their children. Neither day nurseries providing all-day year round care, nor nursery education providing care and education during the school day and term time have expanded as they needed to, to meet new needs and new demands. Indeed, the growth of publicly-funded day nurseries has been absolutely minimal since 1979. The number of places in nursery schools and nursery classes is far below the target that Mrs. Thatcher herself set for them when she was Secretary of State for Education in the early 1970s. She has presided over a government which have done nothing to help local education authorities expand in this area. Was she wrong in the 1970s to be in favour of such expansion and right now, to be opposed to it, or at the very least indifferent to it? Or was she right then but wrong now? She cannot have been right in both periods. Unlike my noble friend, Lord Longford, I think that she deserves a kick, even when she is down, and the electorate obviously thinks so too. Meanwhile, during a period when the UK has stood still, other European countries have made huge improvements in the extent of their provision. Some countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark were well behind us in the early 1970s and they are now far ahead. France and Belgium have had nursery provision for well over 80 per cent. of three and four year-old children for many years, as well as providing for a much higher proportion of younger children than is the case in the UK.
Not only are there more places available in most European countries with a higher proportion of the
280
age group being catered for, but the provision is often also much more closely geared to the needs of mothers with jobs. A part-time nursery place in a primary school for two to three hours either in the morning or the afternoon is not much help to a woman working full-time. Of course it is better than nothing, but she will have to make complicated arrangements for the rest of the day and for the school holidays, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has already said. In future child care provision must involve a combination of good nursery education and care to cover the hours of the working day. It is essential that both the elements of education and of care are properly covered.
There are a variety of ways of doing this. I must say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on workplace nurseries. They do not seem to me to be the solution for most working parents. However, there are a number of other ways. First, the number of local authority day nurseries which, as I have already said, has remained pathetically few, should be expanded, focusing particularly on the needs of mothers with under-fives. All day nurseries must involve good quality education at this vital period of learning in children's lives. That means that some of them, although they are not directly run by local education authorities, ought to be getting good advice from the education authorities or employing teachers.
Secondly, there could be more full-time places in local authority nursery schools and classes. We have, I believe, moved much too much in the direction of converting what used to be full-time places in these classes into part-time provision. Thirdly, there could be an extended school day between 3.30 and 5.30 or 6 for those children whose mothers have full-time jobs. Finally, we might make more use of registered child minders as a back-up to nursery classes provided by the local education authorities. What I have in mind is a system in which women with three or four year-old children who do not want to work, perhaps because they have a much younger child, would look after another three or four year-old for a small payment in the school holidays and at the end of the school day. Informal arrangements of this kind are sometimes made but parents would be greatly helped if a system of this kind were set up based round the local school, and certainly all child minding should involve registration to prevent possible neglect or abuse.
The problem of adequate child care does not stop when children start compulsory education at the age of five. Again there are the school holidays to cater for, and the gap between the end of the school day and the end of the working day. Some progressive authorities such as the ILEA, which regrettably the Government have decided to abolish, have had quite extensive networks of play centres in the schools during the holidays and, to a lesser extent, after school. But much more of this kind needs to be done all over the country. Perhaps the Minister replying on behalf of the Government could say a bit about how we are going to catch up with our Community partners with respect to child care generally.
Single parents are particularly badly affected by the failure to make available adequate child care. I

281
was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said about young single mothers. Of course single mothers are in all age groups. We may lament the high rate of marriage breakdown and subsequent divorce, but it is a fact of life, and we cannot turn our backs on it. There are many women struggling to bring up their children on their own. Few of them want to be dependent on the state if that can be avoided. They prefer to earn their living and support their children themselves.
Moreover, for their psychological welfare (which also has spin-offs for their children's psychological welfare) they need contact with the adult world and some time away from the constant demands made by small children. Anyone who has lived on their own, taking sole responsibility for children under five for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will know just how stressful this can be and how easy it can be to become depressed in these circumstances. A job can give a single mother both the material and the psychological resources to cope better with bringing up children by themselves.
I should like now to turn briefly to the elderly, where once again women bear the brunt of the demands that this makes on families. The fact that there are now far more very old people than in the past, the fact that many of them are mentally infirm as well as physically frail, means that as a society we must invest more in providing publicly-funded facilities to help them. I have mentioned the strains involved in caring for young children. Women at home caring without respite and without support from others for senile elderly parents may be under even greater stress, as my noble friend Lord Longford implied.
Far more women in their fifties are now in full-time jobs than in the past. As a society we should not expect them to give up their employment to care for their elderly relatives. Nor can we afford to lose their skills and experience. Some very old people need full-time residential care. But many others can stay in their own homes as long as community facilities such as home helps and day centres are available.
Facilities of this kind can make the crucial difference. Without them their daughters may have to abandon their jobs; with them they can continue working, and provide some care at the weekends and in the evening. Such facilities are also of enormous importance from the point of view of the elderly themselves. How many times have we heard old people saying, "I don't want to be a burden on my children"? And who can blame them? I can think of few things that would make me more unhappy in my old age than my daughter being forced to give up her career in order to care for me.
We have a huge budget surplus. Can we not use some of it to improve the provision of care for the very young and the very old? Both groups will benefit directly. Young children need pre-school education to learn to cope with social life outside their homes and to benefit intellectually. The elderly need support and also company to reduce loneliness so that they can remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
282
Women have for far too long been exploited as unpaid carers. Few men would make the sacrifices that they have made. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I must express some regret on how few male Members of your Lordships' House have participated in this debate, and I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Longford that he need not have felt in the least bit diffident. I am sure that all noble Baronesses present here will have welcomed his contribution. If only there were a few more male feminists in your Lordships' House.
In the coming years women will be needed more than ever before in the labour market. We must make a commitment to decent public services so that their skills can be used. We cannot simply rely on ad hoc private arrangements. We must also do this to improve the quality of life of the old, the young and of women themselves. For too long this Government have neglected these most important goals. My Lords, it is high time that at last they took some action.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for initiating this debate today; it is both timely and important. As the eighth speaker I have to say that everything that I was going to say has been said, but I propose to say it all again. I propose to do so because it will show that we are all thinking along the same lines and that we all consider the matter to be important.
May I first concentrate, as others have done, on the child-care facilities which will enable more women to join the workforce. As other noble Lords have said, due to the fall in the birth rate in the 1960s and 1970s there will be in the region of a million fewer young people to fill job vacancies. To fill this gap Her Majesty's Government are calling for women to enter the workforce. It is perhaps a sad reflection on our society that the care of children of working mothers shows signs of at last becoming a serious issue, not for the sake of the children but for the sake of getting working mothers into the workforce.
Having said that, I must be fair and pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government, first, for the Children Bill now being considered in the other place and, secondly—as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said—for setting up a Ministerial Group on Women's Issues. The group will consider the provision of child care facilities to enable women to go out to work.
Under Part I of the Children Bill the interests of the child are paramount. For the sake of this nation it is to be hoped that in the campaign to attract women into the workforce at all levels the care of children will be regarded as paramount as regards their physical, emotional and educational development.
As has been said, Mr. John Patten at the Home Office is chairman of the ministerial group. The group includes representation from the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland

283
Offices, and many others. Never before has a small child brought together all the ministries to work out a policy.
In the press release of 11th April 1989 Mr. Patten said;
"The family is central to national life, but we must make sure the best possible help is available for women who choose to work",
and that their children are cared for by the method of their choice.
I understand that a five point plan was issued by this great ministerial group. The group recommended amendments to the Children Bill. This was dealt with in Committee in another place. As I understand the position, the Children Bill now includes a provision that child care facilities, both child minding and group care, should be registered and that there should be a follow-up visit to the facilities once a year. That is good news. I am bound to ask my noble friend the Minister: what standards will be established for the physical, emotional and educational care of children? I imagine that there will be regulations, guidance and a code of conduct in this area. It is certainly important that that should be so.
One is also bound to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have calculated the resource implications. Local authorities could not, by any stretch of the imagination, undertake the registration of child minders and group nurseries, of pre-school play groups and other facilities without further resources. Furthermore, the inspectorate of the Department of Health will bear a heavier burden in its inspectorial duties. I dare to suggest that some voluntary organisations will also require financial topping up.
The five point plan also includes a proposal:
"To encourage the providers of childcare and employers to consider the need for a voluntary accreditation scheme which would provide information about the availability of childcare facilities".
In that connection I congratulate the National Childminding Association for its initiative, in conjunction with Mercer Fraser, in setting up a scheme of child care cheques which can be transferred in exchange for qualified child minding. The scheme has been fully explained by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
The third point in the plan concerns the use of school premises for out of school activities, both during school terms and in school holidays. Here again, other noble Lords have pointed out that while we press for better facilities for the under-fives is of no help to the working woman—whatever work she does—if there are no facilities for children returning from school to an empty home or during the school holidays. Those can be dreary times for a child. I understand from the police that an enormous number of children commit offences, not out of any ill will but simply for something to do. Also, a number of children find themselves in awkward situations and meet people it would be better for them not to meet.
Perhaps I may ask what action has been taken on that five point plan. The press release of 11th April 1989 indicated that action would be taken. I
284
apologise to my noble friend the Minister for not having given him notice of the question. However, I should be very grateful if I might know the answer. Perhaps he could write to me later.
Work is being done by the organisation Child Care Now, to which 22 organisations are affiliated, to obtain better quality child care facilities which are affordable to the working woman. The Pre-School Playgroups Association also works towards that end, as does the under-five unit at the National Children's Bureau. I should like to know what action has been taken by the committee chaired by Timothy Raison on the education of children under five.
Both in Europe and in this country there is growing awareness of the needs of children. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Europe is far ahead of us in the funding of facilities for children. While in this country much good work is being done the European countries seem to have a much better partnership between government, statutory and voluntary organisations.
The research carried out by the National Children's Bureau in the national cohort showed the deep and lasting effect on children of loving care and skills and knowledge directed to their emotional, physical and educational upbringing. In this emerging pattern of development in relation to the needs of working mothers, a consortium must be developed between families, employers, statutory and voluntary organisations and the Government for the care of children of all ages. I say, as I said earlier, that it must be remembered that the needs of the child are paramount.
I had not intended to speak on the second part of the Motion of the noble Baroness. However, yesterday in the debate on the Schizophrenia After-care Bill I asked my noble friend the Minister when the Griffiths Report was to be published. He said, "Very soon". I hardly dare to think that he was right. It was astonishing to read that at last, after so many months, there it was in The Times this morning. However, as has been said before, we still do not know the details of the administration of the Griffiths Report. Community care is good; it is right for so many people who wish for it. However, it is expensive. Like other facilities it will need resources. The debate today has concentrated on two issues: the needs of children and the elderly and the resources required for both those services.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have a problem in taking part in this important debate introduced so excellently by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. My problem is that this is a subject on which I have views. I am well aware that there is nothing more dangerous than taking part in a debate in which one has views. One of my views is that I take strong exception—although I know the spirit in which the remark was made—to describing this as a women's debate. I see it as no more a women's debate than I see the Electricity Bill—in which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I take part day in and day out—as a men's debate.
I do not see those issues as women's issues. I see them, as my noble noble friend Lady Blackstone has

285
pointed out, as issues for all of us. It is a matter that has intrigued me for a great deal of my adult life. When we view the enormous extent to which women are discriminated against in our society, what has always puzzled me is the need, not for an explanation of why women tolerate it, but why men tolerate it. I have no explanation to offer, but I certainly argue that it is at least as important a matter for men as for anyone else.
However, having said that, I am not naive. I am perfectly well aware that the kind of problems that we are debating are problems that women are expected to solve, and that the kind of burdens that we are debating are burdens that women are expected to carry. If we are to achieve what most of us want to achieve—to improve matters—I would still argue that women would carry a disproportionate burden and play an excessive role in dealing with both the young and the old. The role of policy is to improve matters. I for one should like to believe that I would live to see the day of true equality but, to repeat my words, I think that that is possibly a trifle naive.
I am about to do essentially what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has done; namely, to repeat a number of remarks and say how much I agree with them. But there are a couple of remarks made by the two noble Lords who have taken part in the debate with which I disagree. They are to do with retirement. I believe that the old have to give up at some point and let the young have a chance. I do not believe that it is oppressive to the old to suggest that, at about the age of 80, there is an opportunity to step back. One can moan continuously from then—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I assume that one day he will be 80. He looks healthy enough, so I assume that he will make that age. When he gets there, does he mean to give up his attendance in the House?
Lord Peston: No, my Lords, my point was not to do with talking. I assume that the older one gets, the more one has the right to complain about the young. My point was to do rather more with acting. The remark concerned the phrase "unfit to govern". But I go further than that in referring to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because nothing would be more disastrous than to allow elderly professors to stay on even longer. I should regard the idea of introducing flexible retirement for professors as catastrophic. However, those are the only slightly acerbic remarks that I intend to make.
I wish to concentrate on a number of principles, particularly the principles that should guide public policy. In so doing, I must quote from a document that I regard as, on the whole, rather Right-wing—the so-called Social Charter from the European Community. The Government have moved so far to the Right that they regard it as Left-wing. I find that a very odd interpretation. However, the Social Charter contains a rather forthright statement that I should very much like to endorse. In paragraph 21, it states:
"Equal treatment for men and women shall be guaranteed".
286
That is my belief. I should like to believe that one day that will happen. The document goes on to say:
"Equal opportunities for men and women shall be developed and to that effect action shall be intensified to ensure the implementation of the principle of equality between men and women in matters of remuneration, access to employment, social protection, education and vocational training and career development".
Those seem to me to be good statements of principle and I think that they can guide us in what we wish to see happen.
How are we to achieve those aims? First, I think that we should agree that there is a role for the Government here. As noble Lords will see in a moment, we disagree about the scale of that role. But I believe that this is not a matter that can simply be left to the market or to the private sector. I shall have a few words to say about that, but it seems to me that there is a role for government. We shall see that government role in two ways.
Those of us on this side of the House will see that government role in terms of at least encouraging, if not guaranteeing, equitable treatment of men and women and of giving some leadership in that regard. But, since that desire for something nearer to equality and equity is supposed to be out of fashion these days, there is another case to be made; namely, that the kind of policies that have been referred to in this field, whether they are at the nursery school and child care end or at the care of the elderly end, are highly productive. The case for nursery schooling in particular has been demonstrated time and again not merely in terms of encouraging women to return to the labour force—that is what the debate is about—but in terms of enormous productivity in later education and, in my view—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made that point—in terms of the better social behaviour of children.
However, my own view is that assisting carers who help the elderly via tax concessions and other such means is also highly productive. My interpretation—I too await the response to the Griffiths Report in this respect—is that it is an efficient way to deal with the treatment of the elderly, the infirm and—as my noble friend Lady Turner mentioned when she referred to the excellent letter that she received from the Alzheimers Disease Society—the very mentally frail elderly. In so far as we can encourage carers to help us—they cannot solve those problems entirely—that is the most efficient way of doing so.
It therefore seems to me that the Government could reasonably provide tax concessions at both ends of the spectrum. On the general tax treatment question—here I again follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—it has always puzzled me as to why the provision of creches and other such facilities in the firm are treated as a taxable benefit. Apart from the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that women in the workforce pay taxes on the income that they earn—as the Treasury takes a slightly Gladstonian view by judging everything by the state of the revenue, it should encourage that—surely one could argue on perfectly sound economic grounds that the provision of creches is one of the costs of going to work. It should not be

287
included in income; it should be set against income as an allowable cost. I should like to see a tax reform whereby one can set the costs of that sort of thing against income before tax is levied. In other words, I take exactly the opposite view to the Inland Revenue in that matter.
That enables me to make a fundamental point that has been implicit in what has been said. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to joining the workforce, but, with due respect to her, that is a misuse of language. The woman in the home is part of the workforce; she just happens to be part of the unpaid workforce. The Motion should read, "to enable women to join the paid workforce", but there is no difference between us as to whether it should be "join" or "rejoin" the paid workforce. That is an important matter. We must realise that it is not a matter of women of leisure somehow being encouraged to do a little work for a change. It is a matter of women who work extremely hard being able to improve and vary their lives by taking part in paid work for a change. I therefore argue the case for improved tax treatment and for tax concessions of all sorts.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has any material on the subject but another way that the Government could help is to show that they themselves are a first-class employer in this area. I wonder about the extent to which creches are available in Whitehall. It is a little while since we have been in power—a fact that is always being rammed home to us—but certainly in my day I do not recall there being any creches in the government departments with which I was familiar.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may say that there has been a lot of publicity recently about a Treasury creche which is now operating.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. When I was a junior economist in the Treasury I was also a young father and I should have liked my children near moaning away during the course of the day. The Treasury creche at least shows that the Treasury is a first-class employer. Indeed, I should like to hear more on that subject.
I understand that the public service itself is increasingly trying to introduce flexibility and take a more progressive view with regard to promotion. However, I believe that the Government have a duty to be a first-class employer in this area.
Reference has been made to the ministerial steering group on women's issues. The noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Faithfull, referred to it. Obviously they are both full of hope about this group. I hope that I am wrong in being rather cynical about it. For the moment it seems to include everything—every kind of sympathy and talk. It has everything but stops short of actually doing something. However, I shall wait and see. It may well be that in due course it will actually lead to some action from the Minister, as it were. In particular, I do not want to be told that this is a matter that can be left simply to encouraging the private sector.
288
There was a superb document published in May by the Department of Employment, I think. It is called The Labour Market Quarterly Report. I say perfectly sincerely that this is an excellent document about the labour market. It is full of enormously interesting factual material on the labour market and in particular it brings out the enormous importance of women in the labour force over the next 20 years. That is all very well described. There is a great deal said about the need for employers to take action of various kinds but there is literally nothing said about what the Government might do. I find that omission very worrying. However, for the moment, I shall hold back and wait for Mr. Patten's eventual report from his group.
Someone—and particularly a professorial someone—who has views can talk about matters of this kind for a very long time, but we are all anxious to hear the noble Lord's reply. Let me therefore reiterate my two main points. Firstly, this is overwhelmingly a subject that concerns us all. It is very much a subject that has to be served continuously through time and which takes a long time. In particular it is not a subject that can be left just to the workings of the market. It is not a subject about which it can be said that we can rely on economic forces and need nothing else. Indeed, my great fear is that we may use women in the labour force a great deal more. We may simply opt for economic solutions to our problems and as a result create a great many more social problems which our successors will have to solve.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should hate to enter into the argument between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his noble friend behind him concerning age. I certainly think that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is by reason of age fit for government if possibly not by reason of his political affiliations. The noble Earl said that he spoke as the oldest Member taking part in the debate; I speak as the youngest. I hope that that does not disqualify me.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was unable to take part in the debate, but I understand that she had an important meeting to attend. I am sure that we have all missed a great deal by not hearing her speak this evening. Like all noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this debate. It has been a very good debate, and I hope that I can be of some help as I sum up. I have quite a few points to make and we have a little more time than was first thought; but I shall try not to speak for too long.
The noble Baroness has drawn attention tonight to those carers, particularly women, who would wish to pursue some form of employment or self-employment or who wish to practise a profession but are unable to do so because of the need to care for a child or elderly person. I have every sympathy with the difficult position in which such people may find themselves. The Government want everyone, whatever their personal circumstances, to have the greatest possible freedom to order their lives.

289
In an ideal world it would be a matter for personal choice whether someone withdrew from the employment field to care for a child or some other dependent relative or whether they went out to work in what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described as "paid work" rather than doing unpaid work at home. In practical terms, that must mean at least that informal carers should be involved in decisions about care, along with the dependent persons themselves if they are capable of doing so. The noble Baroness raised the subject of informal carers and quite rightly paid tribute to them. The Government are mindful of the vital role that they play and acknowledge the importance of ensuring that information and support are provided to address their particular needs. Respite and other forms of support can also be provided by local authorities and voluntary organisations, whose valuable contribution I acknowledge.
We have mounted studies, including a major piece of work being done at York University, to gather more comprehensive data about carers. We are making grants of over £1 million a year to voluntary organisations concerned with the interests of carers. We shall continue to examine the role, contribution and, above all, the needs of carers and bear them firmly in mind as we carry forward our community policies.
In outlining the Government's position on women caring for children or elderly dependants at home and their paid employment I should like to dwell briefly on our policies and services for children and elderly people and on our policies for the employment of women.
The Government believe that basically responsibility for the provision of care must rest with the individual and his or her immediate family.
For the vast majority of children the best people to decide on what is best for them and the family as a whole are the parents, who should make suitable arrangements if they want or need help with their upbringing. Similarly many elderly people and those caring for them prefer to make their own arrangements for care, and an increasing number are able to do that.
The Government's role then is strictly an enabling one. Our main concern is the overall direction of policy, deciding the level of resources to be made available to statutory authorities and providing for the planning of services and the spread of good practice by publicising new and innovatory projects. Responsibility for the provisions of health and social services rests with the statutory authorities although, as we all know, an increasing range of services is now being provided by the private sector. Nor must we forget the work of voluntary agencies which have done so much for so many years.
Our view is that the overall pattern of provision must be left to local decision-making with local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations, the private sector, parents and carers as well as employers, all involved. We do not specify the level or the type of services to be provided in any locality. This must reflect local needs and
290
circumstances and the overall level of resources available.
My noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Faithfull mentioned the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues. There are many issues affecting women which cross departmental boundaries. In 1986 the Government set up the Ministerial Group on Women's Issues to act as a forum where interested departments could discuss them. The group began to examine day care services for young children and their relationship to equal opportunities and women's job prospects. The group is paying particular attention to ways in which employers and voluntary bodies could help the development of services which both support the family and give greater choice of service to those women who wished to work.
Women are already making a crucial contribution to our economic wealth. There are 11 million women who are economically active. I am talking obviously about those who are economically active. We accept that those who are at home looking after persons as informal carers are also active, if not economically. Those 11 million represent 43 per cent. of the civilian labour force. We already have a higher proportion of women working than any other EC country, with the exception of Denmark. Many women have benefited from the more flexible working patterns which have developed in the new technologically based and service industries. Women are helping to create new jobs. A quarter of the self-employed are now women. Over a third of entrants to the enterprise allowance scheme are women. Women are also choosing new careers in increasing numbers. In medicine, dentistry and the health service, half the students are women; and the same applies in law and accountancy. Increasingly in engineering women are occupying a greater share of the jobs.
If working patterns are to help people with family responsibilities we believe that employers should take the lead in conjunction with the unions. As an employer the Government have adopted a very positive approach to enable women in the Civil Service to meet their family responsibilities and have a proper career.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether things had improved since his days in the Civil Service. Perhaps I may briefly mention five steps that the Government have taken to help their employees to combine careers and families. We now offer a career break scheme which provides staff with up to five years' leave for domestic reasons. There are opportunities for part-time working or job sharing. Twenty holiday play schemes are now up and running. More are in the pipeline. Some departments are considering setting up day nurseries as a service to retain experienced staff. All departments offer flexible working hours. This helps staff to combine work and family. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes added, the Treasury also offer a crèche. I cannot speak for my department because I did not ask, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would be quite typical for the Department of Health not to have a crèche.

291
However, that is by the way. It would be worth asking whether Ministers, and not only civil servants, are allowed to use it if it ever becomes available.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be very pleased to use it if we had one. I have an infant son of one year. I am sure that if my wife were in London, she would find it most convenient to be able to leave him here. I shall find out whether the Department of Health has a creche and I shall let the noble Lord know.
I am glad to say that a number of companies are also setting a good example. Esso, BP Group, ICI, IBM and the leading banks have all introduced schemes to allow women to interrupt their careers in order to have children and to bring them up during their early years. Rank Xerox have seized on new technology to expand opportunities for people to work at home.
We are firmly against a rigid, prescriptive approach. This would put employers in a straitjacket and threaten jobs. But we warmly welcome the voluntary introduction by employers of other measures such as parental leave and help with child care to attract women returners. The Government are spreading this message at every opportunity.
So much for women and work, my Lords. I should now like to turn to the question of the children. For pre-school age children most people accept that from the age of about three their social, emotional and cognitive development is helped by taking part in some form of group activity with other children and adults. Before that age it often helps if the parent and the child meet other parents and children at, say, a parent and toddler group, toy library or playbus. This gives the parent a chance to meet other people in the same situation, and gives his or her child a chance to extend his or her play experience. For school-age children, after school and holiday play schemes can be a useful and enjoyable service. They can prevent a child coming to harm or becoming delinquent, as one noble Baroness mentioned. They can also help children develop interests and skills. The Government want to see a range of good quality day care services in each area so that parents can choose the one which best meets their and their children's needs. Over the years this country has developed a mixture of provision. It can be provided by the local authority, by individuals such as child minders, by voluntary groups, by private enterprise or by employers. This diverse set of providers is a strength and we want to see it grow and flourish. We do believe it is a proper use of public funds to set up state run day nurseries, after-school schemes and so on for everyone who wants them.
At central government level we are improving legislation on day care services. The Children Bill contains clauses which make clear the role of the local authority as provider of services, as the regulator of private and voluntary services and as the overseer of the range of day care services. When the Bill has received Royal Assent we shall be issuing new guidance to local authorities, and we are continuing to support 11 national voluntary organisations active in the under-fives and after-
292
school field because they make a vital contribution to the diversity and quality of service.
In the under-fives field there has been steady growth in recent years. In 1987 there were 1,800 day nurseries compared with 1,400 five years earlier in 1982, with most of the increase being in the private and voluntary sector. In 1987 there were 68,000 child minders compared with 44,000 in 1982—a remarkable increase. In the last few months there has been growing interest from employers and the private sector in this area and we expect this will lead not only to more provision but also to greater variety, which I mentioned earlier. We welcome this and I should like to take this opportunity to commend the National Childminding Association for its work with Mercer Fraser in developing the child care cheque scheme—which was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss and my noble friend Lady Faithfull—which I hope and expect will be taken up by employers who want to provide some form of day care for their employees but consider a workplace nursery not the best or right solution.
I should now like to turn to support for elderly people. I am happy to be able to say that levels of community support have never been higher. There are now the full time equivalents of more than 52,000 home helps and 15,000 district nurses. In 1987 over 45 million meals were provided by local authorities. All this provision has generally responded to demographic pressure of the rapidly increasing number of elderly people. As we all know, the numbers of 85 year-olds are set to double between 1981 and 2011 to something over 1 million.
However, much remains to be done. The sum of money devoted to community support is enormous. At the present year local authorities are expected to spend £3,592 million on personal social services, 40 per cent. on services mainly used by elderly people. Within the National Health Service expenditure on community health services is now running at some £1,400 million a year. It is vital that we get the most out of these resources. The Social Services Inspectorate has been carrying out a programme of studies into the home help services provided by local authorities and the way they are changing from the housework and shopping service (home help) to home care. That is a service able to provide personal care and emotional support. Two recent reports by the inspectorate, Managing Policy Change in Home Help Services and Managing to Care, contain much that will help authorities to reshape their services and strengthen their management so that they can meet the challenge of the expanding need for care.
One important fact in the availability of services is the availability of trained staff. In the present financial year and in 1988–89 we made over £10 million a year available to support new local authority initiatives in providing training for those working with elderly people. We are also closely watching the progress of the development by the Care Sector Consortium of a national vocational qualification for care assistants.
Health authorities are responsible for the recruitment and employment of community nursing and support staff. We are monitoring their progress

293
towards long and short-term manpower planning through the regional review process and also taking steps centrally which should lead to improvement in the recruitment and retention of nurses.
The question of tax relief was raised by my noble kinsman Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lady Gardner, who compared it with tax relief on company cars. We recognise that historically company cars have been undertaxed. The tax on company cars was increased in the past two Budgets. I cannot speak for the future as it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Government are aware of that anomaly.
To give parents tax relief on child care costs would be inconsistent with the Government's wider policy of looking critically at special tax reliefs, broadening the tax base and achieving reductions in basic rates. It would be expensive: we estimate that it would cost £350 million to give relief to parents who already go out to work, and it would be badly targeted. A quarter of families with children pay no tax and so would not be helped.
I turn to deal with questions raised by various noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. They raised the question of the United Kingdom's position on child care and education participation compared with other European Community member states. We do not accept that it is the case that the UK is near or at the bottom. Taking all forms of education and care together, the participation rate for three and four year-olds is over 85 per cent. and may be higher. That figure places us near the top of the EC league.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about the EC draft directive on parental leave. The Government have opposed that directive because we believe that the prescriptive approach is too rigid. The imposition of statutory requirements could affect competitiveness and not meet the needs of all employees. A flexible voluntary approach which meets the needs of both employer and employee is far preferable.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about the age limit for registration of day care services with local authorities. The Government believe that the age limit of eight, proposed in the Children Bill now in another place, is about right. We thought at first that regulation by local authorities should be limited to private and voluntary day care services for the under-fives. However, we have been persuaded that it should be raised. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that services for children who have just started school are regulated—obviously that is a reassurance for parents—and between stifling enterprise and initiative in the development of services for older children.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked about day centres for frail, elderly people. The Government recognise the important part that day care can play in supporting elderly people in the community and in offering relief to carers. Since 1978 regular attendances at day hospital have risen by about 20
294
per cent. The number of places in local authority day centres is up by 16 per cent. Day care covers a wide range of facilities and we wish to encourage the statutory authorities and voluntary organisations which provide them to make the best use of them. We asked the Centre for Policy on Ageing to carry out a study on day care. We are now considering its report and shall take that into account as we develop our community care policies.
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked about telephones for elderly people. I was surprised to hear of the difficulty which she had with British Telecom when trying to obtain help and special facilities for a disabled elderly person, because I understand that it has special equipment for such people. In recent years there have been rapid advances in telephone technology, and dispersed alarm systems have been devised which can provide elderly people with support and reassurance. Ideally, such systems should form part of a package of community care measures, including mobile wardens, and social services and housing authorities have powers to provide them.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about action to be taken on the five point plan and the ministerial group on women's issues. A shadow group of government officials is taking forward the detail of the five point plan and will be reporting that to the ministerial group as the work progresses.
Other speakers tonight have pointed out that we need to get more women into the workforce at a time when the burdens of informal care which so often fall on women are increasing and the population of women of working age is falling.
I recognise that we cannot have our cake and eat it. We need to have regard to both the wishes of women to take their place as part of the workforce and the need to provide formally or informally for the care of children and dependent adults. This balancing act will be successful only if those responsible for community support carefully assess the needs of their community, both present and future, and plan services accordingly, and if employers take all possible steps to help those women who wish to combine work and responsibility for care.
I should like to end my remarks by commenting on Sir Roy Griffiths' Report. It was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I cannot comment on press reports or speculation in today's newspaper. Consumer choice and service planning are both among the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths' review of community care. As every Member of this House will know, the Government are giving careful consideration to the complex issues raised by the Griffiths' Report. Although I cannot tonight give any indication as to the proposals we shall be bringing forward as a result of this consideration, I think I can go so far as to say, as I have on probably too many occasions, that the process is nearly complete and that we may expect an announcement before too long. The Government's aim is to promote the development of cost-effective community services and a flexible

295
attitude in employers. We hope thereby to address the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and all those who have spoken this evening.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene a moment. I am disappointed because, although I gave the Minister a text about local government, he has not replied to that point. I wonder whether he has overlooked it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, I had a note which I must have flicked over accidentally. Local authorities have adequate powers to make provision for councillors to receive such assistance. It is up to each local authority to decide what is appropriate in the local circumstances. Noble Lords may have noticed recent reports of substantial payments being made for babysitting arrangements for a councillor in inner London.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this very interesting and well-informed debate. I should like to reinforce what has been said by a number of noble Lords that this is really not a women's debate at all. I am sorry that more noble Lords did not participate but I am very grateful to those who did because I believe that they had a lot to contribute.
Perhaps I may just single out the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because she made reference to the way in which the Motion was phrased. I absolutely agree with her. Had I thought about that, I should have said "rejoin" the workforce. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Peston when he referred to unpaid work done at home. This Motion was designed for discussion about enabling women to join the workforce outside the home. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this evening, that is very important. I believe that my noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to the isolation that women often feel if they are confined at home looking after very small children or elderly relatives and how that isolation breaks down if they have the opportunity of rejoining, even on a part-time basis, a workforce ouside the home which brings them into contact with other people and generally widens their social involvement. Of course, I am sure that that is all to the good.
As regards the Minister's response, in some respects I found that rather disappointing. On these Benches it is the view that there should be a great deal more publicly-funded provision for child care, whereas the impression I received from the Minister was that the Government's role is strictly enabling—and I wrote down what he said as he spoke—and it did not seem to me that the Government intended to participate further than that. I believe that we should have a great deal more in the way of public resources available if appropriate and adequate support services are to be provided both in respect of care of the elderly and children.
On the latter point, I favour a large expansion of local authority provision. Unfortunately, many local
296
authorities have strictly limited resources and are therefore unable to provide resources in the way which I believe is necessary.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, when she says that not everybody finds that workplace nurseries are appropriate. Of course, that is absolutely right. For example, a woman who works in the City can hardly bring her child into work in the rush hour and put him in a crèche in the Prudential offices in Holborn, even if such provision were available. However, we need a range of facilities available. There again, I agree with what has been said about the child minder. I believe that child minding fulfils some need but I should like to see more emphasis on registration to ensure that the child minding provided conforms with appropriate health and safety and welfare standards. As I said in my opening remarks, at present a large number of child-minding arrangements are unregistered.
I really do not agree at all with the Minister's response on the directive on parental leave. As I understand it, he said that it was felt that that was best left to voluntary arrangements. As someone who was once concerned in negotiating with employers, and certainly in negotiations raising with employers the need to improve facilities for female workers in particular and making arrangements for child care and so on, my experience has been that unless there is a lead from the Government nothing will happen. There will be no voluntary arrangements in that respect. I believe that that is regarded in this country as wildly innovative and unless there is pressure from government sources, which would come about if the Government ceased to block the directive, I do not believe that we can expect to see any development in that area.
I should like to see the Government supporting the EC directive on parental leave. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference to that. He said that that was an imaginative document and he is absolutely right in that. If we want to see more men taking part in the care of children, as I am sure we do, that seems to me to be one way in which it might be achieved. I was very pleased to hear that the Treasury provides créche and I hope that in due course other departments will follow suit if they have not already done so.
I should like to conclude by saying that this has been a very interesting debate. I believe that this is a subject to which we shall return because there is clearly a great deal to be said about it. It will be a matter for continuing concern because of the demographic problems which we face and because of the need to ensure that there is adequate care for people who need it, such as the elderly and infirm, and also because of the need to ensure that we look after our children properly for all sorts of reasons, not merely to enable women to join or rejoin the workforce. For social reasons we need to ensure that children are properly cared for in their early years. Again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  MISSILE REDUCTION NEGOTIATIONS
  MISSILE REDUCTION NEGOTIATIONS
  NATO MISSILE REQUIREMENTS
  NATO MISSILE REQUIREMENTS
  ANTI-MISSILE DEFENCES
  ANTI-MISSILE DEFENCES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS: UPDATING
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS: UPDATING
  NUCLEAR CAPABILITY EXPANSION: POLICY
  NUCLEAR CAPABILITY EXPANSION: POLICY
  TRADE FAIRS: DTI SUPPORT FOR EXPORTS
  TRADE FAIRS: DTI SUPPORT FOR EXPORTS
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: REPORT
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: REPORT
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: EXTENSION PROPOSAL
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: EXTENSION PROPOSAL
  HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT: FUNDING
  HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT: FUNDING