Sitting of 26 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Sacked Miners
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will meet the chairman of British Coal with a view to discussing the re-employment of the miners sacked during the mining dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since this is the ninth time that the hon. Gentleman has asked the same parliamentary question, he will be aware that the dismissal and re-employment of dismissed miners is a matter entirely for the management of British Coal. Of the 1,014 miners who were dismissed 663 have been taken back.
    Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State for Energy did not have to ask nine times to get his job back. Is he aware that a fortnight ago Geoff Almond was killed in Betteshanger colliery when he was crushed to death? John Moyle, president of the Kent area and a local inspector, went to the colliery. He is a victimised miner, because British Coal refused to give him his job back. Upon trying to find out the events which led to that tragic death, he was ordered off the premises because he was a sacked miner. It is high time that the Secretary of State for Energy or any of his accomplices had a word with British Coal. When victimised miners who are trying to resolve and find out the cause of such tragic accidents are ordered off the premises, it shows that it is high time that British Coal and all its allies gave up this lust for revenge.
    Mr. Spicer: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by once and for all setting this matter in its proper context and giving further details of some of the charges brought during the miners' strike. There were three charges of murder, five of threat to kill, three for explosives offences—
    Mr. Hood: Answer the question.
    Mr. Spicer: This is exactly answering the question. There were 49 charges involving offensive weapons, 15 for arson, 1,019 for criminal damage, 13 for conspiracy to cause damage, 39 assaults, 360 for assault on the police, 429 for assault causing bodily harm, 19 for resisting arrest, 31 for burglary and 352 for theft. That is merely the
    682
    beginning of the list of charges. There were 201 custodial sentences handed out. Perhaps that explains why British Coal cannot take back all the miners.
    Mr. Dickens: Does the Minister agree that there is not a private employer in this country who would be expected to take back on his staff someone who had beaten another member of staff with a baseball bat? Offences involving miners included incidents such as concrete slabs being dropped off bridges. Why should the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) come to the House time and time again to suggest to the Government that they should encourage the chairman of a nationalised industry to do something which no private employer would dream of doing?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend, and as I said in my opening comments, I could have listed further charges which were brought and sentences passed.
    Mr. Patchett: The Minister read out a list of charges. Will he list the number of charges dropped after the dispute?
    Mr. Spicer: Of course, not all charges were proceeded with. We are talking about 201 custodial sentences. Only 333 miners were, in the end, not reinstated.

    Office of Electricity Regulation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the director-general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation since his appointment.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Discussions are taking place between my Department and Professor Littlechild on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Mullin: Is it not wholly improper to appoint Professor Littlechild to a job which requires independence, given his association with a number of Conservative party think-tanks and his former role as a political adviser?
    Mr. Parkinson: First, Professor Littlechild has never been a political adviser. He has been an adviser to the Government, which is quite different from being an adviser to the party. I have never heard any Labour Members suggest that Sir Gordon Borrie is unfit to hold his job as the Director General of Fair Trading because he stood as a Labour candidate in a parliamentary election. He has turned out to be a distinguished public servant, as will Professor Littlechild.
    Mr. Rost: When is the grid company likely to be able to announce the basis on which it will charge for transmission? Until that is announced, no contracts can get under way, either between the newly independent producers or between the distributors and existing producers.
    Mr. Parkinson: We are making good progress on a range of issues. I hope that these figures will be available by the end of July.

    Central Electricity Generating Board
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I regularly meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
    Mr. Thompson: Following recent reports that the European Commission is to investigate the legality of the electricity privatisation Bill, whose provisions concerning the protection of the nuclear industry are under question, did the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of the CEGB the future prospects for National Power and its marketability if the European Commission makes an adverse decision?
    Mr. Parkinson: We shall clear all our plans with the European Commission, with which we have had preliminary discussions. The Commission recognises that at the end of this privatisation we shall have the most open electricity supply industry in Europe. Broadly speaking, it is strongly in favour of our proposals and we expect to be able to satisfy it about the details of the fossil fuel levy.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that negotiations are taking place between the generators and the large industrial users about the direct buying of electricity, which comes under clause 6? Will he accelerate that process and ensure that the CEGB's successor will have the right to do just that?
    Mr. Parkinson: The industry is settling a range of complex issues at the moment. They arise from the fact that we shall be changing the whole basis on which the industry operates. At present, it is producer-dominated and the producer—the generator—has the last word in disputes. In future, producers and users will have to negotiate a settlement between themselves—that is what they are in the process of doing.
    Mr. Maclennan: Given the expressed view of the chairman that, following the removal of the duty to supply from the Central Electricity Generating Board to the consumer, responsibility for maintaining medium and long-term research fell, upon whose shoulders does the Secretary of State intend that that financing should fall?
    Mr. Parkinson: My Advisory Committee on Research and Development—ACORD—has been looking at the entire range of research that is carried out in the electricity supply industry. The successor companies have already made it clear that they will carry on with a range of operational and medium-term research. ACORD is advising me whether there are any areas that the companies do not want to pursue which, in ACORD's opinion, should be pursued. The Government would then take those on.
    Mr. Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of the CEGB the problems of research and development following privatisation? Following his decision to sanction the closure of Marchwood engineering laboratories and the allocation of their R and D capacity to Berkeley and Ratcliffe-upon-Soar, it seems that the plans that the Government have in mind favour National Power and Power Gen, which will draw on the
    684
    resources of those two research establishments. If any other bodies such as the distribution companies choose to generate power after privatisation, which they will be empowered to do, to whom will they go to get research and development done? Surely a case can be made for the privatisation of the CEGB's research and development facilities in a single company which can contract its resources to anyone who may want to generate, rather than for making these facilities the exclusive preserve of National Power and Power Gen.
    Mr. Parkinson: We considered the privatisation of the research facilities as a separate research company, and came to the conclusion that that was not practicable. Private generators would be able to approach these research establishments and seek to place contracts. Other research establishments are available. The main fact was that after the most careful examination there was no justification for maintaining Marchwood. The work being done there can be transferred to Ratcliffe and Berkeley. Marchwood is simply not necessary.
    Mr. Morgan: Following press reports last week that the Government have done a U-turn in their relations with the CEGB and National Power, in respect of the full indemnity that we understand will now be given for nuclear waste reprocessing disposal and decommissioning, as distinct from merely the unforeseeable costs of those three categories of the CEGB's and National Power's expenditure, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he agrees that that is a thoroughly undignified chapter in the breaking of a promise made at the Committee stage? Does he agree that he is now reduced to shovelling the shares off the back of a lorry before he finally shovels the Department of Energy into oblivion?
    Mr. Parkinson: My advice to the hon. Gentleman would be quite different. He should stop believing as gospel everything that he reads in the newspapers. There has been no change in Government policy. The policy as set out during the Committee stage is the policy that we are maintaining. We are advised that clause 93 in its present form did not achieve the aims that we had for it when we put it to the Committee.
    If Opposition Members wish to quote either my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or myself, I hope that they will quote Hansard accurately instead of misrepresenting what we say.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the total costs of advertising and other expenditure to be incurred in the flotation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cost incurred to date by his Department on advice on public relations and advertising aspects of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: No advertising expenditure by Government will take place before the Electricity Bill receives Royal Assent. It is therefore too early to provide estimates of costs.
    Mrs. Clwyd: It is perhaps not surprising that the Minister ducks the question. Will he confirm or deny that the cost of pursuing the Government's half-baked dogma will be between £200 million and £370 million? Does he agree that that kind of money would be better spent on the Energy Efficiency Office—instead of halving its budget—so that it can help people to save energy, to reduce pollution and to cut fuel poverty and wastage? That would be a much better use of the money than electricity privatisation.
    Mr. Spicer: I assure the hon. Lady that whatever costs are incurred will achieve value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot help it if the Labour party does not like wider share ownership. We do, and we will continue to back it.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree that the money that will be spent flogging off the industry would be better spent reducing standard charges for old-age pensioners—or is it party dogma against old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government are absolutely committed to the privatisation of the electricity industry, because we believe that it will achieve much better standards for the consumer, will put a downward pressure on the prices for the consumer and will achieve things that the Labour party would never have achieved in its wildest dreams by keeping the industry nationalised.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend explain to the mixture of simpletons and troublemakers on the Opposition Benches that if, in privatising an industry, the advertising cost is more than recouped by an increase in the price that the Government get, it is a jolly good idea for the taxpayer? Will he also point out that companies like Unilever, ICI and other people spend money on advertising, and they do so because they feel that it is commercially beneficial?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The net benefits to the taxpayer are precisely as he states them.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend re-examine the consumer advertising, both before and after flotation, of the area boards now and the area plcs afterwards, in view of the still prevailing serious allegations of unfair competition against the private sector retailers, notably in the form of the latest advertisements of the Eastern electricity board—"£50-worth of free current if you buy a cooker from us"?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has for some time been a champion of the independent sector. The Bill and the restructured industry will recognise the anxieties that he and others have expressed by making certain that the retailing aspects of the privatised industry will be ring-fenced, kept entirely independent, and will not be able to trade in that unfair way.
    Mr. James Lamond: Although we understand that it is Tory party policy and dogma to spread share ownership much wider, is it right to use public money to publish propaganda for that purpose?
    Mr. Spicer: We are absolutely committed to a policy which since 1979 has resulted in an increase in private shareholders from 3 million to 9 million. We absolutely agree with that and think that it is right in every possible
    686
    sense, not least because it provides a great incentive to greater efficiency within the industry. The process of privatisation involves projecting the industry to the public.

    Greenhouse Effect
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last had discussions with other European Community Energy Ministers on the greenhouse effect.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Although not specifically discussed by Community Energy Ministers, the greenhouse effect is borne in mind in the Council's consideration of energy issues.
    Mr. Favell: In view of the threat to the earth's atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, are not those Greens who advocate the abandonment of the nuclear option foolish in the extreme? Is that generally recognised throughout Europe?
    Mr. Morrison: That is generally recognised throughout Europe, and the environmental Council of Ministers made precisely that point in a recent resolution. It is sad that the Greens are pursuing a route which presumably will achieve the opposite to what they desire.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: For each therm of energy output, which fuel cycle has the least impact on the greenhouse effect—coal, oil or nuclear?
    Mr. Morrison: Nuclear.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the Labour party learned from President Mitterrand that nuclear power is the friend of the environment?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I notice from the Labour party's latest policy review that the ultimate conclusion of its policy will be to phase out all nuclear power stations. That will have a very harmful impact on the greenhouse effect.

    British Coal
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Haynes: It is time that the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Coal the amount of coal which the Central Electricity Generating Board is to take on. I have serious reason to believe that the CEGB and British Coal have done a dirty deal which will affect the Nottinghamshire miners whom the Secretary of State defends in this Chamber. The take has been reduced from 75 million tonnes to 60 million tonnes. What will the Secretary of State say at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Nottinghamshire miners now?
    Mr. Parkinson: If I catch your eye later today, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House that that allegation is

    687
    complete and utter rubbish. British Coal and the two generators are in the process of negotiation about the quantity of coal and the term for which they will take it. We have made the Government's position absolutely clear. We believe that we have put the industry in a strong position to get the lion's share of that business. That is what we would like to happen.
    Mr. Hood: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he ask him how much it cost to pay off the private coal companies in Bilston Glen as a result of the closure of that colliery? How much pay-off to the private contractors was made in compensation?
    Mr. Parkinson: I will ask the chairman of British Coal that when I next meet him. However, I volunteer some information to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that it will help him. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Bilston Glen lost £20 million in the last financial year in addition to £50 million of accumulated losses that it had made before then. That is why the colliery had to close.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he congratulate him and his working miners on achieving increased profits of £500 million this year? Fifty per cent. of deep-mined coal comes from Nottinghamshire, which is something of which the people there are very proud.
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend asks, and I will remind the chairman that Nottinghamshire miners find the attitude of the Labour party towards them totally hypocritical. That party gave those miners no support when they needed it but is trying to exploit them now.
    Mr. Ashby: I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss with the chairman of British Coal a problem affecting my constituency concerning jobs at the new mine at Asfordby near Rutland. Undertakings were given that Leicestershire miners would be offered jobs there. My right hon. Friend will know that a number of Leicestershire mines will shortly close, and jobs at Asfordby are very necessary for those affected. Will my right hon. Friend remind the chairman of undertakings that jobs at Asfordby would be made available to Leicestershire miners?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall do as my hon. Friend asks, but I point out that although more than 100,000 miners have left the industry since the end of the strike, not one was refused a job if he wanted to stay in the industry. Every one who left did so voluntarily, with a substantial redundancy payment.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the jobs of many miners in Leicestershire and elsewhere are at stake as a consequence of the short-sighted consideration that sees the importing of South African and other coal as being economical? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends are more interested in the future of the South African coal mining industry than in our own?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman delivers a good old emotive sentence but one which has no basis in fact, as he knows. Imports represent about 10 per cent. of our total coal burn, and some of those imports are very necessary because we do not produce all the qualities of coal that we
    688
    need. Of that 10 per cent., less than 2 per cent. is South African. There is no sign that there will be substantial imports from South Africa.

    Electricity (Carbon Dioxide Emissions)
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the reduction in the amount of CO2, emitted per unit of electricity supplied between 1959 and the present day.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: CO2 emissions per unit of electricity supplied have reduced by 33 per cent. over the period 1959 to the present day.
    Mr. Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging response. Can he give an indication of future trends and how they would be affected if nuclear energy was no longer part of the country's total energy production?
    Mr. Peter Morrison: It is very important to continue our nuclear programme. If we do not, CO2 emissions will increase. Of the 33 per cent. reduction to which I referred, about one third is attributable to nuclear-generated electricity, so its abolition—which the Opposition propose should ultimately occur—would have a very deleterious effect.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Given the Government's obvious enthusiasm for the production of energy from non-fossil fuel sources, why have the West German Government abandoned plans to build a nuclear reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf, and why have the Siemens electricity company and the America firm Acro decided to establish Europe's first thin layer solar cell factory at Wackersdorf? Will Government money be invested in similar technology in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: I may have many responsibilities, but I was not aware that the European Community had extended them to Germany's energy policies, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hind: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's press reports that in generating sufficient electricity to centrally heat the average-sized home, coal causes three times as much environmental damage as gas? Is not the message from that that the way forward for Britain's energy requirements must be the use of energy sources that do not damage the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect, and that nuclear and gas are two ways of achieving that objective?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the gas burn directive does not prohibit the generation of electricity by gas, but does not encourage it. The United Kingdom takes a very positive stance on that and we are doing our best to have that directive repealed.

    Office of Electricity Regulation
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the director general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the possibility of a fossil-fuel combustion tax.
    Mr. Parkinson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Illsley: In view of the speculation hanging over the future of the Department of Energy, and the recent publication by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a document advocating a carbon or coal tax, will the Secretary of State tell us who would be responsible for bringing in such a tax? Would it not be better to introduce energy efficiency measures rather than hitting the coal industry again?
    Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend made it clear the next day at a press conference that the views that he had expressed in that pamphlet were personal views. He was talking about discussions that are going on in international fora. He also made it clear that we had no plans to introduce a carbon tax here.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for many years now, the taxpayer has subsidised the production of electricity from coal, and that in view of that there is no question of a tax being levied on fossil fuel?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I have said, there are no plans for such a tax. We and previous Governments have favoured coal strongly: far from penalising it, we have subsidised it.
    Mr. Barron: In the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is the Coal Research Establishment, which is a centre of excellence for research and development relating to clean coal burn, not just in this country but in Europe. Would the Secretary of State for Energy mind taking his right hon. Friend to visit that establishment to see how we can really start to talk about getting rid of greenhouse gases in the world?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall mention that to my right hon. Friend. He always welcomes helpful suggestions, and I am sure that he will welcome this one.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise clean coal burn technology. We shall have to change the way in which we produce electricity from coal; coal is the great pollutant, and the way forward is more efficient cleanburn technology.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by what proportion he estimates the national demand for electricity will be diminished through energy conservation measures in the years 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I cannot make such an estimate, because improved energy efficiency does not automatically lead to reduced consumption of electricity. However, it is worth noting that the energy used to produce one unit of GDP in 1987 was 7 per cent. lower than in 1983. This represents a saving of over £2 billion.
    Mr. Powell: Following the 50 per cent. reduction in the Government's conservation expenditure, is it not time that the Government started to talk about an energy policy instead of a privatisation policy? Is the Minister not concerned about the industrialists—particularly at Rockwell International in my constituency—who produce for conservation and yet are continually bombarded with Government cuts, with the result that their programme is miles behind? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman began altering his policy?
    Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the figures, he will see that the reduction is nothing like 50 per cent. If he also looks at where the reduction is being made, he will find that the programmes involved have come to the end of their lives. He will also find, on reflection, that the large advertising budget of the previous two years has had precisely the desired effect: energy efficiency is now very much at the forefront of most people's minds.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that although we are conserving energy, at the same time we are living in an electronic age? Most of our offices are now using a good deal of electronic equipment, and, because of our great economy, industries are taking off and are therefore using more electricity than they did a few years ago. Although we are encouraging energy conservation, we are also trying to match the demands of industry, trade and commerce, as it is sensible for us to do.
    Mr. Morrison: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we pursued the policies advocated by some, though not necessarily by Opposition Members, the economy would not grow and that is not what most hon. Members want.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Government learn the lessons of the European elections—the performance of the Green party and the tragic results for their own party? Is it not clear that the people of Britain totally reject nuclear power and that they want far more investment in energy conservation and in renewable sources of energy?
    Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman were to ask many of the people who supported the Green party at the European elections, I think he would find that many of them had not read the Green party's manifesto. Had they read what it said about the nuclear aspect, they may well not have voted Green in the elections.
    Mr. Blair: Is there not a growing consensus that the best means of combating the greenhouse effect and of promoting environmental protection is through energy efficiency and conservation, which is precisely what the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill set out to achieve? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that the Government will accept those amendments and, for once, put the public interest before privatisation?
    Mr. Morrison: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about energy efficiency. I wish, though, that he would look at his own party's policy towards coal, which he might find also has a greenhouse effect. If he looked at the Lord's amendments, he would see that they are unworkable. He, of all people, I am sure, would not wish unworkable clauses to be included in an Act of Parliament.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on the nuclear power industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The total number of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on the nuclear power industry is estimated at about 180,000.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that this figure shows that one in every 144 jobs in this country is

    691
    dependent upon the nuclear power industry? Does that not demonstrate that the Labour party's commitment to phase out nuclear power by the year 2000 makes absolutely no sense at all when one is considering future employment in this country?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would be particularly concerned about the threat to his party's fortunes if his party's policy, which does not favour the nuclear industry, were to be implemented. While I was researching the answer to my hon. Friend's question, I discovered the interesting fact that close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, 1,000 people are employed on a £9·5 million contract for Sizewell B and that in Stockton, South, which is also close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is a £31 million contract for Sizewell B. One of the people who would be extremely worried, I should have thought—if the Labour party's policy on nuclear power were to be implemented—would be the official energy spokesman for the Labour party.
    Mr. Eadie: Since the hon. Gentleman is giving statistics relating to the nuclear power industry, and the energy industry in particular, will he confirm that in the last seven or eight years between 150,000 and 155,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry?
    Mr. Spicer: I confirm that—or at least around those figures. However, the output from the mining industry in that period was almost identical to what it was before, when there was all that extra employment. We very nearly doubled productivity in that period. That is one of the reasons why our coal mining industry will be able to compete against the rest of the world.
    Mr. Douglas: Following that answer, do the Minister's figures include those for employment in the South of Scotland electricity board's nuclear capacity? Will he compare and contrast that with the figures relating to coal production for electricity in Scotland? When will an agreement be concluded to safeguard the remaining jobs in the coal mining industry between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal so that we may retain some jobs in the coal industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Spicer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying away from the question, which relates to jobs in the nuclear industry. However, I confirm that the figures that I gave are for the United Kingdom as a whole. As to the specific point that he raised, that is currently the subject of negotiations. The Government very much hope that the result of the negotiations will be to the benefit of the coal industry and of electricity consumers. That has to be part of the equation.

    Offshore Licensing
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the awards as a result of the applications for the 11th offshore licensing round.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I hope to be in a position to make the announcement within the next week or so.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is still a very high level of interest in North sea exploration which is a vindication of the Government's
    692
    policies for the development of the North sea and has led to the massive extension of the proven reserves in our part of the North sea?
    Mr. Morrison: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there is a very high level of interest in the North sea. I hope that when we are able to announce the 11th round it will prove very successful. That means that we can look forward with more than hope to North sea oil and gas for longer than people had orginally thought.
    Mr. Doran: The Minister paints a very rosy picture, and I share some of his optimism, but there is a cloud on the horizon—the serious skill shortage in the North sea which threatens future development and possibly current production. What steps does the Minister propose to take to encourage the oil industry to improve its lamentable training record?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps be pleased to hear that the matter was discussed at the most recent meeting that I had with Oilco—the oil industry liaison committee—attended by the employers and the trade unions and further discussions will take place. I agree that the manpower in the North sea is vital for its further development. Its success has been achieved because of that manpower.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to ensure that the arts form part of children's education.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Secretary of State for Education and Science and I support the place of the arts in education. The national curriculum ensures this. As I announced in the House on 23 May, my right hon. Friend and I are funding research into good practice to demonstrate the range of educational opportunities available in the contemporary arts, museums and galleries, and public libraries.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend note that it has taken this Conservative Government to make art and music a compulsory part of the school curriculum for all children, and that the previous philistinic Labour Governments never did anything but talk about it? Where do art and education come together specifically for the benefit of London children?
    Mr. Luce: It is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who should be given credit for ensuring that for the first time music is a compulsory subject in school. The new curriculum makes it possible to include almost every facet of art in one form or another and I hope that teachers will take advantage of that. In regard to my hon. Friend's second question, there are a number of examples of good practice in London. The national maritime museum has an excellent scheme for children through the Armada exhibition; the royal opera house has workshops and works with schools, as does the English National Opera, and the London Mozart Players have an excellent education scheme in Croydon.
    Mr. Cohen: The Minister will recall his answer to me which showed that an increasing number of museums are beginning to charge for school parties. Will the Minister condemn that as bad practice? Will he confirm that by charging for school parties the heritage and the important educational value of items in those museums are no longer accessible to many school children?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the new guidelines on school activities within school hours. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already pointed out that parents can make voluntary contributions. However, I have undertaken with my right hon. Friend carefully to monitor the progress on this because we are anxious to ensure that the access of schools to important centres of art and to museums is not only maintained, but strengthened.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that the number of school visits to theatres, dance performances, museums and concerts has fallen dramatically in recent weeks as a direct result of Government changes in funding school visits through the Education Reform Act? Is he aware that the national theatre's excellent production of Adrian Mitchell's play "The Pied Piper" had to cancel a week's performances because of Government changes making it extremely difficult for schools to make out-of-school visits? How is that helping arts companies or arts education in schools? Is that good practice?
    Mr. Luce: As I said earlier, I have undertaken to monitor progress and to ensure that there is no setback in terms of the number of schools visiting arts institutions. There is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. In one or two examples, much of the misunderstanding has been about the guidelines. Those guidelines are clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has set out what schools can do to ensure that they maintain contact with arts organisations.

    Business Sponsorship
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the level of business sponsorship of the arts.
    Mr. Luce: I am pleased to say that business sponsorship has increased from £500,000 a year in 1976 to over £30 million today. The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme has brought nearly £25 million new money to the arts and to museums.
    Mr. Marshall: How many sponsors under the BSIS are new arts sponsors? How many have renewed their generous sponsorship?
    Mr. Luce: It is interesting that the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has undertaken research which demonstrates that about 90 per cent. of all the organisations that become first-time sponsors decide to remain sponsors because they regard it as a good investment. That is most encouraging. For the first time under our scheme, we have had 1,000 first-time sponsors, so the House can see the scale of the increase in support through sponsorship.
    Mr. Maclennan: I welcome that increase, but what is the Minister's view on the deficit in sponsorship in respect of the innovative and experimental arts, which, by their nature, attract small audiences?
    Mr. Luce: There are increasing examples of sponsorship to support creativity and innovation. I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during the debate on the arts some 10 days ago, when I announced that the Arts Council had established an endowment scheme designed especially to give support through the private sector—although it is managed by the Arts Council—for innovation and experimentation. Of course, the Arts Council already does that with the taxpayer's money, and that is partly the role of the taxpayer.
    Mr. Fishburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that English National Ballet, of which I am a director, has taken the lead in business sponsorship? None the less, this cannot possibly enable the company to survive, unless the Government find a way of providing an adequate subsidy from their pocket after the community charge is introduced. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a director, I have a responsibility under the Insolvency Act 1986 to suggest that that ballet company should close if that money is not forthcoming soon?
    Mr. Luce: I am very much aware of the important role that my hon. Friend plays in English National Ballet. I acknowledge his point that there is considerable concern about the possible effect of the introduction of the community charge, especially with respect to Westminster city council, on English National Opera and English National Ballet. I am in touch with the chairman and will keep in touch with my hon. Friend about this matter.
    Mr. Pike: I recognise that the amateur sector is vital in the performing arts. How much money is allocated to it?
    Mr. Luce: It is difficult to give a figure. The Arts Council's main efforts are directed towards supporting professional organisations. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the point.

    Opera
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many people attended (a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised performances of opera in the 12 months to 14 June 1989.
    Mr. Luce: The latest figures available for subsidised performances show that 1,080,000 people visited the opera in 1987–88. No figures are available for privately funded opera companies.
    Mr. Greenway: I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the recent success of the "Carmen" production at Earl's Court, given that the two London opera companies receive the lion's share of the Arts Council's support for opera. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the regional opera companies, Arts Council arid local authority funding is vital to their existence and to achieving a wider audience? Is he aware that, in its 10th anniversary season, Opera North achieved 90 per cent. audience penetration?
    Mr. Luce: I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in Opera North, which is based in Leeds and sets high standards. Regional opera has been able to achieve the highest possible quality only through a measure of taxpayers' support. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to other private sector activities, such as Carmen at Earl's Court. I understand that recent performances attracted audiences of 95,000. Other companies in the private sector, such as D'Oyly Carte opera company, are attracting large audiences.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that Opera North receives money from local government? I congratulate him on being the first Minister whom I have heard express a squeak of concern about the implications of the community charge. I suggest that as well as addressing those concerns to the chairmen of various boards, he addresses them forcefully to his colleagues in Government, who have been oblivious to the effects of the poll tax on local authorities' ability to raise and spend money at their discretion on projects, including the arts, that benefit the community.
    Mr. Luce: My earlier answer on the community charge was related especially to Westminster city council, which has indicated that it has particular problems, unlike other authorities. I hope that borough councils in London will play their part in supporting the important English National Ballet and English National Opera.

    Local Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage national institutions to send artefacts to local museums and galleries.
    Mr. Luce: National museums and galleries are active in lending artefacts to local museums and galleries. I am specifically encouraging further such activity through my funding provided to the Museums and Galleries Commission's travelling exhibitions unit.
    Mr. Soames: I thank my right hon. Friend for that good news. Is he aware that the high cost of insuring art exhibits is one of the reasons why borough councils and others are deterred from making full use of the increased facilities that the Department has offered? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to make the procedure easier and to assist them with insurances?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has put his finger on what was the problem in the past. He might be interested to know that in 1988–89 no less than £1 billion of Government indemnity has been provided. That is a record figure and has saved the national museums and galleries £5 million in commercial insurance. The scheme plays a leading role in facilitating lending.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    National Union of Civil and Public Servants
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he will next meet representatives of the NUCPS; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I have meetings from time to time with
    696
    representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Departments. Matters of mutual interest are discussed.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that the senior civil servant in every Government Department has been replaced since the Prime Minister took office? That treatment is almost as ruthless as her treatment of the 1979 Cabinet. Does the Minister support that policy? If not, what steps will he take to restore some impartiality to the senior Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by every senior civil servant. If he is talking about permanent secretaries, perhaps he needs reminding that we have been in office since 1979. It is not surprising that many permanent secretaries have changed and that many of them have retired. To suggest that any of our senior civil servants are not impartial but partial is a serious allegation.

    Civil Servants (Greater Manchester)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what was the total number of civil servants in Greater Manchester in 1979; and what was the most recent figure.
    Mr. Luce: For the administrative area of Greater Manchester, the number of non-industrial civil servants on 1 January 1979 was 19,270. The most recent figure at 1 January 1989 is 16,720.
    Mr. Bennett: From those figures do we take it that the Government's policy to disperse civil servants from London and the south-east to the regions has stopped? Does he accept that there is still a strong argument for encouraging civil servants and Government Departments to move to the north-west, which has a far more attractive environment than London and the south-east?
    Mr. Luce: There is no question of stopping the policy of relocation; on the contrary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently announced that 1,000 jobs will be relocated out of London to Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan. Wigan, which is part of Greater Manchester, will get another 260 civil servants. The hon. Gentleman should also take note of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently announced that no less than 34,000 Civil Service jobs are under review with the possibility of relocation in other areas. I think that the motive for doing so is getting stronger every day.

    Civil Service Agencies
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service jobs in the London area have been agencified; how many are expected to be agencified during the next two years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: This information is not readily available to my Department. The location of staff in agencies is a matter for the Departments and agencies concerned. But I hope very much that, like other Government activities, they will continue to review the location of their work, including localities which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies.
    Mr. Greenway: I hope that my right hon. Friend will find the new logistic terms "agencified" and "agencification" expressive if somewhat ugly. If civil servant jobs are agencified will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is done sensitively and that it pays regard to the morale of the people who are moved of such a scheme? Will he seek an early agencification of passport office jobs with a view to ending all the trouble that we have had there and getting the half a million passports that people are seeking for their holidays out to them?
    Mr. Luce: On the latter point about the passport office, my hon. Friend may recall that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain that the passport office is a serious candidate to become an agency as soon as possible—that is now being studied. All the evidence so far suggests that morale is good in the seven agencies already established. They know precisely what their targets and objectives are. That is something that helps the management of the Civil Service and helps morale.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister please acknowledge that he makes it more difficult for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to introduce a core curriculum in English if he accepts, without comment, the ugly and incomprehensible word "agencified"?
    Mr. Luce: I have not used that word. I am partly responsible for plain English in the Civil Service and I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point on board.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service agencies he expects to be set up in the next 12 months.
    Mr. Luce: Seven executive agencies have already been set up, and Departments are working on more than 30 other proposals. Those include the whole social security operation and, in my own Department, the Civil Service recruitment agency and the occupational health service.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his commitment to continue the relocation of civil servants out of London will he widely welcomed on the Conservative Benches? Will he couple that with a commitment to a continuing reduction in the total number of civil servants, in particular those who must work in London and are therefore held to ransom to Mr. Jimmy Knapp who has recently replaced his better rail campaign with a no rail campaign?
    Mr. Luce: In the past 10 years, the size of the Civil Service has been reduced by roughly 21 per cent. and now it is certainly a slimmed-down and professional service. It is worth noting that four out of five civil servants are employed outside the Greater London area, and with the policy for relocation, that number is expected to increase.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise that many agencies, whether they are in public or in private hands, have been responsible for much of the unlawful discrimination against people on grounds of sex and race? His Department is now to meet that problem through the action programme, which the Labour party welcomed when he announced it. What will he now do with the agencies to see that they do not discriminate in a way that is unlawful and wrong?
    Mr. Luce: It will, of course, be exactly the same for the agencies because they are all part of the Civil Service and
    698
    those who serve in agencies continue to be civil servants. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, right to stress that the agencies will have the same objective. Objectives and targets are set under the framework agreements formed in the agencies. I envisage that in the setting up of all agencies it will be a clear intention that: the principle of equality of opportunity in every area should be clearly established.
    Mr. John Greenway: When considering agencies over the next year or so, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to move more Civil Service jobs out of London into the provinces, especially the north? Is he aware that there is a symposium tomorrow by York city council supported by other local authorities in north Yorkshire for that very purpose?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. It is worth repeating that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made it plain that 34,000 Civil Service jobs are now under review with a view to considering whether they should be relocated in other parts of the country. If even part of that relocation takes place, it will be a substantial addition to the 12,000 people who have moved out of London since 1979.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with the Civil Service unions about improving the service to the public.
    Mr. Luce: None, Sir. But my officials have held discussions with representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on the Office for the Minister for the Civil Service study "Service to the Public" and on training in this area.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister agree that the service to the public in both the passport office and the Department of Social Security might be improved by employing more civil servants? If more civil servants had been employed, many of the problems in the passport office this summer would not have existed. If there were more civil servants in the Department of Social Security, rather than simply having to administer, they could give welfare advice to claimants who need the benefits that they are not getting at the moment.
    Mr. Luce: I am glad, of course, that an agreement has now been reached in the passport office and, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it will lead to an increase in the number of civil servants there. With regard to the passport office and to the Department of Social Security, I come back to the establishment of agencies for which clear performance targets and objectives can be set, including objectives on the quality of service to the public. The House will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made an admirable speech last week, drawing attention to the importance of the quality of Government services to the public.
    Mr. Soames: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent progress has been made in the establishment of Civil Service agencies.
    Mr. Luce: On 24 May, the resettlement agency in the Department of Social Security was launched. On 6 June, I launched the Civil Service college in my own Department

    699
    as an executive agency. That takes the total of agencies that have been set up to seven with over 30 further activities announced as candidates.
    Mr. Soames: In view of the considerable success of the agencies, especially in respect to the motivation of those who work for them, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he intends to press ahead with the agencies as quickly as possible and across the board?
    Mr. Luce: I can say without hesitation that that is the case. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    700
    State for Social Security announced last month his plan to establish an agency for the Department of Social Security, which includes 87,000 civil servants, is an indication of the importance that we attach to this reform.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have injury time for Civil Service questions? We did start late.
    Mr. Speaker: We did, and I gave it.

Edinburgh University Dental School
3.32 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: 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 closure of Edinburgh university dental school."
The matter is urgent because the decision was leaked through a detailed press briefing last Thursday evening. The university was told of its fate when it saw the television cameras filming outside. The matter is important because three years ago, Edinburgh was promised a new dental hospital with teaching facilities. Last year, it was told that the dental school would expand. Now it is told that the school is to be shut, with its final admission of students only three months away. The Secretary of State for Scotland has recycled an old promise of a new hospital and he claims it as an achievement.
The leak has all the hallmarks of a Scottish Office briefing. How typical it is of this Government that if there is dirty work afoot, they use a leak to carry it out. If a decision is bad or unpopular, they blame someone else. Edinburgh has been told that it will lose its school. It is told that it will have instead a post graduate institute, if you please. It is not told who will pay for the institute, where it will be or when the hospital will be built. Many believe that the car park that is on the site at present will remain there for a considerable time.
The university is entitled to make its case. It was never warned of the closure. It is no use the Secretary of State blaming the Universities Funding Council. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an Edinburgh Member himself and he was also rightly quick to save the Glasgow veterinary school. The decision to close the Edinburgh dental school stands in stark contrast.
If we cannot have a debate today, we need a statement—not further press briefings. Edinburgh university and the public, who value their education and their dental health, are entitled to something better than this shabby treatment at the hands of the Secretary of State and the Government.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of Edinburgh university dental school."
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept the ruling that you have just given, but can you use any influence on the Government to ensure that we have an early debate on university education, so that this matter, which has so incensed the Edinburgh community, can be fully aired and debated?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but no doubt there may be other opportunities.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday's edition of The Observer carried reports about the behaviour of the immigration service, on the instruction of the Home Office, in attempting to deny Kurdish refugees from Turkey the right to apply for political asylum.
Mr. Richard Holt: What is the point of order?
Mr. Corbyn: My point of order is that this is a serious matter and serious allegations were made in that newspaper article, so I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, have had any application or request from Home Office Ministers to make a statement about that behaviour and what instructions they have given.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Opposition Day.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you the question of what is published on the Order Paper. You may be aware that I have been running a campaign to get Mr. Tiny Rowland to divest himself of his interest in The Observer. Over the past two months I have tabled 21 motions drawing attention to his conflict of interests and to the pressure that is being exerted on journalists of that newspaper in a number of ways. The motions relate to the tapping by Mr. Rowland of the Al-Fayed telephones, to allegations made by Donald Trelford against Mr. Mark Thatcher, which are untrue and which have been firmly denied, and to other allegations about the Tornado contract and the activities of Lonrho in the Bahamas.
Under our new procedures, these motions only surface on the Order Paper on Thursdays. Those of us who campaign on various matters rely on our motion; being published, particularly if our campaigns involve a great deal of extra work. Last Thursday, I added signatures to 21 motions and briefed people to the effect that all the motions that I had tabled would be available for scrutiny. Thursday's Order Paper did not carry all the motions, however, and I am told that there is confusion in the system. Five of the motions did not end up on the Order Paper as a result.
Something must be done about this new rule, which undermines the position of campaigners. It has been done to save money, but there are other ways of saving money which have not been pursued. Will you, Mr. Speaker, personally review this matter and give a ruling on why my motions did not appear on the Order Paper, when I was assured that they would?
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look into that. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that motions appear in full on Thursdays. The matter has been confirmed by the Services Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a change made, he should make his representations to that Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any notice of a possible statement by the Prime Minister, who is proposing to use taxpayers' money to subsidise Ministers whom she sacks? Are you aware that it could involve yourself, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I am not a Minister.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but let me finish. Will the new order extend as wide as the sacking of Mr. Speaker? I do not know, and I do not know whether you have been informed of that.
There is also the question whether Ministers will in future wish to resign. What will be the point of Ministers sending resignation letters if they can be sacked and pick up 7,000 quid? What will happen before a general election when it looks as though the whole of the Cabinet will be cleaned out through a Labour victory? It is conceivable that some of them might use taxpayers' money to get out before the ship sinks. We should know all the facts.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to pursue that matter in a different way—[Interruption.] Order. As far as I am concerned, I think that I can only be sacked by the House.

Opposition Day
  15TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Community Care
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government given you notice of any intention to announce today what they intend to do to mark the United Nations designated International Day against Drug Abuse and Trafficking? If not, and as there is a full string of the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Secretary of State for Health presently on the Front Bench, perhaps they could incorporate that information in the reply to the debate.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) drew attention to matters contained in early-day motions, and that might be an admirable subject.
    3.41 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the continuing failure of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that community services are expanded at a rate which matches the closure of mental health hospitals or the growth in the population of the very elderly; expresses concern that the sole focus on the acute sector of the White Paper Working for Patients will further divert resources from chronic care; regrets that, in the year since Ministers received the Griffiths Report on Community Care, they have failed to respond to a single recommendation; accepts its central conclusion that social service authorities should be the lead agency for community care; and rejects proposals that would confine local authorities to being purchasers rather than providers of services for the elderly and handicapped in their communities.
    The whole House will know that, more than one year ago, Sir Roy Griffiths presented a blueprint to rationalise and develop care in the community. The Government's enthusiasm both for that problem and for Sir Roy's solution can be gauged by the fact that they chose to publish his report on the day after Budget day in 1988, which made sure that it never disturbed the conscience of a single sub-editor.
    Last week we passed another milestone in the history of the Griffiths report, because as of then, Ministers have spent longer ruminating over their response to Griffiths than it took Sir Roy to research, write and print the entire report. There is a stark contrast to that delay. In the same period that Ministers sat on Sir Roy's recommendations, the Secretary of State found the time to write a White Paper that turns upside down the entire acute sector of the National Health Service. It was published at the end of January, consultation on it finished four months later, and we are threatened with a Bill on that White Paper in five months' time.
    The contrast between the breakneck pace of the Government's White Paper and the tardy progress in response to the Griffiths report is that no one wants the Secretary of State to force through his eccentric plans for our hospitals—even his Back Benchers are now praying that it will fade away and stop terrifying them in their

    705
    constituencies—while everyone involved in delivering community care has pleaded with the Secretary of State to respond positively to the Griffiths report.
    I understand that the House will not hear the Secretary of State's response today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He has been kind enough to write to me to apologise because he will not be taking part in the debate. I understand that the Government will be represented in both the opening and closing of the debate by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, whose name unfortunately does not even appear on the Government's amendment. Of course, I welcome the Under-Secretary to our debate. He is a gentleman of both courtesy and candour. I shall not try to get him into trouble with his superiors by arguing whether in those qualities he compares favourably or not with them. It is not a criticism of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when I say that the House might have expected the Secretary of State to participate in this debate.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am surprised that he has raised this point. He shadows no fewer than two Departments of State and invariably participates in every debate on any subject arising from either Department. If he were a football player, he would be described as a greedy player. I believe that there are members of his team who are more than competent, but he often seems unwilling to give them an airing. My hon. friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is extremely competent to answer the hon. Gentleman's attacks on this or any other subject, particularly when the hon. Gentleman has chosen to raise a subject which he knows perfectly well will be addressed in a few weeks' time when there is to be a statement on the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Cook: As I understand the Secretary of State's intervention, he is explaining why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary should be Secretary of State rather than himself. He chose to refer to my experience of Supply day debates. I have been to the House of Commons Library and checked on the 54 Supply day debates which have been held since the last general election. Of those 54 motions tabled by the Labour party, on only seven out of the 54 occasions, were the debates not replied to by a Cabinet member. Of those seven, there was only one occasion on which the speech from the Government Bench was made by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary rather than a Minister of State; that was when, unfortunately, the Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was taken ill in Brussels and replaced by a Parliamentary Secretary. Although the House may not have fully appreciated his speech, we well understood why the Parliamentary Secretary made it.
    The clear conclusion is that the only time when a healthy team of Ministers has left a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to reply to the debate is when the topic under discussion was care in the community. Those outside the House who are concerned about community care and try to make it work, will note that this demonstrates where community care comes in terms of this Government's priorities. Unfortunately, outsiders reading this debate will feel particularly aggrieved as they struggle to maintain services for community care which are in constant danger of being washed away by an ever-rising tide of need.
    706
    Since the publication of the Griffiths report, another 40,000 elderly people have been added to the total number of those aged over 85. I recently received a parliamentary answer which showed how the provisions to support those people living at home have failed to keep pace with the increase in numbers. The number of those attending day hospitals per thousand of elderly over 75 has fallen from 552 in 1983 to 498 in 1987. That is a 10 per cent. drop, although such provision can be vital in enabling the elderly to be supported when living at home.
    At least central Government can choose how many resources they put into the problem. Local authorities, when providing their services, find that they are ground between the lower millstone of ever-rising demand and the upper millstone of ever-decreasing resources. Sir Roy Griffiths states:
    "many social services departments and voluntary groups grappling with the problems at local level certainly felt that the Israelites faced with the requirement to make bricks without straw had a comparatively routine task."
    Those people left to take the strain are those officially designated informal carers, by which is normally meant the nearest available female relative. In reality, they provide the great bulk of care in the community. It is an outrage that we leave them to get on with it with minimal support. Nursing is a skilled job. Those in the profession receive three years' training and are then expected to work eight-hour shifts at a stretch. Time and again we ask informal carers to provide 24-hour constant nursing without training, respite or help, and often without sleep. It is hardly surprising that study after study shows that people left in constant attendance without a break are in poorer physical and mental health than the rest of the population.
    One development since the Griffiths report clearly shows the Government's indifference to these carers. In April last year, people caring for a disabled relative were the only group on long-term supplementary benefit who received no premium on transfer to income support. As a result, 150,000 carers found that they were £5 a week worse off in entitlement. We owe this group an immense debt; to reward that debt by cutting still further an income that is already pathetic beggars belief.
    What makes the Government's meanness towards relatives who care for the elderly at home all the more unjust is the Government's willingness to tolerate dramatic rises in payments of social security to the proprietors of private homes. In 1980, the Government made social security payable to cover residential fees of private and voluntary homes, and presumably intended thereby to stimulate the private sector in residential care. That, certainly, was the dramatic effect.
    Unfortunately, as happens so often when the Government are faced with the financial consequences of their own policies, they then rebelled at the bill. In 1985, they stopped paying the fees and imposed a national limit on each category. I have received figures in parliamentary answers which show that the limits on these categories have been lowered in real terms since their introduction in 1985. For elderly people in nursing homes, the money has fallen from £199 to £190 a week; for the mentally ill, it has fallen from £211 to £195; for the mentally handicapped, it has fallen from £234 to £205. The cost of such homes, however, is not falling in real terms: it is rising. In between, a real gap is emerging between what they charge and what the social security system will pay, with the result that a

    707
    growing number of elderly and handicapped people cannot meet their bills and face the real risk of being put out on the street.
    We condemn the Government's irresponsible policy of allowing this sector to grow unplanned and uncontrolled. Some, at least, of the payments that go to elderly people in residential care could have been used to sustain them in the community if local authorities had been given half the resources that the Government are willing to pay the proprietors of private homes. Having created this problem, Ministers cannot justify the cynical response of capping expenditure and leaving vulnerable and elderly patients to face the consequences of being unable to pay their bills.
    From the elderly, I turn to services for those decanted from mental health hospitals, where we find the same picture of rising demand overwhelming inadequate provision. The Government have certainly pursued a vigorous programme of hospital closures, nowhere more markedly than in the case of mental health hospitals. The closure programme has been so rapid that Ministers seem to have difficulty keeping abreast of it. Last year I tabled a parliamentary Question inviting Ministers to list the mental health hospitals for which there were no closure plans. A subsequent survey of the list published in Hansard discovered that it included four mental health hospitals which had already closed at the time of the answer and two others which closed during the time that it took to carry out the survey. When I wrote to Ministers drawing their attention to this inaccuracy, I received a letter which had the breath to advise me:
    "the majority of the information in the reply was correct."
    Apparently it is sufficient for Ministers these days to aim at only a pass mark in a parliamentary answer.
    Since then, I have received figures which confirm how badly the expansion of community care has failed to match the contraction of institutional care. Between 1979 and 1986, 28,500 long-stay patients were discharged from mental health hospitals into the community. In that same period, only 2,230 extra places were provided in day centres for the mentally ill. In other words, fewer than one in 10 of those discharged to the community had the opportunity of a place which could provide them with support and the opportunity of comfort. One can, of course, find excellent cases of an integrated range of community care facilities right across the country, from Dorset to Lambeth. It is all the more lamentable that, given those illustrations of what is possible, the majority of cases fall so far short.
    A number of studies now confirm that, for most of those leaving care in an institution, care in the community is a myth. For starters, if the statutory authorities are going to deliver care in the community, they must know where to find the former patients who will receive that care. One study of 50 patients discharged from Claybury mental hospitals could trace only 26. Of those 26 who were traced, only six had a place at any day centure. A study of 150 patients discharged from mental hospitals in Essex could trace only 100. Two thirds of those traced had received no help since leaving hospital.
    That is not just a problem for the authorities: it is a source of distress for the relatives. A son—perhaps even a wife—may have a serious mental health condition, but his
    708
    parents may not know where he is—whether he is in accommodation, whether he is being fed or whether he is going through an acute episode or is in a stable condition.
    The reality is that, although we may not know where any one patient might be, we have an accurate idea of where they turn up. Hon. Members can find some of them under railway arches within strolling distance of the House. One medical study of the homeless who attended the Crisis at Christmas venue last year discovered that more than half of them had a history of psychotic disorder, and one third displayed psychotic symptoms that very night; yet two thirds of them had no contact with any medical centre.
    They also turn up in our remand centres, because it is more convenient for our society to label their behaviour as criminal than to respond to their medical or social needs. At the time of the Rampton disorders, I tabled a parliamentary Question to the Government, from the answer to which I discovered that one in six of those who were inmates at the Rampton remand centre at the time were formerly in-patients at psychiatric hospitals. As Dr. Kilgour, the director of medical services of Her Majesty's prisons, has said:
    "My colleagues and I find ourselves having to handle people who are inappropriately committed to custodial sentence due, to put it bluntly, to the failure of the community to provide suitable facilities for them."
    I read in The Daily Telegraph last week that this problem has now surfaced in the consciousness of the Prime Minister. Confronted with the closure of Friern Barnet hospital in her constituency, the Prime Minister has ordered plans for further hospital closures to be frozen. I am glad that someone in the Government has recognised the problem, but that emphatically cannot be a permanent solution. Many of our present stock of mental health hospitals were built by the Victorians. Some of them were built as the local poorhouses—places of punishment and detention rather than of medical treatment. The solution is not to perpetuate those conditions indefinitely, but to make a reality of community care by providing the services that are needed to support the patients who leave the hospitals—to provide them with small-scale residential communities, with day hospitals and drop-in centres, and with sheltered employment opportunities, because many of those leaving hospital want to work.
    This morning, West Lothian Poverty Action Forum in my constituency published an excellent report that allows claimants to speak in their own voices. I was much struck by the observation of one disabled claimant about the trap in which he found himself. He had no experience; therefore he could get no job. He could get no job; therefore, he could obtain no experience. Only community provision can help him to break out of that trap.
    That brings me back to the Government's failure to respond to Sir Roy's recommendations to improve care in the community. There are plenty of reasons why we should treat the report with caution. Indeed, if I suspected that that was why the Government were taking so long to respond to the report, I would treat the delay with more understanding and tolerance. Sir Roy's report contains no commitment to extra resources to make community care work. There is nothing about enabling users to participate in the planning of services or to contribute to the management of those services when they are up and running. For all the rhetoric about consumerism in the

    709
    report, Sir Roy has produced a design intended to improve lines of managerial accountability, not to make the services accountable to the users.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for the length of time in responding to the Griffiths report. As I understand it, the Labour party policy review did not agree with Griffiths, in so far as Griffiths calls for local authorities to be more the organisers and purchasers of services instead of the providers. Why is the Labour party so keen on the local authority being the provider? Is that because of the continued obeisance of the Labour party to the trade unions?
    Mr. Cook: It is true that one reason why the Labour party remains committed to public provision is that public provision overwhelmingly provides better working conditions for those who provide the service. We do not believe that a caring and compassionate service can be provided for those in need if it is based on the exploitation of the workers in the service.
    It is certainly not the case that we have failed to respond to Griffiths. We have produced major documents in response to the Griffiths report. We have differences with Griffiths. We believe that in many respects he was in error partly because of the remit that he was given by Treasury Ministers and that that explains why he was unable to recommend extra resources. We believe that it is inexcusable that the Government will not tell us whether they agree with Griffiths and, if they fail to agree with him, what they will put in place of Griffiths.
    The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has put his finger on the major reason why Ministers have been delaying a response to Griffiths. That has not happened because Griffiths failed to recommend extra resources—that must commend the report, rather than be a handicap in the Government's eyes. Ministers have behaved like paralysed rabbits for the past year as a result of the sheer horror that they must feel at Griffiths's central recommendation. As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said, the central recommendation is that if we are serious about care in the community, more responsibility and control of resources will have to be given to local authorities which provide the services in the community. That message is as welcome to No. 10 as telling the Prime Minister that Labour has a 14-point lead in the opinion polls.
    The Prime Minister has presided over a sustained strategy of undermining local government, which has abolished the local authorities which she liked least, which has cribbed and confined with restrictions the right to express political opinions of those local authorities which remain, and which is currently compelling the authorities to hand over many of their services to private contractors.
    After a decade of running down local government, the Prime Minister and her Ministers have received a report which advises them that, in this matter at least, they cannot do without local government. It tells them that, if they are serious about caring for the elderly and providing for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, they need local government. Rumours are surfacing in the press that a compromise has been worked out in the Cabinet and that local authorities will be designated as the lead agencies in community care, but that they are to be denied any
    710
    opportunity to demonstrate leadership because they will be stripped of all responsibility for direct provision of services.
    The Adam Smith Institute recently threw a party to celebrate its 100th proposal to be accepted by the Government. It has produced a document along the lines that I have just described. It justifies preventing local authorities from making direct provision on the following grounds:
    "Government's priority should be to encourage the growth of the private sector. No initiative by Government should undermine that independent sector or attempt to compete with it."
    There is a remarkable double standard there. Local authorities are to be obliged to put all their services out to competitive tendering, but the private sector is protected from competition by the local authority. Given the Adam Smith solution to the Hong Kong problem, we should all be grateful that it is not proposing that we should sweep up the mentally ill and put them down on the Mull of Kintyre.
    It cannot be emphasised too strongly that local authorities are the largest single providers of residential and domiciliary care; they understand the needs of people requiring community care; that they have acquired unrivalled experience and professional skills in running community care; and that it would be pure ideological vandalism to break up that service—and we shall fight any proposals to do so.
    In the meantime, scandalous examples of the failure of community care continue to accumulate. I mentioned that former patients can be found in hostels for the homeless and in remand centres. Tragically, they also turn up as the subjects of inquests, such as that currently being held into the death of Beverley Lewis. Deaf, blind and handicapped from rubella, and unable to demand help herself, she starved to death in the community in the year since Griffiths. Tragic though her case is, it does not compare with the much greater scandal of the delay and indifference with which Ministers treated Griffiths over that same year. We have already lost a whole year. It is because we believe that there is no more time to lose that we shall vote tonight for an urgent response from the Government.
    4.5 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
    "commends the Government's record on the development and funding of community services for all people in need of care; reaffirms its support for the policy of community care; believes that it will be complemented and strengthened by the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper, 'Working for Patients'; and looks forward to an announcement of the Government's conclusions on Sir Roy Griffiths' report, 'Community Care: Agenda for Action', in the near future."
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for making out an excellent case for my early preferment. However, I do not believe that his recommendation will be entirely productive.
    I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, who is chairing a conference of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, which is an important and long-standing engagement. My response will be as brief as possible, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. If I

    711
    catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I shall seek to answer some of the questions that will arise.
    What do we mean by care in the community? For the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, we mean providing care away from the large, isolated and inhumane Victorian institutions that for so long have been the hallmark of institutional care. That policy has existed for 20 years, shared with differential rates of fervour by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to move away from a regime that involves long-stay facilities, hostels, houses—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) will pay me the courtesy, as she usually does, of listening to my arguments—
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is not worth it.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's remark is a little premature. If he will listen to what I have to say, I shall do him the courtesy of listening to his contribution.
    We want to move away from a regime of institutional care in isolated, Victorian institutions to a system whereby we provide a range of facilities much closer to the community.
    We want to enable more elderly people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible before institutional care becomes necessary and unavoidable. I quote from the report of the Public Accounts Committee laid on 25 April 1988, which I am sure the hon. Member for Livingston read:
    "We draw attention to the fact that up to 23 per cent. of claimants"—
    that is claimants of income support—
    "entering residential homes could have stayed in their own homes for longer periods had appropriate community support services been made available."
    Although not all right hon. and hon. Members may agree with that figure, I am sure that they accept the broad thrust of the Committee's argument.
    The Government want to ensure that a greater proportion of the elderly can stay in their own homes for as long as possible, and we fully appreciate that that requires proper domiciliary support. If the elderly are allowed to remain in their own homes they retain their dignity and independence, and are closer to their friends and families. It is a more effective use of taxpayers' money to care for the elderly in their own homes, which is where they want to receive care, rather than in institutions.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lancaster health authority was the first in the country to provide round-the-clock nursing care for those who stay in their own homes? We have two large institutions, and we pioneered the kind of service to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to Lancaster. There are many examples of excellent community care facilities, although I regret to say that there are also many areas where they are not excellent. I shall deal with that a little later.
    Ms. Harriet Harman: I support what the Minister has said about the importance of people being able to stay independent in their own homes. Does he not
    712
    recognise, however, that one of the recruiting sergeants for residential care—both public and, increasingly, private—is the present difficulty of obtaining home helps and meals on wheels, compared with 10 years ago? Local authority social service and voluntary sector provision have not kept pace with the growing number of people who need such services.
    Mr. Freeman: One of the challenges in any review of community care provision is the need to look carefully at how taxpayers' money is spent. I agree that there is a strong case for using taxpayers' money for the care of the elderly in their own homes—and the hon. Lady listed a range of services—rather than in hospital, if they are cured, or in nursing or residential homes. There must be a case for providing proper support for those who wish to stay in their own homes.
    What was Sir Roy asked to do in his report? He was not asked, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, to consider the level of resources; he was asked to consider how we should decide which elderly and handicapped people should be cared for in the community, what help should be provided and who should make the necessary judgment. What did he suggest? As we all know, he suggested that the social services authorities should have prime responsibility for assessing and arranging, although they should not necessarily have monopoly in the provision of services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said in an intervention, Sir Roy recommended a range of provision.
    The Government will be making a statement about our response to the Griffiths report before the summer recess, but there will also be a debate in Government time at a suitable point thereafter. A substantial amount of time has been devoted to considering the implications of the report, and I remind the House that different Departments are involved: the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security, the Treasury and, of course, the Department of Health. It is very complicated to work through all the implications, and it would be much better to get the analysis right than to rush it.
    The hon. Member for Livingston said that this was the third debate on community care in seven months. It will probably be the last occasion for the Government to listen to comments and advice from the House before we announce our conclusions.
    Mr. John Battle: The Minister has given the impression that existing facilities and services were being supported. Is not the Treasury at this very moment discussing with the Department of the Environment reductions in local authority provision, which means that next year authorities will not be able to spend as much on home and meals at home for the elderly? While we are discussing the matter, the service is being reduced. Is that not the reality?
    Mr. Freeman: No, it is not the reality. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal shortly with social services provision and the resources devoted to local authorities.
    I am puzzled by the Opposition motion. It
    "expresses concern that the sole focus on the acute sector of the White Paper Working for Patients will further divert resources from chronic care".
    The hon. Member for Livingston has obviously given some careful thought to the wording of the motion.

    713
    Provision for care in the community was deliberately omitted from the White Paper. We wanted sufficient time in which to prepare a proper response. That will come shortly. There are two reasons why the hon. Member for Livingston needs further time in which to reflect on the phrasing of an appropriate motion. He knows that the White Paper "Working for Patients" does not have as its sole focus acute care. Many of the proposals concern primary care.
    The responsibility for providing a comprehensive range of health services for all people, including those in the community—the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill—will rest firmly under our proposals with the district health authority. It will be the purchaser of care. Who that care is provided for will depend on a variety of circumstances. The district health authority will be responsible for the balance and range of services that are required and for the care of everyone, including those in the community. By definition, a community health service must be provided locally. The district health authority will have the primary responsibility for ensuring that it is provided.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The Government say that they have not yet responded to Griffiths because they are considering the whole range of responses and want to consider them all carefully. Why, therefore, have the Government not held a debate so that hon. Members could give their responses to Griffiths, which could also be considered by the Government?
    Mr. Freeman: We are having a debate on Griffiths today.
    Ms. Armstrong: But in our time.
    Mr. Freeman: I have already said that when the Government respond to the Griffiths report there will, at a suitable time, be a debate in Government time.
    Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members how many debates we have had on the subject in the last two years?
    Mr. Freeman: I have already said that this is the third debate within six months.
    The hon. Member for Livingston implied that the Treasury was cutting the resources that are made available to local authorities. He should know that personal social services are provided through the local authority. Expenditure in real terms on personal social services increased by 25 per cent. between 1980 and 1989. The provision for personal social services in 1989–90 has increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms. National Health Service provision for community heath services, such as district nurses, health visitors, chiropody, occupational therapy and community psychiatric nurses increased by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1986–87. There has been real growth in the amount of resources devoted to community health services. Income support for the elderly in residential and nursing homes has increased substantially, to approximately £1 billion of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: Unlike many of my colleagues, I think that the Government have responded to the Griffiths report. They have done so by setting up a structure in "Working for Patients" that makes community care very difficult indeed.
    714
    The assumption is that most health care is of the "wheel them in horizontal and wheel them out vertical" kind, rather than of a continuing nature, which is what is required by many patients. Is the Minister able to say how many times mental health is mentioned in "Working for Patients"?
    Mr. Freeman: I hope that I have made it plan that "Working for Patients" was directed at reforms in primary care and the hospital service and that we shall he responding shortly as to community care for the mentally ill, handicapped and elderly. The district health authorities will be responsible for ensuring that there is a complete range of provision for all those patients.
    Turning to mental illness, the hon. Member for Livingston was perfectly fair on the House, and I agree with him, about the rundown in the number of beds in mental hospitals. Between 1977 and 1987, patient numbers have reduced from some 84,000 to some 60,000—a reduction of about 24,000. Over the same 10 years, local authorities and the Health Service have provided about 11,000 places. Day hospital places have increased by 5,000 to 18,000, residential places have increased by 4,000 to 9,000 and places at day centres have increased by 2.000 to 6,000. Between 1981 and 1986, the number of community psychiatric nurses doubled.
    Hon. Members who contribute to the debate will share the hon. Gentleman's concern and mine that in the past there has not been adequate provision for those discharged from large psychiatric hospitals. There is no question about that. However, I must make two points. First, any discharge from a mental institution, in the past, or today, is a clinical decision and is not taken by administrators or politicians. Secondly, some of those patients go home where they are properly cared for. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a fair point. I agree with him that the provision of facilities in the community is not uniformly adequate and in the past some authorities have discharged patients from mental hospitals without ensuring that there was proper and adequate care. That is one issue that we shall address in our response to Griffiths.
    I shall make one final point about hospital closures. At a recent Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked me a question, and perhaps my answer was not as clear as it should have been. Let me make it quite plain that we have pursued the policy, and shall continue to pursue it with great vigour, of ensuring that a hospital closes only as a consequence of adequate facilities being available in the community and not for financial reasons. I give the House that very clear assurance.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: In my constituency there is a large psychiatric hospital from which large numbers of people have been discharged. As any hon. Member in that position will know, one receives a constant stream of complaints from neighbours, relatives, staff who work in the hospital or patients themselves that people are being discharged into the community for financial reasons. The most extreme case that has come to my notice involved three people who were discharged into the community, and two of them committed suicide.
    Mr. Freeman: I want to make it quite plain that discharge from psychiatric hospitals is a matter of clinical judgment. It is not for administrators, politicians or

    715
    ministerial judgment. Hospitals will not close for financial reasons. In future, hospitals will close only when we are satisfied that there are adequate facilities in the community. That has been Government policy. I am not announcing or stating new policy, I am simply emphasising existing policy.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable pressure is being brought by managers on consultants to discharge patients because they want to empty the hospital to realise its capital value for development? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that my hon. Friend is deeply committed to the problems of the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and elderly—are aware that great pressure is being brought on consultants which inevitably could affect their clinical decisions.
    Mr. Freeman: I do not deny that that pressure exists. Intelligent ways to ensure the release now of the capital value of sites that are under-utilised are already being pursued in the Health Service. Before a hospital is closed, residential facilities must already be in place. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the practice in the Oxford and East Anglian regions, which have excellent bridging finance schemes, and the practice in Yorkshire—
    Ms. Harman: Not enough is done.
    Mr. Freeman: The bridging schemes work well in the Oxford and East Anglian regions; perhaps other regions should learn lessons from them. In Yorkshire, where only part of the mental hospital site which I have in mind is used, there has been an imaginative sale and lease-back of facilities, so that all the present patients are properly cared for in existing facilities but substantial capital is released now to construct new facilities. Other measures which the Government have under consideration must await the response to the Griffiths report.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: We know of the importance of the timetable as we discussed these matters. I should like to ask the Minister, as we do not have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary of State for Health, about the press reports last week that the famous committee E, which is apparently considering this matter, received evidence. As the Secretary of State is here, perhaps he will take the opportunity to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that no one would object. Is it true that the Adam Smith Institute has submitted a paper to that committee and that it will submit a revised paper in two weeks' time?
    Mr. Freeman: The newspaper reports are inaccurate.
    Ms. Harman: In what respect?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked me whether there was a moratorium on the closure of hospitals. I have told him that those newspaper reports are inaccurate. I have described the Government's policy on mental hospitals. When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to contribute in greater detail, I shall be happy to respond.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to mentally ill people who are languishing in prison and on remand. Does the hon. Gentleman have plans to monitor how many people who previously had serious psychiatric disorders are in prison? What does he intend to do to ensure that this tragic business stops once and for all?
    Mr. Freeman: The Home Office has commissioned a study of all patients in remand centres and long-stay prisons to ascertain how many are suffering from a form of mental illness. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the estimates of prisoners who have some form of mental illness range from 3 per cent. to 30 per cent. Undoubtedly, a number of prisoners in the prison service should not be in prisons but should be either in special hospitals or in mental institutions with some form of security. We are working closely with the Home Office to ascertain the numbers and to work out how initially those people can avoid the criminal system and how those who go through it can be moved, with proper security, to mental institutions.
    We have already laid it down that by 1991 all district health authorities should have comprehensive care programmes for the mentally ill. We shall issue guidelines shortly to those health authorities to show how they should put those care programmes in place and what form they should take. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is drawing up guidelines on standards to assess patients before discharge and to ensure that there is proper follow-up thereafter. I assure the House that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Cabinet colleagues are reaching a conclusion on the Griffiths report, they will cover the important aspect of mental illness.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that comprehensive care programmes and plans are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not backed up by comprehensive funding? Does he realise that the constituents who write to me are caught between the Scylla of seeing their relatives in mental hospitals with declining levels of care and others under increasing pressure as funding becomes tighter and the Charybdis of having their relatives in the community, with cuts in the number of home helps, meals-on-wheels services and in the general level of funding and provision in the community? We want to see some action on finance, not merely vague programmes.
    Mr. Freeman: I shall deal with the elderly shortly. I commend the arrangements that Oxford region has put in place to transfer capital and revenue funding from large hospitals that are slowly being run down into proper provision, facilities and staffing in the community for mentally handicapped people. We should like such a model to be applied throughout the Health Service.
    Between 1976 and 1986 there was a fall of 15,000 in the number of mentally handicapped patients being cared for in larger institutions. All those patients have returned to the community. Some have returned to their homes, but about 8,000 are using day and residential care facilities. Our closure policy for mental-handicap institutions is the same as that for mental-illness institutions.
    Residental or village communities may be part of the new range of facilities that will be built in the future. As long as those village or residential communities for

    717
    mentally handicapped people are not isolated or inward looking, they will have an important role to play. Hon. Members have a duty to explain to our local communities the importance of caring for mentally handicapped people in the community. Too often, we learn of community groups' opposition and of planning permission for the purchase and construction of small homes in the community for mentally handicapped people being contested.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister said that 15,000 fewer people are being catered for in hospitals for the mentally handicapped. The way in which he gave the figure was unintentionally deceptive. Those figures have fallen because, first, local authorities have prevented people from entering hospital, despite their lack of resources, and, secondly, because people are dying in those hospitals. Only a minority are being discharged into the community.
    Mr. Freeman: By and large, local authorities have done an extremely good job caring for mentally handicapped people in the community.
    Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend said that the community has a responsibility to look after people who are less fortunate, especially mentally handicapped people. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that recently a survey was held in Stockport of patients who had been discharged from Offerton House hospital. Every one of them said that they would prefer to be in the community rather than to return from whence they came. The local authority and the local community take their responsibility seriously. I am president of Stockport Mencap, and I accept that it has a responsibility to people who are less fortunate.
    Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to Stockport, which is renowned for its care of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.
    Between 1980 and 1986, the Government spent about£11 million on 40 schemes to move 340 children out of long-stay institutional care into the community. That represents a cost of £30,000 per place. I do not begrudge —neither, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Livingston—a penny of that money. They are immensely expensive but immensely valuable schemes. The Government do not want any mentally handicapped children to be looked after in the larger, isolated long-stay institutions. The number of children currently in such institutions is less than 400 and we want that figure to be reduced to nil.
    We are well aware of the demographic pressures and their effect on care of the elderly. The over-65 population has gone up by some 6·7 per cent. between 1980–87. The number of the very elderly will substantially increase. With regard to the National Health Service, it is important that we do not keep the elderly who are medically cured in hospital beds for longer than necessary. They consume a lot of medical and nursing care and, once medically cured, many of them prefer to be back in their homes or in the community under some form of rehabilitation care.
    The elderly have benefited enormously from the NHS. Some 40,000 hip replacements are now performed each year compared with some 5,000 undertaken 20 years ago. Such operations bring great relief to a number of elderly people.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South asked me about assistance in the home. There has been a significant
    718
    expansion in such assistance between 1980–87 and in real terms home help expenditure has gone up by 28 per cent., meals-on-wheels expenditure by—
    Ms. Harman: What about resourcing?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will permit, I will come to resourcing in a moment.
    Expenditure on meals-on-wheels has gone up by 11 per cent., on nursing care by 14 per cent. and day centre expenditure is up by 16 per cent. In our review of Griffiths, we are tackling the issue of how to spend taxpayers' money wisely and efficiently. As I have already said, we spend £1 billion through income support on care for the elderly in residential and nursing homes. Clearly, it is right for the majority of those elderly people to be in such homes, but we are considering how care can also be given in the home to ensure that elderly people remain in their homes for as long as possible.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Perhaps I could tempt the Minister into giving us some idea of the Government's thinking on this issue. Is he suggesting that the Government have shifted the emphasis away from ploughing money into providing care in residential and nursing homes back towards care in the community? Will the Government's response to Griffiths be the provision of resources for people in their own homes—the Minister has already said that 25 per cent. of such cases could be cared for in their own homes if they were provided with resources. Is the Minister saying that the inevitable additional resources will be given to a public body, either the local authority or the district health authority, or will they be given to the local authorities to buy in care from private or voluntary concerns?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me into foreshadowing our response to Griffiths. I have noted what he has said and, if he can be patient, I am sure that he will be able to contribute to the debate on Griffiths that will come in Government time.
    It is important to consider the role of the family and the private and voluntary sectors in giving support to those living in the community. We have no philosophical objections, unlike, I suspect, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to the private sector providing care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Over the past few years, some local authorities have pioneered the private sector care of such people under the quality control of the NHS and themselves. So long as there is a proper contract and proper quality control, we want to see such care expanded.
    Care in residential and nursing homes is provided largely by the private sector, although local authorities and the NHS play an important role. Lady Wagner made some important recommendations about residential care in her report. We have started a three-year programme to improve quality. We are looking at projects that encourage better contacts with the local community, better information about what is offered, training for care staff and a complaints procedure. We are taking Lady Wagner's other recommendations as part and parcel of our overall review of care in the community. I shall make a statement about some of her other recommendations shortly.
    In 1988, we increased the fees for registration and inspection to help local authorities to inspect. We have laid down a minimum inspection rate of two a year. As I have

    719
    said, we need to consider the other matters that fall to central Government, although many of the recommendations in the Wagner report were for local authorities and there is no reason for them to delay in implementing the recommendations that were addressed to them.
    This Government believe that the voluntary sector has a vital role to play. The Department of Health contributes£36 million a year to voluntary organisations, much of it to those involved in care. Districts and regions provide £25 million a year locally. I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary sector whch is so vital, especially for the carers. As the House will know, we launched the "Helping the Community to Care" initiative with about £10 million of funding and a separate initiative, "Care in the Community", which has evaluated about 28 pilot projects, including one in Bolton for the care of those coming out of institutions for the mentally handicapped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will know. We have funded the voluntary sector, which has a vital role to play.
    I want to deal with the role of family and friends. It is important that we do not seek, as Members of Parliament or members of society, to shuffle off wholly to the state responsibility for caring for those in the community. Families, siblings and friends have an important role to play. They must be involved and we all have a responsibility. It is true that we are a more fragmented society. Children live much further from their parents than they did 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is most important that family and friends retain and build on their responsibility to care for relatives when they come out of institutions.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: The Minister talked about fragmentation. The Government have it in their hands to resolve that and that is the essence of this debate. The Minister talked about the voluntary sector and the service it provides. Yet there is a crisis of resources in the voluntary sector at present. The Government are not facing up to that. How can the Minister tell us that he is responding positively to the needs of the voluntary sector when the Government are reducing the amount of income for the voluntary sector to meet the needs of the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, the homeless and those in despair? We know that the Government are not doing that and that is why we are having this debate today.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the voluntary sector. The total income of voluntary organisations has risen substantially and the level of support provided by this Government has also increased.
    Care in the community is a vitally important subject. It touches the lives of most of us through our relatives and friends. It is the mark of a civilised society that we provide high quality care in community. The Government take that seriously and we shall bring proposals forward shortly. I commend the amendment to the motion.
    4.42 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, which addresses the most important social challenge facing us for the next 50 years. I do not envy the task of the Under-Secretary of State who has been put up this afternoon to defend the
    720
    indefensible. Although one can agree with what he said generally about the need for humane treatment for mentally ill people and for support for elderly people who want to remain in their homes, it was all rhetoric. His lofty sentiments were not backed up by one jot of a concrete proposal for action to address the needs of people who are suffering now and who have been suffering during the long period during which the Government have scandalously not responded to the Griffiths report.
    I remind the House that the report is subtitled "Agenda for Action". For the Government, it has been nothing more than an agenda for prevarication. We are at last promised a statement and a debate on the matter before the recess. I ask the Minister whether that statement will set out in full and practical terms how care in the community is to be delivered in line with the Griffiths report, or whether it will be a holding statement which merely promises a White Paper later in the year after more months of delay and prevarication. I shall gladly give way to the Minister if he wants to answer the question. Shall we have a definitive statement before the recess, or will the White Paper come later? Evidently the Minister does not want to take this opportunity to answer that question. I strongly advise him to do so by the end of the debate, because millions of people cannot afford to wait any longer for the answer.
    When the Government make their statement, I hope that they will take full account of the extensive consideration of the matter by voluntary associations, professional bodies, the trade unions, local authorities and the Select Committee on Social Services. Policy on this matter is far too important and too long-lasting in its implications and inevitably involves too many parties in delivery to be tackled successfully on a blinkered or partisan basis. The framework for community care must command sufficient general support to be administered and developed by Governments and local authorities of different political persuasions. The vulnerable people whose needs the policy must address deserve better than the political shuttlecock treatment. The overriding objective must be to place their needs and preferences at the centre of the system; to that end, the key problems that must be addressed are clear.
    First, the range of community care options and services is such that there is an enormous premium on effective co-ordination, which does not exist at present and which can clearly be delivered only by local authorities working under a comprehensive and coherent policy, organised centrally through Government, with people of sufficient standing in the Cabinet sufficiently committed to making of a success of it for us to know that resources will be available to enable the local authorities and other carers to do the job.
    Secondly, this is an area of policy where services must be demand led. We must not have a system in which people's needs are perpetually bashed against cash ceilings which bear no relation to the real level of need and the cost of delivering services. Thirdly, we are considering people who, inevitably, are dependent to some degree or other. It is all the more important that they have a degree of choice open to them and a meaningful voice in the way in which services are delivered. Fourthly, that applies very much to the carers in families, as it does to those for whom they care.
    In the limited time available, I want to concentrate on the implications for local authorities and resourcing and

    721
    the implications of that for choice. The present financing of community care is chaotic to the point of imminent breakdown. Oxfordshire illustrates that well. I was interested that the Under-Secretary of state should praise the Oxford region bridging scheme. If the situation in Oxfordshire is good, I dread to think what it is like in the rest of the country. If things are so marvellous in Oxfordshire and if there is bridging finance, why was Oxfordshire faced with the imminent closure of a hospital for the mentally handicapped, which had been known about for a year in advance?
    Why was I in the district health authority manager's office, one week before the closure was due to take place, with tearful and angry parents, who still did not know where their mentally handicapped son was going to go? If it had not been for my intervention, what would have happened to that young man? That story of personal tragedy is repeated thousands of times throughout the country as a result of the inadequacy of the way in which the system works at present.
    The position on costs and the finance available for meeting them is no better in relation to residential care. A survey undertaken by Oxfordshire Welfare Rights of local residential care homes and nursing homes showed, on a 69 per cent. response rate, that more than 200 elderly residents in Oxfordshire had to contend with a gap between the cost of home care charges and what they received in income support, with an average shortfall being made up either by the elderly person, who was often exhausting his or her savings, or by relatives. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member to have received heart-breaking letters from people who can no longer meet the difference and make up the shortfall in the cost of their relatives' care. Some of those letters come from people who are themselves elderly and who are trying to find the money out of their pension or inadequate income.
    In the other half of cases in the survey, people could not make up the shortfall at all, and were being subsidised either by the homes or by the other residents. How did homes respond to that state of affairs? The survey quoted the remarks of representatives of two private residential and nursing homes. One said:
    "We are not now accepting any DHSS funded residents unless the top-up is made. Existing residents we are still caring for, but as you can see at great cost. The private sector cannot continue to sustain these losses."
    The second home said:
    "Moved two back to hospital"—
    that is not to say that the residents needed on medical grounds to go back to hospital; they were merely moved back to hospital—
    "rest are in the nursing home by our generosity but it is jeopardising the business."
    I am sure that hon. Members—especially those who represent southern constituencies—will be no strangers to this alarming state of affairs.
    Ms. Armstrong: It is the same everywhere.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend tells me that the problem is equally bad in other parts of the country. We cannot allow it to continue.
    The Minister rightly said that those who stay in their own homes need support if they are to remain as independent as possible. Clearly, they need a much better co-ordinated policy on domiciliary support services. At present, the rhetoric has it that independent elderly people are receiving support in their own homes, but in reality
    722
    many of those people have been dumped and neglected. They are isolated and alone and do not receive the support they need. If they are to receive that support, and if local authorities are to be able to undertake the key co-ordinating role that Griffiths prescribed for them, we shall need nothing short of a revolution in the organisation of local authority finances.
    In Oxfordshire, the cost of upgrading old people's homes to the standard that the authority requires the private sector to maintain and of providing effective community care services for elderly people alone would require an additional £7 million revenue over the next five years, while the capital costs would run up to £17 million gross. Those are not extravagant sums in relation to the needs to be met, but we have to remember that, in common with other authorities, Oxfordshire faces severe restrictions on its revenue budgets and the massacre of its capital programme as a result of reductions in capital receipts and the changes in the rules for capital financing under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
    While the Department of Health says that it is actively promoting care in the community and is attempting to push people out of long-stay institutions and hospitals—a fact to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred—we have an unco-ordinated, exploding but inadequate Department of Social Security budget and the cuts and restrictions imposed by the Department of the Environment make it quite impossible for local authorities to pick up the pieces.
    That illustrates two great dangers of the Griffiths recommendations, especially in the hands of this Government. First, it would be disastrous if local authorities were given the prime responsibility for community care while at the same time being denied the powers or resources to meet those responsibilities. Secondly, if the Government specify that local authorities should not, in the main, be the deliverers of care but merely the planning and contracting agents for the voluntary and private sectors, those in need of care will be denied an important degree of choice, and those planning the provision will be denied the most direct means of ensuring that needs can be met at the quality standard that the community rightly expects. Everyone knows what a disaster the contracting out of hospital cleaning, for example, has been, and we do not want the same to happen to domiciliary services.
    As many of us have said throughout, care in the community is not a cheap option. If it is to work at all satisfactorily, it requires a large injection of resources, as well as the very best and most efficient management of those resources. That cannot be achieved through any private insurance scheme proposed by the Adam Smith Institute, any more than such schemes can act as a substitute for the National Health Service.
    We are talking about a common public obligation which must be met by all contributing to the cost in proportion to their means and receiving care in proportion to their needs. I believe that that is what the public wants.
    As we bring such a system into operation, let us remember that we have a terrific commitment to caring for other people—in the local authorities, health authorities, social service departments, home help service, council housing departments, housing associations and voluntary associations and among private providers, as well as within families. People go into such jobs because they want to help other people and spread a bit of human happiness.

    723
    Let us—and let the Government—harness that energy and commitment to caring so that people's eyes can be lifted from the demoralisation of knowing that they cannot give of their best because they do not have the wherewithal to do so. Let us set our sights on a civilised society in which carers have the resources and support necessary to do their job and in which all those in need of community care can help themselves to some of the dignity that should be everybody's right.
    Planned provision, adequately funded and properly co-ordinated, with a variety of client choice in delivery, is the key to success in that endeavour. I hope that those aims will command the support of the whole House and that the Government will take notice. If they do not, millions in need of care will pay a terrible price in the years to come.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to this very important debate. First, let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I think that it is a great pity that the Government did not make a statement on the Griffiths report before they issued the White Paper "Working for Patients" because the two go so closely together. It is difficult to make a proper assessment and analysis of the many radical proposals in the White Paper without knowing precisely where the Government stand in relation to the Griffiths report.
    We are dealing with three main categories of people —the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly and infirm who require some form of special care or accommodation. I intend to direct my remarks mainly to the care of the mentally ill. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of my deep concern for and interest in that matter. It is appropriate to look after most of those who suffer from mental handicap through care in the community—that is desirable, humane and compassionate. There is one caveat, however, and it is that when people with mental handicap also suffer from mental illness, some of them should be looked after in long-stay hospitals because of the complexity of their condition.
    In respect of the elderly, the infirm, and those requiring special accommodation or care in the community, and not in an institution or a hospital, it would be wrong to put all our eggs into the one basket of private provision. I served on a county council which had responsibility for social services and the provision of part III accommodation. Since I entered Parliament 18 years ago, I have taken a great interest in that subject and have regularly visited all the part III homes in my constituency and virtually all the private and independent homes—some of which I opened with great pleasure. It would be wrong and very damaging to put all our eggs into one basket and hand over the care of the elderly to the private sector. Indeed, from the representations from people operating wonderful caring homes in the independent sector, I do not think that even the private sector wants that.
    My main concern is for the mentally ill. I generally support the policy of care in the community. However, unlike a number of people in my hon. Friend's Department, and unlike organisations such as MIND, my long interest and service in this area make me believe that there is a permanent need for long-stay hospital places for
    724
    many mentally ill people, especially those suffering from schizophrenia. It is a tragedy that for purely commercial reasons some magnificent hospitals are being closed and their sites redeveloped. Part of the treatment of the mentally ill is the environment in which they live—the refuge and the asylum aspects of hospital care. Again, speaking from some knowledge, I know that although some of the hospitals for the mentally ill may be the Victorian institutions that some have described, built when buildings were intended to last virtually for ever, many can be altered, upgraded, rehabilitated and turned into the most attractive accommodation for the modern care of the mentally ill. Those hospitals are often sited in wonderful parkland, woodland and gardens.
    I was a member of the Select Committee on Social Services which carried out an in-depth and very lengthy inquiry into care in the community for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Many of those who treat them believe that their environment—that refuge, asylum, quiet and tranquility—is part of the treatment and care that they require. I view with deep concern the rapid closure of those hospitals, with the patients being discharged into the community and often inadequately catered for in accommodation or in the number of skilled and qualified personnel available to look after them.
    As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, it is tragic that hundreds of mentally ill people frequently end up in prisons. Some hon. Members may ask how I know that. It is because as a member of the Select Committee, having completed and reported on our inquiry into care in the community for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, we carried out an inquiry into the prison medical service. We visited at least 20 prisons in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, where we came across many dozens of prisoners who should never have been there; more appropriately, they should have been receiving treatment and care in a mental hospital. When discharged into the community they had committed minor offences, although some were, perhaps, a little more serious. They had not done so intentionally, but because of their mental condition. When they appeared before the courts either the hospitals were not prepared to take them back or there was no hospital place available, so they were put into prisons. That is a tragedy not only because they are not receiving the care and treatment that they need either to contain their condition or, as one would hope, to make them better, but because their condition is being exacerbated and they are receiving no meaningful treatment.
    I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister said that his Department was carrying out some form of survey. He was kind enough to allow me to bring a delegation from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship to see him a few weeks ago. I wonder whether he has now had time to consider whether his Department can financially assist Professor Kathleen Jones of York university, who is an expert in that area and is embarking on an inquiry into the whereabouts of a specific number of people who have been discharged from mental illness hospitals.
    One of the tragedies of what has happened since we put the policy of care in the community into practice is that those who have been discharged have not been followed up and monitored. I hate to quote yet again the hon. Member for Livingston, but I accept what he said about many of

    725
    those sad people now sleeping in cardboard boxes, on streets not many yards from this Palace of Westminster or under the arches at Waterloo.
    Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend and I shared the Select Committee investigation into care in the community. Does he agree that although we saw some appalling examples of deinstitutionalisation from here to the west coast of America, we also saw some extremely good examples of people who had been discharged into the community being supported in very good circumstances?
    I agree with my hon. Friend that there are a number of patients for whom the asylum offers by far the best remedy. Does he agree that we should be seeking a continuum of care from informal accommodation within the community right through to something similar to the existing mental hospitals?
    Mr. Winterton: I am happy to agree strongly with my hon. Friend's remarks. When my hon. Friend the Minister responded to the hon. Member for Livingston, he said that he felt that at least two health authorities provided excellent facilities within the community and that those examples should be followed elsewhere. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that in America we saw the extremes of absolutely superb facilities in some areas and absolutely grotesque, horrible facilities, of the sort we just would not want to think about, in other areas. We need to strike a balance and achieve a continuum of care.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will confirm when he winds up that, in the immediate future, the Government will recommend to health authorities not to close or dispose of any additional psychiatric, mental illness hospitals. It is vital that we review the position to see exactly where we stand before we dispose of any more valuable sites.
    I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to sit down without mentioning Parkside hospital in my own constituency. Sad to say, some of the Mersey and Macclesfield regional and district health authorities' senior management appears more interested in realising capital assets than in caring and treating people with mental illness and mental handicap. Parkside hospital, Macclesfield which is renowned for its care of the mentally ill, is not isolated in the middle of some bleak moor. It is in the community, in the heart of Macclesfield and situated in magnificent parkland and gardens which, as I have said, constitute part of the therapy of caring and treating the mentally ill.
    The Mersey regional health authority and the Macclesfield district health authority are seeking to dispose of more than 80 per cent. of the site for housing and other development. That would be a rich capital harvest for the health authority, but what of the environment for those still requiring treatment and care for their mental illness? Will any of the gardens, parkland, ayslum or refuge, which are such a valuable part of the treatment and care of the mentally ill, remain? No. All that will go under bricks, concrete, pipes and road. That should not happen.
    On behalf of the community I am fighting what is almost a last ditch battle to try to persuade the health authority to rethink. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, I invited him to visit Parkside hospital and the
    726
    nearby young persons' unit and am pleased to say that, in principle, he has accepted. I urge him to come before too long if he does not want to see a hospital that has been closed and facilities that are no longer available.
    It is vital that the Government realise what is being done in their name up and down the country. I know from the work which I do on the Select Committee on Social Services that Parkside hospital is not an isolated case, and the Under-Secretary should come to Macclesfield as soon as possible. The future welfare of those suffering from mental illness and mental handicap, as well as the elderly requiring specialist accommodation, is at stake and these groups should be able to look to a Government of any political view for the care, humanity and compassion which I believe all hon. Members would wish to give them.
    As many of my hon. Friends are aware, I feel deeply about this matter. The lengthy inquiry that we had into care in the community just a few years ago opened my eyes. I went into it with an open mind and I came out realising that we have to do a lot for the elderly and particularly for the mentally ill and handicapped and that we would not serve their future welfare and well-being if, for the wrong reasons, we disposed of valuable hospital sites. Why not bring the community into those hospitals, where necessary? Why not build care and cluster group dwellings for the mentally ill on those sites?
    One aspect which I am afraid my hon. Friend and, dare I say it, Sir Roy Griffiths do not fully appreciate is that the facilities that exist for the mentally ill and handicapped within their respective hospitals are such that it would be difficult to replicate them within the community. Such facilities include sheltered workshops, hydrotherapy pools and all the specialist facilities that are so important to the well-being and meaningful life of these people.
    Is it not stupid and crazy that dozens of people from Parkside hospital in Macclesfield have been discharged into the community and are now being collected every day in buses and minivans to be brought back to the hospital? Facilities should have been built within the wonderful grounds and areas surrounding the hospital which are so treasured by the people of Macclesfield. The hospital is a valuable community facility which, by the way, in essence cost the Health Service next to nothing because it was vested in the Health Service when it was formed so superbly in 1948.
    I believe that I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health say in an earlier intervention that the Government's pronouncement on the Griffiths report would come within two weeks. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell me whether I am right when he winds up the debate. The Government's statement on that report is urgently awaited and it is so important that the Government should get it right.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: On numerous occasions in this House during the past two years I have experienced a phenomenon known as deja vu when we have debated serious issues, such as that we debate today. There may be many reasons for that. One is that the Government never listen to the pleas of the public or the Opposition, no matter how forceful their case may be.
    When I first entered the House in May 1987, I did not expect to participate in so many debates on care, of which I believe this is the seventh. I am not sure whether the hon.

    727
    Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) feels the same, but the House has heard a great deal from him on the subject in recent months. I note that he did not speak in the care in the community debate which I introduced on 19 April and which covered many of the points raised so far today. That aside, I cannot deny that I welcome this opportunity to discuss the subject and to highlight the plight, suffering and degradation of many of our citizens.
    When I opened the previous debate on this matter, I pointed out the critical position in which many thousands of mental health patients found themselves as a consequence of pressures on health authorities and hospitals. Those pressures resulted in many mental health facilities closing and patients being discharged from units without being found alternative arrangements and with no provision for their care being made in the community.
    In that debate, I also highlighted the difficulties faced by numerous elderly people who were unable to care for themselves and were not receiving the services they needed because health authorities and social services departments did not have the resources—this was true of those in my own constituency. The authorities were not receiving the resources or the financial or manpower help to cope with their needs.
    I also referred to the effect that demographic changes and the great increase in the number of elderly people would have on services in the future, and of the increasing number of elderly people who would be totally dependent and in need of 24-hour care. I also mentioned the direct and disturbing effect which the proposals in the National Health Service White Paper—I refrain from using its title because I believe that it works against patients, particularly those in need of chronic care, rather than for them—would have on community services.
    I am sorry to say that everything I said then still applies today and, because of the nature of the subject, the numbers in need of care and support services will have multiplied, and the distress and anxiety felt by those individuals and their carers will already have taken its toll. It is an absolute disgrace that so many vulnerable people should be left without the support services that they so desperately need—some of them, such as the mental health patients who are discharged into the community, without even a roof over their heads.
    Even worse, it is obvious that the Government are aware of the difficulties and the disorganisation which confront all who are involved. It is also obvious that the reason for the Government's lack of action is purely ideological. Words fail me when I contemplate the possibility that the major stumbling block is not Conservative ideology but the stubbornness and idiosyncrasy of one person—the Prime Minister.
    I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House say last Thursday that he hoped that the Government would bring forward proposals about the Griffiths report before the summer recess. The Minister confirmed that today, although I did not hear the "two weeks" mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I was a little worried to hear him say, however, that the question whether to hold a further debate on the matter would best be considered then. I should have hoped that, once the Government had announced their proposals, we should have the opportunity to debate them in full.
    728
    We must ensure that all the consequences of the Government's proposals are clearly worked out and that no area of community need is ignored. Reports that the Cabinet Committee will now recommend that local authorities play the major role in managing community services are welcome up to a point. Not so welcome is the report that a hard-fought battle is being waged about the amount of control that the Government are to have, with the likely result that councils will be forced to contract out services to the private sector.
    I would have some trouble accepting these proposals in their totality. The Social and Liberal Democrats' green paper, "Prescription for Health", states that we would
    "implement the Griffiths proposal for making local authorities the lead agency for co-ordination of delivery and development of services, but with certain additional safeguards and modifications."
    Hon. Members will find our green paper comprehensive and interesting. Should they want to read it without purchasing a copy, I should certainly let them have one. I shall not quote it in full, but no doubt hon. Members will read its contents soon.
    One of the safeguards that we want would be an increase in the statutory obligations of local authorities to ensure that certain client groups who are not covered by present legislation—the elderly, for instance—are not given lower priority. We should like the introduction of a general-management style organisation, with clear functional responsibility, delegated authority and budgets. Above all, we recognise the need to tackle present inadequacies of funding and to provide the additional resources that Griffiths implies. This is necessary if care in the community is to work well.
    Although we see many of the attractions of a puralist approach to the provision of care, under which local authorities are the enablers, we would have difficulty supporting enforced contracting out. The local authority should decide that. If voluntary organisations were given security of funding they would make a valuable contribution to community care, and in some cases the private sector would have a part to play, too. I know the Minister mentioned £36 million being put into the voluntary sector, but to my knowledge no authority has the security of knowing that funding will be forthcoming year after year, or that it will increase.
    It cannot be stressed too much that there will never be an adequate alternative to public provision in all types of services. Public provision must remain an option for the individual and must always be available as a last resort. Local authorities must be given the means and the power to provide systems of services based on individual clients and their carers' needs—ideally, systems selected by those in need of the services.
    One of the most serious consequences of the Government's drive to reduce public spending regardless of the human cost is the appalling state in which social services departments find themselves. There are serious shortages of all groups of staff across the country, and alarming shortages in some areas. Needless to say, they tend to be in the most deprived areas and in places in which housing is virtually impossible to find or its cost is out of most people's reach. At a time when reported child abuse cases are at their highest ever level—as we heard in the Standing Committee considering the Children Bill—and when the number of mentally ill and elderly people in need of care is on the increase, it is imperative that social

    729
    services departments be given the means to rectify the problem. Many of them are collapsing under the pressure, and it is now up to central Government to do something about that.
    I hope that before any new enterprise resulting from the Griffiths recommendations is embarked upon, the problems being faced by social workers and other social services groups will be well and truly ironed out. Unless they are, the smooth implementation and success of any scheme is doubtful.
    Many organisations involved in health and community care services are worried about the lack of reference in the recent proposals to the responsibility of health authorities in relation to community care services; perhaps general practice services should be included in this context. Doubtless the Minister will mention them. Some medical and health services are inextricably linked to community care services—for example, geriatric psychiatry, various out-patient services, discharge procedures and many community health services. I hope that the Government have something in mind which will ensure that the services required by community care clients are available and within easy reach.
    I am convinced that the present proposals are nowhere near adequate to cover these needs. In the last debate on this topic, I pointed to the valuable service with which the millions of informal carers provided the country. At that time, I did not say that it is estimated that 100,000 children carry some of the burden of this care. Although it is right that young people should be taught responsibility and care for others, they should not bear the brunt of our failure to provide the resources that are necessary. Youngsters facing difficulties must not be overburdened and must be as free as possible to pursue a course that will lead to self-fulfilment and independence.
    The current approach to informal carers in general is in danger of creating an ever increasing circle of dependency. It would be far more sensible and cost-effective in the long term to take more care of our carers by providing them with the financial and support services which they undoubtedly need and by ensuring that we do not hasten the day when the informal carers themselves become dependent on the care of others.
    The long-term aim of any policy for care in the community should be to enable people to lead their lives as independently as possible and to ensure that the quality of their lives is as good as it can reasonably be expected to be. Community care and health care are not appropriate services to be subjected to market forces. Too many customers will be left defenceless. Two-tier systems will develop. A person in need of such care should not have to fight to receive it. For the common good, it is part of the Government's duty on behalf of us all, who may well need these services one day, to enable the individual to live life as fully and independently as possible by ensuring the provision of comprehensive and good quality care services for all.
    5.29 pm
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has confessed to a feeling of deja vu in this debate. It is true that two points always emerge from debates on community care. First, the policy has been around for a long time. Indeed, it has been pursued by Governments of different hues for at least a
    730
    quarter of a century. Secondly, although, and even to judge by this debate, it is clear that there is no absolute consensus on what is meant by successful community care, some useful principles over that period have—as is to be expected and hoped—emerged to govern what can and cannot work in care in the community.
    A most useful contribution to the debate was the Audit Commission's report "Making a Reality of Community Care" which was published in 1986. That identified the following principles: strong and committed local champions of change; a focus on action, not bureaucratic machinery; locally integrated services cutting across agency boundaries; a focus on the local neighbourhood; a multidisciplinary team approach; and a partnership between statutory and voluntary organisations.
    I would add another principle to those of the Audit Commission, which is that residential and institutional care should remain part of the spectrum of care in the community to cope with crises, and with respite care when it is needed. That is not just for the mentally ill, but for the elderly who can suffer crises of illness or of chronic difficulties and need to be admitted to hospital for a time but can then be returned safely to the community, and for people with a mental handicap who, from time to time, can cope well in the community but who, perhaps for a short period, need to be returned to institutional care—sometimes to help those who are caring for them. A wide range of principles are established on which community care can operate. I believe that there has been a recognition in the Department of Health, which has been underlined by my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon, that there is a need to retain some inpatient care within the full range of community care.
    While all those of us who are concerned with health and social service issues are eagerly awaiting the Government's response to the Griffiths report, those who know the practical difficulties involved in community care provision sincerely hope that the response, when it comes, will draw heavily on experience in the field. I hope, too—here I am not in agreement with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who has left the Chamber—that ample time will be allowed for discussion and consultation, especially bearing in mind the criticisms that have come from a not dissimilar quarter about the so-called lack of time for discussion and consultation on the National Health Service White Paper. We need time to draw together experience from those working in the field. It is most important that consultation is taken seriously and built most thoroughly into the White Paper.
    I make those points specifically because, if there is one comment to make about community care it could be that there is a multiplicity of ways of making it successful. Some of those ways have emerged from the Government's own pilot projects which were begun in 1984–85 and which were generously funded with a large sum of money from joint financing allocations. Twenty-eight projects were selected and every health region and every client group was represented. The university of Kent was commissioned to assess the projects, and I believe that a final report on its assessment is awaited. Perhaps my hon. Friend can refer to that in his final comments.
    Other ways of providing community care will certainly emerge from the private sector and will be supported from this side of the House. Experiments with sheltered housing and care provided on a continuum in the private sector, not to mention some valuable work and experiments done

    731
    by the Federation of Private Residential Home Owners, provide interesting examples of partnerships between the statutory and voluntary sectors, which should be developed and followed up.
    In that connection, it is worth mentioning that for many people who will be in their 80s after the turn of the century money may not necessarily be the main problem. The main problem for those people, who may have access to the income from the disposal of their homes, will be personal security and the knowledge that they will be cared for to the end of their lives. Those will be the most important considerations in the minds of such people and the private sector should be, and I believe will be, ready to face that challenge. Indeed, it is the least that we can expect of it, given that £1 billion of taxpayers' money is currently going directly from social security funds to finance people in private residential homes. While the vast majority of those homes are well run, the response to Griffiths must suggest ways in which the use of that £1 billion is effectively monitored and targeted.
    Although there is a clear need for a strong Government policy framework in community care, there is an equally strong case for that policy to be interpreted locally and in accordance with local needs. That was, indeed, the thrust of the recommendations emerging from the Audit Commission. That may seem an obvious point, but it needs making because on the ground there is a such a wide diversity of provision and problems across the country. For example, Surrey has the problem of a number of clusters of large psychiatric hospitals and hospitals for the mentally handicapped. The solutions for Surrey will not be the same as, for example, those for west Norfolk, where the health authority is in the fortunate position of building up from scratch the provision of community care for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. There are similar clusters of large hospitals and institutions in the north-west of England, which no doubt give particular point to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: On the question of large community homes, is my hon. Friend aware that in the north-west of England in my constituency, there is one specific home called Cranage Hall hospital, which is an excellent example of what could happen? That hospital could turn into a village-type community, with a revolving door principle, so that people who are already in the community can go back into the hospital home for specific respite care and to use the facilities. It is set in beautiful grounds. It has not only been supported by the local community for some considerable time, but the community has contributed to many of its facilities. The Congleton Lions, for example, have recently contributed a rumpus room. Is my hon. Friend also aware that parents and relatives of mentally handicapped people in residential care are often concerned that homes may be closed and that their children may be moved elsewhere, rather like a pound of carrots, without being fully consulted?
    Mrs. Shephard: I was not aware of the particular examples that my hon. Friend drew to the attention of the House, but, knowing her excellent record and her
    732
    knowledge of her area, I am sure that the House will wish to give the fullest possible credence to her praise of the work of those particular institutions.
    It is worth remembering, when one is talking about institutional care, that the people who are least enthusiastic about it, are those who are consigned to it. That must be borne in mind, too, when one is considering a balanced spectrum of care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
    Other variations in what already exists on the gound can be centred on the number of private residential homes and the amount of private residential accommodation which is available, and that varies enormously across the country. In the south-coast resorts and in parts of Norfolk, there is an enormous concentration of such provision. In parts of northern England, Wales and Scotland, clients and patients do not have the same range of choice.
    Sir Roy Griffiths's report laid emphasis on the important role of social services departments as providers, organisers and enablers for community care. He saw them as facilitators. However, that is not a very revolutionary concept, because in the best-run authorities that is a role that they already fulfil. They, together with health authorities, organise joint financing for community care, they grant aid to the voluntary sector, either directly or through joint finance, they co-operate with the private sector and, for example, in Norfolk they are actively involved in training provision with the private sector. They must inspect and monitor standards in the private sector.
    I am assured that there is now no resistance to the concept of direct and specific funding to local authorities from central Government. I hope that, when the Government's response to the Griffiths report is announced, it will take account of the current role of social services departments and note that their attitudes and activities have changed greatly and become extremely realistic over the past five years.
    I want to consider briefly community care for the mentally ill—a matter which I have raised several times in this House. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in an earlier debate:
    "hospital closures should be occurring only as a consequence of the development of better alternative forms of provision. The closure of hospitals per se is in no sense a primary aim of Government policy."—[Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 406.]
    I know that my hon. Friend has been visiting as many health regions as possible to see what is happening at the grass roots. I am sure that as a result of that, he will sympathise with the frustration felt by many people working with the mentally ill that huge sums of money are currently locked up in keeping open large, old-fashioned hospitals when, if that money could only be released before the closures, it could be used to provide a range of suitable alternatives, including in-patient care, as part of the spectrum. My hon. Friend referred to that in his opening remarks. He referred to the East Anglian health region where bridging finance has been used to good account.
    Despite that, a mechanical problem remains which concerns not principle or resources, but the budgeting procedures which make the co-ordination of the closure of large hospitals—which, in so many places, are totally unsuitable to the needs of the modern day patient—and their replacement almost impossible to achieve. I raised that matter with my hon. Friend in an earlier debate and

    733
    he assured me that the Government would be exploring actively ways to work with the private sector to release capital as bridging finance from old, unsatisfactory, crumbling, uncomfortable psychiatric hospitals which were destined for closure. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something in his reply about any progress which may have been made in that respect.
    The sheer complexity of the joint financing mechanism is most off-putting and a sure way of discouraging health authorities, local government, voluntary organisations and the private sector from working together. Whatever else comes from the Government's response to the Griffiths report, I hope that there will be a radical simplification of the current mechanism of joint financing. That mechanism is the greatest possible disincentive to the kind of working together between the authorities concerned that we all want to see.
    5.42 pm
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: If there is anyone left in this country who still does not understand the reasons for the opposition to the Government's proposals in their White Paper on the National Health Service to running the NHS on market principles, he need only consider the current state of free-market community care. That shows precisely what will happen if we allow our caring services to be run on the lines of market principles.
    Today's debate is not simply about the Government's political indifference and incompetence: it is about the appalling human consequences of leaving the care of dependent and vulnerable people to the marketplace. It is about the human tragedy of a care policy which has led to insecurity and fear for thousands of elderly and handicapped people who are victims of a system that is geared nowadays primarily to business interests instead of to properly thought out social care.
    The current shambles which is described as community care arises directly as a result of the Government allowing provision to be determined primarily by the free market. For the past 10 years or so, decisions on policy have been determined primarily by business motives and not by the needs of individuals. In effect, the Government have freed the market, but conveniently they have ignored the fact that many potential consumers of care have no real choice, in many instances have no purchasing power and often do not want or need the product of institutional care which is being forced on them.
    In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to £1 billion being poured through income support into private residential care. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the report from the Public Accounts Committee, which stated that nearly a quarter of the individuals in private institutional care who receive income support could have remained independent in their own homes in the community had proper community support been available. We are talking about £250 million a year of income support which is used for people in private institutional care who do not want or need to be in institutional care. That is very worrying.
    I have been interested in community care since I entered social work in the late 1960s. The Government's record on community care is one of turning the clock back generations, away from genuine community provision and back to institutional care as the main response to elderly
    734
    and mentally handicapped people who are in need. I reject that policy, because it belongs to the dark ages. It has no place in the latter part of the 20th century.
    The Minister talked about getting people out of isolated Victorian institutions. In many areas, the isolated Victorian institutions which have been used by the NHS over many generations, which I admit are totally unsuitable for care, are being closed. However, they are being re-opened privately to provide the same kind of care.
    I hope that the Minister will visit my constituency soon and see Snapethorpe hospital for which closure has been proposed. That is the most modern hospital in my constituency. I will show the Minister Sandal Grange, an isolated Victorian institution which was closed 10 years ago because it was deemed unsuitable for the care of elderly people. The people were moved to Snapethorpe hospital. Sandal Grange was sold off and re-opened for precisely the same function in the private sector. Vast numbers of mentally handicapped people are being moved from outdated Victorian public institutions into outdated private institutions. That policy is a non-starter.
    The Government have not only concentrated resourcing on the creation of institutional care; they have cut resources to fund preventive networks and support services. I challenge the Minister to tell us in his reply how he has increased the resources. We all know that there has been a huge growth in need in terms of the number of elderly people who are dependent on support, while the funding for that support has not been increased relative to the growth in need. The Government have created an incentive to enter institutional care by attacking local authorities' abilities to provide real community provision.
    I noticed a letter in the British Medical Journal on 9 January last year from Dr. Bennett, a geriatrician at the London hospital. He referred to problems he has encountered when families refuse to take back an elderly relative from hospital care because they cannot cope with caring for the elderly relative in the community. Dr. Bennett stated:
    "The patients are alone and frail, and they and their carers are desperate. All have experienced failings in the health and social services—a home help sick and no replacement available, day centre waiting lists of many months, faster and faster discharges from hospitals into community 'support' despite mental and physical frailty …
    Places in old people's homes are diminishing rapidly and waiting lists grow. Increasing pressure is put on all concerned to consider private care. For my patients this means leaving a community they have known for 80 or more years and moving 80 kilometres away for an affordable place, beyond reasonable visiting reach for most relatives."
    That is what is happening in hospitals. That problem probably confronts geriatricians throughout the country, with families saying, "We cannot go on caring for our elderly dependant because there is no support."
    There is a desperately urgent need to examine also the ease with which the present system allows the individual's independence to be removed. Under Government policy, families who have been struggling to care for their elderly, physically or mentally handicapped relatives are told, "Sorry, their condition is not bad enough to merit the provision of a telephone. Sorry, we can provide a home help only two hours a week. Sorry, we can provide meals on wheels only twice a week. Sorry, we can provide respite care, so that you can have a break, only one week of the year. Sorry, we have no day care facilities but we will put you on the waiting list for day care once a week."

    735
    When relatives finally give up the ghost and say, "We have had enough," what is on offer? There is a no-questions-asked offer of £140 a week if the relative concerned is packed off to private institutional care. That is not on. A similar level of financial support should be available to relatives who are struggling to care for their dependants in the community. There should be no incentive for them to wash their hands and say, "Let us put them into an institution, wash our hands of them, and make our lives much easier and happier."
    My experience is that Government policy makes it as difficult as possible for the elderly to remain independent in their communities, and as easy as possible to slip them away into private institutional care, which is in no way humane. There are people in institutional care who do not want or need it, and who would be happier receiving support in the community. It is an indictment of Government policy—this has been admitted by hon. Members in all parts of the House—that people are placed in private institutions because of a lack of appropriate Health Service or local authority provision.
    For many elderly people, entering private care may be just the start of their problems. Apart from losing their independence and having to move from the place where they have lived all their lives, there are the financial consequences, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred. In many cases their capital dries up and their home has to be sold. There is evidence from Age Concern, which I know has written to the Minister for Social Security, that homes have been sold when the carer is still living there, so that the person who gave so much care over the years suddenly finds himself homeless. That is a consequence of the person entering private care requiring the capital from the sale of their property to pay for their fees. Subsequently, the resident may have to move to a cheaper home, and could ultimately end up in a local authority part III accommodation.
    A number of people who have lived in my constituency all their lives, and who were compelled to enter private care because Health Service provision dried up, were moved 20 or 30 miles away. Six weeks later, under the provisions of current legislation, they were deemed residents of that new area, and were unable to secure local authority funding to return to part III accommodation in the locality in which they lived all their lives. It is scandalous to shunt people miles away from their natural homes when they are at their most vulnerable and need help and support of the kind that should be available in the final years of their lives.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East is familiar with the recent work of the Oxford welfare rights group on income support as it relates to private residential care in Oxford. It found recently that 69 per cent. of those living in private homes cannot meet their fees but depend on top-ups from relatives or outside agencies to meet them. In Oxford, there is an average shortfall of £37 per resident per week. I have no reason to believe that that situation is not to be found elsewhere.
    Evidence from registered homes tribunals reveals the way in which many elderly or handicapped people become pawns in the operation of free market care. There is proof —some of it published by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)—that private homes, many of
    736
    which operate on a very tight profit margin, cut standards to keep down their costs. Research by the north London polytechnic published in 1985 also revealed that private residential homes cut staffing levels to save money, to the detriment of their residents.
    I could speak at length about the problems of provision for the elderly, particularly in the private sector. However, I am not anti-private sector. Rather, I am concerned that the Government allow the fate of vulnerable people to be placed in the hands of individuals who are preoccupied only with profits, and when the elderly or handicapped person's income dries up, they are sent down the road. That is the point at which private care finishes, and that is my grievance against the profit-based system, which is an unsuitable basis for health and social care.
    The present system cries out for urgent changes, far beyond those that Griffiths has on offer. The Griffiths report makes a very conservative response when radical changes in community care are needed. We must address all needs, and public investment must be concentrated on preventing, not creating, the institutional dependence that the existing system so often creates. The Government's free market experiment in community care is an abysmal failure, at the cost of billions and billions of pounds. More importantly, it has failed at great personal cost to many elderly and handicapped people, who have endured great misery as a result of the Government's policies.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) claims that he is not anti-private sector, but most of his speech comprised a long diatribe against it. My experience is that it performs in a much better way than the public sector.
    I support Griffiths's recommendations, and particularly paragraphs 1.3.3 and 1.3.4, which go to the heart of the debate. They refer to
    "building first on the available contribution of informal carers and neighbourhood support."
    They add that local authorities should act as the
    "designers, organisers and purchasers of non-health care services, and not primarily as direct providers, making the maximum possible use of voluntary and private sector bodies to widen consumer choice, stimulate innovation and encourage efficiency."
    The hon. Member for Wakefield cast doubt on the role of the private sector, claiming that only the public sector can meet the needs of the community, whereas I believe that the whole essence of care in the community is building on and reinforcing private and voluntary efforts. Our response to the Griffiths report should reinforce and enhance private and voluntary work. Although, obviously, no payment is made for voluntary work, a recent report valued its contribution at £11 billion by comparison with the £6 billion at which the Audit Commission valued public sector provision. Therefore, two thirds of the effort is currently made by voluntary workers, and that sector should be reinforced.
    The Government are right to deliberate carefully over the Griffiths report. Obviously the National Health Service White Paper had to be published first because provision there is of a different order, amounting to a cost of about £24 billion. It was only right and proper that the NHS review should be conducted first, before the Government turned their attention to community care. We all look forward to the Government's response, which I know will pay full care and attention to the way in which informal

    737
    carers can work with voluntary bodies such as Crossroads, which perform a very effective role and provide greater value for money in the provision of care and services to people needing help at home than the public sector can now, or could ever do in the future.
    I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The Opposition are engaged in a flirtation with popularity in the opinion polls at present, and I imagined that that might lead to some new thinking and, perhaps, a more statesmanlike approach in today's Opposition debate. I heard no new thinking, however; the Opposition's only solution appears to be more expenditure, although the present Government have provided more money than Labour.
    Mr. Favell: Given the number of mentally ill, mentally and physically handicapped and elderly people who we all hope will live in the community, it is surely stupid to expect local authorities to provide everything. To denigrate the efforts of the voluntary bodies is sheer stupidity.
    Mr. Thurnham: It is significant that the Labour party's review disagreed with Griffiths on that very point, suggesting that local authorities should be the providers. That is the heart of the difference between us.
    The recipients of services—the patients and the carers —want a greater say. I thought that I was beginning to agree with the hon. Member for Livingston when he said that he wanted a policy that would enable users to play their part, but he did not go on to explain how he thought that that could be achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) said that the answer lay in a multiplicity of services, but the Opposition seem to think that there is a simple bureaucratic answer to the problem of providing such massive amounts of care for such vast numbers of people, most of whom want to be cared for at home rather than in institutions.
    I can speak from personal experience, having fostered and then adopted a handicapped child who had been in care for six years. That is an example of how the best care is—and, I believe, should be—provided in the family home. Every child should have the love of a family. One of the most surprising statistics that I have seen recently appears in the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the prevalence of disability in children, which states that 5,500 children in England, Wales and Scotland are in institutional care. My inquiries had suggested that there might be as many as 3,000, including those in Northern Ireland; the OPCS figure is nearly twice that, and shows how much more should be done to help families to continue to care for their own children and to foster and adopt children.
    An OPCS survey on disability in adults states that about 50 per cent. of the 210,000 people in category 10 —the most severely handicapped—are being cared for in private households. If the most disabled people can be cared for at home that is where our efforts should be directed, and I support the calls for more respite care and home helps.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most striking features of community care is the smallness of the amount required by the many people who want to continue to care? The reason why we are all so anxious to hear the Government's response to Griffiths is that Griffiths has made a real attempt to find a way of co-ordinating the finance available so that it is
    738
    possible for consumers to demand the small amounts that they want, rather than waiting for ages to receive the large amount imposed on them.
    Mr. Thurnham: I agree. It is not just a question of the smallness of the amount, however; it is also a question of the type of help required. One of the current difficulties with local authority provision is that people must take what is on offer, and if what they want and need does not coincide with that it is too bad. They may be told that their child is too handicapped for anyone to be able to help.
    Bolton council, which I believe has done more than most councils in this respect, has just produced a report called "Goal 2000". One of its conclusions is that there is
    "virtually no service provision specific to the needs of people with challenging behaviour."
    That shows how far local authorities' current provision falls short of what is needed. I want carers and committed individuals to play a part in the direction of public funds, so that those funds reinforce the massive contribution made by informal carers and voluntary groups. I shall be interested to learn what mechanisms the Government can devise to achieve that. The Department of Employment has set up new training and enterprise councils to take charge of a £3,000 million training budget. The private sector will have two thirds of those councils, and will play a leading role in the direction of public spending. I hope that we can look to such models in this context.
    I was amazed at the number of people who came up to me in Bolton during the general election and said that they could not cope any longer with their children—who, in some instances, were well into their twenties—and wanted help. After the election I called a meeting of those people, who then formed a handicap action group. I was astonished at their commitment. A report was produced stating their needs and explaining how far local authority provision fell short of what was required. Under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. John Seddon, they put forward proposals which have been largely accepted by the local authority and the health authority.
    Bolton has been the subject of a number or reports; it has been at the forefront of most of the thinking on care in the community. A report by the local district audit committee called for more co-operation between the local authority and the health authority, and we shall look closely at the Government's proposals in that regard.
    I agree with the Opposition calls for more expenditure. We do need more money, but it must be spent much more in accordance with the wishes of patients and carers, and it must reinforce the £11 billion of voluntary care that is currently being provided, without being seen as a substitute for private care. Private and voluntary care is an excellent medium, and it should be helped and enhanced in every possible way by Government policy.
    6.8 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I intend to concentrate on the care of the elderly. Over the past 10 years we have witnessed the wholesale privatisation of care, at great and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer and with tragic results for many elderly people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was right to draw attention to that.
    It is no good the Minister or anyone else hiding behind clinical decisions. As hospitals have emptied beds 'or the elderly and mentally ill, consultants have had no choice

    739
    but to go around the wards with lists of private accommodation. At the same time cuts have been made in social service budgets, and local authorities have not been able to make up the shortfall. Approximately £10 million was provided in 1980 for the care of the elderly in the private sector. It is now well over £10 million each year. It is no use the Government trying to justify their decision by using value for money arguments, because that is a massive waste of resources.
    I criticise the private sector, and I admit to having a vested interest in the matter. As a Member of Parliament, as a councillor for five years before that and as a spokeswoman for social services I came into close contact with the elderly in many private homes. Many of those homes are very pretty, with chintzy furnishings and Laura Ashley decor, but that is only to attract people to them. The fact is that they offer little dignified care to the elderly. Most elderly people have no contract with the home, so their position is very insecure. I heard recently of an elderly person in my constituency having to be moved out of a private home, purely for cash reasons. There is no complaints procedure. There is no one to put forward their case if elderly people feel that they are being treated unfairly.
    My other major complaint about private homes is that when old people apply for admission there is only a perfunctory evaluation of their financial assets. It has led to wholesale institutionalisation. The Public Accounts Committee reported that a quarter of those in care need not be in care. That is right. The Government were warned about that in the early 1980s when they deliberately moved towards the privatisation of care for the elderly.
    I had to smile during the Euro-elections. I canvassed in an area where the number of private homes has gone up significantly. It is a Conservative ward. Nearly all those private homes were exhibiting Tory party stickers. I think that they were saying "Thank you" to the Conservative party for the lucrative cash handouts that they had received for caring for the elderly. However, some do not care properly for the elderly. Many of them employ low-paid, untrained staff, many of whom were YTS trainees. No occupational therapy is provided in most of the homes. Even in homes where occupational therapy is provided, the amount is small. Some homes do not provide a planned programme of orientation, but it is provided in local authority homes where the staff are trained to ensure that elderly people remain very much in touch with what is going on. The staff in local authority homes take training courses. I have yet to come across a private home that sends its staff on training courses.
    Mr. Couchman: Is the hon. Lady saying that all is well with local authority old people's homes? As a councillor, I chaired the social services committee for five years and my experience was that local authority homes are among some of the most institutionalised establishments that can be found. They institutionalise old people in the same way as the large, long-stay hospitals institutionalise the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Does the hon. Lady not agree?
    Mrs. Mahon: No, I do not. That has not been my experience. We have moved away from rigid, institutionalised care in large hospitals. My experience is that local
    740
    authority homes can be monitored and that, if necessary, the management can be changed. That cannot be done in private homes. There is very little monitoring. Only two officers in my local authority are trying to monitor hundreds of places. That cannot be done properly.
    Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: No. I should like to finish this point.
    I have been told recently about a private home in my constituency where residents are put to bed at 6 o'clock. Some of them are drugged. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind. When I went to that home they told me that they dared not complain. There is a lack of control and accountability of private homes and it is impossible to monitor them.
    Mr. Favell: I agree with the hon. Lady that the worst thing to do with the elderly or the mentally handicapped or mentally ill is to institutionalise them, but is it not true that we are learning all the time? Local authorities are learning and the private sector is learning. It is important to give the elderly plenty to do. Does she agree that sheltered accommodation should be provided for as long as possible? People are then able to cook for themselves, make their own beds and look after themselves generally. That is very much better for the elderly than providing them with a bedroom and then sticking them in an awful rectangular room where they all gaze into the middle of the room. There is no more certain recipe for misery. Whether it is local authority or private sector care, we must ensure that we provide sheltered accommodation for the elderly.
    Mrs. Mahon: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had put that point to his Government about 10 years ago. Then the £10 billion which I believe has been wasted on the private sector could have been used to provide an intensive care package for the elderly, which would have meant that they did not have to go into care.
    Institutionalised care destroys independence and murders the mind. Care in the private sector is often provided only for the money that it brings in. There is a great need for much more humane care of the elderly.
    When the Minister referred to carers, families and friends playing a major role in the care of the elderly I thought that he had no idea of the size and seriousness of the problem. The Equal Opportunities Commission estimates that there are 1·25 million carers, most of them women, looking after the elderly and the disabled in the community, but the Carers Association believes that there are many more. There has been a huge growth in the number of elderly people. I have a vested interest, because my constituency contains a large number of elderly people and ranks third in the country. Therefore I have a great deal of experience of talking to carers.
    There are now more women caring for elderly dependants than there are women caring for children. It is estimated that between the ages of 35 and 65, over 50 per cent. of all women can expect at some time to provide care for the elderly or the infirm. It is often provided at great cost to themselves. People who give up work to care for the elderly are immediately put at a financial disadvantage. They receive a pittance in benefits. Their benefits have been cut during the last few years, particularly last year. Many of the carers are elderly, too. An elderly couple in my constituency is trying to look after a violent, mentally ill son. He is twice as big as they are and he weighs more

    741
    than they do. They find it very difficult to care for him. A growing problem is mental stress and granny bashing. We have not paid enough attention to that problem but it causes heartbreak on all sides.
    Recently I visited a constituent who told me that she never goes out, because no one will sit with an incontinent granny, and that she spends her life washing and cleaning. She went on to say, "I love my mother dearly, but I am waiting for her to die." She was at the end of her tether. Then she said, "I haven't had a holiday for five years." She told me that she had given up a very good job and that she had not had a full night's sleep for a very long time. Finally she told me, "I don't like asking people to the house because it smells like a toilet." That woman had received very little help from the local authority or anyone else. The £10 billion that has been provided for the private sector could have given her a great deal of respite. Good hospitals and other kinds of good care have been closed down, purely on economic grounds, during the last 10 years.
    The Government say that they want to provide choice, but that woman has not been given any choice. She has had to sacrifice her own life to look after her elderly mother. The majority of the 1·25 million carers have not been given any choice, either. It is hell on earth for some of the carers who are trying to cope.
    The Minister replied to my intervention about mentally ill people in prison by saying that the Home Office was carrying out a survey. That is too little and too late. Warnings have been flooding in to the Government about what is happening in the prison service and about what is happening to people sleeping under bridges and in cardboard boxes. The Government have been responsible for closing hospitals prematurely throughout the country without making sure that there is somewhere where those vulnerable people can go. The Government have taken 10 years to initiate a Home Office inquiry and they should be ashamed of themselves.
    I very much welcome the debate, but I shall welcome even more a debate in Government time. I hope that they will come to the House with some humane and decent proposals for caring for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Tony Favell: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, the physically disabled and the elderly leading as full a life as possible in the community. I am very glad that, throughout the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported that view. That is what the disabled want. They do not want to be institutionalised; they want to lead as full a life as possible in the community. From time to time that can be a disadvantage to them and possibly embarrassing to those of us who are not disadvantaged.
    Dorothy Birch, a lady in my constituency who is disabled and who does an enormous amount for disabled people in Stockport, visited West Germany recently. When she came back she said, "You do not see any disabled people in West Germany." I said, "Is that a good thing or a bad thing?", and she replied, "It is a bad thing. If no disabled people are seen, that means they are kept out of sight and out of mind." It is to the credit of our community that disabled people are not kept out of sight and out of mind.
    742
    However, from time to time we have to provide respite care for disabled people who require help. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to look very carefuly into the funding of sheltered accommodation instead of the more traditional caring accommodation. According to housing associations such as the Anchor housing association and the Collingwood housing association, it need be no more expensive to provide sheltered accommodation for elderly and handicapped people than to provide 24-hour care.
    It is so much better for disabled people to have a little privacy—perhaps their own bedsit where they can invite friends—to be able to cook their breakfast and make their own bed, although it may take a long time, than to be got up, have their beds made for them and their breakfast provided and then to sit in a rectangle gazing at each other for the rest of the day. Many hon. Members will have had the awful experience of visiting such places and seeing people who in many cases have absolutely nothing to look forward to but death. That is disgraceful. It should be investigated, and the sooner something is done the better.
    Many hon. Members have commented on the Griffiths report. I agree with paragraph 1.3.1 which states that local authorities should
    "assess the community care needs of their locality, set local priorities and service objectives, and develop local plans in consultation with health authorities…"
    Ultimately, the local authority will have to ensure that there is provision for disabled people within its boundaries. However, I disagree with paragraph 1.3.2 which states that local authorities should
    "identify and assess individuals' needs, taking full account of personal preferences (and those of informal carers), and design packages of care best suited to enabling the consumer."
    It is far better to divide the roles. It is fair enough that a local authority should ensure that there is overall provision for disabled people within their town, city or locality, but it is better for someone else to identify individual needs. I suggest that the best person to do that is the general practitioner, who has a full list of all his patients. The new contract, which contains many good things, as Conservative Members recognise, insists that every general practitioner sees each elderly person on his list at least once a year. General practitioners in my constituency do that more often. Many insist upon seeing elderly people at least once every six months. General practitioners are in touch with families and understand their needs over many years. They know whether a disability is transitory or permanent and they are the best people to assess what should be done, and of course the facilities exist already.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that schizophrenics are mentally ill people who have not been helped by community care? They are frequently so aggressive that they lose their doctors and they often do not agree to carry out the treatment that has been prescribed for them. Does he agree that, if they are to be cared for within the community, they need far greater supervision than they have had until now?
    Mr. Favell: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but most mental illness does arise from schizophrenia. As he will know, one in 10 people require some kind of mental treatment at some time in their lives. It has to be the general practitioner's responsibility as it would be impossible for the local authority to supervise one in 10 people living within its boundaries.

    743
    I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister looks very carefully into the possibility of general practitioners assessing individual needs while the town hall is responsible for ensuring that there is provision for people who require the help that general practitioners consider their patients need.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: I believe that one aspect of mental health policy has been a gigantic failure —the treatment of schizophrenics. I went to a meeting of my National Schizophrenia Fellowship branch, where one lady told me that her daughter had been released into the community. What did release into the community mean? It meant that that night, she was sleeping somewhere in one of the parks in London. Her mother did not know which park it was, only that she was sleeping rough and that she was not using the treatment that had been prescribed for her.
    This morning I received a letter about a particular patient:
    "He returned to his flat … on 5 June and since then he has been arrested by the local police a few times, they have called the crisis team who do nothing and next morning Hendon Magistrates court discharge him. The residents … live in fear of his verbal abuse, loud music played day and night through his open windows and at times violent behaviour—then the police are called and arrest him and so the pattern repeats itself—I could write for hours. He has no doctor in Barnet … Doctor … struck him off for bad behaviour and no one else will accept him. What can you do to help us?"
    Such individuals are not calling for care within the community. I suspect that we have to accept that, if certain schizophrenics are cared for within the community, they will refuse to accept the treatment prescribed for them. There is quite inadequate supervision of their lifestyles, and as a result they, their parents and the community suffer. I believe that we should do much more for them. Sometimes, the mentally ill are treated as the Cinderellas of the social services.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that it is part of a larger, extremely difficult problem—that of how far we should allow self-determination to people whom we are trying to treat in a much more mature and adult way? My hon. Friend is talking about one extreme, but the problem runs right through community care.
    Mr. Marshall: I accept that the problem of self-determination has existed for a long time. I suspect that we may have moved from one extreme to the other.
    I shall quote two examples of people who have come to my surgery for advice. One man came to me without an appointment saying that he had a terrible problem. He had received a telephone call from Marseilles. His son had walked out of the local mental hospital, emptied his account at the local building society and gone to Marseilles. The phone call was asking for money to enable him to come back home. That is an example of self-determination, someone walking out of treatment that he should have.
    It is all very well talking about the philosophical advantages of self-determination, but I am talking about the practical disadvantages to the patient, the community and parents. I shall always remember a group of people
    744
    who came to me in my constituency and said, "You must help us. Mr. X has been given a flat in our block and he plays music 16 hours a day. He starts at 8 pm and carries on through the night." That course of action is not benefiting him, his family or the community. I hope that the Government will do something about it.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) introduced this excellent debate, which reflects the importance of this crucial subject at a time when so many expect so much from the Government. Alas, they must have been disappointed by events this afternoon. In many ways, this has been a remarkable debate. The Secretary of State for Health appeared, albeit briefly, and made one short intervention. He accused my hon. Friend of being greedy in a team sense. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman occasionally looks at an egg and reflects on his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), he might regret not employing the tactics that he wrongly attributed to my hon. Friend.
    If ever there were a debate involving Hamlet without the grave digger, this is it. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State should have been present throughout and should have told us the Government's thinking on these crucial matters. It is true that we have had three debates on community care recently—one was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) in a Consolidated Fund Bill debate; one was introduced by the Social and Liberal Democrats through the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who spoke earlier; and today we have this debate introduced by the Labour party in Opposition time. It is not enough, fifteen months after the report by Sir Roy Griffiths, for the Government to say again that they will make a statement, giving every sign that it will be a holding statement. If this trailer means that, after a long delay, a White Paper will be published during the recess and there will be inadequate debate before the Government rush through legislation, the Government can expect the utmost vigilance from the Opposition.
    Now that the Minister has had time to consult the Secretary of State, I shall press him on one matter. In this crucial matter, the House has to depend for its information almost exclusively on rumour. What is happening with the famous E committee? Is a Cabinet committee considering the Griffiths report? If so, what have been the influences during its deliberations? We are told that the committee has been largely influenced by the Right-wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute. We are told that the Secretary of State has been handbagged by the Prime Minister who, once again, finds herself at odds with one of her senior Ministers. If, as the Minister said in reply to me, these are mere rumours, why does he not take the opportunity to tell us the precise facts? This is a mature Chamber. There are many hon. Members on both sides whose input to our debate has been particularly helpful, who are well informed, who have tried to encourage mature input into the debate and who expect better than we have had from the Government so far.
    We expect better because we were told that we should wait for the Government's White Paper on health, "Working for Patients". There was little in it about community care and what there was, as we have heard

    745
    from virtually every general practitioner in our constituencies, was extremely unhelpful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) rightly said, the problem remains. As hon. Members have insisted, within a few minutes' walk of the House of Commons there are people living in cardboard boxes. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said in a thoughtful speech and as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said in a telling speech, far too many people who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped are being sent to prison because the courts do not know where to put them.
    This morning in The Times, in an article dealing with the problems of prisons, we read almost as an afterthought the comment:
    "The board of Canterbury Prison, Kent, says: 'The problem will become worse as mental hospitals devolve their inmates into the community without adequate support services and because changes in the rules governing housing benefit seem likely to lead to a reduction in hostel places'.".
    All that is happening when, as my hon. Friends have said, public money is being spent, but as a contribution to the unplanned explosion of private residential homes. Sir Roy Griffiths has asked why that is happening, and we are entitled to know the Government's thinking. The Public Accounts Committee has said that the sum involved is about £250 million. With that money, we could do much in a planned way for the aspirations of community care that have been expressed in the debate.
    The Government still offer no strategy for community care—worse, while we have been waiting all this time for a response to the Griffiths report, we have seen fragmentation in various Departments, including the Department of Health. We have seen Departments acting independently and Departments imposing policies that appear to be in conflict with the strategies in which, we are told, the Government believe, including the poll tax. If ever there was a perverse incentive for community care, that is it.
    The Department of Health and Social Security has been split into two Departments, without an explanation of how that may influence our attitudes to community care. We have seen the impact of social security cuts. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to Crossroads. The Labour party accepts that there is a role for voluntary organisations and that the private sector often fulfils a useful function. Why should a Government and their supporters who are so committed to voluntarism appear to ignore the views of the voluntary organisations? If ever there was a crisis, it was on the funding of Crossroads, as we know from our constituency correspondence. Again, as part of fragmentation, Lord Young interfered in these matters. We know that employment training schemes have an impact on what is happening in the community.
    As for my constituency, I shall merely tell the story of a man who was involved with Crossroads. His wife suffers from Alzheimer's disease. He was given some help, which he very much appreciated, in visits two or three days a week which were ordered by Crossroads. Because of the argument about funding, which has not been wholly resolved, he was told that that help would be taken away. He came in tears to see me. We should remember that his wife will not be exempt from the poll tax. If people are
    746
    contributing to local authority services, it ill behoves those who impose their ideology to argue, as many do, that the role of local authorities should be reduced.
    There are strong suspicions that, as the Government think these matters out, there are influences on their thinking that are not necessarily helpful and are almost wholly based on ideology. I note that the Secretary of State for Social Security is sitting on the Front Bench. His presence late in the debate confirms my point.
    We are told that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), had considerable influence on Government thinking, about which we shall hear when they have concluded their long deliberations.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Lord help us.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) says, "Lord help us". The influence of the hon. Member for Stirling has caused many problems in Scotland. If he has as much influence on the United Kingdom, we are in trouble.
    I mentioned the fragmentation of and contradictions in Government policy. I remind the House of what occurred with Lennox Castle hospital. I am sorry that a Minister from the Scottish Office is not present; perhaps they have more important matters to deal with. The hon. Member for Stirling was aware of the many valid criticisms of conditions at Lennox Castle hospital. He was further aware of the television programme that told the world of some of the outrageous conditions there. What did he do? Did he involve himself in consultation? Did he say, "Yes, we are committed to community care, so let us consult"? Did he consult the Confederation of Health Service Employees or the consumers about whom we have heard so much? Did he consult those involved in joint planning, however inadequate it is in Scotland? No, he did not.
    The hon. Member for Stirling, who is the most monetarist of monetarists, threw money at the problem by announcing £9 million of expenditure over the next two years without saying whether it was part of a strategy for community care—a policy which would be welcomed by the people of Scotland and, given the main stream of the debate, elsewhere. That proves that, if there is the will, the Government can find the necessary resources, which is why my hon. Friends were right to emphasise the importance of resources.
    The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—I make no apology for returning to it—offers the Government an opportunity, if only they would grab it, of a framework for community care. It deals with citizens who have special needs and their right of access to information and it makes agencies, social services, housing and health departments accessible. We shall never solve the problem of people being discharged from hospitals, about which we have heard much today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), until we realise that there is a role for bridging, preparation and assessment. It is scandalous that many people are leaving the community to go into community care that does not exist.
    Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, referred to carers. We owe much to carers, who do so much work 24 hours a day. That commitment should not be exploited. The social security changes, which have worked to the considerable

    747
    disadvantage of carers of disabled people, should not be allowed to continue without review. The changes are false economy, because no one is helped, least of all the Treasury, if the relationship between the carer and the person they are caring for breaks down and both become institutionalised.
    The Audit Commission has said that it is gravely worried about the way in which the Government have organised the changes. It mentioned a lack of planning, strategy and auditing of expenditure of public money, with drastic consequences for the people involved. The Salvation Army estimates that up to three quarters of its hostels' inmates may be suffering from mental illness. Such problems must be taken on board by the Government. They cannot ignore the appalling problem, which was brought to the notice of the Standing Committee considering the Children Bill, of older children, who have no parents or other family, leaving care and facing the difficulties of community life. In many cases, they are being trapped into crime, drugs and prostitution because the Government are not prepared to accept the responsibility that parents would accept for their children. That is the responsibility of a caring Government.
    The Government's delays and lack of commitment owe more to ideology than an appraisal of the problems. They are influenced by people who believe that we should consider only consumers, as explained by Mr. Norman Flynn, who in an article entitled "The 'New Right' and Social Policy" said:
    "If possible, individuals should manage without help from institutions of any sort, except their own families."
    The Minister made that point, as though, collectively, the state had no responsibility. What does that attitude mean in reality? What did the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—volunteers expressing their views and pleading to the Government—say about the family and its input? It said:
    "One woman, aged 73, who suffered from a stroke in 1986, is currently in hospital following a further stroke. The sheltered housing scheme where she now lives have said that her care needs are now too great for her to remain a resident there. Nursing home fees in the area—Berkshire—are around £300 per week and the woman concerned would be reliant on income support of £185. As the widow of a milk roundsman who died in 1959 this woman has only a small amount of capital which would soon be eroded by the need to 'top up' her own fees; her children both have financial family commitments of their own and would not be able to assist."
    I fear that that problem is reflected throughout many parts of the country.
    We cannot dismiss such problems by saying that they must be dealt with by distant families or friends and that the Government have no responsibility. However, that would be the view of the Adam Smith Institute. I have had the benefit of reading the paper that we understand has been before Cabinet committee E. It shows the conflict in philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. The paper says:
    "Government can, by providing very modest encouragement to the private sector, help it to grow with that rising demand. It can, by means of incentives to personal saving and personal provision, make it easier for most people to provide for their own care needs in retirement."
    In other words, the choice is artificial, because without good planning and services there is no option.
    If local authorities are to be underfunded and denied essential resources, where is the choice? According to the
    748
    mentality displayed in the paper of the Adam Smith institute, we shall have to rely on people who can afford to pay for services. What will happen to the rest? Are they not entitled to advocacy and consultation on what happens to services? Of course they are, but the overwhelming evidence before the House confirms the view of the Audit Commission that community care is in disarray and Sir Roy Griffiths's view that it remains in chaos.
    For that reason, Opposition Members have a responsibility to promote the needs, demands and requirements for services of millions of elderly, vulnerable and disabled people and their carers. We do not believe that the Government have placed on such matters the priority which the British people would rightly demand. That is why the Government offer a proper suspicion of any scrutiny from Europe. They know that, if Europe is looking for best practice from central Government, it will not find it in Great Britain. For that reason we believe that the Government have failed the nation. We shall reflect our repugnance and our despair at their policies by voting in the Lobby tonight.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked again about our response to Griffiths. As I made plain at the outset of the debate, we shall make a statement before the summer recess on our response to it, and there will be a debate in Government time at the appropriate time thereafter.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West is tilting at windmills that he has created in his own mind when he refers to the Adam Smith Institute.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Let us hear from the Secretary of State.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister is at the Dispatch Box, and he must be heard.
    Mr. Freeman: We are carefully considering all the evidence and the results of our review of Griffiths. We shall make our announcement before the summer recess.
    Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
    Mr. Freeman: I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's point, if he will listen to me.
    The hon. Member of Oxford, East asked me about the cost of upgrading local authority residential care homes to home life standard. Since 1978 local authority personal social services capital outturn expenditure has gone up by 22 per cent. in real terms under this Government. It was cut by two thirds by the previous Labour Administration.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a thoughtful, wide-ranging speech in which he raised a number of points about mental illness with which I shall try to deal. There is no moratorium on the closure of hospitals for those suffering from mental illness or a mental handicap, but no hospital will close until or unless there are adequate facilities in the community. I hope that I made that clear earlier.
    My hon. Friend talked about the need for long-stay care and asylum care. My hon. Friend is right that there is a need for long-term facilities for those suffering from mental illness or a mental handicap. Certainly existing buildings can and should be re-used. At the beginning of

    749
    this debate, I said that we were well aware that such institutions should not be isolated or too large, but should be part of the community. I accept that some of the institutions that are being run down currently are physically in the community and I am sure that some of those facilities can be re-used.
    My hon. Friend also asked about discharged patients in prisons. Part of the problem is that the courts do not in all cases use their present powers to send potential prisoners to hospital for mental illness care. We would encourage the courts so to do. It is also important that consultants should visit prisoners and especially those on remand awaiting trial as promptly as possible. We are in close liaison with the Home Office to ensure that that happens. My hon. Friend also asked about the inquiry undertaken by Professor Kathleen Jones and I shall respond to that shortly.
    My hon. Friend, in common with several other hon. Members, also spoke about those living under the arches at Waterloo. I have also visited those who are living in cardboard homes, not only under the arches of Waterloo but elsewhere. Those poor unfortunate people and their existence are a blot on society, but I must tell the House that those people have access to medical care; general practitioners visit those people. One cannot simply shovel all those who are living rough into institutions against their will.
    Mr. Battle rose—
    Mr. Freeman: No, I shall not give way.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield also asked me about visiting Parkside hospital. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall visit that hospital with him and I plan to do so as quickly as possible in September, I hope.
    The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) properly reminded us about the importance of the voluntary sector. He was also right to emphasise the importance of long-term funding for voluntary organisations. It can be counter-productive for those organising voluntary societies to spend too much of their time chasing for money, whether it comes from the public purse or from other sources. It is important that those societies should be given some form of funding security, perhaps over three to five years. The Department of Health is carefully reviewing how it provides assistance through statutory means—we provide about £15 million a year. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of extending the guarantee of funding, so long as that does not hamper our ability to provide new finance to new organisations when submissions are made.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), with all her experience in such matters, made a number of relevant points. She was right to talk about the multiplicity of ways in which to make community care work. There are a multiplicity of facilities, professions and authorities that provide such care, which represents a partnership between the NHS, the local authorities, the private sector and voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend asked about the evaluation of the pilot projects on care in the community. The university of Kent is evaluating the 28 pilot projects and the results should be available at the end of the year. The interim results suggest that the initiative has been successful. I will write to my
    750
    hon. Friend—if I forget, I am sure that I shall be prodded —at the end of the year, and I shall send her a copy of the final report.
    My hon. Friend also spoke about money being locked up in mental illness and mental handicap hospital sites. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need the necessary facilities now, in advance of those hospitals' closure. I repeat that they shall be closed only when there are adequate facilities in the community. We are looking at a number of imaginative ways in which existing capital and revenue can be released. When we respond to Griffiths shortly, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that we are pursuing a number of initiatives in that connection.
    The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchhffe), in common with me, drew attention to the Public Accounts Committee report. He rightly reminded us that some 23 per cent. of those in residential care wanted to be al home. I believe that that is relevant; I would not necessarily agree with the percentage quoted by the hon. Gentleman, but the thrust of his remarks was correct. Our review of the Griffiths report has meant that we have carefully considered how resources should be devoted to help the elderly frail stay in their own homes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) again stressed the crucial role of the voluntary sector. Since 1978, we have increased funding to the voluntary sector by 130 per cent. in real terms. I share my hon. Friend's views about the importance of that sector. My hon. Friend also spoke about adoption, and I draw his attention and that of the House to the family placement scheme for the mentally ill. Under that scheme, mentally ill people are placed with families, outside institutions, and adequate financial resources are made available either from the social services as appropriate or from the Health Service. That scheme is in its infancy, but it is working well and I commend it to the House.
    My hon. Friend also spoke about the services provided for those who are mentally handicapped or who display challenging behaviour. My hon. Friend may not know that, this week, we published a new report, the short title of which is "Needs and Responses". I hope that he will find it helpful. I also hope that local authorities and NHS district authorities will find it helpful in outlining the best practice to deal with those with challenging behaviour.
    The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke of the resources available for local authorities and local authority homes. I must correct a statement that I made earlier about the increase in the resources available to the personal social services sector. I understated that expenditure increase, which represents 25 per cent. in real terms between 1980–88. The numbers of those who have been helped by nursing care during that time is up by 14 per cent. The number of day centres has increased by 16 per cent., the number of home helps by 28 per cent. and the number of meals on wheels by 11 per cent. The hon. Lady also asked me about consultants going round wards with lists of private accommodation. We have made it clear several times that elderly people should not be moved to private homes against their will if it means that they have to take responsibility for the fees.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) talked about sheltered accommodation, which is extremely important, and I commend local authorities that have concentrated on the provision of sheltered accommodation for elderly people. It provides dignity and security in old age. He also suggested that the general practitioner

    751
    should have a greater role in assessing care for the elderly. I am glad that he supports the new contracts that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State negotiated with the General Medical Services Committee. Under the new contract, every doctor is encouraged—indeed urged —to visit every elderly person in the practice each year, and higher capitation fees are paid for those over 75. We are ensuring that general practitioners care especially for the very elderly.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) talked about schizophrenics in the community. It is important to keep track of those discharged from hospital, or those who never reached hospital in the first place, who are suffering from schizophrenia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is introducing an initiative on that, which I mentioned at the beginning of the debate. I hope that we shall make a further statement on that in due course.
    The Labour party has talked tonight about the need for extra resources for care in the community, yet if one studies its proposals for the reform of the NHS and for care in the community, one sees at least three that are counter-productive for resources. The Labour party has said that it is utterly opposed to private practice in the Health Service. That will mean £60 million less, because of the loss of private beds. The Labour party has said that it will end compulsory tendering, which will mean the loss of £100 million a year. It has said that it will put local councillors and union representatives on health authorities. Nothing could be more calculated to make the management of resources in the Health Service more inefficient.
    This has been a constructive debate on a vital matter. As Conservatives, we care deeply about care in the community for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. The Government have increased resources over the past 10 years. We are in partnership with local government, the private sector and the voluntary sector. We will bring forward our proposals shortly. I invite the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 281.

    Division No. 260]

    [7.02 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradley, Keith

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Alton, David

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Anderson, Donald

    Buckley, George J.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Caborn, Richard

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cartwright, John

    Battle, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clay, Bob

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

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cohen, Harry

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Coleman, Donald

    Blair, Tony

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Blunkett, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Boateng, Paul

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    752

    Cousins, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cox, Tom

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Crowther, Stan

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cryer, Bob

    McFall, John

    Cummings, John

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McKelvey, William

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McLeish, Henry

    Darling, Alistair

    Maclennan, Robert

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McWilliam, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Madden, Max

    Dixon, Don

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dobson, Frank

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Doran, Frank

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Douglas, Dick

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Martlew, Eric

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Meale, Alan

    Eadie, Alexander

    Michael, Alun

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fearn, Ronald

    Morley, Elliott

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Fisher, Mark

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Flynn, Paul

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mullin, Chris

    Foster, Derek

    Murphy, Paul

    Foulkes, George

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fraser, John

    O'Brien, William

    Fyfe, Maria

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Patchett, Terry

    George, Bruce

    Pendry, Tom

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gould, Bryan

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Randall, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Redmond, Martin

    Hardy, Peter

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Reid, Dr John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Richardson, Jo

    Haynes, Frank

    Robertson, George

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rogers, Allan

    Henderson, Doug

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Home Robertson, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Illsley, Eric

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Ingram, Adam

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Janner, Greville

    Stott, Roger

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Strang, Gavin

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Straw, Jack

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Turner, Dennis

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Vaz, Keith

    Lambie, David

    Wall, Pat

    Lamond, James

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Leighton, Ron

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Litherland, Robert

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)

    Wilson, Brian

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Winnick, David

    753

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths and

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Dover, Den

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dunn, Bob

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Allason, Rupert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Amess, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Amos, Alan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fallon, Michael

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Favell, Tony

    Ashby, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Atkins, Robert

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Baldry, Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forth, Eric

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bendall, Vivian

    Franks, Cecil

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Freeman, Roger

    Benyon, W.

    French, Douglas

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Peter

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gale, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, George

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boswell, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bowis, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Gow, Ian

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

    Gregory, Conal

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Ground, Patrick

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Grylls, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burns, Simon

    Hague, William

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Butler, Chris

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Cash, William

    Harris, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayward, Robert

    Churchill, Mr

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Colvin, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Cran, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Curry, David

    Irvine, Michael

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

    Irving, Charles

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Janman, Tim

    Dicks, Terry

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    754

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Key, Robert

    Shelton, Sir William

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Sims, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Speed, Keith

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Steen, Anthony

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stokes, Sir John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Summerson, Hugo

    Moate, Roger

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Mudd, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Neubert, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trippier, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Norris, Steve

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Page, Richard

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Paice, James

    Walden, George

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Waller, Gary

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Ward, John

    Pawsey, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Warren, Kenneth

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Watts, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Michael

    Wheeler, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Whitney, Ray

    Price, Sir David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Redwood, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Renton, Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Wolfson, Mark

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Wood, Timothy

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Yeo, Tim

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Rost, Peter

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Rowe, Andrew

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Mr. John M. Taylor and

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mr. David Maclean.

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government's record on the development and funding of community services for all

    755
    people in need of care; reaffirms its support for the policy of community care; believes that it will be complemented and strengthened by the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper, Working for Patients; and looks forward to an announcement of the Government's conclusions on Sir Roy Griffiths' report, Community Care: Agenda for Action, in the near future.'

Coal Industry
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the future of a resource as important as coal should not be left to market forces; opposes reliance on imported coal to meet Britain's energy needs; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to intervene in the negotiations between British Coal and the electricity supply industry in order to ensure the long-term contracts for production which are necessary for the coal industry to fulfil its duties to the country, the consumer, the environment and those that work in it.
We have debated the coal industry many times, but rarely in the context of such pressing and urgent developments. We are not talking this time about whether we should close so-called non-economic pits or save them in the interests of mining communities. This is not a debate about whether the coal industry can make itself efficient, because the industry has recorded a 35 per cent. reduction in costs in three and a half years, and such a record would be the envy of any private sector company. It is not a debate about productivity, as it is generally acknowledged that no other group of workers could rival the 75 per cent. increase in productivity that the miners have achieved in recent years. We have peeled away the outer layer of arguments about Britain's coal industry and we are down to the core.
The focus of our debate may be the coal industry but the issue concerns the whole future of the nation's energy needs. The question is whether a modern energy policy should be dictated by short-term market forces, as Conservatives believe, or whether—as the Labour party declares—it should be the product of industry and Government acting together to balance the long-term interests of the country against the vested interests of the market.
Whether in meeting the traditional concerns of the consumer or the fresh challenge of the environment, we say, without hesitation, that energy policy is too vital to our future, too critical in its effects on our quality of life and too fundamental in its strategic importance for industry and the consumer to be left to the vagaries of the market. The essential truth, which the Government seem incapable of recognising, is that what the marketplace wants is not necessarily what the country needs.
This is not an abstract argument. It arises today in an acute practical form. We know that British Coal is in the process of negotiating new contracts with National Power and PowerGen—the duopoly created by privatisation of the generation of electricity. At the moment, the two bodies take about 75 per cent. of British Coal's output and are thus pivotal to its survival.
In turn, National Power and PowerGen are negotiating contracts to supply power to area boards or distributors. That is supposed to happen under the new contract system that is central to the privatisation process, whereby each of the area boards negotiates for separate parts of the generating capacity. That was the original plan. With more than 70 different power stations and 12 area boards, the nightmarish complexity of the contractual arrangements —to be superimposed on the merit order system which, by common consent, has worked well for decades—is only

757
now becoming apparent. When I visit power stations and ask about the new contract system I find that the response varies between despair and hysteria. So complex is the new computer system that it alone will add £60 million to consumers' bills.
As I said, that was the original plan. Yet the Financial Weekly of 22 June says:
"Government advisers on the privatisation of the electricity industry have proposed scrapping the horrendously complicated intra-industry billing and charging system planned for the sell-off. The advisers are said to have told ministers that the system won't work".
In other words, the negotiation for the carve-up of power station contracts, which was at the heart of the case for privatisation that the Secretary of State advanced, is in a complete mess. At least it is now easier to make sense of each clay's press as it speculates on the future of the Cabinet in general and of the Secretary of State in particular. As the right hon. Gentleman's plans for privatisation come step-by-step closer to terminal chaos, so does his anxiety to flee his Department, or even to abolish it, become ever more frenzied.
We are now witnessing a rather undignified race between the reshuffle and the day of reckoning; between the right hon. Gentleman's future ambitions and his past mistakes. He has at least one unrivalled talent—he is always the first to abandon the sinking ship. Nothing in politics is closer to a gale warning than the sight of the right hon. Gentleman trying to climb on board one new Department after another. The Opposition have a very firm view of his prospects—a view which, I have no doubt, is endorsed by his Cabinet colleagues—that he should stay where he is and stick with what he started. If a critical element of his privatisation process is failing between National Power and PowerGen, the pressure will become all the greater to put the squeeze on short-term fuel costs to provide some fig leaf of justification for continuing with the privatisation proposals.
During the past few years British Coal has reduced the cost of coal supply to the electricity industry by some £650 million. That has not been passed on to the electricity consumer because the Secretary of State has been fattening up the industry's profit sheet to pave the way for privatisation. None the less, it has happened. The contracts between British Coal and the electricity industry amount to 75 million tonnes. We have heard reports that the electricity industry is now thinking of contracting for only 60 million tonnes, which would lose the country 15 million tonnes, 15,000 jobs and 15 pits.
When the matter was first raised a few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary gave one of his memorable interviews on the "Today" programme. He was asked seven times whether the reports were correct, and as each answer or non-answer became longer and more incoherent, we were reminded of what Lord Byron said about his mother-in-law:
"She has lost the art of communication but not, alas, the gift of speech."
If the Under-Secretary, who is charged with responsibility for the coal industry, does not know the state of the negotiations, we are entitled to ask who does. If it is true that the electricity industry wishes to import more coal or heavy fuel oil, and if that is brought into the southern ports, it will reduce the need for power sent south from the midlands power stations and therefore reduce the need for midlands coal. Conservative Members should reflect on that when they vote tonight, because a 15 million
758
tonne reduction in coal is not at the margin of energy policy: it is fundamental. It would mean a significant fundamental shift in energy supply.
Today we have prepared an analysis of what the international coal market might look like over the next few years. If we consider all the main centres used to import coal into Britain, it is difficult to understand how any sensible Energy Secretary could be justified in relying upon imported coal to meet the country's future energy needs. The latest "International Coal Report", published just a week ago said, for example, about Australia:
"Australian exporters are suffering acute shortage."
It said:
"The supply situation is so tight that the world's largest exporter of seaborne coal is about to become an importer."
We know that the new Australian pits to be opened during the next few years are intended to supply Pacific basin countries, and in particular Japan, which is constantly opening up new coal markets.
The home market in the United States is growing, and its new acid rain controls are estimated to put $2 to $5 a tonne on the price of its coal, so there is no succour for us there. What about Poland, Colombia or South Africa? Are we to make our energy needs dependent upon supplies from those countries? What about the great hope mentioned a few years ago by many Conservative Members, that to meet future energy needs we should look to coal produced by China? According to our figures, in the first quarter of this year China's coal exports declined by 11 per cent., and according to the most recent reports, China is now importing coal.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have been listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He mentioned both oil and coal, but not nuclear power, which provides the second largest percentage of generated electricity. What representations did he receive from the National Union of Mineworkers and from sponsored Labour Members when they discovered that the new pro-nuclear policy of the Labour party was pushed through while they were out of the room?
Mr. Blair: In a debate about the price of fuel and how to reduce costs to the consumer, it is rather peculiar for an hon. Member to make a statement in favour of nuclear power. I am grateful that he has raised the matter, because, if the privatisation process has taught us anything, if it has brought us any benefit, it is that it has exploded once and for all the notion that we should go nuclear because it is cheaper.
Is the Secretary of State aware of, and has he studied, recent history which, for example, shows that in 1981 imported coal was 20 per cent. more expensive than indigenous coal because of industrial unrest in Poland? Does he know that every 20 cents change in the sterling-dollar exchange rate makes a £6 per tonne difference one way or the other? Does he know that the world market for steam coal is so small that, if an extra buyer goes into the market for as much as 15 million tonnes, that will, of necessity, drive up the price of imported coal?
If the Secretary of State thinks that that is all the imagination of the Labour party, he should study the recent report by James Capers international mining department—hardly a body sympathetic to the Labour party—which said about the electricity supply industry in its analysis of the coal industry:

759
"A privatised ESI will aim to minimise fuel costs: imports, in the short term, will be the answer … In the long term, international prices will go up. The British coal industry could be competitive with world markets by 1990 and could be restricting imports to peripheral power stations by 1995. A free-for-all policy on imports would close many mines which could be competitive."
That is the risk that we take.
If National Power and PowerGen decide, for their own strategic reasons—to second-source coal, as has been reported; if they want imports as a matter of principle irrespective of price competitiveness; if they believe that to be in their commercial interests, surely it is the job of the Secretary of State to ask whether it is not in the interests of the public to secure supply and whether it is not in the interests of the balance of payments that we do not suffer losses as a result of imported coal. Should not those interests be weighed in the balance against those of the private sector?
We have sought in vain to discover the Government's exact energy policy on coal imports. The junior Minister said in another place a short time ago—and perhaps it is the belief of the Secretary of State:
"We believe that the purchase of coal, whether imported or indigenous, is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual customers."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 1989; Vol. 505, c. 1006.]
We are entitled to know the state of the negotiations between the industries, for both of which the Secretary of State is still absolutely responsible under his statutory duties. When we weigh the sacrifices of miners and mining communities, with almost one third fewer employed today than 10 years ago—many of my hon. Friends can bear testimony to the appalling levels of unemployment that still exist in the mining communities—we are at least entitled to know the Government's energy policy on coal imports. It is said that the strategic interests of this privatised duopoly may differ from those of the country, but why should we put those interests above the country's interests? Why should this be treated as if it were some private concern between the Coal Board and the privatised electricity industry, without involving the Government acting on behalf of the public interest?
It is not as if the Government are unable or unprepared to recognise strategic considerations when it suits them to do so. The Secretary of State has talked about coal meeting what he calls, fair competition. How do the proposals on nuclear power square with that proposition? Nuclear power will be ring-fenced from the market with 20 per cent. of all fuel being bought from what are primarily nuclear sources. It was said in the other place that the industry will be given a guarantee against future costs on decommissioning, reprocessing and disposing of nuclear waste if they arise from factors outside the industry's control.
If coal has greater duties imposed upon it in relation to the environment, they will not he subsidised by the taxpayer. The Government may say that the reason they are prepared to offer this unique public guarantee to a private sector company, which is what it will be, is because of the importance of nuclear power. But is coal any less important than nuclear energy? If the Government recognise the market's limitations and the wisdom of taking a long-term view of nuclear power, why do they insist that these matters are of no account with regard to
760
coal? If the test to be applied were whether this would provide fair competition, I can tell the Government that fair competition with the nuclear industry is all that the coal industry demands.
In order to understand why these policies have come about, we must ask: what is the Government's overriding priority? It is simply privatisation and nothing else. The Secretary of State has been told that nuclear power cannot be sold without these unprecedented public guarantees against commercial risk. We are to have private profit and public liability, and in this grotesque contradiction of everything which the Conservatives avowedly stand for, we can clearly see the simple fact that they have no principle of policy, no motive and no objective in view, save to sell the nation's assets as quickly as legislation will allow and as cheaply as they dare. The message is privatisation first, public interest last.
The long-term future of the coal industry, the pressing demands of environmental protection, which require not the maximising of profit, but its control in the public interest, are to be sacrificed to the idol, the mixture of ideology and vested interest. It is the Secretary of State's peculiar misfortune to be in charge of the largest privatisation in history, just when privatisation has gone out of fashion.
Today, there is a new political agenda which is not about selling off the nation's public services, but about improving them. It is not about the old game of extracting profit from captive consumers, but about new ways of ensuring that consumers, and the society in which they live, can control the profit makers in the interests of the people. It is because the Government are out of date and out of touch that we believe with increasing confidence that, at the next election, they will be out of office as well.
7.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'congratulates the management and workforce of British Coal on their achievements in increasing productivity and reducing costs; welcomes the Government's continuing financial support for the industry which is enabling it to move towards profitability and a viable future; recognises that the only secure long term future for the industry lies in becoming an efficient and competitive supplier of coal; rejects the proposition that British Coal can only sell if its customers are forced to buy, and, has confidence that British Coal, on the basis of its own performance and not of Government dictat, will become the supplier of choice to the privatised electricity industry.'
I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the coal industry, but I must say straight away that I am disappointed by the shallow terms of the Opposition's motion. I wish to start by breaking some bad news to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair): the contracts negotiations are going extremely well. In spite of snippets which he may read in the Financial Weekly, I assure him that the new system will be in place and working by 1 October, and all the signs are that we are ahead in our arrangements, rather than behind.
Mr. Blair rose—
Mr. Parkinson: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
The industry is going through a period of enormous change. Twenty-five years ago, coal had many customers. Most people heated their homes with coal, our trains and ships were largely fuelled by coal, which provided our gas

761
and virtually all our electricity. Today the industry has only one major customer: the electricity supply industry, which is being privatised.
Mr. John Cummings rose—
Mr. Parkinson: I shall give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a start.
We have made it very clear that the privatised electricity industry, like any other business, will be free to choose its suppliers, and that includes its coal suppliers, but we have also made it clear that we want British Coal to win the bulk of the business and we believe that, on the basis of its own performance, it can. These are not just empty words. It is a sign of our confidence in coal's future that we have committed ourselves to the privatisation of the coal industry after the next election. That is not a commitment which we would make unless we believed that we were going to have something large, successful and worthwhile to sell. We will have a large, successful and worthwhile coal industry after the privatisation of the electricity industry, and after the next election.
Our confidence is firmly based on the industry's performance since the strike. In the year before the strike British Coal produced 105 million tonnes of coal at a productivity of 2·43 tonnes per man shift. Last year, 1988–89, British Coal produced 103 million tonnes at a productivity of 4·14 tonnes. Therefore, output fell by less than 2 per cent. over this five-year period, while productivity rose by over 70 per cent., and productivity is continuing to rise. So far this year it has been running at levels over 9 per cent., above the same period last year. At the end of last month British Coal achieved a new productivity record of 4·63 tonnes—that is nearly 12 per cent., up on the average for last year.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Parkinson: I shall give way in a moment.
I pay full tribute to Sir Robert Haslam and his team for what has, by any standards, been a superb performance over the last few years.
Mr. Blair rose—
Mr. Parkinson: I shall give way in a moment.
I believe that it also reflects the Government's record of unwavering support for the industry, not just since the strike but before as well. Over the 10 years since 1979, we have put over £6·5 billion of capital investment into the industry. The investment in low-cost capacity and in modern mining equipment has been a crucial factor in what the industry has achieved. This Conservative Government have provided the taxpayers' money to fund that huge investment.
Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Secretary of State a specific question. Are these contracts which are presently being negotiated, and which he says are going so well, for the full 75 million tonnes at present taken at British Coal?
Mr. Parkinson: The contract arrangements of which I spoke involved the contracts between the generators and the distributors which, as the hon. Gentleman said, lead on to the coal contracts—[Interruption.] The centre of my speech deals with why I believe the hon. Gentleman has a wrong-minded approach.
It is not just the capital investment itself, but the financing of the industry to which I should like to draw
762
hon. Members' attention. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about the industry's financial burdens, but if they took the trouble to look at the figures for themselves they would see that British Coal's debt has actually fallen over the last five years from £4·2 billion to under £4 billion. As the House knows, I shall be coming forward in due course with proposals for restructuring the industry's capital, but I must point out that the massive investments we have made have been financed very largely at no cost to the industry, by grant which carries no interest.
Altogether, since 1979 we have injected nearly £10 billion of grant finance. Going back even further and taking into account previous grants and debt write-offs, our coal industry has received almost £20 billion at current prices since nationalisation, all of which has been written off and none of which bears a penny of interest.
Mr. Skinner: If, since nationalization, the industry had received as much pro rata as the farmers have received we would be selling coal all around the world.
The Secretary of State referred to the massive productivity increases that the miners have achieved during the past few years. If that is correct—and it is—will he lend his weight to the NUM resolution that will be passed next week, which will state that NUM members want to recoup some of that massive productivity increase in the form of a substantial increase in wages of at least double digits—I hope as much as the 26 per cent. that the top directors got last year?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman consistently speaks up for and cares about the industry, but one of the problems is that he advocates the very policies that would destroy it.
I should like to repeat the last figures that I gave. The taxpayer has provided this industry with more than £20 billion of grant and loans, every penny of which has been written off as loss and not a penny of which bears interest.
Apart from deficit grant we have also provided restructuring grant support. Since the strike the number of men on colliery books has fallen from 170,000 to about 75,000 today. The House will note with satisfaction British Coal's achievement of being able to offer alternative jobs to all who wish to remain in the industry, even in coalfields such as those of Scotland, in which I recognise that the contraction has been especially severe.
No other industry has received such support, but for those who want to leave the industry the grants that we have provided have allowed British Coal to offer redundancy terms that are second to none. We have also made available £60 million of funding for British Coal Enterprise, thereby enabling the creation of more than 40,000 new job opportunities in Britain's coalfields. This is an impressive record by any standards. Our support for the industry has been consistent, generous and effective, and I bitterly resent snide remarks from the Opposition to the effect that the Government are somehow hostile to the coal industry. The facts give the lie to that assertion.
Sir Trevor Skeet: My right hon. Friend's figures are impressive—;he mentioned a £20 billion write-off since nationalisation. How much additional assistance has been granted to the industry in the form of social credits?
Mr. Parkinson: As I have said, the £20 billion includes all grants under all headings, plus the capital injected into the industry by the taxpayer and subsequently written off as lost.
I turn now to British Coal's relationship with the privatised generators. As I said earlier, there is no tripartite agreement between the Government, the generators and British Coal to reduce coal purchases by 15 million tonnes or by any other figure. The generators and British Coal are about to embark on the final stage of their negotiations, and those negotiations will settle the level of future purchases. I must make it clear that the Government will not force customers into long-term contracts for British coal in order to provide artificial support for the industry. I am confident that if British Coal continues to restructure its operations, to cut costs and to introduce new and more flexible working practices, the generators will choose to retain British Coal as their major supplier. They are hard-headed business men and they know the dangers to their business of being over-reliant on foreign suppliers, just as they have learnt from hard experience, four times in the past 20 years, the dangers of total dependence on a single United Kingdom supplier.
I listened to the sudden discovery by the hon. Member for Sedgefield that coal prices in world markets could go up, that Australia is quite a long way from the United Kingdom and that China is not planning to be a major supplier. I am glad the hon. Gentleman is finally catching on; these things have been known to me and to other members of the industry for years and they will form part of the considerations which will affect the attitudes of the generators as they come to place their business. The idea that the hon. Gentleman and his juvenile team of researchers have just stumbled on an amazing truth shows how naive and ill-informed he has been to date—
Mr. Blair: I find it difficult to see whether that amounts to a confession or a denial of our principal charge. I shall put the question to the right hon. Gentleman again. I do not doubt that the electricity suppliers are looking at this matter from their commercial viewpoint. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a specific factual question. He is the Secretary of State in charge of both industries. Have they or have they not been talking about a contract for the entire 75 million tonnes or for a lesser amount of 60 million tonnes?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to issue some form of instruction to the negotiators. The two sides are in negotiation, seeking to arrive at an agreement. The generators do not want to be over-dependent on a single United Kingdom supplier—they have been bitten by that bug four times in the past 20 years. They also know that there is an enormous advantage in having a secure, reliable, home-based supplier, and that being over-dependent, or dependent to any major extent, on imports can be dangerous. They do not need the hon. Gentleman to remind them of that. I trust both sides to negotiate sensibly and to come to a sensible arrangement.
All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the past. The only ones that matter are those which emerge from the final negotiations which are about to get under way—
Mr. Blair: Let us get this straight. If the privatised electricity industry decides that it wants to second-source its supply—to look to imports for a substantial, not the
764
main, chunk of its coal supply—are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman will not stand in the industry's way? If it wants to make an agreement for 60 million tonnes, 60 million tonnes it will be?
Mr. Parkinson: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to predetermine the negotiations. I have already made it clear that we have put the industry in a position to protect itself. We expect it, on the basis of its new competitiveness, to land the lion's share of the business, but I am not prepared to put a figure on what it will or will not achieve. It must negotiate—
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Parkinson: In a moment.
As I told the UDM annual conference earlier this month, I am sure that the generators are well aware of the reputation of particular pits and coalfields for good industrial relations and for reliability of supply. The UDM pits have and deserve that reputation; others have not, and do not.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked why British Coal, having obtained a core contract, should not be allowed a first option to sell additional coal at the lowest price quoted by its competitors. That is what the hon. Gentleman demanded the other day. He does not suggest in any way that British Coal can win this business. The hon. Gentleman wants me to give it permission to buy the business with taxpayers' money. Volume for volume's sake is a recipe for bankruptcy, not security. I am not prepared to intervene on such an option.
The Opposition motion refers to the duty that the coal industry owes to the environment and I agree with that. We have to recognise that even so-called "clean" coal-burning technologies have damaging environmental effects. We cannot wish away the environmental advantages of other fuels such as gas, but we can help to reduce the disadvantages of coal, and particularly of British Coal.
As many hon. Members will know, British coal is relatively high in sulphur—I believe the average figure is around 1·5 per cent. but it ranges from less than 0·5 per cent. in some Scottish coalfields to 3 per cent. or so in Yorkshire. To reduce sulphur emissions to more acceptable levels, generators have essentially two choices: they can either burn low-sulphur coal or they can install fluegas desulphurisation equipment.
I am able to confirm today that we have asked the privatised generators to continue to plan on the basis of installing 12,000 MW of FGD capacity during the 1990s. That represents a very large cost indeed—about £1·6 billion. The first of those installations at Drax should come on stream by 1993–94, and should provide a secure outlet for up to 10 million tonnes of indigenous coal, and should substantially eliminate the need for low sulphur imports.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has acknowledged that Scottish coal has one of the lowest sulphur contents in the United Kingdom. Why has he stood back and allowed the last of the Lothian coalfields to be mothballed, in spite of the fact that we have more than 100 million tonnes of good quality and low-sulphur reserves in that coalfield?
Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out to the House that the capacity has been

765
mothballed and can be opened up if it becomes economic. The plain fact is that the Scottish pits are far and away our most uneconomic. We are seeking to ensure that there continues to be a market for high-sulphur British coal. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If we were to revert to low-sulphur coal, we would have to import massive quantities from overseas. The fitting of Drax and other stations with FGD equipment will ensure that there is a substantial market for British Coal, which would otherwise have been at a major disadvantage.
We have also agreed that British Coal should pursue a joint venture with the private sector to construct a pithead power station in Nottinghamshire, using a modern and efficient boiler design, and we are encouraging the next stage of the Grimethorpe topping cycle experiment, which holds out the possibility of much higher efficiencies than in conventional boilers. All these developments will help British Coal to compete more effectively and fairly against imported coal in the power station markets of the 1990s.
The Government have shown in many ways their commitment to coal. By its own performance and with the taxpayers' support, British Coal has put itself in a position to win the major share of the electricity industry's coal business.
By contrast, the "new pragmatists" in the Opposition are as ready as ever to revert to type and to the failed policies of the past. When the young lion roared today, what we heard was exactly the same noise as the old lion of Chesterfield used to make—protect, subsidise, interfere, direct, ban competition. They claim to care about the environment, but they plan to make us almost totally dependent on the most polluting fuel. They claim to care about the workers, but they back the most reactionary union in Britain, the NUM, and reject one of the most progressive.
I invite the House to reject the Opposition's defensive and defeatist motion and to support the Government amendment.
7.54 pm
Mr. John Cummings: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address the House on an issue which is very near to my heart and the hearts of all my constituents. I speak as someone who has worked in the industry for 29 years. My father worked in the industry for 51 years, so between the two of us we have 80 years' service. I am a sixth generation coal miner. For six generations, the colliery in which I worked has supported not just my family, but the families of many thousands of hard-working people. After hearing the Secretary of State's remarks, I believe that the Government no longer have faith in the mining industry of Great Britain. Since 1985 we have had from British Coal false promises about the north-east area, followed by half promises, lies and deceit.
We have had closures, which became restructuring, which in turn became reorganisation and then rationalisation. All of them had the same result—the redundancies of a valued and precious work force, who require work and the dignity of being able to work. However, the Government and British Coal have denied them that dignity.
The Government and British Coal are not just selling short a very valued work force; they are selling short the
766
British nation. The Secretary of State has sold short the nation's most precious assets—assets which the Japanese would give their eye teeth for and assets which could take this nation forward well into the next millenium. However, the Government are prepared to sell now for a quick buck and to hell with the future. I believe that that is a disgrace of national proportions.
There are now seven deep coal mines in the north-east. Capacity in those mines has been reduced, while there has been expansion in opencast mining in west Durham. The countryside has been raped and pillaged in a way that has never been seen in the north-east.
The Government are supporting the production of coal by means of slave labour in such countries as Colombia, South Africa and Poland in the eastern European bloc. There has been rape and pillage, too, of those nations. Such coal production is, however, supported by the British Government against the interests of miners in the north-east, who are producing coal economically and profitably and with greater productivity than ever before. That filthy Colombian coal—won on the backs of slave and child labour—is being imported into the ports of Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. That is a disgraceful affair, of which any proud Englishman would be ashamed.
I want to consider industrial relations in British Coal. I was a lodge secretary for 20 years at my colliery, and I sat on a consultative committee for close on 30 years. We engaged in consultation and conciliation. We knew the manager, the under-manager and the officials. We entered freely into conciliation week in and week out to improve safety and industrial relations. There was understanding and agreement between people who had a common love of the industry. What is happening now? The industry is managed by silhouettes from British Coal headquarters. They are the marionettes of the Secretary of State and his cronies in the Department of Energy.
The finest consultation and conciliation process within any industry in Great Britain has been subjected to the manipulation of the Secretary of State and people who have neither love nor understanding of the industry. For example, my forefathers and I worked at Murton colliery which is 150 years old this year. The lodge secretaries are very anxious about C seam—the old yard seam. They wrote to the area board asking for a meeting of the Murton Mining Federation. They received the reply, "What is the mining federation?" That federation has been in existence since 1890 and it has dealt with manager after manager from the days of the South Hetton Coal Company, through the managers and agents of the National Coal Board, to British Coal. However, British Coal had the impudence to ask, "What is the Murton Mining Federation?"
The Murton Mining Federation has existed for the benefit of the community, through the provision of colliery housing, swimming pools, welfare parks and welfare of the elderly. It has also existed for the benefit of management. Management has been able to discuss matters with all the unions from Murton colliery for nearly 100 years, but the gen boys at British Coal have had the impudence to come in and ask, "What is the Murton Mining Federation?"
In the north-east area of British Coal, as in other areas, we have undergone change. We have freely accepted mechanisation, and we accepted computerisation with enthusiasm. We did that freely, without agreements or seeking financial remuneration. We accepted those things

767
for the good and the benefit of the industry. Where has it got us? Spite and vindictiveness of a kind which we have never seen before—not even from the South Hetton Coal Company, the Landonderrys or other private enterprise—has been levied at us by the Government and the corporation. The Secretary of State has announced a sell-out of treacherous proportions today and that will be remembered by this and by future generations.
8.4 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate on the coal industry gives the House the opportunity to review the Government's commitment and to contemplate the future of Britain's major source of energy in the new green environment and privatised power generating industry. The British Coal industry exists only if there is a market for its product. The cost of coal in a free market determines whether it succeeds or loses out to other carbon fuels. We must remember that the consumption of coal is now only half what it was 50 years ago. The consequence has been pit closures under both Labour and Conservative Governments, although from what we hear from Opposition Members, one would think that closures happened only under a Conservative Government.
During the Labour Administrations between 1964–70 and 1974–79, a total of 295 collieries were closed, of which 32 were closed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
When I became the Member for Sherwood in 1983, my constituency had 10 collieries employing 12,000 men and producing 7·5 million tonnes of coal. After losing Hucknall and Linby pits as their reserves ran out, and Newstead which joined the nearby Annesley complex, only Blidworth, which closed in March 1989, was closed because production was uneconomical under British Coal management.
With coal reserves at 30 million tonnes, many miners believed that with different management the tragedy at Blidworth could have been avoided. Many of the miners facing redundancy at Blidworth were convinced and prepared to put their money into forming a company to keep the pit open. However, at the time of the closure announcement, a British company carried out a feasibility study and was convinced that it could make Blidworth colliery a success. It offered to manage the pit from British Coal under the Coal Industry Act 1947, at no cost to British Coal or to the taxpayer. Sadly, that offer was rejected out of hand.
Today, there are six highly productive and efficient collieries in Sherwood which employ 6,000 men and produce 7 million tonnes of coal. That streamlining of the industry has take palce without the need for any compulsory redundancies. Nevertheless, I have always publicly urged miners who must face the choice of taking redundancy to stay with the coal industry unless they were satisfied that they had a marketable skill which was in demand locally. Those who have stayed have seen another year of improved earnings and conditions. It is ironic that those conditions which were skilfully negotiated by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers benefit all mineworkers throughout the industry.
I want to thank my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment on behalf of my
768
retired miners who rightly took advantage of the enhanced redundant mineworkers payments scheme, for accepting the miners representation through Roy Lynk, the president of the UDM, and for meeting my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), Newark (Mr. Alexander), Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and myself, to put their case.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: No, many hon. Members want to speak. I will give way later if I do not answer the hon. Gentleman's points.
The prompt response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he would change the unemployment benefit rules to meet those circumstances was greatly appreciated. However, I was puzzled, because during that time we heard numerous allegations from Opposition Members of miners being harassed and intimidated by staff working in employment offices to sign up for work at restart interviews or their benefits would stop. Only last week, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during Employment Question Time was still running the Labour party line of alleged harassment.
I contend that, for political gain, Labour Members sat on their hands, allowing rumour to escalate and thus causing unnecessary alarm before they did anything about it. I may be asked what proof I have of that. I need say only that complaints of that nature came from Labour Members. In my constituency, which the House knows has more miners than any other, 1,500 men used the redundant mineworkers payments scheme to retire permanently.
In the week after the Second Reading of the Employment Bill last January, I received two telephone calls and three letters drawing attention to a letter from the unemployment benefits office in Arnold concerning restart and benefits. One telephone call made by me to the employment deputy manager for the Nottingham area clarified the position, and my statement to the local press reassured my constituents that there was no need for alarm. I suggest that, when Opposition Members are confronted by a similar situation in future, instead of making mischief they should give their constituents the service that they deserve.
Mr. O'Brien rose—
Mr. Stewart: No, I shall not give way. I have too many important things left to say.
Overall, Nottinghamshire's super-miners clocked up an operating profit for British Coal in the financial year 1988–89 of £65 million, which represents half of British Coal's profits from deep mining—a record that no other coalfield area can match. British Coal's total operating profit of £500 million is the highest figure since the industry was nationalised in 1947. However, the downside to that achievement is that the industry carries an interest burden of £430 million, representing a charge of approximately £5 per tonne of coal sold. That highlights the need for restructuring British Coal's finances.
I ask my right hon. Friend urgently to consider giving British Coal the same preferential treatment as that afforded to British Steel in the early 1980s. Although

769
British Steel's profits are similar to those of British Coal, as a consequence of restructuring, its interest charges amount to only £17 million.
We hear a lot about the past in coal industry debates. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock but should use the past as a guide to the future, in meeting the challenges that face the industry after the electricity industry is privatised in 1990. National Power and PowerGen—the two successor companies to the Central Electricity Generating Board—will require coal at a price that will provide the nation with its primary source of energy at a cost that will make our industrial goods more internationally competitive, and one that will not be considered a luxury.
Competition for annual contracts of 75 million tonnes must be fair, and British Coal must not be subjected during negotiations to pressure from the new companies, with the threat of cheap, subsidised imports. If allowed, that would exacerbate the nation's already stretched balance of payments. British Coal's ability to continue as the supplier of choice rather than of necessity is well demonstrated by its progress over the past four years. Productivity is up by more than 90 per cent., while costs are down 32 per cent.
Mr. Terry Patchett: The hon. Gentleman has spoken at great length about colliery closures and the necessity for them, and about the beautiful redundancy terms that were offered. Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman was one of the Conservative Members who, during the 1984 strike, assured the Union of Democratic Mineworkers that it was no part of British Coal's programme to close pits? What changed his mind?
Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what changed my mind, and I thank him for asking the question that I deliberately prompted. Hansard of 4 December 1978 quotes the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield as stating:
"I have never found the NUM in any way unreasonable where closures are necessary because of exhaustion or because pits are out of line in economic terms."—[Official Report, 4 December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1015–1016.]
I believe that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
Of paramount importance is a reduction in coal prices of 22 per cent. in real terms, representing a loss in sales realisations for British Coal of £900 million per year. Collieries continue to improve their performance. In Nottinghamshire, there is a big switch to retreat mining. This year, 52 miles of underground roadways will be completed. Leading the way are Thoresby and Rufford collieries, with record-breaking performances of 130 m per week. Bilsthorpe pit is about to begin a £10 million underground motorway 4,000 m long.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Stewart: It seems that every Opposition Member wants to intervene, but I am not giving way again. I have done so once, and that is enough.
A further £18 million will be spent on heavy duty coal face equipment in the coming year. Some of that machinery will be fitted with British Coal's new automatic steering systems, which reduce the amount of dirt mined by up to 40 per cent. and give better roof control, enabling productivity to increase by a further 30 per cent. Such improvements will make the industry highly competitive by 1992. However, before then, many collieries will be vulnerable to subsidised imports. It would be tragic to
770
threaten their progress for the very short-term gains to be made from importing coal. By 1995, any savings made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the electricity supply industry will be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than if it had bought British.
There is a risk that many deep mines that could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will dispel rumours that British Coal can compete for only 60 million tonnes of the new companies' total requirements of about 75 million tonnes, even if it agrees to meet the last tranche of 15 million tonnes at world prices.
The Union of Democratic Mineworkers has always accepted fair and unfettered competition, but the threat posed to Nottinghamshire by imported coal is potentially catastrophic. Restructuring has already seen 15,000 men leave the industry. Recently, the UDM president proposed a five-year honeymoon period after electricity privatisation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider that suggestion. It is not a case of special pleading. As the Nottingham Evening Post commented, the UDM's attitude is the stuff of realism. The union is forward-looking, prepared to modernise agreements and to adopt working practices that relate to the reality of highly capitalised mining technology—without which the coal industry would be hopelessly ill prepared for the 1990s.
Decisions affecting the next decade will be governed by the environmental debate on the greenhouse effect. Misleadingly, that is being equated with the operation of coal-fired power stations. Although coal burning is responsible for 15 per cent. of the global greenhouse effect, coal-fired power generating contributes only 7 per cent.
Mr. Cummings: How does the hon. Gentleman know? Who says so?
Mr. Stewart: That is not the basis on which to base a switch to nuclear power, which was once seen as the panacea in providing cheaper electricity, but which is now accepted both by the Government and by the CEGB as costing about 40 per cent. more. To have any significant effect on emissions would require a worldwide nuclear programme of impracticable dimensions. Action in Britain alone, or action concentrated only on coal, would be ineffective. Annual consumption of coal in Britain is 115 million tonnes, from a worldwide total of more than 3 billion tonnes. The United Kingdom coal-fired power stations contribute less than 0·5 per cent. to the global greenhouse effect. Remedial action must be on an international scale. Already, all are agreed that increased efficiency in the use of energy would be an effective way in which to lessen the greenhouse effect.
Leading the way is British Coal's new system, called the topping cycle, which will allow new coal-fired stations to generate electricity at 45 per cent. efficiency rather than the 37 per cent. from standard stations now in use. It would be clean in terms of sulphur and nitrogen oxide, and would reduce electricity costs and carbon dioxide output. A miniature high-tech station based on the system is planned in my constituency—where else?—at Bilsthorpe colliery. It is the joint project of British Coal and the east midlands

771
electricity board. The principal reason for the choice of site is the excellent industrial relations in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
A unique feature of the project is that mineworkers will be offered shares at preferential prices. Their opinions were echoed by their president, who said, "It is a chance of a lifetime for the working miner to have a financial stake in his future, and we are very enthusiastic about the project and its prospects."
I share that optimism. The technological revolution has arrived. In a debate in 1984, I said:
"Every day we hear of the sunrise industries. The greatest of these is the coal industry. It will be here when the others have gone".—[Official Report, 7 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 474.]
I have neither heard nor seen anything since then to change my statement. Come 1992 and the single European market, the British coal industry will be ready and able to supply the home market and the highly protected European markets, particularly those of France and Germany.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Unless speeches are brief, I am afraid that some hon. Members will be disappointed.
8.22 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I follow what appeared to be a brief written by the Democractic Union of Mineworkers and the Department of Energy—
Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Lofthouse: It depends on which side of the issue we stand.
This evening, however, we have listened to what amounted to nothing less than NUM-bashing from the Secretary of State. We have come to expect it from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who always has a prepared brief—probably from the UDM, but we do not know. Personally bashing a major union, however, does the Secretary of State no credit. I should have thought that it would be wiser to leave that subject well alone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, the debate is not about market forces; it is a continuation of the bashing of miners and the mining industry that began in 1984. As the Secretary of State knows, I have spent many hours over the years on the Select Committee on Energy, listening to many expert witnesses, including the right hon. Gentleman. At no time have I heard any evidence that the Government's policy was not deliberately to run down the mining industry purely for reasons of dogma and revenge.
The Secretary of State will recall that in his evidence to the Committee he said that the increased import of coal posed no fears, because the capacity of the ports could not cope with it: that was his defence when he was challenged. Of course, it was part of the plan to increase port capacity to enable more coal to come into the country. His permanent secretary does not really agree with the proposals: only a fortnight ago he told the Select Committee that there were no plans to interfere with the
772
free market, and suggested that his Department was sitting on the sidelines. It is fairly obvious this evening, however, that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept a much lower percentage of fuel for the CEGB than is guaranteed by the agreement now in operation, which can mean only that there will be more imports.
Sir Peter Gregson—the permanent secretary to whom I have referred—told the Select Committee on the same occasion that the £311 million in the Department's estimate for the restructuring grant was equivalent to 15,000 miners' jobs in the current financial year. Given that the overspill from the previous year was 5,000 jobs, we are talking about the loss of 20,000 jobs. If Sir Peter Gregson is wrong, I invite the Secretary of State or the Minister to say so. If he is right, however, I remind the Secretary of State that the same Select Committee, in its 1987 report on the coal industry, said that never again must this or any other industry be run down so rapidly without consideration of the social consequences.
Those consequences have been pointed out in the House time and again, but the only reply that we have received from the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends is a reminder of the attractive redundancy terms enjoyed by miners. Not once have they been able to give an instance of measures to encourage alternative employment in the mining communities. In areas such as mine—the Wakefield area, which has lost 11,000 jobs since 1984—there is no evidence of that to this day.
I hope that the Secretary of State accepts the figures that I have given, and will tell us whether his Department, the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry are taking part in discussions to try to solve the problems of communities that have been devastated by the rundown of the coal industry.
Mr. Parkinson: Let me clear up that point. What Sir Peter Gregson said was that the total available provision was £311 million. We do not know how many redundancies there will be, because we are not in charge of the closure programme. Last year we under-provided and had to come back to the House for a supplementary estimate. This is not a prediction; it is a provision which may or may not be needed. If it is not needed, it will be carried forward into the next year.
Mr. Lofthouse: Sir Peter Gregson made it clear that the figure might also be an under-estimate. If that is the case, we are talking about more than 20,000 miners.
Hon Members have referred to attractive redundancy terms, and I do not deny that men over 50 received reasonable compensation in the form of lump sums and weekly payments, which some of them welcomed. But it is a different ball game now: the average age of miners is 34, and they have no weekly payments to cushion the blow. Young men have nowhere else to go. One of the schemes guaranteed that a further payment would be made if men took redundancy, based on so many years' service. The agreement expires in August, in the same financial year as about 20,000 job losses in the mining industry. Does the Secretary of State plan to extend the redundancy payments scheme for mineworkers, bearing in mind that a devastatingly large number of men will be made redundant? If he does not do so, the mining communities will suffer even greater hardship than they have experienced hitherto.

773
The Government's policy is deliberately to encourage coal imports. Lord Marshall has repeatedly told the Select Committee that he will shop in the cheapest market. He made no bones about it. If that happens, profitable pits will have to be closed. The miners have been congratulated on their wonderful achievements since the miners' strike, but 20,000 of the miners who have done such wonderful things will lose their jobs this year. That is on record. Only a fortnight ago Sir Peter Gregson told the Select Committee on Energy that 20,000 miners would lose their jobs this year.
I am convinced that the CEGB, or its successor, will not take the same amount of coal from British Coal as it has taken hitherto. There will be even more coal imports. It is economic lunacy to run down the coal industry and close profitable pits. In 1987 the Select Committee on Energy said that the industry would be down to 67,000 men by 1990. The then Secretary of State for Energy pooh-poohed that forecast. However, it is now forecast that the industry will be down to 50,000 men by the end of this financial year. When the industry is run down to the extent that it cannot meet demand, how much cheap coal will there then be? Kids in primary schools in my constituency know the answer to that question. When we cannot meet demand from our own resources, the price of coal will spiral. That will be the effect of the Government's policy.
I hope that the Secretary of State will note the comments of Sir Robert Haslam. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Sir Robert made it clear that he does not share all the views of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State saw the press statement issued by British Coal on 14 June in which Sir Robert expressed his concern about the future of the coal industry and about the unfairness of the Government's policy regarding nuclear power. The Secretary of State's policy is to cut the aid that is given to British Coal, but at the same time he is introducing legislation that will featherbed the nuclear industry.
In his press statement Sir Robert Haslam
"expressed great surprise that nuclear power—with costs for producing electricity at least 40 per cent. more than coal—is now being justified as the 'environmentally friendly' fuel resource."
Sir Robert went on to say that the United States does not think that nuclear power is environmentally friendly because nuclear power stations are to be closed, partly for economic reasons but also because of the views of people in the United States. They have found that nuclear power stations are not the great economic success that they had hoped for; they do not result in the production of cheap fuel, the argument that is used against coal.
The Secretary of State took over from his predecessors the job that the Prime Minister began during the miners' strike—to destroy the miners, to get revenge on them and damn the consequences to the country's major source of energy.
8.36 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: A notable feature of the debate is the total absence of Liberals, SDPs, nationalists—all those who claim to be interested in the environment. The last two speeches by Opposition Members to which I have listened were very similar to those that I heard when I entered the House some 20 years ago. They were genuine, from the heart and full of understanding. They reminded me of what I call the
774
old mining group of the Labour party. They were in sharp contrast to the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), which was full of entertainment value but very short of understanding.
I, too, heard the radio interview that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy gave. I should have been very angry if he had said what the figures would be, because it is not his job to carry out the negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, negotiations are now taking place and we shall have to await the results. It is not for Ministers to interfere in negotiations of that kind.
I am probably the last remaining Conservative Member who has worked underground for more than two years in the pits, mainly as a back ripper. I remember my very happy association with the mining industry. For a couple of years I was on the national committee of the Bevin boy movement. I did my training in Nottinghamshire and I worked in Derbyshire. My one claim to fame is that in those days I worked at the same pit as Cliff Gladwin who is, of course, in "The Guinness Book of Records". I, probably, never shall be. Perhaps we could do with Cliff Gladwin in the England team today, if he was able to score runs now as he did in that particular match, with one leg bye off a certain part of his anatomy.
It cannot be right that the electricity industry, whether under nationalised or private control, should be forced to buy from any particular source. The industry has to provide a service to the consumer. It is the consumer who in the end decides whether he is satisfied. He is entitled to expect that those who supply him are buying in the best market in terms of both calorific and monetary value. I would place my reliance on the common sense of those who are carrying out the negotiations. I only wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could knock a few heads together to stop unnecessary legal fees being accumulated in a certain dispute between part of the coal industry and part of the electricity industry north of the border. That is a total waste of money and I only wish I could persuade my right hon. Friend—I have failed so far —to give a direction to stop that nonsense.
My second point may not command as much support as what I have said already. The Labour party seems to have learnt virtually nothing in 40 years. It is still blinkered by outdated ideas. I recall a speech on this subject. I had to do a lot of research to find it and I should quote from it briefly:
"The coal situation is one of the gravest and most complex in the whole of our affairs to-day and one which will have its repercussions on every sector of national life. With the formation of the National Coal Board, the middleman will be eliminated, but this will not mean cheaper coal".
How right that was.
"Lord Hyndley has already indicated that the price of coal will almost certainly rise."
The speaker opposed the formulated policy of the National Coal Board because, he said, it ignored technical improvement; it would not stop the fall in production or help our export trade. It had no recruiting policy, and would be one of the worst monopolies in the country. It would impair the freedom of the miner; there would be no impartiality in price fixing and no protection of the public.
That speech was made on 10 January 1947, and according to the press report it was given by a certain Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg. I stand by every word that I uttered 42

775
years ago. I said then, as I say tonight, that in the end it is the consumer who matters and the National Coal Board grossly let down the consumer.
Mr. Allen McKay: As one Bevin boy to another, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would never have been Bevin boys had the system of market forces not ruined the coal industry to such an extent that it has to be privatised because it could not supply coal when it was wanted?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, who in circles outside the House I would call a friend. He omits the facts at the time. I shall not take a long time to answer his point because we have been asked for short speeches.
The industry could have found the capital to have re-equipped the industry without the taxpayer being called upon as a result of nationalisation.
I saw the flag of the NCB being raised to immense cheers from miners who thought that a new world was beginning. Sadly, that new world never came about because they were let down by those who ran the industry and those who ran the National Coal Board.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of the people who took over the industry in 1947 were the same people who ran the industry before 1 January 1947?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was how most of the miners for whom I had and have immense admiration were duped. They thought that a new panacea was being created by the raising of that flag. They were duped by the Labour party which was then in government. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.
I believe that the sooner the coal industry is in private hands the better it will suit the miners who work in it and the customers who buy its products. If what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing to speed up the denationalisation of the electricity industry will help that, I give him not three cheers but four cheers.
8.45 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: First, I should like to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). I shall not say too much about the parrot nature of his written speech in case I embarrass him, but Opposition Members well know who must have written it. The hon. Member for Sherwood told us quite a lot about Bilsthorpe. Bilsthorpe has a Labour parish council, a Labour district council, a Labour county council and, as of last week, a Labour MEP. The only link that is missing is a Labour Member of Parliament.
Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who was one of my constituents before he left for greener pastures, should see the letter which I received from the Bilsthorpe parish council in 1983. The nine Labour party councillors wrote congratulating me on winning the election to Westminster above the Labour candidate.
Mr. Hood: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman received a letter from Blidworth parish council.
776
In the tenth year of Conservative government, known to many of us in the mining industry as the decade of shame, it is important to remember that we are discussing the mining industry ten years on. I listened with amazement to the Secretary of State tonight boasting about the wonderful job that the Government have done for the mining industry. If getting rid of 150,000 miners is doing a good job, that shows how much the Government care about the mining industry and the mining communities. Why did they run down the mining industry? Why are they so against miners, their families and their communities? Is it because coal stocks are declining? there has been no such decline in coal reserves. Is it because there is a drop in demand for coal? That is certainly not enough to justify running down the mining industry. Is it not a livid hatred of miners and their unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers?
The hon. Member for Sherwood told us that the UDM is such a responsible organisation. It is so responsible that it has negotiated the smallest percentage increase in basic rates in the history of mining unions in the past 20 years. That is how good a union it is. Let me give the hon. Member for Sherwood one piece of advice to help him in his good fortunes, or his misfortunes, in the next general election. If he honestly thinks that wrapping his arms around Roy Lynk will help him get re-elected, I can tell him that that is like wrapping his arms around the captain of the Titanic.
I wish to make a brief reference to the Under-Secretary of State who is on the Government Front Bench. I was a bit annoyed, to say the least, at some of his out-of-character and disgraceful comments earlier today in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the sacked miners. We heard him display all the old hatred and expose the Government's attitude towards the miners once again. I wish to clear up a few matters. The Minister did not tell us about the thousands of miners who were charged with standing on picket lines, standing up in a village or sitting on a summer seat and who were taken to court, found innocent but still not given their jobs back.
The hon. Member for Sherwood spoke about the great work that the UDM is doing in a new rejuvenated industry. He did not tell us about Paul Gallant who is on the area executive of the UDM who was charged with GBH for assaulting a striking miner and his retired father. Nothing was done against that individual, who is now welcoming the Secretary of State to UDM conferences wherever it has them now. There was no fair hand in considering the problems of miners and administering justice to miners at that time. Is it not a fact that of all the atrocities that were committed against miners who were on strike, not one working miner found guilty of any offence was sacked? Can the Secretary of State tell us what happened to the working miner who petrol-bombed my car because I was a striking miner during the miner's strike? Can he tell me what happened to the working miner who bombed my garage because I was a striking miner during the miners' strike? The answer is, nothing.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) talked about the green pastures to which I have gone. He is so right. I am now among my ain folk, as we say in Scotland, where I was born and bred and I am proud to represent them. Before I moved, the hon. Member for Sherwood was

777
my Member of Parliament, but there has been a 100 per cent. improvement in the quality of my life because I represent myself, because I live in my constituency.
The number of Scottish miners has decreased during this decade of shame. Ten years ago, there were 21,000; five years ago, there were 14,000; and now there are 1,600. A shadow is hanging over the Scottish deep-mine industry. On 2 February 1989, in a press release, British Coal praised the Scottish miners for their 15 per cent. increase in productivity. There was a special reference to Longannet:
"At Longannet coal face teams have established a new record for a week's output from a single coal face of 31,228 tonnes"—
a record that improved on the previous 1957 record of 25,000 tonnes. British Coal praised the Scottish miners with one hand and put the knife into them with the other.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I hope that my hon. Friend will remind the House that Shell, an international company, is bringing coal—in small boats, not bulk carriers—into small ports in Scotland. It is a loss leader. It is not making a profit on that exercise, in the hope that, when it wins the market, it will be able to get the contract and then up the price.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a suggestion about redundancies that affect Scotland. Should not what Sir Peter Gregson said on 14 June to the Select Committee on Energy be put on the record? He said that the £311 million for restructuring grant should be able to cover, first, the redundancies that spilled over from last year, in addition to the 15,000 redundancies in the current year.
Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend is right. We have been given horrific figures showing by how much coal has been subsidised when transported by Shell to capture the so-called market. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's helpful intervention, because it takes me to my next point.
To add insult to injury for miners, Ministers have acted against them. I remember the Prime Minister introducing a Bill to allow for up to £40 million of imported coal. I remember Nottinghamshire Conservative Members opposing that Bill, obviously because of a certain self-interest.
The Secretary of State has said today that the Government will not be so foolish as to put the market into the hands of foreign importers. I see no evidence to support that. We have been told that only 2 million tonnes of coal comes from South Africa. That sounds fine, but how much South African coal is dumped in places such as Rotterdam and enters Britain through the back door? We know that South African coal has been moved in lorries from Nottingham in the midlands and blended with Durham coal, but that coal is not recorded in the figures.
We might not know the true figures, but we know that there are Conservative Members who willingly support the closure of the mining industry. One Conservative Member—I doubt that he will speak tonight—would probably want to tell us that we should bring all our coal in from South Africa. The South African bovver boys are here, and I see one. They would love to bring in South African coal, selling our natural reserves short.
Britain's natural resources are the envy of the world. We all know what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. I shall not defend the actions of other Governments who fell into the trap of accepting cheap oil but who, when the market was captured and the coal industry started to run down,
778
pulled the rope in and quadrupled prices, almost destroying many western economies. That is the danger that we face. We must recognise that it is a trap into which no Government, regardless of party, should fall. I am not convinced that the Government are sincere in saying that they will not fall into that trap.
The Government support the idea of using coal from China, South Africa or Colombia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) said, that coal comes from child labour. The Government would sooner have that than British coal. The Government who whinge about Parliament's sovereignty support the idea of placing our energy requirements in the hands of foreign importers.
The Government are on their way out, are they not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Are they behind 12 per cent. or 14 per cent. this week? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 14 per cent."] We will soon have a Tory-free Scotland and a Tory-free Nottingham. This country needs its coal produced by British miners. The Government will not achieve that—only a Labour Government will.
8.56 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate. I recognise the sincerity with which Labour Members prosecute any debate on the coal industry. There is a sort of agelessness about the way in which it is conducted. For many Labour Members it is clearly a measure of success if miners are kept in jobs, whereas Conservative Members believe in promoting a successful industry that can produce economically and sell what it produces.
I want to make three general points. The first is about the tremendous progress that has been made in the industry in Nottinghamshire. It is a pity that Labour Members do not look more carefully at that aspect. Secondly, in one or two tangential ways, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the coal industry's difficulties in the negotiation of contracts. Thirdly, I emphasise the critical need for the industry to be returned to the private sector as swiftly as possible.
I read the motion moved by the hon. Member for Sedgefield with some surprise, because it did not acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made by the mining industry. It does not show the sort of support for the industry—which Conservative Members would have expected following the review of Labour policy—or the new brand of trade unionism represented by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers which so well fights for its members' interests. The hon. Gentleman may have failed to show his motion in advance of the debate to the latterday Machiavelli who plays such an important role in the Labour party—Peter Mandelson.
In a hitherto adverse market, the mining industry has made much progress, and it is important to recognise that. Its operating profit this year at £500 million is twice as much as last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said in his excellent speech. It is not for nothing that my hon. Friend is known in Nottinghamshire as the miners' friend—a title to which he is justly entitled.
Tremendous price reductions have been made in the industry, saving its customers £500 million in the past year alone. Operating costs have been reduced by over 20 per cent. in real terms. Deep-mine profits of £125 million have

779
been made, whereas the comparable figure for last year was a loss of £112 million. Accidents in the industry have reduced by no less than two thirds since the strike, from 93 per 100,000 man shifts to 29·4. Conservative Members would have liked to hear Labour Members acknowledge how well the industry has done over recent years.
Deep mine operating profits of £73 million were achieved in Nottinghamshire last year. Even after capital charges of £55 million, an overall profit of £34 million was made. Productivity in Nottinghamshire has increased by nearly 12 per cent., which represents 4·35 tonnes per man shift and an increase of nearly 40 per cent. in three years. So far this year, productivity is running ahead of those levels. Those are significant statistics.
Nottinghamshire provides well over half of British Coal's deep-mine profits. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what possible commercial justification he sees for British Coal having its headquarters in London, miles from the nearest pit. It is an extremely valuable piece of real estate. For those who work there, it is a nice, gentle location overlooking the walls of Buckingham palace, but there can be no possible commercial justification for it. Even if there were some economic justification for it, it is bad for management to be so far removed from its area of commercial activity.
Given that nearly 60 per cent of British Coal's deep-mine profits come from Nottinghamshire, will my hon. Friend the Minister, in the run-up to privatisation, encourage its chairman and board to locate near its most profitable area? I agree to take British Coal's chairman to see the excellent office sites in Nottingham so that he can see how congenial it would be to locate there. Many people believe that such a move would send out highly desirable signals to the industry and the generators who buy from it.
Pressure on the industry remains intense, and nowhere more so than in my constituency. Earlier this year, Gedling colliery underwent massive restructuring. It will never be enormously profitable because its seams are too thin, but it sells almost all the coal that it produces, because its quality is so high. Heavy losses were made last year, and this year, following the costs of major restructuring, it has been set a new target of 12,500 tonnes a week. I am glad to be able to tell the House that last week, for the first time, the much reduced work force managed to reach that target. Excellent progress has been made and we should congratulate its men and management on what has been achieved and express the hope that it continues.
The need to achieve viability is generally recognised, but not by all Labour Members. However, there is a glimmer of hope that recognition is coming. The Secretary of State spoke about British Coal being a supplier of choice and said that it is important that there is a free market in coal. I was extremely surprised, therefore, to hear that generators have said, and I think that I have heard right, that they do not intend to buy exclusively from British Coal, regardless of economics. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they intend to achieve the best value for money, they must allow British Coal that same opportunity. This correct approach for British Coal has been endorsed by the electricity supply industry. I am sure that that approach will be supported by the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board.
780
A policy of the carrot and the stick is required. Turning round an unprofitable, unproductive and demoralised industry takes much time, but as long as that turnround is being achieved, the industry deserves to be given the time for which it has asked. It must know roughly how much coal will be needed by generators over the next five years. After that, the UDM calculates that the industry will be sufficiently reformed, productive and successful to take on all comers and have no fear of foreign competition.
In supporting my right hon. Friend's excellent amendment to the neanderthal Opposition motion, I do not ask him to intervene in commercial negotiations, but I hope that he will point out that, just as we expect British Coal to compete on its merits, so we expect it to be allowed to compete for all generators' coal requirements and not be frozen out of a part of their market. That is required in order to ensure the future stability of the distributors, the generators, the coal industry and the public.
In addition, the desirability of any form of dependence on foreign coal is now looking particularly shaky, for the reasons expressed on both sides of the House. There is no such thing as an organised market in foreign coal. The Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp market is not a true spot market. Coal is traded in dollars and at the moment the dollar is, to say the least, a fluctuating currency.
China has been mentioned. It has taken on some long-term contracts, but it has failed to deliver. That country has major infrastructure problems and there are also tremendous problems with its port handling. Later this year it may even have to import coal.
Currently the United States industry is suffering major industrial disruption and it may be hard pressed to meet its internal demands.
British Coal was riddled with political involvement, strikes, appalling industrial relations and a complete lack of commercialism. Since the strike it has produced the same tonnage with roughly half the manpower. The cost per gigajoule in Nottinghamshire is £1·42; it has come down from nearly £2. Those arguments, quite apart from a debt of loyalty that the country owes to the UDM, underline the desirability of a soft landing for the industry and a defined period of time for continuing reconstruction and adjustment.
Recently, the Secretary of State addressed the UDM annual conference. He cannot have failed to notice that the UDM fights just as hard for its members as any other union, but it looks forward to the future and not back to the past. I regret that the union is opposed to privatisation, as nationalisation has been the curse of the industry. I hope that miners will talk to their colleagues in the steel industry before making up their minds about the merits of privatisation. The leadership of the UDM is, nevertheless, determined to ensure that its members get an outstanding deal if privatisation goes ahead.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend noticed the agenda at that conference, which dealt with matters such as the importance of free shares for miners if privatisation takes place; pensions payable with a lump sum at 50 years old; creative schemes such as that at Bilsthorpe; and plans to develop a mothballed pit with the creation of nearly 1,000 new jobs.
Did my right hon. Friend hear the words of the president of the UDM following its deal with British Coal last autumn concerning six-day working? His words are most important. He said:

781
"This agreement is necessary and in my opinion will protect the jobs of many miners and the future of the mining industry. The agreement will allow us to compete with any foreign competition and is yet another demonstration that the UDM are working for, the future while other unions are living in the past".
But the NUM remains immune to common sense and refuses to accept six-day working.
British Coal and the UDM face great challenges and great difficulties. They need to achieve economic viability, to adapt to electricity privatisation and to face up to the environmental problems about which we have heard. They must also face up to the privatisation of the industry. The men whom I met on my recent visit to the Gedling pit are not interested in the politics of coal mining or in the past. They want a healthy industry where their hard work and skill wins them a secure future and a decent wage.
I hope that we shall soon see a fair deal between British Coal and the generators based on some of the realities that I have raised tonight.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see six hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. I understand that the Front Bench spokesmen will seek to wind up the debate at 9.30. The arithmetic will be obvious to those hon. Members.
9.8 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be brief. The thing that concerns me about the speeches of the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is that they do not share my view that the industry is contracted to the point where the sooner there is one union for mineworkers the better. That would certainly not suit either their own or their political book.
I want to contribute partly because I represent the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which has its conference in Cardiff this week. That association is extremely anxious because, although it has heard the platitudes from Ministers, it knows that, despite the fact that large sums of public money have been invested in the industry, that is no guarantee that the Government will manage the industry in the national interest, no guarantee that the Government will ensure that taxpayers' money is properly safeguarded, and no guarantee that the Government will try to persuade the electricity industry to use British Coal in which they have invested large sums of money. That is no guarantee that this country would not be exposed to the consequences of a dependence on coal imports. Apart from the retention of jobs and self-sufficiency, we have an obligation to sustain industrial capacity, and our mining engineering and equipment industry could be greater and more important. However, it requires a substantial home base and I fear that that home base is contracting.
That base has contracted in my area. The Minister will boast that not a man has been made compulsorily redundant. That is so. Their morale has been destroyed deliberately, so that they have wanted to get out because they have felt fearful that, no matter how successful their pit, it will close and they may as well take the money now. The operation of the time scale of redundancy payments was engineered and structured to secure that. While the individual has been cushioned against the shock of redundancy, the communities in which the mining industry was of enormous importance have been simply ignored.
782
We are supposed to be having an economic miracle. A few areas appear to have experienced it, but the coalfields of Britain have not. They were the areas with the highest level of unemployment even before the policies inflicted on them in the past three or four years.
The hon. Member for Sherwood talked about representing many pits. When I entered the House, there were more collieries in my constituency than in any other. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will be aware, the Boundary Commission removed quite a few of them, but this Government have reduced the number further. Some pits that I lost as a result of the Boundary Commission changes of 1983 remain, but their life expectancy may be reduced, and the work force has contracted.
There is one colliery left in my constituency. It is one of the most successful and profitable in the country, but even that colliery, with a potential for profit and a record of achievement of which the men should be proud and of which I, as their Member of Parliament, am proud, the men are still fearful for the future. That is a ridiculous situation and a comment on the farcical policies now followed.
I see that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is in his place. Some Conservative Members seem to be far more interested in the South African industry than in the British industry. Forty-two Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion about the South African coal industry and 16 of them have probably been on free trips to the South African coal industry in the past two years. Perhaps that early-day motion accompanied the return to work of the Passport Office and those Conservative Members have now realised that they have an opportunity to go abroad on holiday.
It would be interesting if some of those 42 Conservative Members were to visit a pit in the United Kingdom, especially one of the pits with heavy duty faces which result from the substantial investment about which the Minister boasted. If they make such a visit, perhaps it will dawn on them that it would be remarkably foolish and feckless for us to embark on the course of action that they want to pursue.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of us from mining areas became green long before it was politically fashionable. We were green because we objected to the disfigurement and destruction of our environment. We became concerned about the lust of Conservative Members to see as much opencast mining as possible, in the hope that it would be followed by privatisation, so that profits would be made in other parts of the country from the rape and exploitation of areas such as mine. The removal of our publicly owned enterprise should persuade the Minister that, if the Government are concerned to be a Government of one nation, they will have to recognise the bitterness and anxiety about future opencast mining, which we would be expected to tolerate. If the Government close our deep mines, they should not expect the people of the coalfields of Britain to tolerate their surface environment being destroyed as well. We were prepared to support the national interest. We are not prepared to support the profit-seeking greed of a few Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) appeared to question the approach, tactic and values of nationalisation, and read us the speech that he made in 1947. I know that the hon. Gentleman is

783
fair-minded so I ask him to bear in mind the industry's achievements since 1949. It became the safest deep-mine industry in the world, with more and better industrial training than any other mining industry in the world. Relationships within the mining community developed patchily but sometimes superbly. Imperfect though the nationalisation of the industry may have proved to be, it served this country's interests, not least because 90 per cent. of British Coal's purchases came from British commerce and British business. That would go out of the window with the loss of the market about which hon. Members have been expressing their fears tonight.
I urge the Government to renew their endeavours to ensure that the electricity industry maintains its satisfactory and viable level of purchase of British coal. I ask the Minister to accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who said that sterling will certainly not remain at its present level as a result of industrial devastation and the reduction of oil exports. If the Minister accepts that Governments should look beyond the end of their noses, he will recognise the worth and the wit of the Opposition's motions.
9.17 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and to the other Opposition Members who trailed my speech so generously, although, unfortunately, they do not seem to have been very successful in attracting my hon. Friends into the Chamber.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has temporarily left his place. He imparted the most unusual flavour to the debate by introducing some literary references—for example, to Lord Byron. That suggests to me that his speech was vetted by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is known to be one of the foremost experts on that great poet. The hon. Gentleman's speech certainly had all the characteristic vagueness of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, but without the romance.
In reflecting on the hon. Gentleman's speech I was reminded of Byron's description of Don Juan:
"He was the mildest manner'd man
That ever scuttled ship or cut a throat,
With such true breeding of a gentleman,
You never could divine his real thought."
I thought that that was particularly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's speech. We heard nothing from him about the Opposition's ideas for the future of the industry. He had the gall to accuse the Conservative party of looking to ideology and vested interest in its policy on coal. If there is one charge that could not be laid at our feet, it is that we take an ideological view or seek to protect vested interests. That is precisely the Labour party's policy on coal.
The hon. Gentleman also had the gall to accuse us of seeking to put the industry in a position to grasp profit from captive consumers. But what happened in the 40 years of nationalisation? The legal structure of the industry, coupled with successive Governments who were unwilling to grapple with its problems have allowed it to extract huge sums from the taxpayers and consumers—unwillingly, and by way of taxation and higher prices than were necessary. In our privatisation policy, which I greatly
784
welcome, we seek to restore to the coal industry the freedom of the market so that consumers, rather than vested interests, can rule the day.
Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), accused us of seeking to bash the coal industry. If we have been bashing the coal industry for the past 10 years, we have been using the most extraordinary weapon to do it. Our weapon has been the cheque book. Have we really damaged the coal industry by giving it £10 billion in grants and £6·5 billion in investment? It is the most massive investment programme for the industry during the post war period. If a crime has been committed by successive Governments, it has been to demand money with menaces from the taxpayer and the consumer. The end of that criminal activity, through privatisation, will massively benefit the people of this country.
The truth is that 40 years of nationalisation have proved a disastrous failure. It has not been in the interests of the miners, because the number of men employed in the industry is now a small fraction of what it was in the immediate post-war period. It has not protected the industry against the inevitability of contraction of output, because output is very much smaller than it was in the immediate post-war period.
I wish that Opposition Members would come to grips with the realities of the international energy market, because that is the only way in which the future of the industry and the jobs that go with it can be sustained. Coal is a fossil fuel—and, unfortunately, the industry and the country have been faced with a fossil union in the National Union of Mineworkers, which over the years has set its face against every beneficial change that would have been in the interests of both the miners and the industry. Even now, after the most disastrous strike—during which, because of its irresponsible activities, it virtually destroyed itself and many pits that might otherwise have survived —it is still opposing such forward-looking policies as flexible working and the six-day week, upon which the profitability of some pits and the opening of new pits depend.
There has been a fossil party in the form of the Opposition, who have danced to the tune piped by Arthur Scargill and, it seems, still do so—[Interruption.] Opposition Members sit here tonight trying to defend their vested interests. They are certainly not defending the vested interests of those who, over generations, have supported the Labour party in the belief that in so doing they were supporting the interests of the coal industry.
We are not here simply to debate what is in the best interests of a particular section of the population or a particular section of British industry. We should be debating the national interest, which depends on the cheapest possible source of energy consistent with strategic requirements. There has been a sense of unreality in the speeches of Opposition Members. They spoke about the freeing of the energy industry, especially electricity generation, as tolling the death knell of the industry, as though it will import all its coal requirements, regardless of the strategic and long-term implications. No sensible company, which is in business in the long term and must make a profit to survive, will base its decisions on such short-term considerations. The importance of the freedom to import is that, at the margin, it will exercise a

785
considerable discipline on the British industry to ensure that its costs are as low as possible so that it can be competitive.
I rise to the bait put in front of me by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about South African coal. There is nothing horrific in the fact that we may import some South African coal. If, by doing so, we reduce the energy costs of British industry and, in the process, provide jobs for black workers in South Africa, there is surely nothing wrong in that. I am not suggesting that those imports will amount to anything very much in comparison with the total coal burn in this country. They will always be marginal. However, if they amount to even 10 or 15 per cent. of our total coal burn, the beneficial effects will be widely felt.
Privatisation offers enormous scope to improve the position of the coal industry and to remove the constraints of political interference from which it has suffered so much during the past 40 years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that it is a shame that we have to wait until after the next general election, which we certainly intend to win, in order to implement our privatisation policy. Action can be taken in advance of privatisation without prejudicing the public sector.
Mr. Alan Meale rose—
Mr. Hamilton: As it is 9.24 pm, I do not have time to give way, because I hope that one other hon. Member, perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), may be able to make a speech.
Opencast production is constrained by legislation. The licensed opencast producers are limited in what they can produce, both by tonnage limits and other controls, principally because British Coal is both the regulator and a competitor in the market. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to invest coal in the Crown before the next general election so that British Coal no longer has the inevitable conflict of interest of deciding who will produce, and at what price the royalty should be set. That would be an important fillip to a part of the British opencast industry which will wish to be a major player in the market after privatisation.
Therefore, the coal industry has nothing to fear from privatisation so long as the miners who work in it, their union representatives and their other representatives of different political persuasions look to the future of the industry as being based on satisfying the demands of the consumers. That is the surest foundation on which to base a successful industry. After privatisation, the coal industry's future will be good and, therefore, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on having had the vision and courage to bring forth this, the greatest of all privatisations.
9.27 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I wish to talk about Conservative Members' constant references to the Government's good work in relation to the coal industry. I represent a constituency which is at the heartland of the coal mining industry—Mansfield, Nottinghamshire—in which the headquarters of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the National Union of Mineworkers are located. It is about time that Conservative Members,
786
particularly those who are from Nottinghamshire, stopped rubbishing the miners of both unions in the Nottinghamshire area.
Those miners know at first hand exactly what the Government have done to the mining industry and they know that every time Conservative Members open their mouths as they have been, all they do is to conjure up fires between the different groups of workers. It is no good Conservative Members saying that they know and understand what is happening, and even smile about it.
We in the Nottingham area are currently spending tens of thousands of pounds via social and other services throughout the county, and in education programmes both voluntary and statutory, to try to douse the flarnes created by the mining strike of the early 1980s. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped rekindling those flames just for the sake of political votes at election times. Instead, we should be concerned about the people from those mining communities and what we can do to help them obtain and retain jobs in their communities.
Today, the Secretary of State mentioned the mining strike. He is the least qualified to come forward with such arguments. If he is concerned about Nottinghamshire, he should do more than visit it once in a blue moon, and call in at Nottingham to speak to those at the chamber of trade who represent a minority of people in the county.
The Secretary of State raised the subject of the Government's good housekeeping. Conservative Members also mentioned harassment, which occurred throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfields in the form of the loss of 16,000 mining jobs, the closure of pits, the rundown of communities and the lack of investment because there was no structural plan for investment in new jobs throughout the county.
Speaking of good housekeeping, today I received a reply from the Minister responsible for coal. I had asked him how much the Government had spent on the privatisation of electricity supply. In 1987–88 they spent £0·8 million on financial advice in connection with the privatisation. In 1988–89 that rose to £5·5 million, and this year the Government have set aside £26·5 million for outside advice on the privatisation of a public industry. It is a disgrace that there should have been a 3,000 per cent. increase in the spending of public money on the privatisation of a public asset.
Finally, Conservative Members representing the Nottinghamshire area should stop their party political battles and should stop putting out press releases asking where particular Labour Members were when there were votes on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and on similar legislation. In votes on motions such as tonight's, they should vote with the Opposition and support the mining communities in Nottinghamshire.
9.31 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that I hope that many hon. Members on both sides will take to heart what he said about the prevailing social conditions in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, which stem from the industrial dispute of 1984–85. All of us can learn lessons from the problems that still exist in that area.
I must tell the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) that he was out-jumped on the restart scheme —his claim to fame—because a few months before he

787
mentioned it in the House, Opposition Members had already—last July—brought up restart in the context of British coalfields. If he can derive any comfort from this, we intend to look into an extension of the restart scheme to cover ex-Tory Members of Parliament in the Nottinghamshire area in years to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) touched a nerve earlier tonight when he mentioned what the Minister's civil servant said said when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy two weeks ago. The Secretary of State jumped up and tried to explain in detail what the restructuring grant meant. I was present to hear the evidence, and what it meant was plain: at least 15,000, to judge from last year, when the figure given was 2,000 or 3,000 and we ended up with almost 8,000. Who knows what this year's amount will be? The events of the next few weeks will determine it.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was quite right to read us his speech of 1947. It showed what has happened in the intervening years since the time when he worked for two years in the industry. There have been massive changes in the past 40 years. I was pleased to be part of the industry for 20 of those years —a time in which the industry, within the public sector, became one of the best respected deep coal-mining industries in the world.
These reflections shatter the arguments of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who brought us his customary historical view of the industry—nothing in the past 40 years has been good because the industry has not been in the private sector. On both occasions this century when this country was attacked from outside, the first thing that the Government did was to nationalise the coal industry so that we could fight those who threatened our existence.
The implicit question behind the motion tabled by my right hand hon. Friends and myself is whether this country will begin once again to import large amounts of its energy supplies or whether it has learnt the lessons of the past and will support an indigenous coal industry—one that not only supplies coal securely and at the right price but protects the balance of payments and, despite the job losses of the past few years, still provides direct employment for some 100,000 people.
Throughout the world, coal producers negotiate long-term contracts with their electricity generators. Obviously, that makes good sense on both sides. If one wants to see the real world of privatised electricity, one need only go to the United States. Companies there own the generators and the coal mines. Companies will not build generators or sink mines unless they have contracts of 20 to 30 years. In this country, people thought that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry would replicate the real privatised generators of the world—and that could have happened.
British Coal was able to make an unsurpassable offer to the successor companies of 10-year contracts within the retail price index. People will remember that such a contract was sounded out in January. However, between January, when that 10-year contract was offered—perhaps the best on the energy market—and now, there has been an intervention by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister about what was then thought to be the
788
correct lifeline of a contract between the generators and the fuel suppliers. The Prime Minister put an end to those contracts.
It was first of all thought that the Prime Minister and the DTI had insisted that coal supply contracts should be signed for only between six months and three years. Even the generators, fighting their corners, thought that that was nonsense. The Prime Minister, however, had to be appeased, so the compromise was reached that the contracts should be between one and five years.
The Secretary of State has recently made a number of statements about the Government wanting to see free market negotiations. It is all very well for him to talk about free market negotiations, but the stipulation by a Government Department, and I understand by the Prime Minister, is that contracts should be for between one and five years. In fact, the Secretary of State said that he would not force customers into long-term contracts with British Coal. That is true, because the Government are stopping British Coal negotiating what anybody would call long-term contracts for the supply of fuel into the generation companies.
What appears to be missing from the Government's calculations is an understanding of the realities of the coal-mining industry. If contracts with British Coal should run for only five years, on what criteria could the industry make judgments about future investment? The Secretary of State and many Conservative Members have made great play of the £6·5 billion capital investment in British Coal in the past 10 years. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any industry or the Government would have made the investment in Selby or Asfordby without a predetermined market for that coal?
What will happen in future when the only contract possible will be for five years, but it can take anywhere between five or 10 years before a fuel source is brought on in such massive mines as Selby or Asfordby? The Government's imposition of short-term contracts on the industry is to enable the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's dream of a Britain without coal mines or miners. It is to give time to those who would replace British coal—as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) said—with coal mined in Colombia, South Africa, Australia or Poland, and to prepare the facilities for its large-scale importation. That is the reason for the five-year contracts.
The recent fall in sterling against the dollar has meant that international coal prices are increasing. It can no longer be asserted that British Coal cannot compete in the international market, and many experts say that it could and does now. By encouraging the myth that imported coal is cheaper, the Government are doing a great disservice to the British coal industry and to the country as a whole. We know that the international energy markets are wildly unpredictable and that that can put Britain's industrial competitiveness at risk—or what is left of it since the Government came to office 10 years ago.
British Steel now imports seven out of every eight tonnes of coal that it uses. That did not use to happen. Ten years ago, it imported hardly any coal except when that was necessary. It took a determined line and now imports seven out of every eight tonnes of coal. How will the change in the pound-dollar rate affect British Steel now? For how long are its supplies assured? Are the Government prepared to allow the uncertainty of supply

789
which results from transferring from home-produced coal to imported coal to affect the electricity supply industry in the way that it will surely affect British Steel?
Despite the Government's amendment, the Secretary of State has shown that he will take no steps to secure the long-term future of the coal industry. He was quite embarrassed today when it was revealed in the debate that 60 million tonnes is the figure for the future market for British Coal in this country. I challenge the Secretary of State now. I will give way to him if he will tell us that British Coal will be allowed to fight evenly and competitively for every tonne of coal in the market for electricity generation over the next six months. The Secretary of State will not rise to that challenge. The generators, British Coal and everyone else know that the Government are determined to take markets away from British Coal no matter how much imported coal costs. The Secretary of State's silence speaks volumes about this.
I have quite taken to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) since he became a Member of the House. I hope that he does not feel that this compliment will be followed by an attack on his local Conservative association. He made a good contribution to the debate; he referred to the positive aspects of what is happening in British Coal, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House share his feelings about them.
The hon. Member for Gedling has evidence in the Secretary of State's refusal to rise to my challenge that the Government are deeply involved in ensuring that British Coal loses its contract irrespective of the price for the 10 million tonnes or 15 million tonnes to which I have referred.
Instead of awarding the British Coal work force a Queen's award for industry for their 90 per cent. productivity increases, the Government appear to be rewarding them with the prospect of more job losses. Instead of applauding British Coal's contract, which offered coal for 10 years at prices related to the RPI—an offer which is not matched anywhere else in the world for any form of energy—the Secretary of State voted for the construction of port facilities designed specifically to import coal into this country.
Mr. Parkinson indicated dissent.
Mr. Barron: The Secretary of State may shake his head. I was a teller when he walked through the Aye Lobby with the Prime Minister to vote in favour for the Bill for the ports on the Humber. I will send the Secretary of State a copy of Hansard if he has forgotten what he did that night.
Opposition Members and the whole of the British coal-mining industry will not be unaware of the kind of support that they have received from the Government over the past six months or so. No matter what words they utter or what they do, it is clear that the Government's policy towards the coal industry is determined by a mixture of their ideological idiocy and political prejudice.
The prejudice between British coal miners and Tory Governments is well known. It has been evident in the 1980s, and it was evident in the 1970s in my generation. However, it was clear also in the 1920s when the arguments between Labour and capitalism were rehearsed in the mining communities between the coal owners and the mining unions. We know where Conservatism has stood for generations.
790
Nothing more could have been asked of the British coal industry over the past four years than that which it has delivered. For the industry to be confronted by a Government who are prepared to work against it in the winning of contracts so that foreign coal will come into this country is a stab in the back for the people who work so hard. That shows where the Government's loyalties really lie. There is nothing of flag waving in the Government's attitude. Now we can see who really wants to protect British interests and who does not. If British Coal does not win the contracts that it deserves, that will go down as one of the most tragic stabs in the back that the industry has ever suffered from the current Government.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): As my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) so shrewdly noted, there can be no doubt that the debate has been a terrible personal embarrassment for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who opened it. I noticed that he kept his head down throughout his speech like a Chinese news-reader. He hardly mentioned coal at all, except to say that the international coal market is so tight that logically we have nothing to worry about from imports.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not go that far, but the hon. Gentleman is on the right lines. My advice is that he should talk occasionally to his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is petrified, like most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, at the prospect of coal imports. I shall return to that subject shortly.
The future of coal poses the hon. Member for Sedgefield a ghastly dilemma. On the one hand, he and his new-style Socialists see the coal industry as baggage that they would like to discard. It reminds them of Mr. Arthur Scargill, who for obvious reasons they are trying to put back under wraps, but not very successfully. Labour understand that coal pollutes the very atmosphere that they want to clear up, and generally it does not fit well with their adman's image of sweet-smelling roses and jolly music that is their particular manifestation of Socialism.
On the other hand, Labour have to contend with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and with other Opposition Members who have spoken tonight, telling them that coal lies at the very foundation of the Labour movement, and that for Labour to turn its back on it is to turn its back on years of struggle and disruption. So good is coal, say the hon. Member for Bolsover and his hon. Friends, that one day it must triumph again and replace most other sources of energy—notably nuclear power.
The important question in assessing the significance of the Opposition motion is who is winning the power struggle within the Labour party over the future of coal. If one looks at the Opposition's recent policy review, the answer is clear. Despite all the charm of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, the hon. Member for Bolsover and his hon. Friends have won the argument. That is why Labour is committed unequivocally to phasing out nuclear power, why it chooses motions such as that before the House tonight to debate in the Opposition's own time, and why the hon. Member for Sedgefield leaves coal matters to his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley whenever he

791
can, hoping himself to be moved to other pastures as soon as the Electricity Bill has passed safely through Parliament. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have made remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am returning the compliment.
That is also why the hon. Member for Sedgefield employs every diversion that he can muster to avoid addressing the essential question of how we are to meet the increased demand for electricity that everyone—probably even the hon. Gentleman in his heart of hearts—acknowledges will come about, even if we allow for measures to increase efficiency, while at the same time cutting carbon dioxide emissions and abolishing the nuclear industry.
One of the hon. Gentleman's recent diversions was to issue another of his famous press releases on 20 June. Its primary purpose was to attack our policy on the nuclear industry. At the bottom of the first page, in quotation marks, was an extract from a speech that I was alleged to have made to the House on 10 April this year. I am supposed to have said that the schedule in the Electricity Bill that provides for making grants to the nuclear industry would be activated
"only if there is a change in environmental policies that the industry could not have foreseen."
What I actually said—it is column 667 of Hansard—was:
"We are clear about the policy. The industry, and therefore the consumer, will pay for decommissioning unless something happens that was not capable of being foreseen—such as"—
not "only"—
"the regulations concerning the environment being changed —and proper provision could not therefore have been made in the accounts."—[Official Report, 10 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 667.]
That is virtually the opposite of what was attributed to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
I have laboured the point partly to illustrate the diversionary tactics employed by the hon. Gentlemen to disguise his embarrassment about his energy policies—particularly those concerned with coal—but partly because I think it scandalous behaviour on the part of Labour's official energy spokesman to distort totally what I said to the House of Commons and then to attack it.
Mr. Blair: I take it as an enormous compliment that nearly half the Minister's speech so far has been taken up by an attack on me. May I set the record straight? In column 677 of Hansard for 10 April 1989 appear the following words—the very words that the Minister has just denied using:
"Because we do not want that to persist"—
that is, the comments that would be made by Opposition Members—
"we are making it clear that the schedule will be activated only if there is a change in environmental policies that the industry could not have forseen."—[Official Report, 10 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 667.]
All that I did was quote those words.
Mr. Spicer: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has completely distorted the position as given in the quotations that I have given him and the speeches that I have placed on the record, and he knows it.
Mr. Blair rose—
Mr. Spicer: No, I shall not give way.
792
Some of his hon. Friends have tried to help the hon. Gentleman out of his embarrassment—it has happened again tonight—by trying to focus the argument on clean coal technology. Of course we all agree that the methods of producing electricity with reduced carbon dioxide emissions are a good thing, but do not let us kid ourselves. The building of a nuclear power station results in a 100 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, while a coal-fired power station using the topping cycle —which is yet to be fully developed—is likely to produce a reduction of only about 20 per cent. The Labour party, in its attack on the nuclear industry, seems to be incapable of recognising that. Even a modern gas-fired station will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 per cent.
Perhaps it is because we do not have the cultural hang-up about the coal industry that is so deeply rooted in the Labour party that we have a clear policy on its future. It is precisely that policy which was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy at the beginning of the debate. Through the massive investment of capital in modern machinery, which is still running at £2 million every working day, we intend to exploit the nation's best reserves of coal in such a way as to allow the industry to stand on its own feet, to beat off foreign competition as the supplier of choice to the electricity industry and ultimately—to answer my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Tatton and others who have raised the matter—to place it once more in the private sector.
Mr. Barron: The Minister said that he is prepared to see British Coal beat off foreign competition. Will he now answer the question that twice today the Secretary of State has refused to answer: whether British Coal will be able to negotiate to supply the generating industry with more than the 60 million tonnes of coal that is the sticking point at present? Will he answer yes or no?
Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—and I shall answer it in my own way. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what our position is—that it is not our policy to order any industry to do anything at the expense of another part of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton made that point when he said that we have to represent not exclusively the coal industry but the entire nation, including those who use electricity. They have the right to buy their electricity as cheaply as possible. Opposition Members are not concerned about that. We have never hidden our aim that there should be free trade in coal. I have said time and again to the House of Commons that there is no question of the Government preventing anyone from negotiating a price for the import of coal. The question, however, is which side of the House has the confidence to back the industry's ability to fight off coal imports.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield made the point, quite fairly, that the world market for steam coal is not particularly bright. British Coal is in an extraordinarily powerful position, partly because of the difficulties over importing coal, partly because of the problems in the world coal market and partly because—a point which the Opposition are never prepared to accept and concede—of the massive investment by the Government in the coal industry. The only question that Opposition Members

793
should answer is whether those who work in the mining industry are prepared to back the massive investment, largely by the taxpayer, in the industry by adopting the manning procedures and efficient mining methods that are required if the industry is to beat off competition, something which all hon. Members hope will take place.
Mr. Barron: If I accepted all the Minister's arguments about the cost of foreign coal and all his other arguments, would he answer the question whether British Coal is free to negotiate every tonne of coal—74 million or 75 million tonnes—that is currently being burnt in generating stations?
Mr. Spicer: Of course it is free to negotiate. What a stupid question, if I may be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely what we have been saying all along. Of course British Coal is allowed to negotiate whatever it thinks that it can sell. The question, however, is whether the coal industry will take advantage of the massive investment by the Government in the industry. It has responded in many respects. It has nearly doubled its rate of productivity. There are good things. The reason that the industry is in its present state—a potentially powerful position—has everything to do with what this Government have done for the industry and nothing to do with the carping and griping which has come from the Opposition throughout the whole process. That is why I ask the House to discard the motion and treat it with the distain that it deserves.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 272.

Division No. 261

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corbyn, Jeremy

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cousins, Jim

Allen, Graham

Cox, Tom

Alton, David

Crowther, Stan

Anderson, Donald

Cryer, Bob

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cummings, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cunningham, Dr John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Darling, Alistair

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Battle, John

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Dixon, Don

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

Dobson, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Doran, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Douglas, Dick

Blair, Tony

Duffy, A. E. P.

Blunkett, David

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boateng, Paul

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Boyes, Roland

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bradley, Keith

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fatchett, Derek

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Fearn, Ronald

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Buckley, George J.

Fisher, Mark

Caborn, Richard

Flynn, Paul

Callaghan, Jim

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fraser, John

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Fyfe, Maria

Clay, Bob

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Cohen, Harry

George, Bruce

Coleman, Donald

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Gordon, Mildred

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Gould, Bryan

Corbett, Robin

Graham, Thomas

794

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Murphy, Paul

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hardy, Peter

O'Brien, William

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Neill, Martin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Haynes, Frank

Parry, Robert

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Patchett, Terry

Henderson, Doug

Pendry, Tom

Hinchliffe, David

Pike, Peter L.

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Prescott, John

Home Robertson, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hood, Jimmy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Randall, Stuart

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Redmond, Martin

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hoyle, Doug

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Illsley, Eric

Rogers, Allan

Ingram, Adam

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Janner, Greville

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lambie, David

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lamond, James

Short, Clare

Leadbitter, Ted

Skinner, Dennis

Leighton, Ron

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

Litherland, Robert

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

Livsey, Richard

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Spearing, Nigel

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Loyden, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

McAvoy, Thomas

Stott, Roger

Macdonald, Calum A.

Strang, Gavin

McFall, John

Straw, Jack

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McKelvey, William

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McLeish, Henry

Turner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Vaz, Keith

Madden, Max

Wall, Pat

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wallace, James

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Martlew, Eric

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Meacher, Michael

Wilson, Brian

Meale, Alan

Winnick, David

Michael, Alun

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Worthington, Tony

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morley, Elliott

Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Batiste, Spencer

Aitken, Jonathan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alexander, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Allason, Rupert

Benyon, W.

Amess, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amos, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Body, Sir Richard

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ashby, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Aspinwall, Jack

Boswell, Tim

Atkins, Robert

Bottomley, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Baldry, Tony

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bowis, John

795

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gow, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Brazier, Julian

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

Gregory, Conal

Browne, John (Winchester)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Grylls, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Buck, Sir Antony

Hague, William

Budgen, Nicholas

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Chris

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, John

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

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

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Cash, William

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Chapman, Sydney

Hayward, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Churchill, Mr

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

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

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hill, James

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hind, Kenneth

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Colvin, Michael

Hordern, Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Irvine, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Irving, Charles

Curry, David

Jack, Michael

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

Jackson, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Janman, Tim

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dunn, Bob

Key, Robert

Durant, Tony

Kilfedder, James

Dykes, Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Maclean, David

Fallon, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Favell, Tony

Maude, Hon Francis

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Miller, Sir Hal

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Miscampbell, Norman

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mitchell, Sir David

Forman, Nigel

Moate, Roger

Forth, Eric

Monro, Sir Hector

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fox, Sir Marcus

Moore, Rt Hon John

Franks, Cecil

Morrison, Sir Charles

Freeman, Roger

Moss, Malcolm

French, Douglas

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Fry, Peter

Mudd, David

Gale, Roger

Neale, Gerrard

Gardiner, George

Nelson, Anthony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Neubert, Michael

Gill, Christopher

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Norris, Steve

Goodlad, Alastair

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Page, Richard

796

Paice, James

Stokes, Sir John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Patnick, Irvine

Sumberg, David

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Summerson, Hugo

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pawsey, James

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Portillo, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thorne, Neil

Price, Sir David

Thornton, Malcolm

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Redwood, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Renton, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Tredinnick, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trippier, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Rost, Peter

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rowe, Andrew

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sackville, Hon Tom

Walden, George

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Waller, Gary

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ward, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Warren, Kenneth

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Watts, John

Shelton, Sir William

Wells, Bowen

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wheeler, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Ray

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shersby, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wilshire, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Speed, Keith

Winterton, Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wood, Timothy

Squire, Robin

Yeo, Tim

Stanbrook, Ivor

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Steen, Anthony

Stevens, Lewis

Tellers for the Noes

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mr. David Lightbown and

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the management and workforce of British Coal on their achievements in increasing productivity and reducing costs; welcomes the Government's continuing financial support for the industry which is enabling it to move towards profitability and a viable future; recognises that the only secure long term future for the industry lies in becoming an efficient and competitive supplier of coal; rejects the proposition that British Coal can only sell if its customers are forced to buy, and, has confidence that British Coal, on the basis of its own performance and not of the Government's dictat, will become the supplier of choice to the privatised electricity industry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]
(As amended in Standing Committee) considered.
Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]
  New Clause 1

    SIGHT TESTING
    `It shall be a condition of the validity of any driving licence that the eyesight of the holder has been tested within a period and to a standard which shall be prescribed by a statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Cohen.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
    This is a sensible new clause as it would improve the current practice for testing the eyesight of a driver. At the moment a would-be driver has a one-off test just before his driving test when he must look at a number plate X yards away. After that test he may drive for life without a further eyesight test and it is assumed that his eyesight is satisfactory.
    In Committee the Minister said that, each day, 60 cases of eyesight problems were reported to the driver and vehicle licensing centre. I pointed out to him that that meant that there were about 22,000 such cases a year—and that does not take into account the cases that are not reported. The Minister tried to justify his case by arguing that only 300 cases were subject to prosecution because of eyesight deficiencies. The other people, however, would be picked up for all sorts of reasons such as dangerous driving, but in each case poor eyesight would be a factor.
    In Committee the Minister argued that eyesight was not important enough to warrant regular eye tests—
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cohen: I shall give way in a minute.
    To an extent I agree with the Minister, as medical fitness is not just good eyesight, but it was wrong for him to say that eyesight was not important.
    Mr. Bottomley: The point I was making was that the people who are most likely to be involved in injury crashes are those who have the best eyesight. I did not say that eyesight was not important.
    Mr. Cohen: I take that point. There are some people who are too cocky and who cause accidents although they have all their faculties. Nevertheless, eyesight is an important factor. I appreciate the Minister's intervention, because he is now acknowledging that eyesight is important. As he has acknowledged that, eyesight should be tested regularly. People with poor eyesight may not only be involved in an accident, but may cause an accident, despite not being involved in it themselves. It is important for others that drivers have tests even if they believe that their sight is good.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend is correct. I welcome the Minister's comment about perfect eyesight and people having accidents, but he is doing nothing about it. My hon. Friend is aware that I am
    798
    conscious of drivers passing me who are on the telephone. They have accidents although their eyesight is perfect, as the Minister says.
    Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised in Committee the point about car telephones and people's attention being distracted when they were supposed to be driving. Again, the Minister said that that was wrong and that he thought some action should be taken against such people. However, no amendment has been tabled on Report. It is an ideal opportunity for the Minister to act after making his comments in Committee, yet we have seen no action.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was reluctant to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech because he was just warming up. Is he aware that during our numerous debates in Committee about the misuse of car phones and their inherent danger, and about the lack of eyesight testing, the Minister largely conceded all our arguments? One would have thought that, having done so, he would table amendments to deal with the problem of drivers with poor eyesight and with drivers who persist in driving and talking on the telephone at the same time and who cannot, therefore, control the car properly. He has not done so. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is strange? The Minister seems to believe in a laissez-faire approach or perhaps he believes that road safety problems will be solved by some honeyed words from him at a suitable time on Radio 4.
    Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill seeks to reduce accidents, so there must be action on eyesight testing. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Minister spoke honeyed words in Committee about car telephones, but he did not make commitments about eyesight tests. He was shaky in his comments on eyesight tests and I suspect that the reason was that his Government had brought in charges for eye tests for the general public. We saw a report at the weekend that the average charge is now about £10·40 and that there has been a massive slump of 50 per cent. in the number of people taking that test. The Minister's Government have caused that. If the Minister were to take action on eyesight tests so that there were fewer road accidents, that would mean that the charge should be scrapped. The Minister is afraid to cross the Prime Minister because he is afraid that he would be sacked, so he will not speak up for the people who will be the victims.
    The Minister should take action on eyesight tests, and a proper test should be free. There should be an element of compulsion and the test should be carried out regularly. Many drivers would welcome that. Those who failed the test would welcome finding out that they were unfit to drive because they would realise that they were a risk to themselves. Nobody should have anything to fear from having a proper eyesight test to see whether he is fit to drive. In addition to being compulsory, the test should be free—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members not to indulge in private conversations.
    Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your support. I am pleased to be given a hearing on this

    799
    important matter. People's lives are at stake and the House should give due weight and proper consideration to my very serious proposal.
    Sight tests are sometimes taken at the scene of an accident, and I have referred to the prosecutions that take place—about 300 a year. However, by then it is too late; the accident has already occurred and there may have been injuries or a death.
    I asked the Minister what is the total number of people required to take regular eyesight tests to retain their driving licence and what proportion fail every year. I am talking not about the general public but about those who drive heavy goods vehicles and so on. The Minister replied:
    "There is no information about the number of people required to take regular eyesight tests."
    That is scandalous. If people are required to take regular tests, the information should be kept.
    We were told in Committee that there was not enough evidence to justify a change. I dispute that, and I shall present a great deal of evidence from people who say that there should be regular tests. Yet the Minister requires some categories of people to take eyesight tests by law but then does not keep the information so that he can establish whether the tests are relevant or should be extended.
    In his reply to me, the Minister said:
    "In 1988–89 the total number of people required to take a prescribed eyesight test to determine their fitness to drive was 2,981.
    Eyesight problems account for around 8 per cent. of the medical declarations on applications and notifications (during the currency of the licence), and around 8 per cent. of referrals and revocations relate to eyesight.
    In 1987–88 there were 10,442 revocations refusals in all and in 1988–89 there were 10,891 revocations refusals in all, resulting in over 800 revocations refusals on eyesight grounds"—[Official Report, 18 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 277.] Eight per cent. is not an insignificant proportion. If we extrapolate from that figure, we may conclude that there are a lot of people driving around with bad eyesight, whose sight will not have been tested since they passed the number plate test perhaps 20 years ago.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my friend agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Your friend?"] Yes, he is a good friend of mine and an old friend—
    Mr. Tony Banks: An excellent friend.
    Mr. Corbyn: And an excellent friend. My hon. Friend has shown that in the majority of cases poor sight is voluntarily reported by more responsible drivers who feel that they may be a danger to other road users. That shows that there is a problem and that it is recognised by some drivers.
    My hon. Friend's new clause would ensure that all drivers would be forced to have eyesight tests. That would mean that irresponsible drivers or those who did not believe that their sight was deteriorating would be forced to take a sight test and the roads would be much safer.
    Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not saying that everybody should take a sight test every week or even every year, but there should be a system for regular testing of drivers for their own benefit as well as everyone else's.
    800
    The Minister was kind enough to the Committee that considered the Bill to set up a meeting to which he brought along departmental experts. They sent shivers down my spine, however, when they argued for no change. That was especially my feeling when they said that most drivers drive by intuition and that it would not matter whether some of them were blindfolded. They did not quite say that, but they reached that position. I would hate to be driving a car if I were blindfolded or if a driver coming towards me were blindfolded.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend's words confirm what I thought the Minister said: that drivers with perfect eyesight are more likely to be involved in accidents. The Minister has presented us with a curious form of logic. On that basis, those with good eyesight would, under the regulations, be prescribed with glasses that would make their eyesight worse so as to make them immune from accidents. Surely that is a topsy-turvy approach. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment upon that.
    Mr. Cohen: That is self-explanatory.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cohen: Yes, of course.
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman was right to say, "That is self-explanatory." He was presented with the sort of logic that would seem better in "Alice Through the Looking-glass" than in this place. The hon. Gentleman may be having a good deal of fun, but he should not say that the experts on eyesight and eye testing declared that individuals can drive better when they are blindfolded. He may say that I said that; it would not be true, although it would perhaps be acceptable. If he made the assertion, it would not be true, but it would be less unlikely. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) should not attribute such a comment to medical experts.
    The truth is that those of us who are most concerned about eyesight put 60 motorists a day on report to Swansea while some put themselves on report. Fourteen out of 15 can continue driving. If those are the most likely to have eyesight troubles, and if most of them continue driving, it is worth accepting that drivers are right, if they have any concern, to ask those at Swansea, "Should I continue driving?" That presentation provides the reassurance that many should. The real problem comes, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he has probably experienced it himself, as most of us have—when we are young and our eyesight is at its best. That is when our involvement in injury accidents is at is greatest.
    Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that. It should be said that the experts retreated when we started talking about the possibility of drivers being safer when they drove blindfolded. The main point, however, was that eye tests were not so relevant as driving by intuition. I disagreed with that.
    The Minister is right about voluntary tests and drivers expressing worries and revoking their licences. In many instances, however, they are told that they can receive treatment, and that if they do so they can continue to

    801
    drive. That is the position once they know that their eyesight is deficient in some way. I am saying that that should apply to the general public. The average motorist should know that his eyesight has become deficient. If he has that knowledge, he can receive treatment and, probably, continue to drive. It is far better that he continues to drive after treatment than to continue to drive without having had the benefit of any treatment.
    Mr. Cryer: Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the Minister's assumption that our eyesight is best when we are young. People normally develop short-sightedness in their teens. That eyesight deficiency, which is easily and accurately corrected to produce perfect vision, stays with an individual until middle age. The assumption that at a certain age we are all provided with perfect or near-perfect eyesight that does not need correction, and that we do not need the tests that are provided for in the new clause, seems to be completely misplaced.
    Mr. Cohen: I agree. Eyesight deficiencies can occur at any time. My eyesight deficiency occurred while I was at school, when I suddenly required glasses. My sister's eyesight deficiency occurred during her working life, when she was a teenager. It can happen at any time. Individuals can develop various eye ailments at different times. It is not only a problem of old age. That is why tests should be general for all drivers at regular intervals. I said that I would not delay the House too long, but various reports have recommended regular eyesight tests.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The rate of eye testing is down by about 50 per cent., because of the Government-imposed charges. I take it that my hon. Friend has made that point. He should stress it again and again because it goes completely against the arguments of Conservative Members who supported the imposition of additional charges. The number of eye tests has fallen by 50 per cent. because of the charges imposed by short-sighted Conservative Members—in political terms, that is.
    Mr. Cohen: I thought that my hon. Friend had made a Freudian slip, but it was a relevant one. The fact that the number of eye tests is down means that there will be more drivers with eyesight deficiencies who, in the normal course of events, would have had an eye test. Those drivers who, like me, wear glasses, probably went for an eye test every two years. That has been the average length of time between my check-ups up to now, but now that a charge has been introduced the length of time taken between visits is bound to be extended. Such people will be on the road with eyesight defeciencies when, formerly, they would have had a test. The 50 per cent. drop in the number of eye tests is appalling, and it will create more injuries, accidents and deaths. The Government must take responsibility for that policy.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Surely further research into the cause of road accidents is required. It is clear that many people drive who ought to have an eye test, and my hon. Friend's proposal would help to reduce the numbers who do so. Is my hon. Friend also aware that the real victims of those who drive with inadequate eyesight on a dark night, a wet day or in a poorly illuminated area are likely to be pedestrians and cyclists, rather than other motorised road users? Those victims are in no position to speak up about this. I cannot understand why the Minister does not realize
    802
    the force of our argument that we need proper eyesight testing for all drivers to ensure that they can see properly and drive safely.
    Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is too late to do anything once the accident has occurred.
    Another point was made by Lord Lucas in the other place.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Lord Lucan?
    Mr. Cohen: Lord Lucan has disappeared; perhaps he was in an accident because he had an eyesight problem. I do not know, but he has not been seen for a long time.
    In the other place, Lord Lucas said that as far as he was aware there had been no research because Stats 19, the police form reporting an accident, includes no requirement whatsoever to note physical health, whether general physical health or eyesight. Therefore, no evidence has been collected to show whether it was a contributory factor.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, when an accident occurs we do not know whether bad eyesight was a contributory factor. It may well have occurred because of eyesight deficiency, yet that will not be shown in the official forms. The figures to which I referred earlier show that, even so, many such cases are reported in which eyesight problems are a factor.
    Plenty of people have called for higher standards, and one organisation to do so was one which I am sure that Conservative Members would hold in the highest regard: the police. They called for drivers' eyesight to be of a higher standard, and for compulsory regular testing. The Minister is ignoring the police. We know that his party—
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will my hon. Friend agree that under this Government's policies the cost of glasses and frames has gone up and up, and therefore in addition to the fact that there is now a charge for testing, as he rightly says, people will put off having their eyes tested and changing their glasses—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with new clause 1, which relates to sight testing and driving licences.
    Mr. Cohen: I shall not go down the road suggested by my hon. Friend, as I have already dealt with it. Certainly, these high charges put drivers off having tests.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: How much did the hon. Gentleman pay for his glasses? Are they private or National Health?
    Mr. Cohen: They are private glasses, bought cheaply at the Baker's Arms. As far as I can remember, they cost me about £20 a long time ago—
    Mr. Corbyn: How near is that to the Green Man roundabout? Could my hon. Friend see that roundabout when he came out of the optician's? What has been the effect of the Government's road building madness on that roundabout?
    Mr. Cohen: I can certainly see that the Government are giving Leyton and Leytonstone a bad deal with their road plan. I do not need my £20 glasses to see that—all the facts and figures go to prove it.

    803
    There have been other reports in support of eyesight testing. Lord Lucas also quoted the report by McKean and Edington, of Southampton university, on the incidence of glaucoma. Admittedly, it was a small survey, but it showed that many people had not realised that they could not see to the left or the right, and that that led to their accidents. A test would show up that problem. The Minister should have taken that evidence into account.
    I know that some of my hon. Friends are not too happy about the Common Market, but in the recent European elections the people said that they want the best European practices here. There are obviously bad practices in Europe, but the social charter, for instance, is an example of best practice. So is eyesight testing for drivers. Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg all impose far better requirements for testing than we do. In the European Community, the minimum static acuity for a two-eyed person is 0·4 in the better eye and 0·2 in the worse eye, and 0·5 for both eyes together. For a one-eyed person, it is 0·8.
    Mr. Cryer: What about a three-eyed person?
    Mr. Cohen: I shall not take that up, lest we come on to four-eyed people like me in my glasses.
    I have mentioned one of five tests required by EC policy. We have a once-in-a-lifetime test, the number plate test, and it is not even a very good one. Surveys of large numbers of people have provided clear evidence of defects of eyesight. The evidence is there. The Government will get into trouble again with their policy for the EEC, because there is a Council directive on driving licences. It is number 10357/1/88, entitled "Minimum Standards of Physical and Mental Fitness for Driving a Motor Vehicle". There are two groups, one for driving heavy vehicles and one for general capacity vehicles. It says for group 1:
    "applicants shall be required to undergo a medical examination if it becomes apparent, when the necessary formulaties are being completed or during the tests which they have to undergo prior to obtaining a driving licence, that they have one or more of the medical disabilities mentioned in this Annex."
    That, of course, includes an eyesight test. The directive further says that they
    "shall undergo such periodic medical examinations as may be prescribed by national laws".
    The implication in the directive is that there shall be periodic tests, not just a one-off test as we have in this country. It says under group 2:
    "applicants shall undergo a medical examination before a driving licence is first granted to them and thereafter drivers shall undergo such periodic examinations as may be prescribed by national laws".
    That implies regularity. It does not say that there will not be any tests after the initial one. Indeed, it says:
    "The standards set by member states for issuing driving licences may be stricter than those set out in this Annex." That is showing that the Government are well out of tune with the rest of Europe.
    The directive goes on:
    "All applicants for a driving licence should undergo an appropriate investigation to ensure that they have adequate visual acuity for driving motor vehicles. Where there is reason to doubt that the applicant's vision is adequate, he should be examined by a competent medical authority. At this examination attention should be paid to the following in particular: visual acuity, field of vision, twilight vision and progressive eye diseases."
    None of these is investigated in our number-plate test.
    Mr. Cryer: I am sure that when my hon. Friend refers to Europe, he is referring to that section of Europe that is called the Common Market. He should make that distinction clear.
    Will my hon. Friend address his mind to regulations that will give the Minister the power to ensure that—for example, where eyesight tests are carried out and driving licences are submitted to Swansea for certification that the test has been approved and carried out—the legislation referring to the production of licences within five days is suitably modified so that those people whose licences are caught up in the log-jam at Swansea are not prosecuted? Because they have taken the test and their licences have gone to Swansea for approval and certification, they are open to another offence. As my hon. Friend knows, the failure to produce a licence within five days can be treated by the police as an offence even though there are good reasons, such as that the licence is at Swansea. For instance, diabetics have medical checks every three years.
    Mr. Cohen: I should have thought that that would be a reasonable course to adopt. Of course, it is incumbent upon Swansea to process the licences rapidly, or at least to provide some evidence to the driver of the fact that his licence is being processed in Swansea. My hon. Friend has made a good point.
    It is not just the European Community countries; many other countries around the world require more stringent eye tests for drivers than we do—in fact, it would be difficult to have worse than our system of a one-off test. The Community proposal in document 10357/1/88 says of corrective lenses:
    "correction must be well tolerated. Driving licences shall not be issued to or renewed for applicants or drivers without a normal field of vision or suffering from diplopia."
    How can that be tested for if there are no regular tests?
    When the EEC produces these documents there is a ministerial response stating the Government's attitude. I hurried to the Library to get a copy of the response, which was contained in an explanatory memorandum. It stated:
    "The Commission now proposes that the process of harmonisation should be taken a stage further…allowing residents"
    of other member states to drive in the United Kingdom and vice versa. Our non-conformity with the other states will cease if the proposal goes through.
    It also states that drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles would have to meet higher medical standards. That would be difficult because they are volunteers and they might be deterrred by the costs involved. The Government should help voluntary drivers in those circumstances to pass a better quality test. Those drivers would want that because they are driving people for whom they care and they would want a higher standard of driving. The Department of Transport should help those organisations.
    Mr. Cryer: The additional requirements for minibus drivers are not connected with the eyesight tests. They are part of the unnecessary and superfluous harmonisation proposals that pour from an over-eager and zealous Commission that wants to reduce us all to the same level of conformity. While I accept my hon. Friend's point that is is desirable to increase the standards of eyesight testing, the directive to which my hon Friend is referring—if it is the one that I have in mind—would make it very difficult for voluntary organisations to maintan their minibus services for the disabled.
    Mr. Cohen: That is why I referred to the drivers in voluntary organisations and said that the Government should help them directly perhaps by giving them priority in tests. I am not in favour of harmonisation of everything under the sun, but I am in favour of better standards for driving and eyesight tests. At the moment we have the worst such tests in Europe.
    The memorandum states:
    "An acceptable driving licence will benefit United Kingdom drivers in other Community countries…and would cut the costs of British licensing arrangements."
    That takes away aother of the Government's arguments.
    The startling point about the explanatory memorandum, which is about a proposal which refers to eyesight tests, is that the Government avoid the issue of eyesight tests. They are not mentioned in the Government's memorandum. That shows the Government's guilt over that issue.
    I rest my case on that. The Minister has been shown to be guilty of not coming forward with proper standards for eyesight tests of drivers. I think that an eyesight test should be included in a general medical fitness test for drivers. That may be difficult to implement. However, at the very least, this sensible new clause should be accepted to allow a statutory instrument to come before the House to provide for regular eyesight tests. That would save many lives and a great number of injuries. Such testing should also be free.
    The Government should stand ashamed of the charge for eye tests that they imposed, of the consequential 50 per cent. reduction in the number of people taking eye tests, and of the increasing incidence of poor eyesight among drivers and the public in general. I commend my very sensible new clause, and 1 hope that House will see sense and that the Minister will recognise his guilt and accept it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Carel-Jones.]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 46.

    Division No. 262]

    [10.55 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Cash, William

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Allason, Rupert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Amess, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Amos, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Cran, James

    Ashby, David

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Batiste, Spencer

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

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Day, Stephen

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Devlin, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bottomley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowls, John

    Dunn, Bob

    Brazier, Julian

    Durant, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fallon, Michael

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Favell, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Butcher, John

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Butterfill, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Carrington, Matthew

    Forth, Eric

    806

    Franks, Cecil

    Neubert, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Gale, Roger

    Norris, Steve

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Paice, James

    Gill, Christopher

    Pawsey, James

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Gow, Ian

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Redwood, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hague, William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Hannam, John

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Squire, Robin

    Harris, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hill, James

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

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

    Summerson, Hugo

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Irvine, Michael

    Thome, Neil

    Jack, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Walden, George

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Waller, Gary

    Lightbown, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Lord, Michael

    Wheeler, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Wood, Timothy

    Moate, Roger

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Tellers for the Ayes

    Moss, Malcolm

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

    Nelson, Anthony

    Mr. David Maclean.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Livsey, Richard

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Bradley, Keith

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Parry, Robert

    Buckley, George J.

    Patched, Terry

    Cohen, Harry

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Cousins, Jim

    Prescott, John

    Cox, Tom

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Cryer, Bob

    Ruddock, Joan

    Cummings, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dixon, Don

    Spearing, Nigel

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Wallace, James

    Foster, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Haynes, Frank

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Illsley, Eric

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Mr. Martin Redmond and

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Enterprise Education Initiative
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackyille.]
11.6 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise in the House the important matter of co-operation between industry and education. The demographic decline in the number of young people, combined with rapid technological advances in all areas of industry and commerce, means that effective collaboration between business and education is vital if we are to maximise the potential of our young people.
The importance of collaboration between industry and education was perceived and tackled in Norfolk, of which my constituency is a part, some 12 years ago. The idea of a Norfolk schools and industry group first emerged as long ago as 1977. The group itself, now called the Norfolk education, industry and commerce group, was formally incorporated in 1981, since when industry and schools in Norfolk have greatly benefited from the partnership.
Everyone closely involved in education has had cause in the past to be concerned about the gap between the education system and business employers. Those in education have traditionally complained that employers are not interested in the broad aims and achievements of the education system, while employers, equally traditionally, have complained that schools are incapable of turning out young people who can read and write.
A particular instance of the gap in mutual understanding was the old certificate of secondary education examination which had many excellent features, such as its emphasis on course work, steady achievement and relevant study material, which have now been incorporated into the general certificate of secondary education. However, despite its excellence, many employers never understood the CSE, never wanted it, preferred the general certificate of education—often because they had taken it—and always regarded the CSE as second best. As one head teacher put it to me:
"Megaphone diplomacy to bridge that sort of gap doesn't work. What's needed is a consistent long-term working together so we can see what the other is trying to achieve."
That was the aim of the Norfolk education, industry and commerce group when it was set up in 1981. At that time a major problem facing schools and industry was unemployment. Clearly the group's main role was to prepare young people for the demands of industry in a world where jobs were scarce and where their knowledge and skills needed to be as closely matched as possible to the jobs that there were. Now, thanks to the success of the Government's economic policy, the reverse is the case. With excellent employment prospects and a 20 per cent. drop in the number of young people, the need for close links between education and employers is just as great because employers will be competing for the right young recruits for their businesses. That competition will be given even greater point as we approach the challenges of 1992.
The aims of the group are to form links between business and education; to develop an understanding of business and its importance to the nation's prosperity; to affirm the importance of wealth creation in society and its social consequences; to present business as a stimulating environment offering fulfilling and creative careers; to
808
discover how the needs of an industrial society are being met within the constraints of our education system and to provide a resource directory, a copy of which I have in the House, and which is a model of its kind, listing 140 different companies which are linked with the scheme. They include manufacturers, retailers, distributors, professional services and other services such as removals businesses, Anglia Television, oil companies, Norwich airport and catering concerns and, especially important in Norfolk, a farm-school link.
The group is a company limited by guarantee and with charitable status. Its executive committee includes the British Institute of Management, the careers service, chambers of commerce and trade, college principals, the Confederation of British Industry, the local education authority, the Engineering Employers Federation, head teachers, Her Majesty's inspectors, industrial training boards, the Institute of Directors, the Institute of Industrial Directors, junior chambers, the National Farmers Union, Understanding British Industry and the University of East Anglia. I go into some detail because I believe that the group is a model of its kind.
Clearly its work has developed over the years, but by any standards it is impressive as 6,000 sixth-form students have been involved in conferences and discussions, and 3,000 fifth-form students have been involved in seminars. Each year, 200 young people take part in young enterprise projects with prizes from industry. In 1988–89 alone, 29 school-based conferences were held and eight conferences for teachers and representatives of industry and commerce. The work for the young people is carefully structured and I have first-class examples of the material used in seminars and discussion groups. That material is jointly prepared by industry and education. One especially important event was a conference on education business partnerships held last January and arising from the CBI business education task force initiative.
The philosophy underlying that initiative could well serve as an inspiration for the Department of Trade and Industry enterprise education initiative. The brief for that business education task force states:
"Without an effective partnership developing between business and education the prospects for an internationally competitive United Kingdom economy in the 21st century will become remote. The issues have to be high on the agenda, both of the business community and of educationalists. We will all fail if answers cannot be found and applied."
The consciousness of the need for education, among other things, to produce young people who can meet the challenges of today's and tomorrow's business and industry has been developing in education as part of the Government's education policy. Norfolk was fortunate to be chosen as a pilot area for the technical and vocational education initiative some years ago. That new approach to learning for 14 to 18-year-olds was Government-funded so that lessons could become more practical and relevant to adult life and work. Over the next few years, £10 million will be spent in Norfolk to extend the benefit of TVEI to all secondary schools. The Norfolk education industry and commerce group had agreed through its contacts and the network that it had built up to provide two weeks' work experience for every school leaver as part of TVEI—an offer now superseded by the developments that my hon. Friend will describe. But he will agree that it is to the group's credit that it was able to provide that much-needed extension of TVEI out of its own local initiative.

809
Other developments in various job-related courses for young people include work experience and lead to qualifications from organisations such as the Business and Technician Education council, the City and guilds and the Royal Society of Arts. Moreover, the national curriculum builds in a number of improvements which, although good in themselves, are also helpful to employers. A common curriculum leading to a common examination means, obviously, that employers can easily understand the standards that young people have reached, from whichever part of the country they come. The inclusion and encouragement of technology as part of the national curriculum are also vital not only for the education of young people but for needs of industry and business. Regular testing and assessment built into the Education Reform Act 1988 mean that records of a pupil's achievement when presented to employers can give a meaningful description of a young person's ability. That should be in place by 1990.
Other changes in the Education Reform Act, such as the inclusion of a business representative on every governing body, have been helpful in promoting integration between education and the business and industrial world. Many counties, including Norfolk, already have such representation, but now that governing bodies have such a close relationship with the way that schools are run—because of local financial management —practical interaction between business and education expertise will prove invaluable.
At the heart of education and industry links lies the need for two different cultures to understand one another. Industry Year in 1986 was a recognition that the two cultures were interdependent and that, in turn, on their co-operation depends the success of the economy. The feeling in the industrial world that somehow education might be anti-industry or anti-business caused schools to be the chief target for Industry Year—happily, with fruitful results. It is my experience that schools, far from finding the attentions of business and industry a nuisance, welcome them as a source of practical and almost moral support. Since 1986, demand for industrial involvement in schools has outstripped supply. I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the response of the Department of Trade and Industry to that demand.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can respond to a number of specific concerns on school-industry links. First, there is a need for the benefits that I have described, arising from the Norfolk group's work for Norfolk youngsters, to be spread nationwide, for the benefit of everybody else's youngsters. The combination of the demographic decline in the number of young people and the need for a well-trained and flexible work force in the national interest means that such benefits are far too valuable to be available only where local enthusiasm has seen fit to develop them.
Secondly, a careful look should be taken at the particular difficulties of rural areas and small businesses. It is one thing for a large company to allow time for its managers to devote to learning about the educational system; it is another for a small, developing company to have to do the same—yet it is small business which is providing the fastest growing sector in our economy, which will employ many young people and which most precisely needs the help of flexibly trained employees.
Thirdly, real resources must be put into the development of a Government-inspired scheme on an
810
ongoing basis. An excellent beginning has been made, but we have gone beyond the stage, if we are serious about school and business links, of expecting the education service simply to absorb that extra task with no help. The programme needs to run for a realistic time. There needs to be proper input into teacher education. The programme must be properly structured and should take account of the work that is already done by counties such as Norfolk.
This is an important subject, but it is an unsocial hour. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his patience in listening to me. I know that he too regards the link between education and industry and business as very important. I look forward to hearing his response.
11.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) not only on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House but on her good fortune in being able to do so. I shall endeavour to reply to the points that she made and give the House the up-to-date picture in the important subject of communication and understanding between education and industry.
I was most impressed—I think that anyone would be—by the detail that my hon. Friend gave the House of the initiatives and impressive work that has been done in Norfolk. I doubt whether many other local education authorities could match Norfolk's dedication and involvement. I hope that others will be made aware of the progress in Norfolk and will attempt to emulate it.
In the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I should like to draw attention to two important developments in the past week. I shall describe how they fit into a Governmentwide strategy to encourage enterprising attitudes in schools.
In preparing our plans, we have taken into account many of the points made by my hon. Friend. We have been determined to build on existing good practice and the experience of counties such as Norfolk and to avoid the reinvention of wheels. We therefore mounted a national initiative—the enterprise and education initiative—under which lessons learned throughout the country are shared by all local education authorities and spread throughout the business community and education world. It has a clear and simple structure and a sensible time scale. It will certainly meet two of the criteria that my hon. Friend mentioned. I assure her that it is well resourced; we currently plan to spend £32 million on it over the next four years.
My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to the need to ensure that trainee teachers gain appreciation of the needs of employers and of the importance of links between schools and employers. I am glad to be able to tell the House that part of the initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry will be a programme in initial teacher training. We will be committing £3·5 million to this work.
We have decided to help employers find their way round the education service and to help teachers find helpful employers. My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to the need to support and encourage the involvement of small businesses and those in rural areas: not only will smaller enterprises be able to benefit most from having future employers who are versatile and

811
enterprising in their attitudes, but they are most likely to be able to offer teachers an understanding of economic management in miniature.
The Confederation of British Industry found in its survey that one factor stopping companies getting involved is confusion about who they should approach. The Society of Education Officers has told us that what is stopping many schools is that they do not have the time or organisation to make individual approaches to smaller local businesses. The Department has put in place a network of local enterprise and education advisers whose sole job is to encourage local partnership activity, in particular by marketing to employers the benefits of links with schools and persuading them to become involved. There are 147 advisers in place, whose work is costing the Department £8 million over two years. We are putting this considerable sum of money into this work because we believe that it is essential to the thrust of the initiative. By deploying this marketing force, we can help the uncommitted employer find his or her way through the multiplicity of organisations that operate in this sector, and continue to help the education service.
We recognise that it is not sufficient to ask employers to get involved with schools. We need to suggest specific activities, preferably offering deepening involvement as the employer gains experience. We have therefore set two demanding targets for our advisers, and, indeed, for employers.
First, we have asked the advisers to find work experience places for all pupils. Work experience does not mean offering a permanent job to young people. It means giving them a chance to find out what work is like. All that companies are being asked to do is take one or two children at a time and let them do a job for a week or two or, if that is not possible, to let them shadow a member of staff actually doing the job.
I am delighted to announce that in only the first five months of this year our advisers have found 67,000 additional work experience places. That is an impressive figure and I take this opportunity to commend the advisers who have found those places. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes that figure. I would not be surprised if she found that her county is taking a leading part in the scheme along the lines that she outlined. I am also delighted to report to the House the positive attitude that has been found among many of the companies that have been approached. We are very encouraged by that.
Partnership, however, does not stop at work experience for young people. Teachers, too, need personal experience of business especially if they are to deliver effectively the new national curriculum. Our second target, therefore, is to offer 10 per cent. of teachers each year the opportunity to gain some personal experience of the world of business.
Ten per cent. of teachers is a challenging target, particularly as many schools will be unable to spare the teachers in term time, so a high proportion of the placements will take place in school holidays. But we know that many employers are keen to arrange interesting placements for local teachers. They want to tell teachers about their industries. So, with the help of employers, we are determined to offer such an attractive programme to
812
teachers that they will be keen to take part. We are committing £14 million over five years to ensure that that happens.
I have so far described how employers can help the local education service by giving work experience to a young person, and then graduating to giving business experience to a teacher, but there are many other ways in which employers can work with schools. Our advisers stand ready to help both employers and teachers to get involved in such activities, and we expect that they will give greater attention to these activities over the coming months. The national nature of the adviser service also means that good practice can quickly be shared around the country—as, indeed, can lessons about how to involve employers in rural areas.
I also emphasise that all this activity has been designed to complement the work of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Education and Science joined my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in launching the DTI's enterprise and education initiative. I shall touch on the roles of the other two Departments in this area.
The Department of Employment, and in particular the Training Agency, are particularly concerned with easing the transition from school to work. It is vital that education and training should smoothly bridge the transition from school to work. TVEI, mentioned by my hon. Friend, compacts and work-related further education initiatives help that to happen, in conjunction of course with the work of the careers service and YTS programmes.
The main task of the Department of Education and Science is to improve the structure and relevance of the curriculum. Last week that led to an important development in the form of the publication of the report of the national curriculum working group on design and technology. I sincerely compliment the group on its report which will present an exciting challenge to both teachers and their pupils. In the past, we have taught craft subjects by telling pupils what to make, and how to make them. In the future, pupils will be asked to think for themselves about the design of what they make, the time available to make it, the choice of materials, and indeed the cost. If the report is accepted, pupils will in future be taught to take account of the needs and preferences of consumers, and to prepare a simple business plan, including a cash forecast and budget, and to monitor performance against it. They will consider the importance of people as a resource, and the need to bring together, train and organise teams.
Where do we go from here? First, the various industry-education link bodies are beginning to respond to the curricular developments that I outlined earlier. They know that there is now little need for trail blazing. They instead need to advise and support teachers as they get to grips with the new design and technology curriculum, and in due course with the need to teach economic and industrial understanding within the whole curriculum. I am considering ways in which the DTI might support the link bodies as they set about this challenging and important task.
Second, I see signs that our support for local partnership activity, such as the adviser and teacher placement services, will lead to the creation of strong local partnerships between the education service and employers. For instance, we have already heard how, in Norfolk, the education, industry and commerce group is setting many

813
fine examples to the rest of the country in promoting partnership activity. That organisation acts as host for both the DTI adviser and the teacher placement organiser.
I believe that every local community needs to create a strong and effective body which will promote partnership activity. The DTI has sought to encourage this process by generally appointing one local host organisation only to run both the adviser and teacher placement services. Last week in another important development we announced that we are taking this process one step further. We intend to give the new training and enterprise councils the chance to provide both the adviser and teacher placement services, but only, of course, if the existing local host bodies agree that their local TEC can take over this role. Local TECs will then be able to take a strategic overview of the whole work-related education and training provision in their area.
We must also review, before the end of next year, whether individual advisers and their hosts have offered good value for money to the taxpayer and to the local community. If they have, we shall need to consider whether the Department of Trade and Industry should offer further limited financial support to help individual communities to take over and develop the adviser service in a way that makes it even more responsive to local needs. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured, therefore,
814
not only that we have put in place substantial resources to meet the immediate perceived demand, but that we shall keep a close eye on how matters develop and then hope that the burden can be gradually transferred from the taxpayer to local community efforts tailored in a way that most suits local needs.
I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend has raised this subject. I have been impressed by what she has said about the efforts being made in her county of Norfolk. I hope that, from the few comments I have been able to make, my hon. Friend has been reassured that the Department of Trade and Industry is sensitive not only to needs nationally, but to the needs in Norfolk that she has described. I hope that what I have said will be good news in Norfolk and in the rest of the country and that people will realise the extreme seriousness with which we take the issue, the extent of the resources that we are committing to it and the great importance that Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments give to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back to Norfolk and give people there thanks for the work they have done and encouragement for the work that I am sure they will do in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  East Kilbride (Transport)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes would have to be demolished to make way for British Rail's proposed extension to East Kilbride town centre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Until detailed studies have been commissioned it is impossible to say how many homes would have to be demolished, but it is established public policy to keep such numbers to an absolute minimum, consistent with the technical requirements of any development proposal.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to hold an inquiry into British Rail's proposal to build a rail extension into East Kilbride town centre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  If British Rail is unable to satisfy the petitioner against the relevant provisional order deposited under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, the provisions of the Act require that the Secretary of State shall direct an inquiry by commissioners.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to improving the existing 'park and ride' facilities serving East Kilbride town centre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for Strathclyde passenger transport executive to consider in consultation with East Kilbride development corporation and Scot Rail. I understand that the existing park and ride facilities are to be retained.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed British Rail proposed extension to East Kilbride town centre.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A preliminary estimate published with the provisional order gave a total cost of £8·295 million. However East Kilbride development corporation stresses that any such estimates are somewhat speculative until detailed design studies have been concluded particularly in this case as some tunnelling would be necessary and in the absence of detailed knowledge of local geological conditions.

  Forestry
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect changes in taxation relating to the forestry industry made in the 1988 budget have had on that industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is too early to say precisely what effect the 1988 Budget changes will have on 286
  the forestry industry. We do, however, expect that there will be some temporary reduction in the amount of new planting as the industry adjusts to the new arrangements.

  Glasgow School of Art
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total grants given to the Glasgow school of art by his Department for each year since 1981 in 1989 money; and what is the planned grant for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.

  Glasgow school of art recurrent and non-recurrent grants(£ million Financial year)

  Financial year

  Recurrent

  Non-recurrent

  Total grants

  1981–82

  3·376

  0·306

  3·682

  1982–83

  3·767

  0·420

  4·137

  1983–84

  3·823

  0·128

  3·951

  1984–85

  3·867

  0·391

  4·258

  1985–86

  3·832

  0·249

  4·081

  1986–87

  3·957

  0·034

  3·991

  1987–88

  4·059

  0·493

  4·552

  1988–89

  3·889

  0·761

  4·650

  Note: The figures have been expressed at 1989–90 prices, using the latest GDP deflator.

  For 1989–90, an offer of £3·795 million grant-in-aid for recurrent expenditure has been made, subject to parliamentary approval; the value of non-recurrent grant (for capital items) has not yet been determined. Firm plans have not yet been made for 1990–91; decisions will be made towards the end of this year in the light of the school's institutional plans, resources available for the grant-aided college sector as a whole, and the Government's proposals to shift the balance of funding for universities and colleges such as Glasgow school of art from grant-in-aid towards students' tuition fees with effect from the academic year 1990–91.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the Glasgow school of art remains open.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have every confidence that the school will continue. My recent decision to abolish quotas on student intakes will encourage the school to increase student numbers and generate more income.

  Departmental officials are in close touch with the school about the preparation of its institutional plan for 1990–91 and beyond, and decisions on the allocation of grant-in-aid for 1990–91 will be taken later this year in the light of that. I am also considering proposals for major capital expenditure to improve physical facilities at the school.

  Epilepsy Centre
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the reasons why the support rate for epilepsy centre clients in Strathclyde increased at a lower rate than actual running costs in the period between 1 April 1987 and 1 April 1989;

  (2) what is his Department's policy towards the provision of support rate for epilepsy centre clients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of financial support for day care and residential centres provided by voluntary
  287
  bodies or for those attending them is at the discretion of the regional council. My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to intervene in their decisions.

  Common Services Agency
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if doctors will continue to have the same choice when they purchase orthopaedic appliances following the Common Services Agency's takeover of the allocation of contracts from health boards;

  (2) what advice was taken from doctors regarding the decision to transfer the purchasing of orthopaedic apliances from the health boards to the Common Services Agency;

  (3) what savings he expects will be made following the Common Services Agency's takeover of the allocation of contracts for the purchase of orthopaedic appliances.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The purchasing of orthopaedic appliances continues to be the responsibility of the relevant health boards. The supplies division of the Common Services Agency acts on their behalf in the arrangement of contracts for the supply of orthopaedic appliances, as for many other commodities bought by the Health Service. The new contracts arranged by the Common Services Agency, which come into effect on 1 July, were entered into on the advice of a panel of health board experts including a consultant orthopaedic surgeon from Greater Glasgow health board. The contracts give doctors access to the same range of items as at present and each health board has a choice of suppliers for most items.

  The contracts include special clauses designed to ensure that the appliances are of good quality and it is expected that patient satisfaction will be improved as a result. The main purpose of the new contracts is to improve quality, but they will also make significant savings compared with current costs. The precise amount will depend on the number of appliances of various types which are bought under the new contracts but is provisionally estimated at approximately £1 million.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration Appeals (Scotland)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the number of immigration appeals heard in Scotland for each year since 1976.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of appeals heard by immigration adjudicators in each year since 1976 is as follows:

  Number

  1976

  96

  1977

  86

  1978

  97

  1979

  129

  1980

  119

  1981

  92

  1982

  116

  1983

  163

  1984

  148

  1985

  164

  1986

  149

  1987

  116

  1988

  160

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average payment received by solicitors and by barristers acting for the defence in legal aid cases considered by the Crown court and in which the standard fee applies.

  The Attorney-General
  The average standard fee received by solicitors for preparation of the brief for counsel and other matters including attendance at court in legal aid cases in the Crown court was £258·67 in the financial year 1988–89. In the same year the average standard fee received by barristers for preparing for trial and providing representation in the Crown court in legal aid cases was £209·10.

  Killan Fach Farm, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will outline the action he has taken, and the reasons for that response, on the application to him from the City of Swansea Council to authorise a prosecution under the Agricultural Land (Removal of Soil) Act 1953 against the owner of Kilian Fach Farm, Swansea.

  The Solicitor-General
  I refused my consent to a prosecution since the time limit for commencing proceedings expired before the council presented me with any information to enable me properly to consider the case.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will be attending the Paris peace conference on Cambodia in July.

  Mr. Eggar
  The French Government plan to host an international conference on Cambodia in August. In principle, we expect to attend.

  Ivory
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick),Official Report, 7 June, column 138, what information he has on the Hong Kong Government's urgent review of its position on trading in ivory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government announced on 9 June their support for a ban on trade in new ivory. Pending the outcome of the meeting of the convention on international trade in endangered species in October 1989, they have suspended the issue of licences for imports of raw ivory from all sources.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those members of the European Economic Community who have acceded to the United Nations and Council of Europe conventions on human rights, respectively; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning any similar declarations by the European Community.
  289
  Mr. Eggar
  All members of the European Community except Ireland and Greece have ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights; all but Ireland have ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. These are the two major United Nations human rights instruments. The position on other United Nations conventions varies. All EC members have ratified the European convention on human rights.

  The United Kingdom is signatory to the 1977 joint declaration, by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, of fundamental rights. Protection of human rights forms an important part of EC law.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ensure that the United Kingdom delegate to the 41st session of the United Nations human rights sub-commission due to sit in Geneva this summer makes a definitive and strong statement about gross violations of human rights in Ethiopia, and a demand for a direct response.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British member of the United Nations human rights sub-commission is an independent expert and does not take instructions from Her Majesty's Government.

  Rain Forest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the environmental damage caused by British companies to the Amazon rain forest;

  (2) whether he will have discussions with the chairman of (a) British Petroleum, (b) Barclays, (c) Shell and (d) British American Tobacco about reducing the environmental damage caused by them to the Amazon rain forest; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he will sek a meeting with representatives of the Brazilian Government to discuss ways of regulating the activities of foreign companies to prevent the destruction of the Amazon rain forest; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he will have discussions with British Petroleum about reducing the environmental damage caused to the Amazon rain forest by that company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be visiting Brazil, including the Amazon region, from 4 to 9 July. During his visit, he will be discussing with Brazilian Ministers and officials our efforts to identify effective ways of helping them with a wide range of environmental problems, including rain forest conservation. He will also be meeting representatives of British companies operating in Brazil with whom he hopes to discuss their role in environmental protection.

  The hon. Member will be aware of recent media reports alleging involvement by United Kingdom companies in rain forest destruction. We are studying these, but I understand that the companies claim that these press reports contain important errors of fact, and that they themselves operate significant environmental protection programmes in their projects in Brazil.

  Human Rights (Australia)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Australia.
  290
  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Human Rights (Kenya)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in the last five years in Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Kenyan authorities over the last five years, but the precise information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. We welcome the recent release of all political detainees.

  Executions (China)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in connection with the continuing executions of protestors in China: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations have been made in Peking to the Chinese authorities on behalf of all 12 EC members appealing for clemency. We have made it clear that we deeply deplore the recent executions and have renewed our appeal to the Chinese authorities not to persecute those campaigning for their democratic rights.

  Deportations (Iraq)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Iraq about the forced deportation of 100,000 people from the town of Qaladiza which began on Monday 12 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I summoned the Iraqi ambassador on 14 June and repeated our concern about renewed reports of mass resettlement of Kurdish people within northern Iraq. We view these stories with considerable concern. We shall continue to press the Iraqis to allow foreign diplomats and journalists access to the areas in question to see for themselves.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the matter of the Iraqi programme of forced deportations of its Kurdish minority in the context of European Economic Community political co-operation, as well as in other appropriate international meetings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We discuss this issue regularly with our partners in the Twelve, as well as in other international meetings, and shall continue to do so.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iraq about its campaign of forced deportation of its Kurdish citizens; if he will protest strongly against this breach of Iraq's obligations under the international human rights conventions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I summoned the Iraqi ambassador on 14 June to repeat our concern at renewed reports of the mass resettlement of Kurds from northern Iraq. The Iraqi
  291
  authorities are under no illusion that we expect them to fulfil their obligations under the human rights conventions to which they are a signatory.

  Immigration
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for residency in the United Kingdom from all people in(a) Hong Kong, (b) Pakistan, (c) India and (d) Soviet Union have been (i) accepted and (ii) rejected in each year since 1979 for each respective country.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 8 May columns 286–88, which gave the information available for the numbers granted settlement in the United Kingdom, and for the numbers of applications received, granted and initially refused for entry clearance for settlement and for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The available information on refusals of applications for settlement made on arrival in the United Kingdom and after admission for a limited period are given in the following tables:

  Table 1

  Persons1 seeking settlement in the United Kingdom on arrival who were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom, by certain nationalities

  1979–88

  Number of persons

  2Hong Kong

  Pakistan

  India

  Soviet Union

  1979

  3

  45

  42

  —

  1980

  4

  35

  22

  —

  1981

  1

  25

  32

  1

  1982

  1

  41

  30

  —

  1983

  3

  47

  51

  —

  1984

  1

  34

  —

  30

  198S

  1

  26

  17

  —

  1986

  2

  63

  50

  —

  1987

  6

  54

  22

  —

  1988

  5

  31

  31

  —

  1 Includes those seeking settlement on grounds of marriage.

  2 British Dependent Territory citizens.

  Table 2

  Refusals1 of applications for settlement made in the United Kingdom following initial admission for a limited period, by certain nationalities.

  1986–88

  Number of persons

  2Hong Kong

  Pakistan

  India

  Soviet Union

  1986

  20

  140

  210

  —

  1987

  30

  150

  210

  —

  1988

  20

  100

  150

  —

  1 Includes refusals of applications for settlement on grounds of marriage.

  2 British Dependent Territory citizens.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department is making to deal with requests for political asylum from people in China who fear persecution.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with our normal practice, we will look carefully at any entry clearance application made in China from a Chinese national claiming to be in immediate danger who has links with the United Kingdom.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Research Biologists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the future supply of research biologists.

  Mr. Jackson
  No.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further information he has received or new decisions he has made since 19 June in respect of his scheme for students' loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June at columns 21–22, we have set in hand continued discussions with the financial institutions on the arrangements for the top-up loans scheme. We shall announce further details of those arrangements in due course.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations firms or other firms outside government for public relations work, apart from their use by some Departments in the special circumstances of privatisation work.

  University Teachers (Outside Earnings)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the university authorities about the optimum level of outside earnings of university teachers.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have not had any formal meeting with the university authorities on this topic but I have discussed it, like many others, in my frequent contacts with the academic world.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply of 19 June,Official Report, column 33, if he will publish a revised version of annex E to the White Paper on student loans to include estimates of administrative costs, interest subsidy, default and write off costs, on the assumption of (a) 80 per cent. take-up, (b) 90 per cent. take-up and (c) 100 per cent. take-up.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer of 21 March at columns 497–99, which showed the effect of various take-up assumptions on the estimates in annex E of Cm. 520. Those estimates made allowance for the cost of an illustrative 10 per cent. default rate, and of writing off debts in cases of death or of deferment beyond the age of 50. Those estimates also allowed for the cost of the zero real interest rate, which has the effect, as compared with a higher interest rate, of reducing the size of repayments. The administrative costs mentioned in my

  293
  right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June at columns 21–22 were based on there being 1·15 million accounts in 1995. It is estimated that the scheme will grow eventually to some 2·5 million accounts in the second decade of the next century, but it is not expected that administrative costs will increase in proportion.

  Chinese Students
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of Chinese students presently enrolled in each educational institution in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  Details for individual institutions are confidential. In 1987–88, there were 1,200 full-time and part-time students in further and higher education in the United Kingdom from the People's Republic of China.

  Main links and projects supported under academic links with China scheme (ALCS)—April 1989

  Year ALCS support ends

  Chinese Institution

  United Kingdom Institution

  Subject

  Main contact

  1990–91

  China National Research Centre for Science and Technology for Development (CNRCSTD) CHI/992/14

  Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) Sussex University

  Science Policy Research

  Professor C. H. G. Oldham

  1990–91

  Shanghai Medical University CHI/992/24

  Middlesex Hospital Medical School

  Medical Biochemistry

  Professor P. N. Campbell

  1990–91

  Nanjing Agricultural College CHI/992/32

  Rothamsted Experimental Station

  Plant Virus Research

  Dr. A. J. Cockbain

  1990–91

  Foreign Affairs College Beijing CHI/992/38

  Queen Elizabeth House Oxford

  International Relations

  Mr. N. Maxwell

  1990–91

  Nanjing College of Pharmacy CHI/992/39

  Strathclyde University

  Pharmaceutics

  Professor J. Midgley

  1990–91

  Dalian Institute of Technology CHI/992/44

  University of Liverpool

  Engineering Optimization

  Dr. A. B. Templeman

  1989–90

  People's University of China, Beijing CHI/992/56

  University of Sussex

  Economics and Comparative/International Politics

  Dr. R. Benewick and Dr. R. White

  1990–91

  Institute of Soviet and East European Studies/Institute of Contemporary International Relations CHI/992/60

  Glasgow University

  Soviet and East European Studies

  Professor W. V Wallace

  1990–91

  Tongji University, Shanghai CHI/992/61

  Sheffield University

  Petroleum Geology

  Professor C. D. Curtis

  1988–89

  Nanjing University CHI/992/66

  Leeds University

  Quantitative Economics Management of Enterprise

  Dr. A. D. Pearrnan

  1990–91

  University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) CHI/992/74

  Imperial College/UMIST

  Computational Combustion

  Professor D. B. Spalding Professor B. E. Launder

  1989–90

  University of Beijing/National Cancer Hospital, Beijing CHI/992/79

  Glasgow University

  Oral and Maxillo-faciat Surgery

  Mr. K.. Moos

  1989–90

  Institute of Mechanics, Beijing CHI/992/80

  Oxford University

  Engineering Science

  Dr. C. Ruiz

  1988–89

  Nanjing Institute of Posts and Telecommunications CHI/992/81

  Chelmsford College of Higher Education

  Telecommunications

  Dr. J. P. Sumner

  1989–90

  Gansu University of Technology CHI/992/83

  Strathclyde University

  Electrical Engineering

  Dr. K. Lo

  1990–91

  Institute of High Energy Physics CHI/992/89

  Southampton University

  Hard X-Ray Astronomy

  Dr. D. Ramsden

  1990–91

  Beijing Agricultural Engineering University CHI/992/90

  Silsoe (Agricultural) College (part of Crantield Institute of Technology)

  Agriculture

  Professor B. May

  Educational Institutions (China)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about current cultural and educational links between educational institutions in the United Kingdom and China.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department keeps no record of links between educational institutions in this country and China. The British Council, with funds from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, administers a variety of cultural and educational programmes. A list of current activity under the academic links with china scheme (ALCS) is as follows:
  295

  Year ALCS support ends

  Chinese Institution

  United Kingdom Institution

  Subject

  Main contact

  1990–91

  Institute of Economic Research Beijing University CHI/992/96

  University of Cambridge Faculty, Board of Economics and Politics

  Development Economics

  Dr. A. Hughes

  1990–91

  Beijing College of Commerce CHI/992/97

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  Business and Management Education

  Mr. N. Maynard

  1990–91

  Xiamen University CHI/992/90

  City University

  Electrochemistry

  Professor A. C. Tseung

  1989–90

  Shanghai Fisheries College CHI/992/101

  Humberside College of Education

  Fisheries Education and Research

  Mr. R. Blair

  1989–90

  Ministry of Urban and Rural Construction and Environmental Protection (MURCEP) CHI/992/102

  Strathclyde University (ABACUS)

  Building Design

  Professor T. Maver

  1988–89

  University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Beijing CHI/992/106

  Lancaster University

  Management Education Methods

  Mrs. M. E. McClintock

  1989–90

  Chinese Commission for Integrated Survey of Natural Resources CHI/992/107

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Natural Resources

  Mr. J. N. R. Jeffers

  1989–90

  Central South Institute of Technology, Changsha CHI/992/110

  UMIST

  Metallurgy and Materials

  Professor E. Smith and Dr. R. Taylor

  1989–90

  Beijing Institute of Labour Protection

  Queen Mary College

  Coal Combustion and Power Plant Design

  Dr. J. Sharpe

  1989–90

  Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) CHI/992/112

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  Chinese History

  Dr. D. Pollard

  1988–89

  Chengdu University of Science and Technology CHI/992/114

  Dundee University

  Civil Engineering

  Professor A. Vardy

  1989–90

  Beijing Academy of Agricultural and Crop Protection and Plant Biotechnology CHI/992/115

  Rothamsted Experimental Station

  Forestry Sciences

  Dr. T. Lewis

  1989–90

  Shanghai Jiaotong University CHI/992/116

  Birmingham University

  English Language Teaching

  Professor J. Sinclair

  1990–91

  Xian University CHI/992/119

  St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London and Trinity College, London

  Medical Science and Clinical Medicine

  Professor P. Richards and Dr. C. Seymour

  1989–90

  Zheijiang Agricultural University CHI/992/121

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Soil Science Studies

  Professor K. Syers

  1989–90

  Institute of West Asian and African Studies, CASS CHI/992/122

  Exeter University

  Middle Eastern Studies

  Dr. T. C. Niblock

  1990–91

  Institute of Philosophy, Beijing CHI/992/124

  Royal Institute of Philosophy

  Philosophy

  Dr. M. Tiles

  1989–90

  Beijing Normal University and Hangzou CHI/992/125

  University of Sussex

  Education

  Dr. K. Lewin

  1990–91

  Tianjin University of Science and Technology CHI/992/126

  Manchester University

  Internal Combustion Engine

  Professor D. E. Winterbone

  1989–90

  Shenzhen and Chongsha University CHI/992/127

  Manchester University

  Polymer Chemistry

  Dr. C. Booth

  1990–91

  Tongji University CHI/992/128

  Bradford University

  Mathematics Modelling (of Flow and Pollution Transport)

  Professor R. A. Falconer

  1990–91

  Xian Jiaotong University CHI/992/130

  Strathclyde University

  Institutional Link (Business Studies)

  Mr. R. L. Crawford

  1990–91

  Northern Jiaoton University CHI/992/131

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Town Planning

  Mr. T. E. Mervyn-Jones

  1990–91

  East China Petroleum Institute CHI/992/132

  Herriot-Watt University

  Petroleum Engineering

  Professor Stuart

  1990–91

  Shanghai University of Technology CHI/992/133

  Manchester University

  Fluid Mechanics

  Dr. J. Turner

  296 297

  Year ALCS support ends

  Chinese Institution

  United Kingdom Institution

  Subject

  Main contact

  1990–91

  Shanxi Agricultural University CHI/992/134

  UCw Aberystwyth

  Agricultural Sciences

  Mr. G. Brown

  1990–91

  Institute of Quantitative Economics, CASS, Beijing CHI/992/135

  Herriot-Watt University

  Economics

  Professor Hare

  1990–91

  Nanjing Institute of Meteorology CHI/992/136

  Edinburgh University

  Meteorology

  Dr. Weston

  1990–91

  Lanzhao and Xinjiang University CHI/992/137

  Liverpool, Institute of Tropical Medicine

  Tropical Medicine

  Dr. New

  1990–91

  Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts CHI/992/138

  Slade School of Fine Art

  Fine Arts

  Professor George Cohen

  1990–91

  People's University, Beijing CHI/992/139

  Aston University

  Management Education

  Professor J. Child

  1990–91

  State Science and Technology Commission, Beijing CHI/992/140

  Aston University

  Science Policy

  Dr. F. Steward

  1990–91

  Tianjin College of Finance and Economics CHI/992/141

  North East London Polytechnic

  Management Economics

  Mr. G. Minshaw

  1990–91

  China Research Academy for Environmental Sciences, Beijing CHI/992/142

  Liverpool University

  Environmental Sciences

  Professor Dix

  1991–92

  Beijing University of Iron and Steel Technology CHI/992/143

  Lancaster University

  Higher Education Administration

  Dr. P. Summerfield

  1991–92

  Hauzhong Normal University CHI/992/145

  South Bank Polytechnic

  Information and Technology

  Dr. J. G. Taylor

  1991–92

  East China Normal University CHI/992/146

  University of London Institute of Education

  Education

  Professor A. Taylor

  1991–92

  Shanghai Jiatong University CHI/992/147

  Queen Mary College

  Mechanical Engineering

  Professor W. A. Woods

  1991–92

  Institute of Scientific and Technical Information CHI/992/148

  Ealing College of Higher Education

  Information Science

  Mr. James Shearer

  1991–92

  Nanjing University CHI/992/149

  Edinburgh University

  History

  Professor Dickinson

  1991–92

  Chongqing University CHI/992/150

  Leicester University

  Space Physics

  Dr. J. Beynon

  1991–92

  Dalian University of Technology CHI/992/152

  Hydraulics Research Ltd.

  Hydraulics Research

  Dr. E. P. Hart

  1991–92

  Beijing University Applied Mathematical Studies CHI/992/153

  Leeds University

  -

  Professor D. B. Inghare

  1991–92

  Fudan University CHI/992/154

  University of Essex

  International Politics

  Professor A. King

  1991–92

  North China Institute of Electrical power CHI/992/155

  Queens University, Belfast

  Electrical Engineering

  Mr. B. W. Hogg

  In addition, it is estimated that there are currently about 3,000 Chinese students in this country, under a variety of award schemes. The British Government provide approximately 1,000 of these awards.

  There is also a small programme involving Chinese teachers who come to the United Kingdom to work with local education authorities for up to one academic year. In the current year, 10 Chinese teachers are attached to LEAs. Four United Kingdom teachers have visited China under this programme this year. Some administrative support for this programme is provided by the central bureau, a body grant-aided by this Department.

  Teachers (Salaries)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford of 8 May,Official Report, column 299, if he will now publish a table based on the 1987 database of teacher records data showing the distribution of teachers across the salary scales at March 1987, distinguishing between primary and secondary sectors; whether the numbers of teachers in each sector on scale 3, scale 4 or senior teacher scales agrees with the projections made by his Department based on the March

  299
  1985 database of teacher records data for the purposes of salary assimilation in September 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Distribution of teachers by salary scale: March 1987

  Nursery and primary schools1

  Secondary schools1

  Scale 1

  55,920

  —

  59,120

  —

  Scale 2

  63,240

  —

  59,470

  —

  Scale 3

  14,360

  (16,000)

  56,490

  (53,000

  Scale 4

  300

  (0)

  29,950

  (28,500)

  Senior teacher

  50

  (0)

  7,280

  (6,500)

  Deputy head

  18,680

  —

  10,310

  —

  Head

  21,740

  —

  4,990

  —

  TOTAL

  174,280

  —

  227,610

  —

  1 The figures in brackets are the numbers forecast in 1987 on the basis of the 1985 database of teacher records.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Entertainers and Sportsmen
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been earned by Her Majesty's Inland Revenue under the entertainers and sportmen's rules introduced by the Finance Act 1986 and now contained in chapter III of part XIII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The special scheme for deducting tax at source from payment to non-resident entertainers and sportsmen yielded £6·9 million net (after repayments) in the period I May 1987 (when it took effect) to 31 March 1988 and £12·4 million net in 1988–89.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to the reply by the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on 16 June,Official Report, column 549, he will indicate what percentage proportion of (a) the Italian consumer price index, and (b) the United Kingdom retail prices index is represented in each case by the lists of housing costs contained in his reply.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Weight given to housing costs in the United Kingdom RPI and Italian consumer price index.

  (All items = 100)

  United Kingdom

  Italy

  Owner occupier costs

  MIPs

  6·0

  0·0

  Rental costs

  Rent

  3·2

  4·5

  Other costs

  Rates

  4·2

  0·0

  Water and other charges

  0·7

  0·4

  Repair and maintenance charges

  0·9

  Dwelling insurance and ground rent

  0·8

  0·0

  Do it yourself materials

  1·7

  0·0

  Total housing costs

  17·5

  4·9

  Interest Rates
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the increased costs to British industry of each 0·5 per cent. increase in interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cost to industrial and commercial companies of a 0·5 per cent. increase in United Kingdom short-term interest rates maintained for a full year is estimated to be about £0·2 billion.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Lilley
  The ECOFIN Council met in Luxembourg on 19 June. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council adopted a regulation re-weighting the ecu.

  The Council reached substantive agreement on a common position, subject to some further procedural details, on the draft second banking co-ordination directive and on the solvency ratios directive; and reached agreement on a common position on the insider trading directive.

  The Council reached agreement on a common position on a revised financial regulation. The Council adopted the 18th VAT directive.

  The Council had a further discussion of the Commission's proposals on fiscal frontiers.

  The Council discussed proposals for the three company tax measures to encourage cross-border co-operation.

  The Council heard a progress report on the latest proposals for anti-fraud measures, supported the useful progress made since the March ECOFIN, and endorsed the need to continue progress.

  Public Service Management
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of his recent Audit Commission lecture on public service management.

  Mr. Major
  I have already done so.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimated gain to the Exchequer in 1988–89 and 1989–90 of reducing capital gains tax exemptions from £5,000 to(a) £1,000 and (b) £2,000; and what would be the number of people who would have chargeable gains on this basis.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: I regret that precise estimates are not possible, but the figures for gains realised in each of these years could be of the order of:

  Annual exempt amount

  Increase in revenue

  Increase in number of taxpayers

  £ million

  '000

  £1,000

  300

  500

  £2,000

  200

  200

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimated gain to the
  301
  Exchequer in 1990–91 of reducing capital gains tax exemptions from £5,000 to (a) £1,000 and (b) £2,000 and the number of people who would have chargeable gains on this basis allowing for the impact of independent taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: I regret that no sufficiently firm estimate can be made.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he gave specific approval for additional moneys to the water authorities for pre-flotation advertising.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: The Government allowed for expenditure on the water authorities' current corporate awareness advertising campaigns when approving the water authorities' overall financing limits.

PRIME MINISTER

  NATO (Weapons Deployment)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on what is meant in terms of length of time by the phrase, "for the foreseeable future," in regard to the need for a continued mix of conventional and nuclear weapons in Europe deployed by NATO.

  The Prime Minister
  This agreement was reached by 16 Governments. It is not for any one Government to vary the normal meaning of the words.

  Australian Prime Minister
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia on his forthcoming visit to Europe, she has any plans to raise(a) initiatives to be taken to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the lead up to the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference, and (b) the arrangements for safeguards on uranium imported to the United Kingdom from Australia.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed non-proliferation matters. The answer to the second part of the question is no.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Australia, she plans to raise(a) the amendment conference for the 1963 partial nuclear test ban treaty and (b) the French nuclear testing programme in the Pacific and its effect on the treaty of Rarotonga.

  The Prime Minister
  Nuclear testing in the Pacific was discussed.

  Conventional Force Cuts, Europe
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the basis for her statement at the NATO press conference in Brussels on 30 May that President Bush's plan for conventional force cuts in Europe within six months to a year is a very optimistic timetable.

  The Prime Minister
  The practical details (such as definitions, counting rules and verification arrangements)302
  of a negotiation as complex as this are daunting. Negotiating satisfactory arrangements within the timetable we have set ourselves will be hard work, but we have made a good start.

  Apartheid
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will use the opportunity of her planned discussions with Mr. F. W. de Klerk to urge the South African Government to negotiate an end to apartheid.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. We want to see the peaceful abolition of apartheid through negotiation.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her discussions on rain forest issues with Dr. Ghillean Prance during her official visit to Kew gardens.

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to the Royal botanical gardens at Kew on 16 June, I spoke to a number of experts with whom I discussed, among many other things, the problems of tropical reafforestation which follow the destruction of natural habitats.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will host a conference in Britain for private companies to enable discussions to take place in order to reduce the damage caused to rain forests throughout the world: and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I share the widespread concern about the depletion of the tropical rain forests, and this was among the subjects discussed at the seminar which I held at Downing street on 26 April which involved individuals from the world of science and of business. I have no present plans for a further conference.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list, for each year since 1986, all the ministerial talks and meetings held by her or other Ministers with Ministers or representatives of the Governments of(a) Guatemala, (b) Haiti, (c) Honduras, (d) E1 Salvador and (e) South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The following table lists those meetings at ministerial level of which we have records. Ministers have had additional informal bilateral meetings in the margins of international conferences.

  In addition to these formal and informal meetings with their opposite numbers, Ministers in London regularly see the ambassadors of these countries in the course of their normal duties.

  Country

  Date

  1986

  El Salvador

  None

  Guatemala

  7 May

  Lady Hooper met President Cerezo at inauguration of President Arias in San José

  17 November

  Lady Young met President Cerezo at Miami Conference

  Haiti

  November

  Lady Young met General Henri Namphy (then President) at Miami Conference

  303

  Country

  Date

  Honduras

  17 November

  Lady Young met President Azcona at Miami Conference

  15 December

  Lady Young met Foreign Minister Lopez Contreras in London

  South Africa

  23 July

  Foreign Secretary met State President PW Botha and Foreign Minister Pile Botha in South Africa

  27 July

  Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Pik Botha and Minister of Trade and Industry de Villien

  29 July

  Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Pik Botha, Finance Minister du Plessis and State President PW Botha

  October

  Chancellor of The Exchequer met Finance Minister du Plessis

  1987

  El Salvador

  11–12 May

  Foreign Minister Acevedo Peralta met Foreign Secretary and Lady Young in London

  Guatemala

  11 February

  Lady Young met President Cerezo and Foreign Minister Quiñones in Guatemala

  21 September

  Foreign Secretary met President Cerezo in New York

  20 October

  Mr. Eggar met Minister of Economy Lizardo Sosa Lopez in London

  Honduras

  None

  South Africa

  28 November

  Mrs. Chalker met Deputy Foreign Minister Kobus Meiring in South Africa

  1988

  E1 Salvador

  9 March

  Mr. Eggar met Foreign Minister Acevedo Peralta in London

  Guatemala

  8 March

  Foreign Secretary and Mr. Eggar met Vice-President Carpo Nicolle in London

  December

  Mr. Eggar met President Cerezo in Miami

  Honduras

  27–28 April

  Foreign Secretary and Mr. Eggar met Foreign Minister Lopez Contreras in London

  South Africa

  1 November

  Mrs. Chalker met Deputy Foreign Minister Kobus Meiring in South Africa

  1989

  E1 Salvador

  1 June

  Mr. Alan Howarth, Whip, attended inauguration of President Cristiani as a Ministerial Representative, saw members of incoming administration

  Guatemala

  2–3 March

  Mr. Eggar met Vice-President Carpo Nicolle, Foreign Minister Palencia and Interior Minister Valle Valdizan in Guatemala City

  Haiti

  February

  Mr. Eggar met Foreign Minister Serge Charles at inauguration of President Perez of Venezuela

  Honduras

  27 February

  Mr. Eggar met Minister of Health in Honduras

  304

  Country

  Date

  South Africa

  15 March

  Foreign Minister Pik Botha met Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in London

  1 April

  Foreign Minister Pik Botha met Prime Minister in Namibia

  24–25 April

  Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary met Finance Minister du Plessis in London

  23 June

  Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary met Minister of National Education de Clerk

  Economic Assistance
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will ensure that the principle of making economic assistance and trade credits conditional on an improvement in democratic and human rights is applied in the case of Iraq as well as in that of Poland.

  The Prime Minister
  We regularly make clear to the Iraqi Government our concerns over their human rights record, but we do not believe that unilateral economic measures would be effective in ending human rights abuses. Only by maintaining a working relationship can we hope to achieve changes. I announced a number of steps on 10 June following my meeting with General Jaruzelski to support progress towards democracy and a market economy, including the contribution of £5 million a year for five years towards a "Know How" fund. Our policy on export credit guarantees for Poland is governed by economic considerations.

  China
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will ensure that the current events in China and the repression by the Chinese authorities will be discussed as a matter of urgency at the EEC summit in Madrid; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I can assure the hon. Member that the current repression by the Chinese authorities will be discussed at the forthcoming Madrid European Council.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will protest to the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom on the executions now taking place in China; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 6 June that he had summoned the Chinese chargé d'affaires to make clear our attitude to the violent suppression of peaceful protest in Peking. As I made clear in the House on 22 June, I was among the first to condemn the recent executions in China, about which representations have also been made to the Chinese authorities by the 12 EC member states.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change", he plans to increase spending on disability benefits.
  305
  Mr. Scott
  Current expenditure plans, Command 615, provide for spending on benefits for the sick and disabled to increase by over £3 billion by 1991–92. We shall give careful consideration to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee when we reach conclusions on the implications of the results of the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It is too soon to say how this will affect existing expenditure plans.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of his Department's offices in the Greater London area have spent more than 100 per cent. of their profile allocation for social fund loans and social fund grants for (i) April 1989 and (ii) May 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Loans

  April 1989

  Balham

  Barking

  Canning Town

  Cricklewood

  Ealing

  Edgware

  Greenwich Park

  Kennington Park

  Paddington

  Poplar

  Romford

  Shoreditch

  Southwark

  Walthamstow

  Wood Green

  May 1989

  Bexley

  Brixton

  Camberwell

  Canning Town

  Croydon

  Crystal Palace

  Ealing

  Edmonton

  Eltham

  Greenwich Park

  Harlesden

  Highgate

  Hounslow

  Kensington

  Oval

  Paddington

  Peckham

  Poplar

  Southwark

  Thames North

  Tottenham

  Walthamstow

  Woodgrange Park

  Wood Green

  Woolwich

  Community care grants

  April 1989

  Barking

  Barnet

  Canning Town

  Cricklewood

  Crystal Palace

  Ealing

  Edgware

  Eltham

  Euston

  Finsbury Park

  Harrow

  Hither Green

  Kennington Park

  306

  Kensington

  Neasden

  Oval

  Paddington

  Peckham

  Poplar

  Romford

  Southwark

  Stoke Newington

  Twickenham

  Wood Green

  Woolwich

  May 1989

  Balham

  Barking

  Bexley

  Camberwell

  Canning Town

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Euston

  Finsbury Park

  Greenwich Park

  Harrow

  Hendon

  Kensington

  Leytonstone

  Oval

  Peckham

  Shoreditch

  Walthamstow

  Wood Green

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of his Department's offices in the Greater London area have spent between 90 per cent, and 100 per cent, of their profile allocation for social fund loans and social fund grants for (i) April 1989 and (ii) May 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Loans

  April 1989

  Bexley

  Chelsea

  Croydon

  Edmonton

  Euston

  Hackney

  Highgate

  Hoxton

  Mitcham

  Peckham

  Tottenham

  Wandsworth

  Wimbledon

  Woodgrange Park

  Woolwich

  May 1989

  Barnet

  Finsbury Park

  Hackney

  Kingston

  Leytonstone

  Mitcham

  Notting Hill

  Stepney

  Streatham

  Stoke Newington

  Sutton

  Community Care Grants

  April 1989

  Balham

  Battersea

  Bexley

  Bloomsbury

  Brixton

  Camberwell

  Chelsea

  307

  Croydon

  Greenwich Park

  Hackney

  Harlesden

  Hendon

  Highgate

  Hoxton

  London City

  Plaistow

  Stepney

  Sutton

  Tottenham

  Walthamstow

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Woodgrange Park

  May 1989

  Acton

  Barnet

  Battersea

  Brixton

  Bromley

  Chelsea

  Crystal Palace

  Edgware

  Hackney

  Highgate

  Mitcham

  Neasden

  Notting Hill

  Romford

  Stepney

  Streatham

  Westminster

  Woodgrange Park

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many decisions made by social fund officers are overturned by social fund inspectors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The social fund commissioner has advised me that in the period from 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 social fund inspectors reviewed 2,499 cases. A total of 1,109 were referred back to social fund officers to redetermine and in 96 cases the social fund inspector substituted his own decision.

  Hostels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what grants are available for the establishment of hostels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Grants can be made under schedule 5 of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976, as amended, to voluntary organisations and/or local authorities. These would be to set up facilities for those people without a settled way of life with a view to influencing them to lead a settled way of life. However, such grants are currently being restricted to organisations that provide hostels which form part of an approved scheme to replace resettlement units.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which public relations firms his Department has employed, and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Apart from the special circumstances of privatisation work, the consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations firms or other firms outside Government for public relations work.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the numbers of people receiving housing benefit rent allowances in May 1986, May 1987, and May 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows. The figures represent the estimated average number receiving benefit in the year.

  Estimated numbers receiving housing benefit rent allowances

  Million

  1986–87

  1·18

  1987–88

  1·20

  1988–89

  0·93

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of people who are currently receiving rent allowance via housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available estimate for 1989–90 is 1·04 million.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of information held in his Department that are available for use by community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information that may be passed to community charge registration officers is prescribed in the Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 and the Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) Regulations 1989. It is confined to the name and address of any person aged over 18, and of any partner he or she may have aged over 18, who has been awarded income support and who, prior to 1 April 1989 in Scotland and prior to 1 April 1990 in England and Wales, has not claimed housing benefit, or who, after 1 April 1989 in Scotland and after 1 April 1990 in England and Wales, has not claimed a community charge rebate. In Scotland the information may also include the date of birth of any such person.

  Pensioners
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of pensioners in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom whose only source of income is the basic national insurance retirement pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986, just under 20 per cent. of United Kingdom pensioners' sole source of income was from state benefits.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  Notes: The data cannot be broken down further to provide the proportion of pensioners' income derived from the basic state pension.

  It is not possible to provide information for Scotland because the Scottish sample size in the FES is too small to be statistically significant in answering this question.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of pensioners in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom who are in receipt of housing benefit for each year since 1981.
  309
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information for Great Britain is as follows. Figures for Scotland and the United Kingdom are not available in the form requested. Housing Benefit did not come into full operation until April 1983.

  Estimated number of pensioners receiving Housing Benefit 1983–4—1988–9.

  Million

  1983–4

  4·105

  1984–5

  4·110

  1985–6

  4·120

  1986–7

  4·030

  1987–8

  4·045

  1988–9

  2·850

  War Widows
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many war widows are receiving war widows pensions because their husband left the services before 31 March 1973; and what would be the total cost of uprating their pensions to £5,000 per person.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At 31 March approximately 56,000 pre-1973 war widows were in receipt of a pension under the war pensions scheme. We estimate that the total extra cost of uprating their pensions to £5,000 per person would be about £100 million per annum.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the regulations governing the treatment of earnings from the Territorial Army for unemployed males receiving benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Unemployed people receiving earnings from the Territorial Army arc most likely to be in receipt of unemployment benefit, income support and housing benefit. The main provisions dealing with the treatment of these earnings in each benefit are as follows.

  The regulation governing the effect on unemployment benefit of earnings specifically from the Territorial Army is regulation 3(3) of the Social Security (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1978. Under this regulation no account is taken of annual bounty and payment in respect of attendance at the first 16 authorised drill nights each year. Further payments are subject to regulation 7(1)(g)(i) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, under which a day is not treated as a day of unemployment if earnings for that day exceed £2.

  For unemployed reservists receiving income support or housing benefit, the weekly amount of the earnings and the period for which they are to he taken into account are determined by reference to regulations 29, 31 and 32 of the Income Support (General) Regulations, and regulations 21 and 25 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations. Payments made in respect of income tax, class 1 national insurance contributions and half of any sum paid by an employee towards an occupational or personal pension scheme are disregarded under regulation 36(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and regulation 29(3) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. The first £15 of weekly earnings is also disregarded under paragraph 7(1) of schedule 8 to the income support regulations and paragraph 6(1) of schedule 3 to the housing benefit regulations.
  310
  The annual bounty paid to reservists is treated as capital under Income Support (General) Regulation 48 and Housing Benefit (General) Regulation 40(1) and does not affect entitlement as long as the total capital held does not exceed £3,000.

  For income support only, reservists attending annual training camp are normally treated as being in remunerative work and are not entitled to benefit in accordance with regulation 5 of the Income Support (General) Regulations. Earnings arising from this period are ignored completely on reclaiming benefit under the provision of paragraph 1 of schedule 8 to the regulations.

  Community Care Grants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether in addition to any provision in the Acts and regulations, there is any(a) guidance to all Departments of Social Security offices and (b) internal guidance within the offices covering the Peckham constituency on the amounts to be awarded to people in different categories who are given community care grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance has been issued in the social fund manual on suggested maximum amounts which may be awarded to applicants who need a start-up grant, a clothing grant and minor structural repairs to the home. The decision on how much to award in an individual case rests with the social fund officer.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there is any(a) guidance to all Departments of Social Security offices and (b) internal guidance within the offices covering the Peckham constituency on the priority for community care grants as between homeless women in refuges, people coming out of mental institutions, children leaving care, and others.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance on the national priorities for community care grants has been issued in the social fund manual. Local office managers have issued guidance to social fund officers on local priorities.

  Benefits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of state benefit income an unemployed family consisting of mother, father, and two children aged 12 and 5 years received in 1979; and what benefit they would receive today if 1979 benefits had been increased to match inflation if the benefits were paid on the same basis as in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no prescribed procedure for uprating supplementary benefit or housing benefit— different elements of these schemes have been uprated in different ways and by different indices at different times.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the number of families with children:(a) entitled to and (b) receiving supplementary benefit/income support in each year since 1970, distinguishing between one and two-parent families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: The available information is as follows:
  311

  Families with children receiving supplementary benefit/income support and estimated eligible non-recipient families by family status

  Total in receipt

  One parent families in receipt

  One parent families eligible but not in receipt

  Two parent families in receipt

  Two parent families eligible but not in receipt

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  1970

  364

  218

  —

  146

  —

  1971

  436

  246

  —

  190

  —

  1972

  433

  259

  —

  175

  —

  1973

  373

  257

  60

  116

  80

  1974

  405

  269

  —

  136

  —

  1975

  502

  296

  —

  206

  —

  1976

  556

  323

  —

  233

  —

  1977

  553

  326

  50

  227

  —

  1978

  535

  339

  —

  196

  —

  1979

  488

  322

  60

  166

  60

  1980

  581

  336

  —

  245

  —

  1981

  794

  392

  50

  402

  150

  1982

  929

  441

  —

  488

  —

  1983

  975

  475

  40

  500

  —

  1984

  1,057

  518

  —

  539

  —

  1986

  1,172

  606

  —

  565

  —

  1987

  1,181

  664

  —

  517

  —

  Notes:

  1. Sources: Annual statistical enquiries 1970 to 1987 for those families with children in receipt of benefit. For eligible non-recipient families appropriate Family Expenditure Survey data.

  2. The two columns can not be added to give a total figure of those claiming and not claiming. Recipient families are identified on a 'snapshot basis'. Take-up estimates are based on an average caseload over the year and exclude the institutional population and from 1983 to 1987 Housing Benefit Supplement recipients.

  3. All estimates, but especially of eligible non-recipients, are subject to sampling error.

  4. One parent familes exclude those temporarily separated.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the estimated number of families(a) entitled to and (b) receiving family income supplement/family credit in each year since 1971,

  Families with dependent children receiving family income supplement/family credit and eligible non-recipient families with dependants by family and employment status

  Employed10

  Self-employed1011

  One parent

  Two parent

  Estimated eligible non-recipients (one or two parents)39

  One parent

  Two parent

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  (000s)

  Family income supplement1

  August 1971

  15

  30

  —

  8—

  1

  April 1972

  27

  51

  —

  8—

  3

  April 1973

  35

  44

  —

  1

  3

  April 1974

  39

  33

  —

  1

  3

  April 1975

  30

  22

  —

  1

  3

  April 1976

  30

  25

  —

  1

  4

  April 1977

  36

  42

  —

  1

  5

  April 1978

  40

  49

  475

  1

  5

  April 1979

  37

  36

  —

  1

  4

  April 1980

  49

  33

  —

  1

  5

  April 1981

  53

  45

  5130

  1

  7

  April 1982

  63

  66

  —

  2

  11

  April 1983

  76

  92

  6150

  3

  18

  April 1984

  78

  100

  —

  3

  23

  April 1985

  80

  95

  —

  3

  25

  April 1986

  79

  92

  —

  4

  26

  April 1987

  87

  97

  —

  4

  31

  Family credit

  April-December 1988

  n.a.

  n.a.

  7250

  n.a.

  n.a.

  March 19892

  100

  139

  —

  8

  35

  1 Source: 10 per cent. sample of Family Income Supplement awards.

  2 1989 Family Credit figures derived from Family Credit statistical system and North Fylde Central Ofice load. Earlier figure on comparable terms are not available.

  3 Eligible non—recipients from Family Expenditure survey.

  4 1978—79 FES.

  5 1981—82 FES.

  6 1983—84 FES.

  312
  distinguishing between employed, self-employed, one-parent and two-parent families, and including a case-load estimate for its current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: The information is as follows:
  313

  7 April-December 1988 FES. Around 50 per cent. of eligible population of 500,000 employees.

  8 Under 500.

  9 Columns for claimants and eligible non-claimants cannot be added to give a precise total figure of those claiming and not claiming. Recipient families are identified on a 'snapshot basis'.

  Take-up estimates are usually based on an average caseload over two years. For Family Credit, the take-up estimate is based on 9 months of Family Expenditure Survey data.

  10 All estimates, especially those for eligible non-recipients, are subject to sampling error.

  11 No estimates are available for self-employed eligible non-recipients. Separate estimates of eligible non-recipient one parent and two parent employed cases would be subject to large sampling errors.

  Benefits (Children)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many English children depended on(a) SB/IS and (b) FIS/FC in each year since 1978–79 (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of all English children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: The latest available information is set out in the following tables.

  Dependent children in families in England in receipt of supplementary benefit

  Year

  Number of children1 in families receiving supplementary benefit2 Thousands

  Proportion of all children in England3 Percent.

  1978

  894

  7·8

  1979

  784

  6·9

  1980

  937

  8·4

  1981

  1,294

  11·7

  1982

  1,495

  13·8

  1983

  1,573

  14·8

  1984

  1,704

  16·3

  1986

  1,870

  18·2

  1987

  1,880

  18·4

  1 Dependent children aged under 19.

  2 Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries 1978 to 1987.

  3 Based on the Child Benefit recipient population.

  Children in families in England receiving Family Income Supplement

  Year

  Children in families receiving FIS1 Thousands

  Proportion of all children in England2 Per cent

  1978–79

  169

  1·5

  1979–80

  151

  1·3

  1980–81

  154

  1·4

  1981–82

  193

  1·7

  1982–83

  267

  2·5

  1983–84

  338

  3·2

  1984–85

  354

  3·4

  1985–86

  340

  3·3

  1986–87

  367

  3·6

  1987–88

  376

  3·7

  1 Source: 10 per cent. sample of Family Income Supplement awards and Social Security Statistics for those receiving Child Benefit.

  2 Based on Child Benefit recipient population.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Scottish children depended on(a) SB/IS and (b) FIS/FC in each year since 1978–79 (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of all Scottish children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: The available information is as follows:

  Children in families in Scotland in receipt of supplementary benefit

  Year

  Number of children1 in families receiving supplementary Benefit2 Thousands (000)

  Proportion of all children in Scotland3 Percentage

  1978

  122

  9·3

  1979

  112

  8·7

  1980

  122

  9·6

  314

  Year

  Number of children1 in families receiving supplementary Benefit2 Thousands (000)

  Proportion of all children in Scotland3 Percentage

  1981

  159

  12·8

  1982

  187

  15·5

  1983

  181

  15·3

  1984

  202

  17·4

  1986

  219

  19·6

  1987

  225

  20·5

  1 Dependent children aged under 19.

  2 Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries 1978 to 1987.

  3 Based on the Child Benefit recipient population.

  Children in families in Scotland receiving family income supplement

  Year

  Children in families receiving family income supplement1 Thousands (000)

  Proportion of all children in Scotland2 Percentage

  1978–79

  24

  1·8

  1979–80

  20

  1·6

  1980–81

  24

  1·9

  1981–82

  28

  2·3

  1982–83

  37

  3·0

  1983–84

  38

  3·2

  1984–85

  50

  4·3

  1985–86

  48

  4·2

  1986–87

  51

  4·5

  1987–88

  53

  4·8

  1 Source: 10 per cent. sample of FIS awards and Social Security Statistics for those receiving Child Benefit.

  2 Based on the Child Benefit recipient population.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgetary loans and (b) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for the midlands region in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The table shows the figures for the midlands region for the period 11 April 1988 to 31 march 1989.

  Budgeting loans and community care grants for midlands region Percentage by client group—1988–89

  Client group

  Budgeting loans

  Community care grants

  Unallocated or unidentified

  0·34

  0·21

  Over 80—with income support higher pensioner premium

  0·35

  5·19

  Aged 60–79—disabled with higher pensioner premium

  0·49

  4·03

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

  4·10

  16·59

  Lone parent with income support disability premium

  0·30

  0·82

  Family with disability premium

  3·28

  3·00

  Other with disability premium

  2·67

  9·48

  Lone parent without disability premium

  43·90

  25·13

  Signs at UBO quarterly with income support family premium

  0·85

  0·51

  315

  Client group

  Budgeting loans

  Community care grants

  Signs at UBO quarterly without family premium

  2·29

  1·34

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  18·39

  8·51

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  18·55

  16·67

  Others with family premium

  0·92

  2·14

  Others without family premium

  3·55

  5·72

  Involved in trade dispute

  0·01

  0·00

  Applicant not in receipt of income Support—not applicable for budgeting loans

  n/a

  1·00

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of hospitals which have expressed interest in becoming self-governing institutions within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of 179 expressions of interest in self-governing status have been received. Some are for non-hospital facilities and others include more than one hospital.

  Leaflet

  Print run

  Production cost

  Distribution

  £

  Avenue

  Cost£

  Working for Patients:

  Management summary

  350,000

  109,250

  RHAs; DHAs; CHCs;

  15,500e

  FPCs; GPs

  RHAs; DHAs; Post Offices;

  Popular leaflet HSR1

  3,000,000

  117,050

  Libraries, Pharmacies

  222,255e

  Self Governing Hospitals:

  Staff leaflet HSR2

  250,000

  23,000e

  RHAs

  12,706

  Local public leaflet HSR3

  250,000

  RHAs

  1 Estimated cost.

  2 Excludes Post Office distribution costs covered by an annual contract.

  RHA Regional Health Authority.

  DHA District Health Authority.

  CHC Community Health Council.

  FPC Family Practitioner Committee.

  GP General Medical Practitioner.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Health Service unions on the question of private health provision.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Crown Indemnity
  Sir Gerald Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to implement a scheme of Crown indemnity for doctors and dentists working in National Health Service hospitals and community health services, as outlined in the reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir. M. McNair-Wilson), on 7 April,Official Report, column 304; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are currently considering the responses to the consultation exercise which finished in May. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
  316
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that his proposals for hospitals opting-out of the National Health Service management structure will be supported by the staff responsible for providing all services to hospital patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  Self-governing hospitals will not opt out, but will remain fully within the NHS. When a unit decides to submit an application for self-government, the relevant regional health authority will seek the views of those with an interest including staff at the hospital. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider any responses alongside the application, although no group will have a veto on any proposals.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the leaflets issued in connection with proposals to reform the National Health Service together with the print runs and costs of production for each leaflet, their main avenues of distribution and their estimated costs of distribution.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The following leaflets have been issued in connection with proposals to reform the National Health Service:

  Public Relations
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which public relations firms his Department has employed and at what cost, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. The consistent practice of successive Governments has been to avoid the use of public relations firms or other firms outside government for public relations work.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the waiting list for each district health authority as at 31 March and indicate the rank order of each district in size of its waiting list.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not yet have available figures of the number of people waiting for hospital treatment in each district health authority at 31 March 1989.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the distribution by National Health Service region, by spending head and by spending head within each National Health Service region of the extra £40 million so far announced for the implementation of the proposals in "Working for Patients".

  Distribution of £32 million additional funding for the hospital and community health services 1989–90

  (£ million)

  1Personnel function

  1Finance function (staff)

  2Capital charging

  3Medical audit

  Total allocated

  Northern

  0·366

  0·634

  0·865

  0·051

  1·916

  Yorkshire

  0·411

  0·711

  0·920

  0·053

  2·095

  Trent

  0·512

  0·887

  0·946

  0·064

  2·409

  East Anglian

  0·220

  0·381

  0·460

  0·031

  1·092

  North West Thames

  0·427

  0·739

  0·865

  0·051

  2·082

  North East Thames

  0·526

  0·910

  1·062

  0·063

  2·561

  South East Thames

  0·463

  0·801

  0·959

  0·060

  2·283

  South West Thames

  0·374

  0·648

  0·800

  0·044

  1·866

  Wessex

  0·307

  0·532

  0·643

  0·042

  1·524

  Oxford

  0·247

  0·427

  0·518

  0·048

  1·240

  South Western

  0·364

  0·631

  0·738

  0·044

  1·777

  West Midlands

  0·587

  1·016

  1·288

  0·077

  2·968

  Mersey

  0·294

  0·509

  0·601

  0·036

  1·440

  North Western

  0·502

  0·869

  1·108

  0·067

  2·546

  All RHAs

  5·600

  9·695

  11·773

  0·731

  27·799

  London post-graduate SHAs

  0·100

  0·174

  0·227

  0·019

  0·520

  Total RHAs and SHAs

  5·700

  9·869

  12·000

  0·750

  428·319

  1 Total allocated pro rata to initial revenue cash limits.

  2 Comprises a basic allocation of £13,000 per RHA/SHA plus £25,000 per district (excluding Peterborough, Chester and Calderdale health authorities which have attracted separate funding as capital asset pilot sites), with the remainder allocated pro rata to initial revenue cash limits.

  3 Total allocated pro rata to number of medical consultants in each RHA/SHA.

  4 Total excludes sums held back for later allocation for example:

  £million

  Internal markets:

  training

  0·771

  Medical audit:

  regional implementation

  0·750

  methodology development

  0·500

  Finance function:

  training initiatives

  1·660

  Total

  3·681

  Psychiatric Services (Children)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of 16 years were seen for assessment of treatment by child and adolescent psychiatric services in 1986–87 and 1987–88; how many of these children were severely or profoundly deaf; what proportion used sign language; and what proportion used spoken language as their main method of communication.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Hospitals (Cleaning)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the incidence of occasions, since the award of private cleaning contracts at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the Thanet district hospital and the Royal Seabathing hospital, upon which payments for specific cleaning areas have been suspended; and what action he proposes to take to deal with such occurrences.
  318
  Mr. Mellor
  A total of £million of the additional £million is for the hospital and community health services and has been distributed as shown in the table. The remainder is to meet the administrative costs incurred by the Department of Health in implementing the review.

  Mr. Freeman
  The issues raised are contractual matters between the relevant contractor and the Canterbury and Thanet district health authority. Ultimately both parties have the sanction of terminating the contract if there are continuing and serious breaches of its terms. Usually, however, mutually satisfactory arrangements are achieved without the need for drastic action.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the terms and conditions under which blood is transferred from the blood transfusion service to organisations outside the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Blood from the national blood transfusion service is supplied to non-NHS hospitals in England and Wales according to the terms of health circular HC(89)14 a copy of which is in the Library. A handling charge is made for blood supplied in this way to
  319
  cover items such as the costs of collection, testing and processing. No charge is made for the freely donated blood itself.

  Rotherham Health Authority
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial provision has been made for the Rotherham Health Authority in 1989–90; and what was the comparable provision in the previous two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Allocations to individual district health authorities are a matter for the regional health authority concerned. I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the financial provision per capita for the Rotherham health authority in 1989–90; what is the average provision for health authorities on a per capita basis; and what significant progress will be made this year in the resources allocation working party context.

  Mr. Freeman
  Allocation of resources to district health authorities is a matter for the relevant regional health authority. The national average provision for health authorities in England in 1989–90 is £264 per capita.

  The allocations for 1989–90 announced on 21 December 1988 allow every regional health authority to benefit to the maximum extent from the additional resources available. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government now intend to move on from RAWP to a simpler and fairer approach.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions relating to deprioritising the benzodiazepine issue he has issued to health authorities or other bodies.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. On the contrary in guidance issued to health and local authorities we continue to give a high priority to the development and expansion of services for drug misusers including those dependent on benzodiazepines. This high priority is emphasised by the allocation by the Department of nearly £15 million in 1989–90 to regional health authorities specifically for the development of these services. The Department will also continue to encourage doctors to prescribe benzodiazepines only in accordance with current guidelines, as contained in the Committee on Safety of Medicines "Current Problems" No. 21 and in the British National Formulary.

  Foster Parents (Insurance)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's boarding out of children regulations require agencies arranging placements to make provision for the insurance of foster parents.

  Mr. Mellor
  Agencies are required under the Boarding-Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1989 to inform foster parents of the agency's arrangements for meeting any legal liabilities of a foster parent arising by reason of the placement. We expect that agencies will make effective arrangements: A number of options are suggested in the handbook of guidance issued in association with the regulations.

  Dystonia
  Sir Michael McNair Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a grant to the Dystonia Society under section 64;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to make dystonia better understood by medical professionals, to improve hospital facilities for dystonia sufferers and to enable them to obtain their drugs fee of prescription charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Dystonia Society was included as a candidate for funding from the RPI error money which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security on 9 February. They were awarded £10,000 towards the cost of providing a nurse practitioner at the national Hospital for Nervous Diseases to give advice and counselling to sufferers of dystonia. This project, which is scheduled to run for three years, will offer the opportunity to evaluate whether this ensures a better service for dystonia sufferers with a view to introducing it into other NHS hospital neurological departments, if appropriate.

  Unfortunately it was not possible to award a section 64 core grant to the society in the current financial year since the number of applications for funding exceeded the level of funds available for grant awards.

  Undergraduate and postgraduate medical education is, primarily, a matter for medical schools and postgraduate medical institutions. Measures to increase doctors' knowledge of dystonia and movement disorders is more appropriate for these bodies and the medical profession.

  Because of the existing wide-ranging provisions for exemption from prescription charges and particularly those for persons on low incomes, we have no plans to include dystonia in the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department decided to set up a new discount inquiry for products dispensed under National Health Service prescriptions; when he expects it to come into force; when was the last inquiry; and what kind of discounts are currently available.

  Mr. Mellor
  We consider the need for discount inquiries annually in consultation with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee (PSNC). The next discount inquiry will be based on purchases of drugs made during April 1989. The results of the inquiry will be implemented from April 1990 or such earlier date as may be agreed between the Department and the PSNC. The last inquiry was undertaken in respect of April 1986 purchases. The price differences taken into account include discounts for volume and early settlement, special lines, the ordering of supplies by computer, free offers and lower prices for parallel imported and other products.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a breakdown of the reasons for abortions performed under ground two of the Abortion Act 1967 for 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: The information is shown in the table.
  321

  Abortions performed under ground 21 (alone) of the 1967 Abortion Act: numbers by principal medical condition, England and Wales 1987–88

  ICD2and Condition

  Number

  1987

  1988

  All legal abortions

  154,627

  163,624

  With mention of a medical condition

  144,687

  154,542

  Without mention of a medical condition

  9,940

  9,082

  638 Failed attempted abortion

  1

  —

  640 Haemorrhage in early pregnancy

  —

  1

  641 Antepartum Haemorrhage, abruption placentae and placenta praevie

  —

  —

  642 Hypertension complicating pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium

  49

  98

  643 Excessive vomiting in pregnancy

  16

  28

  646 Other complications in pregnancy, not elsewhere classified

  15

  17

  647 Infective and parasitic conditions in the mother classified elsewhere

  11

  8

  648 Mental disorders

  144,046

  153,907

  Neurotic disorder

  100,688

  105,769

  Depressive disorder not elsewhere classified

  43,036

  47,789

  Other

  322

  349

  654 Abnormality of organs and soft tissue of pelvis

  41

  25

  655 Known or suspected foetal abnormality affecting management of mother

  116

  64

  656 Other foetal and placental problems affecting management of mother

  4

  2

  1 The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  2 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code, 9th revision.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incomplete abortion notification forms were accepted by his Department in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 where no medical reason was given for the operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: The table shows the number of abortions performed in England and Wales during 1984–88 where no medical reason for the operation was given on the notification form. This does not mean, however, that these notification forms were incomplete; on a number of occasions, notifications are received where, quite properly, no existing medical condition has been recorded.

  Such notifications refer to situations where there is an implied future risk to the mother were the pregnancy to continue, rather than to an existing medical condition. The Abortion Act 1967 allows an abortion to be performed if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that
  "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated."
  Most of the cases without mention of medical condition are terminations performed under this ground.

  There are also a small number which are accounted for by those notified on the grounds that
  322
  "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) in the family of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated"
  (Ground 3 of the 1967 Abortion Act).

  Legal abortions performed without mention of medical condition, England and Wales, 1984–88

  Year

  Total

  1984

  12,533

  1985

  12,815

  1986

  13,166

  1987

  13,645

  1988

  12,177

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the trade unions; and whether the subject of the issue and renewal of passports was discussed.

  Mr. Renton
  Officials at the Passport Department last met representatives of the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on 16 June in the course of efforts to resolve the current dispute over staffing levels at the passport offices. An offer was made to increase numbers of permanent staff in return for greater flexibility in working practices and co-operation in a number of management initiatives to improve the efficiency of the Passport Department. We expect this will lead to a return to work by striking staff at the Liverpool office tomorrow and a resumption of normal working at the other passport offices. The first priority will then be to clear the current backlog of applications and to provide an improved service to the public.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary for State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the fines available to the courts for traders who break the Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Renton
  Not at present.

  Road Traffic Law Review
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) the Magistrates Association to discuss some of the recommendations for improving traffic regulation enforcement made by the road traffic law review.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last met the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss road traffic matters on 24 October 1988. He has not met the Magistrates Association to discuss this subject. Home Office officials are involved in continuing discussions with representatives of the police service and the magistrates courts about implementation of the proposals set out in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" (Cm. 576).

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the financial support given to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for each year since 1976 in 1989 money.

  Mr. Renton
  The total Home Office grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service in each of the financial years from 1976–77, expressed at assumed 1989–90 prices by use of the GDP deflator, is given in the table:

  £

  1976–77

  755,000

  1977–78

  692,000

  1978–79

  909,000

  1979–80

  850,000

  1980–81

  891,000

  1981–82

  993,000

  1982–83

  1,026,000

  1983–84

  1,058,000

  1984–85

  1,038,000

  1985–86

  1,086,000

  1986–87

  1,060,000

  1987–88

  1,087,000

  1988–89

  1,062,000

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom are currently being received each month; and from what nationalities.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available in the form requested. A provisional breakdown by nationality of all applications made in each quarter is supplied by the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees, one quarter in arrears. Copies are placed in the Library. Statistics for the first quarter of 1989 will be available at the beginning of July. We know that there has recently been a large increase in the number of Turkish nationals applying for asylum on arrival at ports. There have been over 3,000 such applications since the beginning of May.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom he expects to be granted on the basis of his Department's backlog criteria;

  (2) in what circumstances applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom are to be granted in order to reduce the current backlog of such cases and to release staff to deal with new applications.

  Mr. Renton
  Asylum applications continue to be decided under the criteria of the 1951 convention. There is no question of granting refugee status in cases which do not qualify under the convention in order to reduce the backlog of outstanding applications. Efforts are being made to reduce the backlog and staff are encouraged to identify and resolve more quickly through the grant of exceptional leave cases which do not qualify under the convention but in which outright refusal is likely to be inappropriate or impractical. Cases continue to be resolved on their individual merits and we can make no estimates of the likely outcomes.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political 324
  asylum in the United Kingdom are currently awaiting a decision; and how many of these have been delayed for 12 months or longer.

  Mr. Renton
  Information on the number of applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom awaiting a decision at the end of the year is published annually in Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom". The 1988 volume of this bulletin will be published next month. The latest available volume is for 1987 (Issue 16/88), a copy of which is in the Library. Of the estimate of a total of 8,300 applications recorded as awaiting a decision at the end of 1987, approximately 4,200 were recorded as outstanding for 12 months or more. However, these figures are maxima which overstate the position, because of under recording of decisions made earlier.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers are currently dealing with applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom; and what were the comparable figures one, three, five and 10 years previously.

  Mr. Renton
  The information centrally available does not distinguish the number of immigration officers who, as part of their duties, may currently be dealing with asylum applications, or might in the past have been so engaged. But the arrival of substantial numbers of Turkish asylum applications this year has significantly increased the demands on the resources of the immigration service.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the average length of time which immigration appeal cases in Scotland take to be prepared and presented.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The time that it takes to hear an individual appeal varies greatly from case to case because of both the number of stages involved and the differing lengths of time that each stage can take. I am aware however that the time between the lodging of an appeal and the hearing commonly exceeds one year for cases heard in Scotland.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures of support he is taking to help the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in Scotland to deal with immigration appeals.

  Mr. Renton
  The Home Office makes an annual grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971, as the basis for the provision of a nationwide service of advice and assistance to persons who have rights of appeal under the Act. The grant in 1988–89 was £1,007,000 and is reviewed annually. It is for the service to decide how to allocate these moneys to the various aspects of its work.

  C3 Division
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed by the C3 Division and at what cost.

  Mr. John Patten
  Forty-eight people are currently employed in C3 Division of the Home Office at an annual
  325
  cost of £756,000. Of these, 18 are employed in dealing with work associated with alleged miscarriages of justice and the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, at an annual cost of £275,500.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the leaking of the memorandum from G. N. Stadlen, of B2 division, dated 9 June headed "Immigration Rules Changes and DNA Announcement" including a draft letter to the Lord President for signature by the Home Secretary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes: any suggestion that an unauthorised disclosure of information has occurred is investigated.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what formal representations he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation about the banning of the appearance of Sinn Fein on television and radio; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  None. When the directions were issued, the BBC and the IBA undertook to implement them, although they requested that the need for them should be kept under close review.

  Mr. Ning Hong Shan
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a decision has been reached regarding the request for asylum by Mr. Ning Hong Shan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  The application is under consideration.

  Mr. Abbas Karbassian
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his Department refused leave to remain for Mr. Abbas Karbassian of 14 Bromwich close, Ernesford Grange, Coventry, reference K296103; whether the criteria for the granting of indefinite leave to remain on the basis of length of residence in the United Kingdom have changed since his reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 17 March 1986,Official Report, column 9; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Karbassian's application for leave to remain on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen was refused because the couple had subsequently separated. An earlier application to remain as a student was refused because the Secretary of State was not satisfied that Mr. Karbassian intended to leave the United Kingdom at the end of his studies. Mr. Karbassian's application for settlement on the basis of his lengthy residence in the United Kingdom was considered on its merits but it was decided not to exercise discretion in his favour.

  The criteria for the grant of indefinite leave to remain on the basis of length of residence were set out more fully in the reply of 5 November 1987 at column 833 to a question from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). They remain as stated.

  Broadcasting Licences
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he is giving to representations against the proposed auction of broadcasting licences to the highest bidder and to calls for the protection of quality of television programmes.

  Mr. Renton
  The case for allocating television licences by competitive tender and the steps which we propose to preserve quality programming are set out in our White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality". In the statement my right hon. Friend made to the House on 13 June on the future of commercial television at columns 710–15 he announced further ways in which quality would be safeguarded, notably by strengthening the quality threshold which all applicants for licences would have first to satisfy; by giving the Independent Television Commission power in exceptional circumstances not to accept the highest bid; and by requiring the successful applicant to post a substantial performance bond which would be liable to forfeiture if programme quality requirements are not met. Taken together these proposals represent substantial safeguards for the delivery of quality programmes.

  Media Supervision
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to establish an independent body composed of representatives of television producers, journalists, actors, musicians and playwrights to supervise quality control and anti-monopolistic practices in television and the press.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Passports (Chinese Nationals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider his policy towards Chinese students and nationals whose passports may expire in the near future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Chinese nationals who, for good reason, are unable or unwilling to approach their own authorities for documentation, and who wish to travel may apply to the Home Office, Travel Document Section, Lunar house, Croydon CR9 2BY for a travel document.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to look sympathetically at applications for work permits from Chinese students who are able to obtain employment towards the payment of their college fees and expenses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We will look sympathetically at any applications from Chinese students who, because of the situation in China, seek permission to take employment to help with their expenses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  WEU
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make available reports of plenary debates of the Western European Union in the Library and Vote Office on the day following the debate.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not possible to give this undertaking since the availability of these reports is not a matter under the control of the House. The Library and the Vote Office will make them available to hon. Members as soon as possible after their publication.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the purchasing power of public libraries' expenditure on books over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  Information for the last 10 years is not available. In the 10 years from 1977–78 to 1986–87 public libraries expenditure on books fell by 1·7 per cent. in real terms, but it has increased by 14 per cent. between 1981–82 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries are open for more than 45 hours a week.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1987–88, the most recent period for which statistics are available, returns from 98 authorities show that 630 service points in England were open for more than 45 hours per week.

  Greater London Arts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman and director of Greater London Arts to discuss the future of arts administration in London.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of Greater London Arts to discuss the future funding and administration of the arts in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of Greater London Arts at a sponsorship launch on 12 April.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what have been the increases in the funding of his Department over the last five years, and those announced for future years.

  Mr. Luce
  This year my Department is spending £439 million, an increase of 63 per cent. over the corresponding cash programme for 1984–85. My plans are for expenditure of £450 million in 1990–91 and £480 million in 1991–92.

  Theatres (London)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to attendances at theatres in London.
  328
  Mr. Luce
  According to the PSI publication "Cultural Trends" there were nearly 10 million paid admissions at theatres in London in 1987. This a 6 per cent. increase on 1986.

  Disabled People (Access Arrangements)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to improve access for the disabled to arts venues.

  Mr. Luce
  On 20 December last year I announced a contribution of £150,000 towards a fund to improve access to arts venues for the disabled, to be set up by the Carnegie trust.

  Mappa Mundi
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received in the last four weeks as to the future of the Mappa Mundi.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no representations as to the future of the Mappa Mundi in recent weeks. However, I wish the Dean and Chapter every success with their appeal to raise funds without resorting to the sale of the map. I understand that the Dean and Chapter have been in touch with the national heritage memorial fund to arrange a meeting to discuss the position.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the contribution of the arts to Britain's overseas trade balance.

  Mr. Luce
  An assessment made by the Policy Studies Institute last year, using a broad definition of the arts, put overseas earnings in this field at £4 billion.

  National Museums (Maintenance)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the repairs and maintenance needs of national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Museum and Galleries Commission quite frequently and on a wide range of subjects which have included matters raised in the Commission's May 1988 report on the national museums.

  Merseyside Arts
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he plans to meet the chairman of Merseyside Arts to discuss the future of arts administration on Merseyside.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so.

  Independent Museums
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the development of the independent museum sector.

  Mr. Luce
  The independent museums sector represents over half of the 2,000 or so museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. Independent museums give great pleasure to the visiting public, and I am delighted to see their continued successful development.

  Museums and Historic Properties
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to visits to local museums and historic sites and houses in the most recent year for which he has information, and for the two previous years.

  Mr. Luce
  The Museums Association estimates that the number of visitors to museums and galleries in the United Kingdom increased from 73 million in 1986 to 80 million in 1988. This figures is expected to rise to 100 million during 1989, which has been designated Museums Year. The English Tourist Authority has estimated the number of visitors to historic properties as 55·5 million in 1986, 57·3 million in 1987 and 59 million in 1988.

  Theatre Museum
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the director of the Victoria and Albert museum about the future of the theatre museum.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not had discussions with the director of the Victoria and Albert museum about the theatre museum, but I meet the chairman of the board of trustees and the director quite frequently when a wide range of issues is covered.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Census Questions
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental conference regarding the inclusion of Irish language questions in the 1991 census.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Irish Government have indicated to us on a number of occasions in the conference that they would welcome the inclusion of a question on knowledge of the Irish language in the 1991 census, in line with the language questions asked elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prima facie cases of insider dealing have been referred to his Department by the Stock Exchange insider dealing group.

  Mr. Maude
  About 180 cases of possible insider dealing offences have been referred by the Stock Exchange to my Department since insider dealing became a criminal offence in June 1980. Of those cases 76 have been referred since Royal Assent to the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in how many cases of prima facie insider dealing prosecutions have resulted since the passing of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Since the Financial Services Act 1986 received Royal Assent in November 1986 six prosecutions for insider dealing offences have been instituted and 330
  completed, and proceedings have begun in a further eight cases. Seven out of those 14 prosecutions followed reports from inspectors appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in how many cases of prima facie insider deals the Government have appointed inspectors to investigate using their powers under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Inspectors have been appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate 31 cases of possible insider dealing offences.

  China
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total value of trade between the United Kingdom and China for 1988 and 1989 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom trade with China in 1988 was valued at imports £443·7 million and exports £411·6 million.

  In the period January to April 1989, the latest for which information is available, imports were £158·3 million and exports £140·7 million.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes have taken place in the provision of export credits to Iraq in the past year; what proposals he has to make further changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom/Iraq joint commission on trade and economic co-operation which was held in Baghdad in November 1988 resulted in a further £340 million of United Kingdom export credit support for Iraq. To date three loan agreements haw been signed comprising:

  a £65 million buyer credit to finance a contract for four turbine generators for the A1-Shemal power station

  a £75 million line of credit for pharmaceutical and humanitarian products

  a £100 million line of credit for capital goods and projects

  The balance of £100 million has not yet been allocated under any specific facility but will be used to finance United Kingdom capital goods and projects. No drawings have yet been made under the above loans.

  There will be a further United Kingdom/Iraq joint commission in London later this year but it is too early to anticipate what further United Kingdom export credit facilities might be made available to Iraq for 1990.

  Business Development Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the number of applications(a) received and (b) approved for business development consultancy initiatives from 1 April 1988 to the most recent date for which information is available and (c) what was the total amount of expenditure involved in each of the regions of his Department, Scotland and Wales and (d) for assisted areas, urban programme areas and non-assisted areas.

  Mr. Newton
  In the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 May 1989 24,291 applications were received for the business
  331
  development consultancy initiatives. In the same period 17,740 applications were approved for assisted consultancy. The Department's contribution to the cost of completed consultancies totalled £16·8 million. It is estimated that those consultancies not completed by 31 May 1989 will cost the Department £26·4 million. I am unable to provide a breakdown of expenditure between

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  DTI Region/Country

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved for assisted consultancy

  DTI expenditure on completed consultancies (£ thousand)

  Estimated expenditure on outstanding consultancies (£ thousand)

  North East

  1,194

  924

  784

  1,315

  North West

  3,538

  2,894

  3,166

  4,762

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,293

  1,698

  1,880

  2,711

  West Midlands

  2,562

  1,830

  1,855

  3,319

  East Midlands

  1,483

  1,154

  1,091

  1,897

  South West

  2,335

  1,434

  1,069

  2,112

  South East:

  Cambridge

  1,893

  1,097

  766

  1,567

  London

  2,929

  2,066

  1,694

  2,070

  Reading

  1,433

  1,098

  823

  1,220

  Reigate

  1,415

  1,064

  753

  1,325

  Scotland

  1,789

  1,475

  1,908

  2,463

  Wales

  1,427

  1,006

  1,106

  1,613

  Total

  24,291

  17,740

  16,805

  26,374

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the consultancy firms involved in the business development consultancy initiative for each of the regions of his Department, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not our practice to detail the consultancy firms used by scheme contractors to undertake enterprise initiative assisted consultancy projects. This is to avoid the risk of such a list being seen as a form of Government approval or endorsement, to the unfair disadvantage of practices no less competent but which for one reason or another are not associated with the scheme; and also to avoid the risk of consultancies being exposed to pressures which could compromise the independence and impartiality of their advice to clients.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the estimated expenditure in the business development consultancy initiative in each of the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Newton
  We estimate that the total amount of expenditure on the business development consultancy initiatives in 1988–89 was £43·1 millions. The Estimates provision for 1989–90 is £91 millions. The level of provision for future years will depend upon public expenditure decisions yet to be taken: however, planned provision is £107 millions in 1990–91 and £109 millions in 1991–92.

  Bio-ethics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representation will attend the first symposium on bio-ethics in December from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom will be invited to the Council of Europe's first symposium on bio-ethics to be held on 5–7
  332
  assisted areas, urban programme areas and non-assisted areas but 55·5 per cent. of applications approved for consultancy have been from assisted and urban programme areas. A breakdown of numbers and cost of consultancy projects for each DTI region and for Scotland and Wales is as follows:

  December 1989. No decision has yet been taken on who will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. Participation is by invitation only.

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report all the members of the Council of Europe's ad-hoc committee of experts on bio-ethical issues together with the method by which they were appointed and the research disciplines from which they came.

  Mr. David Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The members of the Council of Europe's ad-hoc committee of experts on bioethics (CAHBI) are currently:

  Austria: Dr. Renate Kausek

  Belgium: M. Armand Andre (Vice Chairman); Mme. Isabella Hamer

  Cyprus: Mrs. Frosso Parrisiadou; M. Jorgen Falck Larsen; Mme. Linda Taudaz

  Denmark: Mr. Ulrich Horst Petersen

  France: M. Christian Byk; Mme. Colette Moyse

  Federal Republic of Germany: Mrs. Helga Seibert

  Greece: Mrs. Panagiota Dalla-Vorgia

  Ireland: Dr. Niall Tierney

  Italy: M. Umberto Bigozzi; M. Salvatore Puglisi

  Luxembourg: M. Arsene Betz

  Malta: Rev. Prof. Charles G. Vella

  Netherlands: Mrs. Johanna H. W. Kits Nieuwenkamp

  Norway: Mr. Kare Berg; Mrs. Trine Fernsjo; Mrs. Julie Skjaraasen; Mrs. Grete Gjertsen

  Portugal: M. Luis Mendes Graca

  Spain: Dr. Octavi Quintana-Trigs

  Sweden: Ms. Ann-Christin Filipsson

  Switzerland: M. Pierre A. Widmer; M. Hansjakob Mueller; M. Franz Furger

  Turkey: M. Turgay Yucel

  United Kingdom: Dr. Jeremy S. Metters (Chairman); Mr. Edwin Robert Moutrie.

  Members are appointed by nomination of the member states of the Council of Europe. The research disciplines of the members are not known to Her Majesty's

  333
  Government. Detailed inquiries of this nature might more properly be addressed to the Council of Europe via the Parliamentary Assembly.

  Ulburghs Report
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response of the British Government to Resolution A.2–78/88 of the European Parliament on harmonisation of medico-ethical questions, the Ulburghs report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Resolution A.2–78/88 was adopted by the European Parliament on 12 September 1988 by the narrow margin of 82 in favour, 79 against and four abstentions. No proposals based upon the report have yet been submitted by the European Commission to the British Government for consideration.

  EC Recommendation 1100
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the British Government's response to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1100.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Recommendation 1100 of the Parliamentary Assembly is still being considered within the Council of Europe's

  country

  Year

  £ thousand

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Argentina

  124

  124

  61

  24

  15

  5

  30

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  353

  376

  620

  1,471

  1,062

  888

  1,158

  1,052

  988

  1,199

  1,182

  1,421

  1,953

  1,748

  2,953

  Brazil

  1,850

  3,348

  2,263

  1,213

  719

  1,022

  1,002

  632

  9,960

  5,574

  7,780

  4,014

  880

  766

  1,443

  Chile

  451

  324

  943

  2,073

  1,079

  2,131

  2,021

  1,452

  675

  442

  257

  334

  373

  261

  306

  Colombia

  902

  2,552

  1,312

  1,229

  863

  1,242

  848

  765

  617

  635

  460

  838

  1,018

  762

  1,822

  Ecuador

  718

  1,195

  4,838

  2,037

  1,795

  1,897

  945

  762

  1,046

  783

  916

  909

  836

  2,560

  1,514

  Falkland Islands

  1,179

  1,376

  1,493

  1,115

  2,121

  915

  1,015

  1,058

  4,025

  9,053

  6,016

  10,700

  10,252

  8,165

  4,257

  Guyana

  1,460

  1,741

  1,402

  895

  6,395

  2,606

  2,356

  2,475

  1,724

  1,555

  419

  354

  487

  635

  521

  Paraguay

  41

  103

  123

  164

  226

  267

  270

  219

  3,263

  1,281

  207

  51

  221

  277

  497

  Peru

  664

  1,610

  1,125

  3,570

  820

  882

  950

  973

  676

  4,427

  476

  928

  1,214

  1,012

  1,363

  Surinam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Uruguay

  28

  24

  43

  39

  27

  35

  37

  9

  11

  16

  14

  7

  13

  38

  18

  Venezuela

  112

  48

  7

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  10

  24

  10

  Unallocated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  -11

  -239

  -327

  25

  34

  56

  51

  —

  Total

  7,882

  12,821

  14,230

  13,836

  15,126

  11,890

  10,645

  9,386

  22,752

  24,643

  17,755

  19,591

  17,313

  16,299

  14,715

  Overseas Aid (Charities)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for an increased role for charities in the provision of overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The British voluntary agencies working in developing countries are independent charities
  334
  internal consultative machinery and has not yet been submitted to Her Majesty's Government for their response.

  Rothley and Casini Reports
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response of the British Government to resolution A.2–327/88 of the European Parliament on genetic engineering, Rothley report, and resolution A.2–372/88 on artificial insemination, the Casini report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not consider that a response to these two resolutions—A.2–237/88 and A.2–372/88—would be appropriate at this juncture. We intend to introduce legislation during this current Parliament on human fertilisation and embryology, and there will be a free vote in Parliament on questions of embryo research.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  South America
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of overseas aid to South America in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  who determine their own role. I have a high regard for their work; and I have increased the aid funds available for jointly funding their development projects by 43 per cent. to £16 million this year. I have also increased our support for the volunteer sending agencies by 20 per cent. to £13 million this year.

  Andean Countries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of overseas aid to the Andean group of countries in each of the last 15 years.

  £thousand

  Year

  Country

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Bolivia

  353

  376

  620

  1,471

  1,062

  888

  1,158

  1,052

  988

  1,199

  1,182

  1,421

  1,953

  1,748

  2,953

  Chile1

  451

  324

  943

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Columbia

  902

  2,552

  1,312

  1,229

  863

  1,242

  848

  765

  617

  635

  460

  838

  1,018

  762

  1,822

  Ecuador

  718

  1,195

  4,838

  2,037

  1,795

  1,897

  945

  762

  1,046

  783

  916

  909

  836

  2,560

  1,514

  Peru

  664

  1,610

  1,125

  3,570

  820

  882

  950

  973

  676

  4,427

  476

  928

  1,214

  1,012

  1,363

  Venezuela

  112

  48

  7

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  10

  24

  10

  Total

  3,200

  6,105

  8,845

  10,386

  5,623

  7,040

  5,922

  5,004

  4,004

  7,489

  3,291

  4,431

  5,404

  6,367

  7,968

  1 Chile withdrew from the Andean Group in January 1977.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Oxfam in relation to the situation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the past 12 months, I have received a number of representations from OXFAM on different aspects of United Kingdom aid policy towards Cambodia. I discussed Cambodia with OXFAM staff most recently on 8 June.

  Rain Forest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what urgent action he proposes to take to protect the rain forests throughout the world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 21 June, at column 148.

  Tibet (Technology)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will allocate moneys from the Overseas Development Administration for the funding of the appropriate technology for Tibetans.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Her Majesty's Government have received no official request for the provision of appropriate technology for Tibetans.

  Aid (Iraq)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total amount of aid provided to Iraq in each of the past two years; and what funds have been disbursed under the aid and trade provision for projects in Iraq since the ending of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No British bilateral aid, including funds from the Aid and Trade Provision, has been provided for Iraq for many years.
  336
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training Managers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department monitors the performance of employment training managers in terms of financial viability and efficiency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training managers are monitored in terms of financial viability under the financial appraisal and monitoring (FAM) procedures which have their origins in the recommendations of the 1984 Coopers and Lybrand report on financial controls for YTS and the community programme. The arrangements introduced for ET were modelled on those for YTS. The FAM system centres on(a) an annual financial viability assessment of the degree of risk which a provider represents to public money; (b) an appraisal of the providers' administrative and financial systems to ensure the proper handling of public money and the reasonableness of providers' financial claims; and (c) financial monitoring visits linked to the degree of risk.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department initially satisfies itself that a training manager is competent to run employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Potential training managers are asked by the Department's area office to submit a formal training proposal outlining what experience and capability they have in operating as training providers. These proposals are appraised by the area office staff to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the organisation has the knowledge and professional ability to deliver training of the appropriate quality and has adequate resources including premises and equipment, to deliver it effectively.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of training managers by Training Agency area are receiving subsidies.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to the basic grant for employment training, training managers, a range of other grants is available to purchase training. No subsidies are offered to ET training managers.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what subsidies are offered to ET training managers above the basic grant per trainee.
  337
  Mr. Nicholls
  ET training managers do not receive subsidies. Grants are available to purchase training.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what audit procedures the Training Agency undertakes with respect to ET managers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Claims for training grants submitted by ET training managers are subject to financial checks both within Training Agency area offices and at the training managers' premises. Training managers' claims are also subject to audit by the Training Agency internal audit branch and the National Audit Office on a sample basis.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training mangers have(a) withdrawn or (b) been withdrawn from employment training; and how many employment training places have been lost as a result.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Council for Social Aid (Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken to ensure that confidential information on trainees, formerly with the Council for Social Aid, Manchester, will remain confidential following the transfer of this information to the liquidators.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Immediately after being notified that the company had ceased trading, the Training Agency took into safe custody the personal files of trainees, including their action plans.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Training Agency last received audited accounts from the Council for Social Aid, Manchester.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Audited accounts from the Council for Social Aid were last received by the Training Agency in February 1989. These accounts related to the Council for Social Aid's community programme agency contract which ran from April 1987 to September 1988.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places the Council for Social Aid, Manchester, originally contracted for, and how many employment training places were filled, by month from September 1988 until its demise in May 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Council for Social Aid originally contracted to provide 2,557 employment training places. The following table lists how many places were filled, by month, from September 1988.

  Month (1988–89)

  Council for Social Aid Number filled places

  September

  1,818

  October

  1,695

  November

  1,792

  December

  1,632

  January

  1,410

  February

  1,223

  March

  1,024

  April

  1,045

  May

  1,011

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many filled employment training places there are in the Greater Manchester area; and what percentage this represents of the original departmental projections.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 16 June 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there were 9,300 people on employment training. In Greater Manchester this represents 47 per cent. of the total number of places originally contracted.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State For Employment how many training managers have reduced their original number of contracted employment training places(a) nationally and (b) by training agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  C.V. Carpets, Batley
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has been notified by Coats Viyella of the closure of C. V. Carpets, Greenhill Mills, Batley; if he will estimate the cost to public funds of making the work force redundant; and what representations he has received concerning this closure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Notifications of proposed redundancies under section 100 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 are confidential to my Department.

TRANSPORT

  Road Traffic Studies
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether traffic studies, funded by public funds, in recent years have revealed evidence linking increased road capacities with increased traffic and worsening traffic congestion; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is currently undertaking a feasibility study into whether a before and after study of an urban trunk road scheme could detect the size of various changes in travel patterns, such as generation of new trips, changes in destination of journey time, and changes in mode of travel.

  We are all asking the independent standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment to review the evidence on these effects. The Department has not recently carried out any traffic studies specifically addressed at identifying the effects of increased road capacity on the level of traffic.

  For all new trunk road schemes, the Department monitors actual traffic flow a year after opening, for the purpose of making comparisons with the scheme forecasts. The evidence from this monitoring supports the Department's assumption in traffic forecasting that the general inter-urban road improvements do not generate significant additional traffic. The main effect is on choice of route.

  Bridge Street (Hole)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take urgent steps to mend the hole at the northwest corner of the Bridge street/Victoria embankment junction, so as to remove the cause of pedestrians being splashed on emerging from or entering the pedestrian subway at that point.

  Mr. Bottomley
  These local roads are the responsibility of Westminster city council.

  Single Tracking
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the running of British Rail's provincial services with regard to the issue of single tracking, with particular reference to the Westerton to Milngavie railway lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will in due course present to Parliament British Rail's response to the report, along with the Government's observations. It would not be appropriate to comment on individual aspects of the report in advance of the Government's formal response.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking with regard to ScotRail's proposals to single track the railway line from Westerton to Milngavie.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is an operational matter for British Rail.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of respondents favoured the introduction of random breath testing in the last public opinion survey on this subject carried out by his Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A survey carried out for TRRL in March 1989 asked 750 respondents whether they were in favour of random breath testing being introduced to discourage drinking and driving. The results were:

  Percentage

  Strongly in favour

  48

  In favour

  29

  Undecided

  10

  Against

  8

  Strongly against

  2

  Don't know/No answer

  2

  This was part of a survey into attitudes to a wide variety of road safety counter-measures. It did not explain the implications of random breath testing. The results reflect the strength of public opinion against drinking and driving.

  A summary of the results of this survey will be published later this year.

  British Rail (Complaints)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints about the performance of British Rail he has received in the past two years; and how he has responded to the complaints.
  340
  Mr. Michael Portillo
  The Department does not keep statistics by subject matter of the letters we receive from members of the public about rail services. Unless they raise wider policy issues that are properly a matter for the Government, complaints are usually referred either to the British Railways board, which is responsible for operating the railway, or to local transport users consultative committees, which exist to represent the views of all users and can often help in resolving particular problems.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring forward any proposals to control queue jumping by motor cycle riders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There may be no fully effective way of controlling queue jumping by any class of travellers.

  Queue jumping by motor cycle riders when unsafe is covered by the existing offences of careless or reckless driving. We have no proposals to make it a specific offence. Proposals have already been announced to introduce mandatory training of new riders before they are allowed to ride unsupervised. This training will include safe practice when riding on the road. In October a new more arduous driving test for motorcyclists will be introduced. The tester will follow the candidate on another motorcyle and will thus he more able to assess ability to ride safely in traffic.

  British Rail (Compensation)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will discuss with the Chairman of British Rail a voluntary scheme for compensating travellers for British Rail's failure to supply an agreed service, along the lines of British Telecom's voluntary scheme;

  (2) if he will give consideration to introducing a statutory compensation scheme for cases where British Rail fails to deliver an agreed level of service.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's conditions of carriage already allow for refunds to be considered in cases where timetabled connections cannot be made or where services have been altered, withdrawn or suspended for any reason. I have no present plans for legislation.

  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of discussions by his officials with interested parties on the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The work which is currently being undertaken on the possible privatisation of British Rail has been discussed fully with British Rail. In addition a small number of representations has so far been received from interested organisations. My right hon. Friend expects to consult widely in due course if a decision is made to privatise.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on installing crash barriers on central reservations of dual carriageways; and what plans he has for such barriers on future dualling works.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Substantial progress is being made.

  It is the Department's policy to install central reserve safety fencing on all new dual carriageway schemes as part of the construction works.

  HGVs (Exhaust Emissions)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has further to curb exhaust emissions from heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are urging the European Commission to bring forward the most stringent standards that are technically and economically feasible. A further strengthening of these standards and the addition of a particulate standard is now being discussed in Europe.

  Regulations are being prepared to enforce, from 1 October 1990, Community standards on the emissions of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons from new vehicles over 3·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.

  Buses Monopolies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to prevent the formation of buses monopolies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Office of Fair Trading has the appropriate powers to investigate the formation of monopolies in the bus industry. I have made clear that, in giving consent to the sale of public transport companies, one of our main objectives is to promote fair and sustained competition in the bus industry. Local authorities have been advised to consult the Department of Transport at an early stage where a sale seems likely to result in one company gaining a dominant and substantially unchallenged position in the local market.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has carried out any assessment of the efficiency of the French traffic light system of having additional lights at car driver level, with a view to implementing such a system in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department discusses issues relating to the safety and efficiency of traffic signals with its French counterpart. The operation of the United Kingdom system of traffic lights provides drivers with the same information as that of the French system. No assessment of the kind referred to has therefore been made.

  China (Contacts)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to visit China; and whether any of his officials are involved in or planning contacts with, or visits to, China.
  342
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All ministerial visits to and from China have been suspended. No visits to China by my officials are planned.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has about current contacts or contracts with China in the transport field.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These are commercial matters for the companies involved.

  Civil Aviation (Privatisation)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice or direction he has given to the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services on competitive tendering and privatisation within their organisations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The authority is subject to the same guidelines and rules on procurement that apply to all nationalised industries. Some years ago the authority considered, at the Government's request, privatising its Highlands and Islands airports, but this did not prose to be feasible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply,Official Report, 25 May, column 673, whether he will seek to amend the Football Supporters Bill so that police, security services, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise cannot obtain personal data from the football membership scheme for purposes unconnected with the operation of the scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The Data Protection Registrar has advised that section 28(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984 provides for the disclosure of information where the data user concerned is satisfied that this is necessary for crime prevention or tax collection purposes. As I explained to the hon. Member on 25 May at column 673, I cannot envisage circumstances in which the Football Membership Authority—as the data user—would be asked to disclose information about members of the national membership scheme for purposes unconnected with the scheme. I do not therefore see a case for amending the Football Spectators Bill as the hon. Member suggests.

  World Student Games
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give financial aid to the arena in Sheffield required for the world student games in 1991; and if he will reconsider the decision on the funding of Hyde park flats, Sheffield, to be used as student accommodation for the games.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have from the outset made it clear to Sheffield that the Government cannot provide any special additional funding for the world student games. I have said, however, that we are prepared to consider assisting though existing programmes any schemes which meet the normal programme criteria and provide good value for money.
  343
  We have been in close discussion with the promoters of the arena project in the lower Don valley and I am very hopeful that we shall be able to give the necessary support for the project to get under way. I have also recently agreed to consider a scheme for estate action funding of work on the Hyde park flats as part of a joint development programme involving the Housing Corporation and a private developer.

  I am sure that both schemes would be a major boost to development in Sheffield and, as a by-product, would assist the city council's efforts in preparing for the world student games.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will tabulate what a single person living in the London borough of Waltham Forest would pay(a) in community charge and (b) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in proportions of 80 to 20, respectively, if the person earned (a) £10,000, (b) £15,000, (c) £20,000, (d) £25,000 and (e) £30,000 and lived in (i) rented accommodation, (ii) property owned by that person worth £60,000, and (iii) property owned by that person worth £90,000, making the same assumptions as in his reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 22 March Official Report, column 626.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Illustrative annual liability in Waltham Forest under a system of capital value rates combined with local income tax, 1988–89

  Single persons earnings

  (i) +(ii) Property Value £60,000

  (iii) Property Value £90,000

  £

  £

  £

  (a) 10,000

  665

  945

  (b) 15,000

  740

  1,020

  (c) 20,000

  810

  1,090

  (d) 25,000

  880

  1,160

  (e) 30,000

  950

  1,230

  The liability of a person in rented accommodation would be the same as for a person living in property owned by that person of the same value. The figures are based on the illustrative tax rates placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 and are for 1988–89. It is assumed that the person lives alone and has no entitlement to rebates. Taxable income is taken as earnings less £2,605, the single person's allowance, in each case. The illustrative 1988–89 community charge in Waltham Forest is £269.

  Year: 1 April 1984–31 March 1985

  National Park

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Peak District

  6

  26·1

  17

  73·9

  3

  Exmoor

  4

  57·1

  3

  42·9

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  —

  2

  100·0

  0

  Dartmoor

  6

  18·8

  26

  81·2

  2

  Lake District

  6

  35·3

  11

  64·7

  1

  Yorkshire Dales

  7

  31·8

  15

  68·2

  2

  North Yorkshire Moors

  8

  28·6

  20

  71·4

  3

  Land Register (Sites)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes he estimates could be built on the 7,900 sites currently on the Land Register.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes he estimates could be built on the 7,900 sites currently on the Land Register.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is not possible to estimate the number of homes that could in practice be built on such sites. At 31 May 1989, approximately 2,100 sites on the register had a planning indication for residential use.

  Lindane
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce controls on the use of Lindane.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Food and Environment Protection Act and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 provide comprehensive controls over the sale, supply, storage, advertisement and use of pesticides, including wood preservatives. Products containing Lindane are currently permitted for agricultural and wood preservative use. It is an offence to use them in any way other than that stated on the label. The uses of Lindane are currently under review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Lindane is also present in some veterinary medicines used to control ectoparasites on animals. These are currently being reviewed as part of the overall review of veterinary medicines by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in accordance with the requirements of the European Community.

  Local Authorities (Sports Facilities)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lay the orders relating to the contracting out of local authority sports facilities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Soon.

  National Parks (Planning Appeals)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of planning appeal decisions which were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) undetermined in each of the English national parks in 1974, 1979 and 1984; and if he will express the numbers allowed and dismissed as a percentage of those determined.

  Mr. Chope
  The information available is given in the following table.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to allow potential developers to buy out potential objectors' rights to object in advance of a disputed planning application.

  Mr. Chope
  No. There are no proposals to change the fundamental basis of United Kingdom land-use planning under which planning applications must be determined on their merits having regard to all material considerations.

  Grappenhall Heys and Appleton Thorn
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, in his consideration of the 7(1) development submissions for Grappenhall Heys and Appleton Thorn, he will take into account the importance of maintaining an adequate casement for the Shell pipeline traversing the area;

  (2) whether, in his consideration of the 7(1) development submissions for Grappenhall Heys and Appleton Thorn, he will take into account the preservation of overflight paths for civilian light aircraft.

  Mr. Trippier
  In reaching a decision on these submissions I will take into account all material considerations.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution in the North sea comes from Britain.

  Mr. Ridley
  Rivers are the most important source of contaminant substances in the sea and United Kingdom rivers generally account for only about 20 per cent. of contaminents in the North sea.

  London Assessment Studies
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice or information has been supplied to his Department to those undertaking the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has been kept in touch with the progress of the studies since their inception. Recent discussions with the Department of Transport have covered the inter-relationship between the studies and strategic planning guidance for London.

  Tyneside Enterprise Zone (Rates)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been paid to(a) Newcastle and (b) Gateshead Council in respect of rates otherwise payable to them in respect of properties within the Tyneside enterprise zone in each year since the enterprise zone's declaration; and if he will distinguish between classes of property in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  The amounts paid to Newcastle city council and Gateshead metropolitan borough council in respect of rate revenue forgone in each year are given in the following table. The payments cannot be broken down by class of property.
  346

  Rate revenue foregone in Tyneside enterprise zone

  Gateshead

  Newcastle

  £ million

  £ million

  1981–82

  0·9

  0·5

  1982–83

  1·8

  1·1

  1983–84

  2·0

  1·0

  1984–85

  2·1

  1·1

  1985–86

  2·6

  1·4

  1986–87

  5·5

  1·4

  1987–88

  7·8

  1·3

  1988–89

  9·1

  1·4

  Water Meters
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Davyhulme of 6 March, what is his best estimate of ( a) the average cost per household and(b) the overall cost of installing individual water meters in each dwelling in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  The programme of installing meters in the large-scale metering trials on the Isle of Wight is not expected to be completed until the end of March 1990. So it is still too early to draw any reliable conclusions on the cost of installing meters on a wide scale in England and Wales which will depend on a number of factors including the number of joint supplies and the siting of meters.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the imposition of a standard per capita charge in respect of domestic water supplies, analogous to the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  It will be for each of the new water services companies to decide what method of charging to adopt as a replacement for rateable value-based charges. Metering and a flat rate charge, possibly with extra charges for hose pipes and sprinklers, are the main options currently being considered by the industry.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of water to the average domestic consumer in England and Wales in the current year, assuming that water undertakings had already been privatised and metering of individual households had been introduced.

  Mr. Howard
  None. It remains to be seen what efficiency savings the privatised companies can achieve over time and it is too early to assess the cost and long-term benefits of large-scale metering.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce rebates following water privatisation to assist low-income families with their water bills; and what estimate he has made of this as a charge on public funds.

  Mr. Howard
  There are no plans to introduce water charge rebates. Water undertakers operate budget payment plans to help customers pay their bills and the proposed conditions of appointment for the new companies will give additional encouragement to this practice. Income support is the appropriate way of helping those on low incomes to meet their outgoings, including water charges.

  Environment-friendly Products
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce a green label scheme for products which are friendly to the environment; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which such a scheme would encourage consumers to buy such products and organically grown food.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no present plans to introduce a national scheme of environmental labelling, although we are keeping the idea under review in the light of views expressed by consumers, retailers and producers. We welcome efforts by producers and retailers to give consumers information about the environmental effect of products. The impact of any national scheme on consumers' purchasing decisions would depend, among other things, on its scope. A system of environmental labeling—the Blue Angel scheme—has operated in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1978, but food products are excluded from its scope. As for organically grown food, the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, set up at the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, announced on 2 May national standards and a national symbol relating to the production of organic foods.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he proposes for the financial management by local authorities of their arrears of rents and other income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Local Government and Housing Bill provides that from 1 April 1990 local authorities will be able to cover their arrears of rents and other income by borrowing for six months after the end of the year in which the arrears arose. Having carefully considered the representations of the local authority associations, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales now propose to extend this period to 12 months, but thereafter authorities must make provision in their budgets for any arrears remaining outstanding. We also propose that housing rent arrears will fall within the ring-fenced housing revenue account, and hence if not collected within the 12-month period will have to be paid for by the other tenants.

  For the transition we propose that housing rent arrears outstanding at 31 March 1990 should be dealt with outside the ring-fenced HRA and hence if uncollected will be a charge on community chargepayers. We recognise that if these arrangements were immediately applied in full to

  Local authority empty dwellings at April 1988

  Number of dwellings empty for:

  Six months or less

  More than six months

  All empty dwellings

  A year or less

  More than a year

  All empty dwellings

  Greater Manchester metropolitan council1

  8,716

  3,547

  12,263

  10,471

  1,792

  12,263

  Westminster

  332

  561

  893

  535

  358

  893

  Suffolk Coastal

  70

  12

  82

  81

  1

  82

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1 Comprises the 10 metropolitan districts of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Thameside, Trafford and Wigan.

  348
  those few authorities which have irresponsibly allowed their arrears to escalate to very high levels, this could put very great burdens on their chargepayers. Accordingly, we are also proposing that an authority with high outstanding arrears at 31 March 1990 may apply to my right hon. Friends to enable them to spread over three to five years any budgetary provision for writing off these arrears.

  We intend to bring forward in another place appropriate amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill to give effect to these proposals.

  It is each authority's responsibility to collect efficiently the sums due to it. We believe that our proposals, including the transitional arrangements, are fair to housing tenants and chargepayers, and will mean that in future authorities in both England and Wales have greater incentives for efficient collection of their income.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has, during the last five years, including the current financial year, ever awarded less than a full year's funding, excluding start-up costs, under its grant-making powers contained in section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. In 1987–88, the first year in which grants under section 16 were available, they were awarded for the latter part of that year. In 1988–89, some section 16 grants were for less than a full year. In the period in question, with the exception of the current year, grants under section 73 have all been for a full year.

  Empty Council Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authority properties have been vacant for(a) less than six months and (b) more than six months in (i) Greater Manchester metropolitan county, (ii) Westminster, (iii) Suffolk, Coastal and (iv) the Isles of Scilly;

  (2) if he will list the numbers of local authority properties which have been empty (a) for up to a year and (b) for more than a year in (i) Greater Manchester metropolitan county, (ii) Westminster, (iii) Suffolk, Coastal and (iv) the Isles of Scilly.

  Mr. David Trippier
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Based on the information provided by the authorities in their housing investment programme returns, HIP1 for April 1988 the figures are as follows:

  Aldrin and Dialdrin
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is now giving about the continuing use of aldrin and dialdrin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: Aldrin and Dialdrin can no longer be legally supplied or used.

  Property Revaluation
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to(a) announce the special provisions for non-domestic rating from 1990 onwards, following his consultation paper on the effects of revaluation of non-domestic property, and (b) inform individual non-domestic ratepayers of the new rateable values of their properties from 1 April 1990 following the revaluation of non-domestic property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: I shall announce the Government's final proposals for phasing in the effect of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation as soon as we have completed our consideration of the responses to the consultation paper.

  The Valuation Office will deposit with charging authorities draft lists showing new rateable values by 31 December 1989.

  Public Works Contracts
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 to co-ordinate procedures for the award of public works contracts as set out in the European Community draft directive on public works contracts (COM(89)141); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: The implications of the agreement reached in the internal market council on 14 June on a directive to amend the EC public works directive are currently being examined, but it would not appear at this stage that an amendment to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 is required.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the level of community charge for spending at needs assessment which would apply in 1989–90 if the proposed local government finance system were in operation; and what assumptions are made to arrive at that answer.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: The estimate is £240 per adult. This figure is calculated by deducting rate support grant, and the assumed yield of non-domestic rates from total grant-related expenditure, leaving the amount to be raised by the community charge. This figure underlay the information placed in the Library on 1 March.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Tim Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a Model Instrument of Appointment under the Water Bill for the water and sewerage undertakers.
  350
  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 December 1988, c. 195]: I am today placing copies of the latest draft of the model instrument of appointment for water and sewerage undertakers in the Library of both Houses, together with copies of a note of the main changes since the December model, also in the Library, and an explanatory note on interim determination of K, condition B, part IV.

ENERGY

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effect of the price of carbon fuels on the production of greenhouse gases and the implications for Government policy.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Discussion of the problem of global warming is proceeding at international level. The effect of changes in the price of carbon fuels depends on the particular fuel considered, the way in which it is used and the availability of alternatives.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the quantities of greenhouse gases which would be released into the atmosphere if all the United Kingdom's current nuclear electricity generation was replaced by coal-tired stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  If the electricity that was generated by nuclear power in the United Kingdom in 1987 had been generated by fossil fuel power stations an estimated additional 45 million tonnes of carbon dioxide would have been released into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what potential he has identified for the reduction of the generation of greenhouse gases via improved energy efficiency.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In addition to the continuing work of the Energy Efficiency Office to identify and bring to the attention of users cost-effective energy efficiency measures, my Department is making an assessment of the potential for further reduction of greenhouse gases via improved energy efficiency in the context of the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and of the European Community's energy programme. Energy efficiency is likely to be only one element of any response to the threat of climate change; it will require a combination of technologies and other measures to meet the challenge posed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  Exploration Drilling
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of exploration drilling for 1989, and what were the comparable figures in the two previous years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Fifty-two exploration wells, of which eight are onshore, had been started by mid-June this year. This figure is already greater than that for the first halves of 1988 and 1987 when 40 and 36 wells were drilled respectively.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board whenever that is necessary to discuss matters of common interest.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives are made available through his Department for energy efficiency schemes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The programmes and initiatives of the Energy Efficiency Office are all designed to draw to the attention of energy users the financial and other benefits of cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has proposals to devote more time and resources to promoting energy efficiency and conservation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office will continue to promote energy efficiency vigorously. Furthermore, the Government's proposals for electricity privatisation will break new ground in promoting efficiency both within the industry and with consumers. Arrangements have also been agreed for close co-operation between the EEO and the Office of Electricity Regulation.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage the use of energy-efficient electric appliances.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Manufacturers and consumer associations already publish energy consumption data for electrical appliances. My Energy Efficiency Office is considering how best to publish further information in order to draw attention to the energy consumption of appliances and thereby promote the selection of the most efficient.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has assessed the effectiveness of domestic and commercial electrical appliance efficiency standards such as those recently introduced in the United States of America.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Energy Efficiency Office will be assessing the applicability of standards as part of a general survey of the energy efficiency of electrical appliances in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

  Electricity (Carbon Dioxide Emissions)
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to bring forward amendments to the Electricity Bill, strengthening the obligation to promote energy efficiency in the supply and use of electricity, as a contribution to the reduction of CO2 release.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government are fully committed to energy efficiency. The Electricity Bill breaks new ground in promoting energy efficiency both within the industry and by those who use electricity.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many jobs are supported by the North sea oil industry; and what number are based in(a) Scotland and (b) the north-east.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Employment estimated that 25,400 persons were directly employed in the oil and gas industry in June 1989. There are no official figures on the much larger total number of jobs supported by the North sea oil industry.

  AGR Fuel Rods
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence he has that corroded AGR fuel rods stored at nuclear sites are not creating a public safety hazard.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The storage of AGR fuel rods at power stations is subject to stringent safety checks by the nuclear installations inspectorate which is satisfied that these arrangements are fully adequate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any proposals for investment for the construction of any dry storage bunkers for spent nuclear fuel rods.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am aware of the electricity industry's interest in constructing a dry buffer store for spent AGR fuel at Heysham. I understand that the industry is currently carrying out site investigations and has yet to submit a planning application for the dry store.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete the privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We intend to privatise the coal industry as soon as possible after the next general election. The precise timing will depend on the decisions reached on the future structure of the industry and the terms under which operators will be able to mine coal.

  British Coal (Electricity Purchases)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the tonnage level of purchases from British Coal by(a) National Power and (b) Power Gen in the calendar year 1990.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department makes no such estimates. This is a matter for negotiation between British Coal and the generators.

  Hinkley Point C Inquiry
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cost to public funds, to the latest available date, of the Hinkley C inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is no net cost to public funds of running the Hinkley Point C public inquiry, because all such costs are either met directly by the CEGB or recovered from it.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department was consulted by the Central Electricity
  353
  Generating Board in the preparation of the reply by Mr. R. J. Tivey to the Hinkley C inquiry secretariat on plutonium accounting dated 25 April 1989, inquiry code number S 3481 part 2.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Officials in my Department were aware of the terms of Mr. Tivey's letter.

  Power Plant Construction
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the power plant construction projects planned by the private sector.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is aware of some 20 proposed private generation projects with a total capacity of around 7 GW. Details of individual projects are commercially confidential until companies announce them.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what would be(a) the total cost and (b) the effect on jobs of decommissioning all United Kingdom nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No estimate has been made of the total cost or the effect on jobs of decommissioning all United Kingdom nuclear power stations by the year 2000. Although some existing nuclear power stations will be taken out of service by the year 2000, many will continue to operate well into the next century, as will those now under construction or planned. After the existing nuclear power stations are taken out of service the power station operators propose to delay the final stage of decommissioning for a period of the order of 100 years to take the benefit of the process of radioactive decay in the reactor core.

  Vector Fuel (Sellafield)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the backlog of spent advanced gas-cooled vector fuel at Sellafield, the corrosion problems being encountered and the implications for electricity supplies in the 1990s.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has ample pond space at Sellafield to receive the projected quantities of deliveries of spent AGR fuel from the home generating boards and their successors. BNFL's extensive research into the storage of AGR fuel under water suggests that, for fuel maintained in the correct water chemistry, no significant corrosion will occur for at least 10 years, and possibly longer.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what guidance he has given to the director general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the best means of defending the interest of consumers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Bill sets out the Director General of Electricity Supply's duties in relation to the protection of consumers' interests. It will create many new rights for the consumer, including an improved right to an electricity supply, protection for consumers 354
  who get their electricity from a landlord, protection for the elderly and disabled, help for those having difficulty paying bills and a new system of guaranteed standards of performance with automatic compensation for failures to meet these standards. The director general will have a statutory duty to protect the interests of the consumer and the new regional consumers committees will provide him with lay advice on consumer issues.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what guidance he has given to the director general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the regulator's independence from political interference.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The director general's powers and duties are set out clearly in the Electricity Bill. The Government believe that Professor Littlechild will be a strong, effective and independent regulator.

  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the number of pressurised water reactor nuclear power stations in the small family which the Central Electricity Generating Board intends to build.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that it is the CEGB's wish that the small family should consist of Sizewell B, which is currently under construction, and Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C, in respect of which they have made applications for my right hon. Friend's consent.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of pressurised water reactors which he expects to be in operation in the United Kingdom by 2010.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions to apply for consent to construct new power stations are a matter for the electricity supply industry. So far my right hon. Friend has received applications for his consent to the construction of a further three PWR nuclear power stations which are similar in design to that being constructed at Sizewell B.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, when he expects the first full-scale combined heat and power project to be commissioned in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Full-scale combined heat and power plants have been operated successfully by United Kingdom industry for many years.

  My Department has been active in promoting novel applications of CHP industry and commerce through its energy efficiency demonstration scheme where 25 projects have been supported. The Government have also encouraged the economic development of urban combined heat and power/district heating schemes under its lead city programme and contributed towards studies in Belfast, Edinburgh and Leicester. Other work to examine the feasibility of major CHP/DH schemes and to develop proposals has been taken forward without Government support. In addition to the lead city studies and subsequent development of the Leicester scheme, my Department is aware of work being done by groups in Newcastle, Sheffield and south-east London. The commissioning date of new schemes is, however, a commercial matter for the promoters.
  355
  The Government are also taking measures under the provisions of the Electricity Bill to enable CHP operators to compete with the established utilities. In this regard we are giving licensed CHP operators power to break streets to lay cables and heat mains.

  British Coal
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cost incurred to date by his Department on advice on financial aspects of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will state the total cost incurred to date by his Department on advice on legal aspects of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The total cost to my Department of all advisers working on electricity privatisation amounted to £0·8 million in 1987–88 and £5·5 million in 1988–89. In addition, a provision of £26·5 million has been sought to cover relevant expenses in 1989–90. More detailed expenditure surrounding contracts of advisers working on electricity privatisation is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the advertising costs of privatising the electricity supply industry in(a) the current and (b) next financial year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) earlier today.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the expected level of competition following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The new structure for the electricity industry will introduce competition into generation and supply and will provide an environment in which more will develop.

  For example, the generation market will include National Power, Power Gen, supplies from Scotland and France, and existing and potential independent generators. We are currently aware of about 20 proposed independent generation projects. The substantial requirement for new generation capacity in the next 10 years will provide further opportunities for competition.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has reassessed his view of 6 March 1988 that the Government's plans for electricity will cut electricity bills.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nothing has changed my view that privatisation will mean that prices will be lower than if electricity remains nationalised.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel (Sellafield)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most recent assessment made by the nuclear installations inspectorate of storage facilities for spent fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All the storage facilities for spent fuel at Sellafield are subject to constant review and assessment by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate as part of the routine inspections which it carries out.

  Gas-powered Turbines
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many projects his Department is aware of involving electricity generation from gas-powered turbines.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Almost all the major independent projects known to my Department are proposing to use gas-powered turbines. In addition, the National Power and Power Gen divisions of the CEGB has each recently applied for my consent to construct two gas-fired stations.

  Fossil Fuel Combustion Tax
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had on proposals to levy a fossil fuel combustion tax.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government have no proposals for a tax on the use of fossil fuel.

  National Power (Contracts)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provision he is making for National Power to renegotiate contracts signed with British Nuclear Fuels plc before electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB is currently in discussion with BNFL concerning contracts for fuel services which will continue post privatisation and will take account of the powers that the Government are seeking under clause 93 of the Electricity Bill. The Government's aim is that these contracts should be fair as between BNFL and the electricity supply industry.

  Coal Production
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is British Coal's record of productivity in coal production since 1985; and what information he has on comparable figures for other major international coal producers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal's productivity rose by over 30 per cent. from 2·72 tonnes per manshift in 1985–86 to 3·62 tonnes in 1987–88. In Australia productivity rose from 12·32 tonnes in 1984–85 to 13·96 tonnes in 1986–87 (the latest period for which figures are available), a rise of 13 per cent., and in the United States of America productivity (measured in short tons) rose from 14·69 to 18·18 tons between the calendar years 1985 to 1987, a rise of 23 per cent. Since then, British Coal's productivity has increased further to 4·14 tonnes per manshift in 1988–89; I understand that there have also been substantial productivity gains in Australia and the United States of America since 1987.

  Nuclear Agencies (Memorandum of Understanding)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the joint memorandum of understanding signed by the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 6 June.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A joint memorandum of understanding between the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was signed at the agency's headquarters in Vienna on 6 June. The agreement was signed by Lord Marshall of Goring, who is chairman of WANO's governing board, and Dr. Hans Blix, Director General of the IAEA. The memorandum provides for the open exchange of information covering technical reports and reviews of operational experience, as well as extending to participation in meetings of mutual benefit to both organisations.

  Longannet (Output)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board relating to output from the Longannet complex.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government have made it quite clear that they regard the negotiations between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board as a commercial matter for the two parties, but we see no reason why a mutually satisfactory settlement cannot be reached. In the meantime, I understand that the SSEB is taking supplies from British Coal at a rate of 2 million tonnes a year.

  Sellafield (Storage Ponds)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals for the development of storage ponds at Sellafield he has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received no such proposals. British Nuclear Fuels plc has ample storage capacity at Sellafield.

  Coal-fired Electricity Generation
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level of thermal efficiency is currently being achieved in coal-fired electricity generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that the thermal efficiency of the CEGB's coal-fired power stations for 1988–89 was 35·52 per cent.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy for the continuation of civilian reprocessing capability and the extraction of plutonium in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Reprocessing is a proven and safe technology for which there is a continuing demand. It is 358
  for the owners of the spent fuel to decide on safety, technical and economic grounds whether to reprocess spent fuel.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence his Department has that plutonium created in Central Electricity Generating Board Magnox nuclear reactors up to 31 March 1969, and subsequently, put into the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority military stockpile has not been used in nuclear warhead production subsequently.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Plutonium created in the CEGB Magnox reactors and purchased by the UKAEA prior to 31 March 1969, was consigned to the United States before 1971 under the mutual defence agreement. The United States authorities have said that none of this plutonium has been used in weapons and that this continues to be their policy. For the civil uses to which this plutonium has been put in the United States, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) on 27 July 1982 at column 438.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the price of petrol.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We have received a number of letters from the public, and from Members on behalf of their constituents, expressing concern at increases in the prices of petrol. I have had no further representations since prices fell more recently.

  Druridge Bay
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of the likelihood that the Druridge bay site will be used for a nuclear power station in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB plan to build four PWRs between now and the year 2000. Druridge bay has not been nominated by the CEGB as one of the sites for these reactors.

  Spent Fuel Rods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many spent Magnox fuel rods await reprocessing(a) in storage tanks at Sellafield and (b) in cooling ponds at Britain's nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At 31 March 1989, some 940 tonnes uranium (u) of spent Magnox fuel were held at Sellafield awaiting reprocessing and some 350 tonnes u held by the generating boards at power stations. On average there are 100 fuel rods per tonne.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Energy what is the total storage capacity for spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel rods at Sellafield and at nuclear power stations for each year from 1989 to 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Space for storage of a minimum of some 2,700 tonnes uranium (u) of AGR fuel (some 60,000
  359
  AGR fuel assemblies) has been allocated in ponds on the Sellafield site. This will be more than sufficient to meet operational requirements for the THORP project. The total pond capacity at the AGR stations operated by the generating boards is some 390 tonnes u (some 9,400 assemblies).

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on progress with and make a statement on current Severn barrage proposals.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No new information on Severn barrage studies has become available since I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 12 June (at column 267) on this subject. I refer my hon. Friend to that answer.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Industry
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if, following the decision to withdraw major funding for the fast reactor programme at Dounreay, the Government will reconsider their continuing support for the nuclear reprocessing industry;

  (2) if, following the recent announcement by the West German Government that they are to abandon their projected nuclear reprocessing facility at Wackersdorf for financial and environmental reasons, the Government will reconsider their continued support for the nuclear reprocessing industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Reprocessing is a proven and safe technology for which there is a continuing demand. BNFL has contracts with overseas customers for reprocessing in THORP worth some £2·77 billion in total. Additional contracts worth some £1·6 billion are being negotiated with utilities in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is for the owners of the spent fuel to decide on safety, technical and economic grounds whether to reprocess spent fuel.

  Low-level Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the proposed Nirex recommendations to store low-level radioactive waste at Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 March that the Government had accepted Nirex's recommendation that further investigatory work should be carried out to assess the potential of Sellafield and Dounreay as possible sites for a deep repository for radioactive waste. Since that time I have received two representations expressing concern about these proposals.

  Transfers (Approval)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which countries have been the destination of transfers of nuclear technology, reprocessing and waste management which have been subject to Government approval since June 1988; and if he will provide details of all such transfers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No new transfer of technology has been approved since June 1988.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the non-fossil fuel levy for the year 1989–90 under his privatisation plans.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The initial rate of the fossil fuel levy will depend on the outcome of contract negotiations for fossil and non-fossil generating capacity which are currently under way. The rate will be announced towards the end of this year.

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about reserves of oil and gas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department's latest estimates of oil and gas reserves were given in my right hon. Friend's report on the development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom ("The Brown Book") published in April. I have received no representations about the estimates, other than views expressed by the companies concerned in the course of their preparation.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had during the last six months with the Central Electricity Generating Board and with British Nuclear Fuels plc in regard to the storage and reprocessing of radioactive material.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet both chairmen to discuss a range of matters.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many civil servants currently employed in his Department are involved with exploration, development and extraction of oil from the North sea;

  (2) if he has had any discussions with any of the oil companies involved in the North sea concerning the possible relocation of the Department's civil servants responsible for exploration, development and extraction of the North sea outside London;

  (3) what consideration has been given to relocating those civil servants responsible for exploration, development and extraction of oil within the Department of Energy away from London;

  (4) what impact the decision of Conoco to concentrate its exploration operations division at Aberdeen and Shell and BP's increased emphasis on exploration and operations in Scotland has had on his policy in relation to the location of the Department's operations;

  (5) what saving would be made by relocation of all the Department of Energy's civil servants dealing with exploration, development and extraction of oil from the North sea, from London to Glasgow;

  (6) what saving would be made by the relocation of all the Department of Energy's civil servants dealing with exploration, development and extraction of oil from the North sea, from London to Aberdeen;

  (7) what saving would be made by the relocation of all the Department of Energy's civil servants dealing with exploration, development and extraction of oil from the North sea, from London to Edinburgh.
  361
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are 174 staff currently employed in my Department's petroleum engineering division, which is responsible for ensuring as far as possible the maximum economic and safe recovery of the United Kingdom's petroleum resources. Of these 16 staff, concerned with offshore safety, are already located in Aberdeen. Following a review in 1987 it was decided that a move of the division as a whole outside London was not feasible. It was estimated that no financial savings would arise from such a move. Moreover the division is very much involved in providing advice to Ministers and has day-to-day discussions with the headquarters of the companies in the oil and gas industry, most of whom remain located in London. If further consideration is given in the future to the relocation of staff in the division, the location of the companies' operations will be a relevant factor, though only one of a number of factors. No specific discussions have been held with the companies on this issue. Moreover of the 90 or so staff in the Department's Offshore Supplies Office, which is responsible for the promotion of the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry on the United Kingdom continental shelf and worldwide, some 80 are based in Scotland.

  Redundant Mineworkers (Pensions)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of ex-mineworkers who are currently receiving payments under the redundant mineworkers pension scheme for the years 1978–79, 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of ex-mineworkers who are currently receiving payments under the redundant mineworkers payments schemes by year of redundancy is as follows:

  Year of redundancy

  Beneficiaries as at 1 April 1989

  1979–80

  8

  1980–81

  149

  1981–82

  1,268

  1982–83

  2,183

  1983–84

  13,332

  1984–85

  5,457

  1985–86

  21,036

  1986–87

  16,758

  Total payees

  60,191

  Power Stations (Desulphurisation)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made to date in the desulphurisation of power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Work on retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment to Drax power station is proceeding well. I expect to receive an application for the next retrofit during the course of this year.

  Continental Shelf
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in explorations on the United Kingdom continental shelf so far in the current year.
  362
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Up to mid-June, 43 exploration wells had been started on the United Kingdom continental shelf since the beginning of the year.

  Nine significant discoveries have been announced.

  Depleted Uranium Exports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what depleted uranium from(a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. stockpiles and (b) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority stockpiles has been exported from the United Kingdom and used in anti-tank shells, tank protective armour and other non-nuclear military uses; when and to which countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: Since 1979, one such export has been authorised for the specific purposes mentioned. Details are commercially confidential.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has on the sulphur content of orimulsion;

  (2) how many tonnes of orimulsion were imported into Britain in the current calendar year; and whether there are any plans to introduce a policy to encourage the conversion of power stations to orimulsion.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The sulphur content of orimulsion varies between 2·2 per cent. and 2·8 per cent. by weight. Twenty six thousand tonnes have been imported so far this year. Decisions on the conversion of power stations to this fuel are a matter for the commercial judgment of the CEGB.

  Fuel Reprocessing
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the consideration given by the Central Electricity Generating Board to cancellation of contracts with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for reprocessing spent AGR fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no such information.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for how long spent fuel rods can safely be stored before thermal oxide reprocessing.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 20 June 1989 at columns 90–91.

  Electricity Supply (Computer Systems)
  Mr. Tony Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost of installing the new computer systems to be introduced into the electricity supply industry as a result of privatisation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. David Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the conservation of energy; and whether he proposes to act on any of those representations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received a number of representations regarding energy conservation and energy efficiency all of which have been taken into account in reviewing the programmes of the Energy Efficiency Office as well as the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  CEGB (Disabled Staff)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to what percentage of the work force employed by the Central Electricity Generating Board are registered as disabled.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

  Major accidents to RAF Tornados

  Date

  Accident

  Location

  Category

  Cause

  12 May 1982

  Accident on landing

  RAF Conningsby

  4

  Not positively identified

  27 September 1983

  Accident on descent

  Wolferton

  5

  Technical fault

  28 October 1983

  Accident on descent

  Off North Norfolk Coast

  5

  Not positively identified

  14 November 1983

  Heavy landing

  RAF Honington

  4

  Air crew error

  6 February 1984

  After Lightning strike, unnecessary ejection

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  Air crew error

  12 July 1984

  Mid air collision

  Off Sheringham (Norfolk coast)

  5

  Air crew error

  18 July 1984

  Flap failure

  Goose Bay, Canada

  5

  Technical fault

  8 November 1984

  Unnecessary command ejection

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  Air crew error

  12 December 1985

  Flew into Sea

  Flamborough Head

  5

  Not positively determined

  2 December 1986

  Damage to electrical systems

  Near Diss

  5

  Not positively determined

  10 December 1986

  Mid air collision (2 Tornados)

  Near Thorney

  5

  Air crew error

  4

  30 March 1987

  Failure of locking mechanism

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  Technical fault

  3 June 1987

  Failure of mechanical and electrical systems

  Manby, 5 nm East of Louth

  5

  Technical fault

  17 June 1987

  Mid-air collison

  3 nm South East Keswick

  5

  Operational

  27 July 1987

  Hydraulic system failure

  Fadmoor, Near Pickering

  5

  Technical fault

  30 March 1988

  Accident on exercise

  Nevada Desert

  5

  Air crew error

  10 May 1988

  Flew into ground

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  Air crew error

  9 August 1988

  Mid-air collision (2 Tornados)

  Appleby, Cumbria

  5

  Still under investigation

  5

  13 January 1989

  Mid-air collision

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5

  Still under investigation

  Notes:

  1. Category 4 Damage not repairable on site.

  2. Category 5 Aircraft is damaged beyond repair or is missing.

  The accidents on 27 September 1983, 18 July 1984 and 2 December 1986 were attributed to teething problems with the aircraft.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what figures he can provide for the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Tornado aircraft in Italian air Force service, excluding the Tornado tri-national training establishment;

  (2) what figures he can provide for the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Tornado aircraft in German air force service and German navy service excluding the Tornado tri-national training establishment.

  Mr. Neubert
  The public release of national aircraft accident statistics is a matter for the respective Government.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the overall rate of major accidents per 10,000 hours for Royal Air Force Tornado GR I aircraft, excluding those assigned to the Tornado tri-national

DEFENCE

  BNFL (Open Day)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Ministers or officials in his Department attended the thirtieth anniversary open day celebration of the opening of British Nuclear Fuels plutonium and tritium production reactors at Chapelcross in Annan on 13 May.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes.

  Tornado (Accidents)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force Tornado major accidents have been caused by teething problems with the introduction of the aircraft;

  (2) if he will list all major accidents to Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft since its entry into service, specifying the cause of each accident.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  training establishment; and if he will provide a breakdown of this figure into annual major accident rates for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our policy to publish such information.

  Anti-tank Weapons and Artillery
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all changes in the definitions used to calculate the numbers of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw pact(a) anti-tank weapons and (b) artillery, between those used to compile the tables in chapter six of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", and those used to compile the tables in chapter six of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".
  365
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Until 1988, United Kingdom definitions were used to calculate these figures, but in the interests of consistency within the Alliance figures 8 and 9 in chapter 6 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, were compiled according to the definitions and counting rules used by NATO. The changes involved the transfer of anti-tank guns from the artillery to the anti-tank weapons category; the exclusion of armoured infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters equipped with anti-tank guided missiles from the anti-tank weapons category; and the inclusion of mortars with a calibre size equal to or exceeding 100 mm in the artillery category.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the change in his Department's assessment of the numbers of anti-tank guided weapons deployed by the Warsaw pact in the central region, portrayed in figure 15 on page 61 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" and figure 9 on page 47 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", Cm. 344-I, the figure for the number of anti-tank guided weapons deployed by the Warsaw pact in the central region was based on the United Kingdom definition and counting rules. In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, NATO definitions and counting rules are used, in the interests of consistency within the Alliance.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide figures for the number of anti-tank weapons held by the Warsaw pact in the central region in late 1988, counting crew-served systems and helicopter or vehicle-mounted systems, but excluding those that may be fired through the gun barrel of Soviet tanks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The overall number of anti-tank weapons held by the Warsaw pact in the central region in late 1988, excluding those that may be fired through the gun barrel of tanks, is assessed to be 13,700.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list those Warsaw pact countries which were formerly producing chemical warfare agents but which have now ceased production;

  (2) which Warsaw pact countries are currently manufacturing chemical warfare agents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union is the only member of the Warsaw pact to have admitted producing chemical warfare agents, and it has also claimed that such production has ceased. The other Warsaw pact countries have stated that they do not produce such agents, but none has provided any evidence to support its claims.

  All the non-soviet Warsaw pact countries have chemical industries with the capability to produce chemical warfare agents and we believe that some have produced chemical weapons. The details of our assessments of individual countries' programmes are classified.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Soviet Union first deployed chemical 366
  weapons in any non-Soviet Warsaw pact country; and whether (a) Soviet chemical warfare agents, (b) Soviet chemical weapons and (c) unfilled Soviet chemical munitions are currently deployed in any Warsaw pact country other than the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In spite of Soviet claims, we have good reason to believe that the Soviet Union has stationed chemical weapons in Eastern Europe. I am not prepared to comment in detail for security reasons, but there is an obvious need for the Soviet Union to make available much more information about its chemical warfare capabilities.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the supply of(a) chemical warfare agents and (b) precursors for chemical warfare agents by Warsaw pact countries to non-Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no evidence that in recent years any Warsaw pact country has supplied chemical warfare agents to any non-Warsaw pact country.

  The Warsaw pact countries have very large chemical industries whose products are exported worldwide. Many of the precursors for chemical warfare agents are common chemicals which have a variety of legitimate uses. These are traded widely by many countries, including those of the Warsaw pact. The Warsaw pact countries have stated that they impose export controls on a number of the immediate precursors to chemical warfare agents, and we have no evidence that controls are being contravened.

  Warsaw Pact (Aircraft)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the portrayal of information in current and past editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on the numbers of embarked and shore-based aircraft assigned for naval operations in the Warsaw pact's(a) northern fleet, (b) Baltic fleet and (c) Black sea fleet; and if he will publish figures showing the numbers of aircraft in these categories in each fleet for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Revised figures for embarked and shore-based aircraft, fixed-wing and helicopters, assigned for naval operations in the Warsaw pact's Northern, Baltic and Black sea fleets from 1979 to 1989 are approximately as follows:

  Northern Fleet

  Baltic Fleet

  Black Sea Fleet

  1979

  350

  270

  260

  1980

  360

  290

  270

  1981

  370

  270

  300

  1982

  400

  280

  300

  1983

  400

  280

  320

  1984

  420

  280

  330

  1985

  400

  270

  300

  1986

  450

  300

  300

  1987

  425

  270

  300

  1988

  425

  270

  300

  1989

  425

  270

  280

  Since 1985, the definitions of the type of aircraft included have altered and, as is the case with all estimates, the figures published in previous Statements on the Defence Estimates are subject to revision as new material becomes available.
  367
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figures for Warsaw pact aircraft deployed west of the Urals on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" include aircraft from front-line units which are undergoing maintenance and modification in addition to mission-ready aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aircraft figures quoted reflect the complete strength of the unit, which includes those undergoing maintenance and modification.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the decline between late 1986 and late 1987 in the numbers of Warsaw pact SRINF aircraft deployed west of the Urals, as depicted in figure 16 on page 68 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" and figure 19 on page 67 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The change in deployment numbers is the result of the reorganisation of the Soviet air and air defence forces. A number of air regiments were transferred from tactical aviation forces, which have a nuclear role, to the strategic air defence force which does not have a nuclear attack role.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the differences between the figures for Warsaw pact SRINF aircraft as at the end of 1988 provided in(a) the reply from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) of 2 March, Official Report, column 254, and (b) figure 12 on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", volume 1.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures given in the answer on 2 March 1989 by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) at column 254 did not include the Frogfoot aircraft. This type of aircraft was included in figure 12 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, following a further assessment of its possible roles.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the numbers of Warsaw pact long-range INF aircraft between the end of 1987 and the end of 1988, as depicted in figure 18 on page 66 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" and figure 12 on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The reduction in the numerical strength of Warsaw pact LRINF medium bombers between 1987 and 1988 is due to the modernisation programme that has been undertaken by the Warsaw pact, with the continuing introduction of the Backfire

  Soviet Union

  Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact

  Total Warsaw Pact

  Total NATO

  Main Battle Tanks

  26,000

  5,400

  31,400

  11,000

  Other Armoured Vehicles

  48,000

  6,300

  54,300

  20,800

  Field Artillery, Mortars and Rocket Launchers

  25,000

  6,500

  31,500

  5,800

  Tactical Combat and Interceptor Aircraft

  7,300

  1,200

  8,500

  6,400

  368
  supersonic dual-capable bomber. With the deployment of this superior weapon system, the Warsaw pact has been able to retire an increasing proportion of their ageing and obsolescent Badger medium bombers. Therefore, although the overall size of the aircraft component of the LRINF is gradually being reduced, its overall operational capability is being improved.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of(a) Badger, (b) Blinder and (c) Backfire aircraft deployed by the Warsaw pact west of the Urals at the end of each year since 1979, excluding those with a primary maritime role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The approximate numbers were as follows:

  Badger

  Blinder

  Backfire

  Totals

  1979

  420

  160

  40

  620

  1980

  450

  160

  70

  680

  1981

  450

  160

  70

  680

  1982

  450

  160

  80

  690

  1983

  420

  160

  100

  680

  1984

  410

  160

  100

  670

  1985

  410

  160

  120

  690

  1986

  350

  160

  130

  640

  1987

  290

  160

  150

  600

  1988

  290

  150

  160

  600

  1989

  210

  150

  180

  540

  HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the portrayal of the operational status of the Royal Navy vessels HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk in annex A of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk are due to be accepted into service later this year, as is made clear at paragraph 324 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Cm 675-I. As such, they should have been marked by an asterisk in annex A. Unfortunately they were not, due to a printing error.

  Warsaw Pact (Weapons)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a table updating the information contained in the table entitled "Weapons Production for Warsaw Pact Forces" on page 62 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988;" and if he will include in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation figures the production of weapons by France and Spain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Estimated total production between 1979 and 1988 is as follows:
  369

  Soviet Union

  Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact

  Total Warsaw Pact

  Total NATO

  Major Surface Warships

  83

  23

  106

  175

  Attack Submarines

  64

  2

  66

  59

  Note:

  The above table is taken from the United States Secretary of Defence's Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1990. French and Spanish production is not included.

  Backfire Bombers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figures for the numbers of Backfire bombers in his answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) of 2 March,Official Report, column 255, included maritime-assigned Backfires; and if he will provide figures showing the numbers of Backfire aircraft deployed in operational units in each year since 1985, excluding those with a maritime role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures given in the answer on 2 March by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) at column 255 include maritime-assigned aircraft. The number of Backfire aircraft deployed in operational units in each year since 1985, excluding those with a maritime role, are approximately as follows:

  Numbers

  1985

  120

  1986

  130

  1987

  150

  1988

  160

  1989

  180

  LRINF Aircraft
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the numbers of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation LRINF aircraft listed in military balance tables in successive editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" since 1984 include all aircraft deployed in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of aircraft presented in the Statement on the Defence Estimates covers all NATO's operational LRINF aircraft permanently based in Europe. As the tables show, these consist entirely of F-111 aircraft. There are also a further 12 EF-111 based in Europe, which would operate only in the electronic warfare role. Similarly, the figure presented for Warsaw pact LRINF aircraft does not include around 100 aircraft of the same types which it is believed would operate in non-nuclear, supporting roles. The final two sentences of paragraph 618 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Cm. 675-I, apply only to SRINF aircraft.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trends have been observed in the numbers of long-range INF aircraft deployed by the Warsaw pact since the end of 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Warsaw pact continues to modernise its long-range INF air forces, as it replaces the obsolescent Badger medium bomber with the modern variable-geometry supersonic Backfire. The overall number of medium bombers has decreased, and will continue to do so as the Badger is withdrawn from service.
  370
  However, within the next five years the aircraft component of the Warsaw pact's long-range INF force will consist of an all-supersonic force of Backfire and Blinder aircraft.

  Frogfoot
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-25 Frogfoot entered service with the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Production of the Su-25 Frogfoot began in 1980. We assess that the first units became operational in the conventional role in the USSR in 1981. Subsequently, the aircraft was used operationally in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-25 Frogfoot is assessed to have acquired a nuclear capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All Soviet ground-attack aircraft have a potential nuclear delivery capability. The Su-25 Frogfoot entered operational service in 1981 in the conventional role, but was not assessed by NATO to have acquired a nuclear capability until 1988.

  Flanker
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-27 Flanker entered service with the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Su-27 Flanker entered service with the Soviet strategic air defence force in 1985.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-27 Flanker is assessed to have acquired a nuclear capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some Su-27 Flanker aircraft have the primary mission of air superiority in the central region. In fulfilling this role, the aircraft is equally likely to attack targets in the air or on the ground. The Flanker is capable of both nuclear and conventional ground-attack operations, and is assessed to have been so since 1987.

  Conventional Forces (Balance)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the diversion of military personnel to non-military tasks such as public works and environmental restoration in the event of achievement of a conventional force balance in Europe at force levels lower than those currently maintained by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO is committed to seeking an agreement on conventional forces in Europe which will lead to a stable and secure balance at lower levels, bui at this stage it would be premature to speculate on which
  371
  military units might be affected. It is unlikely that the Ministry of Defence would be responsible for redeploying service personnel to non-military tasks.

  Warsaw Pact (Arms Production)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent British national capability exists for assessment and calculation of Warsaw pact arms production levels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This capability is provided by the defence intelligence staff, whose responsibilities include the assessment of Warsaw pact arms production levels.

  Ammunition Propellant
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ammunition propellant is manufactured in Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Logistics matters, including the procurement of ammunition propellant, are a national responsibility. I am not aware of any instance where propellant manufactured in Czechoslovakia has been used in Ministry of Defence ammunition.

  Soviet Naval Activity
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trends have been observed in Soviet naval activity in the eastern Atlantic since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates
  1988".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the publication of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988, Soviet naval activity in the eastern Atlantic has remained virtually constant at the reduced level observed in 1987.

  Soviet Defence Spending
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the implications for British defence policy of the announced halving of Soviet defence spending by 1995.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the recent announcement by the Soviet Prime Minister of plans to reduce the proportion of national income devoted to defence, but the implications for the future Soviet defence programme are far from clear, and we await further details with interest. In the meantime, the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw pact continue to have a massive superiority in many types of conventional armaments in Europe. Our commitment to the mutual defence provided by NATO, and to NATO's policy of strength in defence combined with readiness for dialogue and co-operation with the East, will remain the foundation of our defence policy.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties are leased by his Department from the local authority in(a) Greater Manchester metropolitan county, (b) Westminster, (c) Suffolk Coastal and (d) Isles of Scilly.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answers are as follows:(a) Six (three office properties and three separate areas of land on which
  372
  MOD have subsequently had built a total of 37 residential properties); (b) None; (c) None; (d) One, a small fuel store of approximately 22 sq m.

  Ptarmigan
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to increase the number of Ptarmigan mobile trunk modes currently in service with the British Army.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No decision has yet been taken on further orders for trunk modes for the Ptarmigan system.

  Buccaneer
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to replacing the Buccaneer maritime strike aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are now carefully studying the need to replace the Buccaneeer in due course.

  IUKADGE Command and Control System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to using one common computer software language for the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system when its specifications were originally determined.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  During the nationally funded project definition stage of the IUKADGE CCS in 1977–78, consideration was given to the use of a single preferred software language, CORAL 66, and the codes of software practice extant at that time. However, a subsequent decision to seek maximum return from the NATO common infrastructure budget resulted in the United Kingdom having to abide by the rules of NATO international competitive bidding, ICB, existing at the time, which precluded the specification of a single software language. In addition, the NATO financial authorities directed that existing NATO Air Defence Ground Environment, NADGE software was to be re-used to the greatest extent possible.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current estimate of the date on which the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system will be declared fully operational;

  (2) when the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system was intended to be fully operational when it was first ordered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment, IUKADGE, is being progressively introduced over a number of years, in accordance with a plan that takes account of the need to maintain a continuous operational capability as the transition from the old to the new is accomplished. Some elements of the system are already in service use. The element known as the IUKADGE command and control system has been delayed and, with the agreement of the prime contractor, UKADGE Systems Ltd., is currently subject to an independent audit and review. It would be premature to comment further before the outcome of that audit has been assessed.

  NFR 90
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the project definition phase for the NFR 90 programme will be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The contract for the project definition study is due to complete early in 1991.

  There will then follow a period in which the results will be assessed and decisions taken with the other Governments involved.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British companies have been consulted as part of the project definition phase for the NFR 90 programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regular contact is maintained with British industry through several mediums including the Defence Contracts Bulletin, the Defence Industries Council, the NFR United Kingdom Industrial Advisory Panel, made up of the principal defence trade associations and interested companies, and with the nine member companies of Supermarine Consortium Ltd., the United Kingdom shareholder in the international joint venture company undertaking the project definition study.

  EH 101 Helicopter
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the project definition phase for the tactical support variant of the EH 101 helicopter will be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The formal project definition phase is being undertaken in two stages, the first of which will run for one year from April this year, although the essential analysis of alternatives will be available at the end of December this year. No timetable has been set for the second stage of project definition.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether design work on the next generation of nuclear-powered submarines has been completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Design work on SSN 20, the first of class of the next generation of nuclear-powered fleet submarines, is at an early stage.

  Z-berths
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present state of negotiations between local authorities and his Department on the proposed Z-berths at Swansea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  After our initial discussions with local authorities, a feasibility study was carried out, and this is now under consideration within the Ministry of Defence. If the results prove favourable, further discussions will take place.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present state of negotiations between local authorities and his Department on the proposed Z-berth at Tilbury.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 5 May at column 277.

  Housing (Dunoon-Sandbank)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many additional houses for United States navy personnel are planned in the Dunoon-Sandbank area; what is the estimated cost of their construction; and what military functions will be performed by the occupants of the additional housing.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 22 June]: I understand that the United States navy is in the process of leasing up to 50 buildings in the Dunoon-Sandbank areas to house United States naval and civilian personnel involved in maintaining support for the ships and facilities in Holy loch. Some work will be required to bring the buildings up to the required standard and to facilitate use of United States domestic appliances. The United States navy also intends to investigate the possibility of leasing a further 44 houses. The details and costs of this programme are a matter for the United States Government.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many boys, the sons of service personnel, have attended Crookham Court School on Ministry of Defence grants since 1974.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 June 1989, c. 59, and the reply, 12 June 1989, c. 321]: There are presently six children of service parents at Crookham Court school.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Mr. Bernard Ingham
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will arrange for Mr. Bernard Ingham to give a lecture at the Civil Service college.

  Mr. Luce
  In February this year, Mr. Ingham gave an informal talk to senior civil servants on a top management course, run by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, held at the college in Sunningdale.

WALES

  National Museum of Wales
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit the national museum of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I hope to visit the national museum of Wales later this year.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inspections of waste outfalls from factories were carried out on the Ely and Glyn rivers in Mid Glamorgan by Welsh water authority inspectors or bailiffs over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority.

  Rivers (Fish Loss)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the causes of the recent loss of stocked fish in the rivers Ely and Glyn in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to visit the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Epilepsy Association
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much assistance his Department intends to give to the Wales Epilepsy Association for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 26 May 1989 at column 762.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the projects and their costs funded by his Department as part of the Valleys initiative.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the projects and their costs funded by his Department as part of the Valleys programme; and if he will make a statement.
  376
  Mr. Peter Walker
  A full list of the very many projects taking place in the Valleys could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. I shall be making a progress statement on the Valleys programme shortly.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the starting date of the Valleys initiative.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the starting date of the Valleys programme of his Department, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Valleys programme was formally launched on 14 June 1988.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations will be held with(a) the staff and (b) the local authority representing the catchment area of any general hospitals that apply for self-governing status; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations will be held with local communities in the catchment area of any general hospitals in Wales that apply for self-governing status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Any application for self-governing status will be the subject of consultation with interested parties, including in particular health authorities concerned, staff at the hospital, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community. My right hon. Friend will consider any responses alongside the application.

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

Kensington High Street: Road Narrowing
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they approved the action of the Kensington and Chelsea council in reducing the width of the roadway in Kensington High Street.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the borough council sought the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, which requires his approval for works affecting roads designated as part of the strategic network in London. Kensington High Street is not itself a designated road and it was not expected that the borough's experimental scheme would have any significant effect on designated roads in the area. My right honourable friend therefore had no reason to withhold his approval.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether his right honourable friend will keep a close eye on the possibility—many people think the probability—of an increase in the already severe traffic congestion in the road now that it has been narrowed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the scheme was approved as an experiment for 18 months. The borough will need to seek further approval under the designated road procedures if it wishes to make the scheme permanent.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, in all logic, by narrowing a road how can one improve the traffic flow? Before the application was made to the Secretary of State, from whom did the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea seek guidance? Who did it consult before taking this decision approved by the Secretary of State?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the borough consulted the police, the traffic control systems unit, fire and ambulance authorities, bus managers, adjoining local authorities and local amenity groups. I believe that its consultation could therefore be said to have been reasonably extensive.
On improving the traffic flow, it is for the borough to explain a scheme on its own road. It has to be said that Kensington High Street has a poor safety record; there have been a fairly large number of pedestrian accidents. That, of course, is regrettable. The scheme is intended to help improve the situation.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend issue a general directive that unless it is proven that pavements are grossly overcrowded, it is always better to widen the roads than to narrow the pavements? If the pavements are overcrowded with shoppers, that is of course an exception. Commercial vans are unloading at stores in these roads at some time during the day. If one reduces the flow to a single line of traffic there is a very little flexibility for such activities or for dealing with accidents when they occur. We see money constantly being spent on narrowing roads when space is badly needed to meet traffic demands.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is for the borough to reconcile the needs of pedestrians in what is a busy shopping street with those of motor traffic. I understand that such works were accompanied by an adjustment of the traffic lights at either end. That was intended to alleviate the situation. It is an experimental scheme for 18 months. One will be better able to judge the situation at the end of that time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question would be more appropriately addressed to the local press?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, the Secretary of State had a role to play. Although it was not a designated road, it could have affected other designated roads in the area. Therefore, my right honourable friend's permission was sought.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I declare my interest as a ratepayer. Does the Minister take a little comfort from the fact that by and large the council does a jolly fine job? Do the considerations not only cover the traffic flow, but also how pedestrians cross those very busy streets? Some pedestrians are disabled.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. It is primarily a matter for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is one of its roads. I would not hesitate to agree with my noble friend on the first part of his supplementary question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister has twice stated that the decision is a matter for the borough council. Yet earlier he said that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave approval. In view of some of the questions that have been asked on pedestrian safety, is he satisfied? From where did he receive his advice on the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although this is a borough council road, my right honourable friend's permission was sought because of the effect the plan might have had on the designated roads in the area, although it is not in itself a designated road. That is why the department was asked for its approval. That is why our people looked into the matter.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State did not take into consideration any question of pedestrian safety? Is it argued that that is not his job and that he has merely to look at the neighbouring roads?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in this case the job of the Secretary of State is to look at the scheme's effect on any designated roads in the area. The issues of pedestrian safety, which is a very important one, and indeed of the road itself are for the borough council.

Salmonella: Testing of Poultry Flocks
2.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the result of testing for salmonella enteritidis, how many tests have been made, and what is the percentage of positive reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, under the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 each flock owner is responsible for carrying out routine monitoring for the presence of salmonella in poultry laying flocks. Information is not available therefore as to how many tests have been made. However, the reporting of salmonella isolations is required under the Zoonoses Order 1979. So far this year there have been 93 reports of salmonella enteritidis isolations in laying flocks and 29 flocks have been slaughtered.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which only partially answers the Question which I asked. Is my noble friend aware that the system of monitoring this testing seems very incomplete? Is she aware that the wish of the whole community is the elimination of this dangerous disease of salmonella enteritidis? Is she further aware that the existing system, a cloacal swab, is very ineffective, and that the right procedure is for the Ministry of Agriculture to make a serum which is effective against salmonella enteritidis and which should be universally applied to all poultry throughout the country? In that way we could eliminate the disease. Can my noble friend tell the House what is the prospect of the Ministry of Agriculture producing an effective serum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have adopted a comprehensive package of 19 measures, all but three of which have been implemented. The details of these are in the Library of the House. We are not the only country to suffer from this problem, but we have taken more measures to beat the problem than any other country. The Government accept the need for research into a serum against salmonella in poultry and eggs, and the Government announced on 21st March 1989 the provision of £1 million annually to meet the cost of new research into salmonella. A serum would indeed be a great gift to everybody.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the symptoms are so that people recognise them in their own case and get off to the doctor?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would know when he was infected by salmonella.
Lord Leatherland: That does not answer my question, my Lords. Can the Minister announce publicly now what the symptoms are, so that the population will know?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have had a great many helpful suggestions from all around me. You feel very ill, you are sick and other unpleasant things happen.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has suggested that the Government are introducing research. As I have suffered both from salmonella and botulism, can she assure me that the Government are going forward at a great rate to try to find out what causes both salmonella and botulism?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are already carrying out a great deal of research into the problem of salmonella; for example, the detection of infection in live birds, the effect of cooking on infected eggs and foods made from them, the growth of salmonella in eggs. Areas for future and further research are being urgently considered.
In relation to botulism, producers have to sample the product to ensure freedom from salmonella before it is fed to livestock, but there is no requirement to test for botulism toxin. That is because botulism toxin occurs in isolated pockets and would not be readily detected. Producers of ensiled poultry waste should ensure that the product is free from poultry carcasses.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, has the attention of the Ministry been drawn to the report of the Central Public Health Laboratory of a powerful new strain of salmonella in poultry said to be resistant to antibiotics in common use? It is called salmonella typhimurium, the incidence of which has increased quite markedly in recent months. Is any action being taken about this, and what is the nature of such action?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, research is continuing. We have put in the extra £1 million for extra research this year. I cannot say how it is progressing, but if I can find out I will write to the noblc Lord.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, which research institute has been given the £1 million'? Is it Bristol?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to say that it was the responsiblity of flock

479
owners to test their own flocks. If I am right in my understanding, can she tell us whether there is any monitoring of that, how many flock owners do it, how frequently they do it and whether they have to report their results to the Ministry of Agriculture, to veterinary services, or whether any other record is made of the results of the tests? If records are made, what percentage of flocks being tested by owners give a positive result?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads my original Answer he will find that I have answered his questions already.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I pursue the point about the sum of money that my noble friend has spoken about, the £1 million which has been allocated for research. If she cannot tell the House now which research station is to receive that sum to pursue that research, will she perhaps write to me, and also as to what is the programme of that research, and when we can expect a report on the progress being made?
Baroness Trumpington: Of course, my Lords.

Salmonella in Animal Feedingstuffs
2.50 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research is the Ministry of Agriculture undertaking to discover the incidence of salmonella enteritidis in animal feedingstuffs, in particular in Ministry of Agriculture stockpiles of home grown grain, and what incidence of infection has been found.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to ensure the quality of the raw materials in animal feed, processors of animal protein must register and must submit samples for testing. This year 127 inspections under these arrangements have led to 15 isolations of salmonella, with movement controls imposed in each case. Conditions for the import of processed animal protein have been strengthened. Codes of practice will soon be published covering the monitoring of raw materials used in compound feed, including intervention board stocks. My officials and the industry are working on a survey of feedingstuffs and raw materials of vegetable origin. All isolations of salmonella have to be reported; so far this year 31 have been notified in animal feedingstuffs.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. It is rather like the Bible story of the non-answer which offers an account of the minor prophets. However, I did not ask about animal protein inspections; I asked about inspections of intervention stocks of cereals. Is my noble friend aware that inevitably cereals are infested with rats and mice, and it is well known that rats and mice are carriers of salmonella? Can
480
she discover what inspections regularly take place in order to check the incidence of salmonella in such stocks? In due course, those stocks will be fed to poultry and other livestock in this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the responsiblity for vermin lies with the local authorities. If vermin are found, the onus is on the farmer or the owner of the intervention store to give notice of infestation to MAFF and the local authority in writing. Local authorities are required to make periodic checks, and we have introduced additional statutory measures to control vermin infestation of poultry houses and egg stores. I think that that will do for the moment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Ministry is now satisfied with the drafting of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989, No. 661, in view of defects alleged about the drafting of the order by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 19th Report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the order requires that all processors of animal protein should register with MAFF by 13th June, and that they sample their product to ensure its freedom from salmonella before being fed to animals. If there is a mistake in the drafting of the order, I shall write giving details to the noble Lord.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not know whether I have a suspicious nature, but does the noble Baroness really believe that if people find mice in their stores they will rush off and tell the authorities? I should think that that will be the last thing that they will do, but instead will pretend that they have not seen the mice. Is such a provision good enough to ensure that the matter is followed up?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads the 19 regulations—copies of which have been placed in the Library—she will see that we have taken an enormous amount of trouble to try to put matters in order so that we can reduce the salmonella problem. I was fascinated to hear that when she sees mice she pretends that they are not there. I most certainly do not.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what is the Government's view of the desirability of feeding poultry waste to poultry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the materials have been used for many years, and their use is controlled by legislation in two ways. First, the Waste Food Order 1973 prohibits the feeding to livestock and poultry of waste food unless it has first been processed by means of plant or equipment the operation of which is licensed. Secondly, it is controlled by the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 as I have just described.
Lord Walston: My Lords, reverting to the original Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that she and her department are completely satisfied that

481
there is no risk of the infection of livestock—poultry or otherwise—by the ingestion of grain from intervention stores? Further, can she assure us that any risk which may exist will be caught before the grain is incorporated into feedstuffs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course we are not satisfied and are always aware that there is room for improvement. We have made many new regulations, codes of practice and orders as quickly as possible in order to overcome the various problems. I repeat the fact that we have done a great deal more than any other country to try to clear up the problems of salmonella and vermin.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her Answer to this part of my Question is far from satisfactory? Will she take back this message to members of the Ministry of Agriculture? It is essential to have regular inspections of intervention grain stores and regular testing in order to ensure that they contain no source of salmonella.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall certainly convey that message to my right honourable friend.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, do we have sufficient control of imports? I am sure that many cases of salmonella arise from imported foodstuffs and animal foodstuffs. I believe that salmonella and diseases of that type live in certain areas—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, is it the case that salmonella and other diseases inhabit certain areas, and that in those areas we gradually obtain immunity to the disease? However, in other areas we do not have freedom from the disease. What controls exist in that connection?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend's question referred to the first Question, to which I have replied. We are systematically sampling imports of eggs and testing for salmonella infection. The commission has tabled proposals for the control of a wide range of zoonoses, including salmonella, in animals and problems of animal origin. We welcome the proposals, and we shall be working to build on that basis an effective Community-wide solution as soon as possible.

Election Results and Government Policies
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the results of the elections which took place on 15th June, they will reconsider some of the policies which they are pursuing.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, no.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that most Members of the House will be surprised by the terseness of that reply, bearing in mind the serious erosion caused by the results of the European elections and the two by-elections on 15th June to the point of the Government being almost obliterated in Scotland and Wales? Does that not indicate to the noble Lord, as has been reinforced by subsequent opinion polls, that there is serious public concern about the stupid intentions of the Government to carry on with the privatisations of water and electricity and the reorganisation of the National Health Service? Is the Leader of the House aware that the answer no is not good enough? Government support has been reduced to three out of 10 people in the United Kingdom, nearly an alltime low—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the European elections on 15th June were to elect members of the European Parliament. In the general election in 1987 the Government were re-elected, and the Government will pursue policies for which they then received a mandate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the European election had nothing whatever to do with the policy of privatisation inside this country and that, as regards the two by-elections, in one seat which the Labour Party already held the majority went slightly up and in the other went slightly down? What conclusions does my noble friend draw from that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the same conclusions as, I believe, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter draws; namely, that it is not appropriate to use the European parliamentary election in order to ask general questions on domestic policy.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, when the Minister is reviewing the European election results, will he keep in mind that more than 21 per cent. of the people voted for minority parties in that election and have no representation whatever in the European Parliament? Is it not a disgrace that this country alone among all the European nations does not observe proportional representation, which would enable minority groups to have some voice in the European Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that the answer to that question must be the same Answer that I originally gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real lesson to be learned that,
"We are all of us dreadfully keen
To be thought of as greener than green.
But, when all's done and said,
Tory's blue, Labour's red
And the rest of us are nowhere to be seen."
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take on board the experience and wisdom of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the particularly important summit conference presently taking place in Madrid, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House give an assurance that a Statement will be made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons when she returns and that that will be repeated in this House?
Furthermore, does the noble Lord agree with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she said that the reason that the Conservative vote was so low in the European elections in this country was that it was a nice, long, hot day? Is it the intention of the party opposite in future to call for general elections in cold weather?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am bound to say that the last three elections have been in the middle of the summer and we have not done too badly. However, I give the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition an assurance that there will undoubtedly be an opportunity for your Lordships to discuss those European matters following the council meeting in Madrid.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the heart of the Leader of the House not touched by the fact that the Tories in Scotland do not have one single representative in Europe? In spite of everything, there are quite a few of them. Does that not show not only a lack of any attempt at democracy, but a curious lack of belief in the noble Lord's own party, and indeed a curious obliviousness to the right of the Scots to have the various opinions in Scotland deployed in Europe? Is not now the case for electoral reform absolutely overwhelming?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord talks of the people of Scotland having their case deployed in Europe. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that in the European Community the United Kingdom since the last Euro election has taken a leading part in securing a substantial reform of Community finance and making real progress towards the completion of the single market. I believe that we have a record which stands up against any other country as regards complying with Community directives and, arguably, we have also stood by the British interests. I hope that those representing the people of Scotland in the European Parliament will do likewise.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, just because noble Lords on the Labour Benches make policy cartwheels in pursuit of a recovery of their popularity vote, is there any reason why the Government should follow their example?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, indeed, there is no reason and therefore I agree with my noble friend's question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us what, in his opinion, was to blame for the Tory rout on 15th June?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, fewer supporters of the Conservative Party went to the poll than we might have hoped. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I believe that we have been following the right policies and that in the end they will prevail.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the efforts of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the financial field. Is he aware that the net result has been, as the Prime Minister has now revealed in another place, that this country will bear a burden of £2 billion net of all receipts during the forthcoming year? If that is financial control, I should be glad to receive further information from the noble Lord on that subject taken as a whole.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fact is that at Fountainebleu my right honourable friend the Prime Minister secured a lasting and equitable arrangement as regards the contribution from this country to the Community budget. Had it not been for that, the figure quoted by the noble Lord would have been much higher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at the time of the European election, the forms for the poll tax were being sent out? Could it not be that Tory supporters are worried not only about the administrative nightmare of the poll tax but also that they will have to pay a lot more than they were led to believe by a Tory Government? Is it not now the case that, in seats like Reading, Bath, Bristol, Exeter and Southampton, the Labour Party is now rampant and will win those seats necessary to form a new government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in managing to raise the issue of proportional representation while discussing this Question is only exceeded by my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who manages to raise the issue of community charge.

Extradition Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to extradition under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 and the extradition Acts 1870 to 1935, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords,

485
I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Nuclear liabilities: financial assistance]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 233K:
Page 117, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) the burying of electric lines to be installed or kept installed in areas of outstanding natural beauty or National Parks designated by the Countryside Commission under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.").
The noble Lord said: I can be very brief on this amendment. As it makes clear, it concerns the burying of electricity lines to be installed in areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could well be argued, as I am sure the noble Baroness will when she responds, that this amendment is in the wrong place. However, it has been put there because there seems to be no other place where a grant can be made by the Secretary of State for such purpose. Therefore, in putting forward an amendment of this sort, I should like to obtain from the Government their views on two matters. Do they agree that this is a desirable objective? If so, and if they feel that the amendment is in the wrong place, can they suggest where it might be more appropriately included in the Bill so as to attain the objective in mind? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am sure we all agree that it is better if possible for overhead lines to be placed underground, if that is not a contradiction in terms. So that Members of the Committee will understand exactly what I mean, some years ago I had experience of this matter and was involved in a good deal of controversy on behalf of people with whom I had great sympathy who wanted enormous sums of public money spent on putting the supergrid underground. If we can remove these vast overhead lines and the tremendous pylons which support them so that they do not spoil places of natural beauty, then that will of course be a great help to the environment. But we have to keep a sense of proportion and realise that it can be enormously expensive. Moreover, in some of the national parks where there are rock formations it becomes even more expensive and physically more difficult. Therefore, although naturally we have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I assume and hope that this is a probing amendment rather than one which he insists should be applied in every case.
Lord Peston: I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment. As I read it, this amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make grants to this end. The amendment certainly does not say that all such lines should be placed underground, merely that grants should be available
486
so that where possible and reasonable to do so that should be done.
I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is not convinced that his amendment should come at this point in the Bill. My own view is that since in Schedule 12 we are discussing the expenditure of enormous sums of money for nuclear decommissioning, and so on, which at least to some degree must be thought of as having an environmental aspect, surely this is an appropriate place to raise such considerations. I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in recognising how much money would be involved but, in a sense, that is placed in context by the vast amounts of money we are about to spend on decommissioning.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is also right—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—that this is an objective that the Government should bear in mind. I have to say that, despite my appreciation of modern art, I do not find these lines particularly attractive. As regards the living environment, undergrounding is an objective which one would very much like the Government to take into account. The amendment does not commit the Government to that objective; neither does it compel them to spend these vast sums of money. The amendment proposes that the Government should recognise, at least to some degree, the desirability of this particular objective. Therefore, on those grounds I believe that the amendment is worth a modicum of support.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that the sight of electricity lines above the ground can be unattractive. Indeed, a great deal is already being done to go underground where practicable and possible. I have seen some excellent examples provided by the Yorkshire board in this respect.
There are some difficulties which must be taken into account, and my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned some of them. The cost of underground cable ranges from one and a half to 18 times as much as overhead lines, depending on voltage. It also takes longer to carry out the necessary work; and it is correspondingly more expensive to locate and rectify any subsequent faults on underground cables. In some areas—in particular agricultural areas —placing cables underground is unsatisfactory since cables are at risk of being ploughed up.
There are two further points I wish to make. Under the new electricity regulations, anyone who wishes to install an overhead line may be required to make an environmental statement about the impact of it on the countryside. The Secretary of State will need to take any such statement into account when deciding whether or not to grant a consent to the placement above ground of any electric line, other than a low voltage service line. Further, paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 requires any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity to have regard to the amenity provisions of that paragraph in formulating or considering any proposal for the installation of an electric line, whether above or below ground. This paragraph also applies to the Secretary of State when considering an application for an overhead line consent under Clause 36.

487
I appreciate that the amendment deals with grants, but I felt that it was important to reiterate the fact that we are taking this matter seriously. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the amendment does not sit comfortably in Schedule 12. In the context of the amendment made by my noble friend Lord Norrie, and indeed other amendments relating to the environment which were made at earlier stages in our Committee proceedings, I am in any event looking again at the question of undergrounding as well as all the other matters raised. I hope the noble Lord will accept that I will certainly take into account his amendment in that overall consideration.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation, and also for the assurance that she is looking at this whole question of undergrounding, particularly in regard to areas of outstanding beauty. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 118, line 47, at end insert—
("(5) No grants, loans or guarantees shall be made in relation to qualifying expenses under this section if incurred in connection with nuclear power stations commissioned after the enactment of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In discussing this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, with the permission of the Committee I shall raise a number of general questions concerning nuclear liabilities and related financial assistance. It would be useful if the Minister could answer these questions in one reply rather than continually having them raised throughout the afternoon.
Having said that, I must make a point that is only partly political; namely, nothing brings home to this Chamber more clearly the foolhardiness of placing the nuclear industry in the private sector than this question of nuclear liabilities. The more one examines the problems that arise with decomissioning and related matters the more one asks about the nature of the public interest and providing financial support. It seems to me, at least, that to almost any dispassionate person studying this subject the nuclear power industry should simply not be in the private sector. Separate from the issue of general privatisation which we are not debating now, when confronted with these problems it is impossible not to see that the obvious answer is to leave this industry in the public sector, at least for the time being. That is my first general comment, which I insist is not just a political comment but one that could well be made by those who favour privatisation.
On the subject in general, essentially the amendment revolves around the question of what is in the national interest. After all, if we are to use public funds our criterion must be to use them in the national interest. I am sure that noble Lords opposite, given their present economic policies, do not believe in using public funds to support private enterprise. They have set all their philosophy against
488
that. Therefore, the only argument is that these loans, grants and guarantees arise because of some concern with the public interest.
What is that public interest? One argument—and I speculate on these matters because they are difficult—is that the existing power stations, once they cease to be economically viable, give rise to problems of storage and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. They give rise to problems of radioactive waste and, more generally, problems of decommissioning. All those matters relate to existing power stations as a public matter because those power stations are in the public sector. That led my noble friend Lord Williams and I to this amendment.
However, even there one reflects on whether that is entirely a valid argument, because one could at least argue that these matters could be included in the sale price in the first place and that no issue of public responsibility should arise later because it should arise ad initia. Can the noble Baroness assure us that these costs will not be double counted and that industry will not be sold net of decommissioning cost and then obligingly come to the Government and ask for more money once it is decommissioning? In other words, if one buys a power station its value must be net of what it will eventually cost to decommission. One way of arguing is to say that that is how the industry will be privatised and therefore that none of the other issues will arise. Can we be reassured that if that is already taken into account in the sale price it will not arise a second time?
The schedule concerns grants, loans and guarantees. To the best of my ability I have thought through the case for grants, and I can see it. I should like to know what is the nature of the case for loans and guarantees. Given that the privatised industry will have access to the free capital market, why does it need loans from the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury? Why cannot it get its own loans? Why does it need guarantees? Why cannot the industry itself provide the appropriate collateral? What is there about this activity that justifies guarantees and loans? This is not the argument about grants. I can see the argument about grants because the industry will be stuck with certain problems for which it was not fully compensated when it was privatised in the first place. That is why grants may be appropriate. I should like to know about those three headings. What do the Government think at the present time the appropriate mixture of grants, loans and guarantees is likely to be?
Can the noble Baroness tell us what sums of money are involved? What is the public purse letting itself in for with regard to this financial assistance? What is the scale of this operation? I am not a technical expert on nuclear plant generation. I am certainly not a technical expert on any of these matters of storage, reprocessing and decommissioning. However, the documents that have been sent to me quote large sums for these costs. They talk of sums equal to one-tenth and one-fifth of the building cost of a power station. They talk of sums of £100 million and even £200 million for decommissioning. I do not suggest for one moment that there is any way of avoiding spending large sums of money, but to pass

489
into law a commitment to financial assistance—I shall come back in just a moment to the word "commitment"—without knowing quite how much is a little worrying.
I use the word "commitment", but I notice that throughout the schedule the word "may" occurs rather than any other word. If I were in the nuclear industry I would like to know what the word "may" means. "May" normally means "may" or "may not". In what sense is the Secretary of State liable to give assistance? In what sense is the Secretary of State obliged to give assistance? In what sense is this other than a blanket permission which will be negotiated in due course but without any full commitment? Is the word "may" correct, and does it mean "may" meaning "may not"?
Can the noble Baroness tell us the present state of knowledge of these matters? Do we know how to carry out any of the activities referred to in the first paragraph of the schedule? Have we had much success yet in decommissioning? I think I am right in saying—I always emphasise that I am not an expert—that we have not yet decommissioned a power station in this country. If we have done so—I speak as an ignoramus—I should like to know about it. The only thing that I can think of more difficult than building a nuclear power station is decommissioning one. What are we letting ourselves in for in this respect? Are we at present financing research on these matters so that when the time comes we will be able to do the job that people have in mind? As noble Lords will be aware, I do not speak on these matters as someone who is against nuclear power. That is not my point. I speak as someone who is in favour of using resources efficiently and of knowing the answers to key economic questions.
I have two final questions which are at least worth considering. When the original Magnox stations were built not a great deal of thought was given to such problems as decommissioning and so on. Those were exciting and experimental days. It seemed a good idea to start to be in this business and to build these stations. I add that I do not think that that was a mistake, but even a long time eventually comes round. Economists, because of their emphasis on discounting the future, tend to regard anything longer than about 10 years as never. However, I am afraid that 10 years go by, 20 years go by and 30 years go by and eventually chickens come home to roost.
I am aware that when we built the original stations we were not thinking of the problems that arise with decommissioning, but I also understand—and I hope for reassurance on this point—that now when we plan our stations we take the problems of decommissioning into account. I am led to believe that that is true for Sizewell. Can I be assured that any future power station construction will take account not only of the technical side of decommissioning but also of its cost, and that that will be part of the decision-making mechanism?
My final question is a typically boring economist's one. Is there any way of answering the question—I
490
put it no more strongly than that—of whether the nuclear stations already in existence have had a contribution made to their decommissioning costs by people who have bought their electricity from them over the years? On the economic side the price of electricity ought, strictly speaking, already to have taken that into account. It is a genuine capital cost, even though it is discounted for the future, and ought to have been included in the price. If that has already been taken into account it would be quite inappropriate for the Exchequer to have to find that sum of money a second time because in some sense it has already been found. I agree that this is a rather tricky matter. But speaking as an economist who is always intrigued by questions of this kind, I should at least like some analysis and discussion of the question of whether these costs have already been met.
My questions have covered a broad field. This has been not exactly a Second Reading debate but a broad debate on the general subject. I look forward to some comments and answers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord has raised a number of wide questions on this amendment. I seek to follow him to a certain extent, though without repeating the debate we had the other day on the desirability of separating altogether the nuclear section of the industry. In this schedule there is the clearest possible admission on the part of the Government that nuclear power is indeed very different and deserves and requires very different treatment. It requires treatment of a kind which the Government would never contemplate handing out to any other section of the industry.
Let us consider the wording of the schedule. The Secretary of State is empowered to make either grants or loans of such amounts as he thinks fit under certain very broad headings of expenditure including the storage of fuel, the handling of waste and the decommissioning of a nuclear station. As I understand it, a decommissioning has not yet taken place although there is the commencement of putting one nuclear station into cold storage—if that is the correct term to use.
We have no idea how much that expenditure will be. The schedule states that the amount,
"shall not exceed £1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
Even in these days those sums are fairly considerable. I wonder what those who are now Conservative Ministers would have said in the past if such liabilities had been imposed upon the taxpayer without even providing for a cursory reference to Parliament. I have never found the negative procedure to be anywhere near remotely satisfactory. In another place I may have been tempted to use stronger phraseology.
I conclude with two questions for the Government. First, I should like to know who within the electricity supply industry has such confidence in putting the nuclear stations into the same bracket as others and then to one side, to an extent, for special treatment? Such a process seems to me to be blowing hot and cold in a very unacceptable way.

491
Secondly, I should particularly like to know—and I think we are entitled to ask this question—who, with any authority in this immensely important industry, is more than content in the matter and is actually encouraging and supporting the Government in their present proposals? I shall be most interested to hear the answer to that question. Further, have the Government any evidence to suggest that potential investors in the generating section of the industry, which will include the nuclear aspect, are in any way encouraged by the proposals which the Government are putting forward?
The industry is a complicated and very difficult one. Therefore, it is vitally important to recognise that adding to its problems at a time of immense change could be very unwise and something which the Government may ultimately greatly regret.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: During earlier exchanges in Committee both sides have agreed that safety should be one of the principal responsibilities of the Secretary of State and of the various electricity authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil have been clear that we should insist upon safety. The twelfth schedule goes to the heart of the whole question of safety. I should perhaps remind Members of the Committee that among the threats to safety which have given rise to public anxiety both at home and abroad are the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and the treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive waste.
As has been rightly said, we have not yet had the decommissioning of a nuclear power station. I hope that it will not seem too self-assertive if again I remind Members of the Committee that when we embarked on this concept more than 30 years ago we did not know how long a reactor core would last. That was the most expensive part of the equipment. Further, we did not know how long the ancillary machinery would last; we had to guess. It is some reassurance to those who committed themselves to nuclear generation those many years ago that so far all fears expressed at that time about the length of time which the plant would last have been unjustified. Windscale was opened in 1956 and other nuclear power stations have been opened in stages since then. However, I do not think that one has been opened now for at least 10 years. It is some satisfaction to find that there has so far been no decommissioning. Nevertheless, we must face the possibility that there may be such decommissioning in the future. I say that because nothing is everlasting, alas, in this field.
It is right to make the point that the nuclear power stations so far built, the radioactive waste created and so on, have all resulted from the expenditure of public money. If the expenditure of that public money has given rise to anxiety about safety, it is surely reasonable—it would be a form of insurance for the public—that we should have further public money spent in order to prevent accidents of any kind occurring under the three headings in the future. If we are to have nothing like Schedule 12 in the Bill, that would be a very serious omission. Indeed,
492
we could rightly be accused of failing to observe the safety standards which are required.
As I understand it, because the Opposition did not vote on the matter—although they indicated on the Marshalled List that they would perhaps vote against Clause 93 and Schedule 12—I assume that they accept basically what is in the twelfth schedule but that they want any power station built or decommissioned in the future to be excluded from those benefits. Would that really be a wise exception to make? Would the public be happy about that? After all, we are legislating now, we hope, for a great many years to come. I should have thought that it could cause some real anxiety. I also find it illogical and inconsistent—if I may follow the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil just now, although he used it in another sense—and we should not blow hot and cold in this matter; we should not say, "Yes, it is all right for anything arising out of what has been done in the past. Oh, but in the future we should leave it to chance, even if the Secretary of State is convinced that public money is needed to make safe the decommissioning of a power station. No, we must not let him have that". There is no logic in that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend's points are sound when taken separately, but he did not face up to the one point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I agree that power in these matters should be given to the Secretary of State to meet the eventualities to which my noble friend referred, but I find it difficult to accept that £1,000 million—it can go up to twice that amount—should be available to a Secretary of State without Parliament even having a chance to give a nod or a wink in connection with it.
While normally one wants to give powers to Ministers to enable them to make vital decisions quickly, when it gets to the point of spending that amount of money, bearing in mind the stringencies that we have to face in other fields, I feel that Parliament should in some way, as I said, give a nod and a wink—no more than that—to the Secretary of State when he makes his decision.
Lord Trafford: In answer to the point just made, I believe that it is fair to draw my noble friend's attention to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 12 where it is clear that there must be a resolution of the other place. I believe that the nod and a wink that he was requesting is probably taken care of.
I do not wish to reopen the question of the privatisation, or otherwise, of nuclear power which we debated last week, interesting though that subject may be. I accept entirely all the comments about safety made by my noble friend Lord Renton. Safety is a matter for the general public. It is not a matter of whether the installation happens to be in the public or the private sector, now or in the future. It is the preservation of the safety of the public with which we are concerned.
However, having made the decision which has been made, and it having been approved in both places on a vote, about moving nuclear installations into the private sector, that leads to certain inevitable

493
consequences. One of them relates to maintaining the diversity of supply, which I would regard as important with regard to the future of the electricity industry as a whole. At the moment, of the non-fossil fuel generating sources, nuclear is by far the most mature of the technologies.
Although there have been anxieties, and I am sure there always will be anxieties expressed about such installations, their safety record over the decades since they were introduced has been remarkable both in Europe and here, despite the Three Mile Island business in the United States. One can never entirely rule out the possibility of human error. In so far as one understands what happened in Chernobyl, it appears to have been human error to a large extent that led to that incident. Again we are assured, and I accept the assurance, that it was a design that would never have been approved or accepted in Western Europe or this country.
I shall return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I said, I cannot believe that safety should apply only to something in the public sector, and therefore, once the decision is made to put it in the private sector, public safety must be ensured subsequently. I shall not develop further the argument eloquently put forward by my noble friend.
There are two consequences which, in a sense, answer the questions asked by the noble Lord. For example, it is clear that the total costs of decommissioning are not known. One can make "guestimates" but not direct estimates. That, I assume, will answer his question as to whether decommissioning costs are taken into account in the current price of electricity. How can they be if those figures are not, and cannot be, known?
It is a technology which is constantly developing. Although there are many people in this country, and of course around the rest of the world, who believe that they know how decommissioning should take place, even the experts are the first to say, "We cannot be certain that the cost of carrying out a particular decommissioning, or part of a decommissioning, exercise might not be greater than we have anticipated".
On all those grounds, it would seem reasonable to keep Schedule 12 as it stands and to reject the amendment. I make two more points. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the word "may" was used. I imagine that "may" is a word that allows the Secretary of State, but does not oblige him. Clearly, no Secretary of State likes to dish out £2.5 billion, £2 billion or £1 billion unless he has to. Therefore one does not put an obligation upon him, one allows him so to do, subject, as I say, to paragraph 4(2) which states:
"No order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons".
It is not possible, because the costs cannot be known, that there would be, so to speak, double accounting of that figure. It does not seem reasonable. It would in one sense be easily spotted.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about insurance. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 requires the operator to sustain insurance up to £20 million.
494
After that, there is an obligation under that Act, which I presume—I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us whether that is so—falls on the public purse. The answers to many of the questions asked by the noble Lord are self-evident. The safety problem has been discussed and it seems to me that the amendment does not stand up to detailed investigation.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I cannot help feeling that the schedule is needed in some form. I read it as a type of open-ended commitment to ensure that there is provision in the future for a sum which is up to so much at the moment but which I am sure that Parliament will have to change as matters go along.
I should like to ask whether, when the nuclear power station company is floated, there will be provision in its flotation documents to take account of the prospect of government help. I am clear that we must have nuclear power. I believe in it. Its safety rcord is exceptional. How on earth anyone will get people to subscribe to shares in a company or companies owning stations which have those indefinite anxieties far away in the future, I do not know.
We must not reopen the debate we had the other day. The only pity about that debate was that the vote was taken too late for those whom I believe to be wise to succeed. Anyhow, that issue is closed and we cannot go over it.
I do not see—perhaps we shall be told—how investors' funds for those future nuclear power stations will be raised unless it is made clear to the investors what degree of help will be available for the decommissioning. I shall take an example from another side of the energy industry. All the oil companies have for years been making provision for the dismantling and removal of their platforms. It is a regular thing. We have been doing it for at least the past 10 years. The provision for decommissioning in that case is familiar to those of us involved in the oil industry. With regard to the nuclear industry, it is uncertain. I hope that we shall hear from the Government to what extent, and how, the proposed flotations will take account of that fact. The Government are right to make provision, but I should like to know how investors will be assured of how much or how little the companies they invest in will be protected by it.
Baroness Hooper: Last week we debated the Government's proposals for ensuring the future of nuclear power in the private sector. As has been said, on a Division on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, we succeeded in having your Lordships confirm support for our proposals. Clause 93 and Schedule 12 provide the final plank in the proposals, but I am happy to respond to the general remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because this is a very important topic.
Nuclear power has costs which extend, as we all recognise, for a considerable time after the electricity has been generated. Spent fuel is reprocessed, the resulting wastes need to be treated and ultimately disposed of and nuclear plant has to be

495
decommissioned. Some of these costs are very long term. High level vitrified waste has to be stored for up to 50 years before it can be disposed of. The final decommissioning of nuclear power stations may well not take place for up to 100 years after the station has closed. In some areas, it is not yet possible to identify firmly what the cost will be. For example, the cost of disposing of nuclear waste will depend on the site for a repository, on which no final decision has yet been taken. All those costs are subject, quite rightly, to stringent health and safety and environmental regulation. The requirements of this regime have become more stringent over time, and it is clearly not possible to rule out the chance that there may be further changes to the regime over the long periods involved.
To date, these uncertainties have meant that provision of nuclear services and the supply of nuclear electricity have been governed by a cost plus mentality. As we all know, the effect is that there has been little incentive to keep under control those costs which management can influence.
Following extensive discussions with the electricity industry and BNFL, we have concluded that it is possible to distinguish between those areas which are capable of control and those areas which are so uncertain that some degree of assurance and support is needed. Our proposals in Clause 93 and Schedule 12 are targeted at these areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked what provision had been made to date. At present, electricity customers are charged in their electricity prices the best estimates, at the time, of future costs relating to this electricity supply. This is only right, and we propose that it should continue after privatisation. But these prices clearly cannot take into account unforeseen future cost increases. If these costs increase later, for example as a result of what I quoted, changes to safety and environmental regulation, the costs inevitably fall to be met by the industry. So long as the industry remains in the public sector, this has meant that the Government ultimately stand behind it in respect of all such unforeseen cost increases. We believe that after privatisation it would be unreasonable for the Government to stand aside entirely from such a burden. Clause 93 therefore permits the Government to contribute to costs associated with reprocessing, waste treatment and disposal, and decommissioning of nuclear plant.
Our aim, as Ministers made clear during consideration of the Bill in another place, is to target government assistance in a selective way, dealing with unforeseen and uncontrollable cost increases, but leaving management in National Power, the Scottish nuclear company and BNFL, with adequate incentives to keep down those costs which are subject to management control.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also asked what "may" meant. Although my noble friend Lord Trafford has responded adequately, I would say yes, it does give a permissive power. However, as I said in Committee a week ago, we intend at Report stage to table amendments designed to reinforce this message by permitting the Government to commit
496
themselves contractually to meet their share of such unforeseen costs. I emphasise that this does not represent an extension to the policy announced in another place, simply a strengthening of the Government's commitment to it.
Electricity customers will continue, as at present, to pay the best estimate of such costs at the time they get their electricity. If the costs rise subsequently because, for example, of changes to the safety or environmental regime, or in areas where the costs are genuinely unknown, the Government will contribute to the costs when they arise.
We are confident that by agreeing to contribute to unforeseen and uncontrollable cost increases in this way, it is possible to move to a contractual regime which provides proper incentives for BNFL and the nuclear operators to operate efficiently and safely and to keep costs under control. Negotiations are taking place at present between BNFL and the nuclear operators to conclude contracts for nuclear fuel cycle services which will be essentially fixed price, except where costs go up for reasons of regulatory change. In these latter areas, cost increases will be shared between the Government, the nuclear operators and BNFL.
By these means we shall be bringing proper commercial pressures for the first time into major areas of nuclear activity. And by paying particular regard to the reasons why nuclear costs go up, and spreading the financial risk associated with such cost increases, we shall be providing the assurance needed to ensure that nuclear power can operate efficiently and profitably in the private sector, while maintaining the levels of safety and security which have applied to date, and which we all certainly recognise as being of the utmost importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, further asked me to quantify these unanticipated costs. I have to say that it is quite impossible to do so because the costs are, by definition, unanticipated. The Government will, however, only pay a part of any increase above the level provided for, not the full cost, and only if the increase is unforeseen.
I turn to paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 which will place financial limits on the provisions and which has been referred to—the £1,000 million, which may be increased by order. I point out to my noble friend Lord Peyton that the order must be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amount may be raised to £2,500 million. Anything over and above that would require primary legislation, but this will ensure that Parliament has an opportunity from time to time to scrutinise the Government's policy and payments made under the provision. In the event that the provisions appear likely to be insufficient, the Government will return to Parliament to seek an increase. Of course, we do not anticipate an increase for many years to come, if ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also asked for an example of a decommissioning to date. I can only quote the example of Berkeley, one of the first Magnox stations to be closed in March this year, when Lord Marshall said that adequate provision had been made to meet decommissioning and nuclear fuel cycle cost.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the Minister give way? I rise to intervene because in the very early stages I helped to manufacture some of the turbine parts for Berkeley power station. Can the Minister indicate, in regard to the decommissioning and closure of a nuclear power station, that the nuclear power is not the whole of the station? Is it not true that a large part of the station consists of conventional turbines and rotors, and only the heat comes from the nuclear part? Is it not possible with a large percentage of the bigger stations to have half the plant demolished anyway without safety risks to anybody? Has that factor been taken into account? Whether a turbine is set at 100, 250, 350 or 500 megawatts, the whole of the turbine section can be removed without any threat to safety whatever. I hope that when the Government decide what to make available that exercise will be looped in.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord speaks from a considerable knowledge of this subject. Nevertheless, the reference which I made to Berkeley shows that adequate provision has been made in advance, according to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I wish to clear up that point. Are we to understand that the provision for decommissioning Berkeley has already been covered by the CEGB's electricity charges?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, that is my understanding. I shall now move on to respond to the question which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked me as regards whether double counting would apply if grants are provided. The answer is "no". The Government will make their policy on the use of grants clear in the prospectus when National Power is sold. The shares will be priced against the background of this policy; there will therefore be no double counting.
As regards the use of guarantees and loans as well as grants, I should say that we anticipate that grants will be the major means of support. However, there may be occasions when loans and guarantees are appropriate—for instance, if there is a cash flow problem rather than a need for additional expenditure. This provision provides the necessary flexibility.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked who in the industry supported this policy. I can say that in a speech to National Power managers on 25th January, Mr. John Baker, the chief executive designate of National Power, said that the Government have recognised the special needs of privatising nuclear power by the inclusion of specific provisions in the Bill for the nuclear levy, and assistance with the nuclear fuel cycle costs. Only recently the CEGB put in its application for the fourth PWR in the family of four following the original Sizewell PWR. Surely this must show confidence in the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend has not, with respect, answered my question. Mr. Baker and others within the industry must perforce in the
498
positions they occupy do their best to follow the line being laid down by the Government and confirmed by Parliament. I asked my noble friend whether there was anyone of stature within the industry who positively counselled the line now being taken by the Government of including nuclear with conventional generation.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying what he meant. I responded by quoting a leading figure from the industry. As I said in relation to the PWR applications, I believe the fact that the industry is pursuing that policy shows confidence and enthusiasm for the future.
My noble friend Lord Trafford raised a point about nuclear insurance. That, of course, will not change. We have treaty obligations with regard to nuclear insurance which mean that the company is required to bear the liability up to £20 million while between £20 million and the value of 200 million special drawing rights—currently around £250 million—liability falls to the Government, as it does in other countries which are signatories to the treaty. Beyond that amount, it is for Parliament to decide who should bear the cost.
I now turn to Amendment No. 234 which is before us. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, as he said, is seeking to restrict the payment of grants or the making of loans or guarantees to activities resulting from the operation of nuclear stations commissioned before Royal Assent to this Bill.
The first PWR will not be commissioned until the mid-1990s. It is then likely to operate for 40 years. PWR fuel does not need to be reprocessed and the decommissioning of PWR stations is more straightforward than for Magnoxes and AGRs. The impact of regulatory change is therefore likely to be less for the PWRs than for the Magnoxes and the AGRs and, because it has yet to begin generating, National Power should be able to foresee and take into account the majority of costs associated with PWRs in its electricity prices. That is indeed what we would expect.
But we are dealing in this provision with the unforeseen. While we do not anticipate major cost increases arising with "back-end" PWR costs, as I said, it is not possible to rule this out: entirely. It would be wrong therefore at this stage to forego the possibility of the Government providing a contribution to such cost increases if and when they arise. We do not believe that the Bill should constrain the Government's freedom of action to respond to events in this way.
I believe we have had another useful discussion on this matter, and on more general points. I trust the Committee will show consistency in its support of the Government, based on the fact that the amendment which was placed before the Chamber last week was not accepted.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee who have joined in the discussion on this amendment. I do not apologise for raising one or two of the general issues, partly because I did not take part in last weeks' debate—I am sure the Chamber always wishes to hear me

499
express my views—but also because the discussion has enabled us to clarify a number of key matters. I am bound to say, listening to the reply of the noble Baroness, that I think she put up a better argument for my position than I did myself. It seems to me that she shows ovewhelmingly, by her emphasis on the uncertainties of the matter, and by the need for government involvement, why it is foolhardy for the Government to follow the line they are doing with respect to nuclear power.
However, I wish to add another point. I do not accept logically, arising from the Division of last week, that Schedule 12 must follow. I repeat the point I made on an earlier occasion. It is that nuclear power stations could be offered to the private sector tout court—for it to buy them if it wants to. However, the firms who buy the nuclear power stations must meet legal safety standards. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is entirely right to raise the matter of safety. There is no difference between us on that matter. The Government could say, as they say to private enterprise generally and in the case of ferry companies, that safe ferries must be provided and that the Government will not subsidise firms to provide safe ferries. Therefore, why should the Government subsidise private industry to provide safe nuclear power stations? It is the duty of private industry to do that. To return to my point, we could certainly tell the private sector that this industry is offered for sale for what it will fetch in the open market, including the liability of the purchasers to meet these costs.
I raised a question which I do not believe has been answered. I asked why the Government should meet this liability. I must point out logically to the noble Baroness—I do not wish to make difficulties for her with her right honourable friends in another place—that the overwhelming case for the private sector is allegedly that what it is good at is bearing these risks. That is the whole point of the Government of which the noble Baroness is a member. It does not hold as an argument that there are long-term risks here, and that therefore the public sector must bear them.
I believe that the points that we have made are important. We have also learnt a great deal. I was particularly interested to note that when it comes to decommissioning we are talking about something that will happen 100 years from now. That is a measure of our difficulties in this respect.
To conclude, I accept what has been said about safety. I believe that safety is enormously important, but what is not obvious to me is who should bear the cost. That is the reason why I raised the amendment.
I shall not press the matter to a vote. That would not be appropriate because this is a matter of clarification and perhaps for a vote subsequently. In reminding us of the amendments which the Government will bring forward on Report the noble Baroness has guided us from the "may" to the "will" of the schedule. Therefore, having profited from listening to the debate, it seems to me that it would not be appropriate for me to press the matter now. However, I warn the noble Baroness that I look forward at Report stage to seeing her amendments
500
which correspond to this amendment, so that the matter can be explored in more detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 118. line 47, at end insert—
("( ) No grants, loans or guarantees shall be made under this schedule except in relation to unanticipated costs connected with changes in regulations.").
The noble Lord said: We have covered most of the ground of this amendment but it enables us to clarify one further point. The regulations that I have in mind in connection with the amendment are regulations laid down by the Government. Here I concede—and this is connected logically with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about safety—that the private sector could validly argue that, if the Government invent new and more stringent regulations on such matters, grants, loans or guarantees might be forthcoming. In other words, it seemed to me that there could be a case for public intervention if the problem is created by the Government in the first place.
To revert to the point which I made earlier, I do not believe that the private sector should be insured by the Government against normal market risks because in that case one should not privatise the industry in the first place. However, in an industry as sensitive as this, in which safety is so important, the public are excessively sensitive about safety. As noble Lords have pointed out, our experience of the nuclear industry is not that the industry has been dangerously unsafe, but nevertheless the public believe that it is. Therefore the public may exert excessive pressures which might cause the Government to place additional pressures on the industry. The industry might argue that the Government should pay for that out of the public purse. In that event I believe that there is a case for some form of government intervention. The sting in the tail is that, logically, I cannot see the case for such intervention other than in this instance. I am trying both to win an argument and to support the Government in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I see the purpose of the amendment, but the wording of it perplexes me. It says:
"except in relation to unanticipated costs connected with changes in regulations".
We do not want to spell things out too much if we can find the plain meaning, but how are the costs anticipated? Is the noble Lord saying that if they are mentioned in regulations once they have been anticipated, but if they are not mentioned in regulations but arise later they are unanticipated?
Lord Peston: I am grateful that the noble Lord asked that question. To put it in the most commonsense terms, let us assume that I make a bid for a nuclear power station and I am the lucky winner of this great asset, which I assume has a discounted net value that is positive—in other words, I have bought something that is worth buying. Let us then assume that some time goes by and the Government change the rules of the game with respect to what I have to do to run my nuclear power station in a

501
way which I could validly argue no one could have foreseen. The resulting constraints on my actions mean that I incur significant costs which will convert a profitable operation into an unprofitable operation. It would not be unreasonable for me to go to the Government and say that because they have imposed new regulations on me they should compensate me. The converse would be if the Government were to say to me that what they had done was something that any reasonable person would have anticipated, that I should have included it in my bid price and they would not compensate me.
The issue revolves around what would reasonably be anticipated and what would not. That is what I had in mind. I do not say that the drafting is necessarily good.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has made his intention clear, but I do not think that his amendment expresses it. However, in my opinion, even if the purpose of the amendment were acceptable, because of the way it is expressed—which is so vague and does not relate specifically to the regulations as originally laid—we should not accept it as it stands. It would have to be amended at a later stage even if it were added to the Bill now. I do not say that it should be.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Hood: I do not think that the amendment is practicable. However, it suggests another area on which clarification might be given. We are given to understand that the CEGB has made very large provision against the risks which are foreseen for the future. A provision is an accounting term. I suspect that it is not cash, but it probably has the effect of reducing the book value of the assets which at a point in time are to be sold to the public. It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to take that into account in the price at which the generating companies are sold to the public, which would be reasonable. In future that must necessarily apply to all the stations in the PWR programme because, as the Minister has just stated, none of them will be open before the Bill becomes law. Perhaps the Minister could clarify an interesting problem.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that this is a point which at some stage ought to be clarified if the Government want people to make bids. If something is altered as a result of government action and it results in additional expense being incurred, I believe that a claim for compensation ought to be looked at favourably. I believe that there is a precedent in planning. If one has planning permission to develop a site and for some reason before the plan has been put into operation there is an alteration in the law and the planning permission is revoked, one is paid compensation. The land was bought in anticipation of its being capable of development and the revocation was not the result of one's own actions but of a government decision.
502
I should have thought something along those lines should be considered in order that any bidder would not feel that he was taking on something that could be a real blockbuster if something were to happen.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friends for their suggestions and to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for having accepted the point that changes or tightening of the regulatory regime come within the scope of government support. Given the timescales involved, which we have already discussed, we believe that there may be other situations where it may be equally appropriate for the Government to be able to make a contribution if costs rise even though the cost rises may not have been the direct result of the regulatory change itself.
Perhaps I may give an example which will be helpful to the Committee. As was explained during the Committee stage in another place, there are still a number of important decisions to be made on waste disposal. I have already referred to that issue this afternoon. For example, it is not yet decided where the repository will be sited and the design has not yet been finalised. At the moment, therefore, the nuclear generators are making provision in their accounts, based on the best estimate and on the information that we have today, for the costs. But decisions on the site and design of the repository could significantly affect the cost of waste disposal. If those decisions resulted in higher costs, there would be a backlog effect and an impact on National Power's profits. That would have arisen for reasons beyond National Power's control, but there would have been no change in the regulatory regime.
It would not be fair to expect electricity consumers or National Power itself at that stage to fund the shortfall in the provisions. The shortfall would clearly be unforeseen and not within the control of the nuclear generators, even though it was not a result of a change to the regulatory regime. It is only fair, therefore, that the Government should contribute towards those costs.
I believe that it would be better to allow the powers in Schedule 12 to be used as we intend. They will be used to provide the minimum amount of government support necessary to make sure that National Power will be able to meet its obligations and to deal properly with the wastes. The provisions proposed have been carefully designed to provide support in areas that are potentially subject to the greatest risk. We believe that they will provide assurance that the Government will assist in meeting cost increases in those areas. But our proposals will ensure that those involved also bear a proportion of the increased costs sufficient to give them the proper incentives and minimise the costs in areas that they can control and influence. We believe that that should give potential investors the necessary confidence in the future to invest in those companies.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. All I can say—this rather follows what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said in regard to the earlier amendment—is that the more I listen to the discussion, the more bizarre the privatisation

503
of nuclear power seems to me. It is the strangest of strange privatisations. That emerges more and more clearly. However, having said that, we have again learnt at least something of what the Government have in mind, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to mention a few further points about the schedule. I would not wish it to be withdrawn from the Bill, but, in her opening remarks on an earlier amendment, my noble friend appeared to take more encouragement than I thought she should from the fact that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was defeated the other day. She can hardly be surprised that a schedule of this kind should at least attract a minimum of discussion. Self-denial is almost my middle name when it comes to making long speeches and I refrained from expanding my remarks as I think I might well have done and repeating a great many of the things that were said in that earlier debate. After all, repetition is not a phenomenon entirely strange to the Committee.
The presence of Schedule 12 to the Bill is a further indication of the Government's awareness of the need to treat the nuclear sector of the industry entirely differently from the rest. I do not believe that the Government have adequately met that point at all, nor, in my view, has my noble friend sufficiently answered the two questions that I asked her.
First, I marvel at the silence that has overtaken the supply industry. I cannot believe that the Government would be right in deducing from that silence any measure of enthusiastic or positive support for their proposals. I am still looking for a name—Mr. Baker, who made the speech to which my noble friend referred, is not that name—of some leader in that industry who is a positive enthusiast for the Government's proposals in the lumping together of nuclear and conventional generation.
Secondly, have the Government any evidence of the reaction of investors who may be contemplating investment in that bit of the generating industry which is to include the nuclear sector? I have more than a suspicion that not only the debate the other day, but also the impossibility of attracting outside money into a hotch-potch are responsible for the Government looking again at the question.
However, I still think—and I want my noble friend to be very clear about this point—that the Government have not recognised the extent of the uncertainties which they have acknowledged, but which, I think, will in the end cause them very much to regret the steps that they are contemplating.
Baroness Hooper: I made reference, in relation to the general remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chose to make in introducing his first amendment this afternoon, to the interesting debate
504
that we had in Committee last week. I believe that, in responding to those general remarks, I covered as fully as will be acceptable to many noble Lords the points at issue in relation to both Clause 93 and Schedule 12.
Schedule 12 is an important schedule and should be looked at in the detail with which noble Lords customarily look at those important matters. However, I should like to reiterate that the Government feel it necessary to make those provisions simply because we believe that the nuclear industry has a better future in the private sector. We feel that the future of nuclear power is important to this country, both for reasons of security of supply and for environmental reasons. That is why we have taken such pains, in trying to make the necessary provision, to give all those with anxieties responses to their doubts. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is the spirit behind Schedule 12.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before we finally leave Schedule 12, I should say that I accept the two propositions that my noble friend has just made at the end of her speech, but the only reason why I am interested in the matter is that I want to see that we get value. That is very important because, if we are seen to fall down on obtaining the real money value from the privatisation of this great industry, confidence in the privatisation policies, which I think are right, will be undermined and we shall not get support.
I hope that my noble friend will see that the department looks at the points that were made in the amendments to Schedule 12 because the offer must be made attractive enough for people to want to take on the obligation and buy the shares. When a worthwhile auctioneer has a varied lot to sell, he does not put too many of the good sellers with the bad sellers because, invariably, the bad seller interferes with the price that one receives for the good one.
People are frightened of the nuclear aspect. I do not think that they have grounds for such fear. However, the fact that the fear is present will affect the situation to some extent. In terms of people buying these shares, the more we can clear away the doubts the better the finanical result will be. At this stage it is the financial results that I have in mind when I make any point on this clause.
Baroness Hooper: I need say no more than I believe that our proposals are designed to achieve—and certainly aimed specifically at obtaining—full value for the industry.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 94 [Provision of statistical information]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 236ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 236ZB.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236ZA:
Page 65, line 1, leave out from ("may") to ("serve") in line 3.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 236ZB. I hope that we can deal with this matter fairly rapidly although it raises one or two points of importance.
I am viewing this procedure as a learning process. I did not know that the present position regarding provision of information was operated solely on a voluntary basis. It is stated in the Notes on Clauses. Therefore I assume that it is on a voluntary basis. My view, and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, is that in terms of generation, transmission and supply, the electricity industry will always be one in which there is a public interest. That interest derives in part from such a matter as energy efficiency. However, it arises because of our concern with the environment and for safety. It arises because even though the Government are proposing to privatise the industry, they are proposing to subsidise the privatised industry directly, so far as we can discover, and because of the non-fossil fuel guarantee. It therefore seems to us to be important that this industry should be obliged to provide the information that the public generally require to comment on and criticise its performance. Certainly it means that once the industry is in the private sector, we cannot rely on voluntarism.
The Bill uses the words "statistical information". What do the Government have in mind when they use that expression? Do they use the word "statistical" simply to mean quantitative? In other words, is this amendment solely to do with the provision of numerical facts? If that is all that it provides for, that is not good enough. Although a great deal of the information that we require will be statistical and quantitative, much that we require might be of the more general, prescriptive kind. That is why we have added the expression "and other general" information. On reflection, perhaps a more general statement that the Secretary of State may instruct the industry to provide all the information that is required in the public interest is probably the simplest.
I put it in that way so that the noble Baroness is aware of what we have in mind. I hope that we shall not go down any track where the provision of information to the public would be less than it is at present. That is the answer that I wish to hear: that the position with respect to the private industry will be no worse than it is with respect to the national industry—and with any luck it might be better. We have put these amendments down to obtain some Government response on that issue.
The Earl of Dundee: First, let me make it quite clear that this clause is about the provision of statistical information to the Government. That is information that is collected and aggregated for the purpose of measuring the contribution that the electricity industry makes to the economy of the United Kingdom and its constituent countries. It has nothing to do with regulation, and should not be confused with the other powers in the Bill which deal with the collection of other types of information. For example, the director has a duty under Clause
506
45 to keep under review activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. He may under Clause 28 obtain information on possible contraventions of licence conditions, and there will be conditions in the licences as well about the provision of information to the director. Nor should this clause be confused with Clause 54 which prevents the disclosure except in specified circumstances of information about any particular business which is obtained under Part I of the Bill and which relates to the affairs of the individual, or to any particular business.
Clause 94 is purely and simply about the provision of statistical information. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government prepare a wide range of statistics of many kinds: statistics relating to employment, earnings, output, investment, producer and consumer prices indices, and supply and demand for electricity. The Government fully intend to publish statistical information about the electricity supply industry after privatisation similar to that published now and similar to that published for other fuel industries. I hope that that may give some reassurance to the thrust of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
The statistical information relating to the electricity supply which the Government publish at the moment is provided by the electricity supply industry on a voluntary basis, of which the noble Lord mentioned that he had recently become aware. We expect this to continue to be the case after privatisation. However, if, contrary to our expectations the voluntary arrangements should break down, Clause 94 would give the Secretary of State the powers to ensure that the necessary statistical information would be forthcoming from the industry.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord seek to widen the powers of the Secretary of State to seek information. As drafted, Clause 94(1) enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice under this Clause if he considers it expedient for the purposes of obtaining statistical information relating to the generation, supply or transmission of electricity. The amendment would widen this provision by enabling him—regardless of whether he considered it expedient for the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity—to serve such a notice if he considered it expedient for the purpose of obtaining not only statistical but also general information.
Clause 94 is concerned with statistical information for the purpose of preparing national economic and energy statistics as I outlined a moment ago. It has nothing to do with the information that the director will need to carry out his functions and which is provided for elsewhere in this Bill. Because this clause is about the provision only of statistical information, it follows that if the Secretary of State wishes to serve a notice to ensure that information is provided by any licence holder, or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply, he should be able to do so only if he believes it expedient for the purpose of obtaining statistical information, and there is a clear need.

507
I appreciate the anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has expressed. However, I hope that in the light of what I have just said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Minister has been helpful in referring to Clauses 28, 45 and 54. Having regard to that clarification, this amendment has some significance and requires further consideration. It is perfectly clear that Clause 94 relates to the provision of statistical information. Although the word "statistical" has been removed by this amendment, it can refer only to the provision of statistical information. If the Secretary of State wishes to obtain some statistical information, it seems to me right and proper that he should be able to comment on the performance and ask for the statistical information. It would be quite unnecessary to consider whether it is expedient. If he wants it, it must be expedient. Therefore I believe that these two lines should be deleted. I support the amendment. I should like to urge the Government to reconsider the provision again.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He was kind enough to say that the Government had quite a number of aspects for consideration here concerning the powers and the background. We have considered this amendment sufficiently. I do not wish to belabour the point any more.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene again, but I do not recall in my reading of the comments on Clauses 28, 45 and 54 whether there were specific provisions in relation to statistical information. Clause 94 tries to clarify that by providing statistical information. I am suggesting that the lines to be deleted by the amendment are totally unnecessary in the circumstances.
The Earl of Dundee: It may be of assistance to the noble Lord if I remind him that information on the performance of companies will be collected and published by the director under Clause 40.
Lord Peston: I thank both the noble Lord for his intervention and the noble Earl for his answer. I am well aware of the earlier clauses and I hope that I am not confused between them and this. My problem is statistical, if I can put it that way. I have a feeling that the noble Earl's department thinks that the word means something in this context. I am certain that it does not. In other words, if the word "statistical" were left out it would not make any difference. That is the point I am trying to make.
To put it differently, as long as one can say that the information required involves some numbers, probably the Secretary of State can get away with it by saying that it is statistical. Either way it seems to me to be a bit peculiar. However, the noble Earl gave me the one answer that I wanted to hear, which is that the position with respect to the kind of information that I have in mind will be no worse under the privatised industry than it is under the nationalised industry. I am certain that the noble
508
Earl said that. That is mostly what my noble friend and I wanted to hear. Given that that is what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236ZB to 236B not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Competition and restrictive trade practices]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236C:
Page 66, line 16, leave out from ("section") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: I hope to deal with the matter very quickly to get some reassurance. As I understand it, Clause 95 is meant to clarify how the various competition Acts apply to this new privatised industry. I have tried to read the clause, but it is highly technical and I have had great difficulty in understanding it. The Fair Trading Act 1973, the Competition Act 1980 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 apply to the privatised electricity industry in so far as they apply to any other privatised industry. My difficulty with that—can I be told that there is no difficulty here?—is that I cannot make head or tail of the subsection in Clause 95 that our amendment seeks to delete. From line 16 onwards it seems to me impossible to work out from the wording what the Government are saying.
I am willing to accept that I shall be told shortly what the clause means. But it seems to me that the easiest way to deal with the matter is to ask for it to be removed so that whoever replies for the Government can tell me what difference that would make. What we want to know is whether Clause 95(1), which seems to me to be the only part that matters, says in terms that these Acts will apply. But can we be sure that they will?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 95 is intended to clarify the effect of general competition law on the electricity industry after privatisation. I am sorry that it has not sufficiently clarified it for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. For the first time it means that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will bear on the industry. There is nothing mysterious about the power in subsection (2)(b)—which the amendment seeks to delete—to make exemptions from that Act. There are already procedures for such an exemption-making power, for example, in the Gas Act 1986 and in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 itself.
The 1976 Act will apply to agreements relating to electricity whether they existed before the clause commences and continue after it or are made after it commences. Any exemptions would be granted only after full consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and subject to prior consultation with the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Fair Trading. Moreover, such exemptions can only be made by order subject to the negative resolution procedures of Parliament so there can be no question of any

509
furtive attempt to circumvent normal competition rules.
In fact we believe that the clause is a major step forward in applying competition law to electricity, and the exemption power will be used only in a limited number of cases necessary to enable a competitive and efficient industry to develop. I trust that that helps to reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. It half reassures me. I entirely agree that the purpose of the clause is correct. Is there any chance that she can give me an example of the kind of exemption she has in mind? It seems to me that, as people begin to contemplate the reality of privatisation, two aspects are dawning on them. One is that there may be a good deal less competition than was hoped for. That is quite clear. The other is that different parts of the industry may engage in anti-competitive or unfair behaviour. There was quite a good example in the Financial Times today where there has been some discussion about the possible unfair behaviour of the generating companies compared with the area boards.
We are totally with the noble Baroness that it is vital that these Acts should apply. I am reassured on that, but I am a bit worried about the exemptions. It is possible that there may not be a specific example that comes to hand. Perhaps she can write to my noble friend and to myself on that. I should be a good deal more reassured on this matter if I could see why the scope for exemptions is there.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said. I too would like to know what circumstance might arise where it was necessary for any exemption to be specified in an order. What is the kind of situation that may arise? I do not understand the reason for this and it is entirely in my ignorance that I ask the question. When I first read the provision I thought it was a belt and braces technique on the part of the Secretary of State to cover every circumstance to which the Act should not apply. Prima facie I think that that is quite wrong and therefore I support the deletion of this subsection.
Baroness Hooper: I shall endeavour to help the Committee by giving examples. They include certain agreements which are essential to the future operation of the industry and which are currently in the process of development. For example, there is the technical grid operating code which will enable the transmission system to be run efficiently. The distributors and generators pooling agreements will enable the economic benefits of the merit order and energy trading to be realised. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will remember, we agreed that this was a complex area.
Also, in the national interest we see a need for a fuel security agreement on how the system would be run during a fuel supply emergency. The agreements will underpin the operation of the industry's new structure and they are not yet in final form. When they are we must consider how they are likely to
510
interact with RTP legislation and whether any exemption is needed. Certainly we shall not be giving industry carte blanche. I hope that that answer is helpful.
Lord Peston: Yes, that is enormously helpful. The point that the noble Baroness is making is that at certain times there will be co-operative activities on the part of individual enterprises which prima facie look non-competitive or anti-competitive. However, in the way that the industry must operate they must behave jointly and the exemptions will allow that to take place. We look forward to seeing how that works in practice, but I now understand the nature of the Government's thinking. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Rights of entry]:
On Question, Whether Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 96 amends the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. I accept that on the whole it does so in a way which should benefit the consumer. A 28-day limit on the warrant issued by a justice of the peace is not in the original legislation. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to let the clause slip by without making two points.
First, the right of entry of representatives of British Gas is amended at the same time as the right of entry of representatives of electricity boards. To say the least, it is curious that regulations for the gas industry should be amended in an electricity Bill.
The second point is more important. In this clause we are allowing right of entry on warrant by a private company—that is, assuming that privatisation takes place—into other people's premises. We need to pause and look at the consequences. In the case of gas it is probably easier because on the whole supply is based on the town gas network. Most of the customers of British Gas who will be affected by the change are part of the town gas system and are normally private consumers. Of course that is not the case in respect of electricity because its provision is more widespread than that of gas. It is almost inconceivable to think of an industry, factory, farm, domestic dwelling or commercial establishment in the financial services network which is not supplied with electricity. It is the major source of power for such institutions.
As I read the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954, by its amendment we are allowing representatives of private companies (post privatisation) the right of entry into arty premises after persuading a justice of the peace that the case is proper. We are allowing private companies to move into any establishment, be it domestic, commercial, industrial or whatever. Before we do so we should reflect to see whether there should be some constraint on those private companies in respect of this very important power.

511
One of the interesting features of the privatisation of the area boards—and I continue to call them that—has been that a number of people have told me that the amount of information which they have accumulated about their customers is enormous. I speak with some experience of Wales because I am involved in small matters there. The South Wales Electricity Board has an enormous amount of information about its customers. There is a great deal of talk that, as the privatised area boards diversify, they will have a data base which can be used by other people in the same way as data bases have been used by various commercial concerns for reasons which may or may not be legitimate but are certainly commercial.
To give such a privatised concern an absolute right of entry into any commercial, industrial or personal premises appears to us to warrant a question or two. It is for that reason that I wish to speak on clause stand part.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these questions because we believe that Clause 96 is an example of our intention that the Bill should improve the position of consumers. I first pick up his point about gas being included in an electricity Bill. The Act is the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, so it is inevitable that we must deal with both. However, we believe that it is important to keep the procedures consistent as between the two industries. The Act which is being amended treated the two industries equally and we believe that we should follow that through.
No one wishes to see rights of entry given unnecessarily but the Bill recognises that there are cases where they are essential—for example, in meter reading and in the interests of safety so that suppliers can ensure that their installations are safe and the requirements of the electricity supply regulations are being met. Also they must have access in an emergency. Unfortunately in some cases rights of access are also needed to enable suppliers to take action against customers who have been using electricity fraudulently or who have wilfully interfered with their supplies. In the latter case there are safety implications.
Existing legislation provides a number of safeguards against misuse of the powers. We have ensured that not only will that protection for consumers be maintained but also that it should be strengthened. We have introduced a number of realistic periods of notice to be given to consumers so as to reduce any inconvenience to them. For example, when a public electricity supplier requires entry to a consumer's premises in order to carry out work on his lines or plant, five working days' notice must be given.
The information held by the area boards will be controlled by the provisions of the Data Protection Act. It can be used only within the limitations imposed by that Act. The amendment made by Clause 96 will ensure that in future any warrant granted under Section 2 of the 1954 Act shall be valid either until the reason for which the warrant was granted is satisfied or until 28 days have expired
512
from the initial granting of the warrant, whichever is the earlier.
We have given a firm undertaking on many occasions to use the opportunity presented by the Bill to modernise and consolidate the current law relating to the supply of electricity. We believe that this is one provision in the Bill which will accomplish just that. Therefore, I commend the clause to the Committee.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may take this argument further with the noble Baroness. Let us imagine a case where an industrial customer contracts directly with National Power post privatisation through the transparency which, through this Bill, we are now going to give to, for example, the South Wales Electricity Board. In other words, the South Wales Electricity Board acts as a simple conduit for electricity supplied directly on contract from National Power to, for example, British Steel in South Wales. Let us imagine that there is a problem concerned with British Steel's consumption of electricity or that there is a dispute between British Steel and National Power. Are we really saying, as we seem to me to be saying in this clause, that National Power can apply to a justice of the peace, a lay magistrate, for a warrant to enter the Llanwern and Port Talbot steelworks in South Wales to simply barge in and march about? Is that what we are saying?
With the complexity of the new electricity industry, it seems to me that the Government may not have thought through the proposed provisions. I understand that it is sensible to have proper rights of entry to what I call domestic consumer premises. That is why, although I made a point about the gas industry, I shall not pursue that very far. However, I reiterate that the electricity industry is much more far ranging than the gas industry and I believe that on some occasions we may need to think through a little more carefully as to how far a justice of the peace can give to one large corporation the right of entry to another large corporation.
Baroness Hooper: I should point out that the right is granted only to public electricity suppliers and that the requirements of the Act that appropriate notice be given and that the consent of the owner or occupier be obtained are important. After all, when a warrant is sought the 1954 Act requires that the supplier gives to the magistrate sworn information in writing to show the purpose for which entry is required, that there is a right of entry for that purpose and that the relevant requirements which attach to the power, such as giving notice, have been complied with. Therefore, it is a fairly thorough procedure.
I add that the proposal has been supported by a wide range of consumer bodies, including the Electricity Consumers' Council, which is in total agreement with it and the time limit to be imposed. I believe that that probably refutes the suggestion that insufficient time and consideration have been given to this proposal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We on this side of the Committee have had our arguments with the Electricity Consumers' Council. We do not necessarily see eye to eye with it. As was pointed out earlier on in Committee, it seems to stand alone in these matters against other consumer organisations. However, I am not arguing the consumer point. Following on from what the noble Baroness said, can she tell me what happens when National Power contracts with British Steel and there is a problem? As she said, the right of entry only applies to public electricity suppliers. Does National Power say to South Wales Electricity plc, "Will you please go into Llanwern and Port Talbot steelworks on our behalf, although they have contracted directly with us for electricity?" How will this work?
Baroness Hooper: As I said, public electricity suppliers have this right but they are the only ones to have the statutory right of entry. I believe that the procedures to which I have referred about notice and the information to be given are adequate to cover the problem about which the noble Lord seems anxious. I do not quite follow his argument in relation to the example that he gave.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Baroness will be good enough to read what I said and she may then understand my argument. It is quite important to clarify what will happen if the South Wales Electricity Board, to take an example, is to be required by National Power, which has contracted directly with British Steel, to go in and investigate a problem on sworn affidavits and all the rest of it, when British Steel used to be a customer of the South Wales Electricity Board. This is not a consumer argument but an argument about what will happen after privatisation. I do not wish to pursue this argument. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will read what I said and perhaps she will answer accordingly at a later stage.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Production and supply of heat or electricity etc. by Scottish local authorities]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 119, line 14, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").
The noble Lord said: I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 238, 239, 240 and 241. These amendments correct minor drafting errors in Schedule 13 to the Bill, which inserts new sections into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the effect of which is to give local authorities in Scotland the same powers as those enjoyed by their counterparts in England and Wales in relation to combined heat and power schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister. I did not realise that my syntax was so bad until I read what I thought was a rather pedantic group of amendments. I shall need to think very clearly when using this sort of language again so that
514
I have it right next time. I am very grateful to him for drawing my attention to this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 119, leave out lines 29 to 31.
The noble Lord said: This is an exploratory amendment. The Committee will be aware that it was common, particularly in the days of old open fireplaces, for local authorities to burn their refuse collections in order to produce electricity, which was sold to the grid. With modern heating and very few open fires, the same residue energy is not available. However, there is a large movement in some parts of the world, particularly in Germany, to use recycled waste for the generation of electricity. That is surely something which should be encouraged with advancing technology. Let us suppose that some cities decided to set up their own generating station. For example, I believe that Milton Keynes has a fairly large experimental scheme along those lines. What would they be able to do? Would that be part of the process prescribed by the Minister to allow a local authority to produce electricity? I hope he can help on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This matter was raised in another place. It is not our view that it is a proper course of action to allow local authorities unrestricted powers to sell electricity. In future, as a result of the introduction of these new provisions, local authorities in Scotland will be able to engage in the production of electricity through CHP schemes. We have no wish, however, to encourage them to engage in the production of electricity for sale for its own sake. In our view that would bring about an unnecessary extension of local authority powers which could only result in greater demands being placed on the ordinary citizen to finance such activities. We see little merit in this amendment which would grant to local authorities in Scotland wide-ranging powers to expand their activities in a complex and highly technological industry in which they have had little expertise, at least since 1947.
We do recognise, however, that some local authorities which, for example, may produce electricity either directly or indirectly from waste, might find themselves in a position in which they are producing more electricity than they can use themselves. As my honourable friend made clear in the other place, the proposed new subsection (3) allows for such circumstances to be taken into account through the words "except as may be prescribed". Each case will be judged on its merit. If the intention of the noble Lord opposite is simply to ensure that this eventuality is catered for in the Bill I can give him the same assurance. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed that the provision is not spelt out a little more clearly in the Bill, though I suggested that the subsection would allow a way out for local authorities. The supply and provision of electricity through waste

515
disposal, for which we all wish, may in future become quite a big industry. It would be wrong if local authorities were to be restricted. Depending on how successful it became there could, unfortunately, be difficulties with a commercial producer of electricity who may object to the electricity being sold at a cheap rate.
I am sorry that the Government are only able to give that assurance without it being spelt out more clearly. However, I do not suppose we shall get it clearer and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Amendments Nos. 238 to 241 have been spoken to, and if no noble Lord wishes to speak further to them I propose to put them en bloc.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 238 to 241:
Page 120, line 12, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
Page 120, line 28, leave out ("which supplies or proposes") and insert ("who supply or propose").
Page 120, line 48, leave out ("which provides or proposes") and insert ("who provide or propose").
Page 121, line 30, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment 241A:
Before Clause 99, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment etc. of Electricity Supply Pension Scheme.
.The provisions of Schedule (The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme) to this Act (which provide for amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under that scheme) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 242ZA and explain the reason for my notice of intention to oppose that Clause 99 shall stand part of the Bill. The main purpose of these amendments is to introduce new provisions to protect the pension rights of employees in England and Wales who are transferred to the successor companies. The Committee will see that in incorporating this provision we have transferred Clause 99 into a new schedule; hence the need to oppose it.
In the White Paper on privatising electricity the Government gave an undertaking that privatisation would not affect the benefits payable to members and pensioners of the industry's pension schemes. As part of meeting that commitment, during the Committee stage in another place, my honourable friend gave an undertaking that the Government would bring forward an amendment to protect the pension rights of existing employees transferred to the successor companies in the event of the electricity supply industry's pension scheme being wound up.
This special protection replaces the existing no worsenment provision contained in Section 54 of the
516
Electricity Act 1947. Under that Act the Secretary of State, when making pension regulations in respect of the electricity supply industry, is required to ensure that any amendment to an existing pension scheme or its winding up should not place a person with pension rights under the scheme in a worse position. The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (commonly known as the ESPS) itself contains certain protection against any detriment of benefits for its members while it remains in existence. However, this was not considered to offer adequate protection in the light of the repeal of the existing statutory protection. The department has therefore had long and detailed consultations with the industry and the trade unions to find a way of offering an equivalent no worsenment protection after privatisation.
Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the schedule are the result of that detailed consultation. The Committee will appreciate that these are very complex provisions. Essentially, they establish a category of protected persons and require that such protected persons will not be placed in a worse position by reason either of the winding up of the ESPS or of other specified circumstances.
The persons to be covered by the no worsenment provision are employees who are contributing members of the ESPS on transfer day, persons who on that day are pensioners or have frozen benefits in the scheme, and dependants of all such persons. Employees will retain their protection so long as they have continuous employment as defined in the schedule—which essentially means continuous service with employers participating in the ESPS.
The protection will operate in a number of different circumstances: in particular if the ESPS is wound up, whether in whole or in part; or if, as a result, say, of a reorganisation or merger, a protected person became employed by a company which did not participate in the ESPS and the person had to leave the scheme.
In essence, if any of the specified events occurs, regulations will require the employer or employers from time to time of any person affected to ensure that protected persons employed by them will continue to enjoy pension rights which are no worse than they would have been if the ESPS had continued to exist, or the other specified events had not occurred. The schedule will also enable the protection against any detriment to existing pension rights in the ESPS itself to be entrenched in respect of protected persons. The schedule enables the regulations to provide for any dispute arising in respect of the no worsenment provisions to be referred to arbitration.
I have given only a very brief summary of the no worsenment provisions, but I am sure the Committee will recognise, by the length of the schedule, the depth into which we have gone to try to provide for every type of circumstance. I should explain that it is because the pension provisions have become so long and complex that it has been considered more appropriate to transfer them into a schedule.
I now turn briefly to paragraph 1 of the schedule which incorporates the contents of Clause 99, which deal with the amendments required to the ESPS on its transfer into the private sector. In transferring Clause 99 into the schedule we have made some relatively minor amendments. In particular, these amendments permit non-successor companies to join the scheme, enable requirements to be imposed in respect of the funding of certain liabilities, and extend the provisions for the transfer to other persons of functions currently exercisable under the scheme following the dissolution of the Electricity Council which exercises them at present.
The Committee will appreciate that the schedule merely provides the framework for the regulations which will set out the various amendments to the ESPS and the detailed provisions of the no worsenment protection. The regulations themselves will clearly have to be very carefully drafted and this will, of course, be done in consultation with the industry. The regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and there will therefore be an opportunity for the Chamber to consider the detailed implementation of these powers. However, I am sure the Committee will wish to note that the Government have given an undertaking to the trade unions that they, as well as the industry, will be consulted on the draft regulations.
The regulations will be essential for securing the continued approval of the pension scheme by Inland Revenue, for securing the pension position of the new categories of persons being transferred into it, and for setting out the no worsenment provisions which will replace the present protection under the 1947 Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepts that it is clearly necessary that these changes should be in place before the transfer date so that all parties would be fully aware of their rights and obligations. I can therefore give the Committee a firm commitment that my right honourable friend will make the necessary regulations, after consultation with the interested parties, before the transfer date in order to implement our White Paper undertaking. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure the noble Baroness will be glad to hear that I am advised by the trade unions who are interested in this matter that they wish no points to be raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 negatived.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 241B:
Before Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment etc. of Scottish Pension Schemes.
.The provisions of Schedule (The Scottish Pension Schemes) to this Act (which provide for amending the Hydroboard Superannuation Fund and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's Superannuation Scheme and for giving special protection to certain persons who have or may acquire rights under those schemes) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 241B, I should like to speak also to Amendment No.
518
242ZB and to oppose the Question that Clause 100 stand part of the Bill.
This amendment relates to the Scottish pension schemes. It has been prepared along similar lines to the amendment which my noble friend has introduced in relation to the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme in England and Wales and like that amendment, it does two things. First, it gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make regulations amending the two Scottish schemes and, secondly, it gives him the power to make regulations for protecting certain persons against any deterioration of their pension rights under the schemes. In both these respects our intention has been to provide compatibility, wherever possible, on both sides of the Border. I shall not, therefore, delay the House by reiterating the full explanation already given by my noble friend in relation to the previous amendment. Instead, I shall restrict myself to remarking on those aspects where, because of the existence of two separate pension schemes in Scotland, the provisions of this amendment necessarily differ from those relating to the ESPS.
Paragraph 1 of the new Schedule generally mirrors the provision being made for the ESPS and recreates much of what appears in Clause 100. However, unlike the ESPS, which embraces a number of participating bodies and employers, each of the Scottish schemes essentially embraces the employees of its own board, together with staff of the respective consultative councils (of which there are two in Scotland, one for each board area). Within the framework set out by regulations, each board is empowered to make rule changes without reference to the Secretary of State. The relative simplicity of the Scottish schemes is reflected in the fewer regulation-making powers which the Secretary of State requires to take in paragraph 1 to ensure that the schemes can be appropriately amended.
Likewise, the policy intention behind the provisions for protection, as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this proposed new schedule, is the same on both sides of the Border. In Scotland, as in England, the same categories of person will be protected against worsenment of their pension rights and in the same circumstances. The variations in these paragraphs arise only from the need to cater for the existence of two pension schemes in Scotland rather than the single scheme in England and Wales. In particular, we need to provide for transferability between the Scottish schemes. This is necessary primarily because of the creation of a nuclear subsidiary jointly owned by both companies. To allow free movement between the subsidiary and its parent companies, we need to create links between the two Scottish pension schemes and allow for members to transfer between them without losing their protected status.
The protections outlined in these paragraphs will be achieved through regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I echo the commitment which my noble friend has already described in relation to the ESPS, that such regulations will also be made by the Secretary of State in relation to the Scottish schemes. I therefore commend to the Committee this amendment and the substantial protection which it

519
provides for members of the pension schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that I too have a communication from the trade unions. We accept this amendment in the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 negatived.
Clause 101 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 241C:
Page 68, line 44, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 241D.
These amendments have to a certain extent been superseded by the amendments to Clause 92 which were agreed in Committee last Friday. Clause 92 as amended by this Committee gives the Secretary of State the requisite powers to deal with matters of nuclear safety and safety of the public. It is only if the Government announce their intention to try to overturn the amendments that the Committee has passed to Clause 92 that I would wish to pursue these amendments.
I am using this opportunity to allow the noble Baroness to declare the intention of the Government in respect of the amendments to Clause 92. If the noble Baroness thinks that the Government intend to overturn them, then I shall wish to pursue the debate on the present amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not intend to do anything about the new clause and the amendments to Clause 92 in your Lordships' House. It is not for me to comment on what may happen in another place. I point out, as I did when I argued against the amendments at an earlier stage, that we see a danger in this new clause, with the associated amendments to Clause 92, in that they risk undermining the existing safety regime which we believe to be extremely good. By providing in the Bill for a procedure different from that in other safety legislation we believe that the risks are exacerbated.
I should be very happy to discuss these amendments if the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reiterating that the Government will not wish to overturn the Clause 92 amendments in this House. What happens in another place is for another place to determine.
In the light of that fact, I do not think that there is any virtue in pursuing the debate on the amendments that I have put before the Committee because these would only be relevant if the Clause 92 amendments were not in place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241D not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to,
5.30 p.m.
Clause 103 [Offences by bodies corporate]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 69, line 14, leave out ("manager") and insert ("any other officer appointed or elected, or capable of being appointed or elected, by a general meeting of that body corporate").
The noble Lord said: Clause 103 deals with offences by bodies corporate. It tracks wording which I have seen in previous legislation and therefore I am not surprised to see it here. Nevertheless, as we have remarked on a number of occasions during the Committee stage, just because wording has appeared in previous legislation does not necessarily mean that it is right.
The problem concerns a manager and a secretary. It concerns a manager because a manager has no special powers other than those accorded to him by his superiors. He is not, generally speaking, elected by shareholders. He is appointed by a board of directors. It seems odd therefore that he should be accused or arraigned if an offence is proved to have been committed through negligence or neglect. Managers in businesses have a wide variety of different tasks. They may not be told things which their directors or superiors do. "Managers" can include people down to junior manager level. It is odd that a manager should be put in this rather difficult position instead of an officer appointed or elected by a general meeting.
The same problem arises with secretaries. On these Benches we tried to insert into the Companies Bill which is now in another place a definition of what the secretary of a company is meant to do. The Government turned that down. Nowhere in the Companies Act 1985 or in the present Companies Bill is there a definition of what a secretary is, who elects him and what his functions are. The Government have persistently set their face against introducing such a definition. In the light of that it seems odd to find in Clause 103(1) the word "secretary" appearing yet again. I wonder whether the Government have looked at this point. I understand that the wording is reproduced from other legislation. I should be grateful if the Government could show that they have looked at this point afresh in legislation where we are dealing with offences of a serious nature by bodies corporate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: Clause 103 is a common provision in statutes. It creates offences which can be committed by bodies corporate. Similar provisions can be found in Section 45 of the Gas Act and Section 102 of the Telecommunications Act. Clause 103 enables the individuals responsible for the commission of an offence under the Bill to be prosecuted and punished as well as the body corporate itself.
The noble Lord's amendment appears to remove managers from the categories of persons who might be prosecuted for such an offence. I cannot really understand why the noble Lord wants to protect managers and other similar officers from the provisions of this clause. It may be that the noble

521
Lord does not wish to do that, but if he did it would be rather strange. Managers hold positions of responsibility within organisations. Therefore it is only right that if they abuse that responsibiliy and commit an offence under the Bill they should be liable for prosecution. It would clearly be unacceptable for directors, secretaries and other board appointees to be liable for prosecution but for managers to be exempt.
The amendment replaces the reference to "manager" with a reference to,
"any other officer appointed or elected … by a general meeting".
In relation to companies, which are of course bodies corporate, the term "officers" includes directors, managers and secretaries. So it appears that the amendment seeks to replace a clear and direct reference to managers with a rather unclear reference to officers, which includes managers. Still in relation to companies, auditors and liquidators can be appointed by a general meeting. I do not think that they are generally regarded as officers of a company and they are certainly outside the Companies Act definition of the term. I do not think it would be right to extend the clause to cover auditors and liquidators.
The noble Lord mentioned the position of secretaries. The duties of a company secretary vary according to the requirements of the directors of the company and the company's size. We have considered the position of secretaries about which the noble Lord sought an assurance. In the light of my general remarks I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of the duties of a secretary—the duties as specified by a board of directors. We all understood that. I am grateful for his explanation of why the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. I agree with that. However, he has not addressed the problem of how managers—they may be junior managers who are not involved in the business and who have had facts kept from them by their superiors—can be fairly prosecuted for offences of neglect under the Bill as it is presently drafted. Is a manager under a statutory duty to find out everything that will protect him in the case of such a prosecution?
Secondly, the position of a secretary is vague, ambiguous and ill-defined. Nobody knows what he is meant to do. Nobody knows who a company secretary is. It is not defined in the Companies Act 1985. There are references to secretaries but, as the noble Earl says, a secretary is a chap who is told by the board of directors what to do. He may be kept informed by the board of directors. However, in the case of a noted public company transferring its headquarters north of the Border, the company secretary was not told what was going on. That can happen. The company secretary has no rights. Although he is a legal officer of the company he has no right to attend board meetings or committee meetings. None of that is set out in companies legislation as at present drafted. Perhaps the noble
522
Earl will comment on what I have said before I consider what to do with the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for elaborating further his concern. The degree of knowledge and level of responsibility of the manager would be a factor to consider in deciding whether to bring proceedings and in considering the amount of any fine. The word "manager" can be defined loosely. One can manage at different levels. The level of responsibility is judge. The same goes for a secretary. The term "secretary" may to a certain extent be vague but that is not to say that the level of responsibility or respective levels of responsibility of people who may hold the position of secretary in one sense or another are vague. It is a question of judging the level of responsibility.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hate to disagree with the noble Earl, but it is wholly vague. Nobody knows what the responsibility of a secretary is. It is not defined in the Companies Act.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. The subsection says that the offence must be,
"proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of",
and then refers to these various people. Had I hazarded my ship—fortunately, I did not—in these terms as a junior manager in the navy, the noble Lord says that I should not have been punished because I was not a member of the board of directors. Surely there are times when companies have people who offend against the law. Quite often, managers are the ones who are responsible for it. I do not understand the thrust of his argument; it seems to me to be quite out of keeping with ordinary life.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have in fact moved on from the argument contained in the initial amendment, as the noble Lord would have recognised if he had been following the debate. I am seeking a definition somewhere in the legislation of what are the responsibilities of a manager or a secretary under which he can be arraigned as regards any neglect in an offence committed under the provisions of the Bill. Since no responsibilities of either a manager or a secretary are defined anywhere in the Companies legislation—unlike the manager, or officer in charge of a ship, whose responsibilities are very carefully defined—it seems most odd to have this loose expression in the Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: Picking up the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, perhaps I may say that his expression was not totally apt when he said that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, the noble Lord seldom barks up the wrong tree, and earlier in Committee I think the reference was to barking up the wrong pylon.
However, returning to the noble Lord's concern regarding legal definitions, my understanding is that in this context a "manager" would refer to an employee who has a job of some responsibility in

523
the company, as I said earlier, and who would therefore be in a position to commit an offence under the provisions of the Bill. The vagueness of "secretary" as a general term is I think irrelevant. The courts will judge a particular case in the light of the circumstances of that case. It would be clear in a particular case what the secretary's responsibilities were.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for doing his best as regards what is an unfortunate tree, or pylon, to have barked up. Nevertheless, we have had a good debate on the matter. If the Government are determined simply to copy all previous legislation into new legislation then there is nothing we can do. However, I wish that they would look at the matter clearly and sensibly and start afresh. I think they should look at the matter with a new mind. Indeed, the noble Earl has a fine mind, so why does he not look at the matter to see what can be done? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 107 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242ZA:
Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY PENSION SCHEME
Power to amend scheme
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (in this Schedule referred to as "the Scheme") for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for enabling the following persons to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, namely—

(i) members and former members of existing bodies;

(ii) officers and former officers of the Electricity Consumers' Council; and

(iii) persons (other than successor companies) whose participation in the scheme will not prejudice its approval for the purposes of the relevant enactments, and employees of such persons;

(b) for requiring any persons (including persons not participating in the scheme) to make payments to the trustees of the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

(c) for requiring or enabling any functions exercisable under the scheme by existing bodies to be exercisable by such persons, and in such circumstances, as may be prescribed;

(d) for enabling the scheme to be wound up (in whole or in part) in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(e) for securing that the scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments, notwithstanding the transfers made by this Act and the repeal by this Act of section 54 of the Electricity Act 1947.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to their making, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision of regulations shall have effect from a date prior to their making shall not place any person other than existing bodies or Scottish Boards, or their successor companies, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only from the date of their making.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph shall not be made at any time after any supply or generating company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
Protection for certain persons
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that—

(a) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of—

(i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant scheme, that is to say, the scheme or any other scheme which is provided or amended in pursuance of the regulations; or

(ii) any amendment of a relevant scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced, or contributions by employees being increased, and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

(b) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme by reason of any change of employer—

(i) which does not affect his continuity of employment and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(ii) in the case of which his new employer either is a participant in the scheme or is wholly owned by one or more companies which or each of which is such a participant; and

(c) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of any change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment but prevents him from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant scheme;

and the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies who, after the transfer date, ceases to participate in or acquire pension rights under the scheme, as references to a position which is any worse than his position immediately before he so ceases.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may impose duties (whether as to the amendment of the scheme, the provision or amendment of other schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons who are or have been employers of persons to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies; and duties so imposed on any person may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph may also provide for any dispute arising under them to be referred to arbitration.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 1 above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any existing employee who, immediately before the transfer date, is a participant in the scheme;

(b) any existing employee who, after that date, participates in the scheme within three months of his attaining the minimum age for such particiption;

(c) any former participant who, after that date, participates in or acquires pension rights under the scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above; and

(d) any person who participates in the scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(a)(i) or (ii) above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to

(a) any person not falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme; and

(b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under a relevant scheme by reason of the death of a person falling within sub-paragraph (1) or paragraph (a) above,

but only as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3) Any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above that that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him; and if any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

(b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant scheme,

otherwise than in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, that sub-paragraphs shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have accrued to him before that time.
4.—(1) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 as if—

(a) those paragraphs were contained in that Act; and

(b) in that Schedule "associated employer", in relation to a company participting in a relevant scheme, included any oher company participating in such a sceme and any other company of which a company so participating has control, or two or more companies so participating together have control;

but regulations under paragraph 2 above may provide that no account shall be taken for those purposes of any person ceasing to be in continuous employment for such periods and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a company has control, or two or more companies together have control, of another company ("the other company") if—

(a) that company, or each of those companies, is a member of the other company and that company controls, or those companies together control, the composition of the other company's board of directors;

(b) that company holds, or those companies together hold, more than half in nominal value of the other company's equity share capital;

(c) a company of which the company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company; or

(d) two or more companies of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company;

and subsections (2) to (4) of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (as originally enacted) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as they apply for purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule— "Consultative Council" means a Consultative Council established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1974 for the area of an Area Board;
"employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
"existing body" means any of the following, namely, the Area Boards, the Generating Board and the Electricity Council;
"existing employee" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by an existing body or a Consultative Council, or falls to be treated as employed by an existing body by virtue of regulations made under section 54(4) of the Electricity Act 1974 (service as a member to count as service as an employee);
"former participant" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the scheme but has pension rights under the scheme by virtue of his having been such a participant;
"pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
"pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

526

(b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
"the relevant enactments" means Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes) and Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (contracted-out pension schemes);
"relevant scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(1) above;
"the scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(1) above; "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is wholly owned by one or more other companies if it has no members except

(a) that other or those others and its or their nominees; and

(b) wholly-owned subsidiaries of that other or those others and their nominees.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule which are also used in Part I or II of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 242ZB:
Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE THE SCOTTISH PENSION SCHEMES
Power to amend schemes
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending the Hydroboard Superannuation Fund (in this Schedule referred to as "the North Scheme") and the South of Scotland Electricity Board's Superannuation Scheme (in this Schedule referred to as "the South Scheme") for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for enabling members, former members and former employees of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed;

(b) for enabling members and former members of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to participate in or acquire pension rights under the South Scheme on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed;

(c) for requiring any persons to make payments to the trustees of the schemes in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(d) for securing that the schemes continue to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments notwithstanding the transfers made by this Act and the repeal by this Act of section 37 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (1) above, regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph may require persons not participating in—

(a) the North Scheme to make payments to the trustees of the North Scheme;

(b) the South Scheme to make payments to the trustees of the South Scheme.

(3) Regulations under this paragraph may make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this paragraph may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to their making, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision of regulations shall have effect from a date prior to their making shall not place any person other than the Boards or existing bodies (within the meaning of Schedule (The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme) to this Act), or their successor companies, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only from the date of their making.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph shall not be made at any time after any Scottish electricity company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.
Protection for certain persons
2.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that (regardless of which scheme an existing employee of the Scottish Boards is a participant in immediately before the transfer date)—

(a) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of—

(i) any winding up, in whole or in part, of a relevant scheme, that is to say, the North Scheme or the South Scheme or any other scheme which is provided or amended in pursuance of the regulations; or

(ii) any amendment of a relevant scheme which results in benefits under that scheme being reduced, or contributions by employees being increased, and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be described; and

(b) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is prevented from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme or the South Scheme by reason of any change of employer—

(i) which does not affect his continuity of employment and is made otherwise than in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and

(ii) in the case of which his new employer either is a participant in that scheme or is wholly owned by one or more companies which or each of which is such a participant; and

(c) no person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies is placed in any worse position by reason of any change of employer which does not affect his continuity of employment but prevents him from continuing to participate in or acquire pension rights under a relevant scheme;

and the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) above to any worse position shall be construed, in relation to a person to whom paragraph 3(1) below applies who, after the transfer date, ceases to participate in or acquire pension rights under the North Scheme or the South Scheme, as references to a position which is any worse than his position, immediately before he so ceases, under whichever of the schemes he is then participating in or last acquired pension rights under.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may impose duties (whether as to the amendment of either scheme, the provision or amendment of other schemes, the purchase of annuities, the making of payments or otherwise) on persons who are or have been employers of persons to whom paragraph 3(1) or (2) below applies; and duties so imposed on any person may include duties owed to persons of whom he is not and has not been an employer.
(3) Regulations made under this paragraph may also provide for any dispute arising under them to be referred to arbitration.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) of paragraph I above shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.
3.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any—

(i) existing employee of the Scottish Boards; or

(ii) existing employee of a Consultative Council,

who, immediately before the transfer date, is a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme;

(b) any existing employee of the Scottish Boards who, after that date, participates in either scheme within three months of his attaining the minimum age for such participation;

(c) any former participant in either scheme who, after that date, participates in or acquires pension rights under either scheme in such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above; and

(d) any person who participates in the North Scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(a) above or in the South Scheme in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1 (1)(b) above.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, this sub-paragraph applies to—

(a) any person not falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c) above who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme but has pension rights under either scheme; and

(b) any person who, after that date, acquires pension rights under a relevant scheme by reason of the death of a person falling within sub-paragraph (1) or paragraph (a) above,

but only as respects the pension rights by virtue of which he falls within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(3) Any person to whom sub-paragraph(1) or (2) above applies may elect in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under paragraph 2 above that that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him; and if, otherwise than in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, any person to whom sub-paragraph (1) above applies—

(a) ceases to be in continuous employment; or

(b) voluntarily withdraws from a relevant scheme and does not forthwith—

(i) become a participant in another such scheme; and

(ii) transfers to that scheme the pension rights which have accrued to him before that time under the scheme from which he is withdrawing,

that sub-paragraph shall cease to apply to him except as respects pension rights which have so accrued.
4.—(1) So much of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether any employment is continuous shall apply for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above as if—

(a) those paragraphs were contained in that Act; and

(b) in that Schedule "associated employer", in relation to a company participating in a relevant scheme, included any other company participating in such a scheme and any other company of which a company so participating has control, or companies so participating together have control;

but regulations under paragraph 2 above may provide that no account shall be taken for the purposes of this paragraph of any person ceasing to be in continuous employment for such periods and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a company has control, or two or more companies together have control, of another company ("the other company") if—

(a) that company, or each of those companies, is a member of the other company and that company controls, or those companies together control, the composition of the other company's board of directors;

(b) that company holds, or those companies together hold, more than half in nominal value of the other company's equity share capital;

(c) a company of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, has control of the other company; or

(d) two or more companies of which that company has control, or those companies together have control, together have control of the other company;

and subsections (2) to (4) of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (as originally enacted) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as they apply for purposes of subsection (1) of that section.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule—
"Consultative Council" means a Consultative Council established under section 7A of the Electricity Act 1947 for the district of a Scottish Board;
"employer", in relation to a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, includes that other company;
"existing employee of a Consultative Council" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by a Consultative Council;
"existing employee of the Scottish Boards" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is employed by one or other of those Boards or falls to be treated as so employed by virtue of regulations made under section

529
54(4) of the Electricity Act 1947 (service as a member to count as service as an employee);
"former participant" means any person who, immediately before the transfer date, is not a participant in the North Scheme or the South Scheme but has pension rights under one or other (or both) of the schemes by virtue of his having been such a participant;
"pension", in relation to any person, means a pension of any kind payable to or in respect of him, and includes a lump sum, allowance or gratuity so payable and a return of contributions, with or without interest or any other addition;
"pension rights", in relation to any person, includes—

(a) all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of him; and

(b) any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of him;

and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
"the relevant enactments" means Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes) and Part III of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (contracted-out pension schemes);
"relevant scheme" has the meaning given by paragraph 2(1) above;
"wholly-owned subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, a company is wholly owned by one or more other companies if it has no members except—

(a) that other or those others and its or their nominees; and

(b) wholly-owned subsidiaries of that other or those others and their nominees.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule which are also used in Part I or II of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 242A:
Page 121, line 42, at end insert—
("(iia) section 33 of the Coal Act 1938;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment will ensure that British Coal continues to seek the consent in writing of the successor companies to the electricity boards before working coal under land owned by the successor companies.
Let me explain further. The Coal Act 1938 provided that unworked coal should be vested in the former Coal Commission. Unworked coal was, of course, subsequently transferred to the National Coal Board, now the British Coal Corporation. This included coal owned by statutory undertakers, but Section 33(1) provided that coal formerly owned by a statutory undertaker should not be worked without their previous consent in writing.
Several of the area boards have significant land holdings in coal mining areas acquired before 1938; it therefore seems only right that their successor companies (which will continue to be statutory undertakers) should be consulted when British Coal wish to work coal lying beneath their land, as provided by Section 33(1) of the 1938 Act. This amendment to Schedule 14 achieves this and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 127, leave out lines 14 to 19.
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply seeks to remove a consequential amendment which is being separately effected by other legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 132, line 28, at end insert ("; and").
The noble Earl said: This is simply a constructive amendment concerning the use of the word "and". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 132, leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert—
("38. In section 159 of the Water Act 1989 (protection of certain undertakings), in subsection (3), for paragraph (f) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(f) the undertaking of any person authorised by a licence under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 to generate, transmit or supply electricity;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment serves simply to ensure that the Water Bill currently before this Chamber will correctly reflect the changes in the electricity supply industry resulting from the provisions of the Electricity Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Schedule 15 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 140, line 28, leave out ("the Generating Board or an Area") and insert ("an Electricity").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 15 as drafted is limited to the property of the CEGB and the area boards. However, because the South of Scotland Electricity Board serves a small area in England around Berwick-upon-Tweed, it owns some property in Northumberland—consisting of houses, a depot and a showroom—on which it pays rates under the General Rate Act 1967. The amendment I put forward therefore extends the transitional provisions of paragraph 36(1) to include the SSEB's property. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 140, line 42, at end insert—
("36A.—(1) An application or claim by an Electricity Board for hazardous substances consent which is effective on the transfer date—

(a) shall have effect as if made by the appropriate successor company; and

(b) in the case of an application or claim made to the Secretary of State, shall be determined by him notwithstanding that the land to which it relates is no longer land to which section 1B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or, as the case may be, section 56B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 applies.

531
(2) A hazardous substances consent granted or deemed to be granted to an Electricity Board which is effective on the transfer date shall have effect as if it had been granted to the appropriate successor company.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment provides transitional arrangements for certain consents. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 147, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("immediately").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment. It will clarify the drafting of a repeal of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 71, line 19, leave out ("Except as otherwise expressly provided").
The noble Earl said: This is another drafting amendment. It concerns the words,
"except as otherwise expressly provided",
at the beginning of Clause 108(2). These words are not necessary as all provisions of the Bill will be brought into force by commencement order as provided for in Clause 108. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 71, line 36, leave out ("5 of Schedule 3") and insert "3 of Schedule 5").
The noble Earl said: This amendment to Clause 108 corrects a drafting mistake in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.

Schizophrenia After-Care Bill [H.L.]
5.50 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I am most grateful to the many noble Lords who have supported the Bill; it does two things. It emphasises the pressing need for organised after-care for all persons who have received medical treatment in hospital for schizophrenia and it sets out procedures for how such after-care should be organised. Much thought went into the procedures which have been modified by amendment to meet
532
the views expressed by noble Lords during the Bill's passage through the House.
Some noble Lords would have liked to widen the Bill's scope, but that was not possible because of its nature. It is said that the Government have not thought fit to support the Bill so as to give themselves the benefit of a pilot study of after-care procedures which could in due course be applied more widely. Although they have not done so, I hope that the Bill will have encouraged the Government to accelerate legislation to deal with after-care as promptly as possible.
As has been said, the condition of many schizophrenic patients is disastrous. Without legislation such as I propose they escape the after-care which is available to them. In many cases the amount of after-care required has never been properly assessed. The whole purpose of the Bill is to give some basis for that to be achieved.
I should like to express my grateful thanks to those noble Lords who have supported the Bill from these Benches and from the opposite side of the House. I thank them not only for speaking but also for attending debates and, in some cases, writing to me because they were unable to attend. I hope that the Bill will have some chance of being debated in another place. Because of its procedures, that is extremely unlikely. However, there is an outside chance, and I trust that it will be given to the Bill.
In any event it is my hope that an Act resulting from this Bill or some successor which embodies it and meets the needs of schizophrenics will come about before long.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mottistone.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Ennals who is unfortunatey unable to be here as he is keeping a conference engagement abroad which was arranged a long time ago. My noble friend would have fully supported the Bill.
I should like to express appreciation from these Benches for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in bringing this important Bill before the House and congratulate him on the skill with which he has conducted its passage. He explained on Second Reading that the Bill is based on the proposals of the Schizophrenia Fellowship which has immense knowledge and experience of sufferers from schizophrenia and their families. I should like to take the opportunity also to express our profound respect for its contribution.
The Bill is supported by a number of voluntary organisations which have considerable experience of the defects of care within the community. Care in the community, as it is presently called, for persons suffering from schizophrenia, is often totally unsatisfactory. In some districts it is a shambles or non-existent. The Bill will be a huge step in the right direction. It has completed its passage in your Lordships' House in just under 11 weeks. At this eleventh hour, as it were, we enter a strong plea that the Government facilitate its speedy passage in another place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that it would be of assistance to your Lordships if I summarised the Government's attitude towards my noble friend's Bill, as I have during the Bill's passage through the House.
The Government are very sympathetic to the problems faced by sufferers of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses and also by their carers. We could not fail to be aware that there are many who feel concern about the adequacy or otherwise of services currently provided in the community for mentally ill people. Indeed, we are determined to see improvements in those services and the ways they are provided, and we have been looking at them carefully in the context of our active consideration of the Griffiths Report to which the Government will be responding very soon now.
In view of the initiatives currently being explored, the Government do not believe that this legislation is the right answer. In particular, we do not think it valid to single out one type of mental illness and legislate for its treatment on a preferential basis. Nevertheless, during its passage through the House the Bill has provided a vehicle for enabling a wide range of noble Lords to offer their views on the needs of the seriously mentally ill. Ministers have followed these proceedings with keen interest and, I hope will shortly be responding to the concerns expressed in an effective and practical way.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989
5.54 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989 I shall speak also to the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989. The two orders are being considered together as their purpose and effect are the same. The only difference is that one relates to goods agreements, the other to services. The orders have to be made under different powers, which also accounts for their slightly differing form.
I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that pages 2 and 3 of the printed version of the draft order relating to goods agreements have been transposed during printing. I hope, however, that that will not cause us any practicl difficulty during our consideration of the orders, and counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees has confirmed there are no legal obstacles to the orders being debated in this form. I apologise for any confusion that may be caused.
I should also point out that when the draft order relating to services agreements was laid for the first
534
time, counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees drew my department's attention to a technical error in the schedule to the order. Paragraphs 6(1) and 8(1) of the schedule referred erroneously to Part III of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, a part which relates only to the exercise of order-making powers applying the Act to services agreements. They should have referred to the Act as a whole.
The draft was withdrawn and re-laid with the necessary amendments. I can assure your Lordships that those are purely technical amendments and that none of your Lordships who reads the draft as originally laid but who has not had the opportunity to read the revised version will have been disadvantaged.
The orders before the House today modify the application of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in relation to two categories of agreements: first sale and purchase agreements, under which one or more persons agree to sell shares in a company or the whole of their interest in a business to a purchaser; and secondly, share subscription agreements, under which one or more persons agree to subscribe for new shares in a company.
Such agreements constitute some two-thirds of all agreements submitted to the Office of Fair Trading for registration under the Act. They are registrable if two or more of the parties to them accept relevant restrictions on their commercial freedom. For example, the vendors, shareholders or employees of a company being sold may undertake not to compete with the company for a specified period in order to avoid undermining the value to the purchaser of the good will and know how acquired with the business, yet the vast majority of these agreements are found on inspection not to contain restrictions of such significance as to call for investigation by the restrictive practices court. The Secretary of State is able therefore to accede to the Director General of Fair Trading's request for directions discharging him from his duty to refer them to the court. It is common in the case of such agreements for restrictions to be accepted only by the vendors or by individuals; to relate solely to the ability of such persons to compete with the business or company which is the subject of the agreement; and to go no futher than is reasonably necessary to protect the value to the other parties of the purchase or investment made.
We are most grateful to all those who responded to the consultations on the draft orders. The reaction to the orders was almost entirely favourable and a number of helpful suggestions were made to improve their clarity and workability. As a result we are confident that we have achieved an appropriate balance between the reduction of burdens on businesses and the maintenance of competition, while at the same time minimising as far as possible the degree of complexity of the proposed orders to ensure that firms and their advisers are clear whether or not agreements need to be furnished under the Act. I therefore have no hesitation in commending them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons behind the Motion and these two orders. The House will also be grateful to him for apologising for the fact that the order of the pages in the printing unfortunately became mixed up. The fact that I found one of the orders upside down in the Printed Paper Office did not detract from the confusion that this caused.
These seem to be quite unexceptional orders. There is only one point that I wish to make to the noble Lord and it is this. It is perfectly true that non-competition clauses in sale and purchase agreements are standard practice where a private company is being bought, or where it is effectively being bought, or where a major shareholder is being bought out or subscribed out, if I may use that expression. It is perfectly normal to have non-competition agreements that the vendor undertakes not to engage in a practice that would be competitive to the purchaser because the goodwill of the business has to be protected. That is fine in respect of private companies and small businesses.
Can the noble Lord tell me how far this order goes? There have been occasions, most notably recently in the City of London, where immediately after a purchase a group of people who would normally be expected to abide by a non-competition clause in the sale and purchase agreement have detached themselves from the successor company and formed their own business. It has been shown that it is very difficult to prosecute those people under the contract in question and that, in the event of a major defection—we are not worried about small cases—where the good will of the business is damaged, the only recourse may be under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
I merely ask that question because I believe that there is a threshold beyond which the agreement should be registrable. Perhaps the noble Lord could help me by assuring me that this does not damage the good will of businesses where non-competition agreements properly should be registered with the director general to be enforced, requiring to be registered officially when the deal is completed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before I reach that point, perhaps I could mention something else about the order which I think is relevant to the debate. Perhaps first I could say what the position would be of the exempted agreements under existing mergers legislation. The orders we have before us will only have the effect of exempting the agreements concerned from the scrutiny under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. They will not prevent the application of the Fair Trading Act provisions to mergers underlying such agreements.
Furthermore, concerning agreements that are not within the scope of the exemptions, there is no presumption that sale and purchase or share subscription agreements not meeting the conditions for exemption as laid down in the orders will be significantly anti-competitive, merely that they require individual scrutiny by the director general on a case by case basis, using the normal processes of the Act.
536
If they subsequently turn out not to contain restrictions of such significance as to call for investigation by the court, they will be eligible, as at present, for directions under Section 21(2) of the Act. The agreements are dealt with under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, which requires the furnishing to the Director General of Fair Trading for registration of agreements between two or more persons carrying on business in the UK in the supply or acquisition of goods or services under which certain kinds of restrictions are accepted by two or more of the parties to the agreement.
The director general is under a general duty to refer registrable agreements to the restrictive practices court for consideration of whether or not the restrictions they contain are contrary to the public interest. Section 21(2) of the 1976 Act enables the director general to make representations to the Secretary of State to the effect that the restrictions in a particular agreement are not of such significance as to call for investigation by the court. If the Secretary of State agrees, he may issue directions discharging the director general from taking proceedings in respect of the agreement during the continuance in force of the directions.
The vast majority of registrable agreements, including almost all sale and purchase and share subscription agreements, are currently dealt with in this way. Therefore the availability of remedies in contract law will not be affected by the order that we are discussing today. Registrability of the agreements does not render their enforcement any easier, so these orders should not affect the situation to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that in practice it has been difficult to enforce such contracts; and that, if there is a remedy in the sense of the RTP Act, where the director general has to refer such agreements to the restrictive practices court, that remedy should not lightly be removed if the enforcement under contract is difficult, as has been shown?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, certainly that is quite a significant subject area which is being continually discussed by the department. At the moment, however, we are dealing with this specific aspect which does not cover some of the problems that have been raised by the noble Lord. However, I take his point and I shall discuss it further with the department to see whether anything needs to be done in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989
6.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be very brief since, despite its complexity, the draft statutory instrument before your Lordships makes very little change to the law of the United Kingdom. Before I explain why it is necessary, I must say that I have received an apology from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who played such a great part in passing the copyright Bill when it went through the House last year. Unfortunately he had a prior engagement, but he has said to me that he totally supports the instrument and is sorry not to be here.
This instrument is necessary for two reasons. First, it is necessary to modify the regime of design protection set out in Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so that when the Act comes into force on 1st August it will conform to an EC directive on the protection of semiconductor chip designs. Secondly, it is necessary to implement a decision of the Council of Ministers to extend the protection given to semiconductor chip designs in Europe to designs from Japan, certain of the EFTA countries and the French dependencies—all of which protect European designs.
In order to achieve these results, we have had to resort to some complex legal drafting. We have, however, consulted closely with industry in the drafting process and it is satisfied with the outcome. On this basis, I hope noble Lords can agree that it is right to approve this Statutory Instrument for the purposes I have described. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining very carefully what the regulations are about. As the noble Lord will be aware, when the Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House, we were not at all happy with the whole concept of design right. Indeed, we had long and intense discussions about what it really meant. Furthermore—here I come to the point of the regulations—it seemed to us to be clear, although I stood as always ready to be corrected, that the concept of unregistered design right was not one which was accepted by our partners in the European Community; in other words, this was something that we were introducing ourselves and that other members of the Community were not introducing.
On my first point I should be grateful if the noble Lord could correct me, but this is my memory and understanding of our discussions. My second point is that the design right that we have before us is, as the noble Lord says, a product of masterly parliamentary drafting in the sense that it uses the exemptions which are given in the Act to allow the Secretary of State under the European Communities legislation to vary the application of certain clauses
538
in the Act. That is something we discussed when the Act was a Bill before your Lordships' House. It gives us continual nagging worry that under the European Communities legislation, under which these regulations are laid, power is given to vary the way certain clauses in the copyright Act should apply.
Finally, the noble Lord indicated that 1st August was the commencement date for the design right provisions in Part III of the copyright Act. Does that mean that the whole of Part III will commence on 1st August, or only parts of it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to the final part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord 'Williams, I can say "yes". The whole of the Act will come into force on 1st August of this year. I hope that after all the hours the noble Lord spent discussing the Act when it was a Bill in this House, he will regard that as being worthwhile.
I shall just state why we need to adjust the Act so soon after Royal Assent. We were always aware that an adjustment would be necessary. Indeed, we pointed to that fact in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. This was unavoidable, given the existence of the directive and the fact that international discussions on the protection of integrated circuits were still taking place. We did not feel that resolution of the longstanding and vexed questions of channel design protection in the United Kingdom should wait on developments in this one area of design. Nor did we consider that our domestic protection for designs of all kinds should necessarily follow the outcome of international agreements on integrated circuit designs, given the compromises that are inherent in agreements of that kind.
Consequently, in Part III of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, we enacted, on its merits, a regime for the protection of all kinds of designs in the United Kingdom. But we took powers to depart from this regime to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with international agreements. These powers could have been used instead of, or in addition to, those provided by the European Communities legislation. In the event, the instrument before your Lordships is to be made entirely under the European Communities legislation, as this seems the tidiest solution. It amends Part III of the CDP Act in two significant respects, and in a number of minor ways. It is the result of close consultation with the electronics industry which has told us that, while it wishes that life in this area could be simpler, it is entirely satisfied with the drafting.
I hope that that has essentially answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The net result is that we shall continue to give protection for integrated circuit designs which is fully in line with that given in the USA, Japan and the European Community, as well as in several other industrialised countries. This is important to our industry, both for the protection it gives against piracy in the United Kingdom and for the basis it provides for the reciprocal protection of British designs in other countries. Therefore, I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will he tell the House whether the Government will continue to amend the Act by regulation? After all, the Act was passed only very recently in your Lordships' House. At the time, I understood that there could be a major amendment to the Act once the European Green or White Paper on copyright had been absorbed and possibly adopted. Are we now going to see a series of regulations like this one amending provisions to the Act in a minor way, and then another copyright Bill fairly soon in order to implement the European Green or White Paper?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that, of course, will depend entirely on what is happening at the time. At the moment there are no particular plans. But where it can be amended by regulation, we shall of course attempt to do so. After all, that is why the regulations were put into the Act in the first place.
As regards the question of a Bill in the future, I can say that at this moment there are no immediate plans to bring anything in. We shall, of course, have to see how this Act develops. It is rather early to say at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I do not wish to prolong this discussion because we have no particular objection other than to the general nature of design right which, as the noble Lord knows we do not find very attractive.
However, I put in a plea that on regulations of this nature, which are non-party political, the noble Lord could achieve what apparently has not been achieved in the past, in that the Opposition might at least be consulted. In the passage of the copyright Bill we made our contribution, and we may be able to make our contribution on future regulations of this nature. If we could be consulted, I believe it would help this kind of discussion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's plea is noted. I shall make sure that he, or whoever is in his place on the Opposition Benches, will be consulted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989
6.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fifteenth occasion on which your Lordships have been asked to renew direct rule for Northern Ireland. Direct rule was always intended to be, by its nature, temporary. Your Lordships might feel that 15 years does not have a very temporary ring about it; and I agree. However, the Government still want to see direct rule replaced with better, more accountable local arrangements. That is what most people in Northern
540
Ireland also want to see. Sadly, however, the conditions for returning powers to local institutions have not yet been achieved and that provides the need for the order before the House this evening.
Direct rule was introduced because existing local institutions had been found wanting. The Government's responsibility under direct rule must continue to be, as it always has been, to provide good government—or at least the best government which direct rule can provide. That is what we have sought to do.
Good government is a proper end in itself, but it also has its part to play in maintaining security. It does so by undermining the claim, which is always spurious, that terrorism in the Province is a response to legitimate social or political grievance. We aim, therefore, to ensure coherent and consistent government across the full range of economic, social, political and civil matters. I think that we can say, without being unduly immodest, that we can be quite proud of our progress in some of those fields.
For example, standards of public housing and health care have greatly improved. Health and personal social services expenditure has increased by over £168 million (nearly 24 per cent.) in real terms in the past decade. Spending on education has increased by £112 million (16 per cent.) over the same period. Noble Lords will be aware that over recent months we have formulated some major reforms in the field of education and hope to lay legislation before your Lordships soon. The reforms encompass the additional support we are giving for integrated education.
The city of Belfast has had a massive injection of resources; £55 million was recently allocated under its regeneration programme. Current and programmed private sector investment in the city centre now totals no less than £450 million. Nor are we neglecting the needs of other centres of population.
Economic recovery is in progress throughout Northern Ireland. The Government have provided more than £240 million in the current financial year, 1989–90, for industrial development and support sources. International confidence in the Province has been demonstrated by the new investment by Montupet and Daewoo. Closer to home, the Department of Social Services in Great Britain is relocating 350 jobs to Belfast and, we hope for more such jobs. As regards my own department, agriculture, farming income has risen by 6 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. Marks and Spencer has opened a huge new branch at Sprucefield, on a very busy route —the junction of the Al road to Dublin and Newry and the motorway to the west of the Province. In addition, Debenham's has an enormous new facility at Castle Court in the city centre. That gives some indication of the spirit and commercial health in the Province. It is spread fairly widely throughout the Province.
Even more significantly, perhaps, over the past few months we have been able to offer new help to two of Northern Ireland's enterprises. We believe that they can only find a secure future outside the public sector. I refer to the privatisation plans for Shorts and for Harland and Wolff. We have

541
concluded heads of agreement for the sale of Short Brothers to Bombardier Inc. of Canada with a substantial investment of Government funds to give the company every chance of a better future. We have also signed heads of agreement for the sale of Harland and Wolff to a management/employee buy-out team backed by two of Mr. Fred Olsen's companies.
That demonstrates that there is encouraging news on the economic front. Furthermore, in the past year the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit have promoted almost 11,000 new jobs. Unemployment, which is currently at 15.5 per cent., is still too high. However, it has been on a downward trend for the past two years. Seasonally adjusted, unemployment now stands at its lowest level for more than five years. At the end of March this year there were an estimated 29,000 persons benefiting from special employment and training measures.
Local business has also been encouraged to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the single European market. Companies are developing the skills necessary to compete in Europe, and the European Community funded Star programme will give Northern Ireland the telecommunications infrastructure it needs for efficient communications on a European and global scale.
Moving from the economy, I should like to remind the House that over the past two years the two Governments have continued their work under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In particular, they have recently completed their review of the workings of the conference. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has published a record of developments since the conference first met. Those who criticise the agreement find it hard to demonstrate any harm which the working of the conference has done to them or to others in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there is nothing in the recently completed review that can be regarded as an obstacle to political dialogue.
Nor can the critics turn their backs on the progress that has been made in improving security co-operation between our two countries. The agreement has helped to establish a much better relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda. Cross-border security co-operation has received regular and intensive consideration within the framework of the conference. Both Governments have recently endorsed a future programme of work between the two police forces to develop that co-ordination and to increase their effectiveness in combating terrorism.
Sadly, it remains true that terrorism lies at the heart of many of the problems of Northern Ireland. Those young and misguided people who involve themselves in terrorism can never overcome a balanced policy such as the Government are pursuing which addresses the political, economic, social and security aspects of Northern Ireland's problems.
The Government are determined that the terrorists will not win. We shall be tough where we
542
have to be. But the strength of our security policy is that it is founded on principle and on justice under the law. We fight terrorism within the law because there is no other way in which a democratic society can fight it. But our success depends on public support for the security forces. They earn our undying respect and gratitude by continuing to do a very difficult job with great courage and professionalism.
We also have in place a range of measures designed to reinforce mutual confidence in the security forces and the community. First, we have improved procedures for handling complaints against the police. Secondly, there is the policy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary accompanying army patrols whenever possible. Thirdly, there is a code of conduct for RUC officers. Fourthly, there are new army procedures to ensure that, where possible, allegations by the public of misbehaviour by the security forces will be resolved with a response within three to four weeks. In the pipeline we have the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Order, which introduces new safeguards for persons who are detained for police questioning. It also includes a statutory requirement for the police to liaise with the local community. We keep under continuous review the number and nature of allegations of misbehaviour by members of the security forces.
While our policies in all these fields are to our credit, I believe that we cannot be satisfied that it should be necessary to ask your Lordships today to renew the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule for a further year. Despite all that it has achieved for the Province, direct rule is not, and never has been, the best option for governing Northern Ireland. Its problems cannot be settled without the fuller involvement of the elected, constitutional representatives of both communities. Their fuller involvement would make a major contribution to the process of peace and reconciliation.
The Government believe that any solution to the apparent political stalemate in Northern Ireland must lie, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place as recently as last Thursday, not in new structures, let alone in blueprints, but first of all in a willingness to discuss and to seek to accommodate different views. We can make progress only through dialogue.
In February of this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited the constitutional political parties and others to explore, with Ministers, the possibilities for progress. In a speech in East Belfast on 14th February of this year, he said:
"I hope that everybody who should respond will do so. Anybody can refuse, but that would be a great pity. It won't hurt me, as the Government will clearly carry on discharging its duty to the best of its ability, as it has done in recent years. What such a refusal would do would be to damage the Province, and deny the people the constructive leadership they deserve."
Those were words spoken by my right honourable friend in February of this year. I believe that they are ever more valuable and relevant today when we discuss what progress we believe should be made in discussions with the constitutional political leaders in the Province.
Some discussions have been taking place with individuals and groups from both sides of the community, but what we want to see now is discussion between elected representatives about issues of government. We want to see discussion with Ministers. I should stress that our doors are open. What is now required is the will of local politicians to make progress together, among themselves and with us.
We know that it can be done, and the Northern Ireland electorate knows that it can be done. The results of the local government elections suggested that the electorate had little enthusiasm for those who advocate a violent or triumphalist approach. That message seemed extremely clear. Northern Ireland's political leaders simply must not fail their voters. The vast majority of people, on both sides of the community, are looking for progress through constitutional and democratic means. I want to stress this point: there are simply no issues that cannot be raised. Common ground can be found between the parties and the Government will consider any ideas that have a chance of working. If elected representatives do not come forward to represent their constituents in that way, can we be surprised if disillusion encourages the opportunists to reach for a gun or a bomb?
The terrorist can bring only tragedy to the community. Time can fade the memory for those who are not personally involved in some of these terrible incidents, but the families do not forget. Let us take some examples: 19 year-old Joanne Reilly, who was murdered by a 1,3501b no-warning bomb; David Braniff, a grandfather in his sixties, who was murdered in front of his wife while saying his prayers; 13 year-old Emma Donnelly who was blown up while she sat beside her grandfather, who was also murdered, in his car, at the wrong time in the wrong place; eight young men, all private soldiers belonging to the Royal Anglian Regiment, were blown to pieces by a bomb as they returned from leave to duty in Northern Ireland; and this very weekend, Liam McKee, a part-time barman in his local pub, was shot dead in his mother's home, right in front of her.
It is against that background that we look to the leaders of the long-suffering and courageous Northern Ireland people. If they can show a determination to seek together a way forward, all the people of Northern Ireland will benefit. That could also mean that the Government would not have to come on many more occasions to ask your Lordships, as I must do this evening, to approve the renewal of provisions to continue direct rule in Northern Ireland for a further year. My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have been reminded that about this time of year for the last 15 years Northern Ireland Ministers come to Parliament seeking approval for the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.
544
As the noble Lord explained so clearly, it was that Act of 1974 which imposed direct rule on the Province but purely as a temporary measure to meet an urgent situation. I apologise if I now repeat the primary defects of direct rule; I am sure that they will be referred to again. It substituted unamendable Orders in Council for primary legislation and therefore denied an effective role to the elected representatives in moulding legislation for the Province. It handed to the Secretary of State the sweeping powers of a colonial governor, albeit a benevolent governor. Clearly direct rule is second-best government. That is why the Act must be renewed annually until a long-term solution is worked out. But when will that be?
In a powerful speech the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, surveyed the situation as it has developed over the last 12 months. As I listened to him I had the impression at first that he was saying that, although security is still a matter of top priority and the work of the security forces is as unremitting as ever, the level of community violence is being contained. However, listening to his closing remarks, that may be an oversimplification on my part.
I also had the impression that the Government are encouraged to believe that the economy is doing well. Harland and Wolff and Shorts have been saved and the Minister points out that the infrastructure is being strengthened substantially. However, when my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton speaks to the appropriation order, which is the next business before the House, he will look at the evidence against the background of the chronic weakness of the Northern Ireland economy and the high unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent. which the Minister confirmed. It is our impression that a feeling of deprivation and hopelessness is still a fact of life for many of the citizens of the Province.
When the Minister took stock of the political situation in the Province, I had the impression that the difficulties are as great as ever and that there is a very long way to go. Usually in this debate—at least in recent years—the Minister has been persuaded on the evidence to offer a few words of modest optimism about the political prospect. I have reread the Hansard debates of the last few years and found that, four years ago, the House was told that the Government had found among the main constitutional parties a cautious willingness to talk and perhaps to move.
Two years ago the noble Lord informed us that,
"The party leaders are, we believe, also seeking a way forward through dialogue … We therefore welcome the willingness of the Unionist leaders to enter into discussions, which will need to be tentative and exploratory, without prejudice and without preconditions".—[Official Report, 9/7/87; col. 810.]
However, today that optimism, modest though it was, appears to be missing from the Minister's speech. That to me is the most significant part of it. Indeed, the Secretary of State was moved to declare in another place last Thursday that progress had been virtually non-existent in the political arena.
The inability of the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland to make progress towards common ground means that the Act of 1974 will continue to hold the field. That result is not only

545
unsatisfactory in itself; it also helps to erode confidence in the future of the Province. It seems to me that it was not entirely surprising that politicians of quality and potential are opting out of direct involvement in the political life of Northern Ireland. That is another depressing aspect of the scene, on which I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt can speak with feeling and authority. Indeed, we discussed it only a day or two ago. The need for political progress among the main constitutional parties stands very high in any list of priorities if direct rule is not to become normal rule.
The Minister referred to the talks that were launched last February. Some of us are left wondering whether the Secretary of State should have given firmer leadership in those talks which began last February and have continued over recent months. They were left to a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office. As I understand it, the talks did not prosper. We all appreciate that every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has an enormous burden on his shoulders. However, it seems to many of us, without any disrespect to the Minister involved, that that delicate task should not have been entrusted to an Under-Secretary. That is our judgment. Perhaps I may slip in two questions about these talks. Can we be told why they were thwarted, or is that confidential information? And are we correct in concluding that nothing was achieved by them?
Looking a little further afield, and following the survey of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, we on these Benches are gratified that, although the relations between the two governments were heavily strained during the year, the review of the working of the intergovernmental conference has been successfully completed. The noble Lord was right. Those who claim that the conference has no achievements to its credit should read the comprehensive review document that is available in the Library. I believe it to be an excellent document and it records the successes of the intergovernmental conference. Indeed, on my count the conference can take credit for at least a dozen major initiatives during the last three years. The review also points to the broad areas where there could be improved co-operation between the two governments in the future. These clearly are the areas where it would make sense to plan for the whole of the island.
We are glad that both governments have taken the point that the public should be made far more fully aware of the business transacted and to be transacted by the conference. We believe that it has suffered because of excessive secrecy in the past—a point that has often been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, it seems to me that this point has now been taken on board and it has been accepted that it should be varied.
The Government's problem with the intergovernmental conference is the opposition of the Unionists to the concept, as well as the operation, of the intergovernmental conference. Sadly, this opposition remains unresolved, although even among Unionists there may be differences of view by now. If procedures can be worked out which will
546
enable members of the Unionist Party to make a contribution to the operation of the conference, we would hope that they would think again about their stand. We believe that they should. We believe that they have a special responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to do so.
Before ending, I have a few words of appreciation and praise for the men and women throughout the Province who are working very hard indeed to improve community relations and to build bridges. To my knowledge they are supported in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, by my noble friend Lord Blease and no doubt by all Northern Ireland Members of this House. I cannot resist pointing out to the House that two educational workers involved in programmes of education for community relations and mutual understanding have been awarded the Kohl Education Foundation, International Peace Prize. They were recently in Chicago to receive the prize. They are Carmel Heaney of the Corrymeela Community and Norman Richardson of the Irish Council of Churches. We were all delighted that the St. Louise's Comprehensive School—the largest comprehensive school in Europe, situated on the Falls Road—had been awarded the Jerwood 0Award of £50,000. As I understand it, this award is considered to be the Nobel Prize in the education world. When the gifted and brave school principal, Sister Genevieve, received the prize from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, she observed compellingly,
"We believe with all our hearts that when young people begin to think that the insane violence on the streets will end, they will learn to think rather than shoot, think rather than yell and start rioting".
Those are the words of the principal.
It would be immensely reassuring if the Minister could tell the House that the pattern which has been created by Sister Genevieve and her staff is also seen to be emerging in a substantial number of schools in the Province and that it is being actively and fully encouraged by the Department of Education. As I understand it, the vehicle is there in Circular 1982/21. If such schools could have an immediate impact on their communities, we believe that there would be valid grounds for some optimism as we renew the Act of 1974 for the 15th occasion.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I was not expecting to have to speak on this subject, on which I am extremely inexpert. However, I can but raise one or two points as a lay member of the public.
I should like to thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive exposition of the order as I know is his custom. However, there are two matters on which I should be very grateful to hear a little more from him. The first was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It concerns activities in schools. It seems to me that the state of affairs in Northern Ireland must to a considerable extent depend upon the indoctrination of children with prejudice from a young age. If only that could be broken down in inter-sectarian, inter-school and cross-border activities it would be a great help. If the young are not got at by prejudice they will not develop it on their own. It is adults who are the cause of prejudice in the young. There must also be

547
a considerable element of vendetta presented to the young by the adults.
The other point I should like to raise with the Minister concerns the impression that I have as a lay member of the public. The only thing that the average member of the public ever hears about Northern Ireland is the terrorist versus the anti-terrorist issue and the support which the Government hope to receive from the public for their policy. I feel that the basic issues of why we are there and what we are trying to do should be made clearer to the public. I do not believe that the average ignorant member of the public, of which I am one, hears enough about that. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister any views that he has and any encouragement that he may give to the idea that the general issues could be more clearly presented to the comparatively uninformed. Those few words are all I have to say.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, if we look back over the past 20 years to the major elements of legislation under which Northern Ireland has been governed, it will be seen that quite a number of Acts of Parliament were promulgated by a Labour Government. In the 1970s the major 1973 and 1974 Acts, the prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions, and so on, were put through both Houses with an element of goodwill from the Government and the Opposition. I believe that that is the only way to try to grapple with the very difficult problem of Northern Ireland.
When the Secretary of State put forward this order in another place he referred to remarks which had been made by the shadow Secretary of State the previous year. He had criticised direct rule which he described as patronising, undemocratic, unaccountable, remote and inefficient and which, he said, had gone on for too long. That was met by a response from the honourable Member for Northampton who said, "Hear, hear".
The Secretary of State could have gone on to say that even with all the imperfections that had been levelled at it the present system was the only means of governing Northern Ireland in the present atmosphere and in the present circumstances. Both communities in Northern Ireland, the majority Unionist and the minority Nationalist, are prepared to accept, albeit unwillingly, the continuation of direct rule because their leaders cannot find a way of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
I was not very hopeful of the Anglo-Irish Agreement having any great impact in Northern Ireland. Sadly, I see my fears, suspicions and misgivings all too readily vindicated. It has already been said in another place that the Unionist party in Northern Ireland and the Unionist majority through its leaders will not talk about a devolved government while the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in existence. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland, the Nationalists, will not talk about the possibility of a devolved government if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not in existence.
With some experience of Northern Ireland and with some experience of the personalities involved, I believe that the attitude as expressed by the various
548
leaders is something of a red herring. I am honestly convinced now that neither the majority community nor the minority community wishes to bring about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. We attempted it. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, when he took office in 1979, attempted to create political discussions and negotiations which would lead to a devolved government. That was five or six years in advance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There was no Anglo-Irish Agreement that could have been held up as a reason for not having discussions in 1979. But the other side of the community, the Nationalist side, said that it would not enter into any discussions unless there was an Irish dimension. A bout of talks was held over a number of months and absolutely nothing came of them.
When the noble Lord, Lord Prior, took office in 1982 he did what we are now asking the Government and political leaders in Northern Ireland to accept—the bringing about of a devolved assembly. The Nationalist party at that time ignored and rejected the Assembly. The SDLP, supported by Sinn Fein, boycotted the Assembly because it thought that the basis on which it was built would not cater for its political aspirations. The Assembly staggered on for two or three years, supported by all sections of Unionism, the Alliance party and the Workers party, but the attitude of the major Nationalist party was highly predictable and it came to an end.
Since the death of that Assembly both Houses in this building have appealed to Northern Ireland leaders to do what they can to bring about a devolved assembly. One of the most instructive things seen over past months has been an attempt by certain members in both the major communities, Mr. Peter Robinson from the DUP, Mr. Austen Currie from the SDLP, Mr. Gordon Mawhinney from the Alliance party and Mr. Jack Allen from the Official Unionist party, who attended a conference in Germany. It was not a terribly high-powered conference; they were under no compulsion to agree to anything. But they found agreement on the necessity to reinstitute political structures in Northern Ireland. What happened when they came back to Belfast? The four of them were totally rejected by the leaders of their own parties, totally cast aside. That caused me bitter regret. As a former leader of the SDLP I know Austen Currie to be one of the most sincere, honest and dedicated politicians in Northern Ireland. He was rejected by his leader, Mr. John Hume of the SDLP, because he was trying to find a means by which devolved government could be brought about in Northern Ireland.
It is instructive to look at all the circumstances in relation to what has now become known as the Duisburg conference. As I found throughout my years in Northern Ireland, decisions which are taken in one year seem right in the circumstances: five or 10 years later they are seen to have been a great mistake. For example, the Labour Government in the late 1970s, in their attempts to remain in power, had a very difficult time. They had an arrangement with the Unionist party in another place. It was because of the blackmailing tactics used by the Unionist party that the decision was taken to step up a Speaker's conference. It would pontificate and

549
eventually come up with the idea that Northern Ireland should have 17 constituencies instead of 12. I was always of the opinion that if one party—be it one side or the other—held all 17 seats that would still not make for peace in Northern Ireland. Peace must and can only be found in Belfast and the other parts of the six counties of Northern Ireland.
What happened as a result of that decision? First the SDLP won three seats under the rearranged boundaries. I believe that the SDLP is quite happy with those seats. It would like to have Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Mid Ulster but with the existence of Sinn Fein it is highly unlikely that it will ever win those seats. Therefore, the decision that was taken to placate the Unionists has led to the position where the SDLP is quite happy with its three parliamentary seats in Westminster and does not wish to bring about any devolved government.
Secondly, the Labour Government—I take some credit for my endeavours at that time—created three seats for Europe under a system of proportional representation rejected for all other parts of the United Kingdom. This meant that two Unionists and one Nationalist would be virtually guaranteed seats in the European Parliament. Again, that makes the leadership of those parties quite happy. The leadership of the Unionist party, under the honourable Member for North Antrim, and the leadership of the Nationalists under John Hume, are happy with two seats; one in Europe and one in another place.
There is absolutely no incentive for either of the two leaders to engage in talks or negotiations leading to the creation of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland. They are quite happy because there are 17 elected representatives in the UK Parliament. One representative does not attend but the other 16 take their seats and participate in the affairs at Westminster.
In any great political debates which take place in Northern Ireland the spotlight of the television cameras and newspaper reporters are focused on those 17 elected representatives. If there were to be a recreated Stormont that media spotlight would be immediately focused there and the Stormont elected representatives would be running down the Ormeau road to talk on the BBC and Ulster Television news and network. There is absolutely no incentive. We continue to try to make ourselves believe that there is a valid reason why there cannot be inter-party discussions with the intention of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. The fact is that the leaders do not want that.
The only two political parties in Northern Ireland who have shown an interest in bringing together the two communities have been the Alliance and the small Workers' parties. There are some serious and dedicated men in both parties. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it is a sad commentary that men of the calibre of Austen Currie and John Cushnahan recognised that never in their lifetimes would there be created structures in Northern Ireland which they could attend. They eventually realised that there was no hope of political progress in Northern Ireland and there were no seats
550
to which they could be elected. They took the big decision, pulled up their roots and went to the Republic of Ireland. Fortunately, the two of them have been elected.
It is a big step for an Irishman in the North to take in leaving Northern Ireland and going South. It is as big a step as it would be for an Irishman living in Belfast to come to this country or to go to Tibet. However, it was a decision that they had to take. I feel saddened that Austen Currie has left Northern Ireland because it can ill afford to lose men of such calibre.
I remember when the Act was introduced. We were told in the corridors and through the usual channels that it would last only a year or two at the most. All the temporary legislation has become permanent. In introducing the legislation the Minister said that he was glad to come to the Dispatch Box and say that there had been no murders in the previous four weeks. The Loyalist murder gangs made sure that that statement: could not be repeated because they murdered Liam McKee the next day.
I believe that a great responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the senior elected representatives in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they can continue to listen to the persecution complex which they push, blaming everyone for their evils. They will not legislate or make it easy for us because, as I have repeatedly said, the solution to the Northern Ireland problem cannot be found in London, Dublin or Washington. It must be found in Belfast.
Fifteen years ago I never thought that I would be standing, particularly in this House, listening to a further promulgation of this order. I recognise that it has many defects. But with the defects that it may have it is the best and only solution that will be accepted reluctantly by both communities in Northern Ireland. It behoves all sections of elected representatives and political figures in this House to support the Government in attempting to govern Northern Ireland in the interests of all its people and to ensure that the men of terror are erased from society in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is with great ignorance that I should like to ask the Minister one question on the subject. It is in connection with shared schools and the education of Protestant and Catholic children together. I realise that it is a delicate question to ask the Minister, but I understand that when it was first attempted some years ago great difficulties arose because of the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In some cases they refused to confirm Catholic children who had attended shared schools. It is probably too simple to put the matter in this way and I do so only because I am ignorant. It has always appeared to me that in the long run shared schools can provide at least a useful stepping stone towards peace in the next generation, if not in this. What is the present position? Is it easier to have shared schools? What is the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, because obviously that is of great importance if the system is to develop?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this apparently innocuous order. It comes to this House at least once a year and this is the sixth occasion on which I have had the honour to present it.
I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness. It is the fourth time on which I can remember her attending and asking questions on matters of general interest in Northern Ireland. I shall reply to her as far as I am able and as far as is tactful. Although I am of a particular religious persuasion it would be wilful of me to attempt to interpret the feelings, thoughts or practices of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. However, I shall do my best, if not on my feet then later in writing.
I believe that we are all particularly grateful for the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He was concerned that there were too many orders and not enough Bills. I believe that he is quite right. That tends to be the overall feeling of the Government and indeed has been the feeling of your Lordships for perhaps as long as 15 years. However, I was most interested in one or two of his ideas, particularly as regards my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Lord said that he has almost colonial powers. Whatever powers my right honourable friend has, I hope that he uses them in a wise and reasonable way.
I believe that the noble Lord and all your Lordships will appreciate that Northern Ireland is absolutelty unique. All of us who have some responsibility in the Province learn more the longer we serve there. We are very grateful for the noble Lord's kind words about the documents which we published following the review of the workings of the intergovernmental conference. I am afraid that I do not necessarily agree with him about the political scene in Northern Ireland, but of course one man's view may not necessarily be the view of one's neighbour as regards the shifting scenes. However, I assure the noble Lord, and indeed your Lordships, that my right honourable friend takes a particularly close and personal interest in the prospect for political progress and he has taken a very close interest in the discussions which have taken place.
The noble Lord asked one or two questions about the tactics for those talks. Without fear of reproach, I believe that we may call them the "Mawhinney round". It is reasonable for my right honourable friend to deploy his ministerial forces as best he can and the talks carried out by my honourable friend the Member for Peterborough have been very fruitful and much appreciated.
The discussions carried on by my honourable friend have not been thwarted—which was the theme suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. They are certainly continuing quietly and in confidence. I am sure that all of your Lordships would agree that that is an essential requisite of any talks in Northern Ireland. We always hear a great deal in the quasi-tabloid press about megaphone diplomacy. Many of your Lordships will know that one or two of the political leaders in Northern Ireland are not known for understanding the "piano" end of the pianoforte and tend to use
552
the other end. Certainly even those political leaders are able to speak and have discussions with my honourable friend, as well as with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but in confidence. We hope that others will come forward to talk to Ministers. Certainly we do not forget that until recently politicians in Northern Ireland were preoccupied with the district council elections, and, indeed, some have been very much preoccupied with the European elections. However, that period is now over and I have no doubt that those discussions will continue.
Those of your Lordships who study activities in Northern Ireland will know that summer is high. Certainly as regards agriculture, people's minds are turning to the peak of summer work. Of course there is also a unique phenomenon in Northern Ireland which is known as the marching season. Therefore, political discussions will continue during this period of the year, but those discussions may or may not be coloured by various activities taking place during the summer season.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was rather concerned about some of the legislative procedures. Of course, as a method of legislating, Orders in Council are unsatisfactory. It is for that reason that existing procedures provide for very extensive consultation in Northern Ireland on most orders—I hope on all orders—and certainly, if desired, for debate in the Northern Ireland committee, which provides a focus in another place for further discussion of these measures. However, I appreciate and take on board the difficulties presented by unamendable Orders in Council. That is why I and my colleagues in another place have offered, and indeed still offer, to talk about any of these issues with all interested parties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere and to consider all suggestions, which we believe in the main will be constructive.
The noble Lord also raised questions about the economy and Harland and Wolff. I believe that he said that there was still a feeling of what he called "deprivation and hopelessness". I am sure he meant that in a constructive sense. Perhaps I may just take one aspect, as it will affect many people in Northern Ireland whom I believe the noble Lord had in mind. Unfitness levels in housing in Northern Ireland—these are unfitness levels universal throughout the United Kingdom—have fallen from 14 per cent. in 1979 to just over half that in 1987. The urgent waiting list for the housing executive has been reduced by a half since 1981. We have a long way to go, but financial investments and other efforts in that sphere mean that we are not losing the battle. I hope that the people whom the noble Lord had in mind appreciate that, although they may believe that there is a great deal more to be done, which we accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about talks. As I said in my opening remarks, progress in those political talks can come only if the parties are prepared to discuss a way forward in a flexible manner and with a degree of determination in order to reach an agreement. We are always ready to play our part, but I believe that many of the discussions need to be conducted in confidence.

553
Occasionally I have thought that there is an element of the great ceremony which takes place in Luxembourg, known as the Echternach wine dance, where they take three paces forward and two back and the dance takes all day. Of course in the history of Northern Ireland that is a twinkling of an eyelid, but I believe that progress is being made and that is the only way to do it.
The noble Lord concluded his remarks with his views on community relations. Once again I wish to add my praise to his for Sister Genevieve and her 2,500 pupils at St. Louise's Comprehensive, and we should not forget the teachers and staff at that excellent school. There is no lack of effort and encouragement from the Department of Education, as well as from my right honourable friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made one or two notable comments, perhaps in a note of pessimism. However, the Government will continue discussions in the way that we feel will bring about some progress in this approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, raised two points with which I have a great deal of sympathy. His remarks no doubt strike a chord with many people in Northern Ireland and certainly with my honourable friend responsible for education, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I will pass on his comments. If I can produce a reply from my honourable friend, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will be read with great interest by politicians both here and in. Northern Ireland. It is unlike him to have such gloomy conclusions. But he is always realistic and I am sure he will agree that, if the political leaders are not interested in devolution, as he set out, we should be most interested to learn what they do want. That is the rationale behind our continuing discussions. Certainly the political leaders in Northern Ireland have told us—and it is on record—that they are interested in devolution. They are also interested in political progress. The third side of the triangle appears to be their interest in talking together. But we should like to hear directly from both sides of the community and their political leaders. We believe that the best way forward is to allow these discussions to continue in confidence and discretion.
The noble Baroness referred to integrated schools. This subject is very much in our minds. However, parents certainly have a strong say in how schools should be run in Northern Ireland. I do not want to suggest what is in the minds of the Roman Catholic hierarchy or to delve into it. I recall reading some of the comments mentioned by the noble Baroness about one member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and his views on whether some children attending an integrated school should or should not receive the sacrament of confirmation. I have only seen what I suspect the noble Baroness has seen. I have read one or two other views but I have nothing concrete to go on. If I can adduce something which I can release to her in reasonable confidence I shall certainly do that.
554
As far as I am aware, there are seven maintained integrated schools in Northern Ireland. There is of course one well known college for older boys—Lagan College. These seven schools receive the vast bulk of their financing from government sources. That is a start. However, integrated schools and integrated education must be at the will of the parents. Seven schools is no mean start and we shall have to see how far that will proceed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, is it not the case that more and more parents belonging to both traditions are anxious that their children should have access to integrated education?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that is true, but it is a somewhat slower process than might be thought when the noble Lord says "more and more". If the number of schools I have mentioned were to double over the next two or three years, that could be seen as progress, but we have to take each step as it comes. I certainly know that my honourable friend responsible for education has made this a high priority.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned seven schools. What sort of percentage of children does that represent? Are we referring to 2 per cent., 15 per cent. or what?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness. I believe that the figure is in the region of 2 per cent. but it might be more. My accountancy training does not assist me too much on the total population of schools in Northern Ireland in regard to primary, infant, secondary and up to sixth form colleges. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness with a figure for the number of pupils and in percentage terms accurate to one decimal place. As I said, Lagan College is the one well-known example for Belfast.
I have been much encouraged by the remarks made by your Lordships and I am grateful for the support that has been given not just to me but to the programme that we have set out in this order. I would be the first to say, for the sixth time, that this order is not perfect but for the reasons given in my opening remarks we believe that it is the best vehicle that we have at present. For that reason I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.27 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order authorises the expenditure of £2,195 million in addition to the £1,669 million voted on account for 1989–90 by your Lordships on 13th March this year.
This gives a total voted cash provision for Northern Ireland departments of £3,864 million for the current financial year, 1989–90. Noble Lords may wish to refer to the right hand column of page 6 of the estimates—the heavy volume that we have before us. It is at this point that I take your Lordships on a tour of this volume. No doubt you will have questions to ask but the stopping points I have chosen are those which I felt reasonable, relevant and interesting in reviewing this volume. The estimates are, of course, available in the Printed Paper Office.
These draft appropriation orders cover the voted element of Northern Ireland public expenditure, which totals some £4,951 million. That can be found at the bottom of page 6. These estimates do not cover law and order, which is dealt with under separate estimates arrangements. Before I go through the main components of the estimates I should like to mention one or two aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, advised me that this might be of some interest to his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I look forward to hearing his comments on these estimates and other aspects.
Your Lordships will no doubt join me in welcoming the continuing improvement in the position of the labour market in the Province. Unemployment continues to fall. The underlying trend during the six months to May 1989 shows a reduction on average of 600 per month in the numbers unemployed. That means 600 more persons employed every month. That is some cause for satisfaction.
The upward trend in employment is a continuing one. In the first quarter of this year there were an additional 6,400 employees compared with 1987. Moreover, growth in employment has been accompanied by growth in output. The latest figures indicate that output of production and manufacturing industries in the Province increased by 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively between the fourth quarter of 1987 and the fourth quarter of 1988. These figures provide some encouraging evidence of an improvement in the economy of Northern Ireland.
I should like to turn to the estimates presented in the volume before us in alphabetical order, beginning with my own department, the Department of Agriculture. I believe that agriculture is the most important aspect of Northern Ireland. That view is vociferously aired by many people and surprisingly in the city of Belfast. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £141 million.
Page 28 of the estimates volume, Vote 1 of the Department of Agriculture, covers expenditure of some £36 million on those national agricultural and fisheries support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. This aspect includes expenditure on new measures under the recently introduced farm and conservation grant schemes and the farm woodlands scheme. We also include under D4 on page 31 a provision for the new beef special premium scheme. This scheme, which is fully pre-funded by the Intervention Board, is
556
administered at farm level in Northern Ireland. It will be complemented by the enhanced premia under the suckler cow premium scheme. That is a scheme which is in existence in Northern Ireland, for which we are grateful.
Vote 2 on page 34 of the estimates seeks provision of about £105 million in respect of the continuing regional agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. This vote covers agricultural, scientific and veterinary services, for which some £43 million is provided under section A on page 34, together with provision for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry sub-programmes. I am delighted to tell your Lordships that farmers have responded very positively to the investment opportunities provided by the new Agricultural Development Programme which we began last year. Provision is being made under C3 on page 37 of almost £14 million in the current year to meet the build-up of commitments under this scheme, This programme is of immense value. At least two-thirds of the queries raised by farmers whom I have visited in the Province, concerned what the Government are doing about this particular ADP, as they call it. It is up and running and we have the figures before us this evening.
On page 42, Vote 1 of the Department of Economic Development appears. This covers the Industrial Development Board (IDB), industrial support and regeneration. Under subhead D1, page 44, some £93 million is set aside for selective financial assistance to industry. In the main this is aimed at the creation of jobs in manufacturing industry and tradeable services, and at strengthening the marketing, quality, design and research and development capabilities of industry in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will be pleased to note that IDB had another record year in 1988–89, achieving 5,653 job promotions. One third related to new inward investment projects, which would account for 1,800–1,900 jobs.
Vote 2 of the DED covers other economic support measures. That is shown on page 46. Under subhead B1, page 47, over £65 million of the £109 million sought is to provide assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. There are no guesses as to which two enterprises those will be aimed at. On page 47, under subhead B1, paragraph 2, we are seeking just under £60 million—in fact the figure is £59·981 million —to provide assistance for Harland and Wolff. This sum is to support the company in the period before privatisation as well as, we hope, to meet part of the costs of the management buy-out which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 22nd March this year. This provision in the main estimates does not take account of the full costs of the privatisation package in 1989–90. Further provision for Harland and Wolff will therefore be sought at the supplementary estimate stage when the phasing of the package for privatisation and the total estimates requirement for the current financial year will be finalised. I hope your Lordships will be hearing from me this year on that aspect.
Subhead B1 on page 47 relates to the sum of £5,300,000 for Short Brothers plc. This sum is in

557
support of grant aid to the company for the current financial year as well as to defray the costs of professional advisers who were engaged by the Department of Economic Development. Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State approved a heads of agreement on 7th June this year for the sale of the company to Bombardier Inc. of Canada. This disposal will require substantial further amounts of Government funding. We have not yet settled the phasing of that funding. The additional provision required in the current year will therefore be brought before the House by way of supplementary estimates. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that the complexity and timing of the privatisation measures for Harland and Wolff as well as for Short Bros. and the requirement for European Community approval have meant that we are unable fully to define the implications in the current year, 1989–90, in these main estimates. Once again, we shall be bringing the details before your Lordships as soon as we can.
On page 47, at Vote 2, we find that the LEDU (Local Enterprise Development Unit) requires an allocation in A1 of nearly £30 million to meet this year's job promotion target of about 5,500. In the past financial year, as I have mentioned, LEDU promoted in excess of 5,000 jobs, bringing the total number of jobs promoted since the unit was first formed 18 years ago in 1971 to 40,000. In the context of Northern Ireland, and I believe in any context, this is a particularly creditable performance and we ought to pay our tribute to those men and women who have worked so hard to achieve this.
Page 51, Vote 3, states that £140 million is sought for labour market services. This vote covers a very wide range of measures, including the encouragement of enterprise, the provision of training and work experience, and a variety of labour market support services. Thirty-seven million pounds is required for the youth training programme under subhead A1 on page 52. This will provide a total of approximately 14,000 training places. This will ensure that the guarantee of a training place for every unemployed young person under 18 is met.
On page 53, more than £6 million is sought for the job training programme, which parallels the work-based training element of Employment Training in Great Britain. This programme will expand to 2,000 places during 1989–90 and provide a further 500 training places within the "Making Belfast Work" programme. These jobs are especially appreciated by and valuable to the young men and women involved.
On page 54, under subhead C1, we seek more than £50 million for the action for community employment scheme, to provide an average of 10,000 jobs over this year. The scheme gives the long-term unemployed an opportunity to re-enter the employment market by providing temporary jobs, of up to one year's duration, on work of community benefit. On pages 56 and 57, noble Lords will see the priority which the Government attach to the promotion of equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The Fair Employment Bill will
558
provide a stronger framework within which the new Fair Employment Commission will operate and provide a new stimulus to employers to take positive steps to promote equality of opportunity. That concludes my remarks on the Department of Economic Development. I wait with interest to hear what noble Lords have to say on that aspect.
In Vote 1 for the Department of the Environment, on page 67, some £153 million is sought for roads, transport and ports. On page 68, under subhead A1, the sum is required to provide for the construction and improvement of roads and bridges. Your Lordships will accept the importance of transport infrastructure if the Province is to meet the problems and overcome the challenges to be created by the opening up of European markets in 1992.
On page 75, Vote 2 for the Department of the Environment covers expenditure on housing. The figures are considerably greater: £220 million is required, mainly to provide finance for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and for the voluntary housing movement. Noble Lords will appreciate that substantial inroads have been made into Northern Ireland's housing problems, to which I alluded during my remarks on the previous order, but the Government accept that more needs to be done. This is reflected in the significant resources which are being made available for the current year. When net borrowing by the housing executive to fund its capital programmes, and rental income and capital receipts are taken into account, gross expenditure on housing will be almost £545 million in 1989–90.
Vote 3 for the Department of the Environment, on page 79, covers water and sewerage services, for which around £94 million is sought. It is worth mentioning that on page 85, £101 million is sought for environmental and other services in Vote 4. This expenditure is directed primarily at improving the economic health and environment of areas suffering from urban dereliction. One important element of this policy is the encouragement of partnership between government and the private sector, particularly through the urban development grant scheme, under which each £1 of public money generates approximately £3 of private finance. That is more than evident in Belfast city centre as well as elsewhere in the Province.
We also seek, on page 102, £750 million for the Department of Education's Vote 1. Recurrent expenditure on the schools sector, which has elicited some interest from noble Lords, accounts for more than half of the total provision for education. The salaries of 18,700 school teachers and more than 2,300 further education lecturers for the academic year beginning next September are major items in Vote 1.
On page 103, the provision of £279 million under subhead A1 for recurrent expenditure by the five area education and library boards represents an increase of 9 per cent. over last year's figure, and includes an extra £7 million for the maintenance of buildings. There is also a special injection of £4 million to improve standards of pro vision in the classroom. The education votes also include £4 million of the additional £30 million made available over the next three years for Northern Ireland's

559
progamme of educational reform. This will enable a start to be made on the provision of additional accommodation and facilities and schools to prepare for the demands of the new programmes of study as well as on in-service training for teachers—the continued training and upgrading of the capacity of teachers. We include also approximately £3 million to the "Making Belfast Work" initiative.
In Vote 2 for the Department of Education, a total of £141 million is sought for higher eduction, other services and administration. Some £109 million under sections A and B covers expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, the Open University and teacher training. Grants to the universities and awards to students are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with Great Britain. Noble Lords may wish to note that within this vote, under subhead E6 on page 113, almost £3 million is set aside for the initiative to help promote community relations in Northern Ireland. That aspect interested a noble Lord earlier.
I turn now to health and personal social services, on page 120, where provision of £836 million is sought in Vote 1 to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Within this total, under subhead A1 on page 121, £686 million will be allocated to the four health and social services boards which are responsible for the delivery of these services. Under subhead A2, still on page 121, £37 million is sought for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor works, including the new area hospital at Antrim and completition of the new block at the Mater Hospital, Belfast. We will commence work on the construction of a new geriatric unit at Londonderry and on the extension of regional cardiology services at Belfast.
In my last stop in this tour through the estimates, I turn to page 134 and the social security programme. We seek some £807 million in Vote 4. Of this about 40 per cent.—£342 million—is required under subhead B1 for income support and for payments into the social fund.
Those are the elements which excited my curiosity as I went through this volume. I hope that noble Lords will have borne with me as I described them. I look forward to hearing noble Lords' views. I shall try to answer any queries either tonight or in writing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we appreciate the care and the diligence the Minister has shown in doing his homework. He will feel as we do, that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to be reminded of the manner in which the Government care for the various matters that need to be dealt with. We have a rundown of expenditure for Northern Ireland. It is not a complete balance sheet because there is income in the form of taxes, receipts and revenues to be taken into account. However, in this order we are dealing with expenditure of billions of pounds. The Minister was right to take 22 minutes of the important time of
560
this House in order to tell the world, and especially the people of Northern Ireland, that there are some good things to say in this connection.
We on this side of the House have no hesitation in recognising the enormous burden which is carried by Government Ministers in seeking to discharge their responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland and to their Government. Indeed, for about an hour before this debate, we had a most useful reminder of the backcloth and the raison d'être for so many of the problems and the anguish of Northern Ireland at a political level. However, the purpose of this debate is examine the nitty gritty. We must find out the gaps, if there are any, between the aspirations—laudable as they may be—of the Government and the reality on the ground.
I should like to begin by using as an analogy a speech made by the Minister's ministerial colleague, Mr. Peter Viggers. He made the speech when he addressed the members of the Londonderry Rotary Club. It is entitled, "The Future of the Northern Ireland Economy". This is the language which he felt able to use when speaking to that distinguished body. He said:
"New computer-based technology—with the automation of so many processes—is also rapidly transforming the nature of the manufacturing processes, radically altering industry's skills, research and marketing needs. Economics of scale are being revolutionised. The life-span of products is rapidly decreasing, with new approaches and fashions proliferating. Continually the pace of change is increasing. At the same time the service sector has rapidly developed, with new work patterns and approaches. Some of it is the natural development of more traditional skills and markets, such as fast-food, but in other areas such as photocopying and data handling growth is coming from formerly undreamt of technologies".
That is the way in which a Minister felt able to describe an aspect not just of government policy but also of the economy of Northern Ireland.
Pehaps I may at this stage tell the House how another important body, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, was able to describe broadly, and give their views on, the same situation. The council issued a press release on 9th June of this year. It says:
"Northern Ireland remains the most economically depressed region in the United Kingdom and has lagged behind the rest of the country in experiencing an upturn in activity. The rate of improvement of almost every economic indicator in the Province has been below the national average.
"Looking ahead to the coming year the Council anticipates a less buoyant performance by the local economy. The expected slowdown in the United Kingdom as a result of the tightening of monetary policy in response to rising inflation and the balance of payments defict will present major difficulties for the Province. As a consequence the Council expects only modest growth in the economy with employment levels remaining largely static and falls in unemployment levelling out during the course of the year. The report stresses the vulnerability of the Northern Ireland economy to any downturn in the level of national economic activity and emphasises the need for concerted efforts by the Government and the private sector to consolidate the gains which have been achieved."
Neither body is straining too far. Indeed, both bodies have the deep interest of the people of Northern Ireland at heart. The Minister has prime responsibility for generating activity; that is, not as regards himself, but as regards government measures. However, here we have another view of broadly the same situation. While the Minister tried

561
to take some solace from the falling levels in unemployment, the falling—that is, the proud local figure at present—still leaves 15·5 per cent. The figure is enormous. It is less than it was; but it is still enormous. Further, when one looks at the position, 19 per cent. of the male working population is unemployed.
Can the Minister tell us—if not, perhaps he will write to me—what is the scenario in respect of low paid, low skilled, part-time female employment? Surely the Minister is aware that there is a world of difference between an adult male working full time and, for instance—with no disrespect—a female working part-time, both of whom are a statistic in the employment register.
When the Minister talks in terms of the privatisation of Shorts—indeed, he will know that privatisation of industries is an anathema to many of my colleagues on this side of the House; but that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland which we acknowledge—can he tell us what has emerged over the past few months, and what will emerge in the next few months, in respect of the likely effect on employment following privatisation of the company? For instance, could this lead to further job losses, especially in the highly skilled area?
We know that there are such things as confidential assessments, private conversations, and so on. However, just as the Minister is proud to tell the world that this is a further example of privatisation, we are entitled to ask what that means to the people who live in Belfast. Will there be a spin-off which they will certainly not like?
The Minister paid special attention to the improvement in the economy. However, let me return to what Mr. Viggers told that conference just two weeks ago. He said:
"The reduction in tax levels and the outright abolition of several taxes have once again created the incentive to work, the opportunities to save and freedom of choice in spending, and indeed the chance to pass one's wealth on to one's family. Through the major extension of share ownership and the sale of council houses many more families have been given a genuine stake in their home, their jobs and their community".
You can say that again to the tens of thousands of people who live in Northern Ireland!
I wonder whether the Minister would care to tell us what are his observations as regards the debt register in Northern Ireland. He knows, of course, that consumer debt is increasing alarmingly. However, that is not just a Northern Ireland phenomenon—it is not perhaps even a British phenomenon—and there are very worrying indications that the ordinary person is getting more and more into debt.
For example, I am told that in Northern Ireland £338,369,000 is owed to the finance houses; £268 million is owed to the banks in outstanding personal bank loans; and £100 million is outstanding on credit cards. That is a time bomb which the Minister and his colleagues must recognise. But what are the Government doing to tackle the problem of consumer debt in Northern Ireland? Is that something which the Minister and his colleagues
562
shrug off as a phenomenon of the British Isles? I am asking a genuine question here. Is the problem more worrying in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else? It is certainly present in the Province and needs to be tackled head on.
The Minister quite rightly drew our attention to certain situations as regards housing. I thought the Minister was saying that, difficult as it was, there are improvements. Will the Minister set that statement against the state of the housing stock in Northern Ireland? It is about the worst in any region in the whole of the British Isles. Therefore more must be done in Northern Ireland than in many other places.
I have had access to extracts from the Northern Ireland 1987 House Condition Survey. It can be compared with the 1986 English House Condition Survey. The extracts show that in Northern Ireland 8·4 per cent. of the dwelling stock was found to be unfit, compared with only 4·9 per cent. in England. Further, 5·5 percent. ofNorthern Ireland stock lacked at least one basic amenity, compared with 2·5 per cent. from the English survey. I cannot talk in terms of thousands, tens of thousands or more, but that is the nature of the problem. I visit Northern Ireland infrequently. The Minister virtually lives there and knows more about the situation than anyone in the House except my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, who are worried about the position.
I referred to debt a moment ago. As more and more people are encouraged to buy their own homes, more and more people find their homes being repossessed due to economic circumstances. The Belfast Law Society tells me that in 1984 there were 69 building society orders for possession. In 1987 the figure had grown to 241 and in 1988 it had grown to 308. That is a 446 per cent. increase since 1984 and a 27 per cent. increase between 1987 and 1988. I wonder whether the Minister is worried by that trend. What are he and his colleagues doing about it?
I wonder whether the Minister can say something tonight about two problems. One is the Carrick House Hostel in Belfast. I have read some documents which have caused me concern. That hostel is one of the few, if not the only one, of its kind, in Northern Ireland which deals with homeless men. Will the Minister tell us a little more about homelessness in Northern Ireland? I genuinely seek the information. The situation is horrific. In London more and more people are being made homeless from a variety of circumstances, some of which may well be self-inflicted. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing about homelessness in Northern Ireland?
I have received some information from the Carrick Hill Residents Association. The document is signed by Marie Mulholland, the community development officer. It makes hair-raising reading. It is about the attitude shown by the people in charge of the hostel to those people who unfortunately have to use it. Will the Minister tell us a little about housing associations in Northern Ireland? I have evidence about what is happening to the Clonard Housing Association. The document makes disturbing reading. I shall read a brief extract of what I have been told:

563
"The Clonard Housing Association is a non-profit-making concern. It is the only community based housing association in West Belfast, the most highly populated area in the city. West Belfast has enormous opportunities for growth for the Association. There are a lot of vacant sites and derelict buildings which are ugly, dangerous, degrading and demoralizing. The Association sees its role in changing this image, in acquiring these vacant sites to provide modern housing, derelict building could be rehabilitated, provide much needed housing, and thus enhance the areas involved and give a sense of pride to the community. The Association has been established over 11 years and has not yet been able to undertake a new build scheme".
There must be something wrong with the raison dêtre of the association, or the impetus of the people in charge. If not, there must be some other reason. The document continues:
"The Association's stock is as follows:—34 tenanted properties, 2 bricked up properties, I vacant property requiring work before it can be tenanted, 37 vacant sites".
Those sites have been acquired over the years to enable a number of schemes to be progressed. We should take on board the fact that the existence of a large stock of vacant land is of concern to the association because those vacant sites contribute greatly to the air of decay and neglect in the area. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt knows the association and the area. He knows the problems and he may know some of the solutions and some of the reasons why we are not making progress. Without using too heavy a stick with which to beat the Minister, surely such a situation needs detailed investigation by him.
Finally, I should like to say a word about health. I know we had the benefit of a similar debate which took place in another place two or three nights ago. My parliamentary colleague Mr. Marshall dealt in detail with a number of points. It would be an exercise in futility if I read the same case into the record. I have the Minister's observations in response to my colleague. I believe that he and his advisers would have anticipated that I would raise these matters. My honourable friend drew attention to the number of acute beds that had been closed which were of great concern to him. Mr. Peter Viggers said:
"The hon. Gentleman also asked about bed closures in hospitals. During the past year the Eastern health and social services board has closed a number of acute beds, but that is in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992".
What kind of strategy is it that closes acute beds at a time of crisis? Can the Minister tell us that? Mr. Viggers then said:
"The hon. Gentleman asked about theatre closures at the Belfast City hospital. The recent theatre closures are a temporary measure"—
will the Minister tell us how temporary is temporary?—
"brought about by a nursing shortage that arises from sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment".
What is the position? Although shortages occur, they must be tackled with great vigour. The Minister then said:
"The hon. Gentleman commented on hospital waiting lists".
We are of course all concerned about those. His answer was:
"The Department has recently had discussions with four health and social services boards about the validation and medical management of waiting lists and waiting times".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/89; col. 589.]
564
The people on the waiting lists, their families and their friends may be fed up with consultations and discussions. They want the beds, the doctors and a redress of their problems to be provided.
I conclude by saying that it is the duty of the Opposition not just to draw attention to ministerial statements, which the Minister will properly see have a full and wide circulation in Northern Ireland, but to let the people in Northern Ireland know that we are obliged to bring their grievances to the attention of a place which they believe is here to help redress the balance. On the other hand, we acknowledge the great difficulties that the Minister has, not only on these matters but on a wide range of others. We feel good will towards him and his colleagues in their efforts to solve the many problems that I have outlined.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the concluding remarks of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton are of great significance because he, as a former elected representative, will be acutely aware that there is no substitute for being an elected representative and being in almost daily communication with one's constituents. One has only to read the reports of the appropriation debate that took place in another place to see that the everyday contact between an elected representative and his constitutents is all important. I marvel at and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who does not have a Northern Ireland constituency. It is quite evident that he has gone to a great deal of research to establish and maintain contact with people in that part of the United Kingdom. I agree almost word for word with the comments he made here this evening. Many of his remarks have been garnered from areas which he may not know such as the Clonard housing association in the heart of the constituency which I formerly represented, West Belfast.
West Belfast is generally recognised as one of the most socially deprived areas in the United Kingdom in the fields of housing, employment and all the other priorities which affect the Northern Ireland constituency. Unfortunately, West Belfast is represented by Mr. Adams, an MP who does not participate in the mechanics of the House on behalf of his constituents. The ordinary people of Belfast who are so desperately in need of representation are denied it because of the political consequences and the situation in that region. Because of those political consequences now and in the future, I cannot see that constitutency being represented by any other person.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, commenting on previous remarks that I made, said he thought that I was being rather pessimistic. If "pessimistic" means being realistic, then I plead guilty. I am realistic towards events happening in Northern Ireland and what has already been referred to in respect of the housing association. I remember the housing association of Clonard coming into existence. I also remember making representations on its behalf and being told by people from that area that I had to be very careful of some of the personnel involved in that association. I am not sure whether the same

565
people are there now, but I agree that it is up to the Government to query the personnel of every association throughout Northern Ireland. There is a real need to listen to the representations of an association in such a difficult area as West Belfast.
Since we last debated an appropriation order in the House, two major industrial decisions have been taken: the proposed privatisation of Harland and Wolff and of Shorts. These two companies have long been regarded as the linchpin of economic activity in the city of Belfast. It is necessary to consider not only the employees of the two different industrial undertakings, but also the spin-off from those undertakings which reaches throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. The manufacture of component parts necessary for those industrial establishments to carry on creates employment in other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales. So it is of vital importance that the Government do everything in the change-over period to ensure that no obstacles are placed in the way of those industries continuing in existence, even under privatisation.
A very valid question has been asked by my noble friend Lord Graham. Can the Minister tell us what the prospects are for future employment? How many personnel are employed now? Will there be a reduction, or will the figure be maintained? It would be of interest to the people working in those industries, who are now going through a very insecure time, to have an indication of whether or not their employment will be secure.
Again, my noble friend Lord Graham mentioned one point known, I am certain, by anyone from Northern Ireland or who has contact with it. Northern Ireland, even through the most terrible times, has always prided itself on having the best hospitals in the world. It also prides itself on what I know is the best medical profession in the world; it has the best nurses in the world. That is no mean claim. But it is supported by every section of the Northern Ireland community.
It is very sad to read of the closures which are taking place, particularly at the City Hospital in Belfast, where theatres which are urgently needed have been closed down because of a shortage of nursing staff. Perhaps the Minister does not have the figures at his fingertips, but I have never heard of a shortage of nurses in Belfast. I know that many young girls have regarded it as a vocation, throughout decades, to become members of the nursing profession. Indeed, I have two daughters of my own who began their nursing careers in the City Hospital in Belfast. I find it a very sad commentary that there has been or will be a shortage of nurses. If that is so, why has it been allowed to happen? I am certain that many young girls who are dedicated to the vocation of nursing would do everything they could to take employment in that profession.
If there is one thing which united the elected representatives in another place when the appropriation order was debated, it was the concern which they expressed in relation to the rationalisation of schools which is taking place,
566
particularly in South Down, North Belfast and other areas. It appears that the proposals by the educational library boards were announced as something of a bolt from the blue. The parents who were sending their children to the schools were met with these proposals without any consultation having taken place. One would have thought that the present Minister in charge of education in Northern Ireland, Dr. Mawhinney, who has a Northern Ireland background, must be aware of the great concern as to the religious content, the sectarian content, the siting of the different schools, the distance of one school from another, and the replacing of schools. These issues are of vital concern to parents whose children attend the schools.
I have been inundated with letters from all over County Down about the proposals envisaged by the Department of Education in relation to the so-called rationalisation of schools in County Down. That is particularly so in the Downpatrick area, with the impending closure or loss of status of the Down High School. I have received letters from throughout Northern Ireland, not only from people with children attending these schools, who in this case happen to be Protestant, but also from Catholic people living in the area who support the concerns expressed by the parents of these students.
We know that if there is rationalisation then it means closure, whether of jobs, houses or schools. The people of Northern Ireland are no fools. I hope that before any real steps are taken to implement what has already been mooted as the idea of the department, the parents of children at these schools are brought into the consultations. Education is most important, particularly in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. To bring about difficulties in education for the sake of saving money will, I believe, in the long run, be the wrong thing for the Government to do. I appeal to the noble Lord to have consultations with his honourable friend and to ensure that before any steps are taken, the views of the parents of the children attending the schools which are threatened with rationalisation or closure are sought.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am not startled at the very interesting and close attention that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, paid to the detail, and to what some kind friends may call diligence, of my remarks. However, I apologise for the length of my opening remarks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is no need to apologise.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always the noble Lord has some very kind things to say. I appreciate that very much. Nevertheless, while I apologise to your Lordships for perhaps going into too much detail, I know the diligence with which noble Lords go through these accounts.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. I am particularly grateful to him for all the nice things he said about those of us who serve in government in Northern Ireland. I add my tribute to those in the government service, not least those

567
in my own Department of Agriculture who work throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland for the benefit of agriculture and, it seems, for the benefit of many people in the Community. I also add my tribute to the courageous and long-suffering people of Northern Ireland, whom I mentioned at an earlier stage this evening. I pay tribute to them for their fortitude in all aspects of life in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord made great and very entertaining play on a particular speech that was made by my honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for industry in Northern Ireland. I particularly enjoyed one or two of the points made by the noble Lord about fast food in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, and indeed his noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, may remember that food is the number one aspect that concerns many of us in Northern Ireland, not least those in the Department of Agriculture. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will know, there are certainly quite a few stout farmers but very few stout farm workers. Those farm workers work extremely hard to ensure that our food and agricultural industry is second to none.
The noble Lord raised further points. I shall attempt to answer them all, but I may have to answer some of them in writing. The noble Lord mentioned employment and industry in Northern Ireland. I think the overall climate, despite the figures mentioned, is something for optimism. A French company called Montupet, which is regarded as one of the world's leaders in the field of aluminium castings, and is particularly prominent in the motor industry, announced in December 1988 its decision to establish a highly automated, state of the art aluminium foundry in West Belfast, and a toolroom facility in the city suburbs. The foundry is situated in the former Kingsway industrial estate. Moreover —this is far more familiar to your Lordships and students of Northern Ireland—the foundry is situated in the former De Lorean premises. This will provide employment for some 920 people over a five-year period. However, that project is starting from absolutely nothing.
The toolroom will be built on a site at Mallusk in County Antrim towards the airport. It will provide further employment for 110 persons. The investment by this world leader will be in the region of £80 million. That, together with the other very encouraging investment by the Korean company, Daewoo, is no mean tribute to the workforce in Northern Ireland, let alone to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been able to do in selling the talents of the people of Northern Ireland around the world. He has had two notable successes. We realise that the world is a competitive place. All of us in Northern Ireland who are concerned with economic health and, above all, with the economy of Northern Ireland, realise that we have to compete on a world basis. However, I believe that we are in no way losing this particular battle. We intend to ensure that the economy goes forward as far as we are able to take it.
The noble Lord quite rightly asked about Shorts. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also mentioned this. However, on the matter of Shorts and the new
568
developments which have taken place as a result of the agreements which have been signed with Bombardier of Canada, no one in your Lordships' House, let alone any businessman, would expect us to make any firm and meaningful assurance about future levels of employment. That would be something for Bombardier and Shorts to consider. However, any assurances and any possibilities for employment in Shorts will depend upon the ability of Shorts to produce competitively priced products at a profit. We think there is a strong possibility that this will happen, and I believe Bombardier is very optimistic also. We are confident that, under the ownership of Bombardier, Shorts will be able to continue to produce products which are already being produced, although no doubt new products will be introduced. I believe a new regional jet is scheduled to be produced by Bombardier, and that Shorts will have a major part to play in that, as well as in some of the more technological areas.
Redundancies may be necessary, although we are not sure about that. They may be necessary in order to return the company to profitability. The Government will assist Bombardier to meet the full cost of any redundancy. However, that is a matter for Bombardier. I wish to stress to your Lordships that the Government stand ready to help Bombardier as well as Shorts as far as we possibly can. We wish them well. I believe that everything that is being done by my right honourable friend, as well as by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for industry, is geared to launching the Shorts-Bombardier combination in the very best way possible.
As regards some of the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I shall have to reply in writing. The noble Lord seemed a little worried about some aspects of the debt problem. As regards private debts, for example the level of hire-purchase debts and commercial debts, I shall have to write to the noble Lord. There are some special problems associated with public debt in Northern Ireland. We have certainly tried to deal with all of this sympathetically as well as firmly. However, I shall provide the noble Lord with figures to illustrate the scale of public debt, as well as indicating our approach in trying to reduce that figure.
As regards debts in agriculture, farmers tell me that they, like businessmen everywhere, are concerned that their debts may be difficult to service. That is a common factor in agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. I believe the agricultural industry is making great progress. That progress depends upon the weather to a large extent. Certainly in all aspects of my work in Northern Ireland, I am particularly aware of private commercial debt, as was referred to by the noble Lord.
On the matter of the housing stock, I cannot necessarily quibble with figures mentioned by the noble Lord. As regards unfitness and other matters, they may be in step with the figures he referred to for England and Wales. I agree that the figures are too high. However, one of the main instruments for tackling housing unfitness is renovation grants. In the current year, 1989–1990, the amount for spending on this is £30 million. The high demand

569
for this particular grant continues, and alas! it exceeds the funds which we have available.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has had to restrict some applications to those in the high priority categories as regards fitness. Nevertheless, the 1987 mini house condition survey in Northern Ireland indicated that since 1984 there had been a significant reduction in the level of unfitness and disrepair. In January this year we introduced changes which provided for an increase in the maximum amount of eligible expense limits in the various categories of renovation grant. That is a partial answer. If there is anything that I have missed, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord mentioned the Carrick House hostel and the achievements of the Clonard housing association in 11 years. I shall have to write to him with any details that I can obtain. The only aspect of Clonard that I know is the monastery, to which your Lordships may wish to confine me, but rather like St. Augustine, perhaps not yet. We know that they do particularly valuable work there.
The noble Lord also had some queries about acute hospital beds and mentioned what my honourable friend Mr. Viggers said in another place on an earlier occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also raised the issue of medical services and hospitals in Northern Ireland and in particular in Belfast. The closure of theatres in the City Hospital is a matter for concern. I stress, however, that those closures are a temporary measure brought about by a shortage of nurses. The noble Lord mentioned that the main problems are sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment. I do not believe that that is a complete answer. Care and treatment of patients are very dependent on the skill and diligence of nurses, and it occurs to me that the application of technology is relevant. There are new and swift methods of treating acute cases. I suspect that in some instances where there have been difficulties in recruitment it is not a case of difficulty in recruiting nurses but in recruiting nurses with the skill to operate some of those incredible, high-tech, ultrasonic machines used in emergency cases and intensive care.
Those closures are of concern to people who depend on the City Hospital for treatment. The normal theatre nursing complement of 62 has been reduced to 47, with the result that there are only four theatre teams at present instead of the usual six. Normally there is one team to cover each of the six theatres. The six theatres are used in rotation at present; no theatre has been closed down. We hope that a fifth theatre nursing team will be available in two or three weeks and that a return to the usual six teams will follow in the near future. However, I believe that the introduction of a fifth team in two or three weeks is commendable progress. While the noble Lord may not be totally satisfied, I hope that he will accept that that is encouraging news.
The noble Lord also mentioned one or two comments made in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Viggers, the Minister responsible for economic development. Within the past year the Eastern Health and Social Services Board has closed
570
a number of acute beds. The closures are in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992. I have been assured that the number of patients receiving treatment continues to rise, reflecting a more efficient use of the resources available. I hope that that may be of some comfort to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the waiting lists. To people who require treatment of non-acute conditions—for example, people with orthopaedic problems, as I experienced in my youth—it is of no comfort to have to wait for treatment of injuries which may be recurrent and troublesome. We give very high priority to action to reduce the time which people have to wait for treatment. The Department of Health and Social Services has recently had discussions with the boards for health and social services about the validation and medical management of the waiting lists together with waiting times. Waiting time is more important to the patient than the length of the waiting list. In September 1988 about one-third of patients had been on the in-patient waiting list for one year or more. That figure has remained fairly static since 1981. If there is any further detail which may be of help to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I shall let him know in writing.
However, I stress that acute hospital services in Northern Ireland compare favourably with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have allocated a further £1·5 million in the current financial year for the development of regional medical services, including ophthalmology, trauma, orthopaedic and cardiac surgery. I hope that that sum of money will provide treatment for a considerable number of patients to whom speedy attention will be particularly welcome. If there are any points that I have missed which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised I shall pick them up.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of the two large industries in Belfast—Harland and Wolff and Shorts. We should not wish to place any obstacle in the way of their continued economic health and recovery. The noble Lord also said that he believed that in Northern Ireland we have the best hospitals, medical teams and nurses. What I said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with regard to theatre closures is also relevant to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
With regard to education, the noble Lord mentioned rationalisation. I shall not seek to duel with him on that aspect, let alone about Down High School and Downpatrick. I shall write briefly to him. If he wishes to raise any further points with regard to the letters which have been flooding in to him, I have no doubt that he will be in touch with me.
The noble Lord raised a point about the education reforms which are being instituted by my honourable friend Dr. Mawhinney. The draft Order in Council which would give effect to those proposals was published for consultation on 13th June. Consultations will extend until mid-September this year. I believe that that is an appropriate time for the teaching profession since they will not have the pressure of exams and the summer and autumn tend to be a time for reflection in the education year. I

571
believe that, if we set our minds to it, that consultation will be valuable, but I take any point that the noble Lord wishes to raise on the matter.
We recognise that implementation of the reforms will require adequate resources. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned that we had made an additional £30 million available for community education over the next three years. Above all, a tranche of about £4 million is included in the estimates that we are considering this year. Those resources, in addition to the high level of funding that we already provide for education, will meet a variety of needs, including extra in-service training for teachers as well as extra specialist accommodation and equipment.
I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add to what I have said, but, if there are any points raised by noble Lords that I have not covered, I shall write to them. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for the very nice things that he said about me and, above all, about my right honourable friend and my honourable colleagues. We appreciate the constructive questioning that is carried out by both noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham, as well as that by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We very much relish the attention that is paid to the orders by Members of this House and are grateful for it. I am sure that it is recognised and appreciated by everyone in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  CHINESE STUDENTS: EXTENSION OF STAY APPLICATIONS
  CHINESE STUDENTS: EXTENSION OF STAY APPLICATIONS
  CHARITY LAND SALES: TRUSTEES' DUTIES
  CHARITY LAND SALES: TRUSTEES' DUTIES
  INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH
  INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH