Sitting of 23 March 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. MERCHANT SHIPPING
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) (Application to non-UK Ships) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro/Ro Passenger Ships) (Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Plessey (GEC takeover)
  9.35 am
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of over 500 workers in Plessey in my constituency. The company was founded in my constituency over 60 years ago and the registered office is still there. The petition has been organised by Mr. Eddie Lewis, the convenor of the shop stewards. The workers are upset that within two and a half years they are again having to organise a petition against the proposed takeover by GEC, which is a predator company wishing to asset-strip and strip the research and development that has been so carefully carried out over the years. The petition states:
  "the undersigned object to the proposed takeover of The Plessey Company plc by General Electric Company-Siemens because such a takeover would result in very heavy job losses, serious harm to the research and development in which The Plessey Company plc has up to now been involved and the creation of a monopoly which would limit the choice facing major customers in the electronics and defence markets.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take all such steps as are open to him to prevent the said takeover."
  That is the petition and I hope that the House will take due notice of the concern of my constituents in this important matter.
  To lie upon the Table.

  HM Coastguard
  9.36 am
  Mr. John Prescott: I beg to ask leave to present a petition containing 25,000 signatures concerning HM coastguard. It is a great honour, not only as an Opposition spokesman but as an ex-seafarer, to present the petition, which represents the views of people from local councils, coastal dwellers, auxiliary coastguard volunteers, lifeboat crews, fishing fleets, merchant seamen, yacht, boat and sub-aqua clubs. They wish to petition against the cutbacks in Her Majesty's coastguard. Stations have been cut from 28 to 21, sectors reduced from 150 to 110 and manpower from 700 to 500 while incidents increased by over 10 per cent. last year alone.
  "The Humble Petition of the undersigned sheweth that the coastguard provides a vital service to the mariners, coastal dwellers and holidaymakers alike, is currently threatened by cutbacks in resources available to the service and the proposed closure of coastguard stations at Hartland (North Devon), Moray (Peterhead), Ramsey (Isle of Man) leading to deteriorated service.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House ensure that Her Majesty's coastguard receives the resources necessary to the maintenance of full and thorough rescue service throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom's coastline and coastal waters; and that no coastguard station closures take place, in particular that the threat to Hartland, Moray and Ramsey be lifted."
  I hope that the House will pay due attention to the petitioners.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Community Care (Dundee)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  9.37 am
  Mr. John McAllion: I first applied for an Adjournment debate on this topic at a time when the immediate fate of 10 community care projects in Dundee and 23 in Tayside as a whole hung in the balance. Those projects had been brought into existence under the old community programme and had therefore, been fully funded by the Government. They provided a variety of community-based services for some of the most needy and disadvantaged groups in Dundee, including many elderly people.
  There were involved projects such as Crossroads in Dundee, which provides a home-care service for the severely handicapped and chronically ill as well as for the carers who look after them. They also involved Kandahar house, Dundee, which provides day facilities for the mentally and physically handicapped and former psychiatric patients, and Menziehill community care project in Dundee, which provides a home visiting and caring service for the single elderly and other vulnerable groups and which plays an important preventive role in keeping people in the community and out of institutional care. Whitfield court playgroup, which provides playgroup facilities for children from an area of multiple deprivation and which also provides educational and training opportunities for the parents of those children was another of the projects. St. Salvador's day care is a day centre for the mentally handicapped adults in Dundee and assists them to become better integrated into the community.
  Such projects, along with the Coldside and Ardler community care projects and the adult learning support and agency teams, provided Dundee with a range of vital personal services which were available to vulnerable groups in our city. The initial threat to the continued survival of those projects arose when the Government announced their intention to scrap the community programme from September 1988 and to replace it with the new employment training scheme. The Government's message to the Dundee community care projects was simple: if they wanted to go on, they had to get into the new employment training scheme, which was the only source of funding that the Government were prepared to make available to them.
  Of course, such a proposal was impractical and unacceptable to everyone who understood the nature of the projects and who wanted them to continue on the same basis. The Government's case does not bear examination. For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland made much of the fact that the Clydeside branch of Crossroads had already agreed to go into employment training. He singled it out as an example that should be followed by all the other Crossroads schemes. However, the Secretary of State and other Ministers ignored the fact that 47 other Crossroads branches across Scotland had already taken an informed decision not to follow Clydeside's example. The minutes of the executive committee of the Scottish Council on Disability said:
  "the other 47 had given careful consideration and decided that this employment training scheme was not designed for Crossroad care attendant schemes."
  1246
  Ministers would be better advised to listen to the advice of 47 of the 48 Crossroads branches in Scotland instead of latching on to the one branch that happens to suit the Government's argument.
  It was not just a matter of the Crossroads care attendant schemes. In Tayside, voluntary day care units at Brechin, Montrose, Forfar and Kinross agreed to enter employment training when the community programme was wound up last year. After five months' experience of employment training, they wrote to the Minister of State with responsibility for education and health, saying that, having had the opportunity to evaluate ET, their blunt opinion was that the system did not work satisfactorily. They pointed out that employment training rules were different from the old community programme rules. They did not allow, for example, for sufficient full-time staff members on the projects. They said that it was difficult to recruit suitable personnel, leading to gaps in the core staff who were essential to the success of the projects. Elderly clients were unhappy with the constant changes in staff, which are inevitable under employment training. The voluntary day care units said that the uncertainty in service provision caused by employment training was discourag-ing private sector support for the projects.
  Those schemes had learned from experience that the Government's advice was impractical and that alternatives for ongoing funding were essential if they were to continue to provide the service that they had provided. Fortunately, the 10 Dundee projects and 13 other similar Tayside projects were saved from the bitter experience of the voluntary day care schemes by the minority Labour administration of Tayside regional council. Last September, the council intervened to extend the funding of the projects until the end of this month. The question was: who would provide the funding beyond 1 April?
  At that point, I had hoped to raise this issue with an Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, some sharp practice by the Government Whips succeeded in scuppering the final scheduled debate on housing, and with it my Adjournment debate. I am therefore grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me a further opportunity to raise this matter in one of the debates this morning.
  Events have moved on in the interim period. On Wednesday 15 March, the policy and resources committee of Tayside regional council unanimously agreed to intervene and to grant an 11th-hour reprieve to the projects. All 23 projects in Tayside will receive continued financial support from the council for six months, beginning on 1 April. The permanent staff members are to be retained in the meantime on their existing terms and conditions of service. Temporary staff will be similarly retained until 30 September or the completion of their 52 weeks, whichever comes earlier. Council officers have been instructed to identify with the care groups their minimum staffing requirements and to report on the feasibility of continuing the projects beyond the six-month period from 1 April.
  The Office of the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—contacted my office during the week to ask whether I still wished to pursue this Adjournment debate following those developments. Of course, the answer is yes. That approach speaks volumes about that Office's deplorable attitude to this affair. The only point that concerned it was that, wherever else funding was to be found to save the projects, it would not come from the Minister or from direct Government

  1247
  funding. As far as the Minister is concerned, now that Tayside region has stepped in to save the projects, that is the end of the story.
  It is, of course, anything but the end of the story because a number of vital questions remain to be answered by the Minister. Why have the Government refused to accept responsibility for funding the projects when the Government alone are responsible for the funding crisis that threatens the projects' existence? Why have the Government failed to respond to the wide-ranging criticism of their suggestion that community care projects of this kind can be accommodated within the employment training scheme? Why do the Government leave regional councils to pick up the pieces when those councils are severely strapped for cash, whereas the Government had a huge budget surplus of billions of pounds which they wasted in the recent Budget in paying back the national debt? What do the Government intend to do about the long-term funding future for such projects in Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland?
  The Griffiths report on care in the community has been carefully ingored by the Minister since its publication just over a year ago. The kind of infrastructure of community care that would make possible the transfer of patients from long-term institutional care back into the community is not in place. That is why projects of this kind have developed through schemes such as the community programme. Instead of withdrawing support funding from the projects as the Minister has done, he should have provided development funding through health boards and social work departments to enable the work of the projects to be built on and developed into the sort of community care that Griffiths envisaged.
  It is surely ironic that, far from providing additional development funding to councils, the Minister and his friends are hounding councils to cut the resources available to them. For example, had Tayside levied a poll tax of £178 as Scottish Office Ministers advised it to do, instead of the £220 poll tax upon which it finally decided, Tayside region would have had between £11 million and £12 million less to spend on its social work education and other services. Had that happened, not just the community care projects that I have described would have been at risk.
  For the moment, the projects have been saved by a council that cares, but their long-term future and the long-term future of community care as a whole remain depressing because of a Government who do not care and will not live up to their funding responsibilities. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will address the issue of funding for the long-term future of community care projects such as envisaged in the Griffiths report—something that the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers have failed lamentably to do in the recent White Paper. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  9.48 am
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on a subject which is important to many thousands of individuals and to families and concerned organisations in Dundee and Tayside.
  It is important to remind ourselves who is involved in care in the community. We are talking about people whose families find it difficult to look after them and for whom
  1248
  voluntary organisations have formed groups to provide services that normally would have been provided by the social work department of Tayside regional council or Tayside health board in day care centres or hostels. If the council or the health board had to take on the responsibilities of the voluntary organisations they would have to reduce services in other areas. That would increase pressure on individuals in Dundee and Tayside.
  It is important not only to outline the views of my hon. Friend and myself, but to remind ourselves of some of the main players in the drama and some of their comments. I shall spell out the views of those who are supposed to be concerned and of those who are genuinely concerned. On 25 January, the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of Crossroads (Scotland) saying:
  "I find it most regrettable that Crossroads organisations have largely rejected Employment Training as a source of funding and I remain unconvinced that other Crossroads organisations could not follow the Crossroads (Clydesdale) example if the will to do so existed. Crossroads (Clydesdale) clearly believes that it has a future operating within Employment Training and I welcome and share that belief. More generally, I remain convinced that caring organisations like Crossroads could provide excellent Employment Training opportunities. I have however to accept that the management of other Crossroads schemes, having assessed what Crossroads (Clydesdale) proposes to do, have decided not to follow that example. That is of course a decision for them."
  The executive committee of Crossroads in Scotland held a meeting on 23 February, having had time to consider the correspondence from the Secretary of State. The chairman, Dr. Kuenssberg reported that it was totally absurd of the Secretary of State to have said what he did in his letter of 25 January. One branch out of 48 had joined the employment training scheme and the other 47 had given careful consideration and decided that the employment training scheme was not suitable for Crossroads care attendant schemes. He also reported that a number of Crossroads schemes had folded.
  You represent an English constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and there may be other hon. Members who do not understand the differences between the system that operated for Crossroads in Scotland and that in England and Wales. Ms. Hunt from the Scottish Office said that Crossroads schemes in England and Wales were run very differently, as they were based on funds from health boards and local authorities. It is clear that there were two methods of achieving the caring facility. It was far more beneficial to the Crossroads care schemes in Scotland to use the community programme for funding and looking after those with whom they were concerned.
  The community programme in Scotland was far more centred on the caring aspects of the voluntary sector—that is, the sector outside the statutory bodies which have responsibility in these matters. Against that background, the Scottish National Council for Voluntary Organisations had a series of meetings with the Minister of State, Scottish Office with responsibility for industry and employment in Scotland prior to the ending of the community programme to make it clear to him that many of the care schemes would not be suitable to go into the new employment training programme. I put it on record that the association did not say simply that it saw the matter as wholly or only the responsibility of the Government. It offered the Government, and the Scottish Office in particular, a package. It said that if the Department of Employment and the Minister of State

  1249
  would agree to establish a separate fund under the Department of Employment—on which it put a figure of £1 million—those caring organisations could continue.
  Some of the caring organisations have not only invested considerable time in training the carers whom they have used under the community programme, but have built up a great deal of expertise and have gathered together equipment which they used on community programmes. The association's request was simple. It asked not for a continual handout, but for a breathing space of two years and for £1 million to be set aside from the money allocated to employment training. During the two years, the care organisations would be able to redefine their needs and priorities and gather together extra funding. That was not an unreasonable request, but to this day we have had no formal response to it other than the views of the Secretary of State, set out in his letter of 25 January. He said that all the money previously spent on the community programme would now be given to employment training and that, whether they liked it or not, caring organisations had better get themselves into employment training.
  That mistake was further compounded when I went to see the Minister of State to discuss the problems of the Menzieshill community organisation. The organisation was formed to provide basic caring services to the elderly who live in the Menzieshill area of Dundee. Simple care was provided such as visiting the elderly, disabled or ill in their homes, collecting retirement and other benefits and doing the daily or weekly shopping—in other words, the type of jobs that we normally associate with home helps. The group also drives the elderly and infirm to the lunch club in the Menzieshill community centre. With the greatest stretch of imagination, one could hardly believe that a person would need to be trained to talk to the elderly and disabled, to take the benefit book to the local post office, to buy provisions from the local shops or to assist people from their homes to the community centre. Even the Minister would find it difficult to say that such tasks could be fitted into employment training.
  At a meeting on 2 February, the Minister of State suggested that we had not looked properly at the proposals and that we should look at them again. He believed that we might be able to fit the Menzieshill community organisation into employment training. He said that instead of asking simply for money, I should be prepared to argue the case. I agreed and I went back to the Menzieshill group which agreed immediately to hold discussions once more with officials from the Department of Employment. That meeting has taken place and both sides agree that there is no way that such a service could be included in employment training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, if Tayside regional council had not stepped in and found the extra money, the Crossroads scheme in Dundee would have ended. That would have added to the misery of the individuals who have enjoyed the benefits of the service.
  It is not only my hon. Friend and myself whose words should be heard in this debate. One of the Minister's friends—in the sense that he shares his political views—is one W. Loe CBE, JP, who wrote on behalf of a number of caring organisations, including the voluntary day care units in Kirriemuir, Forfar, Brechin and Montrose. The Kinross day care centre had also associated itself with the
  1250
  thoughts expressed in the letter. William Low, CBE, JP is not a radical politician in the Tayside area, but even he thinks that the Minister should think again.
  I hope that the Minister will show an awareness in his reply of the concern felt by the caring organisations in the Dundee and Tayside area and that the Government are at long last prepared to do something other than mouthing platitudes.
  10 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I may have many faults, but I do not think that mouthing platitudes is one of them.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) based his explanation of why we missed the opportunity to debate the matter on a previous Adjournment debate on what he described as "sharp practice" by the Government Whips. I recall that as I waited in the Chamber to discuss the matter, the business moved on, because the Opposition did not choose to speak on previous business, and while I am delighted that we have this opportunity to return to the matter, I think that the blame lay with the hon. Gentleman for not being present rather than with anyone else.
  I shall try to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). First, however, I will explain our overall policy on community care. We shall be bringing forward proposals for further development of community care in due course, but hon. Members will accept that this is a complex subject, and I do not think that I can say anything definite at this stage about when an announcement is likely to be made.
  Before dealing with the circumstances of the community project about which the hon. Member for Dundee, East is concerned, I will say something about the provision of community care nationally. Gross expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland has increased by 34 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office and the planning figure for social work services has risen by no less than 67 per cent. in real terms over the same period. Those remarkable resource increases should be borne in mind in assessing the scope for futher development in community care.
  We have heard a great deal about the generosity of Tayside region and how it stepped into the breach. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dundee, East did not tell the House that Tayside's grant for the coming year is very substantial. It represents an 11·1 per cent. increase over this year—well above the rate of inflation and the average increase of 9·8 per cent. that authorities have received. Moreover, grant penalties have been abolished so Tayside will receive the sum in full. It is true that Tayside's grant has been abated in the past, but that was the result of overspending and inability to control its financial affairs.
  Mr. McAllion: As I understand it, the Minister's assessment of the need for social work spending in Tayside is not yet matched by actual expenditure. That is the result of the activities of a Conservative administration, which consistently underspent on social work provision over a long period. Since it came into office, the Labour administration has increased expenditure on social work services every year until this year and it has been penalised by the Minister and the Government for doing so.
  Mr. Forsyth: Since the Government took office, the resources made available for planning for social work have increased by 67 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Tayside spends less on the elderly than a number of local authorities. That is because of the way in which the Labour group has chosen to allocate the very substantial additional resources made available to the local authority. I would certainly wish to encourage the authority to redress the balance and make more resources available for the elderly from the substantial pool available to it. The background in Scotland has been of substantial additional support for the elderly. There has been a 16 per cent. increase in residential places for the elderly, a 68 per cent. increase in the number of day centre places and an increase of about 29 per cent. in home help provision. That is a result of the substantial resources that the Government have provided for local Government.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I want to make a little progress. I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is particularly interested in Tayside.
  Primary responsibility for community care provision lies with the local authorities, health boards and housing agencies. The increased resources for the NHS in Scotland have led to a 40 per cent. increase in the number of beds and day places in psychogeriatric provision. National Health Service hospital provision for the elderly in Tayside stands at 26 beds per 1,000, compared with a national average of 24 beds.
  The hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Dundee, West referred to the difficulties allegedly faced by care schemes in adapting to the employment training arrangements. We believe that employment training marks a significant development—in our view, an improvement —over its predecessor, the community programme. Employment training is targeted specifically at providing training designed to enhance full-time job opportunities for those taking part in the programme. That means that the Training Agency and local training managers must ensure that individual projects or schemes wishing to be involved in the ET arrangements must show that their activities contain an element of training which will benefit individuals looking for full-time jobs.
  Many of the care schemes about which we hear are closely linked to the types of services that local authority social work departments or health boards can often provide at their own hand. It seems to follow, therefore, that the care schemes must be doing work which is relevant to functions already exercised by those statutory bodies.
  There are claims—the hon. Member for Dundee, West has touched on them—that inflexibilities in employment training mean a reduction in the independence of individual schemes if they participate in ET. That seems to mean that for fairly small individual schemes it often makes more sense for the local training managers to bring together a number of projects for training purposes because this is the most cost-effective way of monitoring the training element. It is not the Training Agency or local training manager's intention to usurp the proper management responsibilities of individual scheme managers, nor does it mean that the aims or objectives of schemes should be significantly altered or influenced by this administrative arrangement.
  1252
  A further allegation is that care schemes cannot hope to attract a sufficient number or quality of trainees because of the type of activity and the anti-social hours—that is, weekends—which those schemes often involve. I find it hard to believe that that is an overriding argument against care schemes participating in ET. Local training managers have been flexible in trying to identify and select suitable trainees and terms, and conditions of working have been adapted to suit the needs of individual schemes. The proof of this and of the other points I have made in this connection is that there are care schemes within ET that operate satisfactorily and have not suffered any of the traumatic effects that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and other detractors of ET seem to envisage. Many care organisations in Tayside have successfully made the transition from community programme to employment training. These include, Broughty Ferry community care and Clepington parish church. Indeed, I understand that both these projects are to all intents and purposes identical to Menzieshill. I am sure that the schemes are known to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, as they clearly were to the hon. Member for Dundee, West.
  The obstructive attitude of the Scottish TUC and COSLA, including some local authorities such as Tayside regional council and Dundee district council, had an initial adverse impact on the implementation of employment training in Scotland. Many community programme providers were pressurised into following the STUC-COSLA line and declined to transfer to the new programme. Most of the people lost from Government training programmes in consequence reverted to unem-ployment. What does that tell us about local authority attitudes to the plight of the unemployed? Employment training is now progressing well, however, with more than 20,000 places filled in Scotland and more than 500 in Dundee. The national training programme cannot, of course, be revised to accommodate every peculiarity of every scheme. There is enough flexibility and discretion within the programme, and with co-operation and realism on both sides the scheme can be made to fit most circumstances.
  The Menzieshill project was formerly funded under the community programme, but since September last year it has relied significantly on grants from Tayside regional council. The project, in common with several others in Tayside, chose not to participate in employment training. I have already set out the Government's views on the wider matter of how care schemes can take advantage of ET if there is a willingness and flexibility to do so.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West mentioned Crossroads. We have been saying to health boards and local authorities that they should use the powers and substantial resources available to them to assist organisations such as Crossroads. We have also been encouraging Crossroads to try to find patterns of operation which will meet the ET rules.
  The Menzieshill project is clearly a broad-based community scheme aimed at helping a range of people, including the elderly, with ordinary day-to-day tasks. The original aim of the project was to provide a home visiting-caring service for the elderly, infirm, disabled and housebound within the local housing estate. That is community care in a very general sense, not specifically related to the health or social work services in quite the way that they were addressed in Sir Roy Griffiths' report.

  1253
  None the less, I can see that for the 300 to 400 people who use or benefit from the project each year, it is a worthwhile venture.
  The latest information that the hon. Member for Dundee, West has given suggests that project managers may not be particularly interested in exploring the scope for identifying suitable training elements in their activities and that project representatives see no possibility of ET being able to provide assistance to the project.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Tayside regional council agreed earlier this month to continue for a further six-month period its present grant support to a number of community care schemes in Dundee, including the Menzieshill project. I understand that council officers have been instructed to discuss with each of the projects concerned their normal core funding arrangements. The council will then be in a position to assess the budget implications of its providing continuing grant support for those projects on a longer term basis. I very much welcome the positive and constructive approach taken by the regional council in the circumstances, but I must say that it is in rather stark contrast with its outlook on employment training.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to be asking whether that further six-month period would provide a breathing space and whether the Government should consider adjustments to ET more easily to accommodate community care projects. As I have said, I find that difficult to accept in principle, given that a number of projects—and one or two in Dundee which seem virtually identical to Menzieshill —have not found too much difficulty in meeting the ET criteria. On the face of it, therefore, I do not think that there is a strong case to be made for changes in the ET rules, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said amounts to new evidence or facts which have not already been considered.
  I believe that ET can and will continue to play its part in support of community care projects. I accept that some
  1254
  adaptation to meet the different needs of ET is often required, but it would be unfortunate if worthwhile projects of benefit to vulnerable groups such as the elderly were to cease, not as a result of practical considerations but because of ideological resistance to ET from local authorities, trade unions and the Labour party.
  We have done all that we can to make funding available for community care services in Scotland. It is clear from the organisations and care projects already within the ET arrangement that there is no intrinsic barrier to involvement. I have mentioned two schemes in or around Dundee which carry out the same type of activities as Menzieshill. If, however, schemes are forced to close or to contract significantly because of an unwillingness to look toward employment training for funding, the collective opposition of local authorities, STUC and the Labour party in Scotland must bear their share of the responsibility.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister is trying to say that Labour and the STUC oppose the schemes. Does he understand that the Conservative group on Tayside regional council, who originally thought that ET could be used, has reversed its position and agrees that there should be special provision for community projects of that kind?
  Mr. Forsyth: Regrettably, the Conservative group is not in power in Tayside region. If the behaviour of the Labour party in Tayside region in respect of ET is anything to go by, I look forward to the day, which may not be far ahead, when the Conservative group is in power as a result of the strong feelings of the electorate about the way in which politics are being used to the disadvantage of the elderly and other vulnerable groups in the community.
  The unhelpful background of prejudice cannot detract from the success of ET in Scotland. The voluntary sector is already helping to provide over 10,000 project places —50 per cent. of all ET places in Scotland. Nor can it diminish the high standard of community care development in health and social work that was achieved during this Government's term of office.

  Animal Experiments (Cosmetics)
  10.15 am
  Dame Janet Fookes: I put a simple and stark proposition in relation to the testing of cosmetics on laboratory animals. In 1987, 14,534 animals died needlessly, and often suffered needlessly before they died. No more licences for such animal suffering should be granted.
  I will not harrow the House with details of what some experiments involve, but they are, perhaps, symbolised by the irritancy test which is applied to the eyes of rabbits. Scientists want to see whether a human being would suffer irritation and other unfortunate effects from a substance. Those substances are applied to rabbits' eyes, and they must be secured so that the animals cannot interfere. Many of us have been sickened by such experiments when we have seen either descriptions, or even worse, illustrations of them.
  I shall explain to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister why my opposition is entirely practical and not simply pie in the sky. First, my understanding is that there are no regulations in this country requiring animal experiments for the purposes of cosmetics. The 1984 regulations, which relate to the safety of cosmetics, state only that
  "a cosmetic product shall not be liable to cause damage to human health when it is applied under normal conditions of use."
  The term "cosmetics" covers a wider range than simply what one might think of as lipstick, mascara, face powder and the like. It applies to any substance which goes on the body to cleanse it, improve its look, protect it in some way from the sun, or improve its smell. That includes a range of substances such as toilet soaps, perfumes, antiperspirants, hair lacquer, hair tint and bleaches, anti-wrinkle products, and sun-bathing products.
  As far as I can judge, there are no mandatory requirements for animal testing of such products in northern European countries, the United States, or Australia. France has its own twist. The authorities there ask for a detailed dossier on a certain ingredient or formulation, and can require animal testing if they think that it is necessary, but it is by no means a mandatory universal requirement. There are particularly interesting arrangements in the United States. They have a list of ingredients which are generally recognised as safe—GRAS, they call it for short. Those substances which have a long proven record of safety and reliability, primarily in household products and cosmetics, can go on the list, and no further testing is required.
  My main point is that, irrespective of whether such applications are mandatory—and I hope that I have proved they are not—it is unnecessary to test such products by the use of animal experiments. There is a very long history of the application of some ingredients and formulations. If we want to have proof positive of that, it lies in the number of firms that state now that they have either never tested on animals or no longer do so. The impressive list includes such well-known names as Yardley, the own brands of Boots, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury, Rimmel, Innoxa, Body Shop products and a host of others.
  Indeed, if anyone is interested, the RSPCA has produced an interesting booklet which I have in my hand,
  1256
  listing the firms that do not use animal tests, and their products. The list is as comprehensive as it is possible to be, although it is never easy to keep it up-to-date.
  At the end of the booklet is a very interesting statement of the policies of various companies and I shall read two of them to give an indication of their appoach. For example, Rose Laird International says:
  "first stage of testing is under laboratory conditions for culture testing. Each batch of manufactured goods is tested on approximately 30 to 50 women, prior to filling into final packaging. Samples of each batch are kept as a matter of course for historical testing."
  Yardley, a very well-known name in cosmetics. says:
  "The safety of our products is confirmed by human patch test studies, no animal studies, either on formulations or ingredients, are undertaken on behalf of or at the request of the company."
  If it is good enough for such major companies and household names not to test, I fail to see why any tests are necessary.
  Let me deal now more specifically with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, under which licences for cosmetic testing must be applied for. I recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he was piloting the Bill through the House made it very clear in his direct and forthright way that he did not regard the Act as static. He deliberately tried to formulate the Act so as to respond to new needs and requirements, and a new approach. I am sorry to see, so far, that that point has not been taken on board sufficiently clearly with regard to cosmetics experiments.
  Under the Act, all cosmetic licence applications must be referred to the Secretary of State's statutory advisory body, the Animal Procedures Committee. It should take a very much harder line, and should recommend that a new requirement is attached to applications for licences, to ensure that unnecessary experiments do not take place. There should be some form of needs condition, whereby a company would have to indicate that human volunteers are not possible. Even more important—I stress this to the Minister today—there should not be other products on the market that would fulfil the role that the new product has in mind. On that basis, 99 per cent. of licences would be turned down.
  In many ways, I am surprised that licences have been granted under the Act. A useful cost-benefit analysis is provided by the Act, whereby the benefit that will accrue is weighed against the pain, suffering and loss of life suffered by the animals. It would be hard for any cosmetics company to put hand on heart and sign that declaration with sincerity. The procedures committee should look hard at that formulation to see whether the committee should allow licence applications to succeed, as that criterion is already built into arrangements for licensing.
  In many cases, it is not possible for members of the public lawfully to take direct action. I would be the very last to commend anyone to do an act that broke the law. But here we have a superb example of where women and men—some items are used by men, including shampoos and after-shave lotions—can decide whether it is acceptable that an animal should suffer during testing. They can choose from the very wide range of products that are no longer tested on animals, or never have been. I commend to anyone who feels strongly about this, as I do, to look at the lists available and make their views known

  1257
  by buying the cruelty-free products, as well as writing to firms whose products they usually buy to say that they will no longer do so unless action is taken to stop the testing.
  I hope, too, that cosmetic companies will not be too coy about saying in their advertising that they do not test on animals, or no longer do so. I recognise that some of them might feel awkward because they have commissioned studies in the past but we are concerned with what they are doing now and what they intend to do. I hope that they will not be backward in coming forward in that respect. I am sure, from the number of letters that I and other hon. Members have received, and from the many signatories to early-day motion 44, that there is a groundswell of opinion that this activity is no longer acceptable.
  People may say reluctantly that testing is necessary and must be accepted because of its role in medicine to save human life and suffering, but I for one do not want to use make-up or other toiletries that have been used on animals. In order to beautify ourselves, we have made unhappy, innocent animals suffer.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will reply in a forthright way on the lines that I have so strongly advocated this morning.
  10.27 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) for bringing the subject of the safety testing of cosmetics before the House this morning. It is undboutedly a matter of public concern. It is also one in which it is very important to strike a balance between ensuring that the substances that we use every day are safe, and reducing the number of animals and the severity of procedures that are used in this essential safety testing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Drake was right to draw the attention of the House to the broad interpretation given to the word "cosmetic". We must be clear about its meaning. In ordinary language one would assume that it was confined to ornamental substances such as lipstick or mascara, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, that would be a mistake; "cosmetic" has a very wide meaning.
  Under the European Community cosmetic directive 76/768, which was promulgated on 27 July 1976, cosmetics include any substance intended for placing in contact with the external parts of the body, the skin, the hair, nails, lips, genital organs, the teeth and the mouth in order to clean, perfume or protect them, so as to keep them in good condition, change their appearance or to correct body odours.
  Clearly, cosmetics are a wide category. As my hon. Friend fairly said and as I have already stated, we are not talking exclusively about lipsticks and perfumes. We are also talking about virtually any cream, lotion or oil; virtually any powder; soaps, shampoos and shaving creams; toothpastes and mouthwashes; deodorants and products for what is known technically as "intimate hygiene"; and a range of products used in factories such as a form of gel to remove oil from people's skin. It is a long list, that could go on and on.
  1258
  Inevitably, some of the substances are applied to sensitive parts of the body for prolonged periods, so the House will agree that we must ensure that they are safe and that the very best and most effective procedures are used for establishing the safety of these products when in use. When I say that we must do those things, I mean that we are under a legal obligation, a moral obligation and a social obligation to do so. My hon. Friend has set before the House her case for the reduced use of animals in cosmetics testing. I agree with her objective of the reduced use of living animals. That is the Government's position. However, where I disagree with her is on the possibility of the total elimination of such testing.
  My hon. Friend has been kind enough to recognise that, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which was so successfully steered through the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, we have introduced a substantially more rigorous system of control over the conduct of all scientific procedures on animals. All work now has to be authorised by project licences.
  Under section 5 of the 1986 Act, the Secretary of State shall
  "weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue"
  and
  "not grant a project licence unless he is satisfied that the applicant has given adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purpose of the programme … by means not involving the use of protected animals."
  It is thus a balancing exercise.
  All project licence applications for the testing of cosmetic substances are subject to special conditions. They are carefully scrutinised by the inspectorate and all are referred to the Animal Procedures Committee.
  We are not talking here about a very large number of licensees—there are currently only six project licences. All are held by commercial concerns with special expertise in safety testing.
  All the licencees have an obligation to ensure that substances which might be expected to have a severe reaction are not tested under a cosmetic project licence, and all the licensees are aware that the purpose of safety tests on cosmetics is to establish the mildness of the substances they are testing. That point was highlighted in the discussion of cosmetics in paragraphs 3.6 to 3.14 of the 1987 annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee.
  The effect of the stringent conditions that we have put on cosmetic testing using living animals for many years, and the concern of the industry to use animals only when strictly necessary, has led, I am glad to say, to a progressive reduction in the use of animals for cosmetic testing over recent years. In 1980, for example, the number was 31,300: by 1987, this had fallen to 14,500, or less than 0·5 per cent. of all animal procedures.
  I come now to the part of my hon. Friend's argument where I cannot wholly agree with her. I cannot agree with her when she suggests that we can now bring an end to all cosmetics testing on living animals because the effect of that would inevitably be to stop the innovation and development of new ingredients.
  It is important that I emphasise once again that we are not talking merely about mascaras and lipsticks, because there might be a case for saying that we know quite enough about mascaras and lipsticks and so there is no need to develop our knowledge further; as my hon. Friend fairly said, "cosmetics" is given a broad definition. I do not think

  1259
  that it would be right to put a prohibition on development and innovation across the broad spectrum of products that are covered by the definition of "cosmetics".
  I shall give some examples that might be worth thinking about. This morning the House could easily have been discussing aerosols and the threat to the ozone layer. All hon. Members are now wholly persuaded of the need to find alternatives to CFCs for use in aerosols, but many of the products for which aerosols are necessary are cosmetics. It is inevitable and right that the alternatives to CFCs must be tried for safety before they can be marketed.
  I shall give another example. For reasons that are well known to the House, the House has been concerned about food safety. One question concerning the industry is the safety of preservatives used in food. The same thing applies to cosmetics because, by the nature of cosmetics, when broadly defined as I have defined them, preservatives play an important part. It is essential that we should ascertain the safety of those preservatives. We must ascertain whether chemical or microbiological degradation is likely to lead to infection or adverse reaction. Preservatives are one of the more common causes of allergic responses to cosmetic products. I do not think that we should say that we can now draw a line under our knowledge of preservatives. I find that proposition difficult to accept.
  It is right that work should continue to make preservatives safe. The only way of guaranteeing that they are safe—in so far as guarantees are possible—is to carry out some tests on living animals. The testing of such preservatives counts for statistical purposes as the testing of cosmetics.
  The plain fact is that similar arguments apply for a wide range of other cosmetic products. It goes without saying that shampoos must not irritate the eyes or cause hair loss, that toothpaste must not inflame the gums and that creams to protect the skin must not produce a rash.
  Even substances which we may use very rarely must be tested to make sure that the workers who produce them, and are therefore exposed daily to large quantities, are not at risk. Again, such testing counts in our statistics on cosmetics testing.
  Understandably, my hon. Friend raised questions of law. The point is that, if cosmetics are to be made in this country, manufacturers must comply with a common law requirement to ensure that their products are safe as well as meeting both our own and European Community legislation, in particular the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984, which implement the European Community's cosmetics directives, and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Indeed, without proper testing involving animals, manufacturers could become liable—in my view, rightly so—for heavy damages if they sold cosmetic products which seriously injured the health of their customers.
  Taking a broad view of the matter and having regard to the liability, or potential liability, of manufacturers, it seems to me that they simply could not establish that they had taken "all reasonable care"—which is the test in negligence actions—if in certain cases they had failed to carry out procedures on living animals. I do not see how they could satisfy their common law, not to say their statutory, duties in that respect.
  We should also note that the European "Notes for Guidance for the Toxicity Testing of Cosmetic
  1260
  Ingredients" make the requirement for testing in living animals explicit, following an earlier report by the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology.
  That report stated:
  "some in vitro systems have been developed so that they can be used as screening tests to indicate the possibility of a long-term risk, but the results still have to be confirmed in mammals. Most of the adverse effects associated with cosmetics … are such that they can only be demonstrated in mammals".
  As I have told the House, we share the concern of hon. Members to ensure that this testing is kept to a minimum. The Home Secretary has specifically sought the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee about cosmetic testing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Drake will agree, that committee is an unusually distinguished and independent-minded committee.
  In its annual report laid before Parliament in December the APC set out its current position on cosmetics testing. It has asked for special reporting requirements to be imposed on cosmetic project licences to enable it to carry out a thorough review of the subject in due course. We are also encouraging alternatives to the use of living animals whenever possible, and I am glad to say that the industry has responded.
  At the moment, alternative methods are used to screen substances before they are tested on living animals. This is particularly important with tests such as the Drain eye test to which my hon. Friend referred. Before embarking on such tests, a safety evaluation must be carried out using published information to establish lack of irritancy. When available, tests not involving living animals must also be used. Only if those are satisfactory are tests performed using living animals, arid, whenever possible, the substances are diluted for the test.
  My hon. Friend, in an interesting speech, talked at some length about so-called "cruelty-free" cosmetics produced by companies which claim not to test their products on living animals. do not pretend that we in the Home Office are particularly expert in that sphere. Our concerns, as my hon. Friend will be aware, are to ensure that all procedures involving living animals are properly justified and correctly carried out.
  One should approach some of the claims with a degree of caution. The term "cruelty-free" is certainly vague. It could be judged to be emotive. Like a number of similar claims for products, such as those which are described as "home made" or "organic", it is not always clear exactly what is being claimed.
  The phrase "cruelty-free" may imply that the product has not been tested on living animals or that when it was, the testing did not involve cruelty. It is of course always possible for a company to market a product which is known to be non-toxic without the need for further testing —we would encourage that whenever possible—but I am told that some of the claims about "cruelty-free" substances are not always what they seem. I know that some companies claim that their finished products are not tested on animals, but that as a proposition is true for the majority of products, as, in general, it is only the ingredients which are tested, and then only when they are being developed.
  I know, too, that some companies claim that the substances they use have not been tested on living animals within the last five years. But most companies could claim that with a degree of justice. Because of the time it takes to develop a new ingredient and obtain European

  1261
  Community acceptance, it is relatively uncommon for a new ingredient to be marketed within five years of its safety clearance.
  I share the wish of my hon. Friend that, whenever, possible and whenever it is safe to do so, the safety of cosmetics should be established without recourse to animal testing. In the meantime, we should be clearer what the claim to be "cruelty-free" means, and perhaps we would be wise not to take all these claims at face value.
  I am sure that this is not the last time that the House will debate these issues. It is right that there should be a continuing awareness of them. It is right, too, that my hon. Friend, with her knowledge and expertise of this issue, should take opportunities to bring the matter before the House.
  The Government are concerned to ensure a correct balance. The correct balance, as we judge it to be, is the balance between, on the one hand, the proper and effective safety testing of everyday personal hygiene and toilet preparations and other cosmetics broadly defined and, on the other, the use of living animals in this testing.
  We believe that the controls that we have introduced in the 1986 legislation are effective in ensuring that the only testing which is done is that which is necessary and which is required by proper regulatory authorities and testing which is properly conducted.
  We are keeping the matter under review and are in discussion with licensees about the conduct of their work. The public must be reassured that experiments on living animals are conducted only when there is no alternative and, equally, that the wide range of what are defined as cosmetic substances which they may use every day are safe for them and for their children.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  10.47 am
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I now understand what it means when hon. Members tell me that the timetable of the House is extremely fluid. I am reminded of the time when I was an advocate in the magistrates court, standing outside the court waiting for my case to come on, to be told that the best estimate was such and such a time, only to discover that that estimate was wildly inaccurate. I am grateful that I have not been caught out on this occasion.
  I am grateful to the Minister of State for being here to respond to this important debate. In normal times, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary would have been at the Dispatch Box, but unfortunately he has been indisposed of late. I trust that the Minister will convey to him my best wishes and those of my hon. Friends for a speedy recovery. Indeed, I am sure that that is the wish of the House generally.
  On 3 March of this year the Secretary of State for Wales approved plans by Gwynedd health authority to close a number of hospitals in the county and to transfer some services to other sites. This could be seen as the culmination of a long period of public discussion and concern which began in the autumn of 1987 when the plans were first announced.
  What else, may one be forgiven for asking, is there to say? The Secretary of State has given what some will see as the final word on the matter, save that there will be a further short period of consultation on the future of Caernarfon cottage hospital. I say that some people might come to that conclusion, but my hon. Friends and I have not. I aim through this debate to highlight the profound concerns which remain.
  The Secretary of State carries the ultimate responsibility for the provision of health services in Wales. That duty is clearly set out in section 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which states:
  "It is the Secretary of State's duty to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

  (a) in the physical and mental health of the people of those countries, and—

  (b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with this Act."

  I stress the word "comprehensive". It does not mean the provision of an unbalanced, incomplete or disjointed service, but that provision of services should be across the board, dealing with all aspects of mental and physical health for children, young, middle-aged and old people in the acute sector and in the community.
  The Secretary of State is also charged with a more specific duty in section 3 of the Act, which states:
  "It is the Secretary of State's duty to provide throughout England and Wales, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements—

  (a) hospital accommodation;

  (b) other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under this Act;

  (c) medical, dental, nursing and ambulance services;

  (d) such other facilities for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and young children as he considers appropriate as part of the health service;

  (e) such facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illnesses and the after-care

  1263
  of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service;

  (f) such other services as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness."

  That is the Secretary of State's remit. He fails in his duty if the Health Service in any part of Wales does not meet the general requirement in section 1 and the specific requirements in section 3 which are subject to some qualifications.
  Neither the Secretary of State nor his Department have day-to-day conduct or control of the service. Under sections 13 and 15 of the Act, he has powers to direct district health authorities to carry out those functions on his behalf.
  I shall outline the background leading to the rationalisation plan and seek to persuade the Minister to set up an inquiry under section 85 of the Act, having regard to the fact that the authority is not providing a comprehensive health service in Gwynedd.
  The Welsh Office commissioned a firm of management consultants, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, to report on the health authority's financial affairs. As the Under-Secretary of State admitted in a debate in the House on 14 June 1988, that was a direct result of Welsh Office concern at the way in which the authority ran its finances. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales said:
  "I cannot say that I am satisfied with the level of financial management shown by the authority. That was one of the reasons for calling in management consultants. The consultants' recommendations bear out that."—[Official Report, 14 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 549.]
  The report was scathing in its condemnation of the authority's management team and its lack of financial planning, budgetary control and management accounting system. I shall quote some examples of the comments in that report, but there were many others. Paragraph 54 states:
  "Insufficient management action was taken".
  Paragraph 55 continues:
  "We have to conclude that the authority's senior managers have not addressed the difficult but necessary task with sufficient urgency and co-ordination"
  and paragraph 86 goes on:
  "Planning operates outside the general management structure".
  The clear implication is that the Welsh Office demanded that the authority implement the package of measures proposed by Deloittes to bring it back into balance and avert a major financial catastrophe. The measures suggested by Deloittes largely formed the basis of the rationalisation plan which was ultimately backed by the Secretary of State in toto except for the hospital at Caernarfon, which had a temporary reprieve.
  The part played by the Welsh Office in the plan cannot be denied. It appointed Deloittes in May 1987 to report on the authority and that was quite clear from the terms of reference it gave. Arising directly from the instructions to the consultants are the hospital closure plans. In giving the consultants terms of reference which did not mention the need to have regard to the adequacy of health care in the county, the Welsh Office effectively directed the consultants to produce a report which would recommend cuts.
  The Welsh Office wrote to Deloittes on 6 October 1987 referring to assurances of continued support to the authority
  "so long as they accept the need for full implementation of the programme".
  1264
  When the authority told the public during the consultation period that the package had to go through as a whole, it obviously had that stricture very much in mind.
  The inevitable question which now arises is why was the authority in such a financial predicament. The clear implication is that once again the financial difficulties arose in the 1980s, partly due to the authority's failure to control the capital and revenue costs of ysbyty Gwynedd. That is referred to in Deloittes report.
  The willingness of the health authority to axe community hospital services because of financial pressure and its reluctance to give priority to community service development led many to believe that those with a preference for the further growth of ysbyty Gwynedd wielded real power at the expense of the outlying communities. In my opinion, the authority's current management structure contributes to the concentration of resources at ysbyty Gwynedd. The management team includes officers who represent geographical districts rather than clinical disciplines. There is a strong case for arguing that discussions on spending should be based on priorities within disciplines rather than geography. Effectively, that means that no one person is responsible for community services. As a result, weaker districts constantly lose out in the battle for cash. Cuts are nearly always made in community provision because of the geographical strength of the district in which ysbyty Gwynedd is located.
  It is true that Gwynedd health authority has a strategic plan which includes plans for community hospitals, but they are nothing more than academic exercise. In my view and those of my colleagues, the authority should have grasped the nettle long ago. Clwyd health authority did so in the mid-1970s and it now has a network of small community hospitals with full attendant services. I challenge the Minister to say that Gwynedd has a single community hospital anywhere in the county which meets those basic requirements. I refer the Minister to the remarks of the junior Health Minister responding to a similar debate on 21 March setting out four basic provisions which are required for community hospitals, none of which are present in Gwynedd.
  Gwynedd health authority says that it does not have the resources to contemplate such a programme, yet the Welsh Office claims that it is one of the best-funded health authorities in Wales, based on the latest capital and revenue formulae. Who is right? The debate continues and while statistics and formulae are discussed ad nauseam the public suffer. The general public, who are not responsible for the authority's financial crisis, have been denied a comprehensive health service. Elderly people are being denied dignity in their old age and some are being hospitalised and institutionalised due to the lack of adequate day-care facilities and support for carers. There is a chronic shortage of speech therapists for children with speech problems and elderly people who have suffered strokes. Gwynedd has 11 speech therapists when it should have 45. There is also intense pressure on physiotherapists and occupational therapists. I have seen elderly people suffering from senile dementia shunted from establishment to establishment because of the lack of adequate facilities to care for them. Relatives of elderly people have telephoned me late at night in desperation and at their wits' end because they have been told that they must find accommodation for their elderly relative urgently as the hospital bed is required by another patient.

  1265
  I am particularly worried about the lack of provision for the elderly mentally ill. Why should Gwynedd be denied these services? Who in reality pays the price for the health authority's inability to come to terms with its financial and planning responsibilities? Why has it failed to develope a coherent strategy? The health authority seems to get away scot free——
  It being 11 o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Robert McTaggart Esquire, the Member for Glasgow, Central. I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

  Explosion (Peterborough)
  11 am
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): With permission, I shall make a statement about the explosion at Vibroplant, Fengate, Peterborough.
  At 9.35 yesterday an ICI Nobel's Explosives lorry of standard design, carrying 800 kg of explosives, caught fire while on a routine delivery. I understand that the driver pulled into the nearest yard, which was that of Vibroplant plc, Newark road, Fengate, Peterborough, and called the fire brigade. While in attendance, the lorry exploded, killing one fireman and injuring more than 80 people. Some have serious injuries. I want to convey the Government's sympathy to the families of the dead fire officer and the injured.
  At least five premises were seriously damaged and the police declared a major emergency. The scale of this tragic incident has been major. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is at the site and will be giving us an urgent report. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is visiting the Cambridgeshire fire brigade. Two factory inspectors and two explosives inspectors are at the site to conduct an investigation. The Health and Safety Executive will be preparing a report. I will not pre-empt the conclusions of the investigation. The report will be published and a further statement will be made to the House then.
  The relevant legislation is the Conveyance of Explosives on Roads Byelaws which lay down rules for the carriage of explosives by road. New Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations, to be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, will be laid before the House in early April. A copy is being placed in the Library.
  The current byelaws do not require vehicles carrying explosives to display any warning signs. For security and safety reasons, it was believed that the presence of a two-man crew should be sufficient. During the drafting of the new regulations and after detailed consultations, the Health and Safety Commission has concluded that the balance now lies in favour of secondary safety. The new regulations will require appropriate description placards to be displayed on vehicles. We accepted that judgment when I approved the regulations earlier this month. I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for not giving him earlier a copy of the statement.
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: First, I thank the Minister for his statement. I extend my sympathy and that of my right hon. Friends to the family of Mr. John Humphries, the fire fighter who lost his life in the furtherance of his duty and in the service of the community. I also extend our sympathy and concern to those who were injured and those who are anxiously waiting at their bedsides. I note that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is at the scene of the accident, and I appreciate what a difficult time it is for him.
  We share the admiration of the whole House for the devotion and commitment shown by all the emergency services involved and for the hospital staff, many of whom will now share the heavy burdens of trying to heal serious injury and trauma.

  1267
  Sadly, in recent months the House has had occasion to debate far too many tragic accidents involving ships, trains, planes and now, regrettably, lorries. No one can doubt that in this complex society of ours, where people and goods are constantly on the move, safety in transportation must have the highest priority. We will give every possible support to the Government in their quest for that greater safety, and in that context I welcome the Minister's statement. The issue before the House this morning is whether enough has been done to ensure the safe transport of explosive materials and whether the tragic loss of life and the injuries could have been prevented.
  As with all such tragedies, some immediate questions must be asked, but asking them has not been straight forward. When I first telephoned the Department at 4 pm yesterday I was told that it was not the Department's responsibility but that of the Department of the Environment. I am grateful both that the Minister has clarified the position and to have the opportunity to ask him the following questions, particularly those with relevance to the part of his statement on new regulations.
  How long has the process of consultation on the new regulations for the transport of explosives taken? When were the consultations completed? At what point were they ready to come before the House? I appreciate and support the fact that they are now coming before the House in early April. Naturally, we guarantee our support for them and we are pleased that we shall have the opportunity to give that support. Does the Minister agree that, given the clear intention of the Government to regulate, it would now be possible for the industry to act immediately, thus ensuring that, should any similar emergency occur, the fire fighters would be warned that such a dangerous cargo was on board?
  While I appreciate that there have been few serious accidents of this nature, as the Minister has said on other occasions, the potential for tragedy with such hazardous loads is all too obvious. Will the Minister confirm that the regulations to which he has referred deal solely with the issue of labelling such vehicles? We support clear labelling of the hazards contained in vehicles transporting explosives. Does the Minister not consider that he should make a complete review of all aspects of the transportation of explosives? Will he undertake to make such a review and will he tell the House the number of movements of such loads of explosive cocktails on our roads each year?
  In so many of these tragedies, a conflict has emerged between the needs of confidentiality and security, and those of safety. We believe that the safety of the public, the communities through which the vehicles pass and particularly of our emergency services must take priority over other considerations. In these matters, the people must have the right to know.
  We welcome the new regulations and we shall support their speedy progress through the House. This latest tragedy has placed a special duty on all of us again to ask: is enough being done? I think that today the House would like to call upon safety officers, workers, managers, owners and all who work in transportation, particularly those involved in the transportation of hazardous goods, to give some extra attention and thought voluntarily to reviewing their procedures to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.
  Mr. Bottomley: I agree with nearly everything that the hon. Lady has said. I want to reinforce her message of sympathy, which I am sure comes from all sides of the House, for the fire service in particular, which gets called out to incidents, not knowing what caused the incident, what the incident may be or what consequences it will have. We know that they are brave people and we pay tribute to them. It is right to pay tribute to the medical services who cope with the consequences of injury and often, sadly, death on and off our roads.
  I still believe that the last time that the road transport of explosives led to a fatality was in 1957. That is a good record over 30 years for an industry which has about 15,000 to 20,000 movements a year. That is the best estimate that I have had so far and it is subject to correction. There may be some incidents of which I am not yet aware.
  The work to protect both the public and those who work with explosives, which are a necessary part of our industrial life, is maintained to a high standard. Clearly, when things go wrong, and yesterday things did go wrong —we do not know what, why or who, and I do not want to prejudge any of that—we must learn the lessons. We must learn how to make existing regulations work and how to ensure that regulations can be modified at least to maintain and if possible to enhance safety. I notice the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who got that clause into the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act, which only allowed regulations to be made which would maintain or enhance safety. I am sorry: I mean the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The House must forgive me for mixing the two up.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that we should look at the major hazards of transport of dangerous substances. Within the Health and Safety Executive, there is an advisory committee on dangerous substances which I believe for a number of years has been considering the updating of the regulations. The regulations came to the Department of Transport towards the end of January and within two months—after settling some of the questions—I approved them, a week and a half ago.
  As far as I know, no other country is carrying out such good work on the issue of major hazards of transport than Britain. We look forward to the sub-committee looking at the major hazards of transport and presenting a report on all forms of dangerous goods and all modes of transport of them. It will be looking at loading and unloading, in movement and when resting up, whether on trains, in lorries or any other way. Therefore, all the information that the hon. Member for Deptford requested will be provided.
  I apologise, however, if at 4 o'clock it was not possible to give a clear definition of responsibility. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment for being on the Front Bench. From my time at the Department of Employment, I know the necessary links of the Health and Safety Executive with many Government Departments. That does not mean that we can always define boundary problems straight away, but there is no ducking of responsibility.
  I would ask those people who are ringing my office and jamming the switchboard over a potential option for a road scheme in north London, to please stop doing so immediately. It has been virtually impossible for anyone

  1269
  else to ring in for the past two hours, which is one of the reasons for my coming rather late to the House with the statement.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of this tragedy, but I must remind the House that this is a private Members' day, and I ask for brief questions.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: This is indeed a great tragedy for the people of Peterborough and surrounding constituencies, such as mine in north-east Cambridgeshire. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who was on duty in Northern Ireland when the tragedy occurred but who flew immediately this morning to be with his constituents, I wish to make a few comments with which he wishes to be associated.
  First, there is no praise high enough for the emergency services of Cambridgeshire—the fire service, the police and the members of staff of the Peterborough district health authority. We would like to offer our condolences to the widow of John Humphries and our sympathy to all those who have been seriously injured. We wish them a speedy recovery.
  Many jobs on the Fengate industrial estate are now at risk. About 40 small businesses are now devastated by the event and I ask the Government to make every move possible to ensure that the security of those jobs is not put at risk.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that the impact of the accident will be felt not just in Peterborough but also in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: On behalf of my party, I would like to extend our sympathies to the family of John Humphries and also to all those who were injured in this terrible incident. I would like to extend our thanks for the brave work put in by the emergency services.
  The Minister has not said whether he has any information about why the emergency services were not informed of the nature of the load. I would appreciate it if he could comment on that, although I realise that it is very early. Can he also say whether there are any rules regarding notification of such large loads of explosives as they travel around the country?
  Mr. Bottomley: The view has been that that would not be appropriate. As I have said outside the House, a balance must be struck between security and such notification. I do not believe that any hon. Member needs reminding of what the effect of explosives in the wrong hands could be. Secondly, there is the issue of safety, which is labelling the outside so that the fire service or other emergency services can know what they are dealing with. After due consultation, the decision has been made to reverse the emphasis. Only time will show whether that is right or wrong. I say to all those involved in risk assessment in this and other areas that we are grateful for their work, because these issues are not easy.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I am sure that the whole House shares in the grief of yet another transport tragedy. Has my hon. Friend had any further thought about the
  1270
  possibility of a national emergency number being established? We have had the crises of Clapham, Lockerbie and others, and now a further one in Cambridgeshire. It causes great distress to the relatives involved, at a time when they are under much pressure, to remember a special telephone number. If there was a three-digit number appropriate for such accidents, I am sure that not only would British Telecom deal with that, but my hon. Friend's own staff would not have the difficulties to which he has alluded.
  Secondly, as I am sure that the House will wish to have those regulations at the earliest opportunity, would my hon. Friend invite those companies which are involved in the transport of explosives to advise between now and then their movements to the services concerned, so that they can learn from the lessons and we will not have a repeat of this incident in future?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. One of the reasons why we have the safest roads in relation to population within Europe—possibly within the motoring world—is that we do not use the ministerial voice as a microphone to give an instant response to every suggestion, however well intended. The reason that we kill so many fewer than in other comparable countries, such as France and Germany, is that we rely on the collaborative work within, for example, the network of the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission, which is a tripartite body. We try to rely on the assessment of risk by those involved, together with the health and safety inspectorate. I pay tribute to its work, too.
  I know that an emergency number is under consideration. Can I separate the point that I was making earlier about my own office? I may not be important, but the work of my office is on a day like this. If people could avoid using the private office number as a way of registering protests which they could make in other ways, it would be easier to obtain the information that I want to give to the House.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that in a series of answers since the M6 crash, about the carriage of dangerous goods, he has told me that he believes that the existing legislation is adequate, but that there are increasing numbers of accidents in which heavy goods vehicles are involved. By definition, a percentage of those will carry dangerous, if not explosive, substances. Will he undertake that the regulations will not only be laid before the House the minute it resumes, but that they will contain checks and balances? If the men driving lorries, and the emergency services, are always informed of the nature of the goods being carried, they will be able to take appropriate action when an emergency arises.
  Mr. Bottomley: Significant changes in the new regulations are better training, marking and information on the nature of the cargo being carried and what to do with it.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: The Minister will be aware that, in the chemical-producing areas such as my own, there is widespread concern about the packaging of dangerous substances which are carried on the roads. He will undoubtedly remember that I wrote to him on 28 January about a specific incident in which marking had been removed from a lorry on the instructions of the

  1271
  police. Subsequently, my hon. Friend will remember that he wrote to me on 9 March saying that the Government were reviewing the whole question of hazardous and explosive packaging. He then gave me the welcome news that the Government intend to act on that very soon.
  That letter was also warmly received in the chemical-producing area of Teesside and my hon. Friend's statement will also receive a wide welcome. I urge him to bring forward the proposals as soon as possible to ensure that those hazard markings are improved.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly the expertise of the police and other emergency services on Teesside and around Cleveland is immense and much relied on.
  As has been said outside the House, there will be a European dimension, and we have asked the secretariat of the ADR system to review the decision that it wants to take, which is that there should not be marking.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I welcome the tentative tone of what the Minister has said—he is always reasonable—in the hope that we will see the shock of yesterday as a great warning. There are many circumstances in which, if the incident was repeated, the devastation would have been far more severe —for example, if a lorry had been fully loaded, if it had been in a confined space and in a built-up area. Does the Minister recall the more than 50 questions I tabled more than a year ago following the conviction on a breathalyser offence of an ammunition lorry driver who was to pick up a load in my constituency. As a result of those inquiries it is known that there have been three fires on ammunition lorries in Britain and numerous collisions and other incidents over the years.
  With all the possibilities of accidents not just from explosives but from chemicals and gases carried under pressure on lorries and the possibility of a cocktail accident, are we saying today that we see yesterday as a warning and a lesson? Will our best memorial to the brave fireman who died yesterday be our realisation that our long-accepted practice of allowing tons of explosives, plus loads of inflammable fuel, plus a combustion engine to pass unguarded, unmarked and unprotected along our roads at great speed within a few yards of our homes represents a combination of risks that we can no longer tolerate?
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman really meant that last sentence it means an end to a fair amount of industry and contribution to national employment and prosperity.
  In terms of risk management, I agree that we need to ensure that we have the best possible reduction of risk and that we put our efforts into the areas that will bring the greatest return. The record of the transport of explosives in this country is good. I have suggested what I believe the figures are for the past 30 years, they may be wrong, but they are certainly in the right order. It is also important to consider this matter in a both/and sense rather than an either/or sense. If yesterday was an average day, 14 people died on our roads and 5,000 will die this year—and many of them are likely to go up in fires caused by the petrol in their cars, let alone as a result of a collision with other vehicles.
  I pay a general tribute to the drivers in the heavy goods vehicle industry, whose involvement in casualty accidents has been coming down at twice the rate of car drivers.
  Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern felt not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who has already been mentioned and who has visited the scene, but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who we are glad to see in his place today.
  Could my hon. Friend have discussions with those companies that convey explosives and other dangerous substances to see whether, in advance of the implementation of the new regulations, it might be possible for them to improve their procedures particularly relating to the marking of the substances? That would ensure that, even before the regulations come into effect, a repetition of yesterday's accident will be made much more unlikely.
  Mr. Bottomley: I know that the House will acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The Nobel division of ICI has, over the years, had one of the best records in terms of the consideration of health and safety. I am not saying that it or anyone else is perfect, but I am sure that it is already making the investigations and inquiries to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  I have taken advice and, without being able to confirm that it is absolutely right, I believe that it would not be unlawful for any company to put markings on vehicles now. They do not have to wait for the regulations to be laid and regulations to be passed.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman make the regulations a little more comprehensive? Together with his hon. Friends in other Departments, will he ensure that those regulations cover the transport of nuclear weapons, radioactive and other forms of nuclear material?
  Mr. Bottomley: I think the House would prefer me to take the regulations that come from the Health and Safety Commission after the work of the Health and Safety Executive and lay them before the House as they are.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Many hon. Members who have quarries in their constituencies will be aware that those of their constituents who live close to them will have been particularly shocked and distressed at yesterday's accident. Explosives are a vital part of the quarrying and mining industry. When my hon. Friend considers this matter, will he assure us that he will bring in the mines and quarries inspectorate to consider the safety of the materials as they are conveyed to quarries, and the route that some of those materials take? I am sure that many people will be reassured by the figures that my hon. Friend has given about accidents, which should allay some people's fears. I should be grateful if he would involve the mines and quarries inspectorate in this work.
  Mr. Bottomley: I know from my previous service at the Department of Employment that the Health and Safety Executive brings the relevant inspectorates together. I believe it is better for either myself or other Ministers to be answerable in this House, but to maintain the Health and Safety Executive and the Commission as the bodies that primarily bring the industries and the experts together from all sides of industry. It is the practitioners who have the responsibility to ensure that their work is as safe as reasonably practicable and, in this respect, I believe that

  1273
  the record shows that they generally have. What happened yesterday was things going wrong rather than things going according to the book.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister accept that there seems to be a leisurely course in dealing with health and safety at work regulations? A study of the current statutory instruments list shows that many of them are intended to raise charges for optical and dental examinations and a whole host of other things. Last night the House approved many instruments that will cut legal aid without any proper scrutiny. That happens when the Government want to increase charges.
  Why have health and safety regulations taken so long? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that those regulations will make absolute provisions for training and marking and that we are not about to go down the road to qualifying the requirements with the words "so far as reasonably practicable", which the Health and Safety Executive and the commission are rather fond of using? The Minister knows that those words place a cost on carrying out that requirement and such words can be used in a defence in court. We want an absolute provision so that employers are required to ensure training and proper and adequate marking.
  Mr. Bottomley: Having transferred a partial tribute to the hon. Gentleman from his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I now believe that he does not deserve it. To introduce other extraneous matters when we are dealing with the serious issues of what happened yesterday and the new regulations that have come through the Health and Safety Executive machinery is to end this statement on a low note.
  The hon. Gentleman should remember—assuming that he knew in the first place—that the words "so far as reasonably practicable" lift up the level of provision rather than providing a ceiling to it.
  Mr. Skinner: That is just not true.
  Mr. Bottomley: If a firm can do something that is reasonably practicable, it has a duty to do it. The obligations go beyond what is just written down if it is reasonable to do that. As somebody who is not a lawyer, I do not think that I shall take legal advice from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that detonators and explosives must have
  1274
  been carried in the same load for the explosion to take place? Will he take steps to ensure that in future, such materials are never carried in the same load? Further, will he ensure that all explosive material is immobilised in any transit journeys of the type undertaken on this occasion?
  Mr. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend is asking me if such loads can be rendered inert, rather than immobilised. I cannot give an answer to his first point, but I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive's inspector's report, which will be published, will cover that issue.
  Mr. Max Madden: Where was the vehicle destined to make its delivery? Is the Minister suggesting that the existing regulations do not require those transporting explosives to show warning signs? I am sure that many people will be astonished if that is the current practice. Will the Minister answer two questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) which I do not believe he answered? When did the consultation on the new regulations begin, and when did that consultation end?
  Mr. Bottomley: I imagine that consideration—I am not sure whether it involved consultation—started in 1979, when the last amendment to the previous regulation was made. There is a continuous process of review. I suspect that the passing of the new regulations will be the start of a new process of considering what more can be introduced.
  The key point is that the majority of countries in Europe still believe that our previous, and up to now present, practice is right: the security of not advertising the fact that explosive material is being carried is better than the secondary safety which will be introduced as a result of our consultations and changes of view. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a clear-cut answer, he is wrong. It would need only one more example of illicit explosives being used to cause the death of a number of people for others to turn round and say that the "obvious" point recognised by the hon. Gentleman is wrong rather than right. I have been open with the House about the change of view as to what will provide the greater protection.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the time taken by the statement, the debate in the name of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) will now conclude at 5 minutes to 12, and the debate on the legal profession will start at that time.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  11.29 am
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Before the statement I was asking who would be paying the price for the health authority's inability to develop a coherent strategy in financial and planning terms. I am convinced that in this case the patients in Gwynedd will pay the price: what a heavy price it is. Is it right that the patient pays a penalty when he or she has committed no wrong? Why should we be punishing innocent victims?
  As the Minister will know, the people of Llandudno lose a children's ward, and Groesynyd hospital will close. The Druid hospital closes, with the proviso that a new ward is to be built on the Cefni site at Llangefni. The Madog hospital is to close. Caernarfon cottage hospital may have had a temporary reprieve but still faces the axe. St. David's hospital is to close and services are to be transferred to ysbyty Gwynedd.
  Let me assure the Minister that neither I nor my colleagues are saying that every hospital should be kept open for all time. Hospitals need to close when the buildings are old, difficult to maintain and heat and when they become costly. However, they should not be closed at the expense of decent. comprehensive community provision.
  I was astonished at some of the statements in the Secretary of State's letter of 3 March to the authority approving the plans. It said:
  "The Secretary of State accepts that implementation of your Authority's proposals will in fact mean some reduction of services, including loss of beds, notwithstanding that overall implementation will maintain services and indeed improve some."
  To be charitable, the Secretary of State is saying that there will be virtually no change, but, at worse, there will be a significant reduction in the provision for many people. I have no hesitation in saying that the old will suffer as a result of the plans.
  On the position in Llangefni, if the health authority had introduced plans for a fully resourced, fully funded community hospital, I would not have objected, and neither would the staff and patients, to the closure of Druid.
  What should be done? One does not criticise others lightly and I accept that I have been highly critical of the health authority today. I have done so only after careful consideration of the matter and in the knowledge that my views are likely to be reported. However, there are occasions when one feels that there is a duty to speak out and I do so today on behalf of my constituency and the people of Gwynedd. In my view, the authority has failed in its statutory duty to provide a comprehensive health service for Gwynedd. I call upon the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry into the affairs of the authority, as he has powers to do under the National Health Service Act 1977. If he finds that the authority is in breach of its statutory duty, he should issue a direction to ensure that it complies with that duty.
  In the meantime, I call upon the members of the health authority who voted for the rationalisation plan to consider their position and ask themselves whether they can, in all conscience, remain members of an authority that has failed the people of Gwynedd.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on securing this debate. It is a timely debate in view of the major threat to the vital hospital facilities in Gwynedd. Two hospitals in my constituency are under threat. The first, the ysbyty Madog in Porthmadog, has regrettably had its closure confirmed by the Welsh Office and the second is the Caernarfon cottage hospital, which is subject to further consultation on the dental facility, but which we fear will be subject to the same rubber-stamping exercise thereafter, as has happened to the four hospital facilities that are being closed.
  I need not stress to the Minister the outrage that is felt in Gwynedd about the proposals. He should know that from his constituency. The outrage was manifested in Llandudno on Monday this week when 400 people unanimously passed a vote of no confidence. He should remember the experience of his predecessor but one, now Lord Thomas of Hendon, who, because of the strong local feelings on the issue of leasehold reform, lost his seat. The Minister should take note of that lesson.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has put the general arguments about the failure of performance by Gwynedd health authority over a number of years. I touched on those arguments in our debate on 14 June 1988 and they were not answered by the Under-Secretary of State. They are even more persuasive now. The guts of the argument is this question: why on earth should the ordinary people of Gwynedd who depend on these hospitals be chastised and lose their services because of the health authority's ineffectiveness—an ineffectiveness which the Welsh Office has acknowledged?
  Our impression is that, because the Welsh Office was not able to get from the health authority the performance that it wanted, it sent in consultants. So as not to be criticised by the Welsh Office, the health authority slavishly adhered to the consultants' report, without differentiating between or looking to the merits of individual proposals. We suspect that the health authority has called the Welsh Office's bluff. The Welsh Office is afraid not to rubber-stamp the closures in order to ensure that the health authority does not blame any future predicaments on the Welsh Office. This yo-yo game is not good enough. There is a need for greater statesmanship and vision and a need to ensure that any rationalisation is part of a coherent, long-term strategic and investment plan that ensures that there are services worthy of the 21st century.
  In Porthmadog we should be moving towards a new community hospital to serve the ysbyty and north Meirionnydd area. That proposal has been put forward on numerous occasions by the health authority but is not part of any strategic plan. The closure is taking place in a vacuum. It is ridiculous that a town of the size of Porthmadog should face the prospect of having no hospital.
  The number of objections to the proposed closure is so large that the Secretary of State has failed to take proper note of them. In annexes E and F of the decision the Secretary of State said that no objection had been received from any of the community health councils in Gwynedd. That was said as a justification of the closure decision.

  1277
  On 13 March, a letter from the secretary of the Arfon-Dwyfor community health council to the Welsh Office said:
  "The members of my Council at their recent meeting were astounded at the statement in Annex E and F that 'no objection had been received from any community health council'. A letter was sent to the Gwynedd Health Authority on 7th March, 1988, setting out this Council's detailed objections to the proposals affecting the 3 hospitals in the Arfon-Dwyfor area, namely, St. David's Hospital, Bangor; Cottage Hospital, Caernarfon; and Madog Memorial Hospital, Porthmadog. On the same date, a copy of the letter was sent to your Department".
  The Welsh Office is playing with words. On 20 March, the Welsh Office said in a parliamentary answer to me that it was firmly aware of the objection of the community health council dated 7 March but, because it was it was dated March and not April, it had referred to the fact that no objection had been received from any community health council. The Minister cannot get away with that. It is not good enough. Why does the Welsh Office not just admit that it made a mistake?
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts)indicated assent.
  Mr. Wigley: That would be much more honourable. I see that the Minister nods. If he is going to admit that a mistake was made, that is fair enough. However, if a mistake has been made, the whole issue should be reconsidered. The Minister should go back to the drawing board because the decision on Porthmadog was reached after an 8:7 vote at the Gwynedd health authority meeting. It was a knife-edge vote. Given the enormous number of objections, the Minister should think again.
  The Porthmadog hospital was set up as a trust, as a memorial to those people from the Porthmadog area who lost their lives in the first world war. Does the Secretary of State have the right to close the hospital and reduce the service in the area? Does he have the right to sell off the building? Surely it should revert to the trustees as a war memorial building. This matter may well be taken up in a legal case by people from the Porthmadog area, who feel strongly about it. If the closure goes ahead, the Welsh Office should be warned that there will be an enormous campaign to have a new, much-needed community hospital for the area.
  I should like to refer to the cottage hospital in Caernarfon. There is still a glimmer of hope because the Welsh Office has asked for further consultation to be undertaken on the dental side. The Minister knows that I and my family have a strong personal commitment to this hospital. My goodness, that hospital is not going to close if there is anything that I can do to stop it. I say that in all seriousness.
  Many objections have been put forward by people in the Caernarfon area and it seems that, again, evidence has been lost. I have a full list of the names and addresses of the people whom the Welsh Office recognises as having submitted objections. It was sent to the area health authority and it has come into my possession. It does not include the names of numerous people who, I know, have sent objections. I have a letter from Selwyn Griffith, clerk of the Llanddeiniolen community health council dated 15 March, confirming that objections were sent formally opposing the closure proposals. Yet his name does not
  1278
  appear on the Welsh Office list or the area health authority list. That is only one example. I could quote dozens of examples of people who have written in and have had their letters acknowledged, but who have not received a copy of the consultation document or any other acknowledgement of their objection. This serious matter needs to be looked into because it appears that consultation procedures have not been carried out as they should have been.
  Circumstances at the cottage hospital have changed dramatically over the past 15 months, since the closure proposals were put forward. Utilisation at the hospital in 1988 was 80 per cent. of a 14-bed facility, compared to only 67 per cent. of the 10-bed facility in the original proposal. That is a massive difference in utilisation. The staffing level is now down from 21·5 full-time equivalents in 1987—the figure given in the consultation document —to 17·5 full-time equivalents. Those two factors taken together mean that the cost at the Caernarfon cottage hospital for patients is equivalent to 10 per patient per day cheaper than in ysbyty Gwynedd, one of the alternatives being put forward. It would be ridiculous for the health authority and the Welsh Office to go ahead with the closure when circumstances have changed so dramatically since the proposals were drawn up.
  There has also been an increase in the demand for geriatric provision at ysbyty Gwynedd and the specialists there have used the cottage hospital increasingly for people to recuperate in the community. Further consideration is to be given to dental provision. I ask the Minister for assurances that there will be a further public meeting in Caernarfon to consider the new proposals that he has asked the health authority to bring forward. Will he also clarify whether objections should be sent to the health authority or the Welsh Office, as the Welsh Office does not appear to take much notice of objections sent to the health authority? Will he also confirm that the whole proposal to close the cottage hospital at Caernarfon will be looked at again, rather than just the dental aspect? One aspect affects the others and logically the whole matter must be considered afresh, in its entirety. Finally, can the Minister confirm that, as circumstances have changed since 1987, those changes will be considered by the Welsh Office before a decision is taken? I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. Members of the health authority should consider their position and the Welsh Office should consider seriously the future of the health authority itself as a result of this sad saga.
  11.43 am
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): This debate is being held in the light of the decision letter issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the hospital rationalisation proposals of Gwynedd health authority and I fully understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Their constituents are affected, and so are mine because I too am a Gwynedd Member.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend's decisions on the Gwynedd health authority's proposals were right in the context in which they were taken and that they lay the foundations for a potentially better health service in Gwynedd. Of course, my right hon. Friend and I appreciate that the process of transition to a new pattern of services is not easy, but the long tradition of service by those hospitals scheduled for closure should not blind us

  1279
  to the strenuous efforts of the health authority to provide a full and effective service elsewhere. The proposals that have been approved by my right hon. Friend include a number of features which will improve the service available to Gwynedd as a whole, such as the reprovision of psychiatric facilities in purpose-built accommodation at ysbyty Gwynedd and the integration of maternity services on the district general hospital site. They also include proposals of local benefit such as the centralisation of care for the elderly in refurbished premises at Llangefni in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. The approved proposals provide an opportunity for the health authority to build for the future, and the Welsh Office will be watching with interest to see whether the lessons that have been learned can be applied elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn has spoken at some length about his assessment of the management of Gwynedd health authority. It may help, therefore, if I dwell for a moment on the relationship between the health authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  My right hon. Friend is of course ultimately responsible for the National Health Service in Wales, but the day-to-day running of hospital services is delegated to the district health authorities. Health authorities are responsible for providing effective and efficient services to people in their districts from within the revenue resources allocated to them. They are also responsible for planning the future pattern of services, using the most appropriate combination of buildings and equipment, within the capital funding provided to them and on the basis of capital allocation assumptions for future years published for planning purposes by the Department. Authorities' shares of both capital and revenue resources are determined each year using formulae agreed by the joint NHS/Welsh Office resource allocation working group. Health authorities are under a statutory duty to keep their finances within balance.
  The hospital rationalisation plans to which my right hon. Friend has given his approval form part of a package drawn up by the health authority to bring its finances into balance. The health authority first drew the attention of the Welsh Office to its financial problems at the beginning of 1987. After discussion with the authority's chairman and senior officers it was decided to bring in management consultants, at the Welsh Office's expense, to investigate the authority's financial position. The consultants concluded that the authority's problems had their roots in 1984–85, with a developing trend of overspending on budgets in following years. The authority had managed to contain its overspending by taking advantage of non-recurrent savings—including slippage on capital schemes—and in 1986–87 by substantially increasing its creditor balances. But by 1987–88, the position had become untenable.
  The consultants attributed the authority's position to the cumulative underfunding of pay awards, an increase in activity levels, particularly in high-cost specialties at ysbyty Gwynedd, the failure to make recurrent savings to finance the 0·5 per cent. transfer of funds to priority groups and the effects of incremental drift on pay.
  The consultants also concluded that insufficient management action had been taken to control activity and spending levels. Later in their report they were critical of the authority's systems of planning, budgeting and financial control. It is vital that, as part of its programme to restore financial balance, the authority takes vigorous
  1280
  action to improve its arrangements for planning, budgeting and financial control, and I am pleased that action has been set in hand to achieve that.
  The authority remained within its cash limit in 1987–88 mainly as a result of advances from the Welsh Office and the effect of emergency measures adopted by the authority when its financial crisis first became apparent. A similar combination of advances, together with the effects of the emergency measures, has contained the position in 1988–89.
  The problems are the more serious when set against the background of an authority that has been shown—by both the capital and revenue formulae used to assess the relative funding position of Welsh heath authorities—to be one of the best resourced in Wales. The growth in recurrent revenue resources which will have been made available to the authority in the period 1978–79 to 1989–90 is some £21·5 million, or more than 51 per cent. after adjusting for actual and expected inflation. That is the second highest rate of growth of any authority in Wales, and it compares favourably with the Welsh average of 44 per cent.
  In the light of these figures, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the level of financial management which has been shown by the authority in the past. However, I am encouraged by the steps that the authority is now taking to improve its performance in that respect.
  There have been several references to the consultation procedures which led to my right hon. Friend's decision letter. It may be helpful if I outline the details of the procedures under which Gwynedd health authority consulted upon its hospital rationalisation proposals. Before I do so, one or two points have been raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon about objections by two community health councils. I openly admit that there has been an error, for which officials have already apologised to the community health councils in question, in that the letter of 3 March conveying my right hon. Friend's decision did not record the fact that objections were submitted to him by Aberconwy and Meirionnydd community health councils following the health auth-ority's meeting on 25 April. Although the decision letter in the case of Meirionnydd CHC was inaccurate in not correctly attributing the objection by Meirionnydd CHC, the council's two objections were discussed in paragraphs 19 to 21 and 34 of annex F of the decision letter.
  In view of the council's statutory duty with regard to representing the interests in the Health Service of the public in Gwynedd, my right hon. Friend has looked again at its objections, but he is satisfied that his original view of them is correct and that the authority's proposal to close the Madog memorial hospital is still to be supported.
  The bulk of the objections submitted by Aberconwy CHC was a copy of its representations to Gwynedd health authority during local consultation. They were considered by my right hon. Friend before the issue of the decision letter. A letter is being sent today to all those who received the original decision letter notifying them of the additional consideration that has been given in each case.
  I am aware also that the hon. Member for Caernarfon has written to my right hon. Friend raising several points about the additional consultation to be carried out on the proposals for the cottage hospital at Caernarfon. My right hon. Friend will send a separate detailed reply to him. I should like to confirm that my right hon. Friend will be

  1281
  prepared to take into account all objections received about the cottage hospital as part of his additional consultation, whether or not they relate specifically to the dental service.
  I have already referred to the responsibility of district health authorities in Wales for the detailed planning of health service provision. Responsibility for local consultation on the plans produced also rests in the first instance with district health authorities. In formulating plans, authorities are required to have in mind the need to make the most efficient use of their available resources which is consistent with the changing needs of patients. Ultimate ownership of all health authority buildings is normally vested in my right hon. Friend. In view of the fact that proposals for permanent closure or change of use can have a significant effect on the community, special arrangements have been designed to ensure that the public and all local interests are fully consulted. The procedures provide a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend, who decides on the proposals in the full knowledge of the contending considerations. Guidance is contained in the procedures for consultation on the closure and change of use of health buildings set out in planning paper No. 5. I stress that the role of my right hon. Friend is essentially to consider whether to approve the health authority's proposals, in the light of objections made to him. Under the consultation procedures, it is not the role of the Welsh Office or my right hon. Friend to draw up proposals of their own.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: He has a duty.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend has a duty, but his duty is exactly as I have spelled it out. Of course he has a responsibility for the National Health Service in Wales, but when these sort of proposals are put before him his role is to decide whether to approve them. It is not up to him to make his own proposals.

  Legal Profession (Green Papers)
  11.56 am
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am delighted to have this opportunity to be the Member of Parliament who initiates our first debate on the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper on reform of the legal profession.
  As, sadly, this debate has been personalised in some quarters, let me state my credentials. I am a barrister, although I make no claim to being a distinguished or senior one; I have devoted too much time to politics since the age of 20 to aspire to that. But I have a good working knowledge of criminal courts. I venture to suggest that MPs are rather more in touch with public opinion than most barristers. That is not the fault of barristers: it is simply that it is our job and not theirs.
  The Green Papers have been widely reported and, it must be said, criticised by interested parties—or perhaps I should call them vested interests. There is nothing pejorative about that phrase. In a democracy, vested interests have as much right to comment as independent observers who, while they may be more objective, may be less knowledgeable.
  I thought that it was time for an hon. Member to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on bringing forward the Green Papers. They are an excellent working brief for our debate. Above all, they deserve sober comment rather than hysterical outbursts in newspaper advertisements.
  In my conversations with fellow barristers, it has been put to me that the Green Papers begin with dogma. My colleagues say that there is no sustained proof of the shortcomings of the Bar or of how reforms could benefit the public. The "dogma"—the alpha and omega of the papers—is a belief that restricting rights of audience and the promotion of solicitors is a restrictive practice that should be swept away. I do not view that as dogma. It is a sensible assumption.
  My barrister colleagues, however, would say that such a restraint on the rights of solicitors is an historic and well-tested tradition and also protects the rights of small country solicitors, enabling them to brief the best in the land. It provides an independent cadre that is dedicated to the pursuit of justice, rather than profit or success in courts.
  It has been put to me by my colleagues that, were the reforms to proceed, there would be no incentive for able young men and women to join the Bar, which would wither away as an independent force. I hope that I have been fair to the comments of my colleagues.
  In my conversations with the public, I am afraid, I have found not a shred of sympathy for the barristers' case. That does not deter me from my opinions. Lawyers were unpopular long before politicans. The public seem to take the discomfiture of barristers with a large pinch of salt. I attach considerably more respect to the informed lay arguments, that barristers must take their turn to be reformed, like everybody else.
  I now come to my views. I hope that they represent a reasonably informed and objective view of these matters. I hold the Bar and its traditions in deep affection. I respect its senior men and women for their learning and their commitment to justice. As a nation, we should be proud of

  1283
  our incorruptible and dedicated judiciary. It would be a tragedy if the independent Bar was swept away or even withered away.
  The traditions of integrity, the skills and the low overheads of an independent Bar compose what is probably the most efficient economic mechanism known to man. The independent contractor freely offering his services in the open market will—this is the crux of my argument—survive and prosper if the reforms are brought in.
  The experience of the Commonwealth shows that an independent Bar survives such reforms. The Australian experience in New South Wales proves that an independent Bar can survive and be prosperous, vigorous and independent despite giving rights of audience to solicitors in all courts; nor have large in-house firms of advocates in New South Wales taken work from the independent Bar.
  However, we need not look to Australia to confirm that analysis. Our own experience as practising barristers is cogent enough. When solicitors were granted rights of audience in county courts, many of the same arguments were used, such as: "They cannot be trusted as instruments of justice." Not only have those arguments been proved groundless, but the independent Bar flourishes in the county courts. When one walks into any magistrates court in London—I fear that I have walked into too many in my life—one sees that the benches are filled with young barristers, notwithstanding open competition from the solicitors. Why? The barristers are cheaper. They are not paid for those interminable hours of waiting around for their case to be called.
  In my experience, few solicitors running busy criminal practices with large overheads and enormous out-of-court work pressures, such as meeting clients, organising bail late at night and much else, would dream of taking on lengthy, relatively poorly paid Crown court trials. Why should they, when most solicitors have known to them a group of experienced advocates who devote their whole life exclusively to court work and to the paperwork that is directly connected with it?
  Again, experience in New South Wales shows that little High Court work—only about 10 per cent.—has been taken from the independent Bar by solicitors. However, equally, I have come across solicitors who can present an excellent case in long old-style committals—men with a lifetime of experience in the law and in the lower courts. Is it seriously contended that those men of mature years, of sound legal training and practical experience, are not capable of representing a client just as ably as a 22-year-old barrister with six months' desultory pupillage under his belt? Of course not.
  My barrister colleagues have said that if somebody wants to become an advocate, "Why not become a barrister?" They say, "Why should we labour for years in the vineyard for little reward as a barrister, while the prodigal son—a solicitor—walks in at the last moment and helps himself to the plums?" What sort of argument is that? The enemies of the Bar would claim that it merely shows an attitude based on exclusivity—even snobbery—that has no basis in logic.
  We all know how difficult it is to start at the Bar, especially for women and for minority groups, but in reality it is difficult for all of us. We have all had that experience. If a young man or woman has been forced by economic necessity to become a solicitor and if increasing
  1284
  family commitments make it impossible to transfer, should that young man or woman, assuming that he or she develops into an outstanding lawyer, be denied the ability to practise his or her trade at the highest level? Of course not.
  At one end of the scale there is an unanswerable case in justice for the solicitors; at the other, we have well-attested evidence that the Bar will survive and prosper, even in the face of open competition. Put like that, the case for the Lord Chancellor's reforms is unanswerable.
  However, all that is beside the political point: how can we, members of the Conservative party, justify dealing with restrictive practices, closed shops and vested interests for working-class people—for dockers and print workers —but not for our own people? What would the country think of us, especially as there is widespread belief that legal costs are too high?
  The public remains to be convinced that more competition will not lower costs. Indeed, members of the public consider that, if they are not fortunate enough to be wealthy or able to obtain legal aid, the legal system—certainly as regards civil proceedings—is closed to them, and that is a disgrace.
  Time does not permit me in this short debate to deal with conveyancing, except to address the central issue of advocacy rights. My advice to the Lord Chancellor is to listen and ponder, and perhaps to compromise on some issues, but to proceed on the main issues of the rights of audience.
  I have a few suggestions, for what they are worth. Worries about multidisciplinary practices and their effect on an independent Bar should be taken seriously, and if a compromise must be made, perhaps this is an area for so doing. However, it can be asked, if barristers are to lose their right of exclusive audience in the higher courts., why should they not be compensated by free access to partnerships and direct relationships with clients?
  We are giving our opponents a handle by setting up a structure of legal advisory committees and advocacy certificates. The constitutional arguments from certain judges are, frankly, bogus. The Lord Chancellor already appoints judges, and the committees will only set clown standards of practice. Perhaps we should consider simplifying matters by extending rights of audience and leave the rest to self-regulation.
  In any event, I call on the judges to lower the temperature. The remark by the Lord Chief Justice was, frankly, way over the top. The judges must take the lead in suggesting consensus and refrain from using inflammatory language that does their case with the public no good.
  The Bar will have to do a deal with the Law Society. The Law Society pressed the Lord Chancellor to act. and his proposals are the result. The Bar cannot will them away with a Saatchi and Saatchi advertising campaign. Indeed, it will have to do a lot better than the "Wrong, wrong, wrong" advertisment. What nonsense to suggest in that advertisement that, if the reforms were to proceed, high street solicitors would wither away. This week the Law Society published a temperate and sensible response. Its views cannot be ignored by the Bar, any more than by the Lord Chancellor.
  As a Government, we believe in self-regulation. Clearly, the Bar Council and the Law Society must sort out standards of advocacy, and it is better that they, rather than we, do it. The Lord Chancellor must also do some

  1285
  more work on the effect on the consumer. Will this reform lower costs? As I have said, for too many people it is just not an option to go to court. Can we have more information on foreign experience?
  The Crown prosecution service question must be examined in more detail. That service has not been a success. Nor, in my view, will it ever be able to attract sufficient first-class entrants, if employed barristers cannot practise in Crown courts. It would clearly be absurd if employed barristers could prosecute but employed solicitors, often working in the same office, could not. The "Wrong, wrong, wrong" advertisement from the Bar Council was also deeply insulting to the integrity of Crown prosecution service personnel.
  We need more information on the nature of the Bar. I doubt that it is the small elite known to judges that it was. To what extent, however, does the esprit de corps feeling facilitate justice, and how much has that esprit de corps broken down in recent years?
  Those are a few suggestions and questions. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on having the courage and determination to take these issues on in a positive and understanding way. He has conducted himself in an exemplary fashion in this debate. He deserves the thanks and the praise of the whole House.
  12.8 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: We live in stirring times. After 700 years, a determined Government of outsiders has dared to question the automatic rights and the closed shop of the Bar. The Bar's response has been surprising. Here is a profession which is supposedly good at thinking on its feet and which can always see the tactical advantage and the way forward, yet from this profession I see an outraged and hysterical response—hardly the cool and dispassionate dissection of an argument that I was taught as a young pupil.
  I have yet to attend a meeting as a barrister where the word "consumers" is used—certainly not with approval. Now the Bar has moved to lower forms of attack. We have already heard arguments ranging from exaggeration to obvious misrepresentation and they have done no good.
  The Bar has accused the Government of a sinister attack on its independence. What of news given to me last night by a colleague at the Bar, that the Bar Council has a file on me and other hon. Members which it intends to use for future attacks? It has already criticised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. It said that the Lord Chancellor is a Scot and does not understand the English system, that he had not thought out his proposal carefully, that he prepared it on a Sunday afternoon when he did not have a great deal of time, and that he had been pushed into it by the Prime Minister, another barrister. It says that the Prime Minister had only a short time at the Bar and does not understand how it works, and that she is simply seeking revenge for some petty pique that she acquired during her brief period at the Bar.
  That is a total disgrace and does nothing to enhance the standing of an ancient profession worthy of the highest respect. The Bar argues tha the client is entitled to Rolls-Royce treatment and therefore has to pay Rolls-Royce prices, but that rests on a number of
  1286
  assumptions held by senior members of the profession who seem not to know or care about the junior end of the profession.
  There are great variations in the ability of individual barristers and it is not necessarily the best who get into chambers or who take silk. When this year's new Queen's counsel are announced, it might be interesting to see exactly who they are. I have not had time to scan their qualifications, but I did go through last year's list.
  In 1988, the proportion of QCs who had been to state schools was 28 per cent., while 72 per cent. had been to fee-paying public schools. Oxbridge provided 63 per cent., other universities provided 24 per cent. and those who had been to no university—horror of horrors—accounted for only 8 per cent. Women accounted for a mere 5 per cent. and a number of articles published two days after the silks were announced pointed out that three out of four of the 57 silks appointed that year had had the greatest difficulty in getting into chambers in the first place.
  Let us examine the fate of those who do not get into chambers. They go to the City or they retrain as solicitors, but why should they not be able to become solicitors automatically? Those people are not necessarily less able: more often than not they do not come from a legal family or their faces do not fit. I suspect that part of the Bar's anxiety about rights of audience is that many of those people, who may be more talented, will be able to remain in the profession and compete as solicitor-advocates. That shows a monumental lack of self-confidence. If the Bar is the cream, the cream will rise to the top.
  I know from my experience as a barrister that some of the most successful barristers have already been solicitors. The Bar must exist by its excellence alone and not be buttressed by legal restrictions.
  I believe that there will continue to be a demand for the services of the Bar. Many solicitors' firms regard junior counsel as cheap overflow labour. Most clients do not care a fig for the independence of the Bar and are sick of seeing barristers fumble through cases as they learn them on their feet. The whole business of independence is a myth, certainly at the junior end of the Bar. Many firms of solicitors have a semi-permanent or permanent relation-ship with particular chambers and often send along junior counsel who deal with clients direct.
  The system is charging for two tiers but only providing one. There are no complaints. Those of us who have had to go to Worksop on the Wednesday and have been given a file with a piece of pink string around it containing a piece of paper with a chap's name on it and a note saying, "Please do the necessary," do not complain, because that is our bread and butter, our £50 in the bank to make the bank manager a bit happier. [Interruption.] Yes I will speed up and get on.
  It is worth pointing out that there is already competition between solicitors and barristers in the county court. We have had all these arguments before. We are now watching London firms and provincial firms of solicitors merging, but that is not cutting down work for the junior Bar. We should go in for purse-sharing. That is a sensible new reform.
  At the top end of the spectrum the solicitor-advocate will be able to free himself of overheads and take work from several firms, not just his own. The crucial question is not the future of the Bar or of solicitors, but how consumers get a cheaper, quicker service with a more predictable outcome. The law has become a lottery in

  1287
  which only the rich and very determined will take part. The Government must step in once again to crush a vested interest in the interests of the overall good of the nation. Competition is a wind which generally blows the consumer much good. Solicitors have shown that they can withstand it, when they lost their conveyancing monopoly. If barristers are the cream of the profession, as many of them seem to believe, they, too, can adapt to a changing world.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: This is a short debate and no substitute for fuller consultation with Members of Parliament. It is not possible to give any comprehensive critique of the three Green Papers.
  We in the Opposition readily agree that the aims and objects of the Green Papers are beyond dispute. Legal services should be cheaper, without loss of quality. They should be readily accessible, and the services of those with expertise should be more readily known and affordable. I want to deal with the principles which should govern the approach to the Green Papers.
  I shall not become involved in any inter-professional row. There is no case for restrictions which exist for the benefit of the professions, not for consumers. That goes for all the professions: judges, solicitors and the Bar. They must make themselves more readily accessible and user-friendly, and they should have the ability to advertise and inform about their specialities. I hope that the idea of advertising and making specialities known can be developed.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) touched on the principle of what is described as the independence of the professions. One must be careful. The independence of the professions is an important element. By "independence" I do not mean detachment from responsibility or accountability to the general public. I do not mean that the professions should be immune from change, because that would be an arrogation of privilege. The independence of the professions means that collectively they should not be subservient to the state or amenable to any detailed political control.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Lord Chancellor may wish to loosen the arrangements of access to higher courts for solicitors and to have a system of advocacy certificates. He is absolutely right that, having had that broad-brush approach from the Lord Chancellor, the detailed control of such matters should be left to the professions. That is not a vested interest argument. It is simply a point which has been made powerfully by the National Consumer Council. It stated:
  "We welcome greater lay participation in the regulation of the legal profession. We are concerned, however, that the Lord Chancellor proposes to make final decisions on whether a particular area of expertise should be recognised and the standards of education and training appropriate in each case. In our view, such decisions should be made by a statutory Legal Council … employing its own secretariat."
  The NCC then recommends that the detailed control of these matters should be for the professions, not the Lord Chancellor. That is absolutely right. We have had far too detailed a degree of political control exercised by the Lord Chancellor.
  The next principle concerns the individual independence of lawyers. Lawyers are officers of the court and have an ethical duty to act properly, but their main and central duty must be the client they represent. They should
  1288
  be able to do that without fear or favour, or any conflict. When the Lord Chancellor is studying the conveyancing proposals, he should consider the way in which the property market has become concentrated in the hands of a few people. For example, the influential Prudential Assurance Company may well now be selling property as an agent, providing the mortgage to the vendor, providing an insurance policy for the vendor, providing—subject to the current proposals—legal service to the vendor, providing a mortgage to the purchaser, an insurance policy to the purchaser and so on. As the Lord Chancellor pointed out in the Green Paper, in those circumstances, the legal adviser will owe a duty to two people.
  The Lord Chancellor must study carefully what is already becoming a complex monopoly of property services in the market. It would be strange if, at the time that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is loosening up the tied arrangements of brewers, a new kind of monopoly and ties were created in relation to other services.
  It is important to ensure access to all legal services and freedom of choice for the consumer. There is no difference of opinion between my party and the Lord Chancellor about the need to provide safeguards for consumers. The Lord Chancellor must consider carefully, however, the independence of employed lawyers in relation to property transactions.
  Any discussion of adequate provision of legal aid is absent from the Green Paper. We do not want the contingency fee arrangement to be some kind of smokescreen for not extending legal aid and accessibility to legal services.
  This is not the time to have a detailed and thoughtful discussion of the Green Paper, but I ask the Solicitor-General to make a request to the Lord Chancellor to extend the period of consultation. There is a lot of interest in the proposals.
  The Royal Commission on Legal Services took a long time to consider many representations. In view of the comments that have been made, the Lord Chancellor should extend the time for consultation beyond the May deadline, particularly since his proposals did not come from any kind of multidisciplinary inquiry, but from within his Department.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), I must remind the House that this debate must conclude at 12.30 pm.
  12.21 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bar, as part of the legal profession, must accept that the Conservative party, which is dedicated to free and open competition, will naturally push forward its reforming ideas into the professions having dealt with many other aspects of our society.
  I am concerned that the quality of the profession, its expertise in advocacy, its high standards of discipline and honesty are maintained. The independence of the Bar is not under threat from the Green Papers. Many of my colleagues at the Bar have gone over the top in their criticisms of them.
  There are three important considerations. First, commercial solicitors are not coming forward in droves to

  1289
  seek to recruit barristers—they cannot afford them. Some 80 per cent. of solicitors' practices in this country are four-man practices or smaller. They will need an independent Bar to provide expertise on the cab-rank basis and, accordingly, it will continue. The third important consideration is that the market will rule on costs because the Bar provides a much cheaper service than solicitors, who will be unable to compete in certain areas of litigation, such as crime. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the independent Bar will survive and it is essential that it does.
  There are three things that the Lord Chancellor must consider carefully in his deliberations. The first is recruitment. Earlier certificates should be granted to young barristers who go to the Bar with the intention of becoming specialists in advocacy. That must be borne in mind when considering the generalist who becomes an articled clerk to a solicitor. Barristers should be allowed to form partnerships to help them recruit and to pay new young barristers. The Lord Chancellor must give great consideration to the salaries of Crown prosecutors who will appear in the Crown court. Those prosecutors must be paid a great deal more; otherwise, the necessary quality of advocate will not be attracted.
  Those are important matters, and I hope that the House will seriously consider them.
  12.25 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): This inevitably has been a short debate and it has rightly attracted a great deal of interest. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) first on initiating the debate, and I thank him on behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for his kind remarks, which will be much appreciated.
  It will be understood that in just over five minutes I cannot cover the whole of the broad and profound issues that are dealt with by these Green Papers. Three main issues appear to have been concentrated upon in the public debates and in the debates by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). They are, first, the future structure of the legal profession—I emphasise the word "structure"—in relation to the rights of audience; secondly, conveyancing by financial institutions, on which the hon. Member for Norwood has made some comments; and, thirdly, very briefly, although more widely in the public, the issue of contingency fees. My hon. Friends have concentrated principally on the first issue, which is the question of rights of audience and advocacy and the questions that flow from that concerning the structure of the legal profession.
  The first point that I want to emphasise, is one that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been at pains to emphasise in two recent conferences—one more expensive than the other; costs may have had something to do with attendance—that these are Green Papers and that
  1290
  the Government are listening. They are consultation papers, on which the Government welcome comments from as broad a range of opinion as possible. I think, as lawyers, that we understand better than anybody else that it is difficult for any individual—that includes a lawyer —to put his own case. That is why the Lord Chancellor looks for comments beyond the range of lawyers and beyond barristers and solicitors arguing for themselves, and wishes to draw in the consumer and the wider public.
  The second point that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor stressed is that the measures deserve to be studied with care. They start to examine from first principles a question that has been discussed for as long as I have been at the Bar. That has inevitably been disturbing, because those who begin an argument from first principles do not feel that they can control where that argument may end up.
  In the context of this short debate, I would like to draw the House's attention to a few passages in the Green Paper that show that the Government are aware of different arguments and are especially aware of arguments that may bear upon the structure of the professions.
  Chapters 5 and 8 of the Green Paper concentrate on those arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asked what help we could draw from Commonwealth and other common law experience. The Green Paper—after reviewing some of the competitive arguments in paragraphs 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9—especially asks for comments on that at the end of chapter 8. I invite the public and the House to concentrate on the issues highlighted in those paragraphs.
  The Green Paper starts with principles that I believe are very difficult to gainsay. Basically—I shorthand them—those objectives are set out in the first chapter. They are to ensure that the public has the best possible access to legal services and that those services are of the right quality for the particular need of the client.
  Everybody who has spoken in this debate has said that they wish to see a continuance of a strong independent Bar. I hope that I have paraphrased correctly. They make the point that barristers should not be afraid that they cannot compete against solicitors and that barristers should have the courage to welcome competition from solicitors. I believe that that is right as far as it goes.
  The legal profession has, over the years, divided itself into two portions, one specialising in advocacy and the other in general legal services, if that is not a contradiction in terms. We should concentrate our minds on how in future, on the basis of the principles proposed in the Green Papers, the profession will structure itself. There have been valuable contributions from within the House and from outside on that important question, together with important contributions from the Law Society on the question of financial services in the context of conveyancing and wider contributions on contigency fees. The Government will be paying close attention to those arguments during the further six weeks of the consultation period and before forming their conclusions on these highly important issues.

  Housing Benefit (Retired People)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of thousands of retired people, for giving me an opportunity in this Adjournment debate to raise the problems facing them in retirement flats with unresponsive managers. Over 20,000 new flats and houses for retired people have been built in this decade, yet their residents have minimal rights. Elderly people have been lured in their thousands into purchasing retirement homes only to find that they have no control over the accounts or the managers. Many of them are having to suffer incompetent management and soaring costs. There is ample evidence of firms profiteering at the expense of the frail and elderly.
  I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last Tuesday and for the courtesy and sympathy he has shown on this matter. I do not believe that changes in housing benefit regulations offer a solution, and changes in management practices will not suffice. We need a change in management and a choice for residents. Many residents are satisfied with the current arrangements but many are not, and with good cause.
  People responded in their thousands to advertisements such as that from McCarthy and Stone which said:
  "You are free of future worries of running a large property … Our friendly management support team, Peveril Management Services … now offers you the perfect retirement home in Homeroyal House."
  Once residents move into such homes they often find that the management prices soar. The developers are either luring people in with artificial prices or imposing large increases to swell their profits. At present, it appears that management agencies of retirement properties allow developers to write themselves blank cheques at the expense of tenants and residents. Complaints are dismissed out of hand. I shall read some of the letters I have received.
  At Fleetwood farm in Southport, the managers, Northern County Homes, took exception to a committee being formed. An elderly resident writes:
  "Now they have sent their bully boy with a stick. We all fought in the last war and won—but not for this kind of treatment."
  McCarthy and Stone wrote to residents in Scotland's largest retirement complex in Edinburgh saying:
  "We do not recognise any committee or other group as representing the views or interests of residents as a whole." Yet Mr. McCarthy, with an eye on public relations, claims publicly to encourage residents' associations.
  At High Wycombe, the Warden housing association has not produced properly audited accounts after 22 months. In Crowborough, a resident of Martlet's court wrote to me saying:
  "The elderly are being conned and it is time the Government should bring in laws to protect us."
  In Upminster, retired people who are not satisfied with management are forced to sell at two thirds of the market price. In Homeabbey house in Cheltenham, one resident writes of McCarthy and Stone:
  "their replies have been totally unsatisfactory and often unrelated to the issues I raised. I have been disgusted with their attitude towards elderly people."
  It is a scandal that retired people who have reached the pinnacle of their professions in the services during and after the war, in Churches, public administration, commerce, business and industry should be treated as if
  1292
  they are doddery old fools. If I were ever to hold the Minister's position, I could wish for no better or more competent advisers than the residents who have briefed me in Homecross house in Edinburgh or the retired people who have written so lucidly from Torquay to Tunbridge Wells, from Harrow to Hove and from many other parts of the United Kingdom. It is an insult to those retired people who have served this country so well that developers like McCarthy and Stone often refuse even to acknowledge their letters.
  Many older people in retirement flats face spiralling costs of management charges, which are far above the rate of inflation and the rate of increase in the retirement pension. Assurances from developers such as McCarthy and Stone that costs will be kept down have proved worthless. Often the new residents have looked to move from large, draughty family homes which are hard to heat and a constant drain on their resources to a smaller, comfortable retirement home. This was to be their dream home where they could expect many years of happy retirement. Sadly, for many people throughout the country, that dream has turned into a nightmare.
  In Homeroyal house in Edinburgh, residents were issued in 1987 with a brochure from McCarthy and Stone which said:
  "management charges rise at a rate either slightly below or at the level of inflation."
  The sales staff repeated that assurance, yet in the 18 months since one of my constituent's purchased a flat there, the management charge has risen by over 16 per cent., twice the then rate of inflation.
  McCarthy and Stone has done nothing to honour its promise to keep charges down. The charge for the son of one of my constituents staying overnight in the guest room rose by 60 per cent. in the five months between April and September, although each resident had already contributed £250 to furnish the guest room—a total of well over £8,000. I wonder how much of that went to equip one bedroom and how much went to McCarthy and Stone's profits. As one resident said to me,
  "The strategy is to lure retired people in. They become trapped in the vice with no escape."
  In many cases, the management agency is a subsidiary of the developer. Peveril Management Services serves McCarthy and Stone, not the residents. Their interests are all too often neglected.
  In Homeroyal house in Edinburgh, one of my constituents has told me that if management costs continue to rise at their present levels, he will not be able to afford to remain in his flat. We are facing the prospects of thousands of older people bankrupting themselves to feed the profits of unscrupulous developers. These people have almost no rights.
  In Homeroyal house there was a burglary over a year ago. McCarthy and Stone's surrogate, Peveril Management Services, holds the insurance policy. Between January and June, none of the communal equipment in the lounge or kitchen had been replaced. Then a Minister visited the property in June in a blaze of publicity. The lounge fire was replaced for that visit, but the stolen pictures were not replaced until November; nor was the fridge, while the vases and the clock were not replaced until this January and other equipment has not been replaced over a year later. There is only one

  1293
  expression for such management—uncaring and incompetent. Residents were charged for maintaining a garden which does not exist.
  McCarthy and Stone and other management agencies say that cost rises are inevitable, but when the accounts are examined we see that the largest rises are not in service provision of the warden or in the rises in rates, gas or electricity but result from what is euphemistically labelled "management charges". Those charges for the mismanagement of Homeross house in my constituency have risen by 18 per cent. in the past year. They are set to rise by more than 40 per cent. in the next three years in return for no improvement in service.
  When I first wrote to McCarthy and Stone about these rocketing costs, John McCarthy wrote back saying that that was a ludicrous claim. I gave him the figures, and he wrote back saying that his present costs were unrealistically low. The McCarthy and Stone residents do not believe that those costs are unrealistically low. In Homeross house about £20,000 is spent on staffing, £20,000 on service provision and a further £20,000—one third of the total —goes on management charges for which only minimal management services are given.
  From Homedrive house in Hove, the residents committee has written to me saying:
  "We do not wish to line the pockets of Peveril Management Services."
  Such letters are all too familiar to Ian Cowie and The Daily Telegraph. I pay tribute to them, to Allison Clements of The Scotsman and to the Edinburgh Evening News for alerting Parliament and the public to the pitfalls of retirement homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has also been pressing for retired people to be given justice by McCarthy and Stone.
  Colonel Scott, the residents association convener at McCarthy and Stone's Homeross house, wrote to me:
  "Our main difficulty is that we cannot get replies to our letters."
  People have written to me from Bournemouth to Blackpool saying the same. At Homeabbey house, a resident wrote complaining to McCarthy and Stone and enclosed a cheque to settle an account. McCarthy and Stone replied saying that the original letter had got lost. Surprisingly, the cheque in the same envelope had been cashed.
  Years go by, yet McCarthy and Stone still fails to produce proper accounts. The pattern is the same in Edinburgh, Bournemouth, Torbay and Torquay. Residents are promised the accounts next week, then next month, then next year and then they are told that the accounts are in the post. At Homeroyal house, only one set of accounts has been finalised in two years. At a meeting minuted in April last year, the McCarthy and Stone manager agreed to produce audited accounts in October; that was not done. In November, he told the residents that the accounts were ready; none appeared. In February this year, he informed residents that the accounts would be produced the following week. A month later, they still have not been produced.
  Throughout the country, millions of pounds are unaccounted for. The money has not vanished; it sits in the bank accounts of McCarthy and Stone and Peveril Management. When the residents write to John McCarthy
  1294
  about that, they receive no answer. Arthur Young, the accountants for McCarthy and Stone, present accounts for charges that have not been incurred. It sends bills to residents such as one for £3,000 that was sent to one of my constituents and it then issues a correction saying that McCarthy and Stone owes the residents £2,000.
  Until proper legislation is enforceable, retired people move to such properties at their peril. They face rising bills, not for rates, services or wardens, but for a bureaucracy. Experience shows that that bureaucracy has forced up costs by almost 70 per cent. Since it was announced that I was introducing a Bill to give choice, rights and protection to retired people, I have received letters of support from all over the country. I have been swamped by complaints, ranging from discourtesy to dishonesty against some of the major retirement property developers.
  Mr. McCarthy spoke out in an article called:
  "The truth behind the gossip."
  It was so full of inaccuracies that it was really the gossip behind the truth. It was a half-fictional account of the workings of McCarthy and Stone that many of the residents found hard to credit.
  People should think carefully before purchasing retirement homes. I would not urge anybody to buy from McCarthy and Stone. Indeed, I would urge them to boycott McCarthy and Stone until another piece of valuable work has been carried out in this House. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has done invaluable work on a voluntary code of practice for the retirement homes industry. I very much welcome that. But the House has heard me detail the problems facing retired people.
  Mr. McCarthy wrote to me on 20 February:
  "We are already implementing the code of practice."
  Does a 69 per cent. increase in management bureaucracy charges comply with that code of practice? Is it part of his code not to carry out repairs, not to reply to letters, to charge people £100 for parking their cars, to charge them for selling their own houses or to dictate to them who their managers and accountants will be? He has brought the code of practice into disrepute even before the ink has dried.
  That is why I shall introduce a Bill on 7 April which will give people rights in these matters, such as the right to choose a competent management agency and not to have an incompetent one foisted on them. There will also be the right to have the accounts presented properly and timeously and the right to appoint an auditor who serves the residents, so that they will not have to foot the bill for the manager's accounts. The consumer is not king in the domain of so many of those managers. My Bill will give legislative teeth to the code of practice, and I hope that it will command support on all sides.
  12.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) for raising this interesting and important subject, which I know is causing many elderly people concern. Although the hon. Gentleman and I may differ somewhat in our approach to finding a solution to the problem, I share his worries and I am as anxious as he is that this cause of anxiety for a number of elderly people should be removed.
  There is no doubt that the concept of sheltered housing for the elderly is an excellent one. In most cases, those

  1295
  elderly people who opt to move into sheltered accommodation are happy, both with the standard of the accommodation and with the way in which their homes are managed.
  The amount of sheltered housing has increased significantly over the past decade and there are now more than 20,000 homes nationwide. The industry is to be congratulated on its efforts to meet a real and growing demand. Typically, sheltered housing consists of a cluster of purpose-built flats, with some communal faciltities and a resident warden. The vast bulk of such properties are owner-occupied, usually bought outright on a long lease with the proceeds from the sale of a previous home. I understand that in Scotland the homes are likely to be freehold rather than leasehold, due to differences in property law. This has some implications for the legal protection afforded to the owners, which I shall come to later. In all cases, however, the residents will pay rates—or the community charge from 1 April in Scotland—plus a service charge to cover the costs of items such as the warden service, cleaning, heating and lighting any communal areas, and management and administration. This service charge may run into several hundred pounds a year.
  The attraction of such housing for the relatively fit elderly is obvious when the home in which they have lived, perhaps for many years, becomes too large and difficult to maintain. Sheltered housing combines the dignity and independence of a home of one's own with the convenience of modern purpose-built housing, the security of knowing that a warden is at hand should help be needed, the congenial company of like-minded neighbours and freedom from the need to worry about organising and paying for maintaining and repairing one's home.
  It is that last consideration—the freedom from worry about the possibility of large unbudgeted bills for unexpected repairs or improvements, that concerned the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South in his detailed and copiously documented speech. As I said, most residents of sheltered housing are very happy with their decision. But some are undoubtedly finding their retirement years fraught with unexpected anxieties caused by large bills for service charges of which, they say, the glossy brochures published by the builder or management company completely failed to warn them. In some other cases their invoices have been incorrect or misleading.
  Naturally, the effect on residents facing such a situation is worrying. Most elderly people are on fixed incomes. Their capital is tied up in their home. they have budgeted prudently on the basis of the service charges that they were led to expect when they bought their property. They now see their careful calculations upset by steep increases or additional charges for "improvements" that they may not have requested and do not want.
  I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South is not alone in his concern about this problem. As he rightly said, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has been addressing this very subject through a joint working party with some of the organisations most concerned, and I am grateful for his generous recognition of my hon. Friend's efforts. Those represented on the joint working party include Age Concern, the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the National Housebuilders Federation. The aim of the working party was to draw up a voluntary code of practice with the builders and managers of sheltered
  1296
  accommodation, which will ensure that the good management practices of the best-run sheltered housing are adopted by them all.
  The code will focus on four main principles: first, how to develop a soundly planned housing scheme; secondly, deciding what estate management services to provide; thirdly, calculating the service charges to pay for those services; and fourthly, customer information, complaints procedures and arbitration to deal with some of the problems that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South rightly highlights.
  The code will stress the need for adequate pre-purchase information and include model guidance—for example, a model leaflet on consumers' legal rights. It will ensure that developers do not hand schemes over, once sold, to inexperienced management agencies. The latter must be reputable and developers will have to sign a standard agreement with them to ensure they inherit the original obligations that the developer entered into with his buyers. The draft code has gone out for consultation and the final version should be published later in the year.
  In England and Wales, where most sheltered housing is leasehold, owners already have a measure of legal protection. A long leaseholder's primary safeguard should be the terms of the lease, which should set out the basis for any service charges, including management fees, and make clear the respective rights and duties of the parties to it, including the level of ground rent, the provision of services, the level of warden cover, and so on. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said, those matters should be taken into account when the original lease is drawn up or assigned.
  Tenants paying management fees and for services that are recoverable as a variable service charge have statutory protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That includes a right to be consulted about major works, a right to information about costs, an opportunity to inspect the supporting documents on which the service charges were based, and a right to challenge unreasonable demands. Those protections were originally for tenants of flats, but they were strengthened and extended to other dwellings by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
  That act gives further protection to tenants. For example, when the landlord or his agent is failing in his duties to the tenants, they now have a right to apply to the county court for the appointment of a manager to take over the running of the block; when leases do not provide for the satisfactory management of a block, any party to the lease can apply to the court to vary the terms of the lease; and recognised tenants associations are now entitled to ask landlords to consult them on the appointment of managing agents. Also, from 1 April 1989, under section 42 of the Act, all service charge contributions, including contributions to sinking funds, will have to be held in trust for the benefit of the tenants. The same applies to any income accruing from the investment of such money. That change will be very welcome for some residents particularly those in some of the categories to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument for further legislative action, but I do not feel that there is a case for additional coercive action at this stage. I would like first to have an opportunity to test the effect of the voluntary approach. I hope that the code of conduct which I have outlined will be adopted and that it will substantially strengthen the position of residents of

  1297
  sheltered housing. At the end of the day, it is in the interests of those who build and run sheltered accommodation to see that their management policies benefit the residents. Their business interests are not served by widespread dissatisfaction among their customers and potential customers. We must work to ensure that all management companies meet the high standards which are already maintained by the very best.
  That will benefit all residents of sheltered accommodation, not merely those who are able and willing to spend their retirement monitoring the performance of their landlords and going through some complex prescribed procedure when they wish to sack or replace an unsatisfactory management company. I do not think that it would be justifiable to treat the owners of sheltered housing differently from the owners of ordinary service flats. However, I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment will watch this issue with close attention. We shall expect to see a reduction in the complaints received from residents of sheltered housing as the voluntary code of conduct is adopted. If that does not occur, no doubt my colleagues at the Department of the Environment will wish to look at this matter again to see what might be done.
  The hon. Gentleman may find it helpful if I finish by considering what help may be available to residents of sheltered housing who are now facing hardship because of unexpectedly high service charge bills. That help may be available through income support or housing benefit. The two principles underlying the way in which help is given are, firstly, that housing benefit cannot be paid to help owner-occupiers with the cost of acquiring or maintaining their own home. Secondly, when it is payable, housing benefit can meet costs related only to the accommodation itself. It does not pay for items such as care, fuel, or meals when they are provided with the accommodation.
  In most cases, sheltered housing is owned outright by the occupants. Housing benefit would not be payable
  1298
  except to meet up to 80 per cent. of the occupant's rates or community charge if his financial circumstances justified it. If the owner is entitled to income support, some help may be available with that part of the service charge that relates just to the accommodation. This would include the cost of heating, lighting and cleaning the communal area of the accommodation. If the owner is buying the sheltered accommodation on a mortgage, income support would be available to help with the cost of the mortgage interest payments, but not with the capital element.
  There may be a few examples of sheltered accommodation that is rented rather than owned by its occupant. In these cases, housing benefit could be paid to meet the full amount of the eligible rent if the tenant's other income justifies this. The eligible rent would include such items as the cost of heating, cleaning the communal areas, and the cost of providing an alarm system in property that is specially adapted for the use of elderly or disabled people. Eligible rent does not, however, include items such as personal nursing care, heating of the rented accommodation and any meals. The cost of these items is expected to be met through income support and its premiums and other social security benefits for the elderly or disabled, or help may be provided by local social service departments. Thus, a range of help is available to elderly people in sheltered housing who are on low incomes and unable to meet the costs of their accommodation.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise from what I have said that the Government share his concern for the predicament of elderly people who find that the cost of their retirement homes is greater than they anticipated. Although we may differ about the best solution at this stage, I am grateful for his views. I hope that he will continue to monitor the position, in his constituency and more widely. I know that my colleagues in the Department of the Environment will be ready to consider any further representations that he wishes to make. Finally, I congratulate him on securing the time to raise this important issue today.

  Hearing Aids
  12.56 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I was born deaf and I have been liberated. Most of my hearing comes from the best of modern technology. As a result, I am 95 per cent. as good as any normal hearing person in terms of what I can hear. Sometimes in this place, I am very grateful to be able to miss the last 5 per cent., especially with the insulting things that Opposition Members shrill across at the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time. But if I look at a speaker, I can understand what is being said, because, alas I retain the facility to lip-read.
  I thought that I knew the extent of the problem of deafness. After all, if one is born severely deaf and does not obtain the sort of technology that one needs until the age of 40, one has had personal experience of deafness. But I did not realise the extent of this huge problem until I received a mammoth postbag in the weeks since an excellent article was published in The Daily Telegraph by Emma Burstall. She is a young journalist who knew me from the west country, and she has just come from The Western Morning News. She asked me to explore the topic with her when she heard that I was launching a campaign. Since then, my postbag has been crammed with letters whose poignancy I cannot repeat here.
  There are hundreds of people who are deaf in some way or another. There are many different scales of deafness. They have become isolated, and the quality of their lives has been greatly diminished. They have become withdrawn and do not go out. They are still looked upon as freaks or mentally handicapped by the public and even by friends and family. There is still a stigma attached to deafness.
  Some hon. Members are old enough to remember a time when children who wore glasses at school were laughed at by other children who called them "four eyes". That is a thing of the past. Because of the provision of spectacles on the high street, it is now normal to have several different pairs of spectacles with different coloured frames, perhaps to match one's dress if one is a woman or one's tie if one is a fashion-conscious man, and to go in and out of opticians' shops freely, without any fear, shame or embarrassment, to purchase the correction that one needs and that modern technology provides for sight that in some way is imperfect.
  However, it is a different matter with hearing. What happens when one discovers that one is deaf? The first thing to say is that it takes a little time for one to realise that one is deaf. Most people go deaf in old age. One in three people above the age of 70 has a significant enough hearing loss to need a hearing aid, but that is not all. Many young people go deaf. There is what one might call "self-induced" deafness from going to too many discotheques, from getting too close to the speakers and not turning the sound down. There is also work-induced deafness if one gets too close to a piece of loud machinery. The human ear is sensitive—much more so than the human eye. Hearing loss is easy to acquire.
  Mercifully, people who become deaf through my condition—or through the reason that I became deaf—are now very rare. My mother had rubella and luckily we now have vaccinations against it, so that cause of deafness is no longer common. None the less, there are still some things
  1300
  for which we do not adequately test in the United Kingdom. For example, toxoplasmosis is a blood disorder for which we do not test in pregnancy as I believe we should; it can cause physical defects, including hearing loss.
  As one in 10 of the population of the United Kingdom has a significant hearing loss, which could be corrected, it can be seen that this is a large problem.
  If one discovers that one is deaf, one goes first to one's doctor. National Health Service practitioners often know little about hearing because the medical profession knows that it cannot do much to correct hearing loss. Very little can be done surgically except in rare instances. Nonetheless, the filter that has been set up to enable one to achieve one's goal, which is to have one's hearing corrected, is a series of fine screens, which are so effective that few people emerge at the far end having achieved their goal.
  I shall take my area—the south-west—as an example. I represent a constituency with 92 villages, 35 hamlets and five market towns. It is the most glorious part of the United Kingdom and is spread over 1,000 square miles. Because it is so beautiful, many elderly people retire to our area, and because it is so lovely, mercifully, people live for a long time. Therefore, we have a well above average age profile in our population and a low pay-out of child benefit.
  The hospitals to which such people must go to get their first appointment with an ear, nose and throat surgeon—that is the second hurdle that one must face—are far away geographically. It could take somebody living in the village where I live two and a half hours to get to Barnstaple. My constituents are unlikely to have transport—we are not a rich area—so they will use the hospital car service. Marvellous though it is, it is mainly a volunteer service and sometimes it forgets to come or it may be late.
  The hospital car service was late in calling for the lady who lives with me. As I was up in Westminster I could not take her and she cannot walk. She was going for hydrotherapy. When, eventually, after two and a half hours, they reached Barnstaple, the appointment had evaporated. Other people in different villages may be nearer Plymouth, which can be just as difficult to get to. or Exeter, which is the third referral point for ENT surgeons and consultants.
  ENT consultants are busy professionals with lengthy waiting lists. In Plymouth, for example, the waiting time—this is no fault of the ENT consultant—is over 18 months. I have two constituents aged 83 and 85 respectively who have waited for well over 18 months to get on that step of this Jacob's ladder to heaven. They still have not seen him, and the consultant can offer them no date. I hope they will not be dead by the time they get an appointment.
  Once they have an appointment, it is 99·9 per cent. certain that the consultant will not be able to do anything for them, because virtually all hearing defects are inoperable. Few people qualify for Cochlear ear implants, which are new and difficult and can cause problems. So, generally speaking, the consultant refers one to the clinic in the hospital which deals with hearing aids.
  As a hearing aid user, I am aware of how many fittings one may need to make the aid work for oneself. The first one selected may not be the most suitable. If that happens, it will not be the fault of the dispenser, and I pay tribute

  1301
  to the excellence of the audiology departments in hospitals. Their staff are superb but, alas, they are gravely handicapped in what they can offer the patient.
  The NHS hearing aid provision comprises only one type of aid. I sometimes wonder whether the NHS has noticed that God has given us two ears. Balance is best achieved by both ears hearing equally, and the provision of hearing aids is designed to correct imbalances in hearing. Often when one goes deaf the two ears do not age, in hearing terms, at the same rate. Nevertheless, in the NHS it is one only, so if one is lucky enough to get an aid, one emerges unbalanced.
  Being unbalanced, one canot tell where the noise is coming from. One is fussed and bothered and must turn round trying to puzzle out whether the noise is coming from behind, from left or right or ahead. We have two ears to act as funnels for the input of noise. Hearing aids are not like spectacles in terms of technical excellence. They will be one day. After all, if we can put men on the moon, why cannot we correct the hearing of those left on earth?
  Instead of having spectacles ground to one's prescription so that they exactly match—or as near as science can manage—one's defects, hearing aid provision is similar to buying a dress or a shirt. There are a number of sizes. One chooses the article closest to one's size and has it altered. The hearing aid is altered by the dispenser.
  The NHS thinks that we are all fat, medium or thin. On the other hand, Marks and Spencer knows in its wisdom that we range from size 8 to size 24. The NHS thinks that all human beings are one of three stock variations. I have news for the NHS. That is not the case. If one goes to a private hearing aid dispenser one can choose from perhaps 250 variations of aid.
  One is given an aid under the NHS and it does not fit one's hearing. Worse still, it may hurt. Hearing loss occurs at different levels. One may have lost hearing at the lower level, affecting the lower range of hearing. The tone control on the NHS hearing aid can be adjusted to help that lower tone. It cannot be adjusted to help the top range, and one may have perfect hearing at the top. That means that the hearing aid will amplify until perhaps it hurts at the higher level of noise.
  That does not happen when one goes to a private dispenser, where one has a choice of 250 variations, the chosen one then being modified to suit one's needs. The modification of hearing aids is the key mechanism in creating the perfect answer. I have the perfect answer, and I know how fortunate I am that, although I was born with this boring handicap, which I did not regard as a handicap, I am perfectly all right. But most elderly people I meet are not perfectly all right because they have to go back to the hospital time and again for fittings to adjust a wretched device which ultimately does not help them. That is why at least one in three hearing aids lives in the top right hand drawer of somebody's dressing table and the drawer is never opened.
  What is the answer? I offer several solutions. The aim must be to make it as easy, simple and socially acceptable to get a hearing aid as it is to buy a pair of glasses or a tin of baked beans. A hearing aid should be a normal commodity which is bought and sold so that no one is ashamed or embarrassed, and people would put all their energies not into deflecting public criticism or family
  1302
  ostracism, but into the effort needed between the patient and the dispenser to achieve the best result. Not all people with hearing loss are as lucky as I am in terms of near-full correction being available practically anywhere. Most people have to seek the best possible correction while the technologists create ever better hearing aids.
  I seek the provision of hearing aids on the high street with a voucher system because it is important that patients are referred by a doctor. It is crucial to see the doctor, because people go to hearing aid dispensers with conditions that have nothing to do with deafness. For example, if tinnitus—a horrible buzzing in the ears—is a new condition, it is conceivable that it is nothing to do with hearing but is an acoustic neuroma, a tumour on the auditory nerve. To leave that alone would lead to real trouble. The onset of deafness definitely needs a medical examination. If one's ears are infected, one needs antibiotics, not a hearing aid; vertigo could be the onset of Meniere's disease, so a private dispenser must have a code of practice by which he refers a patient to the doctor before he starts his work.
  Hearing aids should be available on the high street, and once a doctor has referred someone to a hearing aid dispenser he should give him a voucher to buy the best possible aid available throughout the full gamut of hearing aids.
  The production cost of a National Health Service hearing aid is approximately £21·50, or £23 for the better variant. But private aids are horrifically expensive. Mine is not, as I go to someone of integrity, but people have written to me that they have spent £2,000 on useless aids, nearly always because they have been sold them on the doorstep. I would outlaw doorstep selling, with no further ado. It is a dreadful way of providing a health care product. Elderly people are vulnerable at home. I have had people knocking on my door trying to sell me hearing aids. It is a disgraceful state of affairs and it is sad that companies indulge in such practices, but they do so because the number of their clients is so small. Yet the volume of people needing hearing aids is vast.
  If there were hearing aid shops on the high streets as there are opticians' shops, and people had vouchers, they could spend that money as they wished on the variant that suited them best, with the doctor's chit, to prove that they needed an aid in the first place. Children under 16 should go to hospital. We must continue that facility. Perhaps the disabled need home visits, but otherwise the High street is the place.
  Furthermore, I would abolish the Hearing Aid Council which reports to the Department of Trade and Industry on a matter of health. It is a most peculiar body and is oddly constructed. That is not its fault. It was set up by a Government. Manufacturers and those who are meant to represent users sit on it. It is a hybrid, a mule, and can produce no fertile offspring. There should be a council, but for quality control, reporting to the Minister for Health. The hearing aid industry which produces aids should have its trade association. When a farmer buys a tractor, he does not expect there to be a tractor council comprising all those who build tractors and farmers who drive them, working out whether they have the best mechanism for ploughing the land. Other reforms could also be introduced. That is the substance of my plea to the Minister today.
  Much marvellous work is done for the blind—so much so that Guide Dogs for the Blind has £80 million per

  1303
  annum in income. Hearing Dogs for the Deaf does not have a fraction of that income, yet the need is as great. There is a huge submerged audience. I am proud to have been able to articulate their deprivation in the House. I call on the Minister to comit himself to investigating with his usual penetrating thoroughness and vision this social scandal. Perhaps he should set up a working party, but let it be time-limited. The problem has been invisible on the agendas of Governments for too long.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on an impressive and persuasive speech. She and I have been able to hear each other during the debate, which is not always the case—certainly at certain times of the proceedings in this honourable House.
  Perhaps it is not untimely or inappropriate to pay tribute to those who work in the House operating our effective system of microphones and loudspeakers. Many who listen to our proceedings do not know that the microphone is switched on immediately above the hon. Member who is speaking. Hon. Members like me, who do not have as brilliant a range of hearing as our colleagues, find the loudspeakers immensely helpful. Frequently I have been saved from embarrassment when being asked an oral question which I cannot hear by catching the last phrases of the question from the loudpseaker on the back of the Bench.
  My hon. Friend and I met recently at the Department of Health to discuss this matter. Today she made six major points. I followed her speech with great care and I agree with her analysis. She talked about the social stigma and misunderstanding about deafness. She said that it was a widespread disability. She has that disability and other hon. Members and I have members of our family with that disability.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the National Health Service procedures which involve waiting lists and distances to travel. She talked about the importance of having a range of different appliances available and the greater choice in the private sector. She outlined a solution, which is liberation and transferring the service largely to the high street through reference by general practitioners. She talked about bad selling practice.
  To a certain extent, my hon. Friend is pushing at an open door. We have unlocked it and our hand is on the handle. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the Government—obviously, I speak particularly for the Department of Health—are sympathetic to her analysis. In the coming months we must work on a sensible set of reforms, which commend themselves to all those who work in the Health Service and, above all, meet patient needs.
  My hon. Friend spoke without notes, with conviction and clarity. I am not so fortunate. The disciplines of office, my lack of eloquence and my comparative lack of experience in this matter dictate that, for the remaining minutes of this debate, I shall refer to my notes more copiously than my hon. Friend.
  I shall commence by explaining how the NHS service operates. When people realise that there is something wrong with their hearing, their first step should be to consult their general practitioner. If, in the opinion of the
  1304
  GP, further advice or treatment is necessary the patient will usually be referred to a hospital. It is normal practice for a hospital doctor to examine the patient and, where this is appropriate, to refer the patient to a hearing aid centre, to be fitted with the correct hearing aid. In a significant number of cases the person referred for a hearing aid will also require specialist medical attention.
  Hearing aids in the NHS are issued free on loan. Mersey regional health authority, as a national centre of responsibility, procures the aids, stores them at Runcorn and distributes them to hearing aid centres throughout the country on demand. I understand that around 470,000 hearing aids are issued each year to NHS patients in England and Wales.
  A wide range of hearing aids are available under NHS arrangements and they are mainly worn behind the ear. Some are high-powered models. Most patients' needs can be met from the NHS range. I accept, however, that inevitably, the range of hearing aids is not as extensive as can be obtained in the private sector. Hon. Members will recall that that was the case when spectacles were manufactured by the NHS.
  When new users are issued with hearing aids, audiology technicians usually provide advice and information on how to use and maintain them. They also provide all new users with a copy of the Department's booklet which explains how to use a hearing aid. Efficient follow-up after issue of a hearing aid is essential and that usually takes place at a hearing aid centre or involves a hearing therapist, where one is in post. The rehabilitation of people with hearing loss is not just a matter of providing a hearing aid. It can require time and special skills.
  I am aware that there are long waiting times and lists to see consultants and to have hearing aids fitted in some districts, although not in all. I appreciate that there are significant waiting times in my hon. Friend's constituency. In many districts efforts are made to prioritise patients and in several general practitioners can refer patients direct to hearing aid centres. Despite those practices, I know that many people are dissatisfied with the present arrangements and would welcome improvements.
  The main thrust of the Fair Hearing Campaign launched by the Royal National Institute of the Deaf in November was that adult hearing aid services should he transferred from hospitals to health centres or group practices. Children would still be referred to a hospital ear, nose and throat department, but only those adults requiring specialist treatment would be referred there. The dispensing of hearing aids would be done by a "community dispenser", who might be employed by the district health authority, general practitioners or a private company contracted by general practitioners.
  Since November, those ideas have been discussed with the RNID and others involved. I must say that not all are content with what the RNID has proposed. For example, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing and the British Association of Audiology Technicians have different views. My hon. Friend has a more radical view than the RNID.
  The British Association of the Hard of Hearing welcomed the fact that the whole question of hearing aid provision had been brought into the arena for discussion. It agreed, in principle, that a community-based audiology service would be a good step forward, but it is unhappy

  1305
  about the detail of the RNID proposals and feels that the existing NHS hearing aid service as a whole should be reshaped, rather than creating a completely new service.
  The British Association of Audiology Technicians has submitted alternative proposals to my Department. It proposes a total review of the audiology services within the existing NHS system. Such a review would cover a number of issues, including staffing levels, salaries, career prospects, working conditions and funding. The BAAT also wants to retain existing audiology departments within district general hospitals, improve audiology technicians' pay and conditions of service, accelerate referral procedures and expand the NHS range of hearing aids. There are clearly a lot of important issues for consideration in each of those packages of proposals.
  I stress at this point that I am talking about the provision of hearing aids for adults. I agree with my hon. Friend that the present procedures for referring children to consultants in hospitals must be right. Most people—including the Royal National Institute for the Deaf—agree that there should be no change in the procedures for the referral of children. I have explained that the NHS range of hearing aids should meet most people's needs and that special arrangements can be made for the others. Perhaps I should add that the NHS range of hearing aids is kept under constant review by a commodity advisory group advising Mersey regional health authority. The Department of Health is represented on that group. However, of course, within the constraints of the present system of procurement and distribution, my hon. Friend's criticism of the range of choice of products is accepted and understood.
  I know that a number of organisations, including the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, have expressed concern about dispensers calling at the homes of potential purchasers. The Hearing Aid Council's own code of conduct rules out an unsolicited call and the Doorstep Selling Regulations which came into force on 1 July 1988 provide for a seven-day cooling-off period during which consumers have the right to cancel a contract entered into during an unsolicited visit by a trader to their home or place of work.
  The Hearing Aid Council's code requires the consumer to send back a card declining a visit rather than seeking one. I am aware that this system has been the subject of particular criticism by the RNID, and no doubt the Hearing Aid Council will be considering the matter.
  The private sector sells about 80,000 hearing aids a year. The Hearing Aid Council receives about 70 complaints a year, and I understand that the RNID has received 260 in the past four months. It is important that concerns of customers should be communicated to the Hearing Aid Council, so that the extent of any problems can be objectively assessed. The Government believe that home visits do have a part to play. They provide a service to some of the hearing-impaired, particularly the elderly and infirmed. Such visits should be conducted to the highest ethical standards. The House will have noted my hon. Friend's comments about practices in that area.
  1306
  There is some disagreement among those who wish to see radical changes about how closely the fitting of hearing aids can be compared to the supply of spectacles. I am aware that my hon. Friend, for example, sees a direct comparison between the supply of spectacles and hearing aids, while the organisation behind the current Fair Hearing Campaign, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, has emphasised some of the differences. Corrective lenses can return sight to near-normal, but a scientific evaluation of hearing is not sufficient to indicate the likely benefit to be gained from a hearing aid. With spectacles one immediately sees more clearly; with a hearing aid sounds are louder but, especially for speech, not necessarily easier to understand.
  Subject to cosmetic considerations, people can take immediately to glasses, but it takes time and help to get used to a hearing aid. There are also differences in costs —private hearing aids can cost upwards of £400—and in the typical user, as most hearing-impaired people are elderly.
  We are grateful to my hon. Friend, to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, and to all the other hon. Members and interested organisations for bringing these important issues to public attention. We are also grateful to all the organisations who have approached the Department about this for the concerned and constructive way in which they have taken part in discussions, and retained an open mind. We take their concerns about the present service—and those of my hon. Friend—very seriously.
  This short debate has not been able to do justice to the complex issues involved, both for the private sector and for the National Health Service. I must emphasise to hon. Members that it will take time to consider them all, in the context of the important reforms which have recently been announced for the NHS.
  I can tell the House, however, that I shall be visiting the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority, Sir Donald Wilson, on 3 April—as my hon. Friend knows, that authority is the centre of responsibility for the procurement and distribution of hearing aids—and I shall be raising those important issues with him. Before I meet him, I shall send him a copy of the Official Report of this debate. I am grateful to his authority for its considerable contribution to forward thinking about greater effectiveness in meeting the needs of all patients who require a hearing aid. I will also convey the feelings of the House on this matter to my right hon. and hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Disabled.
  My hon. Friend has asked for a working party. We have not one but several working parties already addressing some of the issues to which she has referred. This is an extremely important matter and, as I have said, we have sympathy with some of the arguments put by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I shall consult my colleagues and write to my hon. Friend concerning any issues that arise from my meeting with Sir Donald Wilson. I can assure my hon. Friend that our consideration of the case for reform will continue in earnest.

  Housing (Newham)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: No Member of Parliament could represent a constituency in the London borough of Newham without living every day in the knowledge of the appalling housing of so many of its people, the gross overcrowding of 6,750 households, the chronic shortage of affordable rented accommodation, the thousands of desperate people on the council's waiting list —currently 9,511—the 4,541 people on the transfer list and the 600 homeless families living in squalid bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  The crisis hangs like a pall of misery over the borough. It is with us constantly, with every telephone call, every postbag and every weekend surgery. Sometimes I think that hon. Members should swap surgeries and, on occasion, I should take the surgery of a Conservative Member, perhaps in a leafy suburb, while he or she takes one of mine in the inner city. In that way, they would meet the frustrated people who come to see me. They would meet the families sleeping in one room, people with fungus growing on their walls, people with leaking roofs and without adequate heating, bathrooms or inside lavatories. They would meet people without hot water and with dangerous wiring and people who cannot find anywhere to live and whose lives are being destroyed, and families who are breaking up under the strain. They would meet the genuine people who have been on the waiting list for years and are losing hope of ever being rehoused.
  I would like Conservative Members to meet those people because that is Britain in 1989 after 10 years of their Government. They are our fellow citizens. Conservative Members would come out of those surgeries, as I do, emotionally drained and, I hope, shocked, bewildered and ashamed that we permit such things in our country today.
  The housing crisis is a scandal and disgrace. It has been intensified every year the Government have been in office. We sometimes talk of the freedoms our citizens should enjoy in our society such as the right to free speech, and the right to vote. I would add to that list the right to a job and, after GCHQ, the right to join a trade union. But perhaps the most basic right of all is the right to a home and a roof over one's head. That is recognised even in primitive societies where, when a couple marry, the tribe rallies round to build them a hut. However, in modern Thatcherite Britain that is thought to be beyond us.
  The Government's policy has been to encourage home ownership. There is nothing wrong with home ownership. Aneurin Bevan said that there is nothing in Socialism against owning one's own home, but that what we were against was someone owning several thousand other people's houses and exploiting them à la Rachman. Perversely, the effect of the Government's policy has been to push up house prices to unprecedented levels, thereby preventing access to home ownership. Some people talk of a rising market or a boom in house prices as if it were a good thing. However, when the price of anything else rises, it is known as inflation. The Government are supposed to be against inflation but they have engineered the biggest house price inflation in history, making it impossible for first-time buyers to buy. Is it any wonder that we cannot find train crews for the Northern line or bus drivers, nurses and teachers? They cannot find anywhere affordable to live.
  1308
  On top of that, those who mortgage themselves to the hilt to obtain somewhere to live, find themselves clobbered by the Chancellor's interest rate rises. The increases in August and October mean that the average home loan rate of 9·5 per cent. has rocketed to 13 per cent. That means that on a £30,000 mortgage over 25 years borrowers have to pay an extra £52·80 a month. On an endowment mortgage, they have to pay an additional £65·62 a month and it will be double that for a £60,000 mortgage. Is it any wonder that people are putting "For Sale" signs on their dream homes and many are becoming homeless as building societies foreclose? All that is under a Government who pretend to support home ownership.
  We need affordable houses to rent. We have 1 million fewer homes for rent in the private sector now than in 1979. The Government's efforts to reverse that will fail because it is more profitable to sell with vacant possession than to rent. The people who come to see me want local authority housing. That is the popular demand. That is precisely what the Government are destroying as a deliberate policy. They want to get the councils out of housing, and have said so.
  In 1977–78, the last full year of the Labour Government, 78,606 homes were started by local authorities in England and Wales, but by last year that figure had been cut by 79 per cent. to 16,193. There has been a relentless decline. New building is grinding to a halt. In Newham there were 1,079 new build starts in 1978–79, but in 1986–87, only 83, in 1987–88 only 31 and in 1988–89 only 66. At the same time, up until September 1988, 4,120 homes were sold under the right to buy. A further 3,287 applications to buy are outstanding. This represents a quarter of the total council stock, and the best three-bedroom houses at that.
  The receipts from those sales cannot be used for new building because much of it goes to the Treasury If the stock is sold, building is stopped, private renting diminishes and people are priced out of access to owner-occupation, what happens? There is an epidemic of homelessness. Newham has had a 12·5 per cent. increase in applications from homeless people each year since 1981. The cost of temporary accommodation to the council has increased from £52,000 in 1983–84 to £5·5 million in 1987–88. In the 1960s only 3 per cent. of lettings were to homeless people. In each of the past five years the majority of lettings has been to the homeless.
  The council's 1989–90 housing investment programme bid—this is my main purpose in having the debate—was £100·65 million but the Government's allocation was only £14·432 million. That allocation was a cut in real terms of 24·5 per cent. over the previous year's provision and a cut of 69 per cent. over 1978–79. In other words, this year we shall get only 31 per cent. of what the borough got in the last year of the Labour Government. Housing has borne the largest cuts of all under the Government and it is destined to get even worse. Public expenditure plans show at national level a further reduction of local authority capital spending from £3·153 billion to £2·8 billion in 1990–91, an 11 per cent. cut and £2·65 billion in 1991–92, a further 5 per cent. cut.
  It should be emphasised that the HIP allocation is not a Government grant but permission to spend and borrow. Virtually all housing, private and public, is financed by borrowing. Most of that expenditure is planned to be funded by capital receipts, much of it from the sale of council houses. Perversely, the new Housing Act 1988 will

  1309
  restrict Newham, along with other authorities, to only 25 per cent. of its capital receipts. That is astonishing. The council is prohibited from spending its own money. It cannot spend receipts from selling council houses or new buildings.
  The council is asking not for Government money, but for freedom to spend its own, but that permission is refused because of crazy ideological dogma, because the Government want to push councils out of housing provision. The Government have said that they do not want councils to build any more houses and they want their existing estates sold off. In fact, at the launching of the Housing Bill, the Secretary of State for the Environment the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said:
  "We'd like to see council house building at a low level with local authorities composed of providing housing in certain categories such as hostels or sheltered housing."
  If the councils cannot help the desperate people who come to my surgeries, who will? This basic need cannot be left soley to market forces. Millions of people cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market. What will happen to them? If the Government are not interested or do not care about them, why should they deliberately obstruct local councils in spending their own money to help people in acute need? That policy is not only evil, but economically illiterate, because councils are giving priority to void reinstatement, rehabilitating empty homes and new build. It costs twice as much to keep families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as to build new homes.
  The reduced housing investment programme allocation means that Newham cannot give much help to housing associations, although the original bid included £18·4 million for such projects, nor can it give discretionary grants to occupants of private housing. The reduction significantly restricts the programme of improving existing council stock. There is a huge backlog of repairs. The total expenditure necessary to improve existing stock is an enormous £120 million. The 1989–90 HIP bid asked for £6·5 million for security work, lift renewals and refurbishment for 20 tower blocks. The cut in allocation means that that has had to be reduced to £2·5 million. That means that work can only proceed on eight blocks. One of the results of that is that the residents of 12 blocks will continue to live in abysmal conditions. Only this week, an environmental inspector said that in his opinion, one block was unfit for human habitation. Pointing to the dangers, he said that the balconies were a "stepladder to oblivion". Six months ago, a 20-month-old toddler fell to his death from the balcony of his home in that block.
  The borough is having to restrict the number of repairs it is able to carry out on council properties, laying up bigger and more expensive problems for the future. The inevitable and only conclusion is that the Government's decision will mean that the condition of housing in both the public and private sectors in Newham will continue to decline and homelessness will become worse. It is an appalling and evil policy. I meet the human consequences at every surgery I hold. Homeless applications are currently running at about 200 per month. The Audit Commission's recent report said that homelessness has been increasing"
  1310
  "over a long period of time, across all types of authority, in different regions, under all types of political control and widely varying housing policies."
  Newham has more than 500 families in often squalid bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They sometimes live in overcrowded rooms without tables or chairs for meals, with no privacy for parents or children, with no place for the children to play or do their homework and no readily available doctor, social worker or health visitor. Newham has another 500 families in other forms of temporary accommodation. The lunacy is that it costs more to keep families in such accommodation than to build new homes, but the Government will not allow the council to do that.
  The Minister may mention Estate Action. Let me tell him that the council has had 11 Estate Action bids rejected. Furthermore, now that the Government are insisting that 50 per cent. of the capital cost of Estate Action programmes count against existing HIP allocation, the council is wondering whether the scheme is worth the paperwork. The £200,000 received under the area renewal initiative is too little to be significant.
  The council has no ideological hang-ups about working with the private sector and housing associations. It has concluded a partnership agreement with Laing to demolish the eight remaining TWA tower blocks of the Ronan Point type and to develop the site. It has already sold, or is completing the sale of, a number of sites in its ownership to housing associations. All the council's sites are being reviewed with the option of disposal being considered. The problem is that the level of housing association grant for housing association schemes, coupled with the high price of land and construction costs, will put the level of rents of many of those schemes beyond the reach of most of the people in the most acute housing need in Newham. The truth is that, even with the fullest possible co-operation with the council, those high costs, the recent decontrol of rent, the limitation of security and the inadequate level of subsidy mean that housing association and private sector housing cannot be an adequate substitute for local authority housing in Newham.
  The Government's policy of stopping council house building and pushing councils out of housing has caused and is exacerbating the housing crisis in the borough and even more human misery and family breakdown. The council's housing investment programme for 1989–90 was a carefully worked out, realistic and necessary programme, decided upon by those on the spot. By rejecting it, the Government have sacrificed the interests of the local community to ideological dogma and condemned thousands to more heartache.
  I shall allow the Minister as much time as I have given myself. I hope that he will respond seriously and not take refuge in knockabout attacks on local government as he has on previous occasions—by pretending, for example, that the borough has a large number of voids. That is certainly not true of Newham, where only 1·5 per cent. of council stock is empty; indeed, a previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State congratulated the borough on its policy on voids.
  Nor does Newham have large rent arrears compared with those in other boroughs. Rent arrears are being reduced in Newham. The figures tend to be misleading because Newham does not write off bad debt, as some boroughs do. It has a twin track policy on rent arrears: it

  1311
  actively counsels tenants whose rent is in arrears and it operates an active collection policy, including recovery through the courts. Its decentralised housing offices all have targets for the recovery of rent arrears. I hope that the Minister will not try to shelter behind that argument. He will know that the Government's housing benefit changes have caused problems in this regard. In my constituency some people are now spending 40 per cent. of their income on rent.
  I hope that the Minister will address the housing crisis in Newham seriously. The Government now have a £14·5 billion budget surplus—a great opportunity to tackle the infrastructure and the housing backlog. I shall continue to raise this matter in the House and to keep it to the fore, and if I can get the Government to take it seriously, I shall have worked in the interests of my constituents.
  1.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about housing in Newham. In fact, I am pleased to be allowed to speak at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker—in complete contrast to your experience and mine in the early hours of Tuesday morning.
  In Newham, as in many other areas—but in Newham in particular—we are entering a new period of promise, despite what the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) felt obliged to say. That promise has been built up over the past 10 years during which the tide has turned against years of neglect of a supposedly unfashionable part of London that has had to shoulder the legacy of a past that has sometimes been colourful but which has generally been weighed down by the burdens of industrial decline. Many housing difficulties remain to be overcome in Newham but they are now being confronted through Government policies which will transform housing in the area.
  Let me respond directly to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked in his speech. There has been a significant decline in the private rented sector—from 50 per cent. of the total housing stock immediately after the war to 8 per cent. now. That is totally unacceptable. The amount of private rented sector housing has fallen for two reasons—first, because the Rent Acts have inhibited those who would be private landlords or potential investors in private rented stock, and secondly, because of the expansion of municipalisation. The problem that we face with large housing stocks—and no one denies that Newham has a large housing stock—is that it is impossible for local authorities to control and manage it effectively. I shall return to that later.
  There will not be much political knockabout in my speech, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall address myself to the questions that he raised. I must say, though, that I find it fascinating that, despite the Labour party's love of municipal housing, the last Labour Government reduced public expenditure in public housing in each of the three years before they were kicked out of office in 1979. Labour Members have never given me a suitable explanation of that—either because they cannot or because they know what Conservative Members suspect —that the Labour Government were forced to take such action through the IMF intervening. We are all familiar with that period in the Labour Government's chequered history.
  1312
  I will concentrate on two main ways in which the Government are acting to improve the homes and lives of Newham residents. First, we are acting through the opportunities provided by the Government's policies for the regeneration of east London—docklands and the areas beyond. All will benefit from the increased wealth that those policies are bringing. Housing has a major part in that regeneration. Secondly, we are acting through the Government's housing policies which offer choice, effective targeting of resources, and the attraction of private resources along with public money, in place of the hopelessly monolithic and unimaginative solutions which have previously been tried with good intentions but with poor results.
  Let me begin with the first, by explaining the benefits of the exciting programme of the London Docklands development corporation for the royal docks. Although the hon. Gentleman tried to convince the House that there is no ideological difficulty with the local authority of Newham working with the private sector, I have not seen much evidence of Newham council working with the London Docklands development corporation.
  Mr. Leighton: I am surprised that the Minister should say that. Does he know of the memorandum of agreement between the borough and the LDDC? The LDDC has promised to provide 1,500 houses for rent in the royal docks. The LDDC is falling behind and not delivering on the promise. The borough is working. It has regular monthly meetings with the LDDC. It is anxious to work with it.
  Mr. Trippier: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention tends to devalue the currency of what he is saying. He and I know how many questions he puts down in the House, which he is fully entitled to do, on the LDDC. He loses no opportunity to have a swipe at it in any debate on the Floor of the House.
  I welcome the fact that Newham is working with the LDDC better than it has done in the past, but I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman—if not to him directly, certainly to other hon. Members who represent Newham —that I should like to see an opportunity being taken to fill the vacancy on the board of the LDDC. Other local authorities are prepared to have borough councillors sitting on the boards. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if they were to respond positively, I would welcome it and also respond positively.
  The programme to which I was referring and which the LDDC has promoted has meant a huge transformation in an area which was a sterile part of the borough of Newham. The LDDC has already spent or contracted to spend about £200 million in that area on land reclamation and new roads and transport links and other infrastructure. A whole new community will soon begin to emerge from the previous dereliction, providing major new shopping and leisure facilities, thousands of jobs—they are important to the hon. Gentleman and to myself—and, importantly, thousands of new homes.
  It is planned that 7,600 new homes will be built in the royal docks. They will include a substantial number of subsidised homes let at rents affordable to lower-paid families. The Winsor park scheme will, I hope, provide about 500 of them. I welcome the co-operation between the public and private sectors, including the local council, which should make that scheme possible.

  1313
  It is not only the homes directly within the new docklands community that will benefit from this massive new investment. I am confident that the benefits will spread far and wide throughout the borough and beyond. I remind the House that the Government's plans for the regeneration of east London include but do not end with the docklands programmes, massive though they are.
  In February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, announced new proposals which were welcomed by the hon. Gentleman for major new transport links between central London and east Thameside. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend informed the House of the consultants' findings on the possibilities for providing up to 20,000 new housing units on five sites in east Thameside. Those sites would be able to benefit from improved transport links, and the Government have said that they hope that they can be developed. Three of these sites—at Stratford, the Beckton gasworks and the lower Lea valley—involve land in Newham, and another is immediately adjacent to the borough, at Barking reach. All of them have potential to breathe new life into the housing of east London.
  All these exciting new opportunities for housing extension were taken into account when my Department published the draft strategic planning guidance for London on 6 March, which showed that the projected extra dwelling provision for Newham in the years 1987 to 2001 would amount to 14,000 units, the highest for any London borough. I am delighted that Newham is taking a lead in London housing in that way.
  The hon. Gentleman has trailed a lot of figures purporting to show that many people in Newham could not afford to buy new homes in the area. I know that many people in Newham are not well off and that housing must be affordable to them, but the hon. Gentleman should not under-estimate the capacity of people to buy their homes. Look at the success of the right-to-buy policy on which many Opposition Members have poured scorn. Many Labour authorities are still trying to frustrate the policy. When hon. Gentlemen refer to the housing investment programme, they often fail to mention the amount of money that is drawn down in capital receipts. Of course, that makes a substantial difference to the money that is available for improved housing within borough boundaries.
  The Government's policies will provide new wealth for the people of Newham and new capacity for them to buy their own homes, if they wish to do so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall always be on the look-out for sensible and realistic ways to assist people in that endeavour.
  I shall deal with the resources that are being invested in Newham's public housing and how those are being targeted to achieve most effect. Public housing forms about 36 per cent. of the stock in Newham. That stock needs resources to be drawn from all available sources, and used and managed effectively. Local authorities set their own priorities for housing within the total resources available to them. On 1 November, my right hon. Friend announced that the gross provision for capital expenditure by local authorities on housing in 1989–90 will be 13·5 per cent. higher than had been previously planned. This is the
  1314
  fourth successive year in which it has been possible to increase provisions, thanks to the continuing success of the right-to-buy policy. Through the receipts that that provides, local authorities have the growing resource of spending power to supplement capital borrowing.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Estate Action. I announced on 14 December that allocations to local authorities through the Department's Estate Action programme would again be increased in 1989–90, by 36 per cent. to £190 million. Estate Action targets resources at rundown council estates.
  We cannot accept all of the bids that are made by local authorities, but in view of the substantial increase in real terms, that we have given to the Estate Action programme, it is clear that we shall be able to accept those programmes more than ever before. We are only too delighted to work with local authorities, especially in London, using this means of delivering taxpayers' money to turn round those estates in the worst condition. The contribution of the local authority to which the hon. Gentleman directly referred, should match ours. In that way this would be a true partnership. I have heard of many successes in Newham's Estate Action programme.
  Mr. Leighton: I am listening to the Minister with great interest and close attention. Because only two minutes are left for the debate, I hope the Minister will agree that this discussion must continue. Would he accept my invitation to sit down with us on the spot, in Newham, and continue this discussion?
  Mr. Trippier: Yes, I am only too happy to go to local authorities to discuss things in that way, and I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A visit might help us to clear up some of the points that I was making earlier. Perhaps it might even lead to further improvements in the relationship between Newham and the London Docklands development corporation, which possibly both of us might welcome. Because of the time it is impossible for me now to cover all the points that were raised by the hon. Gentleman and in view of his kind invitation I shall be only too happy to continue the conversation as he suggests.
  My difficulty—perhaps I can get this quickly on the record—is that despite what the hon. Gentleman says, Newham has the highest percentage of vacant dwellings in the whole of London. That must be looked at, and although he has tried to explain it to the House—[Interruption.] It is not a matter of conjecture; it is a statement of fact. I understand that there are special reasons relating to the empty TWA system blocks which push up—[Interruption.] Yes, this is part of it—which push up Newham's total, as do the dwellings on the Woodlands estate, where the council is in partnership with Laing in refurbishing vacant properties. Nevertheless, given the general problems of homelessness, local authorities could make far better use of their stock—this applies to all local authorities—and I look to Newham to make every effort to bring its vacant properties back into use wherever feasible.
  2 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for delaying colleagues for a few seconds, but today on ITN,

  1315
  we witnessed again a clear breach of air security at Heathrow. Three lads have taken film of themselves boarding a British Airways jumbo jet and getting into the cockpit. In view of those circumstances—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Where is the Minister?
  Mr. Prescott: In view of those circumstances and of the warning received from the Federal Aviation Administration about the possible hi-jacking of a plane, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any notification from the Secretary of State for Transport to the effect that he can tell us anything about the latest breach of security, especially in the light of his assurance to us in the House less than 70 hours ago that security at Heathrow is okay? It is not, and the travelling public are concerned about it. It is outrageous. The Secretary of State should appear before the House to explain his position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have not received a request from the Secretary of State about a statement. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

  Magistrates Courts (Clerks)
  2.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Just over 16 years ago, on 12 December 1973, standing in the place where I now stand, I raised in an Adjournment debate the status and salaries of clerks in the magistrates courts. I said:
  "It is … quite clear that until proper recruitment and training schemes are available in the longer term the courts will be compelled to cope with an increasing amount of work with an inadequate complement of court clerks.
  That situation is quite unacceptable. Urgent remedial action in the short term is therefore essential. The central problem is that the supply of court clerks has dried up because of the poor salary structure. In addition, the magisterial service does not offer career prospects which are attractive to the type of young man or woman it is hoped to recruit."
  I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that I do not often quote my own speeches, but having made that speech 16 years ago, I must point out that it is still highly relevant because I now have to raise these matters once again.
  Replying to that debate, the then Minister of Slate, Home Office, Mr. Mark Carlisle, who is now my noble friend Lord Carlisle and sits in the other place, said:
  "I am aware of the overall problem, and particularly the problem of vacancies among positions for court clerks in the magistrates' court at Uxbridge, which has heavy lists and which has had to change and curtail sittings because of this shortage."
  He then said that he appreciated that salary scales were important but that
  "The Home Office is not represented on the committee"—
  that is, the Joint Negotiating Committee for Justices' Clerks' Assistants—
  "and cannot take any initiative in questions relating to salaries."
  Despite the fact that that debate took place 16 years ago and that I highlighted then the real problems of recruitment, training and salaries, it appears that nothing much has been done by the Home Office in that time and, as a result, today we are facing a crisis in the magistrates courts.
  The recruitment crisis is now both real and immediate. In December 1988, there were at least 167 vacancies for court clerks. At least 294 court sittings were cancelled in England and Wales and much public money is having to be spent on agency fees—£120 to £150 a day for agency lawyers who have to be brought in to act as court clerks.
  According to a massive telephone poll of justices' offices throughout the country carried out this month—nothing could be more up-to-date—magistrates courts in England and Wales, apart from inner London, have a total of 278 court clerk vacancies and 35 trainee vacancies. That resulted in 473 cancelled half-day sittings in February, giving a national average of five cases per sitting. That means that about 2,500 cases are unheard. In short, in the words of the famous statesman William Ewart Gladstone:
  "Justice delayed is justice denied".
  Of the 278 vacancies, 117 trainees are in some of those slots in temporary appointments. As a result, magistrates are not getting experienced advice, and that is serious.
  In outer London, there are 16 court clerk vacancies. In other parts of the country the situation is giving rise to concern. Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire have 13 vacancies; in Lancashire there are 19 vacancies; there are three in Slough, not far from my constituency;

  1317
  five in Luton; nine in Yorkshire; nine in Wessex; and in Manchester there are three vacancies, which are currently filled by trainees.
  The shortage is acute because of continuing poor pay and the divisive award following the recent arbitration. Mr. David Simpson, clerk to the justices of Uxbridge magistrates court, tells me:
  "The situation has become so serious now that unless action is taken urgently, the crisis will become even worse and the magistrates' courts will not be able to function properly in many parts of the country."
  The Justices' Clerks Society is convinced that the separation of the functions of legal adviser and administrator would not be in the best interests of magistrates courts, or in the public interest. I therefore welcome the magistrates courts review of procedure which was announced in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Can the Minister say when that review will be completed? Is it on schedule, and will it report to the Home Secretary in June, as was envisaged when the review was announced? Will the review of the management and control of resources in magistrates courts include the salaries, training, recruitment and status of court clerks?
  Morale among those admirable men and women who clerk the magistrates courts has never been lower. The reason, simply, is that the magistrates courts service is losing out to the Crown prosecution service and to solicitors in private practice, who of course receive higher salaries.
  There is today a crisis in law because of a shortage of lawyers. Is that because too few lawyers are being trained? An explanation given to me recently by an hon. Friend who is a barrister is that a number of women who qualify as solicitors do not subsequently practise for long or that their careers undergo long breaks for understandable family reasons.
  I come now to the determination of salaries by the joint negotiating committee. My noble Friend Lord Carlisle said in 1973:
  "The Home Office is not represented on the Committee and consequently does not and cannot take any initiatives in questions relating to salaries."—[Official Report, 12 December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 576.]
  My hon. Friend the Minister made a similar point in answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 13 March. That appears to be a very effective screen behind which Home Office Ministers can protect themselves from being held accountable for salary awards. I hope that my hon. Friend will not consider that a particularly unkind remark, but he will understand the frustration I feel after raising this matter in the House for 16 years and continually being told that the Home Office cannot intervene is not responsible and is not represented on the committee.
  Is it not the case that every agreement negotiated by the joint negotiating committee or any award made on arbitration is subject to Home Office and Treasury approval? We all know that the Treasury has to provide the money, so why does the Home Office allow an apparently arms-length negotiating procedure to persist and deprive itself of the political initiative that is necessary if the long-running saga of underpaid, under-trained and under-motivated clerks is to be concluded satisfactorily?
  1318
  The publication of the Andrews report on salaries for Government lawyers highlights the need for salaries to be pitched at a level which will attract and retain lawyers of the appropriate calibre. Some court clerks with whom I have spoken recently feel that the Government have wilfully engaged in depriving the magistrates courts of some of their principal assets—their clerks—to staff the Crown prosecution service. I cannot emphasise too much how bitter the magistrates courts clerks feel about the siphoning off of their best personnel to the Crown prosecution service.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has managed to persuade the Treasury to buy the Crown prosecution service out of its recruitment crisis, but that has been done mainly at the expense of the magistrates courts, and the arbitrators have now suggested that in future the backbone of the courts service must be the unqualified diploma holders. In other words there will be a second-class service. Does my hon. Friend believe that that will be satisfactory for the magistrates courts? Does the House consider that that is good enough for a very important part of the legal system? It will take at least three years from next autumn before the service receives any benefit from the influx of newlyquali-fied diploma holders.
  Finally, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the report of the outer London working party on the recruitment, training, remuneration and retention of court takers in the outer London area? It concludes that there is concern about
  "the dilution in the quality of staff now available to advise lay justices. This, coupled with the incompetence of barrister agents employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute cases adequately before our Courts leads to the inevitable conclusion that unless the Government fully commits itself to supporting our service then the quality of decision making will eventually be the subject of adverse comment in the High Courts."
  That is a very serious conclusion from such an expert working party and I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments when he replies to the debate.
  J. Edgar Hoover said:
  "Justice is incidental to law and order."
  Not many hon. Members will disagree with that observation even if they disagree with the policies adopted by J. Edgar Hoover. It is vital for my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to realise that lay magistrates, not just in my constituency of Uxbridge but throughout the country, are becoming deeply concerned that they cannot do their job effectively or discharge justice properly unless they have at their disposal properly qualified and properly paid court clerks who have a status in society which is respected and admired as it was in years gone by.
  I do not believe that it is beyond the power of the Home Secretary or, indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before next year's Budget that additional resources should be made available to pay these people properly. Pay is at the centre of the problem. From a decently paid court clerks' profession would flow better justice, more satisfied magistrates and a more efficient organisation of the whole magisterial system.
  2.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I never stop talking to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about these and other issues. Perhaps it has been the success of three Home Secretaries since 1979—Lord Whitelaw, Sir Leon Brittan who is now a Commissioner in Europe and my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary—that those discussions have secured the most substantial growth of any Government expenditure programme, by some 52 per cent. on law and order services.
  I am the first to recognise that certain parts of the law and order and criminal justice system feel that they have not benefited from the biggest increase in public expenditure in nearly a decade of Conservative Government, but the increase shows the great importance which the Government give to the workings of the criminal justice system. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we talk regularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his brother Ministers about these issues.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ventilating a tricky subject which it is not easy to discuss. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in the Chamber. He has a long-standing interest in these issues. I am not sure whether it is as long-standing as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, whose interest goes back 16 years, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is a magistrate.
  I was reflecting that 16 years ago I was pounding the streets of Oxford trying to become a city councilor— which I did, much to my surprise, by one vote. At that stage my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was here, making the same point, which is why he is so angry at having to make it again this afternoon.
  I share the concern expressed about the shortage of court clerks who support justices' clerks in taking courts. As I said, it is not an easy issue for me to brush under the carpet. The latest figures provided by the Justices' Clerks Society show a picture which is even more difficult for the service than that which my hon. Friend painted. On 28 February 1989, there were 278 vacancies—that is, about 23 per cent. of the complement—compared with 66 vacancies on 1 April 1988. The figures demonstrate the serious deterioration.
  By no means all magistrates courts are experiencing the same problems. It is a particular problem in inner London, to which my hon. Friend did not address himself, and a substantial problem in the outer-London service, which is of considerable interest to both my hon. Friends. Where vacancies occur, damage is caused because delays in justice are caused. That is bad for justice and defendants, and bad in terms of value for money for courts. It is particularly disturbing when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are trying to encourage courts to reduce waiting lists of people to be brought to trial. In no sense would I attempt to under-estimate the seriousness of the problem; I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that.
  The magistrates courts service is at the heart of the criminal justice system. A shortage of court clerks means not only that the delivery of justice is delayed but that knock-on problems are created through the whole criminal
  1320
  justice system. There has always been some movement in and out of the court service by those who are legally qualified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to the fact that it appears that a good number of people may have left recently to go into the Crown prosecution service. That is undoubtedly the fact, although we have no clear statistics.
  However, it is clear that the level of loss from the magistrates court service into other professions—be they to the Crown prosecution service or another career opportunity—is at present unacceptable. With some hindsight, it is clear that the inception of the Crown prosecution service—with its need for barristers and solicitors in quite large numbers fairly quickly and the levels of remuneration that they have recently been offered —has had a significant effect on the magistrates court service.
  Of course, there have been more losses than ever before to private practice. It is interesting to reflect on why that should be. I am sure that some of those losses have been due to pay levels, linked to high housing costs in outer London areas, such as Uxbridge and Chislehurst. I believe too that there are some problems on the supply side. We are not getting enough legal graduates coming out of our universities and polytechnics who are prepared thereafter to follow the legal profession rather than, for example, going into business.
  That is of course dependent on pay, which in turn relates closely to status. However, we can never leave it entirely to pay, and I shall now consider that aspect in some detail. We must ensure that the court service—here the Home Office must play its part—is marketing the profession as adequately as it can, possibly in a new way. I believe that that is a task for us all.
  Mr. Shersby: It is a valid point that marketing that profession is important. Will my hon. Friend consider the proposition that it might be useful for the Home Office to have some discussions with the Law Society—possibly with the universities—about the training of suitably qualified lawyers, so that we can perhaps move in a direction that will ensure that more of those people who train as lawyers do actually practise law?
  Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. There is considerable interest at present in the future of both legal professions, as brought forward in the three Green Papers of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. There are other issues that must be addressed besides possible reforms in the legal profession, and one of them is exactly that which my hon. Friend has mentioned. That was an extremely constructive suggestion.
  Pay is obviously a critical factor. Court clerks are employees of magistrates courts committees and their salaries and conditions of service are negotiated alongside those for other court staff in the joint negotiating committee for magistrates courts staff. However, settlements reached within the joint negotiating committee, in order to rank for grant, must be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will have due regard to the operational needs of the service and, of course, to affordability.
  Alas, in the 1988 pay round it was not possible for the two sides to reach agreement, and the matter was referred to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrators, taking into

  1321
  account the level of vacancies at 1 April 1988, was that court clerks should receive a 7 per cent. pay increase, and that, in addition, the minimum scale point for professionally qualified staff should be point 10 on the 22-point scale on which court clerks and senior administrative staff are paid. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently approved the award for grant purposes. There is now no further delay in the payment of backdated sums to those in the courts service, who give such excellent help to that service. It is being put into effect now and thus puts an end to what has been a most undesirably long and protracted pay round.
  The next pay round is soon to start and the settlement date is 1 July 1989. Once again, it will be for the joint negotiating committee to give full and careful consideration to the way in which the shortage of clerks has increased over the past year. I cannot believe that the joint negotiating committee will not take that into very close account. The Central Council of Magistrates Court Committees has sought a meeting with Ministers to discuss the present difficulties which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has raised. My right hon. Friend and I will be glad to participate in that meeting in the not too distant future.
  Earlier, I referred to the fact that not all magistrates court committees are experiencing the same problems. There is some flexibility in the pay structure and I wonder whether all employers are using that flexibility to the maximum. Court clerks can be paid by committees which wish to match that pay to the needs of recruitment and retention. Court clerks are paid within five point bands on a 22-point scale. In some areas, that is sufficient, although I accept that, in some instances, committees will be constrained in their use of the upper points on the scale by the salaries paid to justices' clerks and their deputies at the top of the profession locally.
  A number of committees have decided, with the agreement of the local authorities—they meet 20 per cent. of the cost and the Home Office meets the remaining 80 per cent.—to offer local pay supplements in excess of nationally agreed salary scales to retain legally qualified staff and to attract others. It is for the committees, as the employers, to take that decision. Those of us who value the magistrates court service as part of the intrinsic locally based system of justice will want, as much as possible, those decisions to be taken locally rather than by the Home Office. We shall seek to continue with such local decision-making as far as possible. It is for local committees to decide what arrangements best meet local circumstances.
  We have also approved more trainee clerks and have created an additional 25 posts. We are actively encouraging committees to apply for more. We need such posts to encourage more people to come into the profession. They represent a medium-term investment for us as they will provide some relief while post holders are under training. Eventually, they will give us a pool of qualified staff who can join the main stream of the service.
  A particular problem, however, is that the magistrates court service does not have a particularly high profile and
  1322
  it is not brought to the attention of many who seek to follow a legal career or who are coming to the end of their training in our universities and polytechnics. Such people may consider whether to go into the City, whether to become a solicitor or join the Crown prosecution service. I wonder how often they think, "Shall I go into the magistrates court service?" Perhaps the Home Office should do more in conjunction with the legal professions' representative bodies, such as the Law Society and the Justices' Clerks Society and others, to promote the magistrates court service as a profession.
  I have had a look at our recruitment literature recently and it does leave a little to be desired. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the Ministry of Defence's book, which always produces excellent recruitment literature. We intend to produce literature that has a wider appeal than some of the bureaucratic stuff that we have put out thus far. We intend to target that literature better at schools so that the magistrates courts service is considered as a possible career before people leave school. It is important that that career is considered by those going on to higher education.
  We shall launch the booklet at the Sunday Times careers fair at Olympia from 8 to 10 June. We shall give it as much of a push as possible at that fair and at subsequent ones. We also intend to produce a second booklet aimed at those in higher education who are studying law.
  We are conscious of the fact that the 1990s will see an increasing amount of competition to attract those entering the job market. We shall have to fight along with others to ensure that an adequate number enter the magistrates courts profession.
  Interesting initiatives have been undertaken around the country. The Leicestershire magistrates committee is pooling its resources to set up a consortium of committees to recruit clerks from a considerable area instead of a number of court areas competing with each other locally. They are beginning to try to build up links with local schools, colleges, universities and polytechnics. We need to do a lot more of such positive recruiting.
  To a certain extent, the future of the magristrates courts service is under discussion. It will be coming under even closer scrutiny in the next few months as the Home Office's scrutiny of the organisation and resources of the magistrates court service is completed. We will want to look carefully at the recommendations. They will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me in June this year. The scrutiny will cover matters which relate broadly to the use and allocation of resources—a fairly large topic. It will not look at the pay structure since that is a matter for the joint negotiating committee.
  However, the deliberations of the scrutineers will inevitably include salary and pay structure matters, and they will have to be taken into account as we look to the future of the magistrates courts service in this country. That service is suffering from problems that I hope that the pay negotiations which have just finished and the negotiations which are about to start will do a certain amount to alleviate, especially when linked to improved recruiting. We all wish to attract more people into the service.

  British Aerospace
  2.30 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Last week The Observer led with the story, "Tornado Rip-Off". the article purported to investigate Britain's biggest ever arms deal and the middlemen who fixed it. I have to admit that the article was well written and I tender no criticism of the journalist who wrote it, except to say that I am sure that he will find that the elusive Mr. Charles Langley resides at Lonrho headquarters.
  The article alleged that the British armaments industry, backed by the Government, is fuelling the middle east arms race. In referring to arms orders potentially worth as much as £150 billion and while attacking the basis for the deals, the newspaper stated:
  "behind the cheers for this most profitable defence deal in our history lie moral and financial problems."
  The newspaper questioned what it called huge commission payments, the morality of selling vast quantities of sophisticated weapons to middle east and Third-world countries, the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in providing finance for the purchases and the risk to the taxpayer of default in the payment in the event of a change in regime. The bulk of the orders go to British Aerospace. It stands accused in The Observer—I shall repeat a comment in the French newspaper L'Express—
  "of being willing to pay exceptional commercial expenses."
  The Observer failed to spell out clearly the origin of the story it published and the reason why it was published. Unfortunately, the newspaper is owned by Mr. Tiny Rowland and the article was a Rowland plant. Mr. Rowland is not only a newspaper proprietor but an arms dealer. He has a direct interest in the fortunes of the Dassault company in France, the country's principal military aircraft manufacturer. It was Tiny Rowland who negotiated, directly and through a labyrinth of middlemen, a series of deals primarily in Africa but also in the middle east, involving the sale of luxury jets, jet trainers, fighter bombers including Mirage 2000 and F1 aircraft.
  Tiny Rowland regards British Aerospace as a keen competitor. On a number of occasions he has set out to frustrate attempts by British Aerospace to sell aircraft. The most recent example of that involved the £150 million deal to sell Hawk ground attack aircraft to Kenya. In this case, he was pushing the rival Dassault Mirage aircraft.
  Dassault was also a direct competitor with British Aerospace over the deals outlined in The Observer last week. According to the newspaper's report, when the company heard of British Aerospace's success in landing the Saudi deal, a Dassault spokesman said:
  "What has happened is unexpected, incomprehensible and catastrophic. The decision to acquire Mirage 2000 had already been taken on technical grounds. This brutal change is of a political nature."
  Of course, there is a great deal more at stake for Mr. Rowland than mere profit. He is a man obsessed. He loathes the chairman of British Aerospace, Professor Roland Smith, because he forced him off the board of the House of Fraser during Rowland's argument with the Al-Fayeds. He equally loathes the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for acting as an unpaid adviser to the professor and because of his failure to intervene during the Harrods takeover. The problem is that his obsessions are increasingly spilling over into the columns of The
  1324
  Observer, doing immense damage to a great national newspaper. For some years, he has used the newspaper to run his personal vendetta against the Al-Fayeds and he is now, with last weekend's article, launching a new campaign to undermine British Aerospace's sales efforts in various parts of the world by using the columns of his newspaper to foster his commercial interests.
  In doing so, this man is undoubtedly compromising journalists. He has, in effect, become a gladiatorial, proprietorial tyrant who is manipulating his newspaper in a way that puts him on a par with the worst aspects of Murdoch control of Fleet street journals. This must stop, and he must be stopped. He is destroying The Observer. Its circulation has fallen dramatically from 900,000 in June 1989, when he took it over, to just over 700,000 last month. Meanwhile, its rival, the Sunday Times, has held its readership steady at 1,350,000 with marginal movement.
  This man is undermining British industry, and in particular British Aerospace, with accusations that equally apply to himself with relation to his arms dealings. The time has surely come for him to divest himself of control of this newspaper. An excellent team of journalists at The Observer are increasingly the subject of criticism inside and outside the House of Commons, and surely see themselves as professionally undermined as they are forced to act on occasions as Lonrho hacks. furthering the dirty work of an obsessive Fleet street mogul and international arms dealer.
  I wish to turn to a different aspect of British Aerospace's activities in balancing my contribution to the debate—its acquisition of Royal Ordnance and the Rover Group from the Government, a huge rip-off at the taxpayers' cost and, in my view, the rip-off of the century. In April 1987, as hon. Members have good cause to remember, British Aerospace paid the Government £190,000,000 for Royal Ordnance. Ironically, in pursuit of market ideology, the Government acting totally unlike any sensible private vendor; desperate to get rid of a public asset at any cost, they placed a ludicrous time limit on the date by which a sale had to be achieved.
  The Government failed to consider the development value of land holdings by relying on an out-of-date, totally inadequate valuation which put the price of 380 acres of prime development land in Greater London at only £3·5 million. Subsequently, Warburg Securities valued the same land at £517 million, identifying a £500 million gift to British Aerospace's private shareholders at a direct cost to the taxpayer.
  Understandably, the Public Accounts Committee, a Committee of which I am a member, concluded in October last year:
  "We are concerned that BAe, owners of RO, could make a substantial gain on the sale or redevelopment of these sites without benefits accruing to the taxpayer."
  Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence insisted,
  "We got a pretty good price for Royal Ordnance."
  That was only half the story. We then found out that this asset, picked up on the cheap, managed miraculously to turn in a profit of £56 million last year. What had originally been acquired for reasons of speculative asset development had somehow and mysteriously been transformed into a honey pot of new trading profitability —a nice slab of trading profit to bolster British Aerospace's uninspiring trading performance.
  Not content with one back-door subsidy to British Aerospace, the Government repeated the exercise with the Rover Group sale, producing an even more spectacular

  1325
  "success". Lord Young was certainly not exaggerating when at the time he called it the deal of the century. Having failed in the summer of 1986 to split up and sell off Britain's last volume car manufacturer to multinational competition, the Government became desperate for a purchaser—preferably, given the recent public outcry, a British one. Of course, there was no suitable purchaser on the horizon, so to whom could the Government turn? Who owed them a favour? Why, of course, British Aerospace.
  In keeping with his eccentric understanding of market discipline, Lord Young announced an auction with a difference: there was to be one bidder; the auctioneer would pay the commission; and the bidder would be paid to take the goods away. He asked £150 million for the job lot, approximately the value of the cars the Rover Group held in stock, but to sweeten the pill—just in case the removal truck broke down on its way from the auction —the Government would write off the company's debts and provide a gift of £800 million. Fortunately, the European Community, the only sane body of people around these days, moved in and forced the Government to reduce the handout to £547 million. Thank the Lord for the blessed bureaucrats from Brussels. Even so, British Aerospace was effectively given £379 million to take the Rover Group away.
  Days after British Aerospace had agreed to the purchase, despite the assurances from Mr. Graham Day that the takeover would not lead to redundancies, it was announced that the Cowley, south and Llanelli plants were to close and that 3,400 people would have to lose their jobs. Promptly tackled on that squalid about-turn, Mr. Day cheekily responded that those redundancies were not the result of the merger, but of other trading considerations, including over-capacity. Only a fool could possibly swallow that explanation.
  A few days ago, we all read with great interest reports that Rover made £65·7 million last year—£10 million per month, as the headlines said. The question is whether it was known that Rover Group would make such profits when it was taken over. Was that taken into account in the sale price? Was it known that, with projected profits of £100 million for Rover in the coming year, British Aerospace would recover the whole acquisition cost of their interest in Rover in little more than 18 months? That does not even take into account the asset value of the group.
  Under cover of the Rover profits and the Saudi deal, British Aerospace announced that the Rover group had somehow been revalued at £829 million. That did not take into account the redevelopment land in the south. The empty site at Cowley alone had been valued by Warburg at £40 million. As was to be expected, we now hear rumours of a sale. What of its 40 per cent. share in Leyland-Daf, picked up at about the same time as the Rover group takeover? It is estimated that, when it is floated in the summer, it will net £160 million—more than British Aerospace paid for the whole of the Rover group.
  In reality, Rover's performance since the takeover has been disappointing. With United Kingdom car sales at record levels, Rover has a reduced market share and looks as if it is about to lose more as its competitors bring out new models ahead of it this year. The jury is still out on whether Rover will remain in the volume car market. We
  1326
  now have to see whether those profits will go back into research and development or into the pockets of private shareholders.
  How has the parent company, British Aerospace, been performing? As The Times put it:
  "Without these two purchases, BAe would not be looking too clever."
  The world's aircraft producers are working flat out, but the commercial aircraft division of British Aerospace made a loss of £49 million last year—£41 million on Airbus alone. What the real figure will be, must be anybody's guess. The weapons and electronics division is having difficulties despite every effort within the work force. Yet on paper, as a result of Government handouts, British Aerospace looks in good condition.
  Shareholders' funds have doubled to £2·1 billion and net assets have doubled. Property holdings are up from £91 million to £234 million before any Royal Ordnance or Rover Group land development potential has been realised. Most importantly for some, no doubt, dividends are up 10 per cent. The private shareholders will make a killing at the taxpayers' expense as, inevitably, British Aerospace further diversifies into speculative property development on the back of land gifted from the taxpayer in complex dealings over privatisation.
  It seems that Professor Roland Smith, the chairman of British Aerospace, has found, not unnaturally, easier ways of making money than making aeroplanes—land development and acquisitions. Since last January alone, British Aerospace has bought Ballast Nedham Groep NV, a Dutch construction company, for £48 million. It founded BAe Simulation Ltd., bought an option on Reflectone Inc., a United States simulator company, was rumoured to be in the market for GEC Avionics and, as recently as February this year, acquired De Moer, a Dutch civil engineering company, for an undisclosed sum. I am sure that Professor Smith is grateful to the taxpayer.
  By next year, Royal Ordnance and Rover Group may have paid for themselves out of profits alone. British Aerospace's shareholders can then continue to enjoy the benefits of at least £1·3 billion—£1,300 million—of gifted capital, even before the full development potential is calculated. The cash cow has not even begun to be milked. The question is whether the profits will be generated by manufacturing activity or property speculation. I do not for one minute suppose that the shareholders of British Aerospace are concerned about where the profits come from, as long as they are there. One can only presume that they are rubbing their hands with glee, as the beneficiaries of the biggest rip-off of taxpayers' assets this century.
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has covered a wide area in a characteristically robust speech. I think I detect four or five main themes. We started with some extremely interesting observations about an article in The Observer. The hon. Gentleman linked that article to British Aerospace's export achievements, for which I was glad to hear him express his support.
  Later in his speech, the hon. Gentleman returned to some other aspects of British Aerospace's activities, including some of its civilian work. In the hon. Gentleman's consideration of the profits achieved by companies under British Aerospace management, it would

  1327
  not be unreasonable for him to have regard to the quality of the management that is brought to bear on those companies and their performance, and to consider whether better management, which must be in the interests of everyone concerned, including the work force, is not something to be applauded, especially as it can be identified through higher profits. The hon. Gentleman talked also about the purchase by British Aerospace of Royal Ordnance plc and Rover Group.
  I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be altogether surprised if I draw his attention to the fact that the subject of the debate is the relationship of the Ministry of Defence with British Aerospace. Tempted as I might be to say quite a lot about The Observer and its proprietor—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Go on; have a go.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) tempts me further, but I must resist the temptation to discuss a matter that is not the responsibility of my Department.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister should let himself go for a minute; it is the last day, after all.
  Mr. Sainsbury: We come back, I hope.
  I am afraid that the same goes for some aspects of the civilian work of British Aerospace to which the hon. Member for Workington referred—for instance, the dealings with the Airbus consortium and the curious fact that it seems that the more Airbuses are sold the larger are the losses made by the participating companies. One hopes that the company will improve its performance under the restructured management of which we have read. The hon. Member for Workington will not be surprised if I do not say too much on that front.
  Again, much to my disappointment, matters relating to Rover Group and its acquisition by British Aerospace are matters not for me but for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster he would be given a robust response.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the acquisition of Royal Ordnance plc. He made some fairly forceful remarks on the subject, as we have come to expect of him. In his approach, the hon. Gentleman seems to be liable to give as much credence to speculative reports and matters which are not valuations but views expressed by unqualified non-surveyors as he does to professional surveyors on aspects that have been thoroughly researched.
  If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the purchase of Royal Ordnance plc. by British Aerospace was some sort of monstrous rip-off. In his view, the property value of the assets of that company was astonishingly high. He quoted a figure of £400 million, and said that it was based on a Warburg valuation. I do not know how familiar he is with the origin of that figure. It was not a valuation at all. It was a bit of pure speculation by some desk operator in a merchant bank, who may have been doing an in-house analysis of the value of British Aerospace, and, lacking any expert knowledge of the situation, looked at a large number of acres of land and put against them a large valuation per acre, assuming that all that land was capable of redevelopment.
  1328
  The first weakness of that approach is that the land was in the metropolitan green belt, which immediately raises a presupposition against development. Secondly, it is not irrelevant that planning applications in respect of that land had not been approved and have since been refused. Thirdly, that speculative figure assumed that, even if planning permission were to be obtained, the whole area would be redeveloped and that, therefore, all those acres could have the high figure put on them.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister assuring the House that, when, the matters go before the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal, he will uphold any decision to refuse planning permission? Has the hon. Gentleman been told that?
  Mr. Sainsbury: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not what I am saying. I am commenting on the source of the £400 million. Equally, I will not be tempted to speculate upon the outcome of any planning application. It would be quire improper to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, even if planning approval were eventually to be forthcoming, the likelihood of it being for all the acres is nil. It just does not happen. Obviously, a certain amount of the area is required for access and amenity. It is my understanding that the planning applications that had already been put in envisaged substantial parts of the site being made available for public amenity and other uses. Clearly, immediately a far lower number of acres are capable of redevelopment than appears to have been assumed by the person who originated that valuation.
  The next point that the hon. Gentleman seems to overlook is that, in obtaining that sort of figure per acre for developable land, great expense would be incurred. The land is low-lying, and there are canals and locks adjoining it. One matter that would have to be attended to before any redevelopment could take place would be new access roads. There may even have to be a new lock on one of the canals. Clearly, there would have to be a great deal of drainage and, in some cases, decontamination works. They are all costly. Much time will go by and much money will be spent before any return is obtained. That would tend also to reduce the net return.
  If the hon. Gentleman is basing his supposition on the fact that it was some monstrous rip-off—to use his phraseology—and on the figure in what he called the Warburg valuation, it is not well-founded.
  The other main point that the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that, in any case, the sale of Royal Ordnance plc was a highly competitive procedure. Several companies expressed interest. There was a lengthy bidding process. The Government were advised by merchant bankers throughout it, and, at the end of it, two bidders were left. The best price that could be obtained was obtained. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report acknowledged that the sale to British Aerospace was achieved in a competitive situation. The evidence suggested that the competition was sufficiently widely based to secure the highest price likely in the prevailing commercial climate. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman somewhat on that aspect of the sale of RO plc.
  With regard to The Observer article, I shall confine my remarks to aspects affecting British Aerospace.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not think that I can fully appreciate why my hon. Friend is unable to deal with many of the matters that affect the Department of Trade and Industry. Would the Minister not take this opportunity to express his understanding of the positive case for diversification? Does it not present opportunities for greater job security and a future in defence, as, indeed British Aerospace now has wider interests?
  Mr. Sainsbury: It is clearly in the interests of the work force, shareholders and customers, of which the Ministry of Defence is one, that British Aerospace is a strong and efficient company. Presumably the company sees advantages in the interaction between its various activities. In due course those might benefit the Ministry of Defence as a customer.
  I very much agree with the hon. Member for Workington in his criticism of the article in The Observer as being based purely on speculation. As the hon. Gentleman says, some of the article had been printed before in French and American and indeed middle eastern publications. It is human nature, I suppose, that those losing a contract might seek to discredit the arrangements of the winners by spreading rumours based on speculation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Minister confirm that Tiny Rowland is involved in selling military equipment to Governments in Africa and parts of the middle east?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman there. Mr. Rowland is associated with companies, not the Ministry of Defence. I cannot comment on their activities. Like the hon. Gentleman, I read the press. One has to judge what one reads for speculation or accuracy. But I suspect that we would agree that it is not surprising that the losers of a contract might seek to discredit the arrangements of the winners. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that this sort of speculation could damage a very important project that means much to British industry.
  The figure of £150 billion that was recently quoted as the value of Al Yamamah is fanciful speculation. However, this major project could extend into the next century and bring income and employment to a wide range of companies in this country.
  The management and work force of United Kingdom companies have won these orders against intense overseas competition, through improving design and increasing productivity, with impressive labour relations and, perhaps most important of all, competitive pricing. It would be most unfortunate if all their efforts were damaged by ill-informed criticism.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  2.58 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I wish to draw to the attention of the House, as I last did in an Adjournment debate in March 1979, the considerable expansion and general success of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, to put forward some ideas on future developments and to probe the Government to find out what they are doing to match fine words with deeds.
  I do so in the knowledge that an advance party of British troops is deployed today in Namibia, formerly South-West Africa, as part of the UN transitional advisory group, which is known as UNTAG for short. It is remiss of the House and the Government that we have not yet debated its participation in this important international operation.
  I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the debate. What a far beach has lost, the Front Bench has gained. His contribution will be listened to and read afterwards most carefully.
  The renewed interest in this form of intervention and its part in the peaceful settlement of disputes, following the award in 1988 of the Nobel peace prize to United Nations peacekeeping forces, is to be welcomed and encouraged. As a former professional soldier I believe that peacekeeping by United Nations forces has become an essential part of the work done by the United Nations for international harmony and security. We must not under-estimate the problems, but here surely is one crucial area of United Nations activity in which major advances can and must be made. So far, well over 100,000 soldiers from a third of the world's armies have worn the pale blue beret or helmet—a remarkable fact.
  Peacekeeping is the use of an international force, by invitation, to reduce violence. It has nothing to do with the use of force to impose order or suppress an opponent. It is an invention of the United Nations and nothing like it existed in history before 1945. For the past 30 years, at least one United Nations force has been on duty at any given time in some part of the world. United Nations forces watched over the two truces of 1948 between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In 1949 they watched over the ceasefire in Kashmir and demonstrated how a relatively small number of observers can successfully maintain a ceasefire. Then came Korea in 1950 and Suez in 1956, when they supervised the withdrawal of Israeli, British and French forces. In 1960 the Congo tied up 20,000 United Nations soldiers for four years at a cost of 126 lives and about £200 million. It has been argued that the intervention of the United Nations force in Sinai in 1973 may have prevented a world war.
  Today in the Lebanon, on the Israeli border, UNIFIL faces the most complex and dangerous challenge since the Congo bloodbath. Since it was established in 1978, the force has suffered 170 fatalities. I should like its mandate to be strengthened. Israel is responsible for the South Lebanon army, which has been firing on UNIFIL soldiers —the SLA should be disbanded forthwith.
  Since my last debate on peacekeeping, the most important change has been the resolve of the USSR at last to recognise the worth of United Nations peacekeeping

  1331
  and to pay its outstanding dues as a further show of confidence in this aspect of the United Nations' international responsibilities.
  I like to think that the Foreign Office is privately pressing the Bush Administration to renew the commitment of the United States of America to the United Nations and to make up the deficit in the payment of its dues. That is a shameful legacy from the Reagan Administration, and my hon. Friend will agree that that shortfall in the United Nations budget resulting from the abstention of the United States of America affects the very existence of the United Nations.
  The United Nations peacekeeping methodology has been shown, by experience, to be more effective than unilateral or bilateral interventions from outside the United Nations. Britain took part in the ill-fated multilateral force in the Lebanon, which itself became a party in the dispute. When that force was withdrawn in disarray, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who had not previously shown much enthusiasm for the United Nations, offered the job to that world body.
  British soldiers, I maintain, are good at peacekeeping. Years of using minimum force and giving aid to the civil power—from Borneo to Aden and Belize, culminating in Zimbabwe—have given them an enviable record. The 1988 Statement on the Defence Estimates reported:
  "Our contribution to international peacekeeping forces has not changed: we provide contingents to the multinational force and observers in Sinai and the UN forces in Cyprus; and the Cyprus sovereign base areas give logistic support to the UN forces in Cyprus, Lebanon and on the Golan Heights."
  A few years ago I spent a morning with 40 Royal Marine Commando who were on duty with the UN along the so-called green line in Nicosia, and most impressive they were. We play the main role in the UN force in Cyprus, with some 800 men attached to it, the largest single national element. I only wish that Britain's contribution to the UN was better known in this country and abroad.
  Peacekeeping is also superb training for our defence forces, giving them overseas service outside Germany—all too rare—and vital experience of international co-operation. It has real value for the young NCO and the inexperienced but enthusiastic young soldier. It is excellent that we should be taking part in UNTAG and we look forward to Namibia becoming the UN's 160th member. The House has yet to be told of the exact composition of the British contingent, its likely tasks and responsibilities. We need to know what will be the rules for opening fire, how casualties will be evacuated, and to which hospitals, whether the bodies will be returned to the United Kingdom if there are any deaths, whether the Minister will be visiting our contingent in Namibia shortly, and if not, why not.
  The size of the military component has been the subject of controversy. It is to comprise 4,650 persons initially, not the 7,500 originally authorised. Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House, at Question Time and in an early-day motion that I tabled, at the small size of this force in what is a large country. It seems that financial reasons, not unimportant in themselves, were the dominant reasons.
  The Minister will have been told of the long list of individuals and organisations who have opposed the reduction of UNTAG, including, I am told, its commander, Lieutenant General Prem Chand. UNTAG's task is to monitor the disarming and dismantling of
  1332
  command structures of citizen forces, commando units and ethnic forces, South African counter-insurgency units, the confinement of SWAPO combatants to their Angolan and Zambian bases and the phased withdrawal of the South African defence forces. It is also responsible for border surveillance.
  By definition, all those tasks—and there are many more —according to an internal UN document,
  "require the military component of UNTAG to be very extensively deployed at strategic points along the length of the borders and to maintain a highly mobile reserve to react to any hostile acts."
  There are good reasons to think that the size of the force is not sufficient to perform its assigned tasks. The discrepancy in numbers alone is enormous. The war zone in northern Namibia is one of the most concentrated areas of military personnel in the world, and about 50,000 Cuban troops will still be across the border in Angola.
  Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain will carefully watch the position and be prepared to press for the size of the force to be increased, should that become necessary? One wonders how difficult that might be in practice as new troops would need to acclimatise. Are British troops on standby for possible reinforcement of UNTAG in a few weeks' time?
  The study of United Nations-style peacekeeping deserves greater attention by the British military. There appears to be very little training in peacekeeping for units or individual officers. The peacekeeping handbook should be the recognised training manual for that form of military duty.
  The Nordic countries co-ordinate the training of staff and technical officers for specific duties within United Nations peacekeeping forces. Did our contingent in Namibia receive such training? Will the Minister tell us, either now or in a letter, how many hours are devoted to United Nations peacekeeping on British officer training courses and in cadet and staff colleges?
  In 1979, the Government told the United Nations Secretary-General of their
  "readiness to share training experience in respect of peacekeeping".
  Was that followed up? Is not the time ripe to look anew at machinery and conduct of United Nations peacekeeping operations and improve them?
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that Monday is the centenary of the death of John Bright, one of the greatest peacekeepers in British history? In the context of peacekeeping in the United Nations, it would be highly suitable for us to recall the work of that great man and note that there is a strong relationship between what he said in his own time and what my hon. Friend is saying now?
  Mr. Townsend: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting comment.
  It would be excellent if our Government were to take an active part in the United Nations in bringing about a necessary review. When the United Nations is acquiring a new and brighter image it should expect the whole-hearted support of its founder members. Does the Government support the call from the Soviet Union for the reactivation of the military staff committee, with a wider membership and better terms of reference? Why should the membership of that committee be confined to permanent member states

  1333
  of the Security Council when other countries such as Ghana, Nepal and Fiji can boast of considerable United Nations peacekeeping experience?
  What thoughts do the Government have for improving the standard operating procedures for UN forces? Should there not be a study of UN peacebuilding as a third lane alongside UN peacemaking and peacekeeping? In the Congo a UN civilian operation was mounted beside the military peacekeeping operation to assist in the reconstruction of the fabric of the Congo's administrative structure. It achieved excellent results. A peacebuilding element might become part of each UN peacekeeping operation, with its tasks dictated by humanitarian considerations. The peacebuilding role would precede and outlast peacemaking and peacekeeping.
  In 1978 President Jimmy Carter called for
  "the creation of UN peacekeeping reserve composed of national contingents trained in peacekeeping functions?
  Nobody wants a standing army, but a small reserve bringing together international experts might be a good idea. Such a reserve would have the very latest day and night surveillance equipment including infra-red aids and listening devices such as the Army uses in Northern Ireland, and drones. The application of highly sophisticated scientific techniques including the use of satellites could help the UN solve problems which have previously been insoluble, and thereby reduce tension. As an illustration, the electric monitoring of air traffic on a military base could help to reduce the possibility of a surprise attack in the region such as the Gulf, where the most uneasy peace prevails between Iran and Iraq.
  That small reserve might include a United Nations disaster relief force which would be highly trained and mobile. It could tackle disasters, such as those following earthquakes, cyclones or a major chemical or nuclear radiation leak in a developing country. Why should the reserve not help carry supplies to the starving through hostile territory or physically protect refugees, such as those in the Lebanon, from mayhem and mutilation?
  Recently the world had to sit back and watch while a Lebanese faction sought to starve the inhabitants of a refugee camp to death. In future it is possible that there will be more demands for UN forces than for resources. Will a force be required for Afghanistan or Kampuchea? If there should be a successful international conference on the Palestine-Israel issue in the next five years, it is likely that UN forces will be required as part of the security guarantees.
  I hope that I have said enough in this brief debate to activate the Government to use Britain's privileged position as a member of the Security Council to strengthen the world body's peacekeeping role. Peacekeeping is no vague, woolly, over-idealistic notion. History suggests that a comparatively small UN force can reduce tension and aggression, thus facilitating a diplomatic settlement. UN peacekeeping is good news, offering hope to a violent world. It is a success and we should build on it. It would be wonderful to see the United Kingdom showing the way forward.
  3.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): I know that the House recognises the long-standing and almost
  1334
  solo interest among hon. Members of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in this subject. He raised several interesting and somewhat detailed points which I cannot answer this afternoon, but I shall ensure that either I or my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will respond to them.
  It is sad that it has taken 10 years since my hon. Friend's last debate on United Nations peacekeeping for UN peacekeeping to be accorded the international attention which both he and I think it deserves. Although inevitably the new demands on UN peacekeeping have thrown up several problems, not least that of managing the cost, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the current interest in peacekeeping is preferable to the general neglect of 10 years ago. Britain has long supported UN peacekeeping and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.
  It is interesting for the House to recall the origins of peacekeeping. The United Nations charter envisaged using troops only to impose an international peace against aggressors. That concept soon proved unworkable. United Nations peacekeeping evolved in a variety of forms in relation to a variety of problems. Now United Nations forces patrol buffer zones, check troop withdrawals and will, in Namibia, supervise free and fair elections.
  As my hon. Friend said, since 1974 the United Nations force in Cyprus has patrolled a buffer zone between the two communities. It is a prime example of Britain's commitment to peacekeeping. We contribute the largest contingency of troops, 741 men to be exact, at a cost last year of about £24 million. We believe that our participation in UNFICYP complements our continuing support for the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement of the problem. The force provides the background of stability against which he can pursue his initiative.
  We also contribute a signals squadron to the United Nations transitional advisory group, the United Nations force in Namibia, for which the people of Namibia have waited too long. I shall ensure that more information about that force is made available to my hon. Friend.
  Like my hon. Friend, the Government warmly welcome the award of last year's Nobel peace prize to United Nations peacekeeping forces. That was a fitting tribute to the courage of thousands of men and women who have worn blue helmets in the cause of international peace. Many of those men have died as a result. The House will wish to join me in extending our sympathy to the families of the three Irish soldiers who were killed earlier this week in the Lebanon.
  My hon. Friend mentioned his concern about UNIFIL. In common with our European Community partners and others, we remain committed to UNIFIL as a force of stability in southern Lebanon. We deplore the recent increase in fighting and all attacks on UNIFIL. Shooting at UNIFIL is completely unjustified. We condemn punitive expulsion—despite UNIFIL protests—of old men, women and children from their houses in Israel's self-declared security zone.
  The continued Israeli military presence in the Lebanon is provocative, destabilising and against Israel's own long-term interests. We have repeatedly urged the Israelis to complete their withdrawal from the Lebanon and to allow UNIFIL to deploy to the international border in accordance with UN security resolution No. 425. We share the concern expressed by the UN Secretary-General about

  1335
  the recent deterioration in the situation, and that concern was reflected in the European Community's declaration on 20 March.
  The essence of successful peacekeeping is flexibility and, of course, the co-operation of the parties directly involved. The current arrangements for peacekeeping enable the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council to respond rapidly to any demand. The UN has been fortunate in being especially well served by two British international civil servants dealing with and having primary responsibility for peacekeeping in the UN secretariat. First, there was the almost legendary Sir Brian Urquhart and now there is his successor Marrack Goulding. Their contribution to the efficient planning and implementation of UN peacekeeping operations has been and continues to be of enormous importance. In our view, and in the view of others, informal arrangements for peacekeeping have worked and will continue to work best.
  I note my hon. Friend's call for a more active role for an enlarged military staff committee. The military staff committee is a body established under that section of the charter dealing with the enforcement of the peace. It is not immediately apparent that its involvement would improve the arrangements for UN peacekeep-ing as against enforcement. The composition of any peacekeeping force is often a delicate political matter. It is unlikely to prove possible to enlarge the military staff committee to take account of every possible circumstance.
  It is a matter of regret that UN peacekeeping has not always enjoyed the whole-hearted support of the international community. Every member of the UN is called upon to contribute to the funding of UN peacekeeping. In the case of most major peacekeeping operations—of which UNTAG is a good example—all members of the UN pay according to a scale based on their nation's gross domestic product, but that scale is adjusted to require slightly more from the permanent members of the Security Council—including, of course, the United Kingdom—in order that the poorest members of the UN may pay rather less. We—and the other permanent members of the Security Council—have not objected to this scale of levy in recognition of the key role that peacekeeping plays in the maintenance of international peace and security, but the overall record of payment is not good. At the last count more than half the members of the UN were in arrears and the amount owed to the UN was staggeringly more than $372 million. That regrettable state of affairs risks undermining UN peacekeeping more than anything else.
  In our view withholding peacekeeping dues for any reason is unacceptable. The fact that both super powers are among the long list of debtors is a cause of great concern. The Soviet Union—one of the more reluctant converts to UN peacekeeping—began withholding its dues in 1976. By 1987 it owed more than $197 million. Despite an assurance in October of that year that it would repay its arrears over the following five years, the amount currently outstanding is still $143 million. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the United States decision to withhold or delay its full due in respect of peacekeeping. Currently, United States' arrears amount to $103 million. We have made clear to the United States Administration our severe reservations about that policy. I am glad to say that, in January this year, the Americans announced that they hoped to resume full funding of all their UN-assessed contributions from October 1989.
  1336
  The rather precarious financial position of UN peacekeeping must be seen against the background of rising demand. Last year three new peacekeeping forces were created and others are in the pipeline. Inevitably, members of the UN have been obliged to take more interest in the overall cost of the peacekeeping efforts. It would be short-sighted to do otherwise. The accent now —thanks in part to our efforts—is on both effective and cost-effective peacekeeping.
  In that context we must consider the recent negotiations on the total size of UNTAG. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of countries that he said opposed the final decision of the Security Council, but I must remind him that all five permanent members of the Security Council were united in their approach. I must emphasise, however, as my hon. Friend implied, that the overall ceiling for the size of UNTAG remains as originally proposed. The Secretary-General has the power to request the Security Council to authorise reinforcement up to this limit at any time should the circumstances require it. We and other members of the Security Council have assured the Secretary-General that we shall respond promptly to any such request that he may make. UNTAG will, of course, have a medical unit supplied by the Swiss Government. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets an answer to the other detailed points that he raised regarding UNTAG.
  It would be wrong, however, to leave the House with the impression that our main concern with peacekeeping at the UN has been to reduce its cost. In company with members of the European Community, we recently submitted to the Secretary-General some practical proposals on how United Nations peacekeeping opera-tions might be made more effective. This was in response to a resolution passed at last year's General Assembly inviting member states to submit their observations. In their reply, the 12 members of the Community made clear their full support for United Nations peacekeeping, as well as conveying suggestions for improvement.
  One idea was that greater use might be made of smaller-scale observer-type operations to perform certain tasks such as those in Afghanistan, and possibly, soon, in central America. The Twelve also suggested that it would be useful for member states to notify the Secretary General of their willingness, in principle to participate in peacekeeping operations and to state in what particular area they would be prepared to help, for example, by contributing troops, observers, civilian personnel, equipment and so on. In other words, there would be a potential list—a reservoir—of potential areas of help on which the Secretary-General could draw at fairly short notice.
  The European Community also made proposals on the training of peacekeeping personnel—my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of that. New demands on soldiers result not only from the new concept of soldiers being involved in peacekeeping—that is a new concept for many armies—but because each situation that they are required to face tends to differ depending on the particular task that the United Nations has given to them.
  As my hon. Friend has said, the Scandinavians already provide some training—they run courses for peacekeeping. I assure my hon. Friend that the EC suggestion on training will be discussed with the Secretary-General and we shall have to await the outcome of those discussions.
  I shall try to deal with all the points that I have not covered today by letter to my hon. Friend.

  1337
  During the past year the improvements in East-West relations and the Soviet Union's decision to end some of her overseas adventures have led to major progress in the resolution of regional conflicts in many parts of the world —a process in which the UN has had an important role and from which its standing has gained. The presence of a UN peacekeeping force is often the first step for parties who wish to find their way from the battlefield to the
  1338
  negotiating table. The Government are proud of their support for UN peacekeeping and we urge all members of the UN to demonstrate their support too.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before we adjourn, may I wish all hon. Members and our officials and staff a very happy Easter recess.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock till Tuesday 4 April, pursuant to resolution [13 March].

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Self-defence
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that he give attention to the need for self-defence education, as part of physical education, in secondary schools, and to the necessary training for physical education teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  At the time of that recommendation, responsibility for determining the content of the school curriculum locally rested with individual schools, governing bodies and local education authorities as appropriate. The Education Reform Act 1988, however, establishes a national curriculum which includes physical education. Arrangements for considering the content of guidelines on PE will be set up by June 1990 with a view to beginning to implement them in schools from autumn 1992. Self-defence education may be among the matters to be considered. It will be for LEAs to determine the necessary in-service training for teachers of PE, and for teacher training institutions to decide upon the content of initial teacher training courses.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the change in the proportion of school leavers in the north-west going on to further or higher education in the north-west since 1979–80.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1979–80, 18·2 per cent. of leavers from maintained schools in the North-west intended to proceed to a course of further or higher education. The comparable figure for 1986–87 was 27·6 per cent.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the change in pupil-teacher ratios in the north-west since 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  The pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in the north-west in 1979 and 1988 were as follows:

  January each year

  1979

  1988

  Percentage change

  Primary

  23·6

  22·5

  -4·7

  Secondary

  16·4

  15·0

  -8·5

  Indic Languages
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has 682
  received urging that Indic languages be specified as eligible for the modern foreign languages foundation subject; what ethnic minority representatives and other interested parties he is meeting to discuss this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Indic languages are among those specified as eligible for inclusion in the national curriculum, within the framework of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 3 March at columns 338 and 339. Since that announcement, my right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations on this matter, including one from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The proposals already take account of earlier representations about the inclusion of Indic languages, which had been received after the passage of the Education Reform Act. My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet ethnic minority representatives or other parties, but will consider carefully any further representations made during the consultation period on the proposals.

  Teaching as a Career
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide further resources towards recruiting people back to teaching; and if so if he is prepared to increase the budget to its teaching as a career promotion unit.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 27 January that the remit of TASC would be extended for a further three years beyond April 1990. The future level of funding of the unit is at present under consideration. An important part of TASC's activity will continue to be to promote the re-employment of former teachers.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the gap between the rate support grant additional allocation and the net effect of improvements to teachers' pay and conditions of employment, will be met in full from central sources.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is consulting the local authority associations arid others about his proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions m 1989–90. Paragraph 4 of my right hon. Friend's consultative letter of 16 February made clear that the Government do not intend to revise the rate support grant settlement on account of those proposals. The additional cost to local authorities of the proposals will be offset in part by the greater than expected reduction in the employers' contributions to the teachers' superannuation scheme which my right hon. Friend announced on 10 February.

  University Staff
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional funds have been earmarked specifically for university staff salaries for each of the years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92; and what conditions have been attached.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following the 1987 salary settlement the Government have earmarked £67 million for the salaries
  683
  of academic staff in institutions to be funded by the Universities Funding Council in 1989–90 on condition that the universities produce satisfactory evidence of the implementation of staff appraisal. The Government have also offered to make additional sums available over the three years for staff pay if all industrial action ceases and settlements which introduce differentiation into the pay of lecturers and technicians are agreed.

  Nursery and Primary Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total capital expenditure for nursery and primary education for each of the last 10 years in absolute cash terms and in real terms using 1979 as the base year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information available is as follows:

  Local authority expenditure on nursery and primary education England only

  £000

  Cash

  Real terms

  1979–80

  104,712

  104,712

  1980–81

  135,813

  114,561

  1981–82

  106,902

  82,163

  1982–83

  107,998

  77,517

  1983–84

  122,904

  84,310

  1984–85

  144,000

  94,131

  1985–86

  161,187

  99,895

  1986–87

  177,768

  106,585

  1987–88

  n.a.

  —

  1988–89

  n.a.

  —

  The above figures do not include expenditure for voluntary aided and special agreement primary and nursery schools, for which information is not readily available.

  Teacher Training
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many students who entered initial teacher training are specialising in nursery education for each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many students who entered all forms of initial teacher training are specialising in early years education, up to seven years old, for each of the last 10 years;

  (3) how many post graduate certificate for education students have entered initial teacher training specialised in primary school teaching for each of the last 10 years;

  (4) how many students have entered all forms of initial teacher training specialising in primary education for each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available on the number of students entering initial teacher training who specialise in nursery education. The first table gives the numbers of students entering courses of initial teacher training specialising in early years education since 1986. The second table shows numbers of students entering primary courses of initial teacher training since 1982. These are the years for which, in each case, information is available.684

  Table 1. Recruitment to Initial Teacher Training Courses for Early Years.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  PGCE

  292

  437

  836

  BEd

  1,105

  1,168

  1,771

  Total

  1,397

  1,605

  2,607

  Source: DES annual survey of recruitment to initial teacher training.

  Note: Figures include all courses of initial teacher training for the age ranges 3–7, 3–8, 4–7 and 4–8.

  Table 2. Recruitment to Primary Phase Courses of Initial Teacher Training

  PGCE

  BEd

  Total

  1982

  1,357

  5,078

  6,435

  1983

  1,740

  5,682

  7,422

  1984

  2,003

  6,254

  8,257

  1985

  2,328

  6,466

  8,794

  1986

  2,707

  6,257

  8,964

  1987

  3,134

  6,970

  10,104

  1988

  3,727

  7,646

  11,373

  Source: DES annual survey of recruitment to initial teacher training.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the governors of a school seeking grant-maintained status, and where a ballot of parents has received a majority yes vote, will have the same right to comment on objections subsequently submitted by the local education authority as the authority itself has for commenting on objections to section 12 notices; and whether this applies where the school in question is itself the subject of a section 12 notice.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Objections to proposals from schools seeking grant-maintained status are submitted direct to my right hon. Friend and are not automatically shown to the governing body. However in considering the proposals my right hon. Friend takes steps to ensure that he has all the information necessary for him to make a decision, including where appropriate comments from the governing body on objections to the proposals. Proposals for grant-maintained status are treated in the same way for a school which is also the subject of a section 12 notice, but in that case both proposals are considered together.

  Lecturers (Dispute)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being considered to ensure that students' examinations will not be jeopardised as a result of the current lecturers' dispute.

  Mr. Jackson
  This is a matter for the university authorities. I understand that they are actively considering a range of possibilities.

  National Curriculum
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if sufficient copies of the national curriculum are available in schools in preparation for September.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Following the publication of national curriculum documents for mathematics and science on 14 March, initial copies were sent to schools in time to arrive before the end of their Easter term. A second instalment
  685
  will be distributed by local education authorities after Easter, which will allow one copy for every primary teacher and secondary teacher of mathematics or science. It is intended that national curriculum documents for key stage 1 in English will be distributed to schools in early June.

  Derbyshire County Council
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much Derbyshire county council has spent on primary and secondary education each year since 1981–82, in total, and per pupil.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The available information is given in the table:

  Net institutional expenditure1 and spend per pupil2

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Net Institutional expenditure

  Unit cost

  Net Institutional expenditure

  Unit cost

  Year

  £ million

  £

  £ million

  £

  1981–82

  46·9

  575

  60·1

  795

  1982–83

  49·5

  635

  65·5

  870

  1983–84

  51·7

  690

  70·5

  950

  1984–85

  54·1

  730

  73·6

  1,020

  1985–86

  58·1

  780

  78·1

  1,125

  1986–87

  65·3

  875

  86·6

  1,305

  1987–88

  375·2

  3990

  95·9

  1,530

  1 Net institutional expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certin supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DoE and pupil number returns to DES.

  3 The figures for 1987–88 include nursery schools.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much the Government have spent on primary and secondary education each year since 1981–82.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local authorities determine their own education budgets. Rate support grant paid by the Government in support of local authority spending is not hypothecated to individual services, and education specific grants are not necessarily paid on a sectoral basis. The information requested is not therefore available.

  Books (Expenditure)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the spending on books in England per primary school child for every year for the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  While local authorities' expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment show separate figures for books, these need to be treated with caution because of differing local authority practices in allocating spending between books and equipment. The table therefore shows spending figures for books and equipment together as well as for books separately.686

  Expenditure per pupil on books and equipment Primary schools, England, £ cash

  Books and equipment

  Within which, books

  1977–78

  11·40

  3·60

  1978–79

  12·80

  4·20

  1979–80

  14·30

  4·70

  1980–81

  16·00

  5·30

  1981–82

  18·20

  5·90

  1982–83

  20·90

  7·00

  1983–84

  22·80

  7·10

  1984–85

  23·50

  7·30

  1985–86

  24·90

  7·50

  1986–87

  28·00

  8·20

  The Government's expenditure plans for 1989–90 allow for provision per primary pupil for books and equipment to increase by 32 per cent. in cash over the 1986–87 level.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing, by local authority areas, the number of full-time equivalent 0–4 year-olds in nursery schools in January.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In January 1988 the number of full-time equivalent pupils under five in maintained nursery schools in each local education authority in England is given in the table.

  Full-time equivalent pupils under 5 in maintained nursery schools January 1988

  Full-time equivalent pupils

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  268

  Bexley

  99

  Brent

  225

  Bromley

  0

  Croydon

  244

  Ealing

  275

  Enfield

  0

  Haringey

  210

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  0

  Hillingdon

  60

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  150

  Merton

  0

  Newham

  515

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  36

  Sutton

  120

  Waltham Forest

  192

  Inner London

  3,173

  Birmingham

  1,592

  Coventry

  250

  Dudley

  221

  Sandwell

  162

  Solihull

  0

  Walsall

  436

  Wolverhampton

  422

  Knowsley

  0

  Liverpool

  374

  St. Helens

  39

  Sefton

  160

  Wirral

  146

  Bolton

  339

  Bury

  111

  Manchester

  473

  687

  Full-time equivalent pupils

  Oldham

  0

  Rochdale

  494

  Salford

  675

  Stockport

  507

  Tameside

  180

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  108

  Barnsley

  91

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  207

  Sheffield

  460

  Bradford

  355

  Calderdale

  65

  Kirklees

  332

  Leeds

  150

  Wakefield

  232

  Gateshead

  32

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  549

  North Tyneside

  178

  South Tyneside

  373

  Sunderland

  537

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  1,194

  Bedfordshire

  834

  Berkshire

  1,081

  Buckinghamshire

  256

  Cambridgeshire

  374

  Cheshire

  434

  Cleveland

  77

  Cornwall

  74

  Cumbria

  411

  Derbyshire

  687

  Devon

  153

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  1,354

  East Sussex

  143

  Essex

  132

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Hampshire

  130

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  Hertfordshire

  913

  Humberside

  605

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  41

  Lancashire

  1,765

  Leicestershire

  25

  Lincolnshire

  195

  Norfolk

  202

  North Yorkshire

  186

  Northamptonshire

  307

  Northumberland

  88

  Nottinghamshire

  322

  Oxfordshire

  290

  Shropshire

  83

  Somerset

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,435

  Suffolk

  55

  Surrey

  252

  Warwickshire

  378

  West Sussex

  230

  Wiltshire

  0

  England

  30,501

  Examinations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers in each education authority achieved five or more GCSE passes or equivalent qualifications, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 14 March 1989]: The information is given in the table. The figures relating to examination results are derived from a 10 per cent. sample of school leavers from each school. Sampling error is a major consideration where information for individual local education authorities is concerned. To help mitigate the effects of sampling error, the figures are presented in the form of a three-year aggregate covering the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  School leavers from maintained secondary schools: aggregation for the academic years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  Numbers (thous-ands)

  Percentage achieving 5 + graded results at GCE O-level/CSE

  Local education authorities:

  Barking

  6·68

  52·99

  Barnet

  10·35

  81·55

  Bexley

  10·40

  76·54

  Brent

  8·68

  68·55

  Bromley

  10·27

  77·22

  Croydon

  12·88

  73·76

  Ealing

  9·77

  67·14

  Enfield

  10·40

  68·94

  Haringey

  6·05

  65·12

  Harrow

  6·01

  82·86

  Havering

  11·03

  72·26

  Hillingdon

  8·81

  77·98

  Hounslow

  8·31

  66·43

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·65

  76·77

  Merton

  6·13

  70·80

  Newham

  9·08

  57·27

  Redbridge

  8·29

  65·14

  Richmond upon Thames

  4·39

  77·45

  Sutton

  6·22

  81·99

  Waltham Forest

  7·19

  53·41

  Inner London

  73·43

  58·68

  Birmingham

  48·88

  66·67

  Coventry

  14·27

  69·80

  Dudley

  14·52

  75·96

  Sandwell

  14·54

  61·35

  Solihull

  10·82

  83·27

  Walsall

  14·87

  70·07

  Wolverhampton

  12·90

  63·72

  Knowsley

  7·98

  50·25

  Liverpool

  21·10

  53·51

  St. Helens

  8·87

  68·43

  Sefton

  13·77

  69·72

  Wirral

  15·47

  70·72

  Bolton

  12·93

  74·40

  Bury

  8·09

  75·28

  Manchester

  22·23

  51·15

  Oldham

  9·78

  64·93

  Rochdale

  9·38

  65·25

  Salford

  11·03

  62·65

  Stockport

  12·82

  70·67

  Tameside

  11·56

  70·42

  Trafford

  8·63

  73·93

  Wigan

  17·29

  74·67

  Barnsley

  11·28

  62·85

  Doncaster

  13·50

  67·04

  Rotherham

  13·54

  68·46

  Sheffield

  25·64

  72·19

  Bradford

  22·22

  57·56

  Calderdale

  9·01

  63·15

  Kirklees

  18·26

  70·04

  689

  Numbers (thous-ands)

  Percentage achieving 5 + graded results at GCE O-level/CSE

  Leeds

  30·57

  69·55

  Wakefield

  16·09

  65·94

  Gateshead

  9·35

  66·42

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10·32

  63·18

  North Tyneside

  8·85

  75·82

  South Tyneside

  7·14

  76·33

  Sunderland

  14·82

  72·81

  Avon

  37·28

  76·77

  Bedfordshire

  22·42

  76·70

  Berkshire

  29·00

  82·76

  Buckinghamshire

  24·90

  81·57

  Cambridgeshire

  24·31

  74·04

  Cheshire

  44·91

  75·46

  Cleveland

  29·60

  73·01

  Cornwall

  20·70

  77·39

  Cumbria

  21·55

  74·71

  Derbyshire

  43·65

  77·25

  Devon

  38·27

  73·53

  Dorset

  25·27

  82·43

  Durham

  27·86

  72·83

  East Sussex

  22·63

  74·68

  Essex

  66·24

  71·56

  Gloucestershire

  21·82

  78·51

  Hampshire

  66·78

  82·73

  Hereford and Worcester

  27·54

  78·36

  Hertfordshire

  43·45

  76·16

  Humberside

  41 81

  71·27

  Isle of Wight

  4·93

  78·09

  Kent

  65·93

  77·54

  Lancashire

  62·58

  69·45

  Leicestershire

  38·28

  73·51

  Lincolnshire

  24·93

  77·10

  Norfolk

  31·34

  63·59

  North Yorkshire

  29·25

  79·18

  Northamptonshire

  26·16

  77·45

  Northumberland

  12·90

  80·08

  Nottinghamshire

  46·85

  74·34

  Oxfordshire

  22·94

  81·17

  Shropshire

  19·32

  79·30

  Somerset

  17·79

  73·86

  Staffordshire

  48·29

  76·99

  Suffolk

  25·80

  70·16

  Surrey

  37·43

  83·44

  Warwickshire

  21·04

  81·56

  West Sussex

  27·20

  84·67

  Wiltshire

  21·43

  73·45

PRIME MINISTER

  Canadian Prime Minister (Visit)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if during the visit of the Canadian Prime Minister to Downing street on 13 March, she discussed the prospects of the sale of British nuclear submarines to Canada.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, expressing the hope that the Canadian order would go to the United Kingdom. Mr. Mulroney told me he had still to take a decision.

  NHS (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Rhyl offices of the National Union of Public Employees to hear its views on(a) Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the National Health Service and (b) Clwyd health authority's proposals to close Lluesty hospital, Holywell; and if she will make a statement.
  690
  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be meeting a range of organisations in Wales to hear their views on the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  I understand that no proposal to close Lluesty hospital has been put to Clwyd health authority. It would therefore not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend or myself to enter into any discussions at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will meet the Clwyd local medical committee and representatives from 40 general practitioner practices in Clwyd to hear the views of general practitioners concerning the White Paper "Working for Patients";

  (2) if she will visit Wrexham-Mealar district hospital, Glan Clwyd district hospital and Mauceot community hospital to meet representatives of the nursing and ancillary staffs concerning Her Majesty's Government's White Paper "Working for Patients": and if she will make a statement;

  (3) if she will meet Clwyd general practitioners to discuss their views of the National Health Service Review "Working for Patients";

  (4) if she will meet the Clwyd local medical committee at Tegfryn, Mold, Clwyd, to discuss matters concerning the National Health Service; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be meeting a range of organisations in Wales to hear their views on the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Policing (North Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit North Wales police headquarters, Colwyn Bay, to meet the chief constable and the Gwynedd-Clwyd police committee to discuss police manning levels and to discuss developments in the level of crime; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit the North Wales police. Since the Government took office 51 extra police posts have been approved for North Wales. The police authority has applied for the further 10 posts in 1990–91. This will be considered. It is encouraging to see that recorded crime in North Wales fell by 6 per cent. in 1988.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister who is representing the United Kingdom at the global convention on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous waste; and if she will make a statement on the remit of the United Kingdom's representative.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom's delegation to the diplomatic conference at Basle to draw up a convention on the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes was led by the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement about the conference as soon as possible.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister, if she will make a statement on the role of each Government
  691
  Department involved in the licensing of dangerous substances, the controls over the shipment of such substances, the rescuing and disposal of cargoes containing such substances in case of accident and the monitoring and clearing up of the after effects of any accident.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of the Environment is responsible for the general oversight of waste, including dangerous waste. A scheme for the notification of new substances is run jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and DoE. On registration of agricultural pesticides, the lead is taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Department of Transport is responsible for the regulation of the carriage of dangerous goods including waste, with specialist advice from the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority as necessary.

  EC Directive 84/631/EEC, and the related United Kingdom regulation, deal with the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. International movement of dangerous substances by sea is governed by the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981 and in practice means compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

  The marine pollution control unit in DTp is responsible for dealing with spillage and clearing up after accidents. If such goods are brought ashore here for disposal they would have to be dealt with at a suitable facility by a local authority. In serious cases advice on disposal would be available from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with the Jordanian Government concerning the sale of eight Tornado aircraft to that country.

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed the possible sale of Tornado to Jordan with King Hussein on a number of occasions, most recently on 13 March. I understand that the Jordanian Government, after reviewing their financial commitments, and in the light of the current economic situation in Jordan, have informed us that they would like to postpone further negotiations on the sale until more favourable circumstances prevail. This has been agreed.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister what contacts she has had with the West German Government concerning the sale of eight Tornado aircraft to Jordan.

  The Prime Minister
  Since the Tornado is a collaborative project I have had occasion to have discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany authorities about financing arrangements for this possible sale.

  Newspapers (Legal Proceedings)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what injunctions or other legal proceedings have been brought by the Government or members of the Government against individual newspapers or publishing organisations over the last 12 days.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any such proceedings.

  Pamella Bordes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussion took place between on the one hand Downing street officers or representatives of Her Majesty's Government and on the other hand representatives of national newspapers on the question of Miss Pamella Bordes between Sunday 12 March and Monday 20 March.

  The Prime Minister
  Downing street press officers discharge their duties as appropriate.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Junior Counsel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide for the latest available 12 month period(a) the number of junior counsel regularly practising and (b) the number of junior counsel regularly practising in the criminal courts; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of junior counsel regularly practising is 5,343 for the 12-month period ending 1 October 19881; the number of junior counsel regularly practising in the criminal courts is 2,926 as at 17 March 19892.
  1 Figures supplied by the Bar Council based on those registered as at 1 October.
  2 Figures supplied by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund as at 17 March 1989.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide for the latest available 12-month period in respect of the Crown prosecution service(a) the total number of lawyers employed, (b) the number of barristers employed, (c) the number of solicitors employed, and (d) the number of cases prosecuted in (i) the magistrates' courts and (ii) the Crown court, (e) the average cost of cases prosecuted in the magistrates' courts, (f) the average cost to the Crown prosecution service, of prosecution in the Crown court excluding counsels fees and (g) the average counsel's fee in Crown court cases; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest 12-month period for which the information requested is available is from January to December 1988. The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 1,539.

  (b) 549.

  (c) 990.

  (d)

  (i) 1,354,000 defendants.

  (ii) 123,000 defendants.

  (Records are kept of the number of defendants, rather than the number of cases, prosecuted in each court).

  (e) £47.

  (f) £170.

  (g) £267.

  Legal Reform
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General what instructions the Director of Public Prosecutions has given to lawyers in the service of the Crown prosecution service on the public expression of any views they might have on the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers, and on their sending such views to the headquarters for collation.
  693
  The Solicitor-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has reminded all members of the Crown prosecution service that, in accordance with standard civil service practice, they should not comment publicly on matters of current political controversy. The director has expressed the view that if members of staff wish to make comments on issues raised in the Green Paper, the most appropriate course is to send them to the working party which has been set up under the chairmanship of the deputy director/chief executive to consider the Department's response to the Lord Chancellor's proposals.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals against entrance clearance were upheld by adjudicators in 1987 and 1988; and in how many of such appeals entry clearance thereafter was issued by the relevant immigration authorities.

  The Solicitor-General
  In 1987, 1,612 appeals against refusal of entry clearance were upheld; in 1988, 978 such appeals were upheld. Figures on the number of such appeals where entry clearance was subsequently granted by the immigration authorities are not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Miss Pamela Bordes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has made, or is intending to make, any changes in the vetting system for pass applications following upon the issue of a pass to Miss Pamella Bordes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the House has already approved the Services Committee's Second Report, "Access to the Precincts of the House", which includes recommendations about security matters. These are in the process of implementation.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what inquiries have been instituted by the authorities of the House into the issue of a pass to Miss Pamella Bordes;

  (2) whether the matter of the providing of a pass to Miss Pamella Bordes has been referred to those persons responsible for security in the House;

  (3) what instructions have been given to the police as to the nature of inquiries that should be made into the background of applications for a pass for entry to the House.

  Number of incidents

  Species involved

  Pesticide/poison involved

  1984

  12

  8 dogs, 2 carrion crows, buzzard, duck, magpie, water rail

  Strychnine, mevinphos, alphachlorose, famphur, parathion

  1985

  4

  2 cats, 2 carrion crows, 2 magpie, 1 pheasant

  Alphachlorose, famphur, metaldehyde

  1986

  10

  3 dogs, 2 cats, 2 foxes, buzzard, gull, carrion crow, jackdaw, lamb, rabbit, pheasant

  Mevinphos, strychnine, alphachlorose, metaldehyde

  1987

  7

  4 dogs, buzzard, jackdaw, herring gull, peregrine, pheasant, raven

  Strychnine, alphachlorose, endrin, mevinphos

  1988

  6

  5 dogs, cat

  Strychnine, metaldehyde

  694
  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not appropriate to comment in detail on matters of security of the House.

  Division Bells
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) whether he will list the location of all division bells in the SW1 area in the homes of persons other than right hon. and hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords;

  (2) on what date approval was given for the fitting of division bells at (a) 6 Stockton court, Greycoat street, London SW1 and (b) 69A Winchester street, London; and who made the application in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It would be inappropriate for me to provide information about the specific location of Division bells. It is the policy of the authorities of the House not to approve the fitting of Division bells in homes of persons other than right hon. and hon. Members.

  Passes
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what security checks were instituted in the case of Mr. Michael Middleton, employee of Messrs. Kingfisher of Ferndown, Dorset, in the case of his access to the House of Commons for the purpose of delivering food provisions;

  (2) whether he will list the categories of convictions which preclude a person from receiving (a) a day pass or (b) other passes authorising access to the House of Commons.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not appropriate to comment in detail on matters of security of the House.

WALES

  Wildlife Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last five years the number of cases of wildlife poisoning in Wales caused by the illegal use of pesticides or poisons; and if he will identify the species involved and if possible the poison or pesticide involved.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of cases of wildlife poisoning in Wales caused by the illegal use of pesticides or poisons identified by the wildlife and storage biology service were as follows:

  Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, the provision for value added tax liability on new construction within the budgets given for capital expenditure on roads by his Department and the local authorities in Wales in chapter 17 of the Government's expenditure plans 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the disruption being caused to development projects of small businesses in rural Wales arising from the suspension of the rural conversion grant scheme in February; if he has discussed this with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency with a view to re-establishing the scheme; if he will make available to the Welsh Development Agency the necessary finance to enable them to meet their obligations under this scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has earmarked £3 million to the rural conversion grant programme over the next three years, sufficient to stimulate nearly 1,200 new jobs. The record resources allocated by the agency to conversion grants in the current financial year, broadly double the amount available in 1987–88, are fully taken up, though payment in relation to new schemes will commence in April. The impact on the development of small businesses in rural Wales of the slight delay in payments is therefore minimal.

  Development Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the latest average unemployment rate for development areas in Wales and (b) the unemployment rate on the same date for each travel-to-work area which had an unemployment rate higher than the average for development areas in Wales, denoting which of these areas have in their territory a development area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Unemployment rate as at February 1989

  Percentage

  (a) Average for development areas in Wales

  12·6

  —

  (b) Travel-to-work areas with a higher unemployment rate than the average for the development areas in Wales:

  Aberdare

  17·7

  IA

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  13·3

  DA

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  13·8

  DA

  Cardigan

  18·0

  DA

  Fishguard

  16·1

  IA

  Haverfordwest

  14–0

  IA

  Holyhead

  17·7

  DA

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  13·2

  DA

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  14·1

  DA

  Pwllheli

  19·0

  IA

  South Pembrokeshire

  17·6

  DA

  Notes:

  1. DA denotes development area.
  696
  2. IA denotes intermediate area.

  3. Development areas are defined in terms of travel-to-work areas.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has issued any guidance to health authorities in Wales on the development by each such authority of an alcohol planning strategy; and whether he is satisfied with the provisions being made by health authorities in this area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department, along with others, has recently issued a joint circular to health authorities, and a wide range of other organisations, on planning to tackle the problem of alcohol misuse. A copy of Welsh Office Circular 8/89 is in the Library of the House. Progress is to be monitored: relevant aspects of health authorities' work are to feature in forthcoming performance reviews.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in implementing section 5 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, in respect of its obligation to place duties upon education authorities and social services authorities to identify, assess and provide for the needs of people with mental handicaps at the time that they move out of full-time education; and what arrangements have been made to ensure that these facilities are being monitored in respect of their implementation in terms of quality of life.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The attention of local authorities was drawn to their detailed responsibilities under section 5 and 6 of the Act at the time of their implementation and it is upon them that the responsibilities now lie. No central record is held of individual assessments but social work service officials will be conducting a survey of local authority services for disabled people in the coming months.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to implement sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and whether he will meet the cost implications required to appoint authorised representatives for all people with mental handicaps in connection with the provision of services and the right to obtain relevant information to facilitate an informed choice of a selection of appropriate support services.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health have repeatedly said, each section of the Act will be implemented as and when the necessary resources can be identified and made available. We are making good progress on implementation with six key sections now in force. We have agreed with the local authority associations that section 7 is the next priority and detailed work on sections 1, 2 and 3 will follow as soon as possible. Local authorities will be consulted about the potential cost implications at an appropriate time.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many social workers trained to deal with physically handicapped people are employed by each county council in Wales.
  697
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information relating to the number of senior social workers, social workers and community workers with qualifications is given in the following table1

  Number

  Clwyd

  134

  Dyfed

  120

  Gwent

  175

  Gwynedd

  72

  Mid Glamorgan

  201

  Powys

  25

  South Glamorgan

  156

  West Glamorgan

  102

  1 Full-time staff only, as at 30 September 1988, with a certificate of qualification in social work of the CCETSW or equivalent, a declaration of recognition of experience, a certificate in social service or a senior certificate in residential care.

  Rural Water Supply
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rural water supply schemes have been requisitioned of the Welsh water authority by district councils in Wales in each year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is not held centrally. I am asking the chairman of the Welsh water authority to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Therapists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of professionally qualified people in post in each health authority area in Wales, and the number of vacancies that exist within the same disciplines, as(a) speech therapists, (b) occupational therapists and (c) physiotherapists;

  (2) what steps are being taken to improve training facilities for speech therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Dceside (Mr. Jones) on 21 October at columns 1015–16, which gives the information requested in respect of physiotherapists and speech therapists. Information on the number of occupational therapists in post in each Welsh district health authority as at 30 September is given in the following table. As indicated in my earlier reply information on the number of vacancies is not currently collected by the Department on a regular basis, but information obtained in the course of the 1988 manpower resource planning exercise indicated that at the all-Wales level at 30 September 1988 there were about 75 (whole-time equivalent) vacancies for occupational therapists. This aggregate figure is approximate only; reliable information at individual district health authority level is not currently available.

  Following the results of the 1988 manpower resource planning exercise, consideration is being given to how training provision for speech therapy and occupational therapy may be improved in Wales. The need for improved training capacity for physiotherapy will be assessed in the light of the 1989 round of manpower resource plans.
  698

  Occupational therapists Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September 1988

  Whole-time equivalents

  Clwyd

  31·9

  East Dyfed

  12·8

  Gwent

  37·3

  Gwynedd

  15·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  35·5

  Pembrokeshire

  8·3

  Powys

  6·6

  South Glamorgan

  74·2

  West Glamorgan

  29·0

  All Wales

  250·8

  Crime (Homing Estates)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chief constables of Wales to discuss how crime on local authority housing estates might be eliminated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I keep under review the crime levels on housing estates and in the country generally. In addition my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State represents the Welsh Office on the ministerial group on crime prevention. My Department works closely with statutory agencies and the voluntary sector to reduce crime on housing estates—grants totalling over £600,000 have been given by the Welsh Office over the last two years for a variety of crime preventive schemes for this purpose. I remain informed of the views of chief constables on all local matters.

  Lluesty Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Lluesty hospital, Holywell, to discuss with patients and staff the proposals of Clwyd health authority to close Lluesty hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I understand that no proposal to close Lluesty hospital has been put to Clwyd health authority. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to hold any discussions at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) nursing staff, (b) ancillary staff, (c) paramedical staff, (d) patients and (e) beds there are at Lluesty hospital; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many geriatric patients are under treatment at Lluesty hospital.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As at 28 February 1989, there were 48·3 nursing staff, 24·0 ancillary staff and 3·1 physio-therapists. These staff are recorded as whole-time equivalents.

  In the period January to September 1988 inclusive, the numbers of in-patients and beds, both of which were recorded under the geriatric speciality, were as follows:

  1

  Number

  In-patients

  394

  Average daily available beds

  74·0

  1 Excludes day care.

  NHS (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make additional cash allocations to Clwyd health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Plans to increase the cash allocations to Clwyd health authority were announced in January for the coming financial year. Other specific initiatives are to be announced shortly. The authority's initial revenue cash allocation for 1989–90 is £107·13 million, an increase of 6·5 per cent. over the 1988–89 allocation; in addition the authority is expected to achieve cost improvements and generate additional income next year equivalent to a further 1·3 per cent. of their revenue allocation. The authority's initial capital allocation for next year is £6·915 million, an increase of more than 40 per cent. over this year. I believe that these resources will be sufficient to allow the authority to meet inflationary pressures and provide for further service development.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Clwyd health authority at Preswefa, Mold, Clwyd, to hear the authority explain why it has rejected the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will be meeting a range of organisations in Wales to hear their views on the White Paper "Working For Patients", including the chairmen of district health authorities.

  Hospital Journeys (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the distance by bus route from Shotton, Deeside to(a) Lluesty hospital and (b) Abergele hospital, Clwyd.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The distances by bus to Lluesty hospital and Abergele hospital are 9·5 miles and 30 miles respectively.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will receive a deputation of the Clwyd local medical committee to hear their views on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients";

  (2) if he will address a general meeting of Clwyd general practitioners from 40 practices on the National Health Service review; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many general practitioners in Wales he has met to discuss his proposals concerning the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave today.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received objections from general practitioners in Wales concerning his National Health Service review proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received comments on the White Paper from a number of general medical practitioners and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave today.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what research or assessment his Department has 700
  undertaken into the impact on general practitioners in Wales of the Department of Health's proposals for general practitioners;

  (2) what research projects his Department has undertaken on the practices of general practitioners in rural Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The document "A New Contract" setting out proposals for changes in the arrangement for the remuneration and terms of service for general medical practitioners was issued jointly by the Health Ministers for Wales and England. I will be having discussions with representatives of the GPs.

  Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions the Forestry Commission awarded grants under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in Wales between its inception and closure; and on how many occasions the grant of £100 for obtaining professional advice in the preparation of a plan of operations under the BWGS was awarded.

  Mr. Peter Waker
  To date, the Forestry Commission has approved 671 applications for grant under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in Wales. The grant of £100 has been paid on 142 of those applications.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any response from the Welsh water authority following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received the authority's initial response, which has been published today, and have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission was asked to report on the efficiency and costs of, and the services provided by, Welsh Water. After a thorough investigation, for which I am grateful, the Commission made 24 recommendations, eight of which it considered should be a matter of priority for the authority. Overall the Commission considered that, although it had detailed comments to make, the authority now had the right policies in place.

  The recommendation that the Commission considered should be a matter of priority for the authority related to the implementation of the new customer accounting system, the collection of arrears of debt, manpower efficiency, the proposed cost and saving investment strategy, the development of business information systems, a work planning system to introduce and monitor performance targets for small jobs, the efficiency of section 15 agencies, the relationship between costs and services and the need for the athority to undertake rigorous and critical examination of its own operations.

  The authority has successfully implemented its new customer accounting system, ahead of schedule, and introduced a work planning system to bring in and monitor performance targets for small jobs. Effective action is in hand to implement the other recommendations. A number of the recommendations not in these priority categories have also been implemented.

  I am pleased to note that the authority is taking a positive stance in its consideration of the report;

  701
  implementation of its detailed recommendations will further improve the authority's performance and add to the considerable strides it has made towards increased efficiency.

  I have drawn the Commission's report and this first response by the Welsh water authority to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that he can bring both to the attention of the other regional water authorities.

THE ARTS

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the Scottish Arts Council grant in current prices in each year from 1978.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  1978–79

  13,547,311

  1979–80

  14,390,861

  1980–81

  13,561,463

  1981–82

  13,970,323

  1982–83

  14,555,203

  1983–84

  115,385,276

  1984–85

  14,765,495

  1985–86

  15,083,981

  1986–87

  15,228,263

  1987–88

  15,268,807

  1988–89

  15,258,000

  1 Included £917,851 at 1983–84 prices for Scottish Opera deficit.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 26 January at column 665, I am pleased to announce that a painting by Cezanne, "Allée à Chantilly" has been accepted in lieu of capital transfer tax. The amount of tax satisfied was £3,387,556 and was met by a call on the Reserve. A decision as to the allocation of this painting has not yet been taken.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Comic Relief
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to increase contributions to the developing world over the next three years in the light of the public response to comic relief.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I pay tribute to the remarkable fund-raising achievement of comic relief and to the generosity of the British public. We are currently discussing with comic relief how we can fund projects with it so that the proceeds go much further. The aid programme is planned to grow in real terms over the next three years.

  Namibia
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special assistance he is planning for Namibia during its period of transition to independence.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We shall maintain the existing programme of English language training and scholarships for Namibians living both within and outside the country, at a cost of about £1·5 million annually. I announced recently a contribution of £500,000 towards the programme for the repatriation of refugees being undertaken by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We are ready to help also with the costs of relocating exiled Namibian institutions.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  National Debt
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the amounts of the national debt owing on the day of the spring Budget for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  National debt is conventionally defined as the liabilities of the national loans fund, which is not the most useful or comprehensive measure of public sector indebtedness. It does not cover the whole of central government, it excludes entirely the debt of other parts of public sector, and it take no account of the public sector's short term assets.

  A more useful measure of public sector indebtedness is the net public sector debt which includes debt held by local authorities and public corporations, as well as central Government. It also takes account of the public sector's short term assets. Net public sector debt is measured on 31 March each year, and the figures for the last 10 years are:

  £ billion

  Per cent.of GDP

  1978

  87·9

  54·2

  1979

  95·3

  50·6

  1980

  102·1

  45·6

  1981

  116·

  47·0

  1982

  127·

  46·7

  1983

  135·0

  45·5

  1984

  147·3

  46·2

  1985

  160·

  46·3

  1986

  166·8

  44·8

  1987

  171·

  42·2

  1988

  171·

  38·2

  19891

  157·0

  32·0

  1Forecast.

  Exchange Equalisation Account
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what transfers were made to the exchange equalisation account from the national loans fund and vice versa in each month from April 1988 to February 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The net transfer between the National Loans Fund and the exchange equalisation account over the financial year is published in table 16.7 of the Central Statistical Office's annual "Abstract of Statistics".

  Gilts
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what gilts have been brought in by the Bank of England in each month from April 1988 to February 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The most recent and comprehensive figures for official transaction in gilts are contained in table 8 of the February 1989 Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. (These figures are published on a quarterly rather than monthly basis).

  It is not the practice to give information on the particular stocks involved in these transactions on grounds of market sensitivity.

  Treasury Loan
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when 15½ per cent. Treasury loan 1998 was first issued; how much was issued; at what price; how much is now outstanding; and what is the highest coupon gilt issued.

  Mr. Lilley
  15½ per cent. Treasury loan 1998 was first issued on 14 October 1976 and the original amount was £600 million nominal. The issue price was £96. There is currently £1,100 million nominal outstanding. The highest coupon gilt ever issued and the highest coupon currently outstanding are 15½ per cent.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations caused him to revise the proposals on value added tax on non-residential construction from those originally published on 21 June 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 6 February at columns 548–50.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the assumptions and forecasts he has made about non-residential construction in the private sector in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, and 1992–93, in calculating value added tax yield in future years on such construction.

  Mr. Lilley
  The assumptions and forecasts used to calculate the VAT yield from non-residential construction in 1989–90 and 1990–91 are consistent with the economic forecasts contained in the FSBR.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has undertaken any study into the effect of the output and activity of the construction industry of his proposals for applying value added tax to non-residential construction;

  (2) whether he has undertaken any study into the likely effect on employment in the construction industry of his proposals for applying value added tax to non-residential construction;

  (3) whether he has undertaken any study into the likely effect on urban development corporations of applying value added tax to non-residential construction;

  (4) whether he has undertaken any study into the likely effect on inner city regeneration of his proposals for applying value added tax to non-residential construction.

  Mr. Lilley
  As I made clear in my statements on 21 June 1988 and 6 February 1989, the Government had no choice 704
  but to remove the zero-rating found unlawful by the European Court of Justice. After consulting the construction and property industries, the Government are satisfied that the best solution is to combine the taxations of certain new construction with the landlord's option to tax rents, so that the tax could "wash through" the system to the maximum possible extent.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are interest rates in(a) Britain and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Lilley
  Three-month interbank rates on 20 March were 13·1 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 6·6 per cent. in Germany.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man with two children on half average male earnings from 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 22 March.

TRANSPORT

  Trunk Roads
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has completed his review of the trunk road network; and if he is now in a position to improve the A11 trunk road through Elveden, Suffolk.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The review of the trunk road programme is still in progress. Possible improvements to the A11 are being considered along with many other candidates for inclusion. Each must compete on its merits for a share of the resources available.

  We expect to make an announcement later in the spring. I could not say more about the prospects for particular proposals before then.

  We shall look separately at the possibility of shorter term improvement of the junction of the A11 and the B1106 at Elveden when we receive the report from Suffolk county council to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend on 14 March 1989 at column 205.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list information available to him on all the plans by(a) British Rail and (b) other undertakings to improve transport infrastructure in the Yorkshire region in the period before the opening of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Plans for infrastructure investment in railways, roads, ports, airports and other passenger transport facilities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region are too numerous to list. Major schemes include the electrification of the east coast main line; resignalling in the York area and from Northallerton to Berwick; and 29 national trunk road schemes.

  There are many other schemes which have not yet been finalised. British Rail is still working on the plan which it

  705
  is required to publish by the end of the year, in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, setting out its proposals for Channel tunnel passenger and freight services and any associated infrastructure.

  British Rail (Signalling and Safety)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what spending criteria have been laid down for British Rail in respect of signalling and safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's duty is to ensure that its equipment and procedures meet high standards of safety. Following a review of the railway inspectorate in 1988 I have asked British Rail to ensure that safety is explicitly covered in all investment cases that come to Ministers for consideration. In deciding on the best way of meeting safety requirements, British Rail has to apply the normal investment tests to ensure that the preferred option represents the best possible value for money.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding hazards to road safety produced by drivers using car telephones while driving; what advice his Department gives on this subject to those responsible for ensuring road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations. Most expressed concern at the safety implications of using in-car telephones in moving vehicles.

  The revised highway code, issued in March 1987, tells drivers not to use a hand held telephone while their vehicle is moving, except in an emergency.

  Anyone who can afford a car telephone can afford, and should use, a hands-free microphone.

  Railway Safety
  Mr. Michael Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be meeting the chairman of British Rail to discuss all aspects of safety relating to the railway system.

  Mr. Portillo
  The chief inspecting officer of railways has meetings with BR's director of safety to review safety every six months. He reports to Ministers and the HSC annually on major safety issues and from time to time on particular concerns and individual accidents. I have discussed safety a number of times with Sir Robert Reid over the last 12 months and shall want to do so again when the inspector's reports on the accidents at Clapham, Purley and Bellgrove are available.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department was informed of the cargo of the Perintis freighter before it was sunk.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no requirement to report the carriage of packaged hazardous cargoes and the Department was not informed of what cargo the Perintis carried.
  706
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when his Department was informed of the danger posed to the environment by the cargo of the Perintis.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's marine pollution control unit obtained a copy of the cargo manifest and recognised the presence of substances likely to pose a threat to the environment within six hours of the sinking of the MV Perintis on 13 March.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what help was asked for and provided by his Department in ensuring the safe disposal of the cargo of the Perintis.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's marine pollution control unit alerted Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on 14 March who in turn advised the MPCU and south coast local authorities on the safe disposal of any chemicals from MV Perintis which might be landed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls his Department has over cargoes of hazardous substances being transported through British waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no control of hazardous cargoes being transported through territorial waters unless those cargoes have been loaded or are to be unloaded in a United Kingdom port. Ships are, however, required to report the loss or likely loss of any substances that might cause pollution, and powers of intervention are available to control pollution incidents.

  M40 (Wendlebury to Waterstock)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to try and ensure that the time between the completion of the Waterstock to Wendlebury or the Wendlebury to Waterstock sections of the M40 is kept as short as possible.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is intended to invite tenders for the Waterstock-Wendlebury section as soon as possible. Tenderers would be invited to suggest their own shorter periods for construction. The contract would include provision for payment of a bonus for early completion.

  Nuclear Fuel Transporter (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a radioactive nuclear fuel transporter was left unguarded for several days at the beginning of March near the Mech Cast factory in the railway sidings at Carr hill, Doncaster.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The nuclear fuel transporter in Carr hill sidings from the 3–8 March was awaiting repair. It did not contain a nuclear fuel flask. The weatherproof cover was in place and this may have given the false impression that the wagon was loaded.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report of his consultants
  707
  into the alternatives to the current suspension bridge designs for the east London river crossing; and when he expects to make an announcement and place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Channon
  The consultants are finalising their report and expect to submit it soon. An announcement will be made when the report has been considered. I have already undertaken to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Town Police Clauses Act 1847
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to amend the Traffic Act 1985 in order to repeal clause 57 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, in relation to police powers in relation to taxi drivers.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no such plans at present but I am reviewing taxi and hire car legislation and if my hon. Friend has a specific problem in mind I shall be pleased to hear from him.

  A27 Arundel Bypass
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to make an announcement regarding the choice of route for the A27 Arundel bypass; and if, in the light of recent road accidents, he will take into account the need for urgent provision of safe crossing facilities for north and south traffic at the Avisford/Walberton/Slindon interchange.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to announce the preferred route by about the middle of next year. The subsequent detailed design will include a new B2132 junction.

  In view of the recent accidents near the junction the Department are investigating possible accident prevention measures, for the period before the bypass is built.

  Microlight Aircraft
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the legislation and regulations which control and regulate the flying and safety of microlight aircraft.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible.

  M1 Luton
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the maximum amount of traffic that can be handled in safety on the M1 south of Luton; and what are the present levels.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Accidents may be associated with any volume of traffic. As traffic increases on any particular section of road there is a steady lowering of the level of service and an increase in congestion. Particular local design features, together with driver behaviour, are much more significant in determining the risk of accident.

  The average number of vehicles using the M1 south of Luton in 1988 was 122,000 per day.

  Consulting Engineers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the number of times that 708
  a second firm of consulting engineers have been employed to report on the performance of the consulting engineers employed on a road building scheme; if he will give details of the circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The case where a second firm has been appointed to report, in part, on the performance of a consulting engineer commissioned for a road building project is the Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley bridge bypass which was the subject of the hon. Member's questions on 2 March. I cannot yet add to the answers that I gave then.

  Second firms are frequently used to consider specialist matters which arise in and from the development of highway projects. An independent design check in relation to certain categories of structures is a standard quality assurance requirement in all cases.

  Civil Servants (EC)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of civil servants in his Department whose main task is work related wholly or mainly to the European Economic Community; and what is the gross annual cost of travel and accommodation to and from Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg in connection with this work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 March 1989]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  British Rail (Disciplinary Procedure)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail train drivers were disciplined for taking trains through red danger signals in each of the years 1980 to 1988; and what assessment he has made of the implications for safety.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The chief inspecting officer of railways drew attention in his annual report for 1986 to the growing problem of signals passed at danger and the studies being carried out by British Rail. As my right hon. Friend reported to the House at column 757, in his statement on the accident at Bellgrove, British Rail has now decided to carry out trials of an automatic train protection system as a possible way of dealing with this problem. Detailed figures for the years 1980–88 are not available since BR has not in the past been required to report these incidents to the railway inspectorate. Arrangements to do so in future are being discussed as part of the follow up to the review of the railway inspectorate which I announced on Tuesday 21 March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

  Bridge Inspections (Divers)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, 15 March, Offical Report. column 118, on what bridges inspections are being carried out by divers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: Inspection by divers of three bridges on the Inverness-Wick/Thurso railway line—Beauly viaduct,

  709
  Evanton and Alness viaduct—has been satisfactorily completed. The inspection at Conon viaduct is continuing, but is being hampered by high flows of water. Work already carried out there has indicated a need for remedial action and the Conon viaduct has therefore been temporarily closed. I understand that BR's target date for completion of repairs is May.

  Plutonium (Air Transport)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the number of annual flights that will be necessary to transport plutonium reprocessed at Sellafield back to customers once the THORP facility is opened.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: On present information it is estimated that around 30 flights per year will be needed.

  Unadopted Streets
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under which provisions public funds have been made available towards the costs of making up unadopted streets.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: Under section 236 of the Highways Act 1980 local authorities having responsibility for highways can, if they wish, meet some or all of the costs of making-up

  Manufacturing output per head

  United Kingdom

  France

  FR Germany

  Italy

  USA

  Japan

  Canada

  £'000

  '000 FFr

  '000 DM

  mn lire

  $'000

  mn yen

  Can $'000

  1979

  6·7

  117

  52·5

  n.a.

  14·1

  4·7

  31·2

  1980

  7–6

  127

  53·6

  18–4

  15·2

  5·0

  34·1

  1981

  8·8

  142

  55·7

  21·7

  16·9

  5·2

  38·0

  1982

  10·1

  161

  59·3

  25·2

  18·2

  5·5

  39·3

  1983

  11·2

  180

  64·4

  28·9

  19·5

  5·6

  37·6

  1984

  12·3

  198

  67·9

  33·6

  20·8

  6·0

  45·7

  1985

  13·5

  222

  71·7

  37·5

  21·7

  6·3

  —

  1986

  14·9

  244

  77·7

  41·4

  22·6

  6·5

  —

  1987

  16·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n.a. = Not available.

  Note: Based on current price data.

  Sources: UK National Accounts, OECD National Accounts.

  Gross expenditure on research and development as percentage of GDP

  United Kingdom

  France

  FR Germany

  Italy

  USA

  1Japan

  Canada

  1979

  2—

  1·8

  2·4

  0·7

  2·3

  2·1

  1·1

  1980

  n.a.

  1·8

  n.a.

  0·9

  2·5

  2·2

  1·1

  1981

  2·4

  2·0

  2·4

  1·0

  2·4

  2·3

  1·2

  1982

  n.a.

  2·1

  n.a.

  0·9

  2·5

  2·4

  1·4

  1983

  2·3

  2·1

  2·5

  1·0

  2·6

  2·6

  1·3

  1984

  n.a.

  2·2

  n.a.

  1·0

  2–7

  2·6

  1·4

  1985

  2·3

  2·3

  2·7

  1·1

  2·8

  2·8

  1·4

  1986

  2·4

  2·3

  n.a.

  1·1

  2·7

  2·8

  1·4

  Source: OECD.

  n.a. = Not available.

  1Figures for Japan based on different definition of R and D—this may result in some overstatement.

  2Not available—figure for 1978 is 2·2.
  710
  unadopted streets. Normally, however, the costs are apportioned between the owners of properties fronting the street involved.

  Under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 central Government can give grants both to private sector developers and to local authorities towards providing road access for new industrial development in assisted areas including making up unadopted roads.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Statistics
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each quarter since the first quarter of 1979 (a) British manufacturing investment as a proportion of GDP expressed as a percentage of the G7 average; (b) British spending on civil research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product expressed as a percentage of the G7 average, (c) British manufacturing output per head as a percentage of the G7 average and (d) Britain's share of world trade as a percentage of the G7 share of world trade.

  Mr. Atkins
  Differences in definitions between countries and problems with different currencies make it inappropriate to express the United Kingdom data as a percentage of the G7 average. Much of the information is not available on a quarterly basis. The available annual information for each of the G7 countries is given in the following tables:
  711

  Manufacturing investment as a proportion of GDP—Percentage

  United Kingdom

  France

  FR Germany

  Italy

  USA

  Japan

  Canada

  1979

  3·6

  3·7

  3·8

  3·1

  2·7

  3·4

  2·6

  1980

  3·2

  3·5

  4·0

  3·3

  2·8

  3·9

  3·1

  1981

  2·5

  3·3

  3·9

  3·0

  2·7

  4·0

  3·5

  1982

  2·4

  3·0

  3·5

  2·5

  2·5

  3·8

  3·0

  1983

  2·3

  2·9

  3·5

  2·1

  1·9

  3·6

  2·1

  1984

  2·6

  2·9

  3·4

  2·3

  2·1

  4·0

  1·9

  1985

  2·9

  3·0

  3·8

  n.a.

  2·1

  4·1

  n.a.

  1986

  1·6

  3·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1·9

  3·7

  n.a.

  1987

  2·7

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a. = Not available.

  Note: Based on current price data.

  Sources: OECD National Accounts, OECD Economic Survey of Japan.

  Percentage shares of world trade in manufactures—value

  United Kingdom

  France

  FR Germany

  Italy

  USA

  Japan

  Canada

  1979

  9·1

  10·5

  20·9

  8·4

  16·0

  13·7

  4·2

  1980

  9·7

  10·0

  19·9

  7·9

  17·0

  14·9

  4·0

  1981

  8·5

  9·2

  18·4

  7·7

  18·6

  17·9

  4·6

  1982

  8·4

  9·0

  19·7

  7·9

  17·6

  17·3

  4·9

  1983

  7·9

  8·9

  19·0

  8·1

  16·9

  18·5

  5·5

  1984

  7·6

  8·5

  18·1

  7·7

  17·2

  20·1

  6·3

  1985

  7·9

  8·5

  18·7

  7·8

  16·7

  19·7

  6·3

  1986

  7·6

  8·8

  20·7

  8·2

  14·0

  19·4

  5·4

  1987

  8·1

  9·0

  21·5

  8·4

  13·7

  18·1

  4·9

  Source: Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics.

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for spending on(a) regional selective assistance and (b) regional development grant for (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90 in cash and at 1987–88 prices.

  Expenditure (£ million)

  At current prices

  At constant prices(1987–88=100)

  Forecast outturn1988–89

  Supply estimates1989–90

  Forecast outturn1988–89

  Supply estimates1989–90

  (a) Regional selective assistance

  England

  136

  147

  127

  130

  Scotland

  44

  58

  41

  51

  Wales

  43

  53

  40

  47

  (b) Regional development grants

  England

  154

  133

  144

  117

  Scotland

  76

  64

  71

  56

  Wales

  58

  64

  54

  57

  Notes:

  1. All figures are gross of domestic receipts and receipts from the European Regional Development Fund.

  2. RSA includes expenditure on industrial and training grants, Business Improvement Services and the Exchange Risk Guarantee Scheme.

  Arms Contracts
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the arms contracts for 1987 and 1988 in which the Export Credits Guarantee Department has had to fund losses; and if he will give the losses in each case.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose information about individual cases.
  712
  Mr. Forth
  For gross expenditure on regional development grants and regional selective assistance in England, Scotland and Wales in the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 25 January at columns 566–68.

  The information requested in respect of 1988–89 and 1989–90 is as follows. Regional development grant and regional selective assistance schemes do not operate in Northern Ireland.

  Oftel
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of funding for Oftel in 1988 and 1989; what were the Oftel staffing levels in 1987, 1988 and 1989; how many staff have been seconded from his Department; and if he will make a statement about Oftel's budget for 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  The funding and staffing of Oftel is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications in
  713
  consultation with the Treasury. One hundred and twenty-one full-time posts and one part-time post at Oftel are currently filled by secondees from my Department.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has had with his West German and Italian counterparts concerning the provision of credit support for the export of Tornado aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have had no such consultations.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any credit was extended to cover that part of the contract to sell Tornado aircraft to Jordan that related to the cost of negotiating the contract.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose information about individual cases.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Internal Market Council held on 13 March.

  Mr. Maude
  The Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, reached broad agreement on an important directive to break down barriers to the free flow of television programmes across frontiers within the Community. The Council also adopted a directive on the permissible sound level and exhaust system of motor cycles.

  Companies House Executive Agency
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for the Companies house executive agency.

  Mr. Maude
  Companies house's creation as an executive agency on 3 October last year built on the very considerable progress that has been made in the organisation in recent years. The activities of Companies house in making available information about companies promote enterprise and contribute substantially to open and informed markets. Its first few months as an agency confirm that this new status will enable Companies house to provide a still better service to its many customers, and to increase its efficiency.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today set the chief executive the following targets for improvements in the quality of service and financial performance over the next two years:
  10 per cent. reduction in the proportion of companies which have not filed all the accounts and annual returns required by the Companies Act, so that by June 1991 the compliance rate will be increased to 83 per cent;
  20 per cent. reduction in the time taken to process documents, so that by April 1991 documents are on average available to the public within 18 working days of being delivered to Companies House;
  12 per cent. increase in output per member of staff;
  7 per cent. decrease in unit costs in real terms.

  In addition my right hon. and noble Friend has emphasised to the chief executive the need to provide a standard of service over the whole range of Companies
  714
  house operations which meets the needs of his customers. As well as maintaining his efforts to improve the quality of existing services, we expect the chief executive shortly to announce new services in response to customer demands to enhance the accessibility of the information he holds.

  My right hon. and noble Friend is also glad to announce that there will be no increase in the level of statutory fees for Companies house services in the 1989–90 financial year.

  Bradford Task Force
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) from which subhead of his Department's vote the Bradford inner city task force will be funded; what annual budget has been allocated to the Bradford task force; what operating budget the task force will disburse; what are the immediate objectives of the task force; how the task force will assess applications made to it for funding; and by what criteria the task force will consider applications made to it for funding and other support;

  (2) if he will consider urgently how he might assist through the inner city task force, those voluntary organisations in Bradford providing training for the unemployed and child care enabling women to undertake employment outside the home;

  (3) how many officials he has appointed to the Bradford inner city task force announced on 9 March; what is the salary range of those officials; from which departments they have come; whether any of these officials have belonged to other inner-city task forces; what office accommodation the task force will occupy; and what is the estimated annual cost of renting that accommodation;

  (4) if he will direct the Bradford inner-city task force to examine urgently possible funding for voluntary organisa-tions which are now threatened with closure or severe cuts in their funding.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 9 March that he intended to establish an inner-city task force in Bradford. I expect it to be operational by the autumn. The expenditure of all inner-city task forces comes from the same vote subheads. Running costs are funded from class V vote 3 subhead B.01, and programme expenditure from class V vote 2, subheads G.01 and I.02. When the Bradford task force is established it will share in the £17 million provided for task force programme expenditure in 1989–90. It will also share the common objectives of task forces which can be summarised as enhancing the enterprise and employability of residents of their areas. No budget can be set, nor more detailed operational objectives established nor other matters determined until the task force has been set up.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all woodlands in the three counties of Yorkshire either sold or proposed for sale by the Forestry Commission since the passage of the Forestry Act 1981; if he will state for each such woodland(a) the acreage, (b) the map reference and (c) the species composition; and if he will make a statement.
  715
  Mr. Ryder
  The information is given in the following tables:

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid reference

  Species1

  Woodlands sold in South Yorkshire

  1983

  Huthwaite Wood

  13·3

  SE 282 002

  C

  1983

  Land at Silkstone

  1·0

  SE 295 058

  B

  1984

  Land at Silkstone

  1·0

  SK 295 058

  B

  1984

  Swinston Hill Wood

  20·0

  SK 540 845

  B

  1984

  Swinston Hill Package

  59·0

  SK 540 845

  B

  1984

  Swinston Hill Package

  16·0

  SK 540 845

  B

  1985

  Cannon Hall Estate

  10·4

  SE 270 094

  B

  1985

  Lowe Wood Wentworth

  17·8

  SE 317 035

  B

  1987

  Cantley Estate

  10·5

  SE 622 030

  C

  1988

  Coumbes Vale Wood

  15·2

  SK 295 929

  B

  Woodlands sold in West Yorkshire

  1982

  Stubbs Wood

  4·1

  SE 369 158

  C

  1983

  Bearnshaw Tower

  98·1

  SD 895 255

  U

  1984

  Browsholme Blocks

  47·0

  SD 685 455

  C

  1987

  Blakey Wood

  4·9

  SE 094 402

  C

  1987

  Land held from Yorkshire Water Authority

  434·5

  SD 000 225

  C

  1988

  Coburnhill Wood

  23·7

  SE 450 348

  C

  1989

  Higher House and Land

  62

  SE 001 225

  B

  Woodlands sold in North Yorkshire

  1981

  Crooked Hill North Bank and Spring Wood

  49·0

  SE 522 895

  C

  1982

  Brafferton Spring

  95·0

  SE 455 715

  C

  1982

  New Park Plantations

  33·0

  SE 550 633

  C

  1982

  Scotton Banks

  22·2

  SE 332 579

  C

  1983

  Big Ings Wood

  8·5

  SE 556 679

  C

  1983

  Broxa Moor and Harwood Dale

  65·0

  SE 948 926

  C

  1983

  Clark Wood

  30·0

  SE 447 745

  C

  1983

  Grass Wood

  65·4

  SD 985 655

  C

  1983

  Knotts Plantation

  4·4

  SE 122 702

  C

  1983

  Land at Flask

  1·0

  NZ 930 000

  B

  1983

  Riffa Wood

  19·1

  SE 255 470

  C

  1983

  Westow and Storth Wood

  14·8

  SE 478 864

  C

  1984

  Bishopwood Main Line Diversion

  3·3

  SE 549 328

  B

  1984

  Burnt Yates Wood

  9·2

  SE 236 608

  B

  1984

  Hawkshaw Gill and Clark's Carrwood

  65·4

  SE 182 634

  C

  1984

  Jackal Wood

  6·2

  SE 253 490

  C

  1984

  Juniper and Potgate Woods

  13·0

  SE 278 750

  B

  1984

  Leppington Wood

  8·6

  SE 768 616

  C

  1984

  Peep 0 Day Wood

  4·9

  SE 522 720

  C

  1984

  Scardale Package

  52·9

  SE 895 748

  B

  1984

  Sherbum and Butterwick Whins

  17·0

  SE 972 728

  B

  1984

  Southwold

  31·5

  SE 875 711

  B

  1984

  Swinton Estate

  286·0

  SE 190 810

  C

  1984

  Swinton Estate

  183·3

  SE 190 810

  C

  1984

  The Avenue

  6·5

  SE 453 726

  C

  1984

  Warren Slack

  17·0

  SE 990 744

  C

  1984

  West Moor Plantation

  2·9

  SE 450 733

  C

  1984

  West Wood

  8·5

  SE 136 680

  C

  1984

  Wragby Plantations

  21·0

  SE 930 000

  C

  1985

  Hornby Leasehold

  16·1

  SE 223 935

  C

  1985

  Ingleby Greenhow (Church Plantation)

  1·6

  NZ 580 065

  B

  1985

  Levisham Block

  68·5

  SE 826 895

  B

  1985

  Moor Covert Plantation

  11·3

  SE 780 657

  C

  1985

  Newton Mulgrave

  43·3

  NZ 783 130

  C

  1985

  Oxdale, Dargo and Laurel

  18·2

  SE 884 837

  C

  1985

  Raindale Head

  2·5

  SE 802 939

  C

  1985

  Scardale Package

  193·2

  SE 895 735

  B

  1986

  Broxa: Spring Wood East

  17·5

  NZ 952 919

  C

  1986

  Crookrise and Gargrave (Lot 4)

  3·0

  SD 980 541

  B

  1986

  Crookrise and Gargrave (Lots, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6)

  243·9

  SD 956 542

  C

  1986

  Crookrise/Gargrave Part (Sawley)

  7·1

  SE 988 555

  C

  1986

  Croomdale Plantation

  33·0

  SE 945 672

  B

  1986

  Everley Banks Plantation

  34·5

  SD 984 899

  C

  1986

  Fewler Gate Wood

  11·6

  SE 948 922

  C

  1986

  Irton Moor (Whin Covert and Black Rigg)

  39·0

  SE 996 868

  C

  1986

  Little Beck Wood

  16·2

  NZ 883 046

  C

  1986

  Quarry Wood

  2·7

  SE 247 692

  C

  1986

  Stapleton Park (Brockadale)

  28·0

  SE 504 175

  B

  1986

  Staxton brow

  38·0

  TA 020 785

  C

  1986

  Sunny Bank

  9·3

  SE 238 696

  C

  1986

  Wilstrop Wood

  24·7

  SE 490 540

  C

  1987

  East and West Belts and Ramshaw Quarry

  27·8

  SE 154 838

  C

  716

  717

  Year

  Name

  Area(hectares)

  Grid reference

  Species1

  1987

  Elslack

  66·5

  SD 939 480

  C

  1987

  Harewood Whin

  8·6

  SE 541 522

  C

  1987

  Longside Plantation

  88·5

  SE 118 724

  C

  1987

  Witton Fell

  107·0

  SE 137 849

  C

  1988

  Grinkle Park

  35·8

  SE 763 178

  C

  1988

  Grinkle Park

  134·5

  SE 751 169

  B

  1988

  Skipster Hagg Wood

  10·0

  SE 732 867

  C

  1The species composition is not available in any more detail than B for mainly broadleaves, C for mainly conifers and U for unplanted.

  Woodlands proposed for sale

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid reference

  Species1

  South Yorkshire

  Cantley Estate

  106·1

  SE 676 047

  C

  Hollins Plantation

  23·0

  SE 097 399

  C

  Owston Wood and Duck Holt

  65·7

  SE 571 102

  B

  West Yorkshire

  Haw Park

  7·3

  SE 365 151

  B

  Home Styes Wood

  136·7

  SE 105 045

  C

  Kippax Estate

  22·0

  SE 453 335

  B

  Kippax Estate

  22·0

  SE 452 325

  C

  Kippax Estate

  4·0

  SE 453 344

  B

  North Yorkshire

  Stapleton Park

  75·0

  SE 504 180

  B

  Stapleton Park

  27·0

  SE 514 185

  B

  Stapleton Park

  11·0

  SE 504 181

  B

  Stapleton Park

  12·0

  SE 496 194

  B

  Stapleton Park

  26·0

  SE 498 185

  C

  Back Plantation

  12·6

  SE 030 513

  C

  Bullen Wood

  17·1

  SE 457 383

  B

  Faceby and Sonny Cliff Wood

  61·0

  NZ505 018

  C

  Hollin Head and Piney Moor

  29·9

  SE 273 733

  C

  Micklefield Woods

  48·0

  SE 452 334

  B

  Camblesforth Estate

  48·0

  SE 625 272

  B

  Goathland Package

  209·0

  NZ820 020

  C

  Hornby Castle

  56·1

  SE 212 927

  C

  Gateforth Woods

  29·0

  SE 569 284

  B

  1 The species composition is not available in any more detail than B for mainly broadleaves and C for mainly conifers.

  Slaughtering
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the practice of paying slaughtermen by piece work is not causing animals to be stunned for less than the obligatory seven seconds.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 requires that when animals are stunned they must be instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes. Minimum periods for effective stunning by electricity are not prescribed by law and will vary according to the equipment employed and the size and species of the animal. At a time when only low frequency stunners were available, a minimum application period of seven seconds was recommended by the Ministry in guidance to local authorities. Some equipment now available is capable of achieving the required effect in two to four seconds.

  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation which must be observed whatever practices are followed in the plant.

  Toxic Pesticides
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is taking place to ensure 718
  that toxic pesticides that bond with cereals can be detected; when he will publish all of his Department's pesticide residue tests, including those on fish; what percentage of the cereals stored in the United Kingdom are held by the Government; and if he will make a statement on the consequences in terms of possible toxicity or long-term chronic effects on the consumer, human or animal, and also for the food processing industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am able to reassure the hon. Member that "bound" residues in cereals can be detected and identified. The ADAS central science laboratory at Slough has already carried out some successful work and is continuing research in this area. The results of Government monitoring for pesticide residues are published. The latest report—Food Surveillance Paper No. 25—was published on 13 March this year. It includes results of a survey of freshwater eels; results of studies of marine fish are published separately by MAFF's directorate of fisheries research.

  At 31 October 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) about 12 per cent. of United Kingdom cereal stocks were held in intervention. The published results of monitoring for pesticide residues have been considered by the advisory committee on pesticides and the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment who were satisfied that residues in cereals do not represent a hazard to consumers.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by location all the abattoirs within the three counties of Yorkshire showing which have a licence to export meat to the European Economic Community, which have had their export licence revoked and which can still provide meat to be consumed by British nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 January at column 213 to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). The list of all slaughterhouses in England and Wales placed in the Library of the House identifies those which are export approved.

  Two non-export approved slaughterhouses in Yorkshire formerly were so approved but it would not be appropriate to list their names. There can be many reasons for the withdrawal of export approval, including changing business requirements. There is no reason to assume that hygiene standards in slaughterhouses which were once export approved are no longer satisfactory or are below those in other slaughterhouses whether or not they are export approved. The legislation governing the supply of meat for consumption in England and Wales is enforced

  719
  by local authorities who appoint environmental health officers for supervision. The professional status of environmental health officers is of the highest order.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures will be taken to prevent the introduction into Great Britain of salmonella in animal protein intended for use as animal feedingstuffs.

  Mr. Ryder
  Amended conditions for the importation of animal protein have been introduced over recent months and action will be completed by I May.

  The new conditions include the position of veterinary certification of heat treatment to destroy salmonellae in consignments, originating from countries from which animal protein has, within the last two years, been found to be contaminated when sampled at the port and landing. Samples will be obtained from consignments on arrival and tested for salmonellae. Subsequent action will depend on the results obtained.

  In the case of consignments of fishmeal not shipped direct from the country of origin, transhipment will be authorised only through a limited number of ports in the Federal Republic and Germany and the Netherlands, since transhipment will be supervised by the veterinary authorities in those countries.

  Animal Mutations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being(a) undertaken by his Department or (b) commissioned by him into animal mutations following the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The incidence of congenital defects in grazing animals is constantly kept under review, and no difference is observed between areas of high and low deposition of Chernobyl fallout. No specific research into animal mutations caused by fallout from the Chernobyl accident is therefore being undertaken by my Department, nor has any been commissioned.

  Radioactive Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations of the slaughterhouses where he is carrying out a trial of the feasability of radioactive monitoring of sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The feasibility trial is being carried out at three slaughterhouses in Cumbria and three in Lancashire, which in normal circumstances will be processing animals from the Cumbrian restricted area.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is considering monitoring other animals for radioactivity prior to slaughter in abattoirs.

  Mr. Ryder
  I currently have no plans to do so.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who carries out on his behalf monitoring of sheep for radioactivity in slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.
  720
  Mr. Ryder
  Monitoring of sheep for radioactivity in slaughterhouses is carried out by Ministry staff based in the area.

  Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to lift the post-Chernobyl restrictions on the movement of sheep; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  We shall remove restrictions as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising food safety. The broad trend in radioactivity within the Cumbria restricted area in 1988 compared with 1987 was downwards and this is encouraging. However all the while there are sheep above the 1,000 bq/kg limit, restrictions will have to remain in place.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incinerators by name and district which may be used for the disposal of sheep from restricted areas.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Casualty sheep from the post-Chernobyl restricted area in Cumbria may be buried or cremated by farmers on their own land or, where this is not possible, farmers may make arrangements for disposal of the carcases at a county council refuse tip or incinerator. The location and availability of incinerators is a matter for the local authorities.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the incinerators by name and district used for the disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle or parts of the same;

  (2) if he will list the incinerators by name and county which may be used for both the disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle and sheep from restricted areas.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Cattle suspected of having BSE are disposed of at the following incineration facilities:Ministry Veterinary Investigation Centres at Carmarthen; lichen Abbas, Winchester; Langford, Bristol; Longbenton, Newcastle upon Tyne; Merrythought, Penrith; Riseholme, Lincoln; and Sutton Bonnington, Loughborough;
  Scottish Agricultural Colleges' Veterinary Investigation Centres at Auchincruive, Ayr; Bucksburn, Aberdeen; Edinburgh; Perth; and St. Boswells, Galashiels;
  Shetland Islands Council incinerator at Rova Head, Lerwick; and at private incinerators at Royston, Herts; and Wrexham.

  As regards the disposal of sheep from infected areas, I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply.

  Radioactivity (Cumbria)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the restricted area of Cumbria was covered by the aerial survey for radioactivity in 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  Although the aerial survey was set up to cover all of the restricted area in Cumbria, due to unseasonably bad weather, only 80 per cent. of the area was surveyed.

  Sheep Dip
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his staff are currently working on the problems of the link between sheep dip and human health.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A precise number cannot be readily estimated but all my staff whose work relates to licensing or use of sheep dips ensure that the precautions needed to avoid hazards to human health are identified and understood.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research he is conducting into the run-off of sheep dip into the Rivers North Tyne and South Tyne and its tributaries;

  (2) what research he is conducting into the run-off of sheep dip into water courses.

  Mr. Ryder
  None. However, because sheep dip is potentially a serious pollutant my Department issued a press notice on 20 September 1988 to reinforce the guidance in ADAS booklet 2198 and to remind farmers and others of the need to take the greatest care in disposal. I am placing a copy of the press notice and booklet in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he gives to farmers about the siting of sheep dip facilities on the edge of water courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Department's code on good agricultural practice, the free guide to the code, ADAS pamphlets p 593 and p 2332 and ADAS booklet 2198 all give advice on safe dipping and recommend farmers to seek guidance from local water authorities on the siting and construction of dip baths and soakaways.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is conducting into the effects on human health of organochlorine compounds in sheep dip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None. No currently licensed sheep dips contain organochlorine compounds.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is conducting into the effects of organophosphorous compounds in sheep dip on human health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department, with the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive, assesses all available data on the risks to human health from organophosphorus compounds which are the subject of applications for veterinary medicinal product licences. In addition, the HSE will be undertaking a study during the compulsory sheep scab dipping period this autumn. My Department also records and investigates all suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicinal products, including sheep dips.

  ADAS (Staff)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are currently employed in the agricultural development advisory service and how many he expects to be in post on 1 January 1990.
  722
  Mr. Ryder
  There are 3,823 professional, scientific, technical and industrial staff (excluding temporary staff) currently in post in ADAS. Future staffing levels will need to reflect the proposals and other matters dealt with in the Minister's reply of 21 March to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on agricultural and food research and development, as well as future demands for ADAS chargeable and other services.

  Central Veterinary Laboratory
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many staff at the Central Veterinary Laboratory are qualified veterinarians; and how many such qualified veterinarians he expects to be in post on 1 January 1990;

  (2) how many staff are currently employed at the Central Veterinary Laboratory; and how many he expects to be in post on 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of permanent staff in the professional, scientific, technical, industrial and administrative grades currently employed at the Central Veterinary Laboratory is 573½. Of these, 46 are qualified veterinarians. Some additional posts are being created to deal with work on salmonellosis, but future staffing levels will need to reflect the proposals and other matters dealt with in my reply of 21 March to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on agricultural and food research and development, as well as future demand for ADAS chargeable services.

  Experimental Husbandry Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many experimental husbandry farms there are in his Department; and how many he intends to close.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are at present 11 experimental husbandry farms in my Department. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March in which the Minister outlined a proposal to close one of these farms.

  Laboratories
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many laboratories there are within his Department; and how many he plans to close.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 16 March at columns 349–50 and to the reply that the Minister gave on 21 March at column 515 to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Horticultural Stations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many experimental horticultural stations are in his Department; and how many he intends to close.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are at present seven experimental horticulture stations in my Department. The closure of one of these (Lee Valley) has already been announced and will take place on 31 March 1989. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March 1989 in which the Minister outlined a proposal to close a further three stations.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions the Forestry Commission awarded grants under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in England between its inception and closure; and on how many occasions the grant of £100 for obtaining professional advice in the preparation of a plan of operations under the BWGS was awarded.

  Mr. Ryder
  To date, the Forestry Commission has approved 5,156 applications for grant under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in England. The grant of £100 has been paid on 819 of these applications.

  Butter
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether additions to the list of free EEC butter distributors are being made; what is the criteria for an organisation to be eligible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) announced to the House that 127 organisations had been designated to distribute produce to the most needy. These organisations were designated to participate for the two years 1988 and 1989. The conditions with which they had to comply were outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 19 October 1988. We are currently consulting designated organisations about their allocation of produce for 1989 but only in exceptional circumstances could we consider making any additions to the list of those organisations.

  Veterinary Products Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his officials attend meetings of the Veterinary Products Committee; and when he last received a report on the committee's activities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The level of attendance at meetings of the Veterinary Products Committee by the Departments concerned depends on the subject matter and the needs of the committee. The committee periodically draws matters to my attention as well as providing me with an annual report of its work, which is published.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place copies of the minutes of all meetings since June 1987 of the Veterinary Products Committee in the Library.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. Much of the information provided to the Veterinary Products Committee and the committee's consideration of it are confidential.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he sees minutes of meetings of the Veterinary Products Committee.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Veterinary Products Committee provides me with specific advice rather than with the minutes of its meetings.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the use of pesticides manufactured before 1965 until after the completion of his review on safety.

  Mr. Ryder
  At the present time no risk to health is suggested which would warrant an immediate ban on pesticides which were approved before 1965. The routine review programme announced on 16 March will enable the independent advisory committee on pesticides (ACP) to re-evaluate the available data and if necessary require additional or updated data from companies. The ACP will then be in a position to make any recommendations it considers necessary.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his review of the safety of pesticides manufactured before 1965 to be completed.

  Mr. Ryder
  The completion date for the review of pesticides approved prior to 1965 cannot be estimated until all relevant data sheets have been prepared and ranked in priority order for consideration by the advisory committee on pesticides. In addition, the time taken for each review of an active ingredient will vary.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are his estimates for the number of staff he will employ in evaluating old and new pesticides in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many staff he has employed to evaluate old and new pesticides since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Staff at the Ministry's pesticides data evaluation unit are involved in the evaluation of pesticides for agricultural use. The number of scientific posts are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  22·5

  1986

  32·5

  1987

  32·5

  1988

  43·0

  1989

  52·0

  1989–94

  1

  1 Staffing levels are under review.

  Of these, there is a core of staff engaged full-time on new active ingredients and the review programme and these will be supplemented by other technical experts in the unit, those in other Government Departments and by the independent experts on the advisory committee on pesticides and its scientific sub-committee.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring he carries out of pesticide incidence in wildlife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: My Department operates two schemes in England and Wales. The ADAS wildlife incident investigation scheme responds to reports of the deaths or illness of companion animals (chiefly cats and dogs), wildlife (mammals and birds) and honeybees, and to the discovery of possible poisoned baits.
  725
  Information resulting from these investigations is made available to the advisory committee on pesticides, to be used in the course of making recommendations concerning pesticide registration. If there is evidence that incidents have involved misuse of pesticides, in contravention of the Control of Pesticides Regulations or other legislation, further investigations may be conducted to obtain evidence for use in enforcement action.

  Surveys of pesticide residues in wildlife are undertaken periodically by the working party on pesticide residues.

  In addition, my Department has recently completed a seven year field study at Boxworth experimental husbandry farm into the environmental impact of different pesticide strategies on winter wheat. Annual reports have been prepared, summarising the results of this in-depth ecological study and the full account of our findings are now being prepared for publication.

  Lindane
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take immediate steps to ban the manufacture and import of the pesticide Lindane.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. Lindane is currently under review by the independent advisory committee on pesticides. Any necessary action will be taken on the basis of the Committee's recommendations to Ministers.

  Levies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the levy paid per litre by farmers who pasteurise their own milk and then sell it retail;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the producer processor levy, the retail processor levy and the farm pasteurising levy are compatible with the payment of FEOGA refunds.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Producer retailers currently pay a contribution of 3·369 pence per litre to the Milk Marketing Board. I do not regard these arrangements (or the similar producer processor arrangements) as having any bearing on the payment of FEOGA refunds.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis he instructed the Milk Marketing Board to withdraw the farmhouse cheese makers levy in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Milk Marketing Board's decision to end the farmhouse cheesemakers' scheme (FCS) on 28 February 1987. The board's decision reflected my concern that the FCS milk pricing and allocation system risked distortion of competition between cheesemakers, and might therefore be regarded as contrary to the Community rules governing our milk marketing arrangements.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list all appeals against the Veterinary Products Committee's rejection of a product licence for BST to be heard in the next three months; and if he will make a statement.
  726
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall in due course receive the Veterinary Products Committee's recommendations on applications for product licences for BST. Decisions on licences are a matter for the licensing authority.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of plans by Egypt to construct a chemicals plant capable of producing chemical warfare agents, at Abu Zaabal, near Cairo; and if he has consulted with his counterpart in the United States Government over this matter.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no information to indicate that the plant at Abu Zaabal is intended to produce chemical warfare agents. We are in regular contact with the United States and other allies to discuss CW proliferation worldwide.

  Israel
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to visit Israel this summer, and looks forward to discussing bilateral and regional issues with Professor Arens then.

  Tibet
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the subject of human rights abuses in Tibet.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expressions of concern about events in Tibet have been received from hon. Members, Members of the House of Lords and from members of the public

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet representatives of the new El Salvadorean Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of the new Government of El Salvador.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues he intends to raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present six meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for April.
  727
  The Social Affairs Council, meeting on 5 April, is expected to hear a Commission report on a draft charter of social rights; consider with a view to agreeing common positions health and safety directives on the workplace, work equipment and personal protective equipment; and consider a draft resolution on continuing vocational training, a regulation on measures to help redundant shipbuilding workers and an amendment to the regulation on family allowances for migrant workers.

  The internal market council on 13–14 April will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 17, 18 and possibly 19 April to discuss 1989 price-fixing proposals, the forestry action programme and possibly conversion schemes.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 17 April to consider the Commission's proposals for harmonising the taxation of savings and discuss direct taxation of companies. It will consider a progress report by the Presidency on tax approximation and discuss the 18th VAT Directive concerning the ending of various derogations available to the member states under the terms of the 6th VAT Directive. The Council is also due to complete the process of conciliation with the European Parliament on two regulations associated with the establishment and making available of own resources by member states to the Commission.

  The Foreign Affairs Council on 24–25 April may discuss a Commission proposal for a financing facility to enable developing countries to import food products from the European Community on concessionary terms, and a linked proposal to harmonise export credits available for exports of agricultural products from member states. Other possible subjects for discussion are food aid, and the Uruguay Round, on which the Commission may report on the outcome of the meeting of the GATT trade negotiations committee in Geneva. An EC-Morocco Co-operation Council will be held in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Telecommunications Council on 27 April will consist of a general discussion on Open Network Provision with the likelihood that ISDN and standardisation in telecoms will be adopted. There will also be detailed consideration on the draft proposed Council decision on HDTV. There may also be a discussion on the second phase directive on mutual recognition of type approval.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the speed at which entry clearance cases are now being dealt with when referred to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  Cases referred by entry clearance officers in Commonwealth countries, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia are sent by posts direct to the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office. All other referrals are channelled via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The time taken to deal with referred applications varies from case to case and average times cannot be given.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he is going to take decisions on the applications made at the post in 728
  Islamabad, by Abdul Sattar, date of birth 30 June 1978, Abdul Ghaffar, 11 January 1972, Safeena Kausar, 7 March 1982, and Fareeda Kausar, 28 August 1980, to enter the United Kingdom; when their applications were made; what inquiries have been made into their applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  All four applications were lodged on 2 July 1987 and are still under consideration. In view of the compassionate circumstances the applicants were given a priority interview on 28 August 1988.

  Following that interview the entry clearance officer at Islamabad was not satisfied as to the claimed family relationship of the applicants and deferred a decision for local inquiries to be made. These inquiries have however proved inconclusive and on 22 March 1989 the entry clearance officer referred the applications to the Home Office for further consideration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mr. Nadeem Mumtaz, date of birth 9 December 1965, was refused a visa to visit the United Kingdom by the post in Karachi; and if he will reconsider this case in the light of Mr. Mumtaz's four previous visits.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Nadeem Mumtaz was refused entry clearance on 16 February 1989 as the entry clearance officer at Karachi was not satisfied, as he is required to be under paragraph 17 of HC 169, that Mr. Mumtaz was a genuine visitor who would leave the United Kingdom at the end of his permitted stay. Mr. Mumtaz sought a two months stay to visit a relative in this country. The entry clearance officer was aware that Mr. Mumtaz had made previous visits to the United Kingdom, but his application for a visa had to be considered afresh and in the light of Mr. Mumtaz's present circumstances.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mr. Nazar Hussein, reference No. V/3428/89, was refused a visa by the post in Islamabad to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will reconsider this case.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Nazar Hussein was refused entry clearance on 23 February 1989 as the entry clearance officer at Islamabad was not satisfied, as he is required to be under paragraph 17 of HC 169, that Mr. Hussein was a genuine visitor who would leave the United Kingdom at the end of his permitted stay. Mr. Hussein sought a two to three months stay to visit his brother who lives in this country. Mr. Hussein has a statutory right of appeal to an independent appellate authority within three months of the date of refusal. No such appeal had been lodged up to 22 March 1989.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will describe the procedure adopted by the relevant immigration authorities when an appeal against entry clearance refusal has been upheld by an adjudicator; and if it is the practice to grant entry clearance when an appeal is so upheld;

  (2) in what circumstances entry clearance will not be issued by the relevant immigration authorities once an appeal against refusal has been upheld on adjudication.

  Mr. Eggar
  Entry clearance officers (ECOs) have a statutory duty to comply with any written or oral
  729
  directions given by the appellate authorities in giving effect to a determination; where directed they will issue entry clearance immediately unless, in the case of an adjudicator's direction, it is subject to further appeal. Where, however, an adjudicator allows an appeal but gives no directions, the ECO will reconsider the application within the spirit of the adjudicator's determination and will issue entry clearance if the appellant meets the requirements of the immigration rules. If, because of changed circumstances, the appellant does not meet the requirements of the immigration rules, his application will be refused with a further right of appeal to the appellate authorities.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances an appellant whose appeal against entry had been upheld would be required by the immigration authorities to produce further documentary evidence; and in how many cases in 1987 and 1988 this was required.

  Mr. Eggar
  Where an adjudicator allows an appeal but gives no directions, an entry clearance officer (ECO) may call for further documentary evidence to satisfy himself, within the spirit of the adjudicator's determination, that, notwithstanding changed circumstances, the appellant meets the requirements of the immigration rules. Details are not available of the number of cases in which this proved necessary.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time which elapses between an appeal against entry clearance being upheld by an adjudicator and entry clearance being issued by the relevant immigration authorities; and if he has taken steps to ensure that minimal delay occurs in successful appeal cases.

  Mr. Eggar
  Appeal determinations not subject to further appeal are normally sent by the Home Office to overseas posts within a maximum of two weeks of receipt from the appellate authorities. On receiving a determination the entry clearance officer (ECO) informs the appellant and, where directions are given by an adjudicator, entry clearance is issued as soon as the appellant presents his passport. I am satisfied that existing procedures ensure minimal delay.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criticisms have been made by the immigration appeals tribunal over delays in appeals against entry clearance being upheld in the United Kingdom and the actual granting of entry clearance to successful appellants; and what steps have been taken to rectify such delays.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. Where directed by an adjudicator an entry clearance officer (ECO) will issue entry clearance immediately. Where no directions are given an ECO will issue entry clearance as soon as he has satisfied himself, if necessary after further inquiries, that the appellant meets the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will call in the Ethiopian ambassador to seek the considered response 730
  urged by the head of the United Kingdom delegation at the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva on 7 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have urged the Ethiopian Government to give a considered response. We now await this. We have raised our human rights concerns with them on numerous occasions and will continue to do so on all appropriate occasions.

  Chemical Products (Regulation)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his decision to agree to the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 February adopting a regulation on the control of certain chemical products prior to completion of parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The proposal for a regulation requiring national controls on the export of eight key chemical weapons precursors arose at very short notice, and discussion at the European political co-operation ministerial meeting in Madrid on 14 February revealed a strong concensus for urgent Community action. Given our firm stand against proliferation of chemical weapons and our wish to see existing export controls in Community countries applied more effectively, we took the view that an immediate decision on the regulation would be appropriate. That is why we did not oppose the adoption of the regulation at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 February, on which I reported in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 22 February, even though it was clearly not possible in the very short time available to complete parliamentary scrutiny. The Chairman of the European Legislation Committee was, of course, kept fully informed throughout.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Attendance Allowance
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance his Department issues on the definition of the term terminally ill with regard to the determination of eligibility for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Needham
  No guidance is issued as the term does not occur in the legislation governing entitlement to attendance allowance.

  Special Diets
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department has taken to assess the cost of special diets in Northern Ireland for people receiving state benefits; and what is his estimate of the number of such people who require special diets for (i) epilepsy and (ii) diabetes.

  Mr. Needham
  As the benefits system does not make specific provision for special dietary needs, the cost has not been assessed nor is an estimate of the numbers mentioned available.

  Comber (Bypass)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposal for a bypass at Comber.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has a scheme to extend the existing Comber bypass from Killinchy street to Newtownards road.

  This scheme is included in the current major works programme 1989–90 to 1993–94 and detailed design work is under way. It is not possible to indicate a start date since this will depend on the completion of the statutory processes and the availability of finances at the time.

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for which urban areas in Northern Ireland urban development grants are presently available.

  Mr. Needham
  Urban development grant, funded by the Government, is available in Belfast and Londonderry. Similar grants under the first urban development programme funded by the international fund for Ireland and administered by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland were available in 22 district towns, and in the urban areas of Castlereagh and Newtownabbey. Under the second urban development programme announced in November 1988 grants in addition may be offered to exceptional projects in other urban areas.

  Social Security Payments
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families in Northern Ireland are in receipt of family credit.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 14,176 at 15 March 1989.

  Married Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to introduce appropriate legislation to ensure that the widows and widowers of married teachers will receive equal benefits and pensions in cases where equal contributions from salary have been made by teachers for pension and benefit purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no such plans. Woodlands

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the estimated area of broadleaved woodland in Northern Ireland in 1968, 1978, 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Viggers
  Although figures are not available for the years in question estimates carried out in 1986–87 indicated

  District

  1986–87 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1987–88 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1988–89 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1989–90 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1 Antrim

  45·75p

  8·93

  48·50p

  6·01

  51·00p

  5·15

  53·00p

  3·92

  2 Ards

  53·00p

  6·00

  53·00p

  nil

  54·00p

  1·89

  57·50p

  6·48

  3 Armagh

  38·00p

  10·14

  38·00p

  nil

  41·00p

  7·89

  44·00p

  7·32

  4 Ballymena

  38·00p

  4·54

  39·85p

  4·87

  42·85p

  7·53

  44·00p

  2·68

  5 Ballymoney

  42·25p

  7·10

  46·00p

  1·66

  47·00p

  2·17

  50·25p

  6·91

  732
  that there were 8,100 hectares of pure broadleaved woodland and 6,500 hectares of mixed broadleaf conifer woodland in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Northern Ireland forestry service will carry out a review of the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in parallel with that being done by the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The broadleaved woodland grant scheme was closed for applications in March 1988. Accordingly, no review of the scheme is contemplated.

  Felling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the provision made for felling licensing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  There is no provision for felling licences in Northern Ireland.

  Objective 1 (EC)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in making arrangements for Northern Ireland to benefit as an objective 1 region within the European Community.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Under the new arrangements governing the Community"s structural funds, objective 1 regions such as Northern Ireland are required to forward to the European Commission a "regional development plan" from which will be derived future claims for assistance. The preparation of the Northern Ireland plan has now been completed and the document will be submitted to the Commission before the end of the month as required. The document, which reflects Government policy in the main development areas, has been prepared in consultation with the Commission and with relevant local interests, as required by the EC regulations. I am confident, therefore, that the Northern Ireland develop-ment plan will provide a sound basis for the European Community to continue to contribute to development in the Province, in particular through its financial support from the structural funds for projects to be included in earning measures.

  Rates
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for each district council in Northern Ireland, the local district rate in actual and percentage terms for each of the years from 1986–87 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: The table showing for each district council in Northern Ireland the local district rate in actual and percentage terms from each of the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 is as follows:
  733

  District

  1986–87 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1987–88 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1988–89 district rate

  Percentage increase

  1989–90 district rate

  Percentage increase

  6 Banbridge

  47·97p

  6·77

  50·98p

  6·27

  50·98p

  nil

  50·90p

  nil

  7 Belfast

  76·36p

  10·60

  80·03p

  4·81

  83·96p

  4·91

  83·96p

  nil

  8 Carrickfergus

  57·50p

  4·55

  59·41p

  3·32

  62·50p

  5·20

  65·75p

  5·20

  9 Castlereagh

  39·08p

  18·42

  41·00p

  4·91

  39·90p

  -2·68

  37·90p

  -5·01

  10 Coleraine

  49·00p

  8·89

  50·00p

  2·04

  53·00p

  6·00

  55·00p

  3·77

  11 Cookstown

  39·75p

  10·88

  43·00p

  8·18

  42·75p

  -0·58

  47·75p

  11·70

  12 Craigaven

  60·21p

  9·61

  63·35p

  522

  63·35p

  nil

  67·47p

  6·50

  13 Derry

  67·00p

  12·62

  69·50p

  3·73

  72·55p

  4·39

  76·80p

  5·86

  14 Down

  53·00p

  17·78

  60·00p

  13·21

  65·00p

  8·33

  68·00p

  4·62

  15 Dungannon

  41·50p

  9·21

  44·00p

  6·02

  44·00p

  nil

  44·00p

  nil

  16 Fermanagh

  48·75p

  14·04

  50·75p

  4·10

  53·50p

  5·42

  55·50p

  3·74

  17 Larne

  49·25p

  9·44

  52·55p

  6·70

  55·75p

  6·09

  56·75p

  1·79

  18 Limavady

  39·00p

  11·43

  40·95p

  5·00

  43·50p

  6·23

  47·00p

  8·05

  19 Lisburn

  48·80p

  5·54

  49·75p

  1·95

  53·57p

  7·68

  53·57p

  nil

  20 Magherafelt

  36·56p

  10·65

  41·05p

  12·28

  43·50p

  5·97

  46·34p

  6·53

  21 Moyle

  66·75p

  10·04

  65·75p

  nil

  65·50p

  -0·38

  68·40p

  4·43

  22 Newry and Mourne

  54·30p

  10·82

  59·70p

  9·94

  59·70p

  nil

  58·00p

  -2·85

  23 Newtownabbey

  55·11p

  4·77

  57·24p

  3·86

  60·06p

  4·93

  64·10p

  6·73

  24 North Down

  56·90p

  10·49

  60·90p

  7·03

  63·70p

  4·613

  65·85p

  3·38

  25 Omagh

  47·00p

  9·30

  51·65p

  9·89

  55·00p

  6·49

  58·50p

  6·36

  26 Strabane

  50·50p

  16·09

  54·00p

  6·93

  57·00p

  5·56

  60·75p

  6·58

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate in actual and percentage terms both the Northern Ireland regional rate and the total Northern Ireland rate for each year from 1986–87 to 1989–90.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Regional rate

  110·38p

  113·53p

  122·59p

  138·07p

  Percentage change from previous year

  +9·4

  +2·9

  +7·98

  +12·63

  Total rate (i.e. regional rate plus average district rate)

  167·6p

  173·6p

  185·21p

  202·18p

  Percentage change from previous year

  +9·54

  +3·58

  +6·69

  +9·16

  Housing Executive Properties
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of housing applications received by each Housing Executive district office in(a) the past eight months and (b) between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 from home owners experiencing financial hardship with mortgage repayments; how many such applicants were deemed to be in financial hardship; and what priority such applications were awarded.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by the chief executive that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Loans and Grants
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of budgeting loans were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department since the introduction of the social fund in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what percentage of community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: The information requested is as follows:
  734
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Percentage of budgeting loans and community care grants awarded by client group for the period 11 April 1988 to 28 February 1989

  Client group

  Budgeting loans per cent.

  Community care grants per cent.

  Over 80—with higher pensioner premium

  0·23

  5·77

  Aged 69 to 70—disabled, higher pensioner premium

  0·47

  4·27

  Aged 60 to 79—with ordinary pensioner premium or over 60 without pensioner premium

  3·26

  19·80

  One parent—with disability premium

  0·41

  0·90

  Family with disability premium

  5·69

  4·41

  Other—with disability premium

  2·03

  8·07

  Lone parent—without disability premium

  29·95

  23·12

  Quarterly signer—with family premium

  0·79

  0·90

  Quarterly signer—without family premium

  1·93

  1·25

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance—with family premium

  20·98

  11·53

  Signing unemployed or with training allowance—without family premium

  26·29

  11·68

  Others—with family premium

  1·53

  2·24

  Others—without family premium

  7·13

  5·16

  Involved in a Trade Dispute

  0·01

  —

  Applicant not in receipt of Income Support

  1

  0·72

  1 Not applicable.

  Loans and Grants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of the total number of applications made for budgeting loans were (i) full awards, (ii) partial awards and (iii) nil awards;

  (2) what percentage of the total number of applications made for community care grants in Northern Ireland were (a) full awards, (b) partial awards and (c) nil awards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, during the period 11 April 1988 to 28 February 1989, applications were decided as follows:

  Percentage allowed in full or in part

  Percentage refused

  Budgeting loans

  67·14

  32·86

  Community care grants

  67·21

  32·79

  Social Fund
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what statistical information he has as to the different reasons given by social fund officers for negative decisions to claimants on(a) budgeting loans and (b) partial awards;

  (2) what statistical information he has as to the different reasons given by social fund officers to claimants for nil award decisions for (a) community care grants and (b) partial awards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 March 1989]: The reasons for refusing social fund applications during the period 1–28 February 1989 (the latest month for which information is available) are as follows:

  Northern Ireland housing executive—Voluntary sales scheme Properties sold for housing executive district since October 1979

  District

  1October 1979 to March 1981

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  April 1988 to December 1988

  Total

  Belfast region

  Belfast 1

  114

  209

  128

  128

  186

  218

  100

  113

  95

  1,291

  2

  118

  121

  23

  76

  93

  73

  68

  67

  34

  673

  3

  17

  55

  92

  43

  57

  47

  44

  60

  54

  469

  4

  121

  144

  59

  26

  69

  32

  57

  75

  42

  625

  5

  52

  82

  53

  61

  78

  105

  60

  51

  17

  559

  6

  47

  94

  40

  52

  86

  48

  51

  32

  22

  472

  7

  51

  94

  40

  50

  95

  43

  77

  65

  53

  568

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  520

  799

  435

  436

  664

  566

  457

  463

  317

  4,657

  North-East region

  Antrim

  37

  267

  188

  228

  285

  195

  188

  116

  108

  1,612

  Ballymena

  51

  243

  173

  158

  171

  178

  113

  54

  113

  1,254

  Carrickfergus

  64

  343

  170

  192

  193

  132

  161

  104

  65

  1,424

  Larne

  112

  203

  160

  172

  147

  87

  91

  81

  no

  1,163

  Newtownabbey 1

  34

  248

  149

  139

  166

  125

  97

  82

  77

  1,117

  Newtownabbey 2

  20

  178

  165

  236

  222

  152

  121

  87

  85

  1,266

  Ballymoney

  47

  129

  100

  75

  54

  77

  60

  39

  59

  640

  Ballycastle

  12

  61

  58

  29

  49

  29

  34

  28

  22

  322

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  377

  1,672

  1,163

  1,229

  1,287

  975

  865

  591

  639

  8,798

  North-West region

  Londonderry 1

  14

  40

  37

  50

  49

  64

  32

  37

  25

  348

  Londonderry 2

  24

  175

  157

  130

  108

  47

  35

  44

  43

  763

  Londonderry 3

  25

  52

  32

  60

  69

  46

  27

  29

  21

  361

  Limavady

  71

  147

  65

  104

  74

  104

  52

  60

  31

  708

  Strabane

  22

  80

  111

  110

  86

  69

  60

  78

  70

  686

  Coleraine

  30

  141

  70

  101

  55

  93

  43

  40

  55

  628

  736

  Reasons for refusal as percentage of total applications processed

  Budgeting loans (per cent.)

  Community care grants (per cent.)

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  0·01

  0·22

  Not in receipt of income support

  2·68

  n/a

  Not in receipt of income support for 26 weeks

  10·23

  n/a

  Not in receipt of income support at present and unlikely to qualify

  n/a

  2·97

  Excluded items

  1·10

  0·97

  Excluded persons

  0·14

  3·30

  Amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  0·41

  0·20

  Adjusted amount less than £30, not travelling expenses

  0·22

  0·05

  Total debt of £1,000

  0·01

  n/a

  Previous application and social fund officer decision for this item

  2·01

  2·03

  Inability to repay

  2·02

  n/a

  Help available from another source

  0·22

  0·22

  Insufficient priority

  4·69

  2·58

  Suitable alternative available

  0·04

  0·18

  Loan refused—community care grant awarded

  2·12

  n/a

  Others

  2·14

  16·30

  n/a = Not appropriate.

  Housing Executive Properties
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of Housing Executive properties sold to tenants in each year since the introduction of the policy, by district.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by the chief executive that the number of properties sold each year in each Housing Executive district since the introduction of its voluntary house sales scheme in October 1979 are as follows:
  737

  District

  1 October 1979 lo March 1981

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  April 1988 to December 1988

  Total

  Magherafelt

  59

  57

  69

  93

  85

  93

  52

  49

  60

  617

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  245

  692

  541

  648

  526

  516

  301

  337

  305

  4,111

  South region

  Armagh

  69

  248

  314

  186

  174

  125

  104

  85

  49

  1,354

  Banbridge

  28

  147

  110

  103

  88

  56

  51

  56

  41

  680

  Craigavon

  29

  146

  63

  132

  310

  56

  28

  20

  42

  826

  Kilkeel

  32

  91

  77

  63

  54

  55

  47

  29

  15

  463

  Lurgan

  92

  449

  294

  324

  301

  129

  87

  50

  25

  1,751

  Newry 1

  29

  96

  148

  214

  153

  138

  102

  135

  100

  1,115

  Newry 2

  70

  203

  244

  180

  153

  149

  131

  108

  71

  1,309

  Portadown

  34

  239

  190

  194

  149

  88

  50

  29

  26

  999

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  383

  1,619

  1,440

  1,396

  1,382

  796

  600

  512

  369

  8,497

  South-East region

  Lisburn 3

  Nil

  10

  30

  51

  25

  19

  16

  18

  6

  175

  Lisburn 1

  15

  190

  181

  170

  176

  155

  81

  70

  49

  1,087

  Lisburn 2

  1

  194

  179

  140

  127

  97

  52

  48

  54

  892

  Bangor

  9

  196

  183

  174

  123

  108

  83

  92

  58

  1,026

  Castlereagh 1

  27

  273

  164

  190

  148

  94

  73

  56

  33

  1,058

  Castlereagh 2

  41

  334

  195

  168

  188

  105

  94

  63

  64

  1,252

  Downpatrick

  34

  234

  236

  195

  215

  136

  117

  110

  77

  1,354

  Newtownards 1

  56

  248

  174

  153

  155

  131

  119

  104

  53

  1,193

  Newtownards 2

  52

  87

  109

  99

  85

  80

  73

  71

  50

  706

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  235

  1,766

  1,451

  1,340

  1,242

  925

  708

  632

  444

  8,743

  West region

  Omagh

  35

  194

  135

  102

  65

  82

  53

  52

  66

  784

  Dungannon

  8

  228

  166

  89

  71

  116

  75

  96

  103

  952

  Enniskillen

  15

  157

  156

  120

  93

  94

  81

  78

  110

  904

  Cookstown

  12

  79

  67

  80

  63

  62

  44

  46

  50

  503

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  70

  658

  524

  391

  292

  354

  253

  272

  329

  3,143

  1 Annual breakdown not available.

  These figures include some vacant properties to non-tenants in areas where housing need has been met.

  Social Security Payments
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide figures for(a) the total social fund allocation for 1989–90 and the total for each office, (b) the total community care grant allocation for 1989–90 and the total for each office, (c) the total budget loan allocation for 1989–90 and the total for each office, (d) the total crisis loan allocation for 1989–90 and the total for each office, (e) the current number of claimants

  Table 1

  Social Fund Budget 1989–90

  Social Security Office

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Total £

  Income support caseload at 28 February 1989

  Per Capita(Loans and Grants) £

  Per Capita (Grants) £

  Andersonstown

  906,010

  442,394

  1,348,404

  7,219

  187

  61

  Antrim

  436,917

  225,670

  662,587

  5,268

  126

  43

  Armagh

  318,737

  169,258

  487,995

  4,730

  103

  36

  Ballymena

  385,109

  197,790

  582,899

  5,841

  100

  34

  Ballymoney

  268,617

  138,228

  406,845

  4,418

  92

  31

  Ballynahinch

  44,710

  25,029

  69,739

  1,490

  47

  17

  Banbridge

  160,814

  86,686

  247,500

  3,152

  79

  28

  Bangor

  187,166

  104,295

  291,461

  4,408

  66

  24

  Carrickfergus

  171,258

  92,526

  263,784

  2,887

  91

  32

  Coleraine

  427,065

  223,561

  650,626

  5,989

  109

  37

  Cookstown

  257,932

  145,324

  403,256

  3,517

  115

  41

  Corporation Street

  1,065,039

  554,510

  1,619,549

  11,966

  135

  46

  Downpatrick

  168,476

  87,131

  255,607

  2,281

  112

  38

  Dungannon

  406,060

  215,442

  621,502

  5,964

  104

  36

  738
  registered at each office and in total, (f) the social fund allocation for 1989–90 to each office as a sum per head for claimants of each office, (g) the social fund grant allocation for 1989–90 to each office as a sum per head of claimants registered with each office, (h) the expenditure for each individual office on single payments for 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 and (i) the expenditure by each office to date for 1988–89 on (i) grants, (ii) crisis loans, (iii) budget loans and (iv) the total.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 March 1989]: Details of social fund expenditure for 1988–89 are available in the Library. Social fund allocations for 1989–90 are as follows:
  739

  Social Security Office

  Loans £

  Grants £

  Total £

  Income support caseload at 28 February 1989

  Per Capita (Loans and Grants) £

  Per Capita (Grants) £

  Enniskillen

  311,496

  177,326

  488,822

  8,185

  60

  22

  Falls Road

  770,139

  377,447

  1,147,586

  8,679

  132

  43

  Holywood Road

  504,299

  274,270

  778,569

  8,051

  97

  34

  Kilkeel

  59,062

  32,365

  91,427

  1,391

  66

  23

  Knockbreda

  266,805

  148,627

  415,432

  6,201

  67

  24

  Larne

  170,264

  86,575

  256,839

  2,716

  95

  32

  Limavady

  152,072

  83,371

  235,443

  3,147

  75

  26

  Lisburn

  698,751

  363,379

  1,062,130

  5,901

  180

  62

  Londonderry

  1,160,923

  619,379

  1,780,302

  15,396

  116

  40

  Lurgan

  794,217

  416,837

  1,211,054

  5,300

  229

  79

  Magherafelt

  413,409

  241,428

  654,837

  5,204

  126

  46

  Newcastle

  78,413

  41,673

  120,086

  1,854

  65

  22

  Newry

  679,813

  365,701

  1,045,514

  8,764

  119

  42

  Newtownabbey

  287,105

  143,676

  430,781

  5,188

  83

  28

  Newtownards

  153,776

  86,183

  239,959

  4,074

  59

  21

  Omagh

  394,289

  206,030

  600,319

  5,553

  108

  37

  Portadown

  214,415

  117,649

  332,064

  3,751

  89

  31

  Shaftesbury Square

  584,744

  297,163

  881,907

  6,113

  144

  49

  Shankill

  397,224

  204,608

  601,832

  5,206

  116

  39

  Strabane

  405,014

  208,561

  613,575

  5,902

  104

  35

  Totals

  13,700,140

  7,200,092

  20,900,232

  185,706

  Separate amounts are not allocated for budgeting and crisis loans. A paper containing details of the basis of the

  Table 2

  Single payments

  Social Security Office

  11 April 1984 to 9 April 1985

  10 April 1985 to 8 April 1986

  9 April 1986 to 7 April 1987

  Andersonstown1

  736,226·60

  2,083,322·73

  2,026,087·04

  Antrim

  1,113,871·38

  1,377,790·29

  1,109,842·60

  Armagh

  529,527·20

  779,983·89

  869,392·31

  Ballymena

  449,758·71

  538,339·15

  650,163·58

  Ballymoney

  384,891·76

  566,299·81

  704,997·40

  Ballynahinch

  48,486·67

  101,011·30

  102,232·08

  Banbridge

  211,318·58

  319,642·20

  411,106·84

  Bangor

  259,130·32

  349,428·56

  392,299·28

  Carrickfergus

  424,221·14

  401,983·58

  457,043·84

  Coleraine

  743,091·50

  781,873·07

  953,407·46

  Cookstown

  793,773·32

  871,614·16

  827,789·36

  Corporation Street

  1,703,687·50

  2,616,027·96

  2,932,467·67

  Downpatrick

  231,632·74

  512,341·21

  474,675·40

  Dungannon

  1,240,385·98

  1,452,232·35

  1,234,932·09

  Enniskillen

  613,539·23

  718,960·34

  829,761·87

  Falls Road

  1,797,840·01

  2,119,113·19

  2,097,269·87

  Holywood Road

  839,125·84

  1,408,628·92

  1,360,904·07

  Kilkeel

  92,032·11

  112,376·32

  118,439·31

  Knockbreda

  357,149·04

  594,729·98

  579,023·77

  Larne

  291,008·87

  354,012·55

  483,425·68

  Limavady

  321,746·14

  531,214·46

  496,338·88

  Lisburn

  1,598,466·31

  1,724,662·57

  1,964,410·64

  Londonderry

  2,106,931·93

  2,847,444·30

  3,421,316·13

  Lurgan

  1,123,598·17

  1,643,531·75

  1,717,287·45

  Magherafelt

  569,388·79

  846,385·66

  1,760,944·38

  Newcastle

  157,751·84

  223,439·33

  280,498·79

  Newry

  1,317,709·57

  1,759,619·51

  1,722,121·04

  Newtownabbey

  994,825·05

  890,028·04

  938,195·76

  Newtownards

  317,451·06

  315,620·57

  316,442·37

  Omagh

  746,152·32

  1,086,299·53

  1,217,556·30

  Portadown

  389,125·75

  689,985·33

  714,763·75

  Shaftesbury Square

  689,953·00

  1,138,359·98

  1,517,422·73

  Shankill

  610,972·41

  710,471·61

  951,914·71

  Strabane

  1,639,291·94

  1,786,133·88

  1,366,861·44

  Totals

  25,444,062·78

  34,252,828·08

  37,001,335·89

  1 Andersonstown Social Security Office opened on 26 September 1984.

  740
  allocations is being placed in the Library. The available information about expenditure on single payments is as follows:

SCOTLAND

  Queens University
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students attending Queens university, Belfast, are involved in courses of study of less than 21 hours per week.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last made an assessment of the running costs of a Scottish assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government believe that the present constitutional arrangements provide for Scotland's interests to be fully respected and recognised and we therefore have no plans to introduce legislation to create a Scottish Assembly. Accordingly, I have made no assessment of the running costs of an Assembly. The 1978 scheme of devolution, however, was estimated to cost £13 million at November 1977 prices. Any new scheme would clearly cost very considerably more than that.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from which sources he derives information about the number and proportion of disabled people of working age who are unemployed; and what is the latest information provided by those sources in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The only count made of unemployed people with disabilities is of those who choose to register for work at jobcentres and careers offices. The latest figures available for Scotland show that on 6 January 1989 there were 7,257 unemployed people with disabilities registered for work at jobcentres and careers offices. There is no count made of the total number of people of working age with disabilities.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will issue the Scottish results of the 1988 survey of the quality of the United Kingdom bathing waters.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I expect to announce the results early in April.

  Sentencing
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider reforms to confer upon the Crown a right of appeal against sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce reforms of this nature.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the law of sentencing with regard to the sentencing of sexual offenders in the light of the admonition of the accused in the case PF v. Gordon, Glasgow Sheriff Court, 30 August 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  742
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to conduct a review of the law of sentencing.

  Dampness
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwellings in Scotland were affected by damp in 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988, respectively; and how many people lived in them.

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

  Housing (Amenities)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many dwellings lacking one or more basic sanitary amenity there were in Scotland in 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988; and how many people occupied them;

  (2) how many people in Scotland lived in dwellings unfit for human occupancy in 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the following table. Comparable figures were not collected for 1978.

  Dwellings below tolerable standard at 31 March, Scotland1

  Thousands

  1979

  1987

  1988

  Dwellings below tolerable standard

  121

  56

  257

  Lacking one or more standard amenity (sink, hot water and inside WC)34

  71

  31

  27

  Lacking a fixed bath or shower34

  73

  29

  24

  No information is available on how many people occupied these dwellings.

  1 Including most recent year's figure for those authorities whose returns are outstanding.

  2 Increase in 1988 figure due to change in the basis of compilation of Glasgow district council's return.

  3 Some local authorities were unable to provide information on dwellings in this category.

  4 A dwelling may be recorded in both these categories and there is therefore an element of double-counting.

  NHS (Repairs)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital repairs backlog in the Scottish National Health Service in current prices in each year from 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Schools (Capital Spending)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total capital spending in Scottish schools in current prices in each year from 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 16 January at column 69 which gave details of capital expenditure from 1979–80 to 1987–88. In 1978–79 the capital expenditure on local authority primary and secondary schools was £49·72 million (at outturn prices) and £102·021 million (at 1987–88 prices).

  House Repossessions
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total number of house repossessions in Scotland in 1979, 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Building Societies Association publishes statistics on the number of repossessions by building societies in the United Kingdom as a whole, but no corresponding information is available for Scotland only. No information is held centrally on other mortgage lenders.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the annual crime detection rates for all crimes and for violent crimes for each year since 1978.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  Year

  Total crimes

  Violent crimes1

  1978

  29·7

  53·2

  1979

  30·0

  55·3

  1980

  32·6

  61·6

  1981

  31·2

  62·3

  1982

  29·8

  61·7

  1983

  30·9

  63·2

  1984

  30·8

  61·6

  1985

  33·6

  65·4

  1986

  34·2

  67·5

  1987

  34·9

  66·4

  21988

  34·0

  66·7

  1Comprises group 1 (non-sexual crimes of violence) and the sexual assault category from group 2 (crimes of indecency) of the Scottish Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the total number of crimes and (b) the number of violent crimes committed in Scotland annually from 1978.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number recorded

  Total crimes

  Year

  Violent crimes1

  1978

  334,957

  11,222

  1979

  346,680

  11,279

  1980

  364,587

  12,347

  1981

  408,204

  13,418

  1982

  435,081

  13,221

  1983

  448,260

  14,285

  1984

  474,913

  15,178

  1985

  461,970

  16,487

  1986

  463,837

  17,008

  1987

  481,230

  19,733

  21988

  469,986

  19,193

  1 Comprises group 1 (non-sexual crimes of violence) and the sexual assault category from group 2 (crimes of indecency) of the Scottish Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences.

  2 Provisional.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwellings in(a) the public sector and (b) the private rented sector were in need of repair in (i) 1978–79 and (ii) 1987–88.

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

  Overcrowding
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households lived in overcrowded conditions in 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988.

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

  Manufacturing
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of people in employment in manufacturing in Scotland in the first quarter of 1979, and the last quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The seasonally adjusted number of employees in employment in Scottish manufacturing in the first quarter of 1979 was some 606,000. Figures for the last quarter of 1988 are not yet available. The number in the third quarter is provisionally estimated at around 399,000. The latter estimate may be revised when the results of the 1987 census of employment become available.

  Capital Formation
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Scottish gross domestic fixed capital formation in current prices in(a) education, (b) health and social services, (c) housing and (d) community development in 1978–79 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  Estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation in Scotland by function of government are prepared annually by the Central Statistical Office. The estimates relate to calendar years and do not separate housing from community development. The latest available estimates are:

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in Scotland by certain functions of Government

  £ million

  1978

  1986

  Education

  64

  72

  Health and social services

  62

  119

  Housing and community development

  270

  411

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total gross domestic capital formation in current prices in total and per head in Scotland for 1978–79 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  Estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation (GDFCF) for Scotland are available only for certain sectors: agriculture, forestry and fishing; energy and water supply; manufacturing; transport and communication (excluding shipping and air transport); and dwellings. In 1986 these sectors accounted for 57 per cent. of United Kingdom GDFCF (excluding the continental shelf region).
  745
  The estimates are prepared by the Central Statistical Office and relate to calendar years, the latest available being 1986. The figure for 1978 is on a slightly different basis, but the changes are likely to have affected the estimates by under 1 per cent.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in certain industries and dwellings: Scotland

  1978

  1986

  £ million, current prices

  2,071

  3,094

  £ per head of population

  400

  600

  Children
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of Scottish children living in families where the head of the household was unemployed annually from 1978.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated number of dependent children aged 18 years or under in households in Scotland where the head was unemployed is 120,000 in 1988, according to preliminary results from the spring 1988 labour force survey. The equivalent estimate for spring 1981 was 136,000. These estimates are subject to sampling errors.

  Estimates are not available from the 1979 survey and could be obtained for the remaining years for which there were surveys only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Construction
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of housing starts and completions in the public and private sector in Scotland in 1979, 1987 and 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested on housing starts and completions for 1979 and 1987 was published in tables 4 and 3 respectively of Scottish Development Department Statistical Bulletin HSU No. 5, Housing Trends in Scotland quarter ended 30 June 1988, which was issued on 15 March 1989. Returns for 1988 are not yet complete.

  School Leavers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many school leavers in Scotland in total and in percentage terms entered(a) further and (b) higher education in 1979, 1987 and 1988;

  (2) how many school leavers in Scotland have entered full-time employment annually in total and percentage terms for each year from 1978.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for each year since 1978 is not readily available. The most recent information from the biennial Scottish young people's survey relating to the destination of school leavers was published by the Scottish Education Department in its statistical bulletin school leavers' destinations (No. 12/E1/1988) published in December 1988 which is available in the Library.

  School Books
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the spending on books(a) per primary pupil and (b) per secondary pupil in Scotland in current prices for 1978–79 and 1987–88.
  746
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 16. January at columns 67–70 and the corrected tables accompanying my letter to him of 9 March.

  Annex A

  Table 1

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials at outturn prices

  (£)

  Books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  4·54

  8·31

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  5·49

  9·61

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  5·84

  9·29

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  6·54

  9·77

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  7·03

  10·03

  8·18

  27·33

  1983–84

  8·99

  13·35

  7·28

  25·36

  1984–85

  9·55

  13·83

  8·91

  30·09

  1985–86

  8·91

  13·47

  8·33

  30·26

  1986–87

  10·93

  16·67

  8·92

  33·85

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  11·71

  44·42

  Table 2

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator

  (£)

  Books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  9·32

  17·05

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  9·64

  16·87

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  8·66

  13·77

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  8·83

  13·20

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  8·85

  12·63

  10·30

  34·42

  1983–84

  10·83

  16·08

  8·77

  30·55

  1984–85

  10·95

  15·86

  10·22

  34–50

  1985–86

  9·69

  14·65

  9·06

  32·92

  1986–87

  11·51

  17·55

  9·39

  35·64

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  11·71

  44·42

  Table 3: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books at outturn prices expressed as an index with 1978–79= 100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  120·9

  115·6

  1980–81

  128·6

  111·8

  1981–82

  144·1

  117·6

  1982–83

  154·8

  120·7

  1983–84

  198·0

  160·6

  1984–85

  210·4

  166·4

  1985–86

  196·3

  162·1

  1986–87

  240·7

  200·6

  1987–88

  203·7

  155·6

  Table 4: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books adjusted to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator, expressed as an index with1978–79= 100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  103·4

  98·9

  1980–81

  92·9

  80·8

  1981–82

  94·7

  77·4

  1982–83

  95·0

  79·9

  1983–84

  116·2

  94·3

  1984–85

  117·5

  93·0

  1985–86

  104·0

  85·9

  86–87

  123·5

  102·9

  1987–88

  99·2

  75–8

  747

  Annex B

  Expenditure on text and library books

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  at outturn prices

  at 1987–88 prices

  1978–79

  2·584

  3·411

  5·302

  6·999

  1979–80

  2·994

  3·944

  5·257

  6·925

  1980–81

  3·026

  3–790

  4·486

  5·618

  1981–82

  3·222

  3·953

  4·348

  5·334

  1982–83

  3·290

  4·004

  4·444

  5·043

  1983–84

  4·027

  5·214

  4·851

  6·281

  1984–85

  4·178

  5·173

  4·791

  5·931

  1985–86

  3·882

  4·857

  4·223

  5·284

  1986–87

  4·734

  5·740

  4·984

  6·043

  1987–88

  3·986

  4·230

  3·986

  4·230

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total area of applications for forestry grants and the area of that relating to new afforestation since 1 July 1988; and what is the total area of forestry grant applications for which environmental assessment has been requested since that date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From 21 June 1988, when the scheme opened to applications, to 28 February 1989, the Forestry Commission received applications for entry to the woodland grant scheme covering 49,297 hectares, of which 29,271 hectares were for new planting.

  The environmental assessment provisions came into force on 15 July 1988. Since then, the Forestry Commission has requested environmental assessments on about 3,100 hectares of applications for new planting.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the area of land approved for grant aid for afforestation in each Forestry Commission conservency under(a) the forestry grant scheme, (b) the broadleaved woodland grant scheme and (c) the woodland grant scheme in the year beginning 1 April 1987 and the period 1 April to 31 December 1988; and if he will instruct the Forestry Commission henceforth to publish such figures in its annual reports.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following tables. I have asked the Forestry Commissioners to consider whether more detailed information on private planting might reasonably be provided in their annual reports.

  Period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  Area approved for new planting (hectares)

  Conservancy

  Forestry grant scheme

  Broadleaved woodland grant scheme

  North England

  2,588

  297

  East England

  174

  512

  West England

  6

  676

  Wales

  557

  333

  North Scotland

  13,638

  298

  Mid Scotland

  5,898

  397

  South Scotland

  12,660

  465

  Total

  35,521

  2,978

  748

  Period 1 April 1988 to 31 December 1988

  Area approved for new planting (hectares)

  Conservancy

  Forestry grant scheme

  Broadleaved woodland grant scheme

  Woodland grant scheme

  North England

  15

  15

  550

  East England

  23

  34

  829

  West England

  74

  103

  577

  Wales

  18

  24

  505

  North Scotland

  2,406

  51

  2,828

  Mid Scotland

  437

  84

  1,489

  South Scotland

  2,412

  77

  1,561

  Total

  5,385

  388

  8,339

  Crofters (Tree Growing)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to enable crofters to grow trees on common grazings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7 March at column 486 to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

  Road Bridge (Dornoch Firth)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated start date for construction of the road crossing of the Dornoch Firth; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Owing to unforeseen difficulties with soil condition, work is not now expected to start on the actual bridge construction until mid-summer, although preparatory works are continuing.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature of the technical difficulties delaying determination of the final design of the foundations of the road bridge over the Dornoch Firth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Soil investigation by the contractor indicated that further verification of the load carrying capacity of soils is required. This may result in some refinement and development of the foundation design.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the number of children who received compensation from the Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical or psychological injuries suffered in cases of physical or sexual abuse in each of the past seven years; what was the range of the sums of compensation; and what was the average amount awarded to children following such cases;

  (2) what consultations he proposes to undertake to ensure that any regulations made in terms of rule 14 of schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 go as far as possible to facilitate the success of applications on behalf of children who have suffered physical or sexual abuse and whose parents are either unwilling or unable to act on their behalf; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has drafted regulations using his power under rule 14 of schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to prescribe the circumstances and method by which one person may act for another in relation to a claim for

  749
  compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to manage the payment and investments of awards to persons below the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since the criminal injuries compensation scheme operates on a Great Britain basis, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Boundary Commission (Members)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the present members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland; and for what terms they have been appointed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland are:Mr. Speaker, ex-officio, Chairman
  The honourable Lord Davidson—appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session on 25 September 1985 and subsequently re-appointed.
  Professor Urlan A. Wannop—appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 6 June 1983 and subsequently re-appointed.
  Mr. Adam R. Napier—appointed by the Secretary of State on 2 May 1985 and subsequently re-appointed.

  The appointed members' terms of office expire on 31 December 1993.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has agreed a financial target for 1989–90 for the Scottish electricity boards.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have agreed with the Scottish electricity boards that the financial target for 1989–90 is for the boards jointly to achieve a return of 2·7 per cent. on net assets valued on a current cost basis. This compares with a target of 2·8 per cent. for 1988–89. The target has been set for the boards jointly to reflect their shared responsibility for nuclear generation.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocations he has made to health boards for 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has allocated £1,875 million to health boards to meet their gross recurrent expenditure commitments on hospital and community health services in 1989–90. This figure includes £38 million allocated for specific commitments, including cardiac surgery and AIDS. After expected income is taken into account, the net cash limited allocations to individual health boards are as follows:

  1989–90 recurrent expenditure (net)

  Health board

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  132·025

  Ayrshire and Arran

  102·420

  Borders

  29·605

  Dumfries and Galloway

  48·956

  Fife

  94·488

  Forth Valley

  89·024

  Grampian

  170·364

  Greater Glasgow

  473·907

  750

  Health board

  £ million

  Highland

  71·779

  Lanarkshire

  151·699

  Lothian

  294·977

  Orkney

  5·466

  Shetland

  6·464

  Tayside

  170·703

  Western Isles

  9·774

  Total

  1,851·651

  Hospital and Community Health Services Capital
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed distribution of the hospital and community health services capital for 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has allocated £148·8 million to health boards to meet their gross capital expenditure commitments on hospital and community health services in 1989–90. This includes £35·7 million specifically for the improvement and upgrading of the NHS estate.

  The allocations to individual health boards are as follows:

  Capital allocation

  Health boards

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  8·600

  Ayrshire and Arran

  18·300

  Borders

  2·000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·250

  Fife

  3·300

  Forth Valley

  7·800

  Grampian

  12·900

  Greater Glasgow

  28·350

  Highland

  3·600

  Lanarkshire

  9·000

  Lothian

  32·800

  Orkney

  0·975

  Shetland

  1·575

  Tayside

  12·000

  Western Isles

  5·350

  Total

  148·800

  This is an increase of 35 per cent. over comparable figures for the current financial year and confirms the Government's commitment to maintaining the biggest ever hospital building programme in the NHS.

  Parole
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the committee on parole and related issues in Scotland, chaired by Lord Kincraig, is to he published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The report of Lord Kincraig's committee was published this morning and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. We are all indebted to Lord Kincraig and the other members of his committee for producing such a clear and balanced report within a year of their first meeting.

  The Kincraig committee recommend the retention of a parole system, because parole recognises the possibility of change in an individual or his circumstances over time, and enables long-term prisoners to be released selectively on this basis. They recommend, however, that the scope of parole should be restricted to those serving over five years,

  751
  and that prisoners should be eligible for consideration only after serving one half of their sentences, instead of one third, as at present. All long-term prisoners would be liable to supervision on release. Prisoners serving five years or less would no longer be eligible for parole, but instead a system of conditional early release would apply to them. Under this system they would be released after serving half of their overall sentence, but would be automatically recalled to prison to serve the outstanding balance of their sentence if they were reconvicted.

  The committee has also recommended changes in parole procedures, which are intended to make the process less cumbersome and more open. Parole applicants would have the chance to put their case to a panel of three parole board members, and would be entitled to be given reasons for a refusal of parole.

  The committee was also asked to look at a number of related issues. The committee recommended no change in the formal role of the Secretary of State in the parole system; no alteration in the present arrangements for supervision for released prisoners by local authority social workers; and funding of the supervision of released prisoners by central Government on an agency basis. Their recommendations on life sentence prisoners will fall to be considered in the light of the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and the Release of Life Sentence Prisoners, now in session. They recommend against the introduction of suspended or part-suspended sentences into Scots law but (by majority) recommend that all custodial sentences should be backdated to the date when the offender was first remanded in custody, unless there are special reasons for not doing so.

  The report raises issues of considerable public importance, and before deciding on what action might be taken to implement it, I would be glad to receive views on the report which interested parties may wish to put to me. These should be submitted to me by 30 June.

  Schools (Self-Government)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and individuals who have responded to the consultative paper on self-governing schools; and how many of these have indicated support for the proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Seventy-five organisations and individuals have commented on our explanatory paper as at 15 March.

  Education Authorities

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Highland

  Lothian

  National Bodies

  Association of Directors of Education in Scotland

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Educational Institute of Scotland

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Moray House College

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Scottish Association of Children's Panels

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Examination Board

  Scottish Parent Teacher Council

  Scottish Secondary Teachers Association

  752

  Scottish Spina Bifida Association

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Society of Information Technology Managers

  Local Organisations

  Auchenblae School PTA (Laurencekirk)

  Avoch School Association (Fortrose)

  Bearsden Primary School PTA

  Borders Federation of Parents and Teachers

  Boroughmuir School Council

  Central Mainland School Council (Shetland)

  Charleston Academy School Council

  Coldstream Primary PTA

  Corstorphine Primary PTA

  Crombie School PTA (Aberdeen)

  Currie High School Council

  Deans Community High School Council (Livingston)

  Dunbar School Council

  Ferryhill School PTA (Aberdeen)

  Fort Augustus Secondary School Council

  Glenrothes School Council

  Glen Urquhart High School Council

  Grampian Community Relations Council

  Hamilton Schools Council

  Hillhead PTA (Glasgow)

  Hyndland Secondary School EIS (Glasgow)

  Inveralmond Community High School (Livingston)

  Inverness Royal Academy School Council

  Islay and Jura School Council

  Kincardine and Deeside Social and Liberal Democrats

  Kingussie High School Council

  Lerwick, Bressay and Quarff School Council

  Linlithgow Academy School Council

  Lorn Coll and Colonsay Schools Council

  Mid Argyll Schools Council

  Peebles School Council

  Plockton High School College Council

  Royal High School Council

  St. Andrews School Council

  St. Patricks Primary PTA (Dumbarton)

  South Morningside Primary PTA

  Tomnacross PTA (Inverness-shire)

  Torphins PTA

  Wester Hailes Education Centre Council

  Westhill Academy PTA (Aberdeen)

  Westhill Primary PTA (Aberdeen)

  The paper sought comment on the mechanics of implementation rather than the principle of self-governing status, which will be for individual schools to determine.

  Birds (Shetland)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has of the level of breeding success for the red-throated diver, Arctic skua, great skua, puffin and kittiwake in Shetland in 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the total population size of Arctic terns in Shetland in 1980; and what proportion this represents of the British and EEC populations, respectively;

  (3) what information he has on research conducted or commissioned to identify the key factors that have influenced the breeding success of Arctic terns in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will list the estimated number of young that the Shetland Arctic tern population has successfully reared in each of the last five years; and what the breeding success of this bird has been in other areas in the United Kingdom over the same period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) commissioned Durham university to conduct a short preliminary study on arctic terns in Shetland in 1985. This found some evidence of breeding failure. In 1986, NCC and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds jointly

  753
  commissioned Glasgow university to carry out further studies on arctic terns in Shetland, and specifically to examine the role of food supply in breeding performance. This project is still in progress, but results indicate that there has been a shortage of a specific size class of sandeel in surface waters of Shetland during a crucial phase of the Arctic tern breeding cycle.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are collaborating with other interested parties on co-ordinated research to investigate sandeel mortality and factors affecting the availability of sandeels for food. They are to increase substantially their effort on sandeel research in 1989–90 including, exceptionally, three research ship cruises.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total population size of Arctic terns in Shetland in 1980; and what proportion this represents of the British and EEC populations, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: According to the Nature Conservancy Council the population was about 32,000 pairs. This represented some 43 per cent. of the British population and some 37 per cent. of the EEC population.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what information he has of the level of breeding success for the red-throated diver, Arctic skua, great skua, puffin and kittiwake in Shetland in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The Nature Conservancy Council has supplied the following information:

  Red-throated diver—poor breeding success

  Arctic skua—poor breeding success

  Great skua—poor breeding success

  Pulfin—mixed breeding success

  Kittiwake—very poor breeding success

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list the estimated number of young that the Shetland Arctic tern population hs successfully reared in each of the last five years; and what the breeding success of this bird has been in other areas in the United Kingdom over the same period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The Nature Conservancy Council has advised me that, on the basis of sample monitoring of Shetland Arctic tern colonies between 1984 and 1988, a low breeding success has been achieved. The species' breeding success in other areas in the United Kingdom over the same period was mixed.

DEFENCE

  "World in Action" Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek from the producers of Granada Television's "World In Action" programme on Aldermaston, broadcast on 20 February 1989, a copy for his Department's library of a videotape and transcript of the programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Chemical Weapon Agents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West, 9 February,Official Report, column 765, he will set out the reasons for the policy of the non-disclosure of locations of chemical weapon agents held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  MOD does not disclose such information for security reasons.

  Nuclear Plant (Clean-up)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, (Mr. Jones) 9 February,Official Report, column 764, on the financial costs of environmental clean-up at Springfields, Capenhurst, Sellafield, Aldermaston, Burghfield and Caerwent, if he will state the annual cost of clean-up for each of the plants operated for his Department, and the proportion of the contractual finances paid to British Nuclear Fuels for nuclear materials processing comprised by the component for environmental clean-up;

  (2) if he will give consideration to the publication of a report on all Ministry of Defence, Atomic Weapons Establishment or British Nuclear Fuels contracted establishments involved in the production and processing of military nuclear materials in regard to the costs of environmental clean-up similar to that produced by the United States Department of Energy and Senator Glenn for the United States military nuclear facilities in 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. For reasons of national security, it has not been our custom to disclose costs of the procurement and processing of defence nuclear materials, either in part or in aggregate.

  Plutonium and Tritium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any(a) plutonium or (b) tritium was exported on 21 February under agreement or order of his Department from Barrow on the PNTL ship Pacific Sandpiper destined for Hampton Rhodes, in Virginia, and thereafter Baltimore in the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of defence special nuclear materials at any particular place or time, nor to reveal details of the kind requested.

  Bird Strikes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of bird strikes suffered by military aircraft in 1988, updating the figures provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 18 July 1988,Official Report, columns 501–02.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is as follows:

  1988

  Royal Air Force

  746

  Army

  41

  Royal Navy

  39

  Procurement Executive

  10

  Total

  836

  Skyguard
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates of deployments of the Skyguard radar system in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire constituency since 1987.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Skyguard radar system has not been deployed in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire constituency.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the increases in the proportion of United Kingdom low flying which took place over southern Scotland, listed in his replies to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 13 July 1988,Official Report, columns 238–39, and 6 February 1989 Official Report, column 512; and if these trends are planned to continue.

  Mr. Neubert
  The amount of flying activity in particular areas is influenced by several factors, some of which are unpredictable. These include the weather, the location of major exercises and the availability of range and other facilities. The aim is to spread low flying training as widely and evenly as possible throughout the entire country to ensure that, as far as is practicable, no area receives an undue share of the training.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 6 February 1988,Official Report, column 512, if he will now publish figures for low flying movements in, and complaints from southern Scotland, including those within low flying area 13, for each calendar year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  No, the major part of low flying area 13 falls within northern England.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level flights were conducted over the United Kingdom by aircraft of the Federal German armed forces not normally based in the United Kingdom in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate effort. However, over 98 per cent. of low flying training in the United Kingdom is carried out by British military or United Kingdom based USAF aircraft, with under 2 per cent. being carried out by other NATO allies.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made with the Federal German authorities since September 1988 for the transfer of low flying by Federal German military aircraft to Britain.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had during 1988 with his Belgian counterpart, Monsieur Guy Coëme, on the subject of low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements were reached on the reduction of 756
  low flying over West Germany during his discussions with his West German counterpart, Dr. Rupert Scholz, on 30 January.

  Mr. Neubert
  None. Discussions did, however, take place on ways in which it might be possible to ease the impact of low flying training on the population.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many low-flying sorties took place in 1988 and 1989 to date which originated or terminated at RAF Finningley;

  (2) how many low-flying sorties took place over the county of Yorkshire in 1988; how many have taken place in 1989 to date; and how many of these sorties originated or terminated their sorties from airfields in Yorkshire.

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

  Armoured Personnel Carriers (Vauxhall)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the reasons for two armoured personnel carriers or similar vehicles being at Vauxhall at 5.15 pm on Sunday 19 March.

  Mr. Neubert
  The vehicles referred to are from a TA unit based in London. The two APC's were returning to their unit lines in Westminster on return from weekend training.

  Tornado Sales
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to what extent the cost of purchasing Saudi Arabian oil under Ministry of Defence sponsored arrangements are used in payment for Tornado aircraft by the Saudi Arabian Government;

  (2) to what extent costs to the Jordanian Government of Tornado aircraft in excess of that price being paid by the United Kingdom Government for Tornado are supported by official credit support facilities from the ECGD;

  (3) what arrangements are or will be maintained by the Ministry of Defence for programming payments to British Aerospace for the purchase of Tornado aircraft and other defence equipment by the Jordanian and or the Saudi Arabian Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has never been the practice of this or previous governments to publish details of individual defence exports for reasons of commercial and customer confidentiality.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, following upon or during discussions representatives of Her Majesty's Government or Ministers have had on the sale of Tornado aircraft to Jordan or Saudi Arabia, he has received information as to the level of commission payments being paid in the supply of Tornado aircraft to those countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has been informed by the West German Government as to what extent commission payments to citizens of Saudi Arabia or Jordan have
  757
  influenced the decision by the West German Government not to provide more than 23 per cent. of official credit support towards the construction of Tornado and other defence equipment for supply to the Jordanian or Saudi Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work was undertaken by the Defence Export Services Organisation in support of the negotiations for the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) Jordan.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The negotiation of Government-to-Government agreements in connection with the sale of defence equipment are undertaken by staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation. This practice was followed for the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia and the prospective sale of Tornado to Jordan.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he had with his West German and Italian counterparts relating to the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) Jordan.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As with any collaborative project my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has naturally had occasion to have discussions with collaborative partners; in the case of Tornado with the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy in connection with prospective sales to third parties.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments were made to cover the cost of negotiating the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The only costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence in the negotiation of the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia and the prospective sale to Jordan were the salaries, travel and related costs of the MOD staff involved in the Government-to-Government negotiations.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount of expenditure incurred by the Defence Export Services Organisation in promoting the sale of Tornado aircraft and other defence equipment to middle eastern countries in(a) 1985, (b) 1986, (c) 1987 and (d)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  DESO costs are not apportioned to individual sales prospects. However, the annual costs of the regional marketing division responsible within DESO for the middle east are approximately £400,000.

  US Forces (Deployment)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations his Department has received from his United States counterpart, or any service or agency responsible thereto, regarding possible deployment of(a) European distribution system warehousing facilities or (b) aircraft from the United States Air Force 10th Military Airlift Squadron or similar unit at RAF Greenham Common;

  (2) what representations his Department has received from his United States counterpart, or any service or
  758
  agency responsible thereto, regarding possible redeploy-ment of warehousing or maintenance facilities from RAF Kemble to RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Neubert
  RAF Greenham Common has been designated as a NATO stand-by operating base for many years and we envisage that this role will continue after the cruise missiles have been withdrawn. No decisions have yet been taken on additional roles thereafter, though we anticipate that the base will remain available to the United States authorities for military use. It is not our practice to speculate on alternative future uses for military installations.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from his United States counterpart, or any service or agency responsible thereto, regarding possible deployment of United States Air Force C-130 aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  United States Air Force C-130 aircraft are stationed at RAF Mildenhall. These and other C-130 aircraft deploy to and from the United Kingdom routinely. The hon. Member may be referring to the forthcoming Air National Guard exercise Volant Golpher, which has recently been approved by the Ministry of Defence. This will take place between 4–17 June, when 9 C-130 aircraft of the 109th tactical airlift squadron will deploy to RAF Abingdon.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from his United States counterpart, or any service or agency responsible thereto, regarding possible deployment of United States Air Force RF-4Cs at RAF Alconbury.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence has recently approved the planned deployment of 12 United States Air Force (USAF) RF-4C aircraft to RAF Alconbury during the period 8–11 April for exercise Coronet Hoop. This exercise is part of the annual programme of short term deployments designed to provide experience to USAF reservist aircrew of locations in which they might operate in time of war.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about whether the maintenance facilities for RF-4Cs at RAF Alconbury were dismantled when the 10th tactical reconnaisance wing of the United States Air Force at RAF Alconbury ceased using these aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  I understand that the maintenance facilities at RAF Alconbury used to support the RAF-4CE. of the 10th tactical reconaissance wing were removed after the wing left the base in 1987.

  Military Lands
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will specify the dates that(a) the Lydd Camp and Lydd Range Byelaws 1988, (b) the RAF Edzell Byelaws 1988, (c) the RAF Welford Byelaws 1988 and (d) the RNAS Yeovilton and Merryfield Airfield Byelaws 1988 were (i) made and (ii) came into operation; and when the signs were placed around the affected areas stating that the byelaws were in force;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the byelaws listed in the answers of 18 May 1988, Official

  759
  Report, column 509, 29 July 1988, Official Report, column 577–8 and 3 March 1989, Official Report, column 358, together with any other byelaws not listed in these answers in force on 1 March 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  RAF Sculthorpe (Air Traffic Zone)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the military air traffic zone around RAF Sculthorpe is to be activated later in the current year.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  USAF Vehicles (Salisbury Plain)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why United States air force vehicles, based at RAF Greenham Common, in transit to Salisbury plain in the early hours of the morning of 14 March in the current year were carrying neither a registration number nor a distinctive nationality mark, as required by article V of the NATO status of forces agreement 1951.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Visiting Forces (Markings)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to ensure that all vehicles belonging to visiting forces and civilian components thereof that are stationed in the United Kingdom, including those of the United States, are carrying(a) a registration number and (b) a distinctive nationality mark, as required by article V of the NATO status of forces agreement 1951.

  Mr. Neubert
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Peace Symbols
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last five years any recorded incidents in which symbols of peace displayed by members of the public have caused harassment, alarm or distress to members of the armed forces, including members of visiting forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  There have been numerous incidents over the last five years in which symbols of peace have been displayed by members of the public. I am not aware of any records as to whether they caused harassment, alarm or distress to members of the United Kingdom armed forces or members of visiting forces. If the hon. Member has any particular incident in mind, I should be happy to investigate.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek powers to exempt RAF personnel who are posted, without families, to Scotland for less than six months from paying the community charge.

  Mr. Neubert
  I do not anticipate that married service personnel serving unaccompanied in Scotland for periods of less than six months, while retaining a family home elsewhere, will be regarded as having their sole or main residence in Scotland. They will therefore not be liable to pay the personal community charge there.

  Small Arms (Price)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase costs of the following(a) one infantry pistol automatic L9A1 with one 13-round magazine, (b) one 7·65 mm pistol automatic Walther type PP Z447E1 and one 8-round magazine, (c) one 5·56 mm M16 rifle and 30-round magazine, and (d) one 7·62 mm L3 0A1 rifle and 10-round magazine.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs.

  Aldermaston and Burghfield (Audit)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, pursuant to his reply of 16 February,Official Report, column 335, any information on the status at that time of the four major projects under review was provided by the BNFL team carrying out the programme audit at Aldermaston and Burghfield (a) in the course of the eight meetings between the team and his officials and (b) at any time in the month of January 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Barracks (Security)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in the last 10 years security has been tested and evaluated at(a) Tern Hill barracks, (b) Aldershot barracks, (c) Colerne barracks, (d) Driffield barracks and (e) Leconfield barracks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Perimeter Fencing
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual capital expenditure on perimeter fencing at all Ministry of Defence establish-ments in England, Wales and Scotland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave the hon. Member on 23 February at column 760.

  Private Security Guards
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of private security guards employed at Ministry of Defence establishments, in each year between 1979–80 and 1985–86, inclusive.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No figures are available for the years 1979 to 1985–86. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 1 March at column 222 for the figures for later years.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of the Ministry of Defence police in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Over the last 10 years the strength of the Ministry of Defence police was as follows:
  761

  Numbers

  October 1979

  4,121

  October 1980

  4,221

  October 1981

  4,080

  October 1982

  3,958

  October 1983

  3,836

  October 1984

  4,003

  October 1985

  4,255

  October 1986

  4,681

  December 19871

  4,841

  December 1988

  4,706

  1 Strengths are taken from the chief constable's annual reports, which from 1987 relate to calendar years.

  The figures shown include manpower provided to repayment users but exclude civilians employed in support of the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual expenditure on pay and pensions for the Ministry of Defence police for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual expenditure on training for the Ministry of Defence police for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mines (Price)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase costs of the following(a) one M 18A1 (Claymor) anti-personnel mine, (b) one padmine (containing 650 steel projectiles) and (c) one C3A1 non-metallic anti-personnel mine (Elsie).

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs.

  ELF Transmitter (Glengarry Forest)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, columns 376–37, if he will undertake to place a copy of the notice of proposed development relating to the proposed trial ELF transmitter at Glengarry forest, in the Library as soon as possible after its submission to the Highland regional council.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

ENERGY

  Wave Power
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what support for research and development on wave power is currently under way; and if he has any further proposals under consideration.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A major element of the Department of Energy's present programme of research and development into small scale wave energy is the development of the shoreline rock gully device invented by Queen's university, Belfast. Over the last two years the Department has funded research and the construction of 762
  an experimental prototype on the island of Islay, off the west coast of Scotland. Early test results of the power performance of the device have been encouraging and the next phase of the project will now proceed, subject to contract, on the basis of the data acquired so far.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the annual cost(a) in cash and (b) 1989 pounds sterling of radioactive waste management and disposal for each of the magnox, advanced gas cooled reactor, fast reactor, steam generating heavy water reactor programmes, respectively; and how these costs have been factored into nuclear electricity prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The fast reactor at Dounreay and the SGHWR at Winfrith are experimental reactors operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The prices paid by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board for electricity produced by these reactors are the result of commercial negotiations and reflect the cost to the boards of other supplies rather than the costs of generation. I have asked the chairman of the CEGB to reply to the hon. Member in respect of the board's Magnox and AGR stations.

  Nuclear Materials (Export)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if export licences were issued under article 2(i) of the Nuclear Installations Act in relation to the export of nuclear materials to Baltimore via Hampton Rhodes, United States of America, from Barrow on the PNTL ship Pacific Sandpiper on 21 February;

  (2) if the nuclear materials exported from Barrow on 21 February on the PNTL ship Pacific Sandpiper destined for Hampton Rhodes in Virginia, United States of America, were covered by bilateral or international safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The nuclear material exported from Barrow on 21 February 1989 on the PNTL vessel Pacific Sandpiper consisted entirely of irradiated fuel elements. These were all subject to international safeguards. An export licence was issued, but the material fell outside the categories for which approval for disposal is required under section 2(i) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Civil Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to permit publication in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority journal, Atom, the specific quantities of civil plutonium exported for commercial use under international safeguards, listing utility, date of contract and date of export for all future such exports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Civil plutonium export data is already published in the Department's annual civil plutonium figures press release.

  Fissile Materials (Export)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list for each year since 1979 the number of requests
  763
  for approval that his Department has received for the export of fissile materials; and if he will further list the consignor and consignee in each case, along with the amount of material permitted in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It has been the standard practice of successive Governments not to make public the details of export licence applications for the various categories of goods controlled.

  Coal Industry (Productivity)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what figures he has for the growth in productivity in the coal industry for each of the last three years; and if he will publish the figures for other European coal producing nations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Productivity, in terms of kilograms per manhour in the coal-producing nations of the European Community over the latest three calendar years for which figures are available, was as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  United Kingdom

  408

  512

  577

  Germany

  593

  602

  616

  France

  392

  427

  503

  Spain

  249

  286

  284

  Belgium

  314

  321

  316

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last considered the timing and content of the nuclear installations inspectorate's plans to publish regulations on off-site emergency planning for the civil nuclear power industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am awaiting proposals from the Health and Safety Commission on this matter.

  British Coal
  Mr. Illsley
  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. Michael Spicer
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Ofgas
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of funding for Ofgas in 1988 and 1989; what are the staffing levels in 1988 and 1989; how many staff have been seconded from his Department; whether Ofgas intend to move to new premises; and if he will make a statement about Ofgas's budget for 1990.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are at present 12 staff on secondment from the Department of Energy to Ofgas.

  Ofgas' expenditure, budget, staffing and premises are matters for the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the proportion of electricity which will be generated by nuclear power in Britain in the year 2000.
  764
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 11 May 1988 at column 112.

  Coal (Subsidy)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the average level of Government subsidy per tonne of deep-mined coal each year since 1985 in each European Economic Community country and in the United States of America.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Information requested is as follows. It has been obtained from European Commission publications. The United States of America does not provide financial support to its coal industry.

  £/tonne1 2

  1985

  1986

  19875

  Belgium

  22·0

  35·6

  58·1

  France

  37·6

  46·4

  49·6

  FR Germany

  6·0

  24·2

  58·1

  Portugal4

  —

  —

  6·9

  Spain4

  —

  —

  12·0

  United Kingdom3

  50

  8·1

  6·6

  The Belgium and French coal industries are much smaller than those of FR Germany and the United Kingdom and are currently undergoing substantial contraction which distorts the aid figures. The figures for FR Germany in 1986 and 1987 also include Government aid for supplying coal and coke to its steel industry at world market prices.

  1 It is not possible to make absolute comparisons between the figures from different Member State as the statistical basis may vary.

  2 Figures for all countries represent aid for current production and inherited liabilities only. They do not include social security payments such as pension schemes and insurance contributions since these are not readily comparable.

  3 United Kingdom figures are on a financial year basis for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88. The others are in calendar years.

  4 Portuguese and Spanish data are not available prior to 1987.

  5 1987 data are the latest published. 1988 figures are not yet available.

HEALTH

  Social Workers (Training)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Central Council for Education and Training of Social Workers has provided additional curriculum advice on mental health matters to courses for social workers.

  Mr. Mellor
  In January 1987, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) published its regulations and guidance for the training of social workers to be considered for approval in England and Wales under the Mental Health Act 1983. In December 1987, it produced a report which referred to training issues. Since then, the Council has had a programme of approving training courses for approved social workers in local authorities. To date, some 90 per cent. of local authorities have, in many instances and in
  765
  conjunction with other local authorities, produced a programme of CCETSW approved training for approved social workers. CCETSW is itself shortly to produce an evaluative report on the training provided by these courses, which will include guidance on training matters.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners earn more than £55,000 per annum in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The remuneration arrangements for general medical practitioners are conducted on a GB basis and are designed to deliver fees and allowances on an average basis together with some expenses which are reimbursed directly to doctors incurring them. We do not have information centrally in the form requested.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the most recent figures for the cost to the National Health Service of coronary heart disease including(a) the cost of general practitioner prescriptions, (b) the cost of surgery and (c) the cost of hospital beds.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cost estimates are not available in the exact form requested. However, the following may be of interest:

  (a) The net ingredient cost of pharmaceutical products having an effect on the cardiovascular system, and diuretics, dispensed by retail pharmacists in the Family Practitioner Service in England in 1987 was £360 million.

  (b) Information on the cost of hospital beds is not collected separately from treatment costs. It is estimated that the total cost of hospital in-patient treatment related to coronary heart disease in England a year is £175·5 milion. (1987–88 prices).

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to end restrictive practices imposed by family practitioner committees in respect of the use by patients of pharmacies of dispensing doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  Dispensing by doctors is permitted only as an exception to the general rule that doctors prescribe and pharmacists dispense. This is a sensible rule which ensures that the skills and qualifications of both professions are used to the best effect. I have no plans to change it.

  Schemes

  Regional Health Authorities

  North Western

  Mersey

  Trent

  Yorkshire

  Northern

  East Anglian

  North west Thames

  North-East Thames

  South-East Thames

  South-West Thames

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Completed since 1979

  42

  21

  37

  19

  18

  22

  30

  17

  25

  24

  17

  16

  23

  38

  Under construction

  14

  2

  11

  11

  11

  2

  15

  11

  6

  10

  12

  15

  12

  10

  At planning and design stage

  46

  2

  51

  28

  17

  24

  10

  27

  15

  23

  12

  9

  18

  50

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give within the Trent regional health authority the total number of qualified members of(a) the medical and (b) the scientific staff of his Department dealing with

  Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the net ingredient cost of drugs per head for each family practitioner committee area and health region for 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will give the 1986–87 cost in terms of 1987–88 prices for each area and region.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the national average net ingredient cost of drugs per head for 1986–87 and 1987–88, what is the 1986–87 cost in 1987–88 prices; and what is the percentage variance cost per head of each family practitioner committee area and health service region for the national average.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average net ingredient cost per person for 1986–87 is £31·68 for 1986–87 at 1987–88 prices is £33·36 and for 1987–88 is £35·79. A table showing the percentage variation from the England average has been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in waiting list lengths in(a) the North West regional health authority and (b) the Mersey regional health authority since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting lists, Mersey and North Western regional health authorities, 1979 and 1988

  Mersey

  North Western

  Waiting list 31 March 1979

  41,103

  77,368

  Waiting list1 30 September 1988

  32,121

  63,839

  Change

  -8,982

  -13,529

  Percentage change

  -22

  -17

  1 Excludes self deferred cases.

  Hospital Building Schemes
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital building schemes in(a) the North West regional health authority and (b) the Mersey regional health authority have (i) been completed since 1979 and (ii) are under construction or at the planning and design stage; and what are the comparable figures for the other health regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information held centrally on schemes each costing over El million is as follows:

  matters related to contamination of drinking water by (i) micro-organisms, (ii) chemicals and (iii) radiation; and where these staff are located within the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has primary responsibility for the
  767
  public water supply. The Department of Health does not employ any staff to deal specifically with contamination of drinking water.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of one year were vaccinated in 1988; and what percentage this was of the age group.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is not precisely in the form requested. The one year uptake rate of each vaccination is calculated as the number of children who were vaccinated by the end of the year following birth. The latest figures are shown in the table and relate to children born in 1986. Because of the change to collecting data on a financial year basis, the one year uptake rate for this particular cohort of children is calculated as the number of children born in 1986 and vaccinated in either 1986, 1987 or the first quarter of 1988, expressed as a percentage of live births in 1986.

  Vaccination and immunisation: completed primary courses

  Live births 1986

  Vaccinated in 1986 or 1987–88 (numbers)

  Percentage vaccinated by 31 March 1988

  623,609

  —

  —

  Diphtheria

  —

  487,372

  78

  Tetanus

  —

  487,493

  78

  Polio

  —

  484,771

  78

  Whooping Cough

  —

  419,523

  67

  Measles

  —

  401,414

  64

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many environmental health officers are employed by his Department; and what are their duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department employs three environmental health officers. They advise on and deal with a range of functions related to the work of environmental health officers. Their work is concerned with food hygiene and certain aspects of environmental health.

  Sex Change Operations
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the district health authorities in England and Wales(a) which fund sex change operations and (b) which do not fund such operations;

  (2) how many sex change operations were carried out in each district health authority in 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally. The number of such operations carried out is so small that no reliable estimates can be made from normal statistical returns. It is, however, unlikely that the number of operations performed in England exceeds 100 a year.

  PACT Information
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long PACT information has been available to all general practitioners.
  768
  Mr. Mellor
  The new prescribing information system known as "PACT" was introduced in stages beginning in August 1988 and is now generally available to GPs.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the capitation payments to general practitioners in rural areas will continue for temporary residents.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans to make alterations to arrangements for the payment of temporary residents fees to any GPs, except where such alterations are consequent upon the proposals I am putting to the profession's representatives and which are set out in "General Practice in the NHS—A New Contract". For example, I am proposing to extend the period during which a night visit fee may be claimed in respect of permanent patients and consequently in respect of temporary residents.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be in a position to provide a figure for the substantial extra resources to be devoted to the family practitioner service in relation to any new general practitioner contract.

  Mr. Mellor
  General practitioners' remuneration is determined by the Government acting on advice from the doctors and dentists review body. As part of their evidence to the review body later this year, the Government will consider what additional resources they believe appropriate.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest average income of a general practitioner principal net of all practice expenses.

  Mr. Mellor
  The current intended average net income for general medical practitioners is £28,800 per annum. The Government have accepted the recommendation in the nineteenth report of the doctors and dentists review body that this should be increased to £31,105 per annum from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioners who hold practice budgets will be able to create a surplus by sending patients to hospital accident and emergency services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect health authorities to satisfy themselves that referral to A and E Departments is not being used as a substitute for out-patient referral and they will continue to do so in future in the case of all GPs whether practice budget holders or not. I do not expect that GP's would use such a device because of their professional integrity and because such a procedure would cause annoyance to their hospital colleagues and inconvenience and bewilderment to their patients.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born to mothers aged 16 and 17 years for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest year for which information is available is 1987. The number of births in England and Wales were:
  769

  Age of mother

  Live births

  Stillbirths

  16

  4,398

  31

  17

  10,484

  50

  Stroke Victims
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of stroke victims in the United Kingdom as a ratio of the population; how many such victims suffer serious or severe disability; and what assistance is available to them.

  Mr. Freeman
  Centrally collected statistics do not include total numbers of those suffering from "strokes" (acute cerebrovascular disease). However, it is believed that the total number in England and Wales is about 100,000 pa, about 1 in 500 of the population. In broad terms, one third of those who have strokes will suffer disability. After treatment for the acute condition, a range of hospital services is available to stroke victims, including rehabilitation, speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy.

  Newchurch Hospital, Culcheth
  Mr Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the future of Newchurch hospital, Culcheth, Warrington; and if there are any plans to close it.

  Mr. Freeman
  Newchurch hospital is in the process of retraction as patients are gradually transferred to care in the community schemes. As the numbers of patients reduces consideration will have to be given to the best way of caring for those remaining. We are not, however, aware of any plans to close Newchurch hospital.

  Self-Governing Hospitals
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact he estimates his White Paper proposals will make on the quality of medical education in self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are still considering the detailed arrangements for providing and funding medical education in self-governing hospitals but we shall ensure that hospitals which become self-governing continue to play their part in maintaining the high quality of this education.

  Hospital Computer Systems
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the cost: of setting up hospital computer systems will be funded.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, the responsibility for deciding how much to spend on hospital computer systems rests with NHS managers. However, hospitals receiving computer based information systems as part of the hospital information and support systems and resource management programmes in 1989–90 will have a substantial part of the cost of those systems met centrally.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the names of chairmen appointed to family practitioner committees from 1 April.
  770
  Mr. Mellor
  I am placing in the Library a list of the appointments made with effect from 1 April 1989. All appointments are for a period of two years.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the advisory committees coming under his Department and concerned in some way with public health which are covered by the Official Secrets Act whose members are required to sign the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 March 1989, columns 159–60]: I regret that in the list of the Department's advisory committees whose members are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, an advisory committee on ethics of gene modification therapy in humans was included in error; the Department is still considering whether to establish such a committee.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the membership of the committee on the microbiological safety of food.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As I announced in the House on 21 February the chairman of the committee is Professor Sir Mark Richmond, vice chancellor of Manchester university. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided to invite the following to be members:

  Dr. Spence Galbraith, former director of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Professor John Arbuthnott, professor of microbiology, Nottingham University.

  Dr. Tony Baird-Parker, microbiologist, Unilever Research Laboratories.

  Mr. "Mac" Johnson, senior lecturer, Royal Veterinary College.

  Mr. John Moffitt, farmer.

  Dr. Roy Spencer, director scientific services, Sainsbury plc. Professor George Glew, professor of catering studies, Huddersfield Polytechnic.

  Professor John Norris, director of research, Cadbury-Schweppes, plc.

  Mr. Brian Denyer, chief environmental health officer, City of Westminster.

  Mrs. Rachel Waterhouse CBE, chairman, Consumers Association.

  Mr. David Clark, food technology manager, Trusthouse Forte plc.

  The Committee will be holding its first meeting shortly.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to announce a decision on the request made by the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South for a judical inquiry into whooping cough vaccination and brain damage.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I regret that I am not yet in a position to consider this request because of other current litigation on this matter. I have written to the right hon. Member explaining the reason in more detail.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis there has been of the vaccine damage payment cases which would indicate the incidence per hundred thousand vaccinations of damage such as to cause a payment.
  771
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to repy. During the five years 1983 to 1988, the number of vaccine damage awards made averaged 17 per year, and many of these related to vaccinations performed in earlier years. Almost all of the awards were on account of vaccinations performed under the childhood vaccination programme.

  I understand from the Department of Health that over the same period, an average of around 500,000 children per year have completed the primary courses of vaccination against each of diptheria, tetanus and polio, and 420,000 againts whooping cough; 440,000 have been vaccinated against measles and 300,000 against rubella. Since the primary course for diptheria, tetanus, polio and whooping cough is three doses, this means that around 7 million doses of vaccine are administered to children each year in the primary vaccination programme. A further 2·5 million reinforcing doses are also administered.

  The incidence of vaccine damage such as to cause an award to be made is therefore less than 2 per million doses of vaccine administered.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vaccine damage payments were made in 1988; and if he will categorise these according to the age of the child, when the vaccination took place, the year of the vaccination and the nature of the vaccination.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Four payments were awarded in 1988 under the provision of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Details are in the table.

  Vaccine damage Payments scheme Awards made in 1988 by age of child at date of vaccination Year of vaccination and type of vaccination

  Age at date of vaccination (months)

  Year vaccination was given

  Type of vaccination cited of claim form

  1. 3–6

  1959

  Triple/polio

  2. 3–6

  1986

  Polio

  3. 6–9

  1972

  Pertussis

  4. 6–9

  1980

  Pertussis

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the application form for a vaccine damage payment asks for(a) the date of vaccination alleged to have caused the damage, (b) the type of vaccination and (c) the age of the person when the vaccination took place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The vaccine damage payment claim form asks for the date of vaccination, the type of vaccination received and the date of birth of the vaccinated person. From this information, the age of the vaccinated person when the vaccination took place can be determined.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for vaccine damage payments have been made in each year since the scheme began; and what proportion in each year resulted in a payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. The information which is available is in the table.
  772

  Vaccine damage payments scheme Claims received and awards made in each year since the scheme began

  Year

  Claims received

  Awards made1

  19782

  1,988

  —

  1979

  551

  349

  1980

  131

  255

  1981

  72

  74

  1982

  89

  43

  1983

  93

  42

  1984

  156

  29

  1985

  76

  26

  1986

  78

  15

  1987

  66

  10

  1988

  39

  4

  19893

  9

  —

  1 Awards recorded for a particular year may be the outcome of claims made in earlier years. To analyse for each year's claims the number that were eventually successful would be disproportionately costly.

  2 Although the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 took effect from 22 March 1979, claims were invited when the scheme was announced in 1978.

  3 To 28 February 1989.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there has been any change in his departmental policy regarding the payment of vaccine damage payments following the case of Loveday v. Renton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  There has been no change in our policy of making a vaccine damage payment in every case where the qualifying criteria are satisfied. Whether these criteria are satisfied where pertussis vaccine is involved remains a matter for decision in each individual case.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rural Villages (Sewerage System)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the rural villages within the Don Valley constituency that are not connected to a main sewerage supply system; what proposals he has made to ensure that these villages are connected to such a system before the water industry is privatised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that the following villages in the hon. Member's constituency are not connected to the public sewerage system: Hooton Pagnell (part), Hampoles, Skelbrooke, Brodsworth, Pickburn, Moorhouses, Marr (part), Stainton (part) and Tickhill.

  Responsibility for sewerage services rests with the Yorkshire and Severn-Trent water authorities. It would be for them to provide main sewerage for the villages if they considered this necessary for effectually draining their areas.

  The Water Bill provides for the general duty of sewerage undertakers to be spelt out in more detail and for the re-enactment with improvements of the provisions under which local authorities and others can requisition public sewers. Grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts will continue to be available.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what other countries in the European Community fluoridate their public drinking water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Fluoridation of public water supplies is permissible in a number of European Community countries and is mandatory in Ireland. It is carried out in the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will monitor the safety of fluoride levels in the public drinking water after privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water undertakers will continue to monitor fluoride levels in drinking water. The drinking water inspectorate to be established under the Water Bill will ensure that water undertakers are monitoring water quality consistently and satisfactorily and are complying with the standards set down in regulations made under the Bill. Where fluoride is added to the supply at the request of health authorities, the health authorities will continue to liaise with water undertakers to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement between them.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which have indicated to water authorities opposition to the proposals to fluoridate the public drinking water in their area.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water authorities have reduced the fluoridation of their water supplies since the Water Fluoridation Act 1985.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Severn Trent water authority has stopped fluoridating water supplies in the South Derbyshire area because of technical difficulties in the operation of its plants.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water authorities have firm proposals to fluoridate their water; and what proportion of the total population will be served as a result.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am not aware of any water authorities which currently have firm proposals to fluoridate their water.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water authorities are currently fluoridating their drinking water supplies; and what proportion of the population now drinks fluoridated water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The water authorities that are currently fluoridating one or more of their drinking water supplies are: Northumbrian, North West, Yorkshire, Severn Trent, Anglian, Thames and Welsh. Approximately 10 per cent. of the population of England and Wales receives fluoridated water. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has supplied information in respect of the Welsh Water Authority.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the results of the Water Fluoridation Act 1985.
  774
  Mr. Moynihan
  The Water Fluoridation Act 1985 is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My Department has made no assessment of the results of the Act.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the result of his Department's review of policy on housing co-operatives; when part IV of the Housing Act 1988 will come fully into force; and when section 124 of the Housing Act 1988 will come into force.

  Mr. Trippier
  I expect to receive the report of the housing co-operative review committee shortly. Part IV of the Housing Act 1988 will come fully into force on 5 April 1989. Section 124 of the Housing Act 1988 came into force on 10 March 1989, and I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 10 March at column 699.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the benefits to the United Kingdom of the import of hazardous and toxic wastes for processing or disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The import of difficult wastes for specialist treatment and safe disposal provides employment and helps our balance of payments. Such imports often also result in a global environmental advantage, for example if there is no suitable treatment facility in the country where the waste originates.

  Departmental Estates (VAT)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the additional cost to be borne by each Department of state in respect of unrecovered value added tax on rents paid by its commercial or industrial estate (a) from 1 August 1989 to 4 April 1990 and (b) for the fiscal year 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  Landlords have not yet decided whether or not to exercise their option to tax rents, so it is therefore impossible to offer meaningful estimates of any additional costs which might be borne by Departments.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has had with the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority about the increase in its charges to consumers which come into effect from the 1 April and about the derogations of legislation regarding sewage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Common Land
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to safeguard common land on the basis of the proposal of the common land forum.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 8 March, at column 523.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the water supplies in England and Wales that are in breach of the EEC directive on water quality in respect of safety limits on lead in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No water leaving water mains in England breaches the EC directives standard for lead. However, certain types of water can dissolve lead from lead service pipes and plumbing in properties. In areas where such water is supplied water undertakers investigate whether additional water treatment would reduce lead levels significantly. In most of these areas action has already been successfully taken, but in the following areas action is still being investigated:

  Water Authority

  Area

  Anglian Water Authority

  Eriswell

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  Haisthorpe East Hull

  North West Water Authority

  Swinden Crosby Parts of Greater Manchester and Lancashire (served by Lake District supplies)

  Longridge and Ribchester (served by Dilworth source) Preston (served by White Bull Treatment Works)

  Parts of Blackpool and Wyre (Barnacre source)

  Blackburn, parts of Blackpool and Flyde (fed from H odder Treatment Works)

  Rainhill (Vyrnwy source)

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and location of breaches in the precautionary standard for pesticides in drinking water in 1988 for each division in supplies provided by the Severn-Trent water authority; and if he will list by location how much these breaches exceeded the standard laid down.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am informed that during the period December 1987 to November 1988 there were breaches of standard of 0.1 microgram per litre for pesticides, specified in the EC drinking water directive, in water supplies leaving the following treatment works of the Severn Trent water authority: Barbourne, Mitcheldean, Mythe, Witcombe, Campion, Strensham, Rugby, Melbourne, Hallgates, Nanpanton, Wing, Church Wilne, Whitacre, Trimpley, Costford, Bomere, Ford, Meolfre, Astley, Norton, Elkesley, Far Baulker, Farnsfield and Fishpool. I understand that Witcombe is now not used for public supply and that breaches of the standard at Bomere, Ford, Moelfre, Astley, Norton, Elkesley, Far Baulker, Farnsfield and Fishpool were transient and that most samples from these works complied with the directive.
  776
  The levels of pesticides in these supplies were below those which would be considered a risk to health.

  Seal Skins
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the illegal import of blueback or whitecoat skins which have been illegally imported into the United Kingdom in contravention of EEC directive 85/444.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 6 March 1989 at column 426.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure maintenance of standards after the change to a system of self regulation of air pollution in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to change to a system of self-regulation of air pollution in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure conformity to EEC guidelines on air pollution, within the proposed restructuring of the air inspectorate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Regulations have been laid which come into force on 31 March and will give formal effect to the air quality standards set in three EC directives.

  The present restructuring proposals for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will have no adverse effect upon the ability of the United Kingdom to conform with these or any other EC requirements concerning air pollution.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether any agreement has been reached within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to guarantee employment conditions during restructuring of the air pollution inspectorate;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the geographical and industrial remits proposed for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution air inspectorate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Proposals are being developed for the reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in order to integrate its responsibilities for air pollution control, radioactive substances, water pollution and other wastes on a regionalised basis related to industry groupings. Three regions are proposed to cover the north, south west and south east and it is proposed to retain the existing air district offices as outstations. Consultations are continuing with staff representatives on the management implications of the proposals.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of private dwelling repossessions for the second half of 1988; what was the comparable figure for 1987; and if he will make a statement.
  777
  Mr. Trippier
  The information asked for is given in the table. I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 10 March at column 698.

  Number of properties taken into possession by building societies

  Number

  Second half 1988

  6,380

  Second half 1987

  11,230

  Number of propeties taken into possession by local authorities

  Number

  1987–88

  330

  1986–87

  490

  Global Environmental Declaration
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the global environmental declaration made by 24 Governments at the Hague conference on 11 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are considering the declaration of 11 March.

  Radon
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 9 February, column 769, on the former Medical Research Council radon source radioactive wastes at Barton-leClay, Bedfordshire, he has yet received confirmation sought of the Medical Research Council that no radioactive residues remain at the Barton-le-Clay caves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Barium Sulphate Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 8 March, column 524, on radioactive barium sulphate waste at Amersham, when he expects the site effluent treatment plant to be decommissioned.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Amersham International plc intend to start decommissioning the existing site effluent treatment plant at Amersham in 1992.

  Hinkley C (Inquiry)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any evaluation of the evidence presented to the Hinkley C nuclear inquiry by the Irish Sea Project and Ms. Penelope Boyce on radioactive liquid waste discharges from United Kingdom nuclear plants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has considered those parts of the evidence submitted to the inquiry by the Irish sea project and Ms. Penelope Boyle that are relevant to the Department's interests.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of applications for 778
  home improvement grants and the number accepted for each year since 1979 by metropolitan districts in the north-west of England at constant prices.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fee Competition
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department now uses fee competition in seeking tenders for professional services from the private sector.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Property Services Agency, which is part of my Department, has operated fee competition arrangements for professional services on major works projects since July 1984. Fee bids are now sought for all projects of £1 million value and over. The introduction of these arrangements has resulted in substantial initial fee savings.

  Consumers (Consultation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements there are for consulting consumers on the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department consults widely on its work and decisions including the issue of over 40 consultation papers in 1988.

  Wildlife Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last five years the number of cases of wildlife poisoning in England caused by the illegal use of pesticides or poisons; and if he will identify the species involved; and if possible the poison or pesticide involved.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  Incidents involving the poisoning of wild birds and mammals by pesticides are investigated through my Department's Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme. The number of incidents (and the chemicals involved) in England, during the period 1984–88, in which the deaths of wild birds and mammals were attributed to the deliberate abuse of agricultural pesticides are listed in Table one.

  However, it should be noted that it is not always possible to determine whether incidents were due to accidental misuse of deliberate abuse.

  The species involved in these incidents were:
  Mallard, Red Kite, Marsh Harrier, Buzzard, Peregrine Falcon, Kestrel, Pheasant, Red-legged Partridge, Grey Partridge, Moorhen, Wood Pigeon, Stock Dove, Feral Pigeon, Turtle Dove, Barn Owl, Tawny Owl, Little Owl, Raven, Carrion Crow, Rook, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Blackbird, Robin, Starling, House Sparrow, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellow Bunting.
  Fox, Badger, Hedgehog.

  Table one

  Pesticide

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19881

  Mevinphos

  12

  12

  20

  10

  10

  Alphachloralose

  18

  11

  18

  12

  13

  Strychnine

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  Endrin

  4

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Rodenticides

  2

  0

  4

  2

  7

  Aldrin

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Demeton-S-methyl

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  779

  Pesticide

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19881

  Triazophos

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  41

  30

  43

  27

  33

  1 Data provisional as some incidents still being investigated.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many approvals he has given to date for the transfer of local authority housing stock to another landlord under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988; and if he will list the local authority areas where such approvals have been given.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) on 22 March 1989.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 280, which of the consultants' reports on the proposed housing action trust areas he has received to date; and when he intends to publish them and announce his conclusions.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 March 1989 at column 322.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 280, what is the total aggregate cost of the consultants' reports commissioned by his Department on the six areas proposed for housing action trusts.

  Mr. Trippier
  The final costs of the reports will not be known until all the contractors' claims have been submitted to the Department. We expect the total cost to be about £900,000 including VAT. This covers the cost of producing copies of reports for local councils, tenants associations and local libraries.

  No. 1, Poultry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to preserve No. 1, Poultry, City of London, in its present form.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. 1 Poultry and associated buildings are currently the subject of listed buildings and planning appeals, which are before my right hon. Friend for decision.

  In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for any comment to be made at this stage.

  Local Labour Clauses
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now reconsider his rejection of the use of local labour clauses in the light of the European Court of Justice's ruling in the case 31/87 Beentyes v. State of Netherlands; and if he will make a statement.
  780
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Discussions are currently taking place in Brussels on the issues raised by the European Court of Justice's judgment in the Beentyes case. The European Commission has expressed the preliminary view that contract clauses requiring a contractor to employ a given number or percentage of persons resident in the area in question appear to be discriminatory and contrary to the treaty of Rome. At this stage, the Government do not see any reason to alter their policy on the use of local labour clauses.

  Cabinet War Rooms
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of the Cabinet war rooms.

  Mr. Chope
  Since 1948 the Department has maintained the more important of the Cabinet war rooms as they were used during the war, in accordance with an undertaking given at that time by the then Minister for Works. In 1984 the rooms were opened to the public generally and the trustees of the Imperial War museum agreed to manage them as a museum under a short term agreement on behalf of the Department.

  The initial five year term of this management agreement is now approaching its end and officials of the Department and others concerned were asked to review, in consultation with the Imperial War museum, the future arrangements for managing the Cabinet war rooms.

  On the basis of their report, the Government have concluded that it would be inconsistent with the future commercial development of the Property Services Agency which I announced last May at column 333 for it to retain a direct responsibility for managing the rooms. Furthermore, we feel that my predecessor's commitment as to the preservation of this important historic site will be best discharged by giving full responsibility to those professionally concerned with museum management.

  The Government are therefore pleased to accept an offer from the trustees of the Imperial War museum to take on direct responsibility for the Cabinet war rooms and for honouring the commitment given in 1948. A number of the artefacts currently displayed in the rooms are from the museum's collection or are on loan from the Churchill family. We are now transferring ownership of all the rooms' other contents, including all documents, photographs equipment and furniture as well as all fixtures and fittings, to the trustees of the Imperial War museum. The rooms themselves form part of a Government office building and will be leased to the trustees of the Imperial War museum on an agreed basis from 1 April 1989.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will make constituency or local authority assessments of the number of losers and gainers under the poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member on 16 March, the Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We cannot estimate the numbers of gainers and losers in each local authority or constituency as a result of the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the
  781
  deductions to be made under a community charge attachment of earnings order for (a) weekly earnings, (b) monthly earnings and (c) daily earnings.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: Tables showing the deductions to be made under attachment of earnings orders are contained in schedule 4 to the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 438) which were laid before the House on 17 March.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the percentage of the housing stock let by private landlords for each year since 1979;

  (2) what is his estimate of the percentage of the housing stock which is likely to be let by private landlords during 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the office of the Director General of Water Services will be located.

  Mr. Howard
  After considering the nature of the work and the number of posts involved, it has been decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the Water Bill, the headquarters of the Water Services Offices should be located in Birmingham.

  This location reflects the Government's policy of locating civil service work in areas offering advantages in

  Local authority current expenditure1 on housing, personal social services and education and science.>

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Local authority current expenditure (£ million)on:

  Housing

  787

  737

  728

  697

  758

  684

  657

  680

  Personal social services

  2,535

  2,694

  2,817

  3,112

  3,502

  3,828

  3,969

  4,100

  Education and Science

  13,113

  13,618

  14,044

  15,388

  16,842

  18.087

  18,122

  18,720

  Local authority spending on each service as a percentage of total local authority current expenditure

  Housing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Personal social services

  8

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Education and science

  40

  39

  40

  41

  41

  42

  41

  41

  Local authority spending on each service as a percentage of general

  Government expenditure1 on each service

  Housing

  66

  61

  57

  51

  55

  50

  50

  50

  Personal social services

  96

  96

  96

  96

  96

  96

  96

  96

  Education and science3

  84

  84

  84

  85

  85

  84

  80

  80

  1 The figures given are consistent with those published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Cm 601–621). They exclude central Government and local authority finance for public corporations.

  2 ie Central Government plus local authority expenditure.

  >3 The fall in this percentage between 1988–89 and 1989–90 reflects the transfer of responsibility for funding polytechnics and colleges from local authorities to central Government.

  782
  terms of accommodation costs and labour supply conditions, including where appropriate areas which are the focus of regional and urban policies.

  This new, non-ministerial Government Department is expected to employ some 80 civil servants, including the secretariats of the ten regionally based customer services committees proposed in the Water Bill.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how much money either through his Department or through the London residuary body has been or is expected to be spent on(a) the High Court hearing in relation to the previous planning application for development of the former Greater London council headquarters and (b) the taking of the same case to the court of appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The information is not available.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing local authority current expenditure for each year since 1975–76 to 1990–91 on(a) housing, (b) personal social services and (c) education and science; and what proportion each makes up of (i) central Government current expenditure on the same areas of expenditure and (ii) total local authority current expenditure.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The information requested for the years 1983–84 to 1990–91 is given in the table. Corresponding information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Quality
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 13 March, he will provide technical details of the more stringent basis upon which designated British bathing waters were evaluated in 1988 in relation to that upon which they were evaluated in 1987.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The results of the 1988 survey have been reported on the basis of the strict requirements for 95 per cent. compliance specified by the directive. On this basis, a water is assessed as complying with the directive providing that no more than one sample in 20 exceeds the mandatory coliform standards. Previously, with our relatively short bathing season and the minimum sampling frequency specified in the directive, authorities generally took about 12 samples and we allowed one failure before a water was assessed as failing. The European Commission indicated that the strict interpretation of 95 per cent. compliance should be adopted. To this end, the Department asked that authorities increase their sampling frequency to ensure that a water did not fail merely because of a single high sample.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to paragraphs 2·23 and 3·17 of Cmnd. 9756, if he will publish in the Official Report details showing how the undertaking to give substantial and well targeted extra help for low income families in work has been implemented; and at what cost to the Exchequer.

  Supplementary Benefit Live Load

  1E.A.P.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Doncaster East

  E

  2,410

  3,782

  4,640

  4,814

  5,204

  5,285

  5,261

  4,854

  A

  1,471

  1,713

  2,024

  2,598

  3,000

  3,296

  3,552

  3,726

  P

  2,724

  2,789

  2,882

  2,857

  2,877

  2,917

  2,993

  3,132

  Doncaster West

  E

  2,895

  4,874

  5,808

  5,945

  6,671

  6,711

  6,969

  6,257

  A

  1,965

  2,268

  2,821

  3,073

  3,922

  4,019

  4,511

  4,731

  P

  3,511

  3,588

  3,757

  3,615

  3,600

  3,458

  3,651

  3,571

  Wath-On-Dearne

  E

  1,807

  2,806

  3,020

  3,174

  3,479

  3,747

  3,666

  3,194

  A

  1,232

  1,358

  1,613

  1,957

  2,398

  2,368

  2,554

  2,639

  P

  1,892

  1,924

  2,005

  2,041

  2,014

  1,958

  2,011

  2,046

  1 E = unemployed claimants.

  A = Claimants not required to register for work.

  P= pensioners.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the years 1980 to 1988 the number of claimants and the number of dependants and the percentage take-up of family income support for each of the two local offices in Doncaster and the local office in Wath-on-Dearne that covers Mexborough.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available on a local basis for either family income supplement (family credit since April 1988) or income support (supplementary benefit prior to April 1988).
  784
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Family credit was introduced in April 1988 as part of the reform of social security. In 1988/89 it will provide about double previous expenditure on family income supplement and free school meals and free milk. Estimated expenditure for 1988/89 is £422 million and the estimated caseload is 285,000. Average awards are at present around £25 per week. About 60 per cent of present recipients get £20 a week or more and over 35 per cent. get £30 or more. A major advertising campaign will begin in April to encourage claims from those who may not realise that they are eligible. Over and above the prices uprating, the income support and housing benefit applicable amounts for children and the family credit child credit rates have been increased by an additional 50 pence from this April. In the case of family credit, the extra provision is over and above what is required to compensate for the standstill in child benefit. The reformed structure of benefits helps alleviate the unemployment trap by aligning the assessment rules for income-related benefits. Generally, people on the same income levels are now treated equally whether they are fully employed or out or work. Furthermore, under this new system, net income increases when gross earnings increase. This eliminates the possibility that less income-related benefit can mean a lower net income when gross earnings rise.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the live load figures of supplementary benefit for(a) unemployed claimants, (b) claimants not required to register for work and (c) pensioners, for each of the two local offices in Doncaster and the local office in Wath-on-Dearne that covers Mexborough, for each of the years April 1980 to April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an estimate of the number of people who would qualify for invalid care allowance or severe disablement allowance but who have not claimed those benefits in(a) Great Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) Lothian region.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that it is not possible to provide this information. The OPCS surveys of disabled people have collected data about the incidence of different types and degrees of disability and also about receipt of benefits. They do not, however, provide enough information about
  785
  the circumstances of carers to identify with sufficient certainty the total number who would qualify for invalid care allowance if they made a claim. It should also be remembered that there has been a tenfold increase in the number of recipients of the allowance since the survey data were collected in 1985.

  The main difficulty with severe disablement allowance is in identifying clearly the number who would satisfy the primary qualifying condition of being incapable of work.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of housing benefit in 1978–79, 1979–80 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is in the table. Figures are not held for 1978–79.

  Estimated numbers receiving assistance with housing costs

  (000)

  1979–80

  3,065

  1987–88

  6,875

  Notes:

  1. Assistance with housing costs in 1979–80 was through the supplementary benefit scheme administered by the Department and the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance scheme run by the Department of Environment. The figure of 3·065 million represents the estimated number of people receiving assistance through the Department of Environment scheme only. Information about the numbers also receiving help through supplementary benefit is not available.

  2. The information for 1987–88 represents the estimated number of people receiving assistance with housing costs through the unified housing benefit scheme introduced in November 1982.

  Source: 1979–80 Local authority returns to Department of Environment.

  1987–88 Housing benefit subsidy claims from local authorities

  Children
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of Scottish children(a) in total and (b) as a percentage dependent on supplementary benefit and income support in each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information is in the table.

  Children in Scotland

  Date

  Total1

  Dependent on Supplementary Benefit2

  Percentage

  November 1978

  1,285,600

  120,000

  9·30

  November 1979

  1,254,400

  109,000

  8·71

  December 1980

  1,222,200

  119,000

  9·76

  December 1981

  1,188,400

  154,000

  12·97

  December 1982

  1,151,400

  183,000

  15·75

  December 1983

  1,132,700

  177,000

  15·52

  December 1984

  1,106,100

  195,000

  17·66

  February 1986

  1,062,200

  212,000

  20·00

  May 1987

  1,042,900

  216,000

  20·71

  1Total number of children in Scotland supplied by OPCS from mid-year population estimates.

  2 Number of children in Scotland dependent on supplementary benefit, from annual statistical inquiries.

  Social Fund
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by social fund officers to reach a decision on crisis or budgeting 786
  loans or community care grants (a) nationally, (b) in the northern region, (c) in south Tyneside, (d) in Gateshead, (e) in Newcastle, (f) in Sunderland and (g) in north Tyneside, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Average clearance time (in whole working days)

  Crisis Loans

  Budgeting Loans

  Community Care Grants

  National

  1

  7

  7

  North Eastern Region

  1

  6

  7

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1

  5

  3

  Newcastle St. James

  1

  2

  3

  Newcastle East

  1

  2

  5

  Newcastle West

  1

  2

  3

  Wallsend

  1

  5

  5

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1

  2

  3

  Jarrow

  1

  6

  7

  North Shields

  1

  13

  2

  South Shields

  1

  11

  11

  Sunderland North

  1

  8

  10

  Sunderland South

  2

  11

  10

  All figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will include in his Department's leaflet FB23, "Young People's Guide to Social Security", information about eligibility for income support in the last 11 weeks of pregnancy among 16 to 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements will be made to include this information in the leaflet.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pregnant 16 to 17-year-olds are in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects his Department to conclude its consideration of the application for attendance allowance submitted on 25 October 1988 by Mr. Andrew Purves of 21 Park road, Ormiston, East Lothian.

  Mr. Scott
  The application for attendance allowance made in October 1988 was disallowed on 10 November 1988 and Mr. Purves notified accordingly. An application for a review of that decision was received on 23 November 1988. The attendance allowance board has now completed its review and its decision will be sent within the next few days. I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Pensions, Benefits and Allowances
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the value in real terms, both in
  787
  absolute figures and as a percentage, of retirement and other state pensions and all other welfare and national insurance benefits and allowances paid in November 1979 in relation to those to be paid from April 1989; and if he will indicate the actual figure for each benefit in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that it will only be possible to carry out the comparisons requested once the April 1989 retail prices index figure is available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what income support is provided for a single dependent young person, the only child of a one-parent family, in full-time study for forthcoming A-level examinations who becomes 19 during his final months at school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support is provided for a dependent young person in full-time non-advanced education until he or she reaches age 19. As a full-time student the young person is not eligible for income support but local education authorities have discretionary powers to award educational maintenance allowances to help such young people complete their education.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost to his Department of income support for maintaining persons aged 65 years and over in private residential homes in the latest year for which statistics are available; and what was the average cost per person.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  However, in August 1988, the annual income support expenditure on people in independent residential care and nursing homes as a whole in Great Britain was estimated to be £890 million, based on an average payment of £115 per week.

  Lone Parents (Benefit)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conclusion was arrived at by the lone parents receiving benefit pilot study carried out at Leicester and Sittingbourne benefit offices which ended on 24 February; if he will list the location of the 44 benefit offices that will be involved in the national study due to commence in April 1989; and when this will be completed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The pilot study carried out at Leicester and Sittingbourne was intended to test the effectiveness of the sampling method and questionnaire proposed for the main study. As a result of the experience of the pilot the researchers are considering some minor alterations to the questionnaire. The social security offices participating in the main study are listed as follows. The final report is due in May 1990.

  North West Region

  Bury ILO

  Chester ILO

  Liverpool (Huyton) ILO

  Manchester (Failsworth) ILO

  Sale ILO

  Warrington ILO

  Scotland

  Bellshill ILO

  788

  Clydebank ILO

  Edinburgh East ILO

  Galashiels ILO

  Glasgow (Anniesland) ILO

  Greenock ILO

  Midlands

  Birmingham (South Yardley) ILO

  Boston ILO

  Derby (London Road) ILO

  Nottingham (Station Street) ILO

  Nuneaton ILO

  Worcester ILO

  London North

  High Wycombe ILO

  London (Hackney)ILO

  (Leytonstone) ILO

  (Wood Green) ILO

  Norwich (Mountergate) ILO

  Oxford AO

  Wales and South West

  Bath ILO

  Barnstaple ILO

  Cwmbran ILO

  Llanelli ILO

  Torbay ILO

  Wrexham

  London South

  Basingstoke ILO

  Brighton ILO

  Canterbury AO

  Crawley ILO

  London (Bloomsbury) ILO

  (Camberwell) ILO

  (Wandsworth) ILO

  North East

  Eston ILO

  Northallerton ILO

  Leeds North West ILO

  Peterlee ILO

  Rotherham South ILO

  Scarborough ILO

  Sheffield South East ILO

  Supplementary Benefit and Income Support
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children under 16(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of all children were living in households dependent on supplementary benefit and income support for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available figures are:

  Number of children under 16 in Great Britain

  Total

  Dependent on supplementary benefit

  Percentage

  November 1977

  13,059,400

  1,122,000

  8·59

  November 1978

  12,798,000

  1,048,000

  8·19

  November 1979

  12,575,100

  923,000

  7·34

  December 1980

  12,343,700

  1,088,000

  8·82

  December 1981

  12,098,600

  1,493,000

  12·34

  December 1982

  11,856,700

  1,721,000

  14·52

  December 1983

  11,637,400

  1,790,000

  15·38

  December 1984

  11,462,300

  1,949,000

  17·00

  1985

  No figures available

  February 1986

  11,250,700

  2,123,000

  18·87

  May 1987

  11,148,800

  2,111,000

  18·94

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many relations have claimed funeral expenses for the latest available period; and what studies he has commissioned in the use of these funds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A social fund funeral payment may be claimed by anyone responsible for the costs of a funeral. No statistics therefore exist to indicate the number of claims made by relatives. In the period April to November 1988, 28,950 payments were made. We have commissioned no studies into the use made of these payments which are made to cover the cost of simple funerals.

  Cold Weather Payment
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost of a week's cold weather payment to all those who were eligible if the capital limit was(a) raised to £6,000 and (b) abolished.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  If the capital limit were to be increased to £6,000 or abolished and all those eligible received a payment, the cost of one week's cold weather payments would be £13 million. No one with capital of more than £6,000 can qualify for income support and since this benefit acts as a passport to cold weather payments, to abolish the capital limit would admit no more people to the scheme than would raising the limit to £6,000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will take steps to ensure that information relating to applications for housing benefit transitional protection will be made available, broken down by local authority area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. The computer system at the transitional payments unit has been designed to produce information in the form requested. However, it is currently working at maximum capacity to handle the payments that are being made and to deal with the process of renewing awards of transitional payments. We expect computer time to become available to produce the information requested later this year.

  Sick Pay
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people in receipt of statutory sick pay since 1983.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of recorded payments of SSP in each year since its introduction is as follows:

  Tax year

  Number of SSP payments (million)

  1983–84

  5

  1984–85

  5·7

  1985–86

  5·9

  790

  Tax year

  Number of SSP payments (million)

  1986–87

  5·7

  1987–88

  5·8

  Note: These figures relate to employments not people. Where a person has had spells of SSP with more than one employer in a tax year, the spells with each employer will be recorded in the table. Thus the number of people receiving SSP will be less than the figures shown above.

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the occasions on which benefits have been increased in any year since 1979 by more than the rise in prices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: In November 1979, November 1980 and November 1982, when the forecast method of uprating was used. benefits were increased by more than the actual rise in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table listing each change in social security benefits in 1988–89 and those planned for 1989–90 and the expenditure and savings resulting from each change.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 17 March at columns 394–96. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House on 14 March at columns 307–08 that we propose to abolish the pensioners' earnings rule with effect from 1 October 1989. This will give more choice and flexibility for older people who want to carry on working. The estimated benefit cost will be about £190 million in 1989–90 and about £375 million in 1990–91. Additional revenue from income tax and national insurance contributions will reduce the net Exchequer cost which will be met from the reserve.

  Benefits
  Mr. John Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West on 22 February,Official Report, column 679, he will break down the real increases or decreases in expenditure for each benefit showing what amount and proportion is attributable to (a) a rise or fall in the real level of benefit, (b) a rise or fall in the numbers claiming benefit and (c) other factors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: An analysis of family support distinguishing between the effects of changes in the average amount of benefit paid and changes in numbers of beneficiaries between 1978–79 and 1988–89 is set out in the table.
  791

  Family Support 1978–79 to 1988–89

  (£ million)

  Changes in average amounts paid

  Changes in expenditure caused by numbers of beneficiaries

  Total change

  Child Benefit

  1,067

  -417

  650

  One Parent Benefit

  62

  64

  126

  FIS/Family Credit

  256

  114

  370

  Maternity Grant/Maternity Allowance

  -42

  -195

  -237

  Supplementary Allowance/Income Support and Housing Benefit1

  83

  1,525

  1,608

  Social Fund

  —

  —

  49

  Child tax allowances

  —

  —

  -1,000

  Additional personal tax allowance (lone parent)

  —

  50

  50

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  240

  Total

  —

  —

  1,856

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

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) of 26 January,Official Report, columns 709–10, if he will re-calculate the figures to show the effects of increased rents and rates on the growth of real disposable incomes defined as net incomes less housing costs between 1979 and 1986, distinguishing between (a) all pensioners and (b) pensioners mainly dependent on state benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: The increases are (a) 22 per cent. and (b) 14 per cent. respectively.

  Note: "Mainly dependent on state benefits" are those pensioners dependent on state benefits for three-quarters or more of gross income.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a table showing the rise in real household income between 1979 and 1985 for all decile groups broken down by family status in the manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, 29 July 1988,Official Report, columns 819–20;

  (2) what was the percentage rise in real household income for the average, broken down by family type, between 1979 and 1985, shown in the manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, 29 July 1988, Official Report, columns 819–20.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A table providing this information has been put in the Library. It should, however, be noted that the principal objective of the "Households Below Average Income" statistics is to measure improvements in living standards in different parts of the income-distribution for the population as a whole. The tables are not designed to measure the living standards of individual family types within each decile of the population. Although com-positional figures by family type are included in the main "Households Below Average Income" statistics, the hon. Member is advised that the information on real income increases for individual family types within each decile provided in reply to this question does not provide a meaningful guide to improved living standards.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people would gain and what would be the average gain as a result of raising the level of savings under which housing benefit is payable to £10,000 on the assumption that(a) the rules for other benefits are unaltered, (b) the interest actually received on savings and not an arbitrarily assumed return is used in assessing benefit and (c) no change is made to the rule that those with savings of under £3,000 receive benefit in full;

  (2) what would be the cost of raising the level of savings under which housing benefit is payable to £10,000 (a) in 1989–90 and (b) in a full year on the assumption that (i) the rules for other benefits are unaltered, (ii) the interest actually received on savings and not an arbitrarily assumed return is used in assessing benefit and (iii) no change is made to the rule that those with savings of under £3,000 receive benefit in full.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 February 1989]: We estimate that increasing the housing benefit capital limit from £8,000 to £10,000 would cost roughly £25 million. Generally speaking, current recipients with capital holdings between £3,000 and £6,000 would lose more as a result; those with savings between about £6,000 and £10,000 would gain. An additional, 45,000 people who do not currently qualify would become entitled to benefit of, on average, £10 a week.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to the reply 1 March 1989, columns 243–244]: I regret that the reply given has been found to contain an error. The amended figures are as follows:

  Information in the form required is not available because records are held on a combined basis with the Department of Health.

  Information for both Departments is given in the following table:
  793

  Female staff

  1Ethnic minorities staff

  Total staff

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Numbers

  Per cent.

  Grades 1 to 7

  1,773

  320

  18·0

  62

  3·5

  SEO and HEO

  6,885

  2,195

  31·8

  63

  0·9

  EO

  23,245

  13,543

  58·2

  534

  2·3

  AO and below

  61,749

  46,221

  74·8

  2,752

  4·4

  Others

  2,752

  676

  24·6

  75

  2·7

  Total

  96,404

  62,955

  65·3

  3,486

  3·6

  1Ethnic minorities figures are based on questionnaires voluntarily completed by staff. (75 per cent. response rate to date).

EMPLOYMENT

  Holidays (ABTA)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what percentage of 1988 holidays booked in the United Kingdom were booked through official ABTA travel agents.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available.

  Inflation
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each quarter since the first quarter of 1979 Britain's inflation rate as a percentage of the G7 average.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the inflation rate for the United Kingdom and the G7 average since the first quarter of 1979:

  Annual Rate of Inflation

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  OECD G7

  1979

  Q1

  9·6

  7·9

  Q2

  10·6

  8·7

  Q3

  16·0

  9·7

  Q4

  17·3

  10·8

  1980

  Q1

  19·1

  12·5

  Q2

  21·5

  12·9

  Q3

  16·4

  12·0

  Q4

  15·3

  11·7

  1981

  Q1

  12·7

  10·6

  Q2

  11·7

  9·7

  Q3

  11·2

  10·2

  Q4

  11·9

  9·7

  1982

  Q1

  11·1

  8·4

  Q2

  9·4

  7·5

  Q3

  8·0

  6·7

  Q4

  6·2

  5·6

  1983

  Q1

  4·9

  4·9

  Q2

  3·8

  4·6

  Q3

  4·6

  4·0

  Q4

  5·0

  4·3

  1984

  Q1

  5·2

  4·9

  Q2

  5·2

  4·6

  Q3

  4·7

  4·3

  Q4

  4·8

  4·2

  1985

  794

  United Kingdom

  OECD G7

  Q1

  5·5

  3·9

  Q2

  7·0

  4·2

  Q3

  6·3

  3·8

  Q4

  5·5

  3·6

  1986

  Q1

  4·9

  3·0

  Q2

  2·8

  1·7

  Q3

  2·6

  1·6

  Q4

  3·4

  1·3

  1987

  Q1

  3·9

  1·8

  Q2

  4·2

  2·9

  Q3

  4·3

  3·1

  Q4

  4·1

  3·4

  1988

  Q1

  3·4

  3·0

  Q2

  4·2

  3·0

  Q3

  5·5

  3·2

  Q4

  6·6

  3·5

  Training
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what Government spending has been per head of the labour force on training in the north-west in each of the last three years; and what was the national average in each of those years.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is shown in the Training Commission (formerly Manpower Services Commission) annual report in the House of Commons Library.

  The figures are available only for the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88. The figures for 1986–87 include expenditure by the employment and enterprise group, most of which was transferred to the Department of Employment on 26 October 1988 and now forms part of the employment service.

  The expenditure per head of the labour force was as follows:

  North-West

  National

  £

  £

  1986–87

  131

  107

  1987–88

  126

  102·5

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of youth unemployment in the north-west in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants aged 16 to 24 years in the north-west for each January from 1987 to 1989 together with the percentage
  795
  change in each year. The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over recording and by the change in coverage from September 1988 due to the introduction of new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18.

  Unemployed claimants aged 16–24—North West

  Total

  Percentage change over 12 months

  January 1987

  157,837

  -10·0

  January 1988

  128,998

  -18·3

  January 1989

  92,951

  -27·9

  Dock Workers
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered dock workers have been recruited in the last 12 months by each of the dock labour scheme ports in Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 76 registered dock workers were directly recruited by scheme ports during the whole of 1988, the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many dockers were employed by each of the dock labour scheme ports in 1979; and how many are currently employed in these ports.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of registered dock workers employed by each of the dock labour scheme ports in December 1979 and March 1989 according to National Dock Labour Board lists are as follows:

  1979 Port/Area

  December 1979

  Newcastle

  62

  Dunston

  —

  North Shields

  73

  South Shields

  66

  Blyth

  41

  Sunderland

  56

  Seaham

  16

  Middlesbrough

  737

  Hartlepool

  102

  Hull

  1,515

  Goole

  275

  Grimsby and Immingham

  777

  Boston

  124

  Wisbech

  21

  King's Lynn

  83

  Yarmouth

  82

  Lowestoft

  26

  Ipswich

  131

  London

  5,197

  Medway and Swale

  631

  Southampton

  1,719

  Poole

  83

  Weymouth

  38

  Plymouth

  59

  Cornwall

  138

  Bristol

  1,059

  Sharpness

  91

  Gloucester

  9

  Newport

  265

  Cardiff

  296

  Barry

  128

  Port Talbot

  60

  Swansea

  202

  Liverpool and Birkenhead

  4,385

  Bromborough

  26

  Garston

  149

  Salford

  510

  Partington

  13

  Ellesmere Port

  118

  796

  1979 Port/Area

  December 1979

  Runcorn

  118

  Western Point

  71

  Preston

  127

  Fleetwood

  87

  Cumbria

  45

  Ayrshire

  62

  Greenock

  144

  Glasgow

  350

  Aberdeen

  116

  Dundee

  107

  Fife

  51

  Grangemouth Leith

  312 191

  Total

  21,144

  1989 Port/Area

  March 1989

  Newcastle

  10

  North Shields

  53

  South Shields

  53

  Blyth

  52

  Sunderland

  31

  Seaham

  16

  Middlesbrough

  488

  Hartlepool

  73

  Hull

  680

  Goole

  165

  Immingham/Grimsby

  720

  Boston

  87

  Wisbech

  12

  King's Lynn

  53

  Yarmouth

  100

  Lowestoft

  30

  Ipswich

  120

  London:

  Surrey

  75

  Tilbury and Northfleet

  1,429

  Royal

  88

  India and Millwall

  11

  Lighterage

  142

  Rochester

  184

  Sittingbourne

  29

  Sheerness

  372

  Southampton

  679

  Poole

  97

  Weymouth

  11

  Plymouth

  30

  Fowey

  44

  Par

  28

  Charlestown

  2

  Falmouth

  7

  Penzance

  8

  Bristol

  484

  Sharpness

  47

  Newport

  204

  Cardiff

  167

  Barry

  65

  Port Talbot

  44

  Swansea

  98

  Liverpool and Birkenhead

  1,297

  Garston

  110

  Salford

  21

  Ellesmere Port

  91

  Runcorn

  33

  Weston Point

  17

  Fleetwood

  44

  Whitehaven

  16

  Workington

  16

  Silloth

  3

  Barrow

  8

  Ayr

  16

  Ardrossan

  15

  Hunterston

  18

  Greenock

  49

  Glasgow

  60

  Aberdeen

  175

  797

  1989 Port/Area

  March 1989

  Dundee

  96

  Methil and Kirkcaldy

  23

  Burntisland

  9

  Grangemouth

  131

  Leith

  102

  Total

  9,438

  Note: National Dock Labour Board lists for 1979 and 1989 use different grouping of dock areas.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors have been employed in the Health and Safety Executive for monitoring pesticide usage on farms in each of the last eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectors monitor pesticide usage on farms concurrently with their other inspection duties. Since 1981, the number of inspectors employed in Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate's field force based in area offices is as follows:

  1 April

  Numbers

  1981

  166

  1982

  156

  1983

  149

  1984

  144

  1985

  150

  1986

  150

  1987

  151

  1988

  139

  19891

  142

  1 At 1 March.

  In addition, at 1 March 1989 there were 13 inspectors employed in the agricultural inspectorate headquarters. The executive's objective is to increase numbers in the agricultural inspectorate to 165 inspectors as soon as possible.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many farms have been visited in each of the last eight years by the Health and Safety Executive to monitor pesticide usage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not separately recorded. However, during the course of their visits to farms, Health and Safety Executive inspectors examine all aspects of health and safety including, where appropriate, pesticide usage.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all(a) employer organisations and (b) other organisations which in response to the Government's consultative document issued on 5 December 1988 have indicated (i) that they oppose the abolition of the wages councils, and (ii) that they favour this action.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not this Department's practice to reveal the content of submissions made by individual organisations. With that exception the information requested is as follows:
  798
  ORGANISATIONS RESPONDING TO CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON WAGES COUNCILS

  (a) Employer Organisations

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  The Association of British Laundry, Cleaning and Rental Services Ltd.

  Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd.

  Association of Independent Businesses

  The Booksellers Association

  The Brewers Society

  The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions

  British Association of Professional Hairdressing Employers

  British Clothing Industries Association

  British Hat Guild

  British Headwear Industries Federation

  The British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association

  British Independent Grocers Association

  British Lace Federation

  British Office Systems and Stationery Federation

  British Retailers Association

  The British Scrap Federation

  The British Secondary Metals Association

  British Soft Drinks Association Ltd.

  British Textile Employers' Association

  British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association

  The British Waste Paper Association

  The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association

  Clothing Manufacturers Federation

  Confederation of British Industry

  Co-operative Laundries Society Limited

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Cordage Manufacturers Institute

  Drapers Chamber of Trade

  The Employers Association of the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods Wages Council

  Federation of Bakers

  Federation of Merchant Tailors

  Food and Drink Federation

  Forum of Private Business

  The Guild of Hairdressers

  Independent Footwear Retailers Association

  Independent Footwear Retailers Association—Midland Region

  Institute of Directors

  Made-Up Textiles Association

  Mail Order Traders Association

  National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers

  National Association of Multiple Shoe Repairers

  National Chamber of Trade

  National Federation of Fish Friers Limited

  National Federation of Fishmongers Ltd.

  National Federation of Meat Traders

  National Federation of Retail Newsagents

  National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.

  National Hairdressers' Federation

  National Hairdressers' Federation—Devon Branch

  National Hairdressers' Federation—East of Scotland

  National Hairdressers' Federation—Edinburgh Branch

  National Hairdressers' Federation—Fife Branch

  National Hairdressers' Federation—Kilmarnock and District Branch

  National Hairdressers' Federation—Lanarkshire Branch

  National Licensed Victuallers Association

  Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association Ltd.

  The Reclamation Association

  Scottish Association of Master Bakers

  Scottish Grocers' Federation

  The Scottish Licensed Trade Association

  Society of Master Shoe Repairers

  Soho Restaurateurs Association

  Union of Independent Companies

  United Kingdom Jute Goods Association Ltd.

  The Wiping Cloth Manufacturers Association

  Voluntary Group Association

  Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd.

  (b) Other Organisations

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  799

  Adam Smith Institute

  Aekta Project

  Amalgamated Engineering Union

  Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff

  Barnoldswick Women's Group

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Barton Hill Rights and Advice Centre

  Belgrave Baheno

  Birmingham City Council

  Diocese of Coventry

  Diocese of Durham

  Diocese of Kingston

  Diocese of Knaresborough

  Diocese of Manchester

  Diocese of Ripon

  Diocese of Wakefield

  Blythe Neighbourhood Council

  Borough of Camden—Libraries and Arts Department's Community Information Service

  Borough of Greenwich—Women's Committee

  British Institute of Management

  Bromsgrove and District Trades Council

  Bury South Constituency Labour Party

  Camden Community Law Centre

  Camden Tribunal and Rights Unit

  Campaign Against Poverty

  Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless

  Cardiff Justice and Peace Group

  Cardiff Unemployed Group

  Central Area Basic Skills Unit

  Centre for Policy Studies

  Cheshire County Council

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Church Action on Poverty

  Church Poverty Action Group—Merseyside Branch

  Citizens' Advice Bureau—Chelsea Town Hall

  Citizens' Advice Bureau—Leicester

  Citizens Rights Office

  City of Bristol—Employment and Community Development Committee

  City of Glasgow

  City of Lincoln

  City of Newcastle upon Tyne

  City of Norwich

  City of Salford

  City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Civil and Public Servants Association

  Community and Race Relations Unit—British Council of Churches

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Cumbria Association of Trades Councils

  Derbyshire County Council

  Diocese of Manchester—Board for Social Responsibility

  Diocese of Plymouth—Justice & Peace Commission

  Dudley Metropolitan Council

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Federation of Managerial Professional and General Associations

  Firth Park Advice Centre

  Furniture Timber and Allied Trades Union

  Gateshead Law Centre

  General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union

  General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union —Midlands and East Coast Region

  General Synod of the Church of England—Board for Social Responsibility

  Greater Manchester Church Action on Poverty

  Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary Service

  Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit

  Great Grimsby Borough Council

  Greenwich Community Law Centre

  Greenwich Homeworkers Project

  Hackney Council

  Hackney Trades Council and Hackney Trade Union Support Unit

  Hitslink

  Hounslow Community Relations Council

  Hounslow Workers Support Unit and Centre for the Unemployed

  Hull and District TUC Women's Committee

  Hull City Council

  800

  Hull Employment Law Project

  Indian Workers Association (GB)—Leicester Branch

  Industrial Society

  The Institute of Economic Affairs

  Institute of Economic Development Officers

  Institute of Personnel Management

  Jamaica Community Service Group

  Job Change Project

  Kendal and District Trades Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Labour Party—Gorton South Branch

  Lambeth Trade Union Resource Centre

  Lancashire County Council

  Leeds City Council

  Leeds City Council—Women's Committee

  Leeds Claimants Union

  Leeds Industrial Mission

  Leicester City Council

  Leicester Rights Centre

  Leicestershire County Council—Welfare Rights Unit

  Lockleaze Community Advice Centre

  London Borough of Camden

  London Borough of Greenwich

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Southwark—Employment Development Division

  London Churches Group—Employment Development Unit

  London Steering Group Against Low Pay

  London Voluntary Service Council

  Low Pay Unit

  Northern Low Pay Unit

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Council for Voluntary Service

  Metropolitan Borough of Bury

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale

  Metropolitan Borough of Stockport

  National Council of Women in GB

  National Group on Homeworking

  National Local Government Officers' Association—Grimsby Branch

  National Local Government Officers' Association—Kirklees Metropolitan Branch

  National Local Government Officers' Association—North Eastern District

  National Local Government Officers' Association— Stockport Branch

  National Local Government Officers' Association—South Tyneside Branch

  National Union of Civil & Public Servants

  National Union of Public Employees

  National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers

  Newcastle Central Labour Party Women's Council

  Newcastle upon Tyne—Council for Voluntary Service

  North Humberside Industrial Chaplaincy

  North Tyneside Advice and Information Network

  North Tyneside Council

  Northumbrian Industrial Mission

  Norwich and District Citizens' Advice Bureau

  Oxford Child Poverty Action Group

  Oxford Diocesan Board of Social Responsibility

  Piccadilly Advice Centre

  Plumstead Community Law Centre Ltd.

  Prestatyn Town Council

  Quaker Social Responsibility and Education

  Retail Book Stationery and Allied Trades—Employees' Association

  Rhyl Town Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Council

  Roehampton Citizens' Advice Bureau

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

  The Salvation Army

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Scottish Low Pay Unit

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Scottish Women's Aid

  Shama—Women's Centre

  Sheffield Industrial Mission

  Sheffield Information Service

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  The Spastics Society

  801

  Stirling Council—Women's Group

  Stockport Trades Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough

  Thamesdown Law Centre

  Tooting and Balham Law Centre Ltd.

  Tower Hamlets Law Centre

  Trades Union Congress

  Trades Union Congress—West Midlands Regional Council

  Transport and General Workers' Union

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— Cheltenham Private Trade Branch

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— Cumbrian Co-op F20

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— Leeds Private Trade Branch

  Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers— (North Eastern Division)

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— West End One Branch

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (Yorkshire Regional Branch)

  United Road Transport Union

  West Midlands Low Pay Unit

  West Yorkshire Low Pay Unit

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Women For Change

  York City Council

  Wages (Illegal Underpayment)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to investigate allegations made by the BBC "Watchdog" programme that named employers were paying illegally low rates of pay to employees and falsifying accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The wages inspectorate is examining the allegations made in the programme.

  The inspectorate treats all of its inquiries and investigations as confidential and the results are disclosed only to those directly involved.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the characteristics of the two cases of underpayment in the Yorkshire and Humberside area which were prosecuted, and on the action taken over the 629 cases of underpayment not prosecuted.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The cases met the wages inspectorate's criteria for prosecution action. The policy of the inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance by advice and persuasion and to consider prosecution only where an offence is deliberate or repeated and where the evidence is considered adequate to prove a charge in court.

  In the great majority of cases where underpayments are found, the employers are being inspected for the first time and many of them are unaware of the regulations. In these and other circumstances where underpayment occurs, the employer is notified of his obligations and asked to give an undertaking to pay not less than the statutory minimum rate in the future. Where the inspectorate has reason to believe that the underpayment may continue, the establishment is identified for re-inspection.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) since the increase in the maximum number of weeks' suspension of unemployment benefit 802
  from 13 weeks to 26 weeks, how many claims for unemployment benefit have been received at Stockton unemployment benefit office; in how many of these cases benefit has been suspended; in how many of these cases the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied by the adjudication officer; in cases where the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been applied, in how many cases the length of the suspension has been reduced on review of the case; and in how many of the cases where the 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied, the suspension has been reduced on appeal;

  (2) since the increase in the maximum number of weeks' suspension of unemployment benefit from 13 weeks to 26 weeks, how many claims for unemployment benefit have been received at Billingham unemployment benefit office; in how many of these cases benefit has been suspended; in how many of these cases the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied by the adjudication officer; in cases where the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been applied, in how many cases the length of the suspension has been reduced on review of the case; and in how many of the cases where the 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied, the suspension has been reduced on appeal;

  (3) since the increase in the maximum number of weeks' suspension of unemployment benefit from 13 weeks to 26 weeks, how many claims for unemployment benefit have been received nationally; in how many of these cases benefit has been suspended; in how many of these cases the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied by the adjudication officer; in cases where the maximum 26 weeks' suspension has been applied, in how many cases the length of the suspension has been reduced on review of the case; and in how many of the cases where the 26 weeks' suspension has been initially applied, the suspension has been reduced on appeal,

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows, for the period April 1988 to December 1988, the number of claims for unemployment benefit that were received for the locations requested and for the country as a whole.

  Information is not available on how many of these claims were disqualified by the adjudication officer, nor on the numbers where the maximum period of disqualification had been imposed or reduced on review or appeal.

  Number of claims taken for period April 1988 to December 1988.

  Locations

  Number

  Stockton

  10,312

  Billingham

  3,361

  National

  2,938,226

  Sikhs
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the freedom of Sikhs to wear their turbans in all work circumstances.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission issued a consultative document in December 1986 containing proposals for regulations to require construction workers to wear head protection. The commission has received a large number of representations in response to the document, both on the proposals as a whole and on their implications for the Sikh community. My colleagues and I have also received letters on the subject.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce the results of the review of the rates of allowance payable under the job release scheme and the part-time job release scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Although the job release scheme closed on 31 January 1988, the allowances will continue to be paid to participants for up to five years. Following our annual review, the allowances payable from 10 April 1989 under the job release schemes will be as follows:

  Full-time scheme

  For disabled men who entered the Scheme aged 60, 61, 62, and 63

  those who are married with a dependent wife whose net income from all sources does not exceed £14 a week: £79·25 a week, taxable;

  those who do not have a dependent wife or whose wife's income exceeds £14 a week: £62·25 a week, taxable. For women who entered the scheme aged 59 and men who entered the scheme aged 64:

  those who are married with a dependent spouse whose net income from all sources does not exceed £14 a week: £73·75, tax free;

  those who are married or whose spouses' income exceeds £14 a week: £58·85 a week, tax free.

  Part-time scheme

  The part-time job release scheme closed on 30 May 1986. The new rates of allowance for those still remaining on the scheme will be as follows:

  For disabled men who entered the part-time scheme aged 60, and 61 and men who entered the scheme aged 62 and 63:

  those who are married with a dependent wife whose net income does not exceed £14 a week: £4695 a week, taxable;

  those who do not have a dependent wife or whose wife's income exceeds £14 a week: £39.10 a week taxable.

  Earnings Limit

  The spouses earnings limit which affects whether the higher or lower rate is paid has been raised from £13 to £14 and the participants earnings limit has been raised from £4 to £5.

  Community Insulation Projects
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information his Department has about the number of community insulation projects which were operating in September 1988 and in February of the current year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 March 1989]: Although the total number of community insulation projects at those two dates is not known, most community insulation projects are registered with Neighbourhood Energy Action. I understand that 444 projects were registered in September 1988 and 260 in February 1989.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of(a) factory and (b) agricultural inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive; how many of these are field inspectors; and how many of these inspectors were employed in each of the inspectorate grades.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: On 1 March 1989, 608·5 factory and 165 agricultural inspectors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. Of these, 532·5 factory and 142 agricultural inspectors were employed in the Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorate division's field force based in area offices.
  804
  The breakdown by grade of factory and agricultural inspectors employed in HSE is as follows:

  Number

  (of which in the field force)

  (i) Factory Inspectors

  Chief inspector

  1·0

  (—)

  Deputy chief inspector

  4·0

  (—)

  Senior area director

  4·0

  (2·0)

  Area director

  17·0

  (17·0)

  Superintending inspector

  3·0

  (—)

  Deputy superintending inspector

  38·0

  (24·0)

  Inspector 1A

  163·5

  (124·5)

  Inspector 1B

  275·0

  (262·0)

  Inspector II

  103·0

  (103·0)

  Total

  608·5

  (532·5)

  (ii) Agricultural inspectors

  Chief inspector

  1·0

  (—)

  Deputy chief inspector

  2·0

  (—)

  Deputy superintending inspector

  3·0

  (3·0)

  Principal inspector 1

  7·0

  (6·0)

  Principal inspector

  29·0

  (24·0)

  Inspector

  98·0

  (84·0)

  Assistant inspector

  25·0

  (25·0)

  Total

  165·0

  (142·0)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jeremy Bamber
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision by the Court of Appeal to refuse leave to appeal to Jeremy Bamber in respect of his conviction on five counts of murder, he will now make a statement about the conduct of police investigations in this case.

  Mr. Hurd
  After Mr. Bamber's conviction on 28 October 1986, I asked the then chief constable of Essex, Mr. Robert Bunyard, to submit to me an urgent report on the conduct of the investigation of this case by his force. That report acknowledged that mistakes had been made in the early stages of this investigation and made proposals designed to prevent any recurrence. At my request, Sir Richard Barratt, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, discussed with Mr. Bunyard the issues raised in that report and then, in a separate review, sought to identify lessons from this case which might be applied to the police service generally.

  It is clear that errors were made in the early stages of the police investigation contrary to existing force practice.

  First, the senior investigating officer having assessed the scene of the crime and considered the information provided by Jeremy Bamber, wrongly concluded that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life after shooting her parents and her twin sons. In consequence of this error of judgment, he did not follow normal procedures of potential murder cases and was reluctant to take account of information which challenged his original assessment.

  Secondly, there was inadequate supervision of the senior investigating officer to ensure that the existing force practices were observed and that inquiries took account of the information coming to light.

  It is clear that prompt and effective action to remedy these shortcomings was taken once the chief constable and senior officers were made aware of the misgivings which

  805
  relatives of the Bamber family expressed. Proper procedures were then implemented and they produced the evidence which was then presented to the jury.

  I have today placed in the Library a list of the 18 substantive recommendations made by Sir Richard for adoption throughout the police service. They are designed to reinforce standard procedures and ensure proper management supervision to minimise the risk of prejudicing the outcome of a major inquiry.

  The recommendations do not call for radical changes in police procedures, rather they clarify and confirm existing good practice so that it is consistently followed.

  The recommendations have been forwarded to the Association of Chief Police Officers for their consideration and implementation as necessary.

  Law and Order Services (Spending)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision on new arrangements for controlling capital expenditure on the law and order services.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Government's proposals for law and order services were set out in the consultation document "Capital Expenditure and Finance for Home Office Services" issued on 28 October 1988. I remain of the view that capital spending on the police, probation and magistrates courts services should generally be subject to the capital control system applicable to all local authorities proposed in the Local Government and Housing Bill now before the House.

  To meet concerns about the risk of credit approvals being vired away from law and order services, thus jeopardising their capital programmes, I intend, at least initially, that credit approvals should be issued in the form of supplementary credit approvals thereby hypothecating them to those services. I do not intend to recover the specific grant element contained in receipts generated by these services, but to protect the national taxpayer's investment I propose to provide that the reserved part of such receipts should be 75 per cent. I shall also ensure that our support for capital projects is based upon Government priorities and policies through the continuation of a system of project approvals to which payment of grant would be linked. Authorities would be free to spend available resources on projects which do not secure a place in the approved programme but such spending would not attract capital grant.

  I am satisfied that the arrangements I propose for law and order services will meet the objectives of the new local authority capital finance system and that authorities will be able to maintain sufficient levels of capital expenditure on those services, while exercising a strict control on Exchequer support in the form of capital grants.

  Metropolitan Police Manpower
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will authorise increases in Metropolitan police manpower for 1989–90.

  Mr. Hurd
  Under the four-year programme of police manpower increases announced in May 1986, I said that I would be prepared to authorise annual increases in Metropolitan police manpower of up to 300 in the police establishment and 150 in the civil staff ceiling, subject to my being satisfied that earlier increases had been properly 806
  used. In the first three years of the programme I authorised increases totalling 900 in the police establishment, and 450 in the civil staff ceiling.

  Having reviewed the use to which Metropolitan police manpower has been put over the past year, I am satisfied with the progress which has been made. During 1988, almost 600 additional officers were posted to the areas and divisions of the Metropolitan police; the number of man days on foot patrols rose by 16 per cent.; recorded crime reduced and clear-up rates rose. 134 posts were civilianised during the year.

  I have therefore decided to authorise the final increases of 300 officers and 150 civil staff, plus the 100 extra civil staff which I announced in the autumn. Of the 250 civil staff, 200 will be used for civilianisation. This will bring the Metropolitan police establishment to the record level of 28,415 as from 1 April 1989.

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South,Official Report, 27 January, columns 769–70, how the inspections by his Department's health and safety officers are validated; and if there are any prison inspections by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Inspections carried out by Home Office health and safety officers are validated by random inspections undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive. These random inspections include prison service establishments.

  Formal hygiene inspections of prisons carried out by Home Office health and safety officers are also subject to random, unannounced validation inspections by an environmental health officer from the Department of Health.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires there have been in prisons in the last ten years; who is responsible for fire precautions in prisons; and who validates the inspections that take place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1988, 2,829 fires were reported in penal establishments. Many of these would have been small fires (for example, a lighted rag or newspaper thrown out of a cell windows, and quickly extinguished by prison staff.

  The responsibility for fire precautions in each establishment rests with the governor, who nominates a fire officer from among his staff to be responsible to him for all fire safety matters. Governors and fire officers are encouraged to maintain close contact with their local fire brigade.

  The responsibility for implementing recommendations resulting from fire prevention surveys conducted by local brigades rests with prison service line management, ie, governors, supported by regional directors and ultimately by headquarters, where the advice of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate is available if any question arises as to the validity of a particular recommendation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South on 27 January.Official Report, column 769–70, how many validating prison

  807
  inspections by environmental health officers from the Department of Health were carried out in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1 April 1988, 12 validation inspections have been carried out at prison service establishments by an environmental health officer of the Department of Health.

  Food Poisoning (Prisons)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 27 January,Official Report, column 769–70, on how many occasions local authority environmental health officers have been called in to prisons to provide assistance and expertise in tracing the source of food poisoning; and to which prisons they were called.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since 1984, local authority environmental health officers have been called in to prison service establishments on seven occasions to provide assistance and expertise in tracing the source of food poisoning.

  The establishments involved were:

  1984—Her Majesty's Prison, Leeds

  1985—Her Majesty's Prison, Leeds

  1987—Her Majesty's Prison, Wakefield

  1988—Her Majesty's Prison, Cardiff

  Her Majesty's Prison, Rudgate

  Her Majesty's Prison, Lincoln

  1989—Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institute,

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, 27 January,Official Report, column 769–70, he will consider requesting the help of local authority environmental health officers in order to prevent food poisoning outbreaks as well as to investigate them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are satisfied that formal hygiene inspections of prison catering facilities by Home Office health and safety officers and Home Office supply and transport catering branch are of a standard comparable to those carried out by local authority environmental health officers. Home Office inspectors have considerable knowledge and experience of food hygiene problems associated with large scale catering operations. Their standards are monitored by random validation inspections undertaken by an environmental health officer from the Department of Health.

  Prison governors and medical officers have authority to invite local authority environmental health officers to visit their establishment in an informal advisory capacity should they consider this appropriate.

  There are no plans to change existing arrangements at present.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the speed at which entry clearance cases are now being dealt with when referred to his Department.

  Mr. Renton
  Entry clearance applications may be referred to the immigration and nationality department 808
  either for further inquiries to enable the entry clearance officer to reach a decision or for the department to take a decision. In all cases, applications are dealt with as promptly as possible although the need to make inquiries and the volume of work arising from these and on other applications to the Home Office are unavoidable sources of delay. Accordingly, remedies have to be sought not only in respect of entry clearance cases themselves but also in reducing nugatory work wherever possible elsewhere in the control system in order to free resources to be applied to what work remains. Against that background, the following measures are in train or have been taken.

  Many referred entry clearance applications require the sponsors in the United Kingdom to be interviewed. These interviews are carried out by the immigration service and, depending on seasonal commitments at the ports, have been subject to delay. Arrangements are now in hand to streamline the handling of interview requirements to smooth out delays so far as practicable by securing a better balance between interview requests to the immigration service and their available manpower. The objective remains of carrying out interviews within three months of receipt of papers in the United Kingdom.

  We are also introducing on a phased basis arrangements giving entry clearance officers abroad greater delegated authority to decide entry clearance applications locally. We expect that these new arrangements will be fully in place by January 1990 and will make an important contribution to expediting decisions.

  More generally, the Government have taken a number of steps to seek to improve the time taken to process all applications handled by the Department. We introduced immigration rules changes in February 1988 to reduce the amount of nugatory work carried out by the Department and to free resources for resolving essential applications. Wider advertising, improved procedures and the recruitment of part-timers have helped the staffing situation considerably in recent months. Since 1988, a net additional total of 136 staff has been recruited. We are also introducing wherever possible improved working procedures to ensure that applications are processed as promptly as possible.

  We believe that, taken together, these initiatives in the United Kingdom and abroad will significantly improve the overall quality of service including directly or indirectly to entry clearance applicants. Their effect will be kept under review.

  Policing (North Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the chief constables of Wales to discuss the manning levels of the police forces of the constabularies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend visited South Wales constabulary on 30 January and plans to visit Dyfed-Powys police later in the year. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State visited North Wales police on 1 February. There were and will be opportunities to discuss police manpower on these and other occasions.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit North Wales police headquarters, Colwyn Bay, to discuss with the chief
  809
  constable and the police committee police manning levels and the crime rates peculiar to north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the North Wales police. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State visited the force on 1 February. Since the Government took office 51 extra police posts have been approved for North Wales. The police authority has applied for a further 10 posts in 1990–91. This will be considered. It is encouraging to see that recorded crime in north Wales fell by 6 per cent. in 1988.

  Football Attendances
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of arrests at each Football League ground for the current season to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most up-to-date figures available are those given in the reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 10 January at column 492, as corrected for division 4 in the reply to a question from the hon. Member on 2 February at column 389.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any plans to open any new prisons(a) in the north-west and (b) in the Warrington area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  One new prison (Lancaster Farms) is currently under construction in the north-west and three (Kirkham, Rochdale, and Fazakerley) are subject to discussion with relevant planning authorities. There are no plans at present to open a new prison in the Warrington area.

  Mr. Ghulam Mohammed Ismail Tinwala
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to take a decision on the application made at the post in Bombay by Mr. Ghulam Mohammed Ismail Tinwala, date of birth 19 November 1932, to settle in the United Kingdom; and when Mr. Tinwala's application was referred to him.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Ghulam Mohammed Ismail Tinwala was interviewed by the entry clearance officer in Bombay on 16 February 1989 and his application was referred to the immigration and nationality department on 20 February. First examination of the application indicates that further information is required from Mr. Tinwala's accountant in the United Kingdom to enable the Department to reach a decision on this case. Once this information is made available the Department will then decide the application without delay. Mr. Tinwala will be notified of the decision direct by the entry clearance officer in Bombay.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he proposes to undertake to ensure that any regulations made in terms of rule 14 of schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, go as far as possible to facilitate the success of applications on 810
  behalf of children who have suffered physical or sexual abuse and whose parents are either unwilling or unable to act on their behalf; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has drafted regulations using his power under rule 14 of schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to prescribe circumstances and method by which one person may act for another in relation to a claim for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and to prescribe the powers of the board to manage the payment and investments of awards to persons below the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The rules provided for in paragraph 14 of schedule 7 to the Act have not yet been drafted. We shall consult the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and its council and tribunals about the terms of the rules.

  Under the present scheme the board will consider applications on behalf of a minor made by a parent or any other person exercising parental rights, including a local authority or by the Official Solicitor or, in Scotland, a judicial factor appointed by a court. We do not propose to adopt narrower arrangements under the rules and are willing to consider any suggestions about the scope of the rules on this point.

  Child Abuse
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the number of children who have received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical or psychological injuries suffered in cases of physical or sexual abuse in each of the past seven years; what was the range of sums awarded in compensation; and what was the average amount awarded to children following such cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not at present collate separately details of claims or awards relating to children, but plans to record from 1 April the number of applications which are based on alleged physical or sexual abuse of children.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the proposed exemption of BSB from the Council of Europe convention and to the decision taken at the meeting of EEC Ministers on 13 March, permitting member states to exempt national broadcasting channels with no overspill into other territories from the directive's provisions on the insertion and amount of advertising, he will establish a uniform set of controls for all United Kingdom broadcasters.

  Mr. Renton
  The Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television does not apply to British Satellite Broadcasting, since BSB is not involved in broadcasting across frontiers. Nonetheless, BSB will have to comply with the IBA's rules on advertising. As to the control of broadcast advertising in the longer term, this is a matter which we shall be considering in the light of responses to the White Paper on broadcasting.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations have been received by his Department from television companies, in response to the White Paper on the future of broadcasting;
  811
  (2) how many representations have been received from television companies concerning the future of regional television with regard to the White Paper on broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  We have so far received nearly 3,000 responses, and a few late ones are still coming in. We have it in mind in due course to place in the Library a list of the main organisations which have responded. The proposals in the White Paper that regional Channel 3 franchises should be required to show regional programming including programmes produced in the region, and that the Independent Television Commission should be responsible for deciding on the geographical division of Channel 3, have been generally welcomed.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendation contained in the recent report from the Home Affairs Select Committee on the forensic science service that his Department should work with the Departments of Health and Education and Science to secure the long-term future of the forensic pathology profession.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall be dealing with this recommendation, together with the others made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in their report on the forensic science service, in the response which we shall be making to the recommendations of the report.

  Police Chases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and in which police authorities(a) innocent bystanders, (b) offenders and (c) police officers have been killed as a result of vehicle chases involving the police in the last year, and in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information for 1987 is contained in the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for that year, a copy of which is in the Library. The information requested for earlier years is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Guidelines
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has reversed the decisions of the immigration officers under the terms of the new immigration guidelines concerning representations by hon. Members.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to questions from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 March at columns 230–31.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the new immigration rules.

  Mr. Renton
  We hope to do so in the next few months.

  Safer Cities Scheme
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend the safer cities scheme beyond the 14 cities now designated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  Twenty safer cities projects will be established by April 1991. Twelve areas have agreed to take part in the programme, two are currently considering invitations, two more will be approached shortly and four others will be invited in 1990–91.

  Drugs and Arms (Imports)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to maintain controls to prevent the importation of illegal drugs and arms into the United Kingdom in the light of proposals from the European Community Commission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend gave an account of his thinking on these and other points in the explanatory memorandum, dated 6 February, on the Commission's communication to the Council (10412/88 (COM)(88) 640) on the abolition of controls of persons at intra-Community borders. Copies of the memorandum are available from the Vote Office.

  Crime Figures
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for the Metropolitan police district.

  Mr. Patten
  The information requested is published in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89, a copy of which is in the Library. More detailed figures for each borough in the Metropolitan police district are also available in the Library.

  Immigrant Detainees
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to transfer detainees from Latchmere house to Haslar in Gosport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 13 March at column 9.

  Community Volunteer
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the formation of community volunteers schemes.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will estimate the annual cost of running the proposed community volunteer schemes.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the field of crime prevention the Government have not formulated any proposals for community volunteer schemes. Members of the public are already contributing directly to crime prevention schemes by joining neighbourhood watch or crime prevention panels. We encourage those wishing to give more active support to the police to join the special constabulary.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted criminals will be prevented from travelling abroad as a result of part II of the Football Spectators Bill; and how he calculates the figure.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Part II of the Bill enables a court to make a restriction order requiring someone convicted of a football-related offence to report to an agency here on the occasion of designated matches played outside England and Wales. No order may be made unless the court is satisfied that it would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with such matches. The number of people affected will depend on how the courts exercise their powers.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reported(a) violent crimes and (b) other crimes in Knowsley borough for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published annually in the report of the chief constable of the Merseyside police.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present prison remand population for England and Wales; how many of those remand prisoners belong to an ethnic minority group; and what percentage of those remand prisoners who belong to an ethnic minority are charged with an offence that involves violence, robbery or sex.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest readily available information is given in the table. Information on offences is not recorded centrally until the completion of court proceedings.

  Untried and convicted unsentenced population1 of prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1988: by type of prisoner and ethnic origin

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  White

  6,970

  1,440

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  1,020

  130

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  240

  35

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  220

  30

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  630

  100

  Total

  9,080

  1,730

  1Provisional figures.

  Police Discipline Code
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many complaints as defined under section 84/4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were recorded under section 9 in the discipline code in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988; how many of those complaints were formally investigated; and how many of those investigated were substantiated;
  814
  (2) how many internal investigations were carried out by the United Kingdom police forces in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 which related to section 9 of the discipline code; and how many of those were found to be substantiated.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of complaints

  Recorded1

  83

  197

  180

  220

  Formally investigated

  57

  142

  131

  127

  Substantiated

  0

  4

  4

  5

  1Does not include complaints which were recorded but subsequently withdrawn.

  Information relating to internal investigations which were not based on a complaint under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to the subsequent disciplinary proceedings is not held centrally, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost

  Prisoners (Suicide Attempts)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of suicide or self-injury with apparent suicide intent, or other self-injury, occurred among those detained in police cells in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During 1988, the number of deaths in police cells resulting from self-inflicted injuries was three. The comparable number for 1987 was four. No central record is kept of incidents of self-inflicted injuries which do not result in death.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that circular instruction 3/1987 on suicide prevention is being properly implemented in prison department establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Compliance by establishments with the procedures set out in CI 3/1987 is monitored by the prison service's regional directors. Establishments which are unable to implement the procedures in section C of the circular instruction because of pressure of numbers at reception have been authorised to make alternative arrangements; otherwise I am satisfied that the circular instruction is being complied with.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have made arrangements for Samaritans to have access to suicidal prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Although we have not monitored the progress of this initiative centrally, we are aware that a substantial number of establishments have made arrangements with the Samaritans.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress there has been in implementing the recommendation of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report on Her Majesty's remand centre, Risley; and what steps have been taken to implement circular instruction 3/1987 on suicide prevention at that establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A statement by the Home Secretary setting out the action which was being taken, including the
  815
  full implementation of CI 3/1987, was published on 30 June last year, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The deputy director general of the prison service is responsible for following up the inspection report and will be visiting Risley for this purpose.

  Contracted-out Catering
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those establishments which have contracted-out catering services for inmates and the provision of inmates' canteens to private operators showing in each case who is the private contractor.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Inmates Catering

  Ashford Remand Centre—Sutcliffe Catering South-East

  Downview Prison (to open shortly)—Tappe Catering Services Ltd.

  Inmates Canteen

  Ashford Remand Centre—NAAFI

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce proposals to establish a Government DNA scheme to assist those seeking to settle in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We are considering in what form a centrally organised DNA scheme might be introduced into the entry clearance process. I hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions on this before long.

  Whatton Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether riot equipment was used by either prison staff or police during recent disturbances at Whatton young offenders institution;

  Population of Whatton young offender institutions on 31 December 1988: by offence and sentence length

  Number of inmates

  Offence group

  Up to 4 months

  Over 4 and up to 6 months

  Over 6 up to 12 months

  Total

  Whatton short sentence young offenders institution

  Violence against the person

  16

  1

  —

  17

  Rape

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  8

  1

  —

  9

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft, handling, fraud and forgery

  19

  —

  —

  19

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other offences

  23

  2

  —

  25

  Offence not recorded

  8

  —

  —

  8

  All offences

  74

  4

  —

  78

  Whatton juvenile young offenders institution

  Violence against the person

  2

  4

  8

  14

  Rape

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  12

  6

  28

  46

  Robbery

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Theft, handling, fraud and forgery

  2

  1

  2

  5

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other offences

  6

  3

  7

  16

  Offence not recorded

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All offences

  24

  15

  47

  86

  816
  (2) if he will give details of the type of accommodation currently in use for all prisoners based at the Whatton young offenders institution;

  (3) if he will give details of the age categories of all prisoners detained currently at the Whatton young offenders institution;

  (4) who carries out night security patrols at Whatton young offenders institution;

  (5) if he will give details of recent prison disturbances at the Whatton young offenders institution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Offenders committed to Whatton young offenders institution fall into two age categories: those aged 14 to 16 and those aged 17 to 20. These age groups are held in separate units, both comprising a mixture of dormitory and cubicular accommodation. In addition, there is a further unit containing a small number of cells. At night, the institution is staffed by a mixture of prison officers and night patrol officers.

  On the night of 28 February/1 March, a short series of incidents occurred at the institution involving a small number of inmates in the younger age group. In one of the incidents, inmates in a dormitory damaged windows, fixtures and fittings. It was necessary for prison staff, using protective equipment, to remove the inmates from the dormitory. Two prison officers suffered bruising and nine inmates minor scratches and abrasions, two requiring stitches for cuts believed to have been caused by flying glass. No police officers were involved.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply details of sentences and crimes committed by all prisoners detained at the Whatton young offenders institution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest readily available information is given in the table.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation will be paid to the holders of firearms which chief officers of police will not allow the holders to retain under the terms of the Firearms Amendment Act 1988 on part one firearms certificates.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no grounds for offering compensation in such cases. A firearm which a chief officer of police will not authorise an individual to hold on a firearm certificate may be sold to a registered firearms dealer or to the holder of a firearm certificate who is authorised to possess or acquire it.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation will be paid to the holders of shotguns which cannot be converted to retain the classification of shotgun under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no grounds for offering compensation in such cases. A large magazine smoothbore gun which cannot be adapted to retain the classification of a shotgun under section 2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 may be held by its owner on a firearm certificate provided the criteria laid down in the Firearms Act 1968 are met. Alternatively, such a gun may be sold to a registered firearms dealer or to the holder of a firearm certificate authorised to possess or acquire it.

  Women and Children (Offences)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has issued any circular relating to the trend in the role of women police officers in relation to crime involving women and children, as recommended by the Women's National Commission;

  (2) what circulars he has issued following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that he issue a further circular, following up H.O. 25/83, on the continued problem of the under-reporting of crimes of rape and sexual assault, and the special needs of victims in relation to rape trauma syndrome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The deployment of women police officers is an operational matter for chief officers of police in the light of the overall needs of their force and the requirements of equal opportunities legislation. Home Office circular 69/1986, which contains the responses agreed with chief officers to the report of the Women's National Commission on violence against women, recognises the valuable role which women police officers may play, subject to the operational requirements of individual forces.

  The responses to the report also specify measures to ensure that sexual assaults are accurately and fully recorded and confirm the importance of making police officers who are involved in the investigation of serious sexual offences aware of the special needs of victims.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements in data collection on domestic violence have been made following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1986, we reminded chief officers of police that the criteria for recording offences of violence in 818
  a domestic setting were the same as in other contexts. Some forces have made arrangements for relevant information, particularly on civil injunctions, to be collected and made readily available to officers attending incidents. The 1983 and 1987 British crime surveys included questions on domestic violence. A Home Office research and planning unit review of research into domestic violence is to be published shortly.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent action has been taken following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that a circular be issued by his Department to give guidance and encouragement to chief constables to review training and procedures on domestic violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The recommendations concerning police training and procedures in dealing with domestic violence which were made by the Women's National Commission in its 1985 report "Violence Against Women" were incorporated in Home Office circular 69/1986. We are currently considering whether further guidance is necessary.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amounts of monies given by the Horse Race Levy Board to each individual horse racecourse in the United Kingdom since 1983.

  Mr. John Patten
  The powers of the Horserace Betting Levy Board extend only to Great Britain. I understand from the board that the annual financial records of the board do not identify all the information required. Some of the grants it makes are distributed through other racing bodies.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all horse racing courses in the United Kingdom by region showing the number of races held at each course and the levels of prize monies at each course since 1983.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not held by the Home Office or by the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

  Arrests (Statistics)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made during recent disturbances at St. Neots in Cambridgeshire and in Oxford; and if he will provide a breakdown of the different offences committed detailing the number of arrests made for each.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Cambridgeshire that, during disorder on the night of 4/5 March in St. Neots, eight people were arrested and were charged with violent disorder under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. Fourteen further arrests have subsequently been made for more minor offences. I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that during disorder on the same night in Oxford one person was arrested for threatening behaviour under section 4 of the Public Order Act.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack:
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor.

Wastes: Imports Policy
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to prohibit the import of wastes which are destined for disposal by direct landfill, without assessment or treatment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which is very welcome. Unless waste is coming specially for treatment in this country we can do without it. We have enough of our own to dispose of, in any case. Can my noble friend tell me whether legislation is required, or can prohibition be put into effect straight away?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, legislation is required. A new Bill will have to be placed before Parliament, and we hope to introduce it in the next Session.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what happened in Basle?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, considerable progress was made, but it was not until the final minutes that any kind of agreement that could form a convention was reached. There were last-minute negotiations in which the United Kingdom played a very active part. As with many countries, although we have been unable to sign the convention because of last-minute changes of wording it was a first step on the road to getting a better policy for waste in general. These developments arose in the last 24 hours. Because other member state Ministers were there I took the opportunity to stress the importance of tackling all wastes and not just the hazardous ones.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as regards the announcement made by the Minister concerning the introduction of a Bill to deal with this problem, can he say whether the time-scale in another place and in your Lordships' House rates the Bill with a high priority? To supplement the point raised by the noble Lord who introduced the Question, surely we already produce enough of our own waste because of our industrial base. We should limit ourselves to dealing with that and exclude waste from other people. Can the Minister tell us whether the Bill will have a high priority in the Government's legislative programme?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course we treat this matter as having top priority. That is why
822
for the past three years we have been considering the whole of the waste law. We have carried out three consultation exercises, the last of which has just finished. That referred to the question of who should be the responsible body for the disposal of waste. The noble Lord will recall that the Government have come down firmly on the side of supporting the existing waste disposal authorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether we can expect a Bill in the next Session of Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that we shall be able to legislate within the life of this Parliament and I very much hope that it will be in the next Session.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the Basle conference from which he has recently returned dealt with toxic wastes, my Question is mainly concerned with those that are supposed not to be toxic? The early action that he has indicated will be widely appreciated because there is always a risk that waste that is supposed to be not dangerous and which comes into this country without inspection will contain hazardous substances.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I shall go a stage further than him by saying that any waste, if it is not dealt with properly, can be hazardous, and that includes domestic waste. That is why it is important to look at all the waste and not just concentrate on one category. I am grateful to my noble friend for the debate that he initiated the other day in your Lordships' House and for this Question in order to make the position clear.

Brown Bread and Cereals: Radio Report
11.11 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of a health risk from brown bread and other cereal products, as reported on BBC Radio 4 on 13th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I can understand that perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear the report on the BBC that has given grave concern to millions of families. I hope that the noble Baroness will take note of that. It was a report from the Ministry of Agriculture which stated that brown bread, crisps and many other items were affected by a pesticide in which the toxic chemicals were above the limit. The Ministry is concerned about that. This subject was taken up by numerous newspapers. The Ministry's working party said that there is no serious or grave danger, but it is something that we should take note of. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Radio 4 programme to which the noble Lord refers was picking up points made in a Guardian article as regards bran residues in grain. That was also inaccurate. The programme was broadcast before our report went out. The report of the working party on pesticide residues which was published on 13th March shows that residue levels in food in the United Kingdom are within safe limits in almost every instance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us where brought up to believe that white bread was not very beneficial to health but that wholemeal bread was the best? Is that a view that is accepted by her department?
Baroness Trumpington:My Lords, all kinds of bread are entirely safe. Residue levels in the bran tend to be higher than in the rest of the grain. Therefore, it can be expected that residue levels in wholemeal bread and flour may be higher than those in white bread and flour. However, residue levels in wholemeal products were found to be below the MRLs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her Answer was very refreshing because it was so different from the replies of Mrs. Edwina Currie? The noble Baroness had the courage to say "No". In other words, she said that food is all right. I am sure that I speak for most housewives when I say that we are ever so grateful.
Baroness Trumpington: I have referred to myself as the poor man's Edwina.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask a staight question? Is it safe for us to continue eating brown bread?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is indeed. We are talking about maximum residue levels known as MRLs. They are widely misunderstood. They are not safety limits. Their primary aim is to ensure that good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides is being followed. Just because an MRL is occasionally exceeded does not necessarily mean there is a risk to the consumer.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is there not a case for the Ministry of Agriculture asking the media to take a more balanced approach when commenting on food matters? One sometimes finds within the same newspaper advice to do and not to do, and within the same broadcasts similar information is coming across. Is this not confusing and bewildering to consumers? Would it not be appropriate for both the Minsitry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture to use their best endeavours to ask the media to be more balanced in their comments?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, but it is a free press, as everybody knows. However, it is a reason why the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continually publish leaflets which endeavour to
824
give a balanced and correct view of the safety of food and indeed of all matters pertaining to those two departments.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, am I right in thinking that white bread no longer contains agene which drives dogs mad and possibly noble Lords as well? Is my noble friend aware that, while I believe in eating and drinking everything in moderation, there is a good deal of public anxiety about this subject? Will the Government consider publishing a White Paper setting out what can be drunk or eaten with comparative safety? It would not take more than one paragraph, would it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take note of all my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Bottomely: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that today is the birthday of my noble friend Lord Jay?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is she further aware that for more than three score years both he and I have consumed brown bread? I do not think that we look as though we have been harmed by doing so. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend Lord Molloy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to congratulate both noble Lords on their extremely healthy appearances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her later replies. This concern arises from a report by the Ministry of Agriculture. I submit that it is a serious report. One can be jocular about things but when alarm is caused the jocularity has to stop and seriousness must take over. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is also a report from the Home Grown Cereals Authority on the interaction between pesticides and cereal grains? Will she see to it that both these reports, which are of great importance to the country, are examined? Could not some of the scaremongering be stopped by quoting from those offical reports?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government regularly monitor bread and cereal products as well as a wide range of other foods. The results of that monitoring were published. The report gives no evidence to suggest that there is any risk to consumers. Indeed, it finds that residue levels in food in the United Kingdom are generally low.

Pensioners: Abolition of the Earnings Rule
11.17 a.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the effect on working pensioners of the abolition of the earnings rule.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the abolition of the earnings rule is good

825
news for pensioners. From 1st October not only will they be able to receive their full state pension but they will also be able to have unlimited earnings. The new system will give more choice and flexibiliity for older people who want to carry on working.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging Answer which fulfils yet another commitment in the Conservative Party's 1979 manifesto. How many pensioners will benefit from this excellent and most welcome move?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is indeed a very welcome move and, as my noble friend said, has fulfilled a longstanding manifesto commitment. It will be for individual earning pensioners to consider whether they will be better off deferring their pension for up to five years. Currently 200,000 pensioners earn over £75 a week. That includes wives who claim a pension on their husband's contributions. Indeed, 2,500 people will benefit immediately because their pension is currently reduced because of earnings of more than £75 a week. We also estimate that there are currently 200,000 earning less than £75 a week who may choose to earn more. And of course there are all those future pensioners who may want to continue to earn.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, can the Minister say whether planted Questions are dangerous to eat?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as a horticulturalist, I am very fond of plants.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that in the publicity which his department handles in this matter the alternative of deferring retirement and thereby earning an incremented pension will be clearly put before those to whom this concession would otherwise apply so that they are not excited by it into doing what might not be in their case in their best interests?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right; indeed he has long expereince in such matters. That is why I prefaced my last answer by saying that it will be for individual earning pensioners to consider whether they will be better off deferring their pension for up to five years. The department cannot tell them what to do but their financial advisers can. Deferment is most valuable; for example, if it is a full five-year deferment it enhances the value of the pension by 37·5 per cent.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one aspect of the change which has taken place. Am I right in assuming that the earnings of pensioners, should they choose to work, will simply be subject to taxation in the normal way? Further, will it be the case that their pension will be added to taxable income and will also be taxed, or will it be free of all tax?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, pensions have always been taxable. Therefore the answer to the noble Lord's question on both counts is yes.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister agree that to the extent that state retirement pensions are actuarially funded by national insurance contributions, the abolition of the earnings rule is entirely to be welcomed? However, will he further agree that, to the extent that such pensions are funded not by contributions but out of current taxation, a somewhat different reaction may be in order? For example, why should young couples struggling to bring up a family and to pay off a mortgage be expected to subsidise from their taxes physically fit, economically active and increasingly prosperous men of 65 and women of 60?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that I need a little notice for a question of such complexity. However, I can say that the noble Lord is only half right. A pension is a contributory benefit and if full contributions are not paid, the pension is reduced. But I agree with him in that today's contributors pay for today's pensions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if one is an OAP like myself, can one now defer one's pension up to the age of 75 because of the tax implications? At the moment one can defer it up to the age of 70.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, the rules on deferment will stay exactly the same as they have been heretofore. One is only allowed to defer a pension for five years.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend comment upon the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the value of the Question is somehow diminished because it happens to give credit to our party?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it never ceases to amaze me how rarely good news is welcomed by those on the Benches opposite.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many old-age pensioners who may be able to take advantage of this arrangement do in fact have financial advisers? Does he not think that it would be more helpful to them if guidance were available through leaflets published by the department?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. Of course I cannot say how many pensioners have financial advisers. However, what I can say is that we plan to write to all the individuals concerned.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that as a result of this change a rush has already started of pensioners who are able and intelligent and who want work taking part-time work behind the counters of major stores, where there has been a marked shortage of workers because of the present levels of employment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that that trend started rather before my right honourable friend's Budget last week. However, I take the point that this change is also good for the labour market.

Nitrate Pollution in Drinking Water
11.23 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the latest EC draft directive aimed at toughening nitrate pollution standards in drinking water (COM(88)708,4136/89).
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no new draft directive aimed at toughening nitrate pollution standards in drinking water. However, the Government broadly support the recent proposal from the European Commission for a directive which puts forward a range of measures designed to protect surface and groundwaters and coastal waters from pollution by nitrate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case, as has been reported, that the Brussels Commission is considering taking legal action to enforce the higher standards which the rest of the EC insist upon for drinking water? Does that not have a direct effect on the Water Bill now going through Parliament? Will clauses in the Bill have to be changed? Moreover, is the Minister aware that only yesterday his right honourable friend stated that it would take something like £2·5 billion to put our drinking water into the cateogry which is insisted upon by the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that any of the supplementary questions which the noble Lord asks me relate to the Question on the Order Paper, which is about the new draft directive. However, he is mistaken in thinking that there is a discrepancy between the rest of the Community and ourselves; indeed, we all insist upon the same standards.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely the EC has set higher standards than those which are at present being insisted upon by the British Government? Is that not the case? If it is not, there have been many false reports emanating from Brussels as to the action which the EC intends to take to insist that our water suppplies, so far as both nitrates and pesticides are concerned, are brought up to its standards.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the standards are consistent throughout Europe; every country has difficulties in meeting the standards of the existing directive both for drinking waters and for bathing waters. Indeed, I saw that there was a case in Germany only 24 hours ago where the authorities had to stop pumping up the water supply because of excess nitrates in that particular area. As I said, every country is facing problems in meeting the levels set by the directive.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the slant of the Question gives the impression that the drinking water supply in this country has been defective in the past? Is he also aware that it has conformed with the World Health Organisation's standards, which have always been thought to be perfectly adequate? However, now that
828
the European Commission has insisted upon a higher standard, naturally we must conform with it. Is he further aware that, so far as I am concerned, I would drink water with every confidence in any part of this country, while there are very few countries in Europe in which I would do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The drinking water in this country is perfectly safe to drink. Indeed, we have more connections to the mains than any other country in Europe. Moreover, I do not think that there is any other country in Europe where one can be totally confident when drinking water out of a tap.
Lord Monson: My Lords, important though the reduction in the nitrate level of our drinking water undoubtedly is—here I must disagree somewhat with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—does the noble Earl agree that this is purely an internal British matter which has nothing to do with facilitating the free flow of goods and services between the member states of the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; I do not agree. If we have signed a directive in Europe, we shall honour it, and other countries will also do so. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, we must now improve our already good standards.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as agriculture has been blamed for the nitrates in water, can the Minister say whether any costings have been done to see if it would be cheaper to clean up the water or buy in foreign wheat?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are a number of areas at which we are looking in respect of the nitrate problem, as the noble Lord knows. My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a recent Statement in another place on the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is this not a matter in which prevention is better than cure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that prevention is always better than cure. However, we face a problem at present and we must deal with it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if our water is so safe, why do we have an unpleasantly high increase in bottled water sales? Further, are not people—not in my native area of Norfolk—quite right to be worried about the levels of nitrates in their water, which have been on numerous occasions well above the 50 milligram limit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the water is perfectly safe to drink. Indeed, I have been to Norfolk on many occasions and have drunk water there quite happily. We do conform to the standards required. What the EC has done is to set even tighter standards and therefore we must improve, as must other countries. Whether to buy bottled water is entirely a choice for the consumer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, have not some areas of the country had the benefit of the supply of good quality water in the world, although some other parts are not so well served and are below that standard? Would it not be better for the Government to strive for equalisation of the quality of water supply to the best that we have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is our policy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, regarding Norfolk, is the Minister aware that last week water supplies to Norwich were declared not to be up to EC standards: His honourable friend Mr. Howard went to Norwich to inspect the water. It was categorically stated by an official that the water in Norwich was not up to EC standards and was being affected by nitrates and fertilisers. A statement was made that nothing could be done about the fertiliser element until there was a national policy. When are the Government going to observe a national policy in the light of the EC directives?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is well known that a number of water supplies in this country do not meet EC standards. There has been a great deal of expenditure to meet them. But that does not mean what the noble noble Lord implies—that the water is unsafe to drink.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that on Friday, 7th April the House will sit at 9.30 a.m. and not at the customary time of 11 a.m. The reason for this earlier start is that some 47 speakers have expressed a wish to speak in the debate on the Green Paper of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the legal profession and legal services. Starred Questions will be taken at the beginning of business as usual.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
11.32 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It has been the subject of much debate and scrutiny in another place and I am sure that it will be the subject of useful debate here. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, to transfer the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to the Secretary of State and to provide for the Scottish Transport Group to be dissolved. The three parts of the Bill deal with those three aspects.
In privatising the Scottish Bus Group the Government have a number of important objectives. First, we wish to promote sustained and fair competition in the bus industry. Competition will encourage efficiency and responsiveness to the
830
consumer. Secondly, we are seeking to widen share ownership, and in particular we shall be encouraging management and employees to acquire a controlling interest in the firms for which they work. Thirdly, we wish to establish independent, locally based companies which will be responsive to the interests of bus users and in touch with their local markets.
The privatisation will complete the process, begun with deregulation, of freeing the bus market of the restrictions of regulation and public ownership under which it has operated for many years. Deregulation has been a success. Far from leading to a decline in bus services generally, which some predicted, deregulation has led to an increase in the number of vehicle miles operated. New operators have emerged and there has been innovation in the types of bus service provided. Local authorities have not been slow to use their subsidy powers to ensure the provision of socially necessary services—often at lower subsidy cost than before—and the network of rural services remains largely intact. Now that deregulation is complete, and in particular that fears over rural bus service provision in Scotland have proved groundless, there is no reason for the Scottish Bus Group not to take the next step of privatisation. The decision to privatise it in 11 units—that is, nine bus operating subsidiaries, together with the coaching firm Scottish Citylink and SBG Engineering—will create 11 independent companies in place of a single large, dominant nationalised concern. That will be to the advantage of the bus user who can expect the new companies to play a more vigorous role in stimulating competition and improving bus services along with the many private sector operators already established.
I have mentioned that we wish to encourage management employee buy-outs, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made clear the basis on whch that will be done. First of all, we shall be giving financial assistance to one management employee team per company to help with the cost of the professional advice necessary to mount a bid. Secondly, the Scottish Transport Group has already held a series of seminars with management and a video is in preparation which will be shown at all depots so that all employees are aware of the issues involved. Thirdly, we have made it clear that in assessing bids for companies we shall give a preference to bids where there is a high level of employee participation. The share-owning structure of a bid is of course a matter for those responsible for developing the bid.
There are various ways of achieving significant employee participation. Employees might have an opportunity to subscribe for shares for cash. There might be an employee share ownership plan under which a proportion of shares is set aside for employees under a profit-sharing trust arrangement. Such plans, known as ESOPs, have become increasingly popular recently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech a number of measures designed to encourage employee share ownership, including new reliefs for ESOP trusts. There are two changes of particular importance in the context of this privatisation. First, the annual limits on the value of shares which can be given tax

831
free to employees under all-employee share schemes have been increased. Secondly, the Finance Bill will make it clear that companies' contributions to ESOP trusts to acquire shares on behalf of employees will qualify for corporation tax relief provided that they meet certain conditions designed to ensure that the employees acquire direct ownership of the shares within seven years of their acquisition by the trust.
We hope that bids will emerge which will give employees a substantial share in their company. While preference will be given to bids by incorporating significant employee participation, that preference cannot be overriding and if a bid is to have a good chance of success the price offered will need to be realistic and relevant to the value of the assets of the company being sold. No company will be put up for sale until the management and employees have had reasonable time in which to mount a bid. The basis on which the sales will take place will be set out in the statutory disposal programme which the Secretary of State will draw up in consultation with the Scottish Transport Group.
The other part of the Scottish Transport Group is Caledonian MacBrayne. It provides essential ferry services on the west coast of Scotland. It has a long history going back to the firm of David MacBrayne which introduced steam ships to the west coast and the Caledonian Steam Packet Company which ran services in the Clyde.
In the context of privatising the Scottish Bus Group and dissolving the Scottish Transport Group, we looked carefully at a range of options for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. Taking account of the many views expressed to us we decided that the best arrangement for Caledonian MacBrayne was that it should become a company owned in the first instance by the Secretary of State. That decision recognises that for the most part the services provided by Caledonian MacBrayne are not profitable and a subsidy of about £6 million a year is required to provide those socially essential services. The Bill therefore provides for the transfer of Caledonian MacBrayne to the ownership of the Secretary of State.
However, we also want to look to see whether the present structure and methods of operation of Caledonian MacBrayne can be improved in order to get better value for money. Once the company is transferred to the Secretary of State he will be appointing a new board for the company. A clear undertaking has been given that although we want a wide spread of experience of commercial and shipping matters on the board, we would look for such persons among those who are resident in the islands. We are anxious to ensure that Caledonian MacBrayne is responsive to its customers. As part of that process the Secretary of State has said that he would like the new board to look at the possibility of moving its headquarters nearer to the centre of the area which it serves. He has suggested that Oban would prove a suitable place for this purpose. I am aware that this suggestion is strongly opposed in certain quarters. However, I am sure that when considering the best arrangements for its headquarters, the new board will take careful
832
account of the views of both management and employees and consult them fully before reaching a decision.
The new board will also be asked to look at the possibility of transferring to the private sector two routes at present run by Caledonian MacBrayne: the Gourock-Dunoon and the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes. The private sector already runs an unsubsidised crossing between Gourock and Dunoon and that appears an anomalous situation. No options for the longer term will be excluded from consideration by the new board subject to the overriding proviso that it must ensure that at least the present quality of service to the islands is maintained. I consider that with its own board and independance, Cal-Mac will be well placed to continue to provide an improving and cost-effective service to the islands.
The Bill provides for important changes in the organisation of a major part of Scotland's public transport system. It offers the prospect of more competition in the bus industry with a number of companies replacing a single nationalised operator. It offers the prospect of Caledonian MacBrayne with its own board taking a fresh look at how it can continue to serve the islands and improve its services.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—( Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
11.40 a. m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, first perhaps I may thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and his commendable brevity. He went through the Bill explaining the purpose of the Government. Since he has been through the proceedings in another place and knows the bare bones of the Bill, he will no doubt be aware that the provisions have been thoroughly raked over there.
I do not propose to speak for long today but I wish to raise a number of important points. As the Minister said, there will be the opportunity at Committee stage to go into them more fully. The noble Lord will realise that competition was a matter which worried Members who examined the Bill in another place—and not just immediate competition. The assumption that privatisation immediately leads to competition of a healthy nature is not borne out by some of the results arising from the deregulation Bill. In this case my colleagues in another place tried very hard to find out what defence there would be against a privatiser coming along after the ultimate creation of 11 new companies and combining them into one conglomerate. There seemed to be no way of preventing this.
Although I accept that it may be necessary to look again at the Scottish Bus Group, I am not sure that big is beautiful, certainly not where there is no way in which the consumer can have an effective voice. It is all very well saying that competition gives that effective voice, but we could reach the point where the consortium of 11 different companies, particularly after 1992, could be controlled from somewhere far removed from Scotland. It could be decided in a boardroom in Dusseldorf or Dublin that a bus

833
service was no longer needed in a particular place. Very little could be done; that service could be withdrawn. So often in Scotland we have seen companies from abroad suddenly making a decision to close down even a profitable or relatively profitable operation, for instance in engineering, wood pulp or aluminium.
I wish to know whether there will be a mechanism to prevent the amalgamation of the 11 proposed companies, or a significant number of them, so that we do not reach the quasi-monopoly stage. I imagine that whoever owned or took over the Scottish Bus Group engineering side could have a strong grip on the future of buses in Scotland. Through the control of good workshops and the spare parts vital to the bus industry, the owner could have a very strong grip on the industry.
I must raise a couple of other points on the buses and I give the Minister notice that they will be raised very strongly in Committee. In another place, the Minister responsible refused to go very far in giving an assurance that the cost of the purchase of the companies would be made clear. He said that commercial confidentiality made it wrong for him to say how much a company was being bought for. I find it quite incredible that a public asset should be sold and that we, the public who have built up the company over the years, should not know the price. According to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Under-Secretary in another place, he would not be able to state the price. I hope this House would take a rather different view.
I was pleased how far the Minister went in discussing the employee-management takeover. However, it will need careful examination. He has gone a great deal further than we expected. Although no concessions were made to my colleagues in Committee in another place, some of their warnings, pleadings and cajolings have obviously struck a chord in the Scottish Office. We have gained a great deal more than was given in another place, according to my reading of the Committee stage of the Bill.
I think that it is not enough merely to give management assistance in the buyout. We want more for people who have given the whole of their lives to an industry than technical and financial assistance. I hope that when we have examined closely what the Minister says today we shall be slightly more reassured. I do not believe that financial advice is enough. Videos and seminars with management were also raised in another place. We feel that if employees are to be part of the set up in a management-employee takeover, perhaps at least their representatives should be involved in the early discussions.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of another great cause for disquiet which came out in Committee and in the Scottish press over a number of months. It was the matter of asset stripping, particularly the example given of a Scottish company which has done extremely well. It has a mixed reputation, to put it no stronger. Some people think that Stage Coach is wonderful, some people do not put its standing quite so high. Undoubtedly the South Hampshire buses were bought by Stage Coach for £2 million. One of the points I wish to make, referring back to the Minister not divulging the cost
834
of the sale, is that the price always comes out. We shall find out at some point—the press in Scotland are very good at finding these things out. It was discovered that the South Hampshire buses were bought by Stage Coach for £2 million. Within a fortnight, two of the bus stations were sold for £4.1 million. That is rather good business, if you manage to get hold of it.
In Scotland it is estimated that the Glasgow bus station is worth about £4 million. But the Edinburgh bus station is right in the heart of St. Andrew's Square, where all the banks and insurance companies are hungry for land. An estimate of about £15 million is put on that St. Andrew's Square bus station. I wonder whether the Minister care give us any reassurance on that point.
I am speaking for longer than I had intended. The other main part of the Bill concerns MacBrayne's. All of us in the West of Scotland know MacBrayne's: they get blamed for everything. The firm is a great Aunt Sally, it is part of the culture of the west coast of Scotland. The Secretary of State announced that there would be a new board for MacBrayne's, and we are very anxious to find out who is likely to be on that board. A tally was made and all the Tory MPs who lost their seat at the last election have been fixed up with something. Perhaps some of those MPs should be offered a little more, if we are to get new blood on the board.
As regards the removal of the headquarters to Oban, I think Oban is a lovely town and it is one of my favourite places, but I do not see why there should be the expense and upheaval of moving the headquarters there, or to any other place away from Gourock, unless the Government are ready for a very quick sell-off of Clyde Western Ferries. If Clyde Western Ferries is sold off and taken away from MacBrayne's altogether, it could lead to some difficulties in terms of the flexibility of ships. In a number of cases in the past ships have had minor accidents and have had to be repaired. When that occurred, the larger fleet could be mobilised and the problems that could have arisen were avoided.
It will be interesting to see how the Scottish public reacts to the privatisation of Clyde Western Ferries. The last time the Government thought of nationalising Clyde Western Ferries in the early 1970s, public opinion was so strongly against it that they had to abandon the idea.
The Government have learnt a fair amount from the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, although they did not admit that at the time. I think the only amendment that was accepted was one moved by my honourable friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, when he succeeded in getting "may" turned into "shall". But, having said that, I believe we will have the benefit of what happened in another place. The Government have had a chance to think over some of the very important points that were made in another place. Some or those points were made by members of the Minister's own party. I hope that in Committee we can go even further towards making this Bill more relevant to the needs of Scotland than appears to be the case at present.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have the temerity to join in a Scottish debate. I apologise that my Scottish colleagues have already left for their Easter break. Having listened to the weather forecast and seen the scenes of snow and devastation in Scotland, I think that perhaps they are wiser than noble Lords who have stayed here for the debate. I shall be as brief as I can, because obviously noble Lords on all sides of the House who are going to Scotland will wish to get there as quickly as they can.
This Bill is curious in that on the one hand it is a privatising Bill, but on the other hand it is a nationalising Bill. The buses are being privatised, but the shipping is being nationalised. That must put the Government Front Bench in rather a theological whirl about.
I hardly wish to welcome the Bill. It seems to me to be a little doctrinaire in relation to the privatisation of the buses. However, once one accepts that privatisation will take place, one has to commend the Government on the way they have handled many parts of the Bill. I refer particularly to the management employee buy-out and the concept of management-employee ownership. That concept is obviously strongly supported by the Government in this case, even perhaps at the expense of obtaining a little more money for the taxpayer. I believe that concept is absolutely right, and that out of it will come perhaps the most efficient form of organisation that one could hope for. There is no doubt that National Freight has been a very good example of what can happen in that direction.
I was very glad to see that the Secretary of State made the distinction between management-employee buy-outs and management buy-outs. There is an important distinction there which has not always been made in the past by the Government Front Bench. We are glad that for the time being a monopoly is being avoided. I know that my honourable friends who represent Border constituencies in another place are particularly glad that the lowland Scottish company is being maintained as an integral unit.
Nevertheless, there is a natural tendency towards an eventual monopoly in these situations. We are not satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to stop predatory purchases further in the future. One would like to see some safeguards built into the Bill. The English experience so far is of larger operating companies buying up smaller operating companies. That trend will, in the end, lead to a monopoly if one is not careful. So one must ask the Minister what safeguards the Government envisage at the moment. One must further ask the Minister to consider at a later stage amendments to the Bill which might build in safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to asset stripping. That is obviously a serious matter. The idea that parts of the company can be bought out and then stripped of their assets of bus stations is not merely sharp practice but also does not help to run a good bus service. If all the bus stations are sold off, a good bus service cannot be provided.
836
There are still fears for rural services, in spite of what the Government say. It is true that so far rural services have been maintained by means of subsidies from local authorities, but the pressure is on local authority finance all the time to reduce that subsidy. In the English counties, and indeed in my own county of Somerset, there are considerable question marks over whether some of the rural services can be subsidised to the level necessary in the future. As the Government are prepared to recognise the social need in relation to the shipping part of this Bill, I hope they will continue to recognise that there is a social need in rural areas and that taxpayers' money up front may be needed to maintain those services.
The other area which I think we shall probably get into in Committee is the question of staff pensions. We may have a re-run of some of the debates we had when the buses Bill was going through this House a few years ago. I still maintain as a matter of principle that if the Government are going to force a change in these matters, the employees who have been looking forward to certain pension rights should certainly not find themselves in a worse position than they otherwise would have been. Some progress was made on that issue in the buses Bill, but the situation was far from satisfactory in the end. I hope that we can make some more progress this time.
As regards Caledonian MacBrayne, I am glad that the Government recognise the social need there and are prepared to subsidise it. The Secretary of State is proud of the fact that the subsidy has been reduced over the past three years. However, he should not be complacent about that because reduced oil prices have been a factor and there are signs that oil prices may increase. Therefore, it may not be possible to continue the reduction in subsidy. I hope that the reduction will not continue if there is a need for further subsidy.
What can I say as regards the move to Oban, other than state that my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Argyll and Bute, is very pleased at the thought of the headquarters moving to Oban? As she is a true daughter of the late lamented Lord Bannerman who sat on these Benches several years ago, and therefore a figure not to be argued with, all I can say is that I support her in that view.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, just to show that there can be different points of view in Scotland, I should say that my honourable friend in another place who represents the Western Isles thinks, strangely enough, that things would be better left as they are.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as I read the proceedings in another place, the honourable Member was not there at the time of the Third Reading. But I may be doing him an injustice. I am glad to have that information, but as I say I do not want to get into these theological disputes north of the Border.
Membership of the board was also raised by my honourable friend in another place with particular reference to the appointment of local people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that it is very important that members of the board should not be

837
only government appointees. The debate that we had yesterday raised grave doubts about the way in which some appointments have been made by the Government. I hope that in this case the local interest will be seen as paramount and the members of the board will not be solely party appointees.
With that, and in the hope that simultaneous translation has not been necessary for what I have said, I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill with interest.
12.1 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in broad measure I support what the Government are doing in this Bill. I believe that returning the companies to the private sector, where they were born and grew up, is a logical step given that deregulation has already taken place in Scotland. There is little case for bus operations in Scotland remaining nationalised industries. However, as with all legislation, we have a duty to ensure that the Bill contains all that is necessary to ensure that it meets its objectives. In that respect I have some concerns.
First, I believe that the Bill should contain safeguards to prevent large groupings of former SBG companies establishing monopolies over large areas. We noted the care with which the Government split up the National Bus Company when it was privatised during 1986 and 1987. Despite that care, however, several large groups of former National Bus Company companies have been established and are undoing some of the Government's good work which was intended to further competition.
For example, on Merseyside it has come to my attention that Crosville and North Western are owned by the same company, Drawlane. We have recently seen the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which found that the merger between Badgerline and Cityline in Bristol was against the public interest. I hope that the Government will introduce measures into the Bill to ensure that the companies being privatised cannot re-combine or seek to take over other independent companies to establish territorial monopolies as happened in England. That could be achieved by several means, including providing in the Bill for automatic referral to the MMC of any bid by or for such a company and retaining a golden share to control mergers.
Secondly, I make no apology for raising the issue of service performance. We must not forget the performance of several of the companies affected by the Bill on D-day. It was not a creditable performance. The streets of Glasgow were literally swamped with buses out of all proportion to demand. It was a bus war, for want of a better term. During the next year or so the companies will go through a difficult period as they prepare for privatisation. We must ensure that the standard of service does not deteriorate and affect the passenger. The resources of the traffic commissioners need to be adequate for that task.
Thirdly, like other noble Lords, I hope that the Bill will ensure that any bus stations now owned by the Scottish Bus Group will be retained for that use.
838
They serve a valuable purpose for the travelling public and help to reduce congestion on the streets. We do not want to see them turned to other uses by companies whose interests are primarily in property development with bus operation a poor second.
Finally, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, I am glad that my noble friend has said that the Government will be able to give bids from management—which I hope will be supported by employee share ownership plans—a discount, as they did with the National Bus Company. That will ensure that privatisation takes its most acceptable form and will help guard against the dangers of monopoly to which I have already referred.
I shall follow the progress of this legislation with great interest. I already feel encouraged by my noble friend's introduction this morning, but there may be one or two matters which I shall wish to raise in Committee.
12.5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but very important Second Reading debate. I should like to come straightaway to some of the points which have been raised.
Perhaps I can start with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the difficult point of the publication of sales proceeds. The noble Lord referred to proceedings in another place. It is perfectly true that the suggestion that the amount paid for each company should be published raises difficult problems of commercial confidentiality. I am sure that we shall come back to that point when we debate the Bill in Committee. During the process of privatisation it would clearly not be a good idea to publish what has been received for each company because that could well affect prices of subsequent sales. It might lead to less satisfactory prices as the process of privatisation proceeded.
Publishing the prices once the sales were completed also raises problems of commercial confidentiality, as was mentioned in another place. I shall be interested to debate the matter at a later stage. In terms of the public interest, however, I believe that the important figure is the sum which is realised for the Scottish Bus Group as a whole. If individual purchasers wish to reveal what they paid for a company I believe that that is a matter for them.
I wish to deal at greater length than I did earlier with the very important matter of property disposal raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is essential that property assets are properly valued and that measures are taken to prevent their being sold on after privatisation at a very large profit. Specialist property advisers have been appointed by the Scottish Transport Group to value all the properties of the bus group and to advise on the best treatment of those properties in the course of sale.
There are a number of options for dealing with the properties. The first is to strip the property from the company and sell it separately. That might apply to property which is not essential to the running of the bus undertaking. A second option is to sell the

839
property with the company but to ensure that the price received fully reflects the range of values of the assets. A third option is to sell the property with the company but with a legal charge on the property which ensures that if subsequently sold within a specified period for development purposes the Government will receive a specified share of the development proceeds. A fourth option would be to dispose of an operational property separately from a company but with a long lease arrangement to allow the company to use it and to prevent early disposal for development. We shall be considering all those options very carefully in the light of advice that the group will be getting, we hope very shortly, from the property advisers.
I turn now to the restrictions on purchase. The prime aim of the Government's privatisation policy is to increase competition and hence efficiency and service to the customer. The Secretary of State has therefore decided against privatisation as a single unit. The choice of nine operating bus companies was made in order to strike a balance between strong, viable bus companies and lively competition. If the Secretary of State had wanted a smaller number of competitive units he would have divided the bus group into a smaller number of units for sale. It is therefore clear that we do not want a single buyer to buy up several SBG subsidiaries.
No limitation on the number of companies which one buyer could acquire was written into the English and Welsh legislation and we have not specified one in this Bill. However, we accept entirely the need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies. In part the situation depends on where those companies are. Given the nature of Scotland with its concentration of bus travel in the central belt we accept the need to limit the number of companies bought by one purchaser.
In the NBC disposal, as my noble friend Lord Teviot said, the maximum number of operating companies allowed to be bought by one company was four. In Scotland, in proportionate terms, that would mean one, but we have not yet taken a final decision on such a limit. Nor would we want to approve the sale of two adjacent companies to the same buyer. Those limitations will be set out in the disposal programme which will be published.
Perhaps I may deal with a couple of other points that have been raised before I come to the issue of competition safeguards which all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate thought was very important. Let me deal first with the question of the resourcing of the traffic commissioners which my noble friend raised. The responsibility for the traffic commissioners throughout Great Britain rests with the Secretary of State for Transport. The commissioners and their staff are funded from within the Department of Transport Vote. The arrangements seek to ensure that, as far as possible, they have sufficient resources to meet the demands placed upon them. I am well aware of the demands that were placed upon them in relation to Glasgow at the time of deregulation. They include any work that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of privatisation. Those costs are recovered from fees levied for the services provided.
840
I listened with interest to what my noble friend said about Crosville and North-West. As I have already said, a limit will be placed on the number of companies that can be bought by a single purchaser. We have not yet decided on the details, but once in the private sector—this is the important point—companies will be subject to the monopolies and mergers provisions of competition legislation. Under those provisions, cases may be considered by the Office of Fair Trading, which in turn may refer them, where appropriate, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of the situation regarding the city of Bristol to which reference has recently been made.
On the question of pensions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, it will be for the privatised companies to establish new pension arrangements for their employees. When making bids, prospective purchasers will be asked to state their proposals with regard to pensions and that information will be taken into account in considering bids. I understand that the terms of new pension arrangements will be different from those of the STG schemes, but I should like to return to that matter when we debate the Bill at Committee and subsequent stages.
The main thrust of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, Lord Tordoff and Lord Teviot, refers to safeguards in competition legislation, which applies to the bus industry in the same way as it applies to other industries in Great Britain. The main areas covered are restrictive agreements, monopolies and anti-competitive practices. The Office of Fair Trading has the power to carry out investigations and, where appropriate, to refer cases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will join me in saying how pleased we were to see the result of the recent Elders—Scottish and Newcastle referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The system can work.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the experience of former subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. It is true that since privatisation some subsequent inter-company sales have taken place and a number of substantial bus groupings have emerged. The name of Stage Coach has emerged in this debate. However, generally the ownership of former NBC subsidiaries remains fairly widely dispersed.
Taking the whole, there have been relatively few takeovers since privatisation, but I want to make this point: one way of making it more likely that companies will remain independent after privatisation is by encouraging management-employee buy-out bids. It will be open to prospective purchasers to establish shareholding arrangements which may reduce the likelihood of a company being sold on after privatisation. For example, it would be possible for the new company to make provision in its articles of association to limit the ability of shareholders to dispose of shares outside existing groupings of shareholders. Articles of association can be changed only if 75 per cent. of shareholders vote to do so. That is something to which we may return in our later deliberations on the Bill.

841
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to the question of the Caledonian MacBrayne arrangements and say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords who have welcomed the general thrust of our proposals that it is not so easy to privatise a company if it receives an annual £6 million government subsidy. I believe that that must be the answer to the charge that the Government are perhaps facing in two different directions in this Bill. But I should point out that since 1979 investment by the Government in Caledonian MacBrayne, which is the best way to improve the services for the people in the Islands, cost£22 million in vessels and £6 million on piers—not a small amount of money given the size of the company. The noble Lord is quite right to say that some of the benefits are due to the reduction of prices. However, I hope that he will understand that the arrangements that we make from now on will reflect the wishes of the islanders.
I note what noble Lords have said about membership of the board. Of course I cannot give them any indication at this stage. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I, with our responsibility for the Highlands and Islands, want to hear from the highlanders and islanders if representation from the Islands is not to the liking of the islanders when I go to see them.
On the question of the Gourock—Dunoon and Wemyss Bay—Rothesay services raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, there is no doubt that the present situation regarding the Gourock—Dunoon crossing is anomalous. An unsubsidised private sector crossing competes with a subsidised public sector crossing on similar routes. I remember only too well what the noble Lord said the last time that this matter was raised. The vessels operated on that crossing are shared with the Wemyss Bay—Rothesay crossing and are interchangeable. There therefore seems to be a good case for the private sector to take on those crossings. We shall ask the new board to look into the matter, investigate and report. The size of the remaining Cal-Mac fleet—some 25 vessels—will be such that it will still be able to substitute vessels in the event of breakdowns and refits. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord on that issue.
Finally, I should like briefly to remind noble Lords of our objectives. First, we wish to promote competition in the bus industry. I believe that I made that clear in my opening statement. Secondly, we want to encourage a wider pattern of share ownership. Thirdly, we hope that the pattern of privatisation that we have chosen will lead to the setting up of independent, locally based companies responsive to local needs. Coming from the board, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said. We have certainly worked with the grain in allowing Lowland Scottish to become a company on its own dealing with that particular part of the world.
We shall transfer the ownership of Cal-Mac to the Secretary of State and appoint a new board. We hope that that arrangement will ensure the continuation of at least the present quality of service to the Islands and the maintenance of essential transport links which are so important to them. I believe that this is an important measure which I hope noble Lords will support.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Evidence in Divorce Actions Order 1989
12.17 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order looks complicated, but I can assure the House that it does not raise novel questions of social policy. It is designed to maintain the present arrangements. As my maiden contribution in this House, it is difficult to envisage a less controversial measure. The purpose of the order is to retain the current relaxed evidential regime which applies in simplified divorce actions in Scotland, but with reference to the provision of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988.
That Act will come into force on 3rd April. When that happens, Section 8 of the Act will apply to divorce actions as well as other actions concerning family relationships. Subsection (3) of that section is a statutory statement of the current practice; namely, that evidence required to establish the grounds of divorce must come at least partly from a source other than a party to the marriage. However, the divorce actions which are dealt with under the simplified divorce procedure which has been in operation in Scotland since 1983 can proceed on the basis of the evidence of the pursuer alone.
If Section 8(3) were allowed to apply to simplified divorces, the existing relaxed requirements would be replaced on 3rd April with a stricter regime. That would be entirely inappropriate when one of the aims of the 1988 Act is the removal of technical barriers to the proving of an otherwise justifiable case. The order before the House therefore disapplies the requirement in Section 8(3) where simplified divorces are involved. As I have indicated, the order simply maintains the status quo.
I hope that I have fully explained to the House the basic purpose of the order. I shall, of course be very happy to explain it in more detail should noble Lords wish to have an elaboration on this particular branch of the law of Scotland. However, at this stage I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, there is no opposition to the approval of this order which in fact brings a measure of civilisation to the very controversial field of divorce law. It gives me great pleasure to rise on this occasion to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, first of all upon his appointment to the office of Lord Advocate and secondly upon his excellent and short maiden speech. We look forward to hearing his future contributions in your Lordships' House.

843
Perhaps I may say that we have been friends and working colleagues for a large number of years and I hope that that relationship will not be diminished by the fact that on occasions in your Lordships' House we shall be sitting staring at each other.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, It would be improper for me to join in the meat of this discussion, but I think that it is very proper for me to welcome to the Dispatch Box both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It is a rare privilege indeed to be able to congratulate together two maiden speakers and to say how lucky they are to have such a subject with which to open, a subject on which there will be absolutely no controversy at all, whatever they say. As to the meat of the business, I have nothing more to say.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) (Application to Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1989
12.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to the other Motion standing in my name.
These regulations would extend to foreign ships when in UK ports provisions similar to regulations for UK ships. Orders applying to foreign ships must be made by affirmative procedure unless the requirement is the subject of international agreement.
These regulations are of course part of the comprehensive programme of measures which the Government have introduced in the 20 months since the Sheen Report. Eight sets of wide-ranging main regulations are already in place, having been initially the subject of consultative documents from my department. Many of these have already been extended to include non-UK ships when in UK ports. In addition, there were important changes in primary legislation in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and there have been administrative measures contained in merchant shipping notices. An increasing number of random and unannounced inspections as part of the traditional enforcement work of marine surveyors have been introduced. Moreover we are well into an urgent research programme which aims to produce proper evaluation in terms of effectiveness and cost of various design methods of enhancing the stability standards of new ro-ro passenger ferries. In all this we have not forgotten the international implications of our actions, and we have taken important initiatives in the International Maritime Organisation, but the provisions in today's regulations go beyond the current scope of IMO requirements.
The draft Merchant Shipping (Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships) (Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1989 include a requirement that draught gauges be provided on all ferries engaged on cross-channel and other international services. There is general agreement in IMO that the assessment of stability before departure should be made on the lines that we propose but not entirely on our requirements for the fitting of draught gauges and the use of computers. In the case of draught gauges, the convention will require their use only when the draught marks at the bow and stern cannot be easily read. We remain convinced that the draught of a ship (and therefore its stability) at a typical cross-Channel ro-ro berth cannot be accurately assessed by direct sighting, even in good visibility. This is due to shore-based encumbrances and the flare of the ship's structure at the stem and stern. Accordingly, our regulations call for the provision of this equipment on all non-UK ro-ro passenger ships in UK ports.
We have also been unable fully to persuade IMO on the merits of loading computers. Thus the convention will only require that on completion of loading, and prior to departure, the master should determine the ship's stability and also ascertain and record that the ship is in compliance with set stability criteria. The means of making the calculations can be either an electronic loading and stability computer or other equivalent means. As a consequence of that decision our regulations also permit such other means of carrying out the calculation as will enable accurate results to be obtained. In addition the master must be supplied with sufficient information to enable him to monitor his ship's stability during loading and unloading operations. Then prior to departure he must record the ship's draughts and the assessment made of the adequacy of its stability.
I turn now to the draft Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and Other Cargo) (Application to Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1989. These regulations also apply to all ferries engaged on cross-Channel and other international services and some services within the United Kingdom, and require the weighing of all road vehicles (except buses) and all non-vehicular items of cargo exceeding, in each case, 7·5 tonnes for all voyages on which passengers are carried. Subject to certain exceptions, cargo must be weighed within the port at which the ship is to be loaded, and the weighing machine must be certified by an inspector of weights and measures and operated in accordance with conditions laid down by him.
We believe that it is important if there is to be confidence that improper loading will be avoided and in the accuracy of stability calculations to seek to eliminate all substantial discrepancies between the displacement of the ship as calculated from the weights of the cargo and that determined from the measured draught. Weights determined from a weighing machine are the only reliable method by which the master can be confident about the weights he is being asked to carry and thus produce the required more accurate stability assessment for the voyage.
I am confident that these regulations will be an important contribution towards improvement in ro-ro passenger safety.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining in some detail these two very important sets of regulations. I shall be extremely brief in my comments. However, that does not mean that these Benches do not value the importance of the regulations. It is not only equitable and a matter of common sense but in fact vital to considerations of safety that these regulations should apply to non-UK ships, as such regulations already apply to UK vessels. I recall the numerous discussions we had during the passage of the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988—which has now been enacted—on these very points. We are therefore very pleased that regulations are now being issued.
I am glad that the Minister pointed out why it is necessary for regulations which apply to non-UK ships to be effected by affirmative resolution. When looking at the Act I noticed that the regulations arising from it were effected by negative procedure. I am therefore pleased with the Minister's explanation.
The noble Lord referred to the research that is being conducted into the stability and structure of ro-ro ferries. Perhaps he will give the House some indication on when that research might be completed. That seemed to be the most important factor arising from the discussion of stability in various clauses of the 1988 Act. Under the clauses relating to responsibilities for loading and stability the 1988 Act made certain references to both owners and masters. However I note that there is only one very small reference here to the position of the owner. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that there is some reason for that. In other respects we welcome these two sets of regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of these important regulations. I should point out that abour 40 per cent. of passenger ro-ro ferries from the United Kingdom sail under a foreign flag. It is therefore important that such regulations as have already applied to UK registered vessels since, I think, 1st February should be made to apply to foreign flag vessels.
So far as concerns the research programme, I can tell the House that we are making good progress. The first phase should be completed later this year. Obviously we shall have to consider the implications of that and then we propose to conduct model tests. They could take a little longer. That is not to say that lessons will not be learnt from the first phase of the research programme and they might have to be put into practice before the model tests take place.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord about owners and masters, perhaps I may write to him on that. I shall need to consider it in some detail if I am to give him a proper reply. If he will accept that from me, I shall be most grateful.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him one small question. These regulations are intended to apply in the main to cross-channel ferries. Am I correct in assuming that ro-ro passenger ships engaged in international trade—for example, two Italian vessels which call at the port of London on a service to West Africa and Brazil carrying 60 passengers—would also be affected under this legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my immediate answer to the noble Lord is, yes. If they were passenger carrying ro-ro ferries operating international services out of a UK port, they should be covered by these regulations. With regard to the example to which the noble Lord referred, I can confidently say that, yes, they would apply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships) (Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1989
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989
12.32 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd February, and the draft Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order, which was laid on 1st March, be approved.
These orders represent a crucial follow-up to the measures in the Housing Act 1988 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 deregulating new private lettings. Those provisions have beer. in force since 2nd January in Scotland and since 15th January in England and Wales.
The key feature of deregulation is of course the freedom for landlords to charge a market rent. The Government have never disguised that in many areas of the country market rents will be well above existing fair rent levels. We have further accepted that many tenants will need help from housing benefit to pay the higher rents. We have therefore given an unequivocal commitment that housing benefit will be available on rents up to the level determined by the free market. That undertaking is absolutely fundamental to our approach to the private rented sector and I am happy to restate it in your Lordships' House today.
However, a tenant who has all or most of his rent met by housing benefit obviously don not have the

847
same incentive to strike a reasonable bargain with his landlord as would apply if he were paying the rent from his own resources. Noble Lords will, I hope, agree that it would not be right for taxpayers' money—which provides up to 97 per cent. subsidy on housing benefit— to be used to underwrite a rent which bears no relationship to the level of rents being paid by tenants who are not dependent on benefit. It is therefore vital to have a system for checking that rents being paid from the public purse are not significantly in excess of market level. The Housing Acts provide for rent officers to take on the task of operating such a check. These orders set out how they will discharge that task.
As well as looking at claimants' rents, rent officers will consider the size of the accommodation they are occupying. The Government very firmly believe that full Exchequer subsidy ought not in general to be paid where a claimant is occupying accommodation that is too large for his reasonable needs. Local authorities have long had powers to limit benefit in such circumstances. However, we believe that, given the prospect of higher rents in a deregulated market, it is right to apply control directly on subsidy.
Accordingly, from 1st April local authorities will refer to the rent officer most cases where a claim for housing benefit is made by a tenant or licensee of a private landlord with an agreement beginning on or after the date on which deregulation came into effect. The only major exceptions to this rule will be assured tenancies where the rent has already been fixed by a rent assessment commmittee and—in normal circumstances—lettings by registered housing associations.
Where a case is referred to the rent officer, his first task will be to decide whether the claimant's rent is at or below market level. If the rent satisfies this test, the rent officer will notify the local authority accordingly. If, on the other hand, the rent officer judges the rent to be above market level, he will determine what a market rent would be for the property and inform the local authority of that rent.
The rent officer's second task will be to assess the size of the claimant's acommodation against the size criteria set out in Schedule 3 to each order. If the size exceeds the criteria, the rent officer will determine a market rent for a notional property which does not exceed the criteria, but which otherwise corresponds as closely as possible to the claimant's actual accommodation.
Let me emphasise that the decisions made by the rent officer will in all cases bite on Exchequer subsidy, and not directly on benefit. So long as the rent officer is satisfied that the claimant's rent is not above market level and that his accommodation meets the size criteria, the local authority will be able to pay benefit in the knowledge that susidy will be available on the basis of the existing rent.
In a case where the claimant's rent is above market level or his accommodation exceeds the size criteria—and the rent officer accordingly determines a lower rent than that which the claimant is actually paying—it will still be a matter for the local authority to decide on what basis benefit should be awarded.
Authorities will continue to be precluded under the housing benefit regulations from limiting benefit in cases where the claimant comes within a specified vulnerable group—the elderly, the sick and disabled and those with children—unless the authority itself is satisfied that cheaper, suitable alternative accommodation is available and that it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move. If an authority concludes that it cannot restrict benefit in the case of a vulnerable claimant, Exchequer subsidy will be available above the level set by the rent officer in that case, at a rate of 50 per cent.
We further accept the need for a special safeguard in respect of recently bereaved claimants. We therefore propose to introduce new provisions to peclude the restriction of benefit for a full 12 months following a bereavement. The 50 per cent. subsidy concession will also apply in such cases.
In all other cases local authorities will retain their discretion to pay benefit up to the level they judge reasonable. The rent officer's determinations set a ceiling on the rent on which full subsidy is payable, not on the level of benefit itself.
We have always accepted the need for a right of appeal against a rent officer's decision. Accordingly, we have provided for a local authority to request that a case already dealt with by a rent officer be redetermined by an experienced rent officer from outside the registration area in which the original decision was taken. The redetermining officer will be required to have regard to advice from one or—more usually—two other rent officers, one of whom will be from the original area, though not the officer who previously dealt with the case.
The purpose of these procedures is simply to safeguard the taxpayer against having to underwrite unreasonable housing benefit claims. It in no way detracts from our undertaking that housing benefit will keep pace with open market rents—quite the reverse: it provides the most effective possible means of delivering that promise. I comend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the care and clarity with which he has explained the order. However, he cannot possibly expect those of us on this side of the House to welcome the thrust of what he and his colleagues are doing. I imagine that every single person who will be the subject of this order is already living a miserable life. He is already living in circumstances and conditions at which Members of your Lordships' House would be appalled were they to visit him and discuss matters with him. The Minister has informed the House that this is to safeguard taxpayers' money. We shall have other opportunities to consider how this Government safeguard taxpayers' money in other respects on other occasions. However, the Government have brought forward what I consider to be a miserable measure which will do nothing to make housing available, more affordable, or more enjoyable.

849
The Minister talked about a need to ensure that taxpayers' money is safeguarded. Can he give us some illustrations, not generalities? We do not want to hear, "We are lead to believe", or "We have been told". Can we be given some hard facts upon which this measure has been conceived? I hope it is not in anticipation of what the Minister's advisers believe could happen.
The Minister speaks in terms of market rents and market levels. Has he any idea of the grotesque way in which the market level of rented property has increased, especially in London? I should like to know whether his advisers have visited some of the miserable places, such as those in Westminster, Bayswater and Paddington, which are used for bed and breakfast accommodation. I wonder if the Minister and his advisers understand that both the national taxpayer and the local ratepayer are being held to ransom, not by the individuals who use that kind of accommodation, but by the sharks, the rogues and the villains who are making a good living out of it.
I do not see anything in the order which is likely to ease the lot of the person who, by dint of circumstances, is forced either to rent or to have to accept state largesse through bed and breakfast subventions. I see nothing that will make it easier for that person. We are speaking here about additional functions for the rent officers. How many additional rent officers will be required as a result of the order? Are we to be told that they are already very busy people, but they will have to take on the additional function of policing this tiny bit of legislation?
The Minister has spoken of exclusions for certain vulnerable groups. He mentioned the sick, the elderly and those who have children. Does not the Minister understand that if there are not hundreds of thousands there are certainly many thousands of people who are vulnerable not because of a sickness, because they are parents or looking after children, or because they are unemployed, but because they are not in the housing market?
The Minister and his colleagues have told us what a great boon the recent housing legislation will be. It will free much allegedly free rented accommodation which the private landlord has kept to himself. He will now put it on the market because he is able to enjoy a fairer return for his investment in housing. Will the Minister tell us what is happening there? Have the housing lists for those who need housing been reduced as a result of that? I am not arguing about the Government wanting an effective use of money, but the measure fails as so many measures do because it fails to take into account the human element at the bottom end—the people who will suffer.
We are told in Schedule 3 of the size criteria that will be taken into account in determining whether a person seeking assistance is either enjoying or using accommodation greater than that which is held by the State to be adequate. We read:
"One bedroom shall be allowed for each of the following categories of occupiers".
I am a bit surprised that the order has not stated the size of the bedrooms, because in this respect already depressed people are being hemmed in and
850
their lives made even more miserable. The schedule refers to two children of the same sex. What are the age parameters in paragraph 1(c)? We are told of the number of rooms:
"excluding any allowed as a bedroom … suitable for living in … if there are less than four occupiers, one … if there are more than three and less than seven occupiers, two … in any other case, three".
Will the Minister tell the House who has advised that that is a satisfactory yardstick to determine the basis upon which individuals will be directed by the state to live? The Minister must be under no illusion that where there is a shortfall in money which is left to the individual to pay, in 999 cases out of a 1,000 it will be a question not of the individual having to find the money from some other source but of him having to find some other accommodation because the money will not be available in his pocket. I do not exaggerate. The people I have met in Bayswater and Finsbury Park are among the most hapless groups of individuals in this so-called affluent Britain of 1989. The Minister has some questions to answer, but more importantly he has to convince the House. So far he has not convinced me that he understands the agony of people who will be affected by this measure.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, first, I want to apologise to all those people waiting for the Unstarred Question, because I believe this order will take a little longer than they might have supposed. It is unfortunate that the order is brought on at this time on the eve of the public holiday. Here we are on Maundy Thursday with Her Gracious Majesty giving away Maundy money, with various clerics washing peoples' feet and the general feeling of support for the poor, whereas the Government with their order are succeeding in increasing homelessness in this country.
It is an appalling order and frankly in other circumstances I should have done my best to persuade colleagues and other members of your Lordships' House to break the convention and to vote against this order. I feel so strongly about it. It has been badly handled and various organisations have written complaining about the lack of consultation that there has been and the lack of time in which they have been able to consult. The National Federation of Housing Associations tells me that it was consulted by way of a copy of a letter from the Department of the Environment and the Housing Corporation dated 8th February. The DoE required comments on the proposed draft order returned by 15th February, just a week later. That is no way to pass sensible legislation.
What is the logic behind the order? I understand, and I have sympathy for the Government's view, that people should not be allowed to fiddle taxpayers' money. There may be cases which can be demonstrated where landlords and tenants have colluded in putting up the rent of property to obtain increased housing benefit and to share the proceeds between them. I suspect that those cases are very few and far between. But if that is happening perhaps orders are necessary to prevent it, but this is not the

851
way to go about it. In the first place I do not believe that the order will save money. If it will not save money, why are we bothering with it? However, it will add bureaucracy with minimal savings.
The Association of District Councils which is a Conservative-controlled body, in its response to the consultation paper said:
"Whilst it appears that the proposals will result in a very thorough examination of individual rents, the Association seriously doubts whether it will represent value for money. The DHSS is reminded that the new subsidy incentive to control unreasonable private sector rents in 1988/89 is by its own estimates only likely to result in a 0·5 per cent. reduction in total subsidy expenditure".
That is what we are talking about and that is a Conservative view. Thus that organisation is far from convinced that there will be any significant saving.
We have a Government who cherish the idea of a family unit. However, it appears that in this matter their idea of a family unit is that it should be compressed into as small a space as possible and that every member of the family should live, sleep and eat as close as possible to each other. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has indicated, it is the criteria for the size of accommodation which fails totally to reflect the ordinary living patterns of ordinary people. It will prohibit those in receipt of housing benefit from having what every Member of this House will see as reasonable living criteria.
The result will be that parents whose children have grown up and left home will be penalised financially if they remain in the family home keeping a spare room for their children when they visit. Elderly people will be penalised financially if they stay in their home and keep a spare bedroom for relatives to stay when visiting or if a couple needs two bedrooms for health reasons. Parents will be penalised financially if their teenage son or daughter does not share a bedroom with a child of the same sex under 10 years of age. Can your Lordships imagine someone in their late teens being forced to share a bedroom with a much younger child? It is a great inhibition on children in relation to their education, apart from anything else, to force them into such a situation.
The criteria set out for the size of accommodation also fall well below the standards set by housing associations and many private landlords letting in the private sector. They fall even further below the standards set by local authorities when allocating council homes. The Association of District Councils' Housing Committee has expressed concern that accommodation standards are too severe. Its housing officer said:
"It means an elderly couple would have to share the same bedroom and that is not always appropriate".
The size of the rooms is not specified, so two children may have to share a box-rooom.
While, through the order, the Govenrment places restrictions on the maximum size of a living room for those in receipt of housing benefit, they have totally failed to specify a minimum size. In the words of a representative of the Institute of Housing:
"This means that draconian and regressive new standards of housing have been introduced".
852
The result is that claimants will be penalised for having too much but will not be protected from having too little.
What will happen to the families affected? It is the fear of many local authority associations, from the AMA to the ADC and the housing associations, that there will be a greater burden by increasing the number of homeless people. According to the statutory instrument, the housing associations can be referred to the rent officer if the local authority considers that there is unreasonable rent or the accommodation is too large for a claimant's reasonable needs. If they are found to be guilty of over-accommodating, they do not have the powers to compulsorily re-house their tenants. There is great concern about their future tenancies, and the intrusive nature of the investigations by the rent officer could amount to harassment of private tenants. As has been said, some people will be forced to leave their homes because they no longer receive sufficient benefit to remain.
Your Lordships have heard about the appeal procedure. However, an appeal procedure which simply goes to another rent officer in an adjoining area does not appear to me to be an appeal procedure at all. If we are not careful about this, there will be a great deal of, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Those who are subject to the restrictions will not consider that they are getting a fair deal out of such an appeal procedure.
The rent officer's decision on unreasonably high rents will be based on the assumption that the claimant is able to find cheaper, suitable alternative accommodation. That is not always possible and the order contains no provision for similar accommodation in the same area. It provides for similar accommodation in a similar area. That may be far from what is needed by the family. The order takes no account of many of the difficulties in the rented sector as a result of the Housing Act. Namely, it makes no reference to key money. The Government allowed key money to be included in the Act but there is no guarantee that people who are thrown out of accommodation because the rent officer considers it to be too big will be able to find smaller accommodation at anything like a reasonable price if issues such as key money are not taken into consideration.
In assessing these matters, full access costs should be taken into account. The local authorities are put in a difficult position. As the AMA has said, the inevitable choice for a local authority in this situation is to pay unsubsidised benefit and pass on the cost to the community charge—which the Government have so carefully introduced to stop local authorities spending the ratepayers' money—or to restrict benefit to the claimant, who may then have to give up the accommodation. The local authorities are being put in an impossible position. In the end, more and more people will be forced into bed and breakfast accommodation, which is the most expensive and inefficient way of housing people.
The second order deals with Scotland, where approximately 80 per cent. of the housing stock consists of three-room apartments or larger. Fifty

853
per cent. of the people on the waiting lists are single. I believe that the situation in Scotland will be even worse than it is in England, particularly in London.
The Government have set out to avoid collusion between landlord and tenant. I am certain that the result of the order will be to ensure that more and more people go onto the streets, into cardboard boxes or into bed and breakfast accommodation at best. If the rent officer must set the level, we on these Benches believe that the Government ought to oblige the landlords by statute to lower their rents to the level assessed by the rent officer. That is the key to the matter.
As I said at the beginning, I am not against the Government trying to stop a waste of taxpayers' money by collusion between landlord and tenant, although that happens only rarely. However, this not the way to tackle this problem. I am sure that the alternative which is offered to us will be a massive increase in homeless people.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate on the order and I shall not do so at length. However, I am impelled to make two or three comments as a result of a letter received today from the Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour to be vice-president. Practically all the points of substance have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Tordoff. One objection that has leapt to my eye is the case of a couple with two children under the age of 10. They would be penalised if they had a third bedroom. As a result of the order, a school child studying for A-levels would be expected to share a room with a toddler. Can your Lordships imagine that, with the complexities which now face students studying for A-levels and GCSEs? There would be inadequate study space in the home, and from the educational point of view that is a strong objection.
I believe that it is reasonable for households in rural areas to have a spare room in order that relatives can visit. It is ridiculous that that should be prohibited under the order. The ADC also makes the point that the proposed criteria are not much above the antiquated overcrowding standards of the Housing Act 1985, which dates back to the Housing Act 1935. We appear to be putting the clock back a long way.
The final point, as the association points out, is that it was only given five working days by the Department of the Environment to comment on the proposals. It says that that reinforces its view that the size criteria was hastily devised with little thought given to the consequences. The association goes on to say:
"We do hope you share our concerns and will press the Government to produce a more reasonable standard".
In view of everything which has been said on this order, I believe that it is reasonable to ask the noble Earl whether the Government will, on this occasion, take back the order and rediscuss it with the various bodies concerned. The association says:
"We recognise that for the swift processing of referrals a broad brush approach is necessary and that it would not be appropriate for the rent officer to be involved in measuring claimants
854
accommodation. But a broad brush approach must be tempered by reasonableness and provide for a reasonable standard of accommodation and in this respect the size criteria falls considerably short".
Taking that as a starting point, is it not possible to rediscuss this problem and to see whether or not an order along more reasonable lines could be produced?
1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have been asked to speak on this matter by the London Boroughs Association which is very concerned about some implications. When I came to speak this morning I thought I should be 100 per cent. opposed to this order but having listened to noble Lords opposite, perhaps they have turned me into a devil's advocate because I can see many flaws in the points they have made.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, implied that these were terrible criteria which had never existed before. As far as I know, the GLC lettings were always based on those criteria and many local authorities in this country base their lettings on those criteria; for example, two children of one sex sharing a room. Therefore, I do not find those criteria surprising.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that he would like this order taken back. There is no question of that because it has been voted on and passed in another place and will clearly be passed here today. Therefore, I believe that it is important to appeal for a more practical and humane implementation of the criteria, which are not so extraordinary. In particular, I believe that the issue of the size of the room should attract flexibility. If, for example, the room is half the size of this Chamber, then that is rather different from the box room which has just been described. Many older buildings have large rooms. In fact, when I came from Australia, those huge rooms were divided into three small bed-sits for Australians coming here. However, they were huge rooms, large enough to accommodate people without any problem at all. However, if the room is very tiny, there is no doubt that that can create claustrophobia, all the problems of the different age groups and so may other problems. I believe that in implementing this order, there should be the possibility of looking flexibly at the particular unit involved.
I believe that it is essential that a system exists whereby a rent officer assesses the value of private housing accommodation. For too long it has been the case that anything was payable because anything was claimable. Some units of accommodation for which people have received benefit have been bad value for the persons concerned as well as for the taxpayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made the point about the large units in Scotland. Perhaps I may say that that was also a problem in England. The GLC found that there was a need for more and more smaller units. Demographic changes in London mean that we need more and more small units, perhaps due to more single-parent families and so on. Therefore, there are many reasons why we need

855
small units of accommodation. I believe it is wrong--and again I have has this problem when I have sat on housing committees both at County Hall and at Westminister—for one person to live in a flat which has three or four bedrooms which could be used by a family which desperately needs a three or four-bedroomed flat. Perhaps these regulations will help to make available larger accommodation for those people who require it and then I believe there will be the creation of smaller units.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She says that we are really concerned about practicalities and I accept that completely. However, let us consider the practicality of a family occupying rented accommodation which merits them being in receipt of the subventions of which we are speaking, whereby they are occupying a room in excess of the criteria applied for the maximum that they should have. The rent officer will say that the rent that he can charge or that he is prepared to allow for that is not £100, which is now being claimed, but, (shall we say?), £60 a week. Can the noble Baroness take us through the impact of that on the family? It either finds the extra £40, which is ridiculous, or it has to find other accommodation? That may very well satisfy the criteria of the noble Baroness that another family will be able to come in, but what about the family which, in effect, is being evicted?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, had I continued to the end of my comments, I should have covered that. The practicality of the situation is that it is not the family which will be disadvantaged but the local authority. The noble Lord gave the example of a family. If that family became homeless, it would become the responsibility of the local authority and would become a much greater and more expensive responsibility. Therefore, I believe that the local authority will suffer because it will pay the additional subsidy. That is the point that I think is unfair in this scheme. I do not believe that people will be put out of what is almost suitable accommodation of the type described by the noble Lord. Again, I make the point that the size of the room should be looked at.
I believe that the local authority is being put into a very unfortunate position whereby it has to look at the family and say, "Now, who is going to find the extra money? If we say that they must find it themselves and they have no means to do that, then they will be homeless. If they are homeless, they will be back on our doorstep". Therefore, it will be far cheaper to pay the extra £40 per week, apart from the obvious desirability of that.
Everyone in this Chamber knows that I am greatly opposed to bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless. I believe it is a tragedy that people are living in Bayswater in bed and breakfast accommodation. My daughter is a doctor in Lambeth and people trek every day to Lambeth from Bayswater for social services because Lambeth does not have available bed and breakfast accommodation. That is a terrible situation of which I have only recently become aware. I have known of the Bayswater problem but I did not know of the problem whereby
856
people have to go back to the area which put them into that accommodation. Therefore, there is a problem.
I do not agree with the point made by one noble Lord that if the rent officer determines a rent, the rent should be reduced down to that. I do not agree with that because that would take us back to the old system which I believe did nothing to help to create a pool of rented accommodation. I firmly believe that the Housing Act—although I do not think it is perfect because it has many flaws—will go a long way towards creating a pool of private rented accommodation. If instead we have a rent officer who says that it is only worth so much and it is reduced down to that, then that would create the same freeze which we had for so long. It would be all right for the person in that accommodation but it would not create more accommodation for other people.
I should like the Minister to be aware that the London Boroughs Association is very concerned about the implementation and how this will work. It believes that although it appears to create difficulties for the tenants, and in some cases it may, it is even more concerned about the knock-on effect for the local authorities because the money used to top up units of accommodation must come from community charge payers. Therefore it means that it must come off something else because the community charge payers cannot accept unlimited loading on to them. That is really the great worry. We all wish to avoid any more homelessness. If these regulations are implemented with care and concern they may work very well. I hope that they will and that our fears are unfounded.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that it is not too late for the Government to look at this matter again and to have further consultations with the local authorities. We are dealing with a very serious matter. I am glad that at the end the noble Baroness made the point that the choice will be between the local authority bearing the difference between the rent officer's assessment and the actual rent or making the person homeless. That is the stark choice. Some of the authorities will act in the way she suggested and some will not. The Government must look at the problem seriously because the chances are that unless this order is handled with great sensitivity and flexibility we are going to have a great number of homeless people as a consequence. I invite the Government to look at the problem realistically in that way.
One understands the reasons behind it. After all, the Government do not want a subsidy-led increase in rent which can happen if there is not some kind of control over housing benefit. That is quite straightforward. However, what is required is that the rent officer should not only look at the possibility of alternative accommodation of a smaller and cheaper kind that the person or family can have, but he should also weigh the actual cost of that alternative against the cost of the accommodation which the family is in at the time. In that I include not only the key money to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred, but also the cost of moving and living in accommodation in a new area with the

857
different situation for schooling and travel. There are all kinds of additional problems that will arise if people have to move from one area to another.
The rent officer does not have to decide merely whether there is cheaper accommodation in the same area that may make the situation a little less problematical; he has to consider whether there is accommodation in a similar area. A similar area may not be the one in which the family is at the time and it may mean a complete change. That should be borne in mind.
I accept what the noble Baroness said.—that the Government will probably not take the matter away for reconsideration and that it will become law. At this stage I am trying to get from the Government an undertaking that the way in which the order is implemented will not cause the worries that some of us have. There is no doubt that the criteria are too low. The noble Baroness mentioned the GLC, of which we were both members. I am quite certain that in that organisation there was never any compulsion to have one room for children of the same sex if the ages were significantly different. That is one area where there is a definite retrograde step. The idea that you cannot allow a spare room in a house is also a retrograde step. There are all kinds of reasons why it will be valuable to have a spare room. That can be borne in mind by the rent officer making his assessment.
I wish the Government to undertake to instruct the rent officer to bear in mind the balance between the assessed rent and what in fact it will cost the family to move to the cheaper accommodation that the rent officer has in mind. That kind of adjudication by the rent officer should be in writing and it should state where the accommodation is and name it. The consequences of moving to it should also be stated, as should whether making the rent £60 in this area as opposed to £80 in another is good value for money. That is what we are asking the Government to do at this moment because I am quite certain that as the regulations are drafted they will cause a great number of homeless people unnecessarily.
1.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for having arrived after this debate started. I can only say in mitigation that my faith in the health service is undiminished though it has been slightly dented temporarily by spending three-and-a-half hours this morning in a casualty waiting room. I only intervene in the knowledge that my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, besides the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, have made the most substantive points that need to be made against these orders. I wish to add the point of view of one who took part in the passage of the Housing Bill which is now the Housing Act 1988.
I really wish to say, "We told you so". All the time that the Bill was going through we said that the safeguards against additional homelessness provided in the Bill and those that were to be provided in these orders—I remind the House that they only come before us because of the partial acceptance of
858
opposition amendments to ensure that they would and would not be taken as negative resolutions—would not do the job of keeping people out of accommodation for the homeless and bed and breakfast places.
We said right from the beginning, that the scope given to rent officers for the payment of realistic rents was not enough and that the pressure on local authorities to make up the rents for the purpose of housing benefit when rent officers had determined rents was also not enough. We are now being proved right. It is quite clear from these orders that the Government have no intention of insisting that rent officers assess rents at a realistic level bearing in mind similar and suitable accommodation in the locality in which the people live. I am not referring to some other locality to which they would have to move and pay removal expenses. They would have to return to their own locality for work and school. These orders do not take account of the abominable legalisation of key money that is made in the Housing Act 1988. These orders refer to comparable rents and they do not speak of the access cost for accommodation that includes key money.
All the matters that we raised at the time and in answer to which the Government gave assurances that we considered to be inadequate at the time have now come true. It is clear from the evidence taken from around the country and from the London Boroughs Association that there will be an increase in homelessness, injustice, pain and poverty as a result of these orders. I make one last appeal to the Government to take them back for reconsideration in view of the very well-informed criticism that has been made by noble Lords on this side of the House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his apology and I am delighted that, like all of us, he is a great believer in the National Health Service. Even if the only thing for which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is grateful is the fact that I explained the order with some clarity, that is a small crumb for which I thank him.
Many noble Lords have spoken on the order. I am aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out, that an Unstarred Question is to follow this debate. I hope to be brief in answering questions. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to write to them in detail if I do not cover their points this afternoon. I fully accept that many of your Lordships have considerably greater experience than I on this order.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out that landlords may charge excessive rents which tenants cannot afford to pay. With deregulation of private accommodation rents are likely to rise. Housing benefit will be available up to market rent levels. However, we cannot accept that the Exchequer and the taxpayer should generally subsidise rents above market levels. The new arrangements will ensure that landlords cannot be subsidised for excessive rents through the housing benefit scheme.
The noble Lord asked about the age parameters for children. People are considered to be adults at 18 and children from nought to 17. The noble Lord asked about the number of additional rent officers

859
we consider to be necessary. We have provided some initial strengthening of officers who will be hardest pressed. Further strengthening will be provided in the light of actual workload. Their role in relation to fair rents will decline as their new work increases. We are satisfied that they will have the necessary capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised several points. He asked whether the rent officer arrangements are necessary and whether they are too bureaucratic. With the removal of the old system of statutory controls following deregulation of the private rented sector, there is a danger that the housing benefit scheme will be abused and that unreasonably high rents will be charged by landlords and paid by tenants in the knowledge that they will be met by housing benefit. We need to be sure that housing benefit follows the market and does not lead it and that the Exchequer does not subsidise unreasonable rents. That is why we are introducing the rent officer arrangements. In drawing up the procedural arrangements every effort has been made to minimise the work involved for local authorities and rent officers and to avoid delays for claimants. The noble Lord asked about houses in Scotland being larger than space limits. The larger rented houses in Scotland are mostly local authority or housing association houses for which a lower than market rent will be charged. As rent officers are determining market rents, a referral in these circumstances by a housing association should have no effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was concerned about the lack of consultation. The local authority associations were first informed of the proposed rent officer referral arrangements in October 1987, when a consultation paper was issued. In January 1988 a sub-group of the housing benefit standing committee was set up to consider the implications of the proposals for housing benefit administration of regulations. The Government's proposal had been amended in a number of areas following representations made by the local authority associations. The fact that they had only a week to comment on the draft order itself must be put into that context.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that it was not a consultation process? They were simply being informed of changes. They were told that they had to reply by 15th February and that the document was going to print on 17th February. There was no chance of changing the document. It was not consultation. It was merely informing people of the changes the Government had made.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my advice is otherwise, but the noble Lord would expect me to say that. I shall take up the point and I shall write to him on it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if the noble Earl is to write to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on that point, will he send a copy of the letter to me?
The Earl of Arran: Naturally, my Lords, I shall do so.
860
My noble friend Lady Gardner said that costs to local authorities would have to be paid out of the community charge. Housing benefit spending not covered by direct subsidy is reflected in the rate support grant arrangements, so additional support is available to local authorities.
The main aspect mentioned by many noble Lords, and the one on which we seemed to differ, concerned what constitutes a reasonable size of acommodation. It has been suggested that the criteria laid down in Schedule 3 represented the absolute minimum that we could have allowed and that their effect would be to force two children to share a box room or to force small families living in homes with two living rooms to move to smaller accommodation. As noble Lords will recognise, one of our aims in drawing up the criteria was to avoid imposing over-bureaucratic controls. Rent officers will have to deal quickly with hundreds of thousands of rent allowances claimed each year, so we have to keep things simple. If we had to decided to specify room sizes, someone would have had to visit each claimant's home to measure the rooms. That would have added massively to the task.
We accept that the criteria are less generous than those used by some housing associations. But many people not receiving housing benefit live in accommodation that is no larger than the criteria specify. The Government do not agree that as a general rule taxpayers should subsidise accommodation so that people on benefit can live in larger homes than some people who have to pay for their housing from their own pockets. We see no reason why, if three adults share a standard two-up, two-down house, one of the living rooms—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely taxpayers subsidise owner occupiers who have tax-subsidised mortgages however large the house is in relation to the size of the family? The Government are being inconsistent in this matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are not normally in the habit of being inconsistent, and I do not believe that it is the case on this point.
We see no reason why, if three adults share a standard two-up, two-down house, one of the living rooms should not be used as a bedroom. We do not agree that as a general rule housing benefit claimants should be entitled to a spare room for guests. However, we must emphasise that the protection for vulnerable groups, such as I described in my opening speech, means that application of these criteria will not mean, as some have suggested, that elderly people or young families will be made homeless or forced to move to unsuitable accommodation.
The housing benefit regulations provide a wide measure of protection for such people. No benefit restriction can be placed on the elderly, the sick and disabled or people with children unless the local authority is satisfied that cheaper, suitable alternative accommodation is available and the local authority considers it reasonable to expect a peson to move. If an authority decides that, in these cases, because there is no suitable alternative accommodation, it cannot restrict benefit to the level

861
appropriate for accommodation which meets the size criteria, it will receive 50 per cent. Exchequer subsidy on the benefit awarded above the rent officer's determination. That represents a significant concession by the Government since our original proposal was that no subsidy would be payable above the rent officer's figure. In all cases local authorities will retain their discretion to pay the benefit up to the level they judge reasonable. The rent officer's determination sets a ceiling on the rent on which full subsidy is payable, not on the level of benefit itself.
I am conscious that I have not answered some of the points that were raised. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order 1989
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong: British Passports Proposal
1.30 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their policy on the issue of British passports to Hong Kong citizens.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the agreements made over the future of Hong Kong are admirable on paper, but there is a growing danger that they may not work out as well in practice as we all hope. The continuing success of Hong Kong depends on enough of its most enterprising and able residents remaining there. They will do so if they have confidence in the Chinese Government honouring their promise to let Hong Kong conduct its internal affairs and its international trade in the way that it does today. That confidence will be much enhanced if those who are anxious to stay felt that they had some way to leave Hong Kong if a future Chinese Government looked as though they were intending to reverse the present benign intentions of Beijing.
Dramatic changes are not unknown in recent Chinese history. Everyone in Hong Kong is aware of what happened during the Cultural Revolution and they are a bit nervous about what is happening in Tibet today. After 1997 we shall be helpless to intervene. Hong Kong residents will have no means of preventing Beijing interpreting and modifying the agreement or the new basic law. It will be quite diffferent if a significant number of those essential to the administration and commerce of Hong Kong had a passport enabling them to live elsewhere if things went wrong.
Beijing receives one-third of its foreign currency through Hong Kong. Even the most extreme Chinese Government would hesitate to put that at risk through the departure of key figures from Hong Kong. To stop that happening would be as much in the interests of China as of Hong Kong residents. It will be a potent sanction against unilateral changes of the ground rules. With no such safeguard in sight, a disturbing brain drain has already begun. Thirty thousand residents left Hong Kong in 1987 going mainly to Canada, Australia and the USA. Forty-five thousand residents went in 1988. The emigrants are those with enough money, and also middle management and professionals who can easily obtain employment overseas.
The brain drain is mounting and a very substantial wastage in the civil administration is also occurring. By 1997 it could severely damage Hong Kong's prospects. These valuable people would much prefer to stay in Hong Kong. They will only do so if they have the key to what they fear, we hope irrationally, might become a Communist prison. The brain drain is our fault and we do not gain any benefit from it.
In Australia only two years' residence is required before an immigrant from Hong Kong can get a passport; in Canada it is three years. They welcome HongKong immigrants, but here we obstruct them. They cannot get a passport in under five years and that is only if they can jump many deliberately difficult hurdles with regard to financial status and other matters.
Our inflexibility over passports provokes rising hostility towards us in Hong Kong. It has contrasted with our willingness to take in Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong as British citizens; it has contrasted with the willingness of the Portuguese authorities to give passports to ethnic Chinese born in Macao. Those passports are valid throughout the entire European Community. It is thought that anything between 35,000 and 100,000 such passports will be issued.
After the European Community transitional period all those people from Macao of Chinese ethnic origin will be able to live and work here immediately and receive permanent resident status after four years; but the Chinese Hong Kong and the citizens of Hong Kong will not be able to do so. By the year 1997, apart from the Portuguese Chinese, some 270 million people from other countries in the EC will have the right of abode here, but not the Hong Kong people.
There is a stock answer from the Foreign Office and the Home Office about the ethnic Chinese from Macao. I shall now quote from a letter that Sir Geoffrey Howe wrote to me on 8th March:
"Portuguese nationality law is different from ours. Portuguese nationals in Portuguese overseas territories have always had the right of abode in Portugal".
That is somewhat misleading. Until we changed the law in 1962, the Hong Kong Chinese and Hong Kong citizens were British subjects with an absolute right to live and work here and become United Kingdom citizens. It is not their fault that alarm at the growth of coloured immigration from countries which had demanded, and achieved, independence from us made us remove those ancient rights from Hong Kong citizens.
Like the Falklanders and the Gibraltarians they had never wanted independence. The former have kept their full British passports but, with monstrous injustice, Hong Kong citizens have all lost theirs. In their place the Hong Kong citizens have at present a second class British dependent territories citizens' passport. It gives no right of abode here and will be invalid after 1st July 1997. There are believed to be some 2 million of those in existence. Before, but not after, 1st July 1997 Hong Kong residents can apply to have a new travel document called a British national overseas passport. It will be endorsed as follows:
"In accordance with the United Kingdom immigration rules the holder of this passport does not require an entry certificate or visa to visit the United Kingdom".
The same rule is supposed to apply to the BDTC travel documents, but there are many cases of harassment to owners of these by immigration officials. They do not seem to believe the authorities in London that holders of such documents from Hong Kong are entitled to unharassed visits. They frequently try to stop them entering.
On 13th May 1986 in another place the Home Secretary said that this concession about passports has been welcomed by the unofficial members of the Hong Kong executive and legislative councils (at col. 656 Hansard). That does not square with a letter I received, dated 17th March of this year, from the much respected Mr. John Swaine, QC. He wrote:
"With the unanimous support of the non-Government members of the executive and legislative councils of Hong Kong—
who must be taken to represent the feeling, as accurately as anyone can, in Hong Kong. Among other things he said:
"There is indeed very deep resentment in Hong Kong over British Government policy on nationality for Hong Kong citizens, which has been one of progressive erosion of those rights through the immigration legislation of 1962 and 1971 and the Nationality Act of 1981".
The loss of the full passport and the erosion of the other Hong Kong citizen nationality rights occurred before negotiations with the Chinese Government. It has nothing to do with the draft agreement of 1984, except for merely being described in the associated exchange of memoranda tabled at the end of the agreement.
The Portuguese Government have almost identical agreements with the Chinese Government, to take effect in 1999. Beijing has not made the slightest protest over the issuing by the Portuguese authorities to ethnic Chinese of proper passports. There is no evidence that Beijing would make any objection to our doing something similar. The objection comes from the Foreign Office and the Home Office and not from Beijing.
Logically, and in fairness, all Hong Kong residents—whether Chinese or not—who were born in Hong Kong should be entitled to a British passport. It is thought that that could involve the issuing of 3.5 million fully operative British passports. If that were to happen, only a tiny number would be used to acquire permanent residence in Britain or the Common Market. The vast majority of Hong Kong residents want to stay in Hong Kong or, if they leave, to go to warmer climates without
864
top rate income and capital gains tax of 40 per cent. That is not how the enormous commercial success and high standard of living of Hong Kong have been built. They have been built on low taxation.
I realise that the Government will not feel able to do the honourable thing and allow proper passports for those who depended upon our protection and who never wanted to lose it; but even if they all came, it would be a minute fraction of the 270 million who will shortly be able to come here from the rest of the EC. We have not yet added 52 million from Turkey. Doubtless the Government will go on saying that it is not them but Parliament who decided that point; but Parliament then had no knowledge of the negotiations over Hong Kong which had not even started. Many Members of both Houses, as did many Hong Kong Chinese, thought that the permanently ceded territories, which were ceded in 1842 and 1860, in and around Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, would never be handed back, and also that Britain might well continue to control, in agreement with the Chinese Government, over the territories where the lease expires in 1997.
It is not Parliament's wishes about which we are talking, but the Government's wishes. Realistically, I do not expect them to go as far as I should like, but they could be much more flexible, even within the laws upon which they rely to excuse them from doing anything.
The Home Office immigration rules (HC169) allow exceptions to the norm: persons of independent means with no less than £ 150,000, or £15,000 a year, can come here from any country on certain conditions. They have to be able to maintain and accommodate themselves and their dependants without help from other relatives or from government funds. They must show a close connection with the United Kingdom, through relatives or in other ways. They must show that their admission would be in the interests of this country. Permission to stay on that basis is renewable every 12 months. After five years, the restrictions are removed and applicants can apply for British citizenship and a proper passport. There is another category from any country with the same privileges but different conditions. One must have means of one's own of not less than £15,000, which one will put into a business in an amount proportional to one's interest in it. One must work full time at it and the Home Office must be convinced that there is a genuine need in this country for the business concerned.
The last two conditions would be fully met if up to, say, 50,000 energetic Hong Kong residents, selected for their ability and capacity, come to enrich our commerce and industry. The Home Office requires itself to be selective in this matter. It could easily be more selective, to the great benefit of the country, if it were not so wooden; 50,000 Hong Kong citizens, even supposing that they wanted to come here, would not open the floodgates from the new Commonwealth. Immigrants from there could not meet the financial qualifications. I should think us fortunate if 50,000 enterprising Hong Kong residents came here. That might make us as rich and enterprising as Hong Kong. The period of residence required

865
before a passsport is issued to such selected entrants should be reduced to two years. That would bring us into line with Australia.
But there are other things which could and should be done. Immigration restrictions under Section 4(2)(c) of the British Nationality Act 1981 should be lifted during the fifth year of the applicant's stay in the United Kingdom. At the moment they have to wait the full five years. Periods of study in the United Kingdom should be sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the residential requirements. The passport issued to Hong Kong residents only should be endorsed with the right of readmission to the United Kingdom. That in itself would fall far short of the right of abode, but it would guarantee the international acceptability of the new Hong Kong passport, enabling the holder to travel freely.
I understand that about 10 countries only will allow entry for a visit with the rather feeble travel document, as it now stands. Mr. John Swaine, together with all his non-government colleagues on the executive and legislative councils, strongly urges that, if the holder wishes, the right of readmission could mature into the right of abode after five years' stay.
There is then the problem of holders of proper British passports whose wives or husbands do not have one. The latter cannot reside in this country with their spouses without going through an immensely complicated rigmarole: the spouse with the passport has to produce documents satisfying the authorities about his or her educational qualifications, financial standing and so on. Even if they surmount that demeaning process, and they both come to live in Britain, the spouse without the passport can be ejected if the financial circumstances of the spouse with the passport change. However, graciously the Government have said that children may be allowed to remain.
I have seen a number of heartbreaking letters and articles from those who reasonably fear that they will be split from their wife or husband. If the Government are to show humanity, they must change those rules immediately. All those with a proper British passport should be able to confer the same right on their spouses. I should have thought that that was only common decency, it will affect only a few people. Likewise, the Government ought to give passports automatically to those who are or have been in the civil administration or the military services, if they want them, and to their widows. That is being refused on a substantial scale.
The Government have been niggardly about those small categories, including the Indian community which will be in a kind of nationality limbo after 1997. They will be neither Chinese nor Hong Kong citizens nor anything else. The Government's reluctance to behave decently in these matters is a major cause of the rising resentment in Hong Kong.
In what I have said I have carefully tried not to raise the hopes of Hong Kong residents beyond what it is realistic to expect. I know that most of them think that the British national overseas passport which is the only one available for use after 1997 is hardly worth applying for. I urge them nevertheless to apply. At least the residents could use them, even
866
in their present weak and feeble condition, as a passport to get out of Hong Kong in an impending emergency, to visit Britain, if only for a short while. Once here, it could be a different ball game, according to the nature of the situation which prompted the holder of the British national overseas passport to leave Hong Kong to visit Britain. That document might become extremely useful, although I hope that the emergency need for it will never arise.
The Government must not delude themselves that all is well in Hong Kong simply because they have made good agreements with Beijing. Business is certainly doing exceedingly well in Hong Kong and the British management of 40 per cent. of the £650 billion worth of companies on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange means that we are doing very well too out of Hong Kong.
However, as 1997 approaches, anxieties are mounting. Usually in Hong Kong strikes and disputes are unheard of. But during the last month there have been four: a strike of mini-bus drivers in protest against the police; a taxi drivers' strike; a dispute of doctors and nurses over pay and working conditions. That sounds familiar to us but it is extremely unusual in Hong Kong. Even court interpreters have started industrial action over their pay and promotion. Hong Kong is becoming harder to rule. Our duty to hand it over in good working order will be much easier to fulfil if we listen to and cease cavalierly to dismiss—as the Government do—the worries of the Hong Kong people. Worries may start with relatively small active groups; they can rapidly affect the whole population.
It must be in China's interests and in the interests of our huge British business investment in Hong Kong, which brings us in so much foreign exchange, to ensure the smooth working of Hong Kong after 1997. But much more flexibility is required from the British Government, particularly in the matter of passports—the potential key to freedom which could dissuade the Chinese Government from ever making Hong Kong a prison.
The Hong Kong people do not share the Government's rosy view of Chinese communism. It is for the Chinese Government to convince them that Her Majesty's Government are right. I believe that Beijing will be much assisted in doing this if our Government were to act along the lines I have suggested. The Hong Kong people would then feel that we had not abandoned them out of mistaken and misplaced deference to Beijing.
1.54 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, on this Question today and as a result activating the debate. I think that all of us were most impressed by the skilful way in which he put his case. I support him wholeheartedly in the views he has expressed so well today to the House.
The matter of passports is not only important here in the United Kingdom but, as the noble Lord has stressed, it is crucial to Hong Kong. I have an interest in that for four years I had the honour to be Foreign Office Minister responsible for the supervision of

867
the Government of Hong Kong. I did the job which my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to reply is doing today.
I have resisted the temptation over the past few months to speak about the Hon Kong situation, realising how very dificult and sensitive it is. However I feel now that as it is three years since the Hong Kong British Nationality Order was introduced in 1986, it is time that the British Government thought again on the passport and nationality issue. As was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, there seems to be a strange alliance between the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make no move at all on the matter. It is an alliance which gives great anxiety to all of us who are interested in Hong Kong. This afternoon I must request my noble friend to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to sit down round the table with the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and try to see whether something can be done to meet the real fears which were expressed only yesterday in this Palace by the Governor of Hong Kong when giving evidence to the Select Committee in another place.
Why is that so important? As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, the need is clear—to raise morale in Hong Kong. There is concern that the governments in Hong Kong and London are perceived to be inclined to dance to the Peking tune. This may not be true, but that perception is held widely in Hong Kong. Although Hong Kong feels that Peking will keep to the agreement, other outside events such as the recent developments in Tibet cause anxiety that Chinese attitudes may change for the worst in Peking over the course of the next few years, before the new agreement comes into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has mentioned the Macao decision to issue European Community passports to 100,000 Macinese. This of course has raised eyebrows in Hong Kong becasue the people living there know perfectly well that in due course, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, the Macao Chinese will be able to enter the United Kingdom as members of the European Community. It seems to me that British passports should first be granted as a matter of fairness to those who can contribute financially to the UK on the lines that were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
Many applicants during their working lives will not have made any contribution to the United Kingdom economy. Naturally, because they have lived outside the United Kindom, they have made no contribution in taxes to the United Kingdom or the superstructure, pensions, housing etc. But they have been British subjects in Hong Kong and therefore we have a duty to them. If they are prepared to make a financial contribution on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, it seems to me that a gesture such as this could make a substantial contribution and give benefit to the UK economy. Those benefits, as has already been said, now go to the United States of America, Australia and Canada. About 97 per cent. of all Hong Kong immigrants at the moment go to the USA, Canada
868
and Australia. We are talking about 45,000 emigrating in 1988. These are the leaders of the community, the trained technicians, the people who will be keeping Hong Kong on the road in the years ahead.
Most Hong Kong citizens wish to live and flourish in their own city. They have made a considerable success of that. They do not wish to leave; I do not believe that they will do so. But the gesture of passports can provide an immense boost to their morale. Again, this point was underlined by Sir David Wilson, the Governor, in his evidence yesterday to the Select Committee in another place.
There are elaborate safeguards in the international agreement which has been negotiated by the British Government with Peking. But that does not alter the need to be more flexible regarding access into the United Kingdom and into the European Community. That is both in the interests of the United Kingdom and of Hong Kong. It was interesting that Peking did not view the Macao decision of the Portuguese Government with concern, so I see no reason why it should view with any concern any change or alteration that Her Majesty's Government may make regarding passports for Hong Kong citizens.
My next point was, I believe, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. It concerns the need for more flexibility and the fact that so much unnecessary caution is shown by the Home Secretary regarding his ability in Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act to make decisions on individual cases. The Home Secretary should surely use this power much more widely and to the benefit of the civil servants who have given their lives to the service of the British Government in Hong Kong. I wish to quote briefly from the leading article in The Times on this issue on 13th January 1989. The article states:
"If Chinese rule should prove oppressive after 1997, Britain's doors will be closed to most of Hong Kong's 3·5 million British nationals. Their passports do not give them the right to reside in the United Kingdom. But in recognition of their special vulnerability, ministers have discretion to issue passports to members of Hong Kong's administrative and security services. Yet of the modest 700 who have applied, all but 54 have been refused.
If Britain is confident—as Sir Geoffrey Howe has claimed in The Times—that Hong Kong's people will 'wish to build their future in their own territory', there is no need for it to be so niggardly in granting them the right of residence. Britain's policy contrasts unhappily with Portugal's decision to give full passports to its 100,000 nationals in Macao … The size of Hong Kong's population is, of course, much greater. But that is no reason for not granting British passports at least to those with special claims. This would be just, and would confer needed credibility on ministers' assertions that they are not walking away from Hong Kong".
Britain has political and moral obligations to Hong Kong. There is, rightly, a feeling in Hong Kong that we are not meeting them.
2.3 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, on raising this important subject on this occasion. I also agree with him that we are discussing two things in particular. First, there is the question of the confidence which anyone can have in the undertakings given by the Chinese Government, and in

869
particular the confidence which the people of Hong Kong and British passport holders in Hong Kong can have in the undertakings of that Government. Secondly, we are looking at the consequences of British immigration policy. That is never very defensible in any respect, and in respect of these citizens it is particularly indefensible.
The contrast between the policy of the British Government and that of the Portuguese Government is stark and wholly in favour of the latter. I do not intend to dwell on the issues which have been so fully and convincingly covered by the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Fanshawe of Richmond. I simply wish to draw attention to a particular group of people who probably could not be favoured on account of their bank balances, but to whom we have a particular obligation. They should not pass unnoticed in this debate.
The group to which I refer consists largely of the Indian population which in 1985 consisted of about 6,000 people from India and 4,000 from Pakistan. It included also some Portuguese and other Europeans. That group of people, which amounted then to some 10,000, seems to me to be a group to which we have a particular obligation. Some of them came to Hong Kong in the 19th century as merchants at the same time as we took over the colony. Others came over to serve the British Government as public servants, as policemen and as junior civil servants. The children of those people, some of whom came in after partition in India, are unable to claim Chinese nationality. They can only become British nationals overseas.
As has already been said, this status does not provide them with a right of abode. They are therefore stateless de facto.It seems to me that these people, who came over to a British colony, who have served the British Government and who do not want to serve the Chinese Government, are a group to which we have a particular obligation. Moreover, they are a small group. We should ask the noble Lord when he replies to this Question to pay special attention to this group of people to which we have an undeniable obligation.
2.7 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I too must, and indeed would like to, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on raising this Question today. The matter of British nationality for the citizens of Hong Kong has been debated at length over some years now. Some noble Lords may remember the amendment that I had the privilege of proposing on 13th October 1981 to the then British Nationality Bill. It read, somewhat appropriately for this afternoon's Question:
"Every person who under this Act is a British Citizen, a Citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British Overseas Citizen shall have the status of a British National".—[Official Report, 13/10/81; col. 261.]
I admit to a feeling of considerable disappointment that that amendment was defeated, albeit extremely narrowly in a very full vote, by 105 to 102. I think it worth emphasising that it was not designed only to encompass the Hong Kong situation; it was a much broader amendment. It is also worth pointing out that it followed the granting
870
of British nationality to the citizens of Gibraltar. However, it preceded the granting of British nationality to the citizens of the Falklands, which was itself the subject of a separate amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Vickers, which, if I recall correctly, resulted in a tied vote of 99 to 99 and under the rules of this House was therefore declared defeated.
That defeat of my amendment regarding British nationality by 105 to 102 was followed by a series of amendments which I proposed when this House considered amendments from another place to the British Nationality Bill. My noble friend the late and sadly missed Lord Drumalbyn said in the debate on 29th October:
"I have never seen an Order Paper such as the one we have today".
I apologise if this seems somewhat egotistical, but it is relevant. He went on to say:
"It seems time that my noble friend Lord Geddes has set the Government 100 lines! It is practically a 100 repetitions of the same correction. The Government have delivered their task on time".—[Official Report, 29/10/81; col. 1138]
I had hoped to have been able to congratulate my noble friend the Leader of the House because on that occasion he was sitting in the place where my noble friend Lord Glenarthur is sitting and had to respond to the comments of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
The Government have made it abundantly clear that they consider that the future of the people of Hong Kong is safeguarded by the joint declaration and the basic law, together with the discretionary power to grant British citizenship under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. I do not think that this is the occasion to debate the merits and shortcomings of that document. What is clear, however, and has already been mentioned this afternoon, is that the people of Hong Kong do not appear to agree with the Government and they are voting with their feet.
Reports of the brain drain have already been mentioned this afternoon and continue to flood in. I shall quote just a few statistics. Last August it was reported that just under 68 per cent. of computer experts were planning to leave Hong Kong. In January this year a survey by the Institute of Personnel Management showed that the private sector lost just under 8 per cent. of its top staff last year. In the same month an opinion poll conducted by Survey Research Hong Kong revealed that in 29 per cent. of all households at least one member was planning to leave or had already gained a foreign passport. That figure rose to 46 per cent. when limited to professionals, business executives and the self-employed.
As has been mentioned this afternoon—and I make no apology for repeating the point—in order to retain for its banks and corporations key personnel who might otherwise emigrate, the French Government have decided to confer upon about 100 Hong Kong people full French national status without any need to meet residence requirements. They have been issued with French passports with the right of abode in France, and therefore right of abode in this country.

871
In addition, as my noble friend Lord Fanshawe has already mentioned, the Government's application of their powers to grant British citizenship to Hong Kong citizens is hardly encouraging. I think that it is worth repeating that out of 700 members of the administrative and security forces who have applied for citizenship, we are told that only 54 have been successful.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of Britain's moral responsibility towards the people of Hong Kong, to which I should like to return, there is an arguable and more general case for granting British nationality which might be called the sword of Damocles argument. The threat of a mass exodus from Hong Kong of all or the vast majority of professionals, at that stage armed with a British pasport, must at the very least be a strong inducement to the PRC to observe the spirit of the joint declaration without alteration.
I should also like to refer to yet another survey conducted by Emigration magazine last year, which has already been mentioned. It found that of the 45,000 people who left Hong Kong in 1988 the vast majority did not want to come to this country. Ninety-four per cent. quoted Canada, Australia or the USA as their first choice. However, even if one were to accept that the overall argument has been lost—and I do not consider that it has been—one must return to that statistic, that of 700 applications for British nationality only 54 have been granted.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy in this matter, justified the situation by saying, as he has said in the House in the past, that the granting of such citizenship would be given "only sparingly" and on a very limited basis. He said that in his letter to The Times of 17th January this year. I support the argument that that seems an inadequate reason, to say the very least, to explain why those numbers should be so small. Why have the Government not been more open about their reasons for that refusal?
I believe that this is more than an emotional issue even within this House. It is certainly a serious issue within Hong Kong. It has been an ongoing issue for a very long time and I am proud to have been involved in it for the last eight years. Sadly, I believe that there is little chance of Her Majesty's Government granting full nationality to the entire population of Hong Kong, but, having said that, one questions why not. We are talking of a population of 3·28 million in Hong Kong; that is less than 1½per cent. of the Common Market's population of more than 250 million. As has been said but cannot be proved, there is no way that anything like all those 3·28 million people will be able to come to this country even if they wanted to do so.
As His Excellency the Governor said yesterday—my noble friend Lord Fanshawe has already quoted him—Hong Kong feels that Britain has a moral obligation and a debt of honour towards its subjects there. For 140 years they have been encouraged to behave as British subjects and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, before 1962 they had the right of abode in this country. I hope that I am not a voice crying in the wilderness, but I urge the Government,
872
and particularly my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, to think seriously about the issue. There is no longer a precedent being set. There are no others to whom such a granting of nationality, other than to the Chinese in Hong Kong, could be made. There is no precedent elswhere in the world. Let us look seriously at the matter again to see whether we can give real encouragement to the Chinese people of Hong Kong on a question about which they feel deeply and which they have a great deal of justification for asking.
2.17 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, this question of British nationality is exceedingly bitter for people in Hong Kong. It is the subject that arouses most passion and is at the heart of the disilllusionment with the United Kingdom which is so constantly and, I fear, correctly alleged in the media.
I entirely agree with what the Governor said to the Select Committee yesterday about the matter and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for having raised the question today. I shall not take noble Lords through the sad history of this business from the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 down to the last bitter pill of what happened in Macao, but we must surely view the situation with great sympathy. We must realise that it harms Britain's reputation, including among our best friends in Hong Kong. Moreover, the sense of a need for an alternative nationality is causing some or many people to emigrate. I do not think that many now expect that the restrictions imposed during the last 27 years can be legislated away as was done for the small numbers in Gibraltar and the Falklands, but I agree with the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, about how the present situation could be mitigated. His suggestions very much cover the points raised by John Swaine and the Hong Kong officials of the executive and legislative council.
For my part, I want to concentrate on what harm could be mitigated by more flexible administration of the 1971 Act. It adds up to very much the same as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has said, although I have had no previous contact with him about this subject. I should like to put the case in my own way.
The success of Hong Kong up to 1997 and of the SAR thereafter depends on many factors. High on the list of essentials is that most of the managerial core—the decision-makers—whether in government or in business should stay in place. The long-term answer to this requirement is exactly what the Government are trying to do. I entirely agree with the reply of the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on 2nd February to the effect that one should make Hong Kong an attractive place in which people can live, work and plan their lives.
However, the certainty of those attractions will only be felt in time and as events unfold. Meanwhile, anxious people ponder what to do. For those who are in doubt about whether to stay or emigrate, registration as a British citizen would end their dilemma. I am sure that, given that assurance, they would not hasten to the United Kingdom but, on the contrary, would thankfully get on with their jobs and lives in Hong Kong.

873
I do not suggest that as yet there is a crisis. At this stage I simply propose a reconsideration of the administration of Section 4 of the 1981 Act in order to see whether, for example, "special circumstances" under subsection (4) or "Crown Service" referring to subsection (5) could not be used more widely to accommodate the people of whom I have been speaking.
I noticed that both the noble Lords, Lord Fanshawe and Lord Geddes, referred to subsection (5). It is of particular interest to me because it provides for registration without residential qualification. In the present circumstances the last thing that is wanted is for these key people to spend several years outside Hong Kong qualifying for some nationality and perhaps deciding never to come back.
Perhaps I may say in anticipation of the Minister's reply that I know that it has always been claimed that this subsection would be applied sparingly. Indeed, I can almost hear the then Home Secretary, Mr. Whitelaw, warning me that that would be the case. I am seeking now reconsideration of what "sparingly" really need mean. My submission is that it ought to mean a great deal more than it does at present.
I believe that, other things being equal, the kinds of people I have in mind want to stay in Hong Kong. Such is their commitment that many would stay there in any case. It seems to me that putting at rest the minds of those people is something practical which the British Government could do and which would not involve large numbers. It would be very much in the interests of the Chinese Government. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that probably there is no question of their objecting. It would in any case help to underpin the stability of Hong Kong at what may prove to be a critical point. It is very much in the joint interests of both governments.
In support of his excellent arguments the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, warned that all was not well in Hong Kong. If I may say so, it would be surprising if it were. There is a situation—a unique situation—of very rapid change and of course there are worries. However, I hope that no one will underrate the achievements of the government in Hong Kong. One sees emerging the framework of a viable, prosperous future out of what was once total uncertainty. The details of the policies are under constant attack in uninhibited terms by some of the press and most of the politicians in Hong Kong. That is certainly healthy, for all I know helpful and, in any case, common form in a free society.
Let us remember that the economy is booming. The standard of life there is the highest in Asia, after Japan. Hong Kong is proving to be what one had always hoped that it would be; namely, the motor of the latent productive and commercial capacity of large areas of South China. These facts reflect a truer commentary on what the Government are achieving in Hong Kong, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, stressed, there are still some very important things to be done.
2.25 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I too should like to join in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today.
I visited Hong Kong in June last year. I received ample evidence of the dismay of Hong Kong citizens on this subject of nationality. Indeed, as was referred to earlier in the debate, I met Mr. John Swaine who talked to me on this subject. I see the problems of Hong Kong as being rather like the problem of exchange control. When a country has stringent exchange control, it seems that everybody wants to get their money out. When one abandons exchange control, as we did in this country a few years ago—surprise, surprise!—capital does not flood out left, right and centre. In fact it begins to flood in because the capital feels free to move.
Evidence in Africa and other places suggests to me that most of the countries which have the most stringent exchange control are those pursuing policies which make people want to vote with their financial feet. I do not believe that most of the residents of Hong Kong want to vote with their financial or physical feet. But they need the right. They need an insurance policy.
Should they have that right? As has been said on several occasions in this debate, up until 1962 they had that right: the right of free abode in the United Kingdom if they so choose it. That applied to many other Commonwealth citizens. However, most of those Commonwealth citizens received independence in their own countries under their own governments, and it was perfectly reasonable that their right of free abode in this country should cease. However, Hong Kong is not a democracy. It has not opted for independence. It never had any intention of doing so. The change that will happen is that a country—which has only in a sense a rudimentary democracy now—will be handed over to the control of a country with very little history of democractic process.
The passport problem is in a sense a symptom of the disease. That disease is fear—fear of China and what it will do after 1992. Therefore, as I said when we debated this subject in June last year in this House, it is China that holds the key. What it has to do is to make the Basic Law better for the people of HongKong than the Sino-British Agreement. It must not regard it as a matter of face to win back points conceded in that agreement; it must go further and prove to the people of Hong Kong that autonomy will mean what it says.
Equally, if the citizens of Hong Kong have the right to vote with their feet then China cannot use the stick to keep them there. It will have to use the carrot and that can only be beneficial.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and others have made the point that it is perhaps too much to hope that the British Government will reverse their position and grant the full right of abode to British nationals in Hong Kong. However, as several noble Lord have said, the situation today is vastly different. First, we know that very few of them really want to come to the United Kingdom. We in the United

875
Kingdom are not now threatened by vast hordes of potential immigrants. Indeed, it is to the EC that the Hong Kong citizen will be coming. Living in a somewhat warmer climate than Britain, I have no doubt that there are many other parts of Europe in which those who wished would ultimately settle.
I am in favour of the grant of more or less full UK citizenship to the residents of Hong Kong. I do not see, as has been said, that it creates any new precedents. I appreciate that there are practical difficulties. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm it, but I hope that the way may be open for a somewhat more pragmatic approach than is being applied now.
It has been said that we should perhaps survey the market and allow all British nationals in Hong Kong to apply for a passport which would allow them a right of abode in the United Kingdom. Perhaps subject to suitable financial self-sufficiency criteria, we might institute a quota which could be fulfilled by a ballot and thus create a mechanism which would not commit the Government to letting in a particular number in any one year, but which would create a sympathetic approach and a flexibility, which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, requested.
Many small nations have changed hands in this century without being consulted about their fate. That is nothing new, but now in 1989, running up to 1997, we hope that we shall be entering a period of civilisation when glasnost is rife and possibly its Chinese equivalent.
We are in a civilised fashion discussing the problem of the reversion of a piece of freehold property. It is interesting that we should have been discussing a housing order before this debate started. But there is plenty of legislation in this country which requires a landlord to protect tenants' rights and, if necessary, to rehouse tenants should they so require it.
I should like to join other noble Lords in asking the Government to give a more sympathetic consideration to this issue.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for bringing before it once again the legitimate concerns of the people of Hong Kong on the passport issue. The Government have deployed the argument that wrong signals would be sent if we were to give the people of Hong Kong a lifeline to Great Britain in the form of a full British passport. But because that security is not there, there are, as the House has heard, the beginnings of an enormous brain drain out of Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has given the most recent figures: 30,000 in 1987 and 45,000 last year.
Security is the most legitimate of aspirations for every man and woman. Today it is those with the most exportable assets who are finding with their feet security away from Hong Kong. These are people whom Hong Kong can ill afford to loose. It would be idle to deny that what is already much more than a trickle may by 1997 become a flood. This accelerating damage to the future wellbeing of Hong
876
Kong must be recognised by the Government, who should appreciate that it would be arrested by the security of a full British passport.
The argument that displeasure from Beijing would result from a more liberal policy on the passport issue is thoroughly bogus. I hope that we do not hear any of that in the reply from the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, rightly said, Beijing made no protest whatever when Portugal granted to the ethnic Chinese of Macao passports fully valid anywhere in the EC. The sense of security conferred by these passports will mean that there need be no disproportionate reactions on the part of their holders to concerns that could so easily be exaggerated in new and unusual circumstances if they had no lifeline elsewhere.
The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has emphasised, that the conduct of the Government of Portugal is in sharp contrast to our own. We refuse to grant the right of abode to the 3·5 million British dependent territory citizens in Hong Kong, whereas Portugal is granting EC passports to its 100,000 nationals in Macao. As has been said, these passports will allow the Macao Chinese to live and work in all Common Market countries, including the United Kingdom, while the Hong Kong Chinese, who have every reason to regard themselves as British, have no such right.
It is far too easy to say that those who are able today, by moving, to acquire a Canadian passport after three years' residence, or an Australian passport after two years' residence, will duly return to Hong Kong with their families and with their new insurance policies in their back pockets. In some cases that may be. However, it is beyond doubt that Hong Kong is suffering and will continue to suffer a serious and permanent loss of human capital.
For my part, I give no weight at all to the argument that to grant the right of abode to the 3·5 million nationals in Hong Kong will signal a lack of confidence in the future of Hong Kong. On the contrary, it will give to those 3·5 million people, on whom the future success of Hong Kong depends, the confidence to make Hong Kong work.
As a number of noble Lords have reluctantly recognised, it may be that this argument has long been lost. But at least let us abstain, and may the Minister in reply abstain, from bogus arguments that the just solution—to grant the right of abode—will send the wrong puffs of smoke elsewhere. That is just no argument at all.
The fact is that it is fear for the future, which can so easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy, that is poisoning a new venture. The same rights for the Hong Kong Chinese as Portugal has conferred on the Macao Chinese would create that climate of confidence which alone can guarantee the success of the new Hong Kong.
I have one overriding question to put to the Minister. In reply, will he in good conscience tell us how the strongest reason for refusing the right of abode—that is, fear of mass immigration from Hong Kong into the United Kingdom—can live alongside the Government's continually expressed confidence that Hong Kong's way of life will continue for at

877
least 50 years so that the people of Hong Kong have nothing to fear and no reason to want to leave? If the noble Lord knows the answer to that question, no doubt he will wish to give it to the House so that it can be heard in Hong Kong.
Before departing from that point, I should like to remind your Lordships of the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, not today but in this House on 16th May 1986. He said:
"It is difficult for us here to realise the feelings of someone who was born a British national with right of abode in the United Kingdom who through no fault of his own finds that that right has gone from him, in spite of the fact that all this time he has been called British and has been administered from Britain".—[0fficial Report, 16/5/86; col. 1422.]
Let it be that I and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have been pushing at a door that was bolted years ago: so, no general right of abode in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong citizens. But I should at least add my voice from these Benches to the words of realism that have come from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. Can the discretion to grant British passports not be exercised in a much less restrictive way for the benefit of many more Hong Kong citizens?
As the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, pointed out, there it, for example, discretionary provision of full British citizenship for current and former servants of the Crown and their relatives. Why have only 54 out of 700 applications been successful? We are told that the Government's policy is to grant these applications on a very limited and sparing basis. Can we be told why that is the policy? This House will not be impressed by being told that it is wet because it is wet.
I should like to ask the Minister whether in all the respects listed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, he can offer any assurance that there will be a more generous grant of United Kingdom passports to Hong Kong citizens. Has he anything tangible to say about the discretionary grant of full United Kingdom passports beyond the well-worn utterances about BNOC passports, in which Hong Kong citizens have so little faith?
Having said that, I join the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in urging Hong Kong citizens to take up the BNOC passports, even though they may think so little of them. In an emergency which no one anticipates, in which the expectations of the people of Hong Kong under the joint declaration and the basic law were defeated, I cannot see how our Parliament and the Government of the day, whoever they may be, could do other than consider it the obligation of our country to grant a right of abode to those who feel constrained to leave Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will wish to say something on that possibility, which, however remote it seems, is a real source of current fear for so many.
Finally, before I sit down perhaps I may make this observation. I hope that in his reply the Minister will acknowledge that no Member of this House who has chosen to participate in this debate has spoken in support of the Government's policy and I hope that he will feel constrained to respond accordingly. Perhaps I may also add that we on these Benches do not doubt the commitment of the Government of
878
the People's Republic of China to make a success of Hong Kong in accordance with the Joint Declaration. However, from the United Kingdom Government we seek a flexibility in the issuing of British Passports and in undertakings—and if not undertakings, encouraging indications—for the future which will make a tangible contribution to that climate of confidence which is necessary for the continuing success of Hong Kong between now and 1997, and beyond.
2.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has given us an opportunity to consider a subject which is of great importance and sensitivity to people in Hong Hong. It is a topic to which I have devoted much attention as the Minister with special responsibility for Hong Kong and I have listened with interest to the thoughtful and concerned views which your Lordships have put forward this afternoon.
The sensitivities go well beyond the immediate matter of nationality and passports. They involve important questions about Hong Kong's future and about the viability of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on which Hong Kong's future depends. But it has in particular been suggested that Her Majesty's Government's policy on the matter of passports for Hong Kong citizens reflects a lack of commitment on our part to the Joint Declaration and lack of confidence in Hong Kong's future.
It has also been argued that our policy on passports indicates that we have reneged on our responsibilities towards Hong Kong people. That may not have been addressed in quite those words this afternoon but it is, nevertheless, a theme which has developed over time and I tell your Lordships that those suggestions are far from the truth, as was the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Fanshawe that we were dancing to the Chinese tune, if I have his words right. All our efforts and success in negotiating the joint declaration, and now in securing its faithful implementation, would have been in vain if it were not now our intention to uphold our responsibilities towards Hong Kong.
The Joint Declaration is a binding international agreement. It contains detailed and comprehensive provisions for Hong Kong's continued stability and prosperity in the years up to 1997 and beyond. We are committed to making the agreement work and to ensuring that Hong Kong remains a thriving and dynamic society in which her people can look to the future with confidence.
In the four years since the signing of the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong has taken full advantage of the favourable conditions which the Joint Declaration helped to create. Hong Kong has enjoyed impressive and sustained economic growth. Her people have achieved an unprecedented level of prosperity. Hong Kong today is a remarkable success story. I have visited the territory four times in the past 18 months and I can personally testify to that. While the British Government remain fully committed to the maintenance of Hong Kong's success, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and to

879
the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that I am as confident as they are that the commitment of the Chinese Government is every bit as firm.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, clearly feels strongly about the matter, but with respect, however, he seemed in a sense to overlook a lot of all that. In his speech he seemed to condemn with faint praise the sound record of astonishing success which we have had so far in implementing the arrangements set out in the Joint Declaration, and the many manifestations of Hong Kong's growing prosperity.
So far as concerns the terms of Lord Wyatt's Question, it will come as no surprise to him to hear that the Government's view remains as I explained to the noble Lord when I answered his Starred Question on 2nd February. Let me explain why and begin by hitting one myth on the head straightaway; that is, the comparison that has been suggested between the Vietnamese boat people and letting some of them come here, and not the Hong Kong Chinese. I cannot stress too strongly that there is simply no connection between those two issues and it is quite wrong to draw such a connection. Those Vietnamese boat people who qualify as refugees are eligible for resettlement; those who are not refugees are detained as illegal immigrants pending repatriation to Vietnam. Clearly, there is no question that Hong Kong Chinese are, or should be treated as, refugees.
I believe also that there is a widespread misunderstanding that it was the British Nationality Act 1981 that deprived holders of Hong Kong British passports of the right of abode in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, went some way towards putting the case in a rather more accurate way and pointing out that there is a considerable history to this. The present nationality and immigration status of Hong Kong British Dependent Territory Citizens reflects the worldwide nationality and immigration policies of successive British Governments since the early 1960s. The British Nationality Act of 1981 merely confirmed the trend of previous legislation, in line with the wishes of Parliament and the British people.
I must emphasise that this legislation is of worldwide application. It is not, nor has it ever been, in any way restricted to, or directed at, Hong Kong. Nor is it the case, as some people in Hong Kong seem to believe, that the British Nationality Act of 1981 was designed with Hong Kong's future transition in mind so as to keep Hong Kong people out of Britain.
Hong Kong BDTCs are subject to United Kingdom immigration control and do not have right of abode here. But they do not require visas or entry certificates to enter the United Kingdom as visitors, and they are entitled to full British consular protection when travelling overseas.
Your Lordships will no doubt recall that when we discussed Hong Kong matters last June concern was expressed about entry refusals of Hong Kong British passport holders. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has raised this matter again today. I have personally looked into that problem with the Home
880
Office, and visited Gatwick and Dover to see the situation for myself. Following this, we agreed a package of measures, including provision of a hot-line service to the Hong Kong Government office in London to assist and offer advice in cases of difficulty.
I am glad to say that the rate of entry refusals dropped significantly. Indeed, the hot-line has taken only two calls relating to Hong Kong travellers seeking advice because of difficulty at ports of entry since it was established in November. Having looked thoroughly at the issue I can give an absolute assurance that there is no doubt about the validity of BN(O) or BDTC passports, nor any question of discrimination against their holders at United Kingdom ports of entry. Holders of BDTC passports will continue to enjoy these same benefits after 1997 as British Nationals (Overseas), a status created under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Order 1986 which was fully considered and endorsed by Parliament at the time.
The noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Fanshawe, have sought to draw comparisons between Hong Kong and Macao. Both noble Lords will not be surprised if I echo the remarks of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not believe that any valid comparisons can be made. The nationality laws relating to the two territories have long been different. The nationality law of Portugal differs from our own, in that Portuguese nationals in Portuguese overseas territories have always had the right of abode in Portugal. That situation existed long before the signing of the Sino-Portuguese joint declaration on Macao. The fact that Portuguese nationals in Macao have recently begun to be issued with passports in the common EC format does not reflect any change in their nationality status.
When the noble Lord. Lord Wyatt of Weeford, referred to the Macao Portuguese, he seemed in effect to be proposing that Hong Kong BDTCs— some 3·25 million of them—should be given the right of abode in the United Kingdom. That would require an amendment to the law. It would also involve a substantial change in well established nationality and immigration policy. By far the most common basis for granting British citizenship is that the people concerned are already resident in Britain and have met the residence requirements set out by law.
The noble Lord might like to ponder the fact, as should the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the grant of citizenship and the right of abode to 3·25 million Hong Kong British Dependent Territory citizens at one go would involve well over six times the total number of people granted full British citizenship in the 10-year period 1977–87. I cannot believe that the noble Lord seriously expects—he seemed to recognise the realities, as did other noble Lords—that there would be sufficient support in this country for a proposal which would entail the prospect, albeit a theoretical one, of large-scale immigration into this country from Hong Kong.
I have noted the argument put forward by several noble Lords, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that, even were the right of abode to

881
be provided for all Hong Kong British Dependent Territory citizens or those holding BN(O) passports, only a small percentage of them would wish to exercise that right. To legislate on that basis would in effect be little more than a shot in the dark. No one is in a position to predict with any accuracy or certainty what effect such a move would have on Hong Kong, whose population has always been a highly mobile one. To introduce new provisions on the basis that they will never be exercised seems to be a most curious starting point for any proposal for new legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and other noble Lords suggested that the Chinese Government would have no objection to his proposal. I am not so sure. It would certainly not be right to attach any weight to the fact that the joint declaration does not explicitly rule out what the noble Lord has in mind. The Chinese memorandum on passport and nationality matters associated with the joint declaration states that under Chinese nationality law:
"All Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether or not they are British Dependent Territory citizens, are Chinese nationals".
It would not be easy to reconcile that with the proposal that 3.25 million Hong Kong Chinese should also acquire full British citizenship.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and my noble friend Lord Fanshawe—and probably other noble Lords—expressed concern that Britain may be losing out in failing to attract investors or professionals from Hong Kong. We have also an important responsibility to ensure that Hong Kong does not lose out. But, from whatever premise one starts out, we are satisfied that our provisions for investors to gain entry for settlement in the United Kingdom are broadly as favourable as those of other countries which emigrants from Hong Kong traditionally choose to go to. Entry for settlement can be granted to people willing to invest £150,000 in a business in a way which creates two new jobs. Once such a person has obtained settled status, the way is open for him to apply for citizenship. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary of course has discretion in interpreting the established residence criteria for granting settled status, and I know that he is fully aware of the benefits that can be generated by exercising this discretion in cases where people wish to bring investment and entrepreneurial energy to the United Kingdom.
I am of course well aware that emigration is a matter of concern in Hong Kong, and my noble friend Lord Fanshawe certainly referred to it. It is certainly true that emigration from Hong Kong is increasing. Indeed, the accurate figures were given by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and other noble Lords. Moreover, a proportion of those who are leaving are professional or well-qualified people. However, it would be quite wrong to suggest that all 45,000 who left in 1988are qualified. I must stress that it is only a proportion who are in that category. It is important to look at this trend in perspective. Hong Kong people have traditionally been very mobile, often spending some years abroad for study or training. There are now more opportunities for emigration to some countries such as Canada or
882
Australia, which operate a world-wide quota system for people with skills that are in short supply in those countries.
The fact that many Hong Kong people go elsewhere seems to suggest that there must be other reasons why they choose to go principally to Canada, Australia and the United States. One reason is that there are well-established and prosperous Chinese communities there which have family ties to people in Hong Kong. Another is that these countries have attempted with some success to encourage immigration, while over the same post-war period we have been actively restricting it. Your Lordships will need no reminding of the many factors which have contributed to this difference of approach.
It has also been suggested that the United Kingdom should do more to attract professional people who are contemplating leaving Hong Kong. In fact, our immigration rules already do provide for talented and experienced people to come here as employees.
If we were to go beyond that and make special arrangements targeted on particular groups of people in Hong Kong, that would run counter to our responsibilities under the joint declaration. It would be seen in Hong Kong as divisive and discriminatory. Our action could be interpreted—rightly, I think—as an attempt to cream off the best in Hong Kong at the expense of the future prosperity of the territory.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, my noble friends Lord Fanshawe and Lord Geddes and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, have also suggested that arrangements should be made for civil servants in Hong Kong to be granted British citizenship. They referred in particular to Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act. Under that section, civil servants who are BDTCs or BN(O)s may apply for registration as British citizens.
I understand the concerns which have been voiced about this matter. But I must say to my noble friend Lord Geddes and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that—as they themselves hinted—it was made perfectly clear when the Bill was going through Parliament that Crown servants in dependent territories could not expect British citizenship as an automatic reward for long and loyal service. Citizenship would be granted only where particularly deserving service had been rendered to the Crown; the applicant's connections with the United Kingdom would also be relevant, and, as both noble Lords would expect me to say, each application is considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has argued that the provisions of Section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act should be interpreted more flexibly to allow larger numbers of Hong Kong people to register as British citizens. The provisions of the law are quite specific in terms of what requirements must be met, in particular residence requirements, before BDTCs or BN(O)s can register as British citizens. Flexibility is set out in Section 4(4), but obviously it cannot be expected that that could be exercised to the extent of undermining the spirit of the Act.
It was also suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that immigration restrictions under Section

883
4(2)(c) should be more readily lifted during the fifth year of an applicant's stay in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, immigration restrictions are already normally lifted after four years if the person concerned is here in a capacity which leads to settlement; and so I do not believe that there is a problem there.
The noble Lords mentioned the matter of citizenship for the wives and widows of ex-service-men. There should be no problem for spouses of British citizens. If a British citizen chooses at any time to return to this country, his or her spouse would also be able to come and could apply for British citizenship after satisfying the residence requirements. The point about widows was raised with me in Hong Kong in January. In the past day or so I received a dossier which OMELCO promised me and I am looking into it. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would look sympathetically at individual requests for entry to this country. But under present law the question of citizenship cannot arise until after the person concerned has taken up residence here. I have undertaken to look at the matter, and now that I have the facts, it is possible to act upon them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned the ethnic minorities. I hope that he will look at a careful speech that I made in your Lordships' House on 16th May 1986 when I addressed that problem. The kernel of my remarks was that we should consider it an obligation upon any future government to treat with considerable and particular sympathy the case for admission to the United Kingdom of any individual British national who, against all our present expectations, came under pressure to leave Hong Kong. I hope that the noble Lord will study the debate in full.
My noble friend Lord Geddes talked about the French giving passports to professionals. I noted the report to which he referred. I understand that for a long time France has had a policy of naturalising selected individuals who have served French business or cultural interests overseas. That reflects a different approach to nationality policy. As it stands, our law would not permit us to adopt such a policy. I do not anticipate that the law will be changed in that direction.
It has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, that a period of study in the United Kingdom should be sufficient to satisfy the residential requirement. Periods of time spent here as a student are of course not a bar to citizenship, but it is an established requirement that applicants for citizenship must be free of immigration conditions; that is, they must have achieved settled status. Students are not normally admitted on a
884
basis leading to settlement, since by definition those seeking entry to study are seeking entry only for a temporary period.
As for the point suggesting that Hong Kong passports should contain an endorsement with the right of readmission to the United Kingdom, as I understand it the intention behind that proposal would be that holders of such endorsed passports would be free from immigration control. However, Hong Kong BDTCs and BN(O)s remain subject to immigration control until they have achieved settled status.
I think it is important, before I come to the end of my Answer, to refer to one point raised by my noble friend Lord Fanshawe when he drew a comparison between Hong Kong and Tibet. Again, I do not think that comparisons can be drawn between Hong Kong and Tibet. I recognise the sensitivities of the point at the moment but there are crucial historical, ethnic, economic and constitutional differences between Hong Kong and Tibet and between Chinese policies towards those two places. I am sure that my noble friend recognises the force of that.
I have listened with great care to the points which have been made in the debate. As with any other matters which have been raised, either in your Lordships' House or directly with me by people in Hong Kong, I and my right honourable friends will reflect upon them. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, cavalier dismissal of the worries of the people of Hong Kong is not something with which he can fairly charge Her Majesty's Government. Pragmatism as advocated by my noble friend Lord Torrington is another matter. But it seriously worries me that the course of action proposed today by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and others might have the opposite effect from that which they intend. It is essential that the principles enshrined in the joint declaration be upheld and that we should not be seen to lure away talent and capital from Hong Kong.
Therefore I cannot say that there will be amendment to the British Nationality Act in order to bring about the changes which the noble Lord advocates. Her Majesty's Government are committed to ensuring that the detailed and comprehensive provisions of the joint declaration are fully implemented. That is the way to secure a stable and prosperous future for our territory. Our aim is to make sure that Hong Kong remains a place where people will want to continue to make their lives. We are on course and are determined to stick to the task. That is how we can best discharge our important responsibilities towards the territory and its people.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at eight minutes past three o'clock.

  SOLICITORS SERVING IN THE JUDICIARY
  SOLICITORS SERVING IN THE JUDICIARY
  LONDON WEIGHTING
  LONDON WEIGHTING
  COMPANIES HOUSE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  COMPANIES HOUSE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906
  MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906
  TEXTBOOKS FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES: SCHEME ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
  TEXTBOOKS FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES: SCHEME ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
  MENTAL HOSPITALS AND UNITS IN ENGLAND: STATISTICS
  MENTAL HOSPITALS AND UNITS IN ENGLAND: STATISTICS
  WATER SERVICES OFFICE: LOCATION
  WATER SERVICES OFFICE: LOCATION
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK