Sitting of 1 November 1989

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

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Monday 6 November.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

      MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To he read a second time on Monday 6 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Caribbean
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to pay an official visit to the Caribbean to discuss trade and financial relations.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): There are no plans at present for my colleagues or me to visit the Caribbean.
    Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in the Caribbean about the effects of 1992 on bananas, sugar and other commodities? As 1992 comes closer every day, would it not be a good idea for a Minister to visit the Caribbean to discuss some of these matters face to face so that people there know where they stand?
    Mr. Redwood: I should be delighted to be invited to visit the Caribbean in due course. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting some of the islands next week, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be leading a delegation to the Miami conference at the end of the month, where they will discuss a number of issues with other countries.
    On the hon. Lady's spcific point, the British position is that the Lome negotiations should continue so that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved for the banana producers in the ACP regions, and that will be the Government's prime aim in our conversations with our EC partners. We wish to ensure that after 1992 those interests are safeguarded in the wider European market.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that the economies of many of those countries, especially in the eastern Caribbean, will face collapse if there is not a constructive and successful end to the negotiations? Will the Minister
    302
    give an assurance that the Government are committed to ensuring that, come 1992, those islands' interests will be absolutely safeguarded?
    Mr. Redwood: I give the hon. Lady the assurance that the British Government will do all in our power to put the case of the islands forcefully. We are well aware of the importance of bananas and other such commodities to their economies. There are already many areas in which the Government are offering help, and we give a great deal of aid to the Caribbean. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we give the highest per capita aid for any region in the world to the Caribbean area because of our strong interest in and concern for the Caribbean islands.

    Defence Manufacturers
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with United Kingdom defence manufacturers about developing alternative non-military products, in the light of any possible reduction in demand for weapons.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): None, Sir.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many of our traditional industries have suffered because they have failed to recognise changing markets in the world? Is it not clear that if the east-west disarmament talks are successful, and there is also a reduction in regional conflict, the world's arms markets will be reduced? Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is only commonsense for the Government to discuss with arms manufacturers ways in which they can look for new products and new markets so as to secure the jobs of those who work for them without continuing to be purveyors of death to the world?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, slightly less than candid with the House. The prime motive behind his question is his long-standing commitment to slash defence expenditure. For example, the House might like to know that in July 1983, long before Mr. Gorbachev began his present policies, the hon. Gentleman was seen to be voting against the Defence Estimates. His question exposes the Labour party's long-standing hostility to a credible defence policy.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that nothing in his reply applies to me? As the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly travelled across Russia in September, it discovered that there was a major move within the Russian nation to reverse the current ratio of 60 per cent. scientific and technological research to 40 per cent. civilian. Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the major difficulties in achieving that is getting industry to bring it about in a five to seven-year period? Would not discussions along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) therefore have quite a degree of success for the benefit of our industry, irrespective of the defence aspect?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is a great deal more persuasive than the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) because his credentials are so much better. The plain truth is, however, that it is for the defence companies to assess where their markets lie. We are seeing

    303
    an encouraging move in the direction outlined by my hon. Friend—by Racal and Marconi, for example—but we are not in the business of driving people where they do not want to go.
    Dr. Bray: The Minister has been giving singularly stupid replies. Far from making good the cuts in defence research and development that they have made over the past three years—amounting, in real terms, to some 10 per cent.—the Government have added to the problem by cutting their support of civil industrial innovation by 11 per cent. Furthermore, research and development expenditure in 1988–89 was some £40 million below what the estimate provided, so the Government have even cut back on their own plans of just one year before.
    Is the Minister not aware that all of that is having disastrous effects, particularly on the profit expectations of the electronics industry? No fewer than five defence contractors, including Ferranti, have been up for sale. Does the Minister not want any British manufacturing industry to survive?
    Mr. Hogg: That is a singularly silly question, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He must find his party's defence policy extremely disquieting. The Labour party conference committed itself to defence cuts of approxiamately £5 billion, which means a reduction of some 30 per cent. in conventional defence spending. Just think of the unemployment consequences of that!
    Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the many defence contractors in the north of England will be extremely wary of any Government who tell them which products they should be making and which they should be getting out of? Does he agree that defence manufacturers throughout the north and, indeed, the whole country will be very anxious about the future if Labour ever came to power and cut defence by £5 billion?
    Mr. Hogg: Indeed, and I can be more specific than my hon. Friend. I have a list of six substantial defence contractors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—Reemploy Limited, Thorn EMI, Oldham Crompton Batteries, Rotunda Limited, Robert McArd Limited and Denton Containers, to mention only the largest. I imagine that employees in those companies will be extremely alarmed by the views of the hon. Member who purports to represent them.

    EC Meetings
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I intend to maintain close contact with all my European Community counterparts, and a whole range of matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Michie: When the Secretary of State meets his EC counterparts, will he be communicating the views of the Prime Minister or those of the deputy Prime Minister on Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?
    Mr. Ridley: I firmly believe—as, I think, do both my right hon. Friends to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred—that the right position is the one enunciated at the Madrid summit.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any counterpart in the European Community —he is unique. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I mean that in a nice way. When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the European Community, does he discuss with them the Labour party's plans for an industrial investment bank to make dud investments with unlimited supplies of subsidy from taxpayers in this country, and does he think that those plans would meet with the European Commission's approval?
    Mr. Ridley: As always, my hon. Friend is right in all that he has said. The industrial development bank proposed by the Labour party would, I am convinced, be entirely against the spirit of the single market and the state aid rules of the Community. Indeed, now that we have an efficient industry which is not subsidised, one of the greatest disabilites of British industry is caused by the behaviour of European countries which continue to subsidise their industries, distorting the competition and costing British firms jobs when they do not win contracts. The policy of competitive subsidisation to which the Labour party tends to seek to return would spell absolute disaster for the health of British industry.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Although, for obvious reasons, I disagree with the EEC, will the Secretary of State make it clear to his counterparts in Europe that he and the Government believe that it is in the public interest that public ownership of Ferranti should be supported, preferably with workers' control? Is not that an extension of democracy for which he and others must argue?
    Mr. Ridley: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), nationalised industries in competitive environments which make losses and then recoup them from the taxpayer are a great device for avoiding fair competition. That device, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is costing us jobs and orders and is damaging the British economy.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to reinforce the message to our EEC partners that the British Government take a dim view of the social charter put forward by the EEC, that British business on the whole regards it as a disaster, that Britain has created 2·5 million additional jobs in the past 10 years by deregulating and operating free markets and that we do not intend to reverse that trend?
    Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I could not do nearly as well as he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did when they attended the relevant council. My right hon. Friend's rebuttal of the principles of the social charter won the argument but, I am afraid, not the vote.
    Mr. Gould: Where does the Secretary of State stand on the vexed question of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? I hope that he will not hide his light under a bushel. Why can he not tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that, "You cannot buck the markets" or whether he supports the view of the deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Chancellor of

    305
    the Exchequer and the CBI that we should join straight away? Could it be that, as on so many other issues, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shies away from responsibility and has no view whatever?
    Mr. Ridley: On the contrary, I take full responsibility for my view, which is that the principles put forward in the Madrid summit are correct and the whole Government agree with them.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend cause to be translated into many languages the transcript of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's interview with Mr. Brian Walden on Sunday? Will he then cause it to be circulated to everyone in Europe, particularly those involved in the ERM?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall be happy to bring that suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I must point out that I have some responsibility in the matter. Until broadcasting is liberalised in the Community, the transcript may not reach all the parts thereof.

    "British Business"
    Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Following the decision that responsibility for the statistical series with which the Department of Trade and Industry was previously concerned should transfer to the Central Statistical Office, British Business magazine lost much of its market and was no longer viable.
    I understand that the CSO is about to launch a series of business bulletins containing most of the new data previously published in British Business.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister admit that British Business, which was an information exercise by the Department of Trade and Industry, was cancelled as part of the Secretary of State's policy to turn the Department into a Trappist order? It is similar to the Secretary of State being barred from the Conservative party conference so that he could not make a speech about the £20 billion trade deficit. Will the Minister give an undertaking on behalf of himself and the Secretary of State that when the Chancellor increases taxes, which would be against the policies of the Secretary of State, he and his hon. Friend will both resign?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be saintly, but I hope that he will not become a Trappist. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) did not listen to my answer, which was very straightforward. There has been a perfectly sensible reordering of activities within Government, with the result that figures which were previously available through the vehicle of British Business will now be available in an alternative way. There is nothing particularly sinister or difficult about that.
    Mr. Marlow: How would British business, which has been publicised quite frequently by the publication British Business, be affected by the social charter or, as it has been called, the strikers' charter which some Greek lady is trying to impose on Britain?
    Mr. Forth: I share my hon. Friend's concern, but I believe that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done a magnificent job so far in drawing to the attention of the people of this country and of Europe the patent shortcomings of the social charter. I am sure that all Conservative Members will continue to do that so that people may be clear in their minds that the kind of principles enshrined in the social charter will damage employment throughout the European Community and also the Community's competitive trading position in the world. That is why we are against it and that is why we shall continue to be against it.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Putting the Department of Trade and Industry in the charge of the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the collection of freebooting free-marketers sitting alongside him at a time when all our competitor countries are engaged in close collusion between industry and government is an act equivalent to putting King Herod in charge of a day nursery. Is not the particular act of vandalism in closing down British Business symptomatic of an approach which will send British industry naked into the Euro/chamber?
    Mr. Forth: Even allowing for the hon. Gentleman's tendency to hyperbole, that was a bit over the top. We are talking about a publication which, excellent though it was, was attracting only about 5,000 subscribers towards the end of its life.
    Mr. Mitchell: I was one of them.
    Mr. Forth: One could hardly say that that made it a major British institution. Nor, however excellent it may have been, was it the main or only vehicle of communication between the Government and business. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the figures which created most interest in the business community will be available in very much the same format through Central Statistical Office publications which will fully replace what is no longer available through British Business.

    Takeovers
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations on the creation of near monopolies resulting from the takeover and break-up of United Kingdom industrial groups by Bermuda-based companies.
    Mr. Redwood: I presume that this is a reference to the bid by Pembridge Investments, a Bermuda-registered company, for DRG. I and the Director General of Fair Trading have received various representations from hon. Members and others about it. The director general is still considering the bid before giving his advice.
    Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend's assumption is quite correct. Does he not agree that there is room for concern when the only basis for a bid is the subsequent break-up of a group, with the resulting sale forming virtually the creation of a monopoly of several parts of the group? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend reassure me that the potential monopoly is taken into account while the bid is continuing rather than waiting until he is presented with a fait accompli?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point because I know that he has a constituency interest in

    307
    the matter and he is right to make representations in any way possible. Were there to be a subsequent sale of an asset after a bid had been successful, that itself would be subject to investigation by the competition authorities and to any advice that the director general might see fit to give my right hon. Friend. I cannot give any further information about the current bid. My right hon. Friend will make his judgment on the basis of all the representations and submissions in the light of the director general's advice.
    Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister declare his opposition to this type of junk bond funding of the destruction of British companies, of which DRG is the latest victim? He is quite right to say that in Bristol the takeover of that company will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the engineering industry—not just in DRG but in associated companies. Is it not time for the Government to step in and say once and for all that junk bonds and high leverage bids against thriving British companies are not to be permitted?
    Mr. Redwood: Junkiness is in the eye of the beholder. The Government believe that these decisions are best made by shareholders and bankers, who have to make important judgments on behalf of the companies in which they are investors or which they are financing. The Government's competition and monopoly policy is clear and consistent. It was last stated in the blue paper on mergers, and was restated subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a speech and by myself in a speech to the House on the BAT-Hoylake bid. I recommend that the hon. Lady reads the statement of Government policy, which is clear and gives shareholders and bankers the powers and opportunities that they need to make the right decisions on behalf of the companies in which they invest.
    Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that Sea Containers is a Bermuda-registered company. It announced today that it will be selling its Isle of Wight ferries. My hon. Friend will be further aware that in May I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) about a possible bid for the Isle of Wight ferries. I regard it as a considerable injustice, as do my constituents, that British Rail's board of management sold those ferries in the only privatisation in which employees were not allowed to purchase shares in their own company —an incredible reward for many years of loyal strike-free service to the Isle of Wight. Will my hon. Friend keep a weather eye on the sale of the Isle of Wight ferry routes, which are so essential to us, to ensure that this time a United Kingdom-registered company can purchase them and that the employees will have the opportunity of sharing in the wealth that they create?
    Mr. Redwood: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is a good constituency Member of Parliament. I know that he has taken a strong interest in the Isle of Wight ferry service because he rightly wants a first-class service for his constituents. I understand that officials at the Office of Fair Trading are making preliminary inquiries into ferry services for the Isle of Wight under the competition legislation. Anyone who has views on the subject should write to the director general, as I believe that my hon.
    308
    Friend has done. Any possible buyer of the ferry services, which according to press reports today are on the market, will be considered in the usual way by the competition authorities, who will make their advice available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister saying that the Government do not have a view about high leverage junk bond bids against succesful British companies? He will be aware of the problem that this method has caused BAT Industries recently. The leveraged bid for DRG is causing the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Is he saying that the Government do not have a view, when successful British companies are being attacked by companies formed offshore in Bermuda with the sole purpose of breaking up British companies and making money for individuals rather than shareholders?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my previous reply. The Government have an extremely clear mergers policy, which has been stated on several occasions, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads it. The aim of merger policy is to ensure that the public interest is not damaged. Public and private interests most usually diverge, but not uniquely, where competition is adversely affected by the proposed merger. All considerations can be taken into account by the director general, who gives his advice on any particular bid in the usual way. The question whether people should borrow to buy things is largely a matter for them, for shareholders and for bankers. Where will the hon. Gentleman stop in his investigations into people borrowing to buy things? Does he believe, for instance, that borrowing to buy certain kinds of houses is wrong, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was saying in the Walden interview?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no national interest in this? How does he define national or public interest? Is it correct for people based overseas, who can remit profits overseas, to take over and break up British companies which are of great value to the economy merely to make money for a few people and not for the general public, bearing in mind that most such companies are owned by institutions rather than the public in general? We must have a national industrial strategy.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend should take note that the central point of Government policy is to allow shareholders to decide in most cases. They are the proper people to make those decisions and there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that they are bad at making them. Shareholders should be allowed to make up their own minds. By all means if there are major matters of importance, draw them to the attention of shareholders, the company and the institutions concerned, perhaps through the press and in the normal way. In most cases it is right that people should be free to buy or to sell their assets as they see fit. The public interest is defined in various ways, depending upon the situation, and the director general will give the necessary advice to my right hon. Friend.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the importance of Trade and Industry questions, but we are making very slow progress. We must get on more rapidly.

    Engineering Profession
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the status of the engineering profession; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: None, Sir.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that to supply a good, well-trained engineering profession for the future we need to raise the status of that profession perhaps to the same level as it is on the continent?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important issue, not least because engineers are tending to move out of that profession into other occupations. Having read the 1989 survey by the Engineering Council, I am glad to say that I see considerable grounds for optimism, partly in terms of increased remuneration for engineers, partly because of satisfaction with the profession and because of the increasing number of chief executives who are qualified engineers.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, the status and image of engineering, notably in the west midlands, has become associated with building rubble and empty sites where there were previously thriving engineering concerns? Can the Minister give the latest Government estimate of when the number of engineering apprenticeships will reach the level that it was when the Government came to office?
    Mr. Hogg: I am able to give the hon. Gentleman good news. Comparing 1986–87 with 1978–79 he will find that students with first degrees in engineering and technology have increased by 26 per cent.

    Kemp Report (ECGD)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the recommendations put forward in the Kemp report on status option for the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Ridley: The interdepartmental working group of officials formed to consult interested parties and to advise Ministers on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD has just submitted its report to me. No decisions have yet been taken.
    Mr. Cran: Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to reject the doomwatch notions of those who suggest that the Government are merely using this review to cut dramatically finance for projects business on the premise that only large companies benefit from it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is bunkum, particularly against the background of a recent northern engineering industries' report which suggests that a recent Indian order benefited 2,600 small United Kingdom companies?
    Mr. Ridley: I have not come to any decision about the report. I will do so as soon as I possibly can. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the Kemp report asks the Government to take a large-scale risk while introducing private investment into the insurance by ECGD of safe countries? Surely that must be wrong and surely state agencies should be allowed more flexibility to operate so that they can take large risks and benefit from taking the easier option as well?
    Mr. Ridley: The Export Credits Guarantee Department does two things. There is the projects group and the insurance services group. It is suggested by Kemp that they should have different futures and that they should go in different directions. It is important to discuss one or the other of those suggestions but we cannot discuss them both at once.
    Mr. Page: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best support he can give British industry on overseas projects and sales is to create a worldwide international level playing field? Will my right hon. Friend work towards that goal? While doing so, will he support the present ECGD aid and trade provisions that are consistent with competition until he achieves that goal of fair international competition?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree about the objective which my hon. Friend describes. Our objective in the European single market is to create just that. As for projects outside Europe, it is difficult to align the different forms of aid and credit subsidies that different countries put together. There is no consensus on how they should be constructed. This is a most difficult matter on which to get a playing field without any bumps.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Most contacts which my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister bear in mind that, measured in terms of unit labour costs, the competitiveness of British industry declined by 9 per cent. in the first quarter of this year? Since the Conservative party came to office it has declined by 21 per cent.—a worse record than for any other country. As it is now official Government policy to crucify British industry with high interest rates, why does not the hon. Gentleman take a leaf out of Government policy in other Departments and simply abolish all figures on competitiveness and anything that is inconvenient on the ground that the situation will get so bad in the next two years, he will have to do that?
    Mr. Hogg: It is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I know that his external interests detain him elsewhere rather a lot.
    As for competitiveness, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his singularly powerful speech, spelt out the fundamental and remarkable

    311
    transformation in the British economy since the Conservative party came to power 10 years ago. We will not be lectured by the Labour party on questions of competitiveness. Two good reasons for that will suffice for the moment: first, competitiveness declined between 1974 and 1979 by 25 per cent.; and, secondly, inflation touched 27 per cent. when Labour was in office.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Will not industrial competitiveness suffer if the claim by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions for a 35-hour week prevails, because every hour worked over 35 will incur overtime rates, thereby pushing up the cost of goods sold?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree, but it is much worse than that. Anyone who has the misfortune to study the Labour party's review will find on page 21, for example, a commitment to a payroll tax. One merely has to contemplate the consequences of that on British competitiveness.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given the Minister's comments on competitiveness, can he explain the £20 billion trade deficit and reveal the present trend of bankruptcies among small businesses?
    Mr. Hogg: I can only suppose—indeed, I fear it to be the case—that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt precisely with that issue.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not a competitive reality on which jobs depend that the country cannot afford engineering employees to have a shorter working week than employees in West Germany or in many other European countries as long as productivity in Germany is so much higher than ours?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree. It would be extremely helpful if the Labour Front Bench would stop backing inflationary pay settlements in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that our loss of competitiveness has meant that the share of imports of manufactured goods in our home market has risen from a quarter to a third in the past decade? Does that not show that we are so uncompetitive that we cannot even compete in our home market? Would the cut by the hon. Gentleman's Department of 30 per cent. in support for industrial research and development have anything to do with that?
    Mr. Hogg: Here is another hon. Gentleman who was not paying much attention to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday when he drew careful lessons from the strength of growth, especially in investment and output, since the Conservative Government came to power. However, as the hon. Gentleman has got to his feet, may I ask him what he supposes that a substantial increase in national insurance contributions will do to competitiveness? In case he has not read that proposal, it is to be found on page 33 of his miserable policy review.

    Credit Cards
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on credit cards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: I have received 370 representations following my request for views on the "no discrimination" rule, which requires traders to charge the same price for purchases made with credit cards as for those paid for by cash or other means. I am still considering these before reaching a decision.
    Mr. Franks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. As and when a decision is taken, will he ensure that the interest of the consumer is paramount? In this context, the consumer is not only the individual who uses the credit card, but the supplier who looks to the credit card company for payment.
    Mr. Ridley: I agree that the interests of the consumer are paramount. The difficulty in this case is to decide which alternative best serves the interests of the consumer.
    Mr. Loyden: Would the Secretary of State like to comment on the suggestion that credit cards should be made available to 12-year-olds?
    Mr. Ridley: If they have sufficient credit, it would be possible, but I doubt that they would have.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that outstanding credit on a monthly basis in relation to credit cards equals only 6 per cent. in comparison with the total credit outstanding? Will he note, therefore, that the Labour party's attempt to penalise credit in relation to credit card holders is extremely marginal, like the rest of Labour policy?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The point here is not credit control, but what is in the best interests of consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said in his supplementary question.

    North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
    Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest intentions concerning the future of North East Shipbuilders Ltd; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: British Shipbuilders will continue discussions with those who have shown interest in purchasing parts of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who was then Chancellor of the Duchy, on 13 July, with a view to a speedy resolution of the future of the NESL sites.
    Mr. Clay: Does the Minister accept that it is nonsense for his Department to tell British Shipbuilders that in the case of the Anglo-Greek bidders, who are bidding for the North Sands yard for ship repairs and conversion, they have to sign a legally binding agreement not to construct ships there until December 1993 at a time when they require no subsidy from the Government to build ships, as they want to build them on their own account? Britain has a rapidly mounting trade deficit which will be made worse by the closure of our shipbuilding capacity. Given that the

    313
    Minister admitted a fortnight ago to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry four different points that the Government had got wrong about this tragedy and farce, is it not time that he recognised that he has got the whole thing wrong and allowed people who want to build ships to get on with it, and to re-employ workers in Sunderland?
    Mr. Hogg: Until the hon. Gentleman reached the penultimate and last parts of his question, he was doing rather well because he was asking a perfectly respectable question. It is nonsense to attribute four errors to me and it is even more foolish to attribute a total error to the Department.
    On the substantive question. the hon. Gentleman will recall that I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 18 October and that I gave an extremely full response to questions such as the hon. Gentleman's. The plain fact is that I would not support any shipbuilding project in Sunderland in the next five years because it would result in an unpicking of the package of remedial measures put in place in December 1988. The future of Sunderland lies with that package rather than with a small shipbuilding venture.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the amount of money that taxpayers lost since the shipbuilding industry in Sunderland was nationalised?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not have the exact figure in my mind, but I know that no contract has been built to cost in the recent past, and during the past five years Sunderland was losing 50 per cent. on each contract.
    Mr. Henderson: Does not the Government's latest provision finally prove to the House that they have been trying to assassinate not only Sunderland but all British merchant shipbuilding?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself credit. If he had listened to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in December 1988, he would recall that the remedial package that was put in place provided for about £45 million worth of expenditure or forgone tax, most particularly an enterprise zone, and £10 million for retraining for the assistance of small business. To try to characterise that as assassination is plain nonsense and does the hon. Gentleman no credit.

    Regional Stimulation
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for stimulating industry in British regions.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Changes in the focus of our regional policies were made early last year. There are no plans for further changes.
    Mr. Barnes: In the Derbyshire, North-East constituency in recent years, there has been a decline in coalmining, which will be exacerbated by the ports Bills that hon. Members are due to discuss and a reduction in employment caused by declining railways. The decline in employment is due also to the steel industry in the travel-to-work area and the rationalisation that is taking place in the chemical industry. What has the Department of Trade and Industry done to help my constituents and similar constituents? The Government have cut regional funding by 72 per cent. since 1979. Will they alter their
    314
    policy in the run-up to 1992, or are we to expect the same policy from the free enterprise fanatics on the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Hogg: Once again we have a case of an hon. Gentleman who has not reflected on his question before asking it. I was disappointed that he did not pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, who managed to get the Chesterfield travel-to-work area made eligible for European structural grants. It would have been at least charitable to reflect on that. The Government's substantial instruments of policy are selective and effective. The principal Department of Trade and Industry instruments are regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants, the consultancy initiative and the ability of English Estates to build in deprived areas. That is a powerful and carefully targeted arsenal of policies.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does not the Opposition's pose as the friend of manufacturing industry in the regions wear a little thin when hon. Members bear in mind that the Opposition have opposed every one of the Government's supply side reforms aimed at increasing the competitiveness of manufacturing? Manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, under this Government, it has risen, particularly in Derbyshire, where manufacturing output and employment have risen faster than in most other regions.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right. It is because we have adhered to our policies that we have seen dramatic downturns in unemployment, which would have gone up had we accepted the policies of the Labour party. Between March 1986 and September 1989 in the northern region unemployment fell by 18·1 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. In the north-west region it fell from 16·6 per cent. to 9·2 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it fell from 15 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. That is a tribute to the Government's regional policy.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the potential importance of projects in companies such as Nissan and Toyota, does the Minister accept that one way of trying to stimulate employment in manufacturing in areas of high unemployment is to encourage joint ventures between those companies and component manufacturers within the United Kingdom? Does the Minister accept also that it would be particularly helpful if there were positive incentives to locate such developments in areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Hogg: Such joint ventures are indeed, extremely valuable and they may well be eligible for, for example, regional selective assistance.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most destructive policies for industry in the regions would be if the Government were to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, a policy advocated by the Labour party? Does he realise that such a policy would throw hundreds if not thousands of engineering workers in Yorkshire on to the dole queue? Will he assure the House that the Government will never adopt such a destructive and counter-productive policy?
    Mr. Hogg: This afternoon we have identified two policies of the Labour party which would be extremely damaging in that respect. The first is its policy on defence cuts and the second its policy of economic sanctions

    315
    against South Africa. The mainstream policies of the Labour party would result in a substantial increase in unemployment.
    Mr. Caborn: In the absence of any co-ordinated regional policy, is the Minister aware that all the reports from Europe clearly show that the industrial regions of the north will feel the winds of 1992 quite adversely? Is he also aware of the Audit Commission report "Urban Regeneration and Economic Development" which in its conclusion says:
    "Government support programmes are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasies. They baffle local authorities and business alike."
    There are now 14 instruments in the urban and regional and regeneration programme which nobody can understand and their funding has gone down by 72 per cent. on the 1979 figure.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's longwindedness does not improve his argument. He and his hon. Friend's were clearly not paying attention when I identified the carefully chosen selective instruments of policy which we have put in place. The consultancy initiative in particular is directed to the problems that will arise in 1992 and thereafter.

    Loss Adjusters
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to regulate the conduct of loss adjusters.
    Mr. Redwood: It is the responsibility of the professional associations of which they are members to maintain the professional standards of loss adjusters.
    Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that loss adjusters acting for insurance companies frequently browbeat and bully innocent claimants? Will my hon. Friend remind insurers that their duty is to recompense people who have suffered losses that are covered by insurance policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that practices of the kind that I have outlined should be drawn to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading?
    Mr. Redwood: I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend's accusations. If he has a particular case in mind he should refer it to the professional body concerned because such bodies have disciplinary powers over their members. If my hon. Friend thinks that the abuses are widespread, he should talk or write to the Director General of Fair Trading because he has powers to negotiate a code of conduct with the professions if he thinks that that is necessary.
    Dr. Reid: Many Opposition Members would like to be associated with the genuine compliments paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by his Conservative colleagues because we have found out that such compliments are the political equivalent of the last meal of a condemned man. The Secretary of State is not only unique, he is quite brilliant. I would have said "unassailable" but I think that unsaleable——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance to ask a question about loss adjusters.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that if a loss adjuster visited the Clydesdale tube works in Scotland he would find that less damage had been caused over the past five
    316
    years by accidental death, burglary and fire than by the absolute refusal by British Steel to invest in that tube works? Will the Minister encourage British Steel to put in some investment?

    Trade Statistics
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Redwood: All OECD countries except Portugal, Greece and Spain were in one or other category in 1988, the latest year for which complete figures are available.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not an appalling comment on 10 years of Thatcherism that we are almost at the bottom of the world league and that we have the largest balance of payments deficit of any advanced country and the largest in our post-war history? Why is the country so economically weak and defenceless against that invasion of imports? How will the Government's policy of high interest rates and an overvalued pound help us out of that mess?
    Mr. Redwood: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should highlight that particular issue rather than the many good issues that should be highlighted about the state of the economy. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest figures show that the unemployment rate in the Carmarthen travel-to-work area is down to 3·5 per cent? That is a fine tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies and I should have thought that he would want to say someting positive about that.
    The hon. Gentleman must look more carefully at the state of the British economy to see the many good things that are going on. Why, for example, does he make no reference to the fact that we have the highest stock of overseas assets relative to our GNP of any country? Why does he not refer to the largest invisible surplus of any country? Why does he not refer to the fact that export volume is now up 11 per cent. on—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We should have the answer to the question.
    Mr. John Townend: How long will it be before the import penetration in the automobile industry is reduced as a result of the massive investment, particularly from Nissan, Toyota and Honda? What effect will that have on the balance of trade?
    Mr. Redwood: I was hoping to come to that in answering the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) more fully. Export volume has grown by 11 per cent. in the past three months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly says, major investments have been announced by three large Japanese motor manufacturers, which will make a substantial increase to car manufacturing capacity in this country in the early and mid-1990s. As a large element in the deficit on manufactured goods lies in the vehicle sector, my hon. Friend is right to look forward to much better trading conditions in manufactured motor vehicles as a result of that positive inward investment.

    317
    It is a sign of the times that we are attracting a large amount of inward investment as people recognise the strengths of the British manufacturing base and the potential here for selling into 1992. A few years ago the Opposition were complaining when we were in the reverse position—when we had a surplus and were investing overseas. Now people are investing here to cure our balance of payments and trade deficit.
    Mr. Gould: Given the appalling deterioration in our trade performance, which the Minister has been obliged to reveal in his answer—incidentally, that gives the lie to the blusterings of his hon. Friend the Minister about the competitiveness of British industry—what explanation does the Minister offer the House for what has happened, or in common with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he have no view to offer?
    Mr. Redwood: I thought that Opposition Members were complaining that I had too many views as there is a lot to say about the strengths of the British manufacturing economy. I repeat that it is a sign of strength that people want to invest here. We have had a deficit in recent months because demand has outstripped supply in the short term. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the prudent course of raising interest rates to slow the rate of growth in the economy, so that the supply side can catch up. I am sure that, in due course, that policy will be successful. I am also sure that inward investment will make an important contribution to changing the balance of payments position.

    Timber Industry
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding alleged unfair competition in the timber industry as a result of subsidies to sawmills in Wales.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Save for my hon. Friend's letter of 31 August, I am not aware of having received any other representations about unfair competition in the timber industry.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is documented evidence that shows that elements of unfair competition have been introduced into industries, notably the timber industry in this case, as a result of decisions made under regional policies? Will he take this opportunity to deprecate those instances of interventionism?
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot do that as I believe that there are powerful economic and social arguments in favour of our regional policy that I outlined in answer to an earlier question. I recognise that when deciding whether to grant aid in particular cases a number of criteria must be taken into account. One of them is, necessarily, the effect on indigenous industries.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has concerning manufacturers' obligations to provide United Kingdom consumers of motor vehicles and major household appliances with reliability and after sales service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: The consumer contracts with a supplier, who is normally a retailer not a manufacturer, and it is against the supplier that the consumer has a right of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for defects in the goods supplied. Manufacturers who provide consumers with guarantees of reliability or with after sales service, do so voluntarily and in addition to the consumer's statutory rights against the supplier.
    The Government intend to implement by means of legislation recommendations by the Law Commissioners which clarify and strengthen the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act.
    Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend's reply will be most welcome. However, will the legislation incorporate the proposals which have been prepared by the National Consumer Council and will those improvements be harnessed to serve the needs of the consumer?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly confirm that we are studying the recommendations of the National Consumer Council most closely, as we do all the work of that excellent organisation. I am not yet in a position to say what, if any, elements of its recommendations will be incorporated in future legislation. I am aware that when we legislate we should put together the most effective and up-to-date package in the consumer's interest, and that we shall do.
    3.32 pm
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that at the end of the list of questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry there are no fewer than 14 questions about this country's trade deficit which have been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand from a spokesperson at the Department of Trade and Industry that this is because the Central Statistical Office is now responsible for trade figures. First, hon. Members should have been notified, and secondly, these questions should rightfully be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This is yet another attempt by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to evade answering questions. When I received a written answer to my own question it was an answer about the deficit in the balance of payments, which was not what my question was about. Right hon. and hon. Members have a right to have trade deficit questions answered by the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Speaker: I should like to be able to help the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the 21st edition of "Parliamentary Practice" which has just come out. On page 286 it states:
    "It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."
    I am sorry.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that a significant number of Labour Members have put down questions on today's Order Paper and then failed to turn up. Would you be good enough to deprecate that because it is not only an insult to you in the Chair, but unfair to hon. Members from both sides of the House who, having seen a question

    319
    on the Order Paper, hope to catch your eye on a supplementary question but find that the original questioner is not here?
    Mr. Speaker: It is a courtesy to the House if the Chair is told when Members are unable to be present for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the fact that some hon. Members are not here today has meant that we have been able to reach question No. 20, which was a bit of good luck for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard today the utterly outrageous statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that 12-year-olds should be able to use credit cards. I wonder whether—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a clear continuation of Question Time and not a matter of order for me. An Opposition day prayer has been set down and if it were possible for me to limit speeches I would do so today because such a large number of hon. Members wish to participate. Points of order which are not points of order are a disservice to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I obtained a letter from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, inviting me to donate more than £200 to attend a dining room function on the Terrace. That document carries the House of Commons logo. It comes from an hon. Member, but it invites me to send my cheque for £200 to a Conservative association. That is a grievous misuse of the House and an attack on the rights of hon. Members. I would ask for the matter to be investigated and for you, Mr. Speaker, to report back to the House.
Mr. Speaker: That matter has already been reported to me and it is now in the hands of the Services Committee, which is looking into it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to the use of stationery and House of Commons envelopes in a different case. A letter was sent out to general managers of district health authorities in England and Wales by the shadow Secretary of State for Health on House of Commons notepaper. Paragraph 5 of the leaflet issued by the Serjeant at Arms on the use of the House of Commons emblem, stationery and post-paid envelopes says:
"Members who wish to send out circulars may purchase original House stationery, or, at their own expense, may photocopy or by other means reproduce that stationery."
It then goes on to describe what a circular is——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We all know that. Every hon. Member has that leaflet. In view of the pressure of time, I should say that the same rule applies to every right hon. and hon. Member. It is not in order to use House of Commons stationery for party political purposes. Complaints should be made to the Services Committee, not to me.
Mr. Bennett: There are two points——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that when private Bills are brought before the House they sometimes have to go back for re-examination. At 7 o'clock today we are due to discuss the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. That Bill started its progress two years ago when there was a balance of payments surplus. It was tiny, but nevertheless it was a surplus. During the Bill's passage we have acquired a £20 billion trade deficit.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. There is to be a debate on that very matter later this evening. It is not a matter of order.
Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The opposed private business has been put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is in order, it is on the Order Paper, and it will be debated later tonight. It may well be a matter of argument later on tonight.
Mr. Skinner: No, it is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the function of points of order to raise matters of a party political nature across the Chamber. They must be matters of order on which I can rule. The hon. Gentleman well knows the rules in that respect.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You say that you have referred the matter raised in the earlier point of order to the Services Committee. Does that mean that the Committee will report back to you so that you in turn can report to the House? This is a matter not just for the Services Committee but for the House, and it is you, Mr. Speaker, to whom we look to protect the interests of the House.
Mr. Speaker: No doubt if the Services Committee feels it is appropriate to report to me it will do so, and if I am asked to do so I will make that statement.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order which are not points of order for me. We cannot have party political arguments across the House on any day, and especially on a day when we have great pressure.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter which is vital to the running of the House. Is it in order for Front-Bench spokesmen, particularly the Opposition spokesman on health and social security, to send out in House of Commons post-paid envelopes, to every health authority in the land——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have already said, this matter has been reported to the Services Committee. A Select Committee is looking into the matter. I cannot say any more. I have already answered the point of order raised by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer).
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already stated the rules, and I repeat them. It is not in order for hon. Members to use House of Commons stationery, or even the House of Commons facilities, for party political purposes.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford,South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a matter concerning the prayer against the National Health Service statutory instrument. The Order Paper states:
"The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
The Government organise the business of the week. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met yesterday and that item was not on the agenda. Under Standing Order No. 124, a duty is imposed by the House on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider a statutory instrument
"with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it"
on a number of grounds which are listed in the Standing Order.
There does not seem to be much point in having a Joint Committee set up by the House to consider statutory instruments if the Government insist on putting on the Order Paper an item that the Joint Committee has not considered. We cannot possibly report the matter to the House and engage in deliberations. If we want any

323
information, the Standing Order requires us to give the Government the opportunity to present evidence to the Joint Committee. So we must take at least a week over the matter. Therefore, the Joint Committee's work is being deliberately frustrated by the Government not saying that, until the Joint Committee has reported, it will not be possible to debate the matter. It is quite outrageous that the Joint Committee, established by the House should be ignored in this way and specifically deprived of the opportunity of presenting a report on the statutory instrument.
Mr. Speaker: The House appreciates what the hon. Gentleman does for the House as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. But today we are not to debate an affirmative order; we are to debate an Opposition prayer and there is a rubric on the Order Paper to the effect that the instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee. The prayer is in order.

Termination of Tenancy
3.43 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower councils and housing associations to terminate tenancies where the dependants of a tenant have been rehoused on account of the tenant's violence.
Last Saturday I was visited in my surgery by a young mother of three children. She and her youngest child, a baby, are currently living with her parents and two other adults in a three-bedroomed house. I have a report from Kent social services saying:
"In 1988 it was discovered that"
the two older children
"had been sexually abused. They were interviewed and disclosed that they had been abused by their father. Although he was interviewed by the Police no charges were laid as it was felt that they were too young to give evidence in Court. However, the disclosures were specific enough for Care Orders to be obtained on both".
Needless to say, the lady who spoke to me is most anxious to obtain a council house so that she can reunite her family. One might ask what has happened to the family home. The answer is that the husband continues to occupy the home. He is entitled by law to continue to occupy that ratepayer-subsidised home for the rest of his life if he so chooses. Even if he had been convicted and sent to prison, he would still have that right for up to a year and the ratepayer would have to pay for housing benefit to pay his rent.
Battered wives and abused children live in a grey statistical area; there are no firm statistics. We can study surrogate statistics—for example, the Children's Society says that almost 100,000 children left home last year, for one reason or another. We are aware of the growth in convictions for marital violence and we know of the tremendous increase in divorce, currently running at about one marriage in three. However, there is no way by which we can obtain accurate figures for offences committed within the home.
However, we can say with certainty that the case to which I have alluded is not an isolated example. There is a home for battered wives in my constituency where volunteers do excellent work. From time to time ladies in that home ask me to try to assist them to obtain a council house. Many of them come from local authority homes, and in almost every case the husband or common law husband continues to occupy the original home. Surely that is a great injustice. A man is given a subsidised tenancy so that he can house his family. That was the purpose of his being given the asset, but that purpose has now lapsed because—I must be blunt—of his wickedness. Is it right that he should continue to enjoy it?
Council officials tell me that in many cases the problem takes a second, sick twist. Possessed of that asset, the man is well placed to install another woman, who may not even know the story of the first family, and so the same sick cycle starts again. In effect, child abuse or wife battering is paid for on the rates, with the council being powerless to do anything about it.
What legal remedies are available? There are two. The first is the ouster order, under which a court can evict the husband or common law husband and can also make a banning order to keep him away from the home. That has two defects. First, it puts the onus of the legal action on the shoulders least able to carry it—those of the wife. In many

325
cases the principal witnesses are the children, and even if the wife plucks up the courage to apply for the order the last thing that she wants to do is to involve the children. Secondly, she would then be in the same home, when what is obviously needed is for the council to rehouse her so that her husband does not know the address. The council could then recover the original house so that its stock would not be one house down.
There is a second option. In the Housing Act 1985 the Government made a sensible stab at trying to do something about the problem and included provisions in a tenancy agreement to deal with that sort of case. Unfortunately, that also has serious defects. First, it cannot apply to any tenancy before 1985. Secondly, many councils have not yet amended their tenancy agreements, so even those with the most recent agreements cannot take advantage of the Act.
My proposed Bill would cut through all that. If the family had to be rehoused because of the misconduct of the husband, who was the tenant, my Bill would make that a prima facie ground for eviction by the local authority or by a housing association which also provides subsidised housing. It would be a civil measure, as is schedule 2 to the 1985 Act, so that there would be no need to prove criminal charges against the man.
I have received an early and constructive response from the Government, and I am grateful to note that two Ministers from the Department of the Environment have taken the trouble to be on the Front Bench. I am delighted to hear that they will consider the matter. I leave them and the House with this thought. The course of action that I have proposed would have four advantages. First, it would make it much easier for councils such as Canterbury with long housing lists to rehouse those unfortunate families. Secondly, it would take the legal burden from the wife, as the council could take the necessary action. Thirdly, it would eliminate the absurd expense to the ratepayer of having to keep a house going with only one person in it. Fourthly, it would send a clear message to violent husbands that the community is no longer willing to subsidise their activity.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Roger Gale and Mr. Ian Bruce.

TERMINATION OF TENANCY
Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to empower councils and housing associations to terminate tenancies where the dependants of a tenant have been rehoused on account of the tenant's violence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

National Health Service
3.50 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989, No. 1897), dated 15th October 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th October, be annulled.
I was much entertained to read in last week's Health Service Journal that a senior official had told the journal that the Department of Health expected Opposition Members to come out with all guns blazing in today's debate. I am much obliged to the Department for the constitutional innovation of informing the press of the tactics to be used by the Opposition.
I am being invited to come out firing to defend a profession which—as the whole House knows—voted overwhelmingly Conservative at the last election. I accept my democratic duty with a familiar resignation, as I know that, having accepted those votes, Conservative Members have no intention of defending that profession. I bring to the task a cold and clear perception that there is no prospect of support from them. I am well aware that, had the Secretary of State and I reversed roles and had I occupied his office during the past six months, there would have been no prospect of the BMA's senior negotiators rolling over and playing dead as readily as they have been doing since his announcement that he would ignore them and impose the contract regardless.
The Secretary of State and I are, however, probably in agreement on one matter. The important question is not whether the contract will inconvenience GPs, but whether it will affect patients: that is the issue on which the debate must turn. As I said in the July debate, there are areas of congruence between the Secretary of State and myself on the contract. For instance, I see every reason why GPs who arrange to make their own night visits should be paid more than those who do not; nor do I see any objection to GPs being required to provide leaflets setting out the nature of their practice. I also find it impossible to oppose the proposal that the maximum holiday to which a GP is entitled should be cut—or, as one GPs' paper put it in a headline last weekend, slashed—to six weeks a year. I am happy to support such a suggestion, even when it is made by Ministers who have achieved some notoriety on account of their own holiday arrangements.
These issues, however, are not the core of the new contract; they are the lace trimmings intended to make it more appealing to the eye. The key issue—the key clause —which has caused most GPs to decline to sign on the dotted line is the fundamental shift that it represents in the increase in the capitation element from 46 per cent. to a figure which, although undisclosed, will be at least 60 per cent.
The effect—which we must assume to be deliberate—is to provide an incentive to lengthen patients' lists. I am familiar with the riposte from Ministers that the average list cannot lengthen because, as patients are poached from one GP by another, the average must stay the same. That is merely to restate the laws of arithmetic.
Patients may choose. I do not wish to be contentious on that point. I am happy to accept that patients should have the choice. My contention is that whether patients choose or are poached, the average remains the same. That

327
conceals the fact that the contract is clearly designed to result in a smaller number of practices with longer patient lists. That is in flat contradiction to the policy pursued for the past 20 years by successive Governments, of encouraging smaller patient lists. In fairness to the Government, it also contradicts the trend of their policy throughout the past 10 years towards smaller lists.
Mr. Michael Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he objects to patients choosing their GP? Is he saying that the principle of smaller lists, which he believes to be common to both the Conservative and the Labour party, gives the House the right to direct patients to stay with a doctor whom they do not like rather than go to the one of their choice?
Mr. Cook: Absolutely nothing I said suggests that I object to the concept of choice. Patients have choice now and I am in favour of making that choice easier. However, I am not in favour of giving GPs an incentive to seek a longer patient list and of penalising those who, sensibly and in their patients' interests, decide not to take on more patients than they can handle, which would result in their having less time for their existing patients. That has nothing to do with patient choice, but everything to do with the incentives to be offered to general practitioners.
As recently as 1987, consensus on this matter was restated by the Select Committee on Social Services. Commenting on the then White Paper on primary care, it said:
"The proposal to increase the proportion of GP's income derived from capitation was universally opposed."
Patients' associations were among those opposing it. The statement continued:
"The case for further reductions in the GP's list size seems unanswerable."
It would be unfair to suggest that the Secretary of State has answered the case. He has chosen to ignore it. It is a powerful case. More patients on a list mean less time for each patient. The case is all the more powerful as we know that patients want more time with their GP.
The magazine Which? carried out a survey last month which concluded that nine out of 10 patients expressed a preference for more time with their GP. That is entirely reasonable because seven minutes, the average consultation time in Britain, is the lowest in Europe.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I wish to finish my point.
The Secretary of State is well aware of the Which? survey. We know that, because he quoted from it at the press conference when he announced that he was to impose the contract. He quoted the following:
"We think the new contract is likely to expand the services available to patients."
It is a pity that he did not quote the next sentence:
"We think the Government may have misunderstood how highly patients value the time they spend with their GPs. We do not think that you will get more time with the GP in the surgery. Less time with the GP may mean more time with the nurse."
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has nearly shot the fox but not quite. Which? said:
"We think the new contract is likely to expand services to patients."
328
Surely that is crucial, because patients will get more choice. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to complain about practice teams, but through family practitioner committees the Government will give the teams better opportunities to help the GP in the practice. Surely that should be welcomed.
Mr. Cook: Hon. Members will observe that I quoted the passage that the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to put on the record. On his second point, it is ironic that he should make the case that the Government will rely on primary health care teams using other professionals and employees to provide services when, from 1 April next year, for the first time in the history of the NHS, his Government will place cash limits on exactly those professionals.
Apart from the Which? survey, there is also a study by Wilkin and Metcalfe of what happens when patient lists lengthen. It discovered that, as patient lists lengthen from 2,000 to 3,000 patients, the average contact time per patient falls from 30 to 20 minutes a year. There are already 3,000 practices with more than 2,500 patients per GP. Any contract that tried to meet what we know patients want would set out to reduce the number of practices with large lists.
Mr. John Bowis: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point to increase the number of doctors? Is he able to explain how doctors' patient lists will be expanded along his lines if more and more doctors will be available to share the work load?
Mr. Cook: The number of general practitioners has increased during the last 20 years. However, during the last 12 months, the period during which we have been debating the contract, the number of trainees in general practice has fallen. I shall express grave anxiety later in my speech about the fact that many of those trainees are now finding it increasingly difficult to enter general practice precisely because of the contract that is now before the House.
Any contract that sought to meet patients' needs would seek to reduce the number of practices with large lists. Instead, the Secretary of State is seeking to increase their rewards. Logically, therefore, he expects the number of practices with long lists to increase. If the Secretary of State continues to deny that that is what he expects and wants, there is a simple way to convince us that that is not what he seeks.
I put to the Secretary of State the question that I put to him last July: if he does not wish patient lists to lengthen, and if he shares the consensus of the last 20 years that patient lists should be reduced, why does he not accept the BMA's proposal, which is on the negotiating table, to reduce the maximum number on patient lists from 3,500 to 2,500? Will he not accept that basic step, which would provide some protection to patients against general practitioners deciding as a result of this contract that the sensible and rational response is to hold as many patients as possible on their lists?
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that would impose an artificial constraint upon doctors? It would prevent a GP from taking on to his list a patient who wanted to go on to his list because the patient was satisfied that he or she would get good service from that GP. How

329
does that equate with the hon. Gentleman's unconvincing assertion that patient choice is one of the issues that he is bearing in mind?
Mr. Cook: No, it would not have that effect. The artificial barrier of 3,500 patients is already there. When a GP hits the 3,500 barrier, the practice takes on another partner. Under our proposal, practices would not be obliged to turn away patients. High patient list practices would be provided with a financial incentive to take on additional partners, thus increasing the tendency to reduce patient lists by increasing the number of doctors. That would provide greater, not less, choice to patients.
Patients are not the only victims of the proposal. The growing number of women GPs is another casualty. In parenthesis, may I say that I welcome the advent to our debates of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I hope she will forgive me if I say that our welcome to her, warm though it is, is as nothing compared to the unfeigned welcome that we give to the departure from our debates of her predecessor. Conservative health policies certainly can do with a woman's view.
I noticed the unfortunate statement earlier this month by the Conservative Medical Society, which urged an increase in Britain's population. It says:
"A return to enhanced birth rate would eventually allow more women to return to their prime task of bringing up their families as their profession whilst the young as yet unmarried provide the recruits to the health care profession as in the past."
I suspect that that passage was not drafted by the Secretary of State. He will be aware that, as a strategy for filling GP vacancies, it is deeply flawed. It requires six years at medical school, followed by a year in a hospital, followed by a year as a GP trainee to qualify as a GP. By the time that a woman has completed that, she will be in her late 20s, most likely be married and probably starting a family. Therefore, on the whole, women GPs seek more moderate list sizes. The average list size of women GPs is 35 per cent. below the national norm.
The fear is that, under the new entrepreneurial age being ushered in by the Secretary of State's contract, practices will want to take on not a woman partner but a partner who will play his full part—it will be "his" full part.—in the competitive struggle to maintain income by pushing up patient lists.
I acknowledge that the contract contains new arrangements for part-time GPs, but that overlooks the fact that in the new war to attract and retain patients practices will not want part-timers. Since the first draft of the contract was published in the spring, there has not been a single part-time partnership advertised in Scotland. Curiously, much of the stress in the rest of the contract is to provide services for women and children, such as screening, immunisation, well-woman clinics and child health surveillance. All the evidence shows that women find it easier to accept those services from women doctors. If the Secretary of State is to meet his targets, the hon. Member for Surrey South-West had best take him aside and explain to him that he should make it easier, not more difficult, for women to enter general practice.
The issue whether GPs should be rewarded by numbers goes much deeper than whether there will be enough time for each patient or whether patients will have the right of access to a woman partner. At the heart of the debate is how we motivate the medical profession. The current edition of "Pulse" contains a profile of a GP practice in
330
Bristol. It is located on a council estate called Hartcliffe, which scores high on the deprivation scale. It has an unemployment rate of 30 per cent., and 48 per cent. of families are single-parent households. The practice does not believe that it will qualify for the new deprivation allowance because it is allocated on a ward basis and, because of affluence elsewhere, their wards score below the Jarman scale.
There are intense demands on the medical practice; 70 per cent. of the children registered with it come from families in which one parent is under 21 and require considerable support. The practice has therefore adopted the conscious policy of reducing the patient-doctor ratio. It has succeeded in reducing it by 25 per cent., with the objective of increasing the amount of time spent on each patient. Far from rewarding it for that ethical decision, the contract will penalise it for not getting stuck into the competition to maximise list size. Here we glimpse the long-term damage of the contract.
The Secretary of State has based his contract on the explicit premise that the only motivation he can recognise is a financial incentive. The majority of GPs spend most of their day not on activities that they have calculated will maximise the revenue of their practice but on activities that in their view best meet their ethical duty to their patients. It is clear from the many conversations that I have had over the past two weeks that many GPs feel deeply the insult that they saw in his comment that he is asking them to do only 26 hours a week. The majority of GPs do well over 26 hours a week, and many work easily twice those hours.
Yes, there may be a few passengers, and, yes, it may be that the only thing that will prod those passengers into greater productivity is the sharp stick of hard cash, but the tragedy is that the Secretary of State has drafted his contract to address the motivation of the minority. The danger is that he will therefore undermine the much finer performance of the majority of GPs, who are motivated by a sense of ethical duty and the public service ethos. If all that matters is meeting the minimum for financial reward, that minimum may become the maximum that anyone does.
Mr. John Maples: If the contract is as misconceived as the hon. Gentleman has said, why did the BMA negotiators agree it?
Mr. Cook: I am sorry to have to advise the hon. Gentleman that the BMA negotiators did not agree to the contract. They recommended it to their members because there was an explicit understanding that if their members, did not vote for the contract the Secretary of State would withdraw the concessions that they had negotiated. That was the precise basis on which they agreed to recommend it in the ballot.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to my next point, which concerns, not the contents of the contract, but the style in which it has been negotiated. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the contract was put to a postal ballot of BMA members. We have been repeatedly led to believe by Conservative Members that postal ballots are the model of modern trade unionism. In the postal ballot on the contract, the membership, in an 82 per cent. poll, rejected the contract by 76 per cent. to 24 per

331
cent. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded the House, that was in a ballot where the Secretary of State had the BMA negotiators on his side, recommending a yes vote.
A word other than "contract" is needed to describe this document. A word that captures more honestly the authoritarian, centralising nature of the Government who are imposing it would be "edict" or "decree". Those words more accurately capture the flavour of the document that the House is debating.
Perhaps it is a matter of indifference to patients whether the contract is negotiated or imposed. Contracts that are imposed have to be written in a bunker because they cannot go through a process of full consultation which involves taking the people on whom it will be imposed into one's confidence.
We are debating a detailed manual of how doctors should practise medicine daily in their surgeries, which has been written by civil servants in an office in Whitehall. When I read comments in the medical press about the contract, I was struck by the fact that, often, doctors who agreed with parts of the contract were appalled, nevertheless, at how amateurish the contract was in setting them out. For example, on child health surveillance, Dr. Curtis, of the British Paediatric Association, said:
"the proposals have been ill-thought out, not properly worked through and I am appalled at the rate at which they are instituted".
Dr. Wilson, a pioneer in developing annual reports for practices, who voluntarily produced an annual report on his practice for five years, said:
"The information which the regulations demand is of little use. It seems to have missed the mark and instead of being for the field workers it is for the administrators back at head office."
Dr. Brian Wiggins, who has specialised in minor surgery at his practice and has his own specially constructed surgery unit, says that be believes that the list of minor surgery has been drawn up by a bureaucrat with little surgical experience.
Fortunately, the bureaucrat in question broke cover last week. Mr. John Shaw, the under-secretary in charge of family practitioner services, addressed the family practioner committees' annual conference last week and explained why he had not felt able to indulge in face-to-face discussions with GP leaders on the new contract. He said:
"I took the view that in dealing with such detailed fine print the most effective way was to do it in writing."
So there we have it.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has entered unusual ground by attacking one of my civil servants by name and by quoting him out of context. The two areas that he refers to—child surveillance and minor surgery —were put into the contract at the request of the BMA. Mr. Shaw engaged in about 100 hours of negotiations with doctors on those services and on the details of how they would be described in the contract. The quotation he has just used describes what was happening at the later stages when we were drafting—crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Criticism should be aimed at the doctors who were closely involved, on the BMA side and on mine, in drawing up the details. The hon. Gentleman should not make cheap attacks on the civil servants involved when he is trying to find a reason to negate this patient-friendly contract.
Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the Secretary of State believes that to quote his civil servants is to attack them. I was quoting the observations of those doctors who practise medicine, who have carried through exactly the kind of innovations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now making mandatory and who clearly from their comments do not believe that the regulations which are now being imposed upon them reflect medical expertise or advice.
The House is invited to pass this edict, which is being imposed despite the rejection of the profession and which was drafted on the explicit basis that it had best be done in writing. When they come to put up a museum to the Government, there should be a special place for this statutory instrument as a document which is one of the finest demonstrations of the Government's style, based on the conviction that the Government know what is good for the rest of us and on the belief that the more one ignores advice, the more one demonstrates the strength of those convictions. Fortunately, the day when the Government can be consigned to that museum is approaching.
There is a sad irony in today's debate, which I am sure has not escaped the Secretary of State and which must privately trouble him. He has chosen to copy the Prime Minister's style of management at the very moment that his colleagues are queueing up to beg her to change it. We are told that the Conservatives want more consultation, listening and sensitivity. They are about to hear a speech from the Secretary of State which all experience warns us will show that he revels in the fact that he is ignoring the doctors' ballot and relishes the idea that he knows better than the GPs in their constituencies what is good for their patients.
The Secretary of State will then invite Conservative Members for the first time in the 40 years of the NHS to impose a contract against the will of GPs. That vote provides an interesting footnote to the turmoil of the past week. It is the opportunity for Conservative Members to show whether they really meant all those fine words about more consultation and listening, or whether the Prime Minister got it right, in that it will be "business as usual". Business as usual means that the Secretary of State knows best—better than the 75 per cent. of GPs who rejected his contract and the 70 per cent. of the public who consistently rejected his White Paper. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues fall for that, those GPs and that public majority may well conclude that the Government do not know how to change their style. If people do not like the style, they had better change the Government.
4.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): There should be a wide measure of agreement between myself and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on large parts of this contract. I suspect that there is a much wider measure of agreement between us than the weasel words that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use would show to the outside world. I am sure that he agrees with me that we are dealing with one of the most important parts of our National Health Service—the family doctor service. I have said many times and am happy to say again that the British family doctor system is the particular feature of the British health care system that in large part accounts for the particularly high quality of health care which we achieve in this country.

333
I begin gladly by paying tribute to the contribution that family doctors make to the Health Service. We have spent the past 10 years increasing the numbers of those family doctors. We have increased the number of people in their support teams and expanded the service that they provide. When we return in later debates to the details of the White Paper on the wider NHS reforms which I am putting forward, I shall repeatedly emphasise the key role that we will expect GPs to play in the new National Health Service in influencing decisions on implementing provisions for the development of services and the distribution of resources in their locality as never before. Where money follows their patients, the hospitals and community services will respond to GPs and their pattern of referrals even more than they have in the past. They will be the patients' advocates and guides within the NHS even more than they have been before.
We begin, I am sure, by agreeing that the majority of general practitioners work extremely hard. Many of them are workaholics and they are certainly completely dedicated to their patients and to the NHS. In putting forward a new GP contract, my aim, which should be shared by all hon. Members, is to raise the standards of our family doctor service still higher by getting rid of the unevennesses that we all know exist from place to place. My other aim is to reward more fairly those who work most effectively in the family doctor service and to give incentives to best practice, new services and higher levels of performance wherever they are achieved.
We ought to remind ourselves throughout the debate —although we have not forgotten so far—that we are not deciding how much family doctors should be paid. That will be determined by the Government—as it always is —on the advice of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body. Family doctors can be very well paid and deserve to be when they nake the full contribution that the best undoubtedly do to the National Health Service.
These regulations and the debate look at the subject from the patient's point of view. The House is deciding whether the Government are right to specify more carefully what family doctors should be paid for in future. The effect of our decision will influence the income of individual family practitioners, because it will determine to a large extent which of them are paid more than the average net remuneration recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body and which are paid less. That will be a fair reflection of the contribution that each doctor is making and the services that he or she is providing.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the practices in my constituency has set its face against increasing the patient list size? However, it has already worked out that, under the terms of the new contract, by providing the level of service it already provides, every partner in that practice will be about £4,000 better off.
Mr. Clarke: In assessing the impact on their incomes, doctors will look not only at the number of patients they have, unless they have an exceptionally low number of patients that could be expanded, but at the type of services they are providing, the targets they can hit and the new services they can add which will be encouraged by the contract because they will be better rewarded.
334
Why are we introducing a new contract? There has been a difficult and protracted process of consultation and negotiation. The present contract is 25 years old and its weakness is that it does not reflect the huge changes that have taken place over that quarter of a century.
We are looking back to a contract that was drawn up by a Labour Minister who eventually introduced regulations that he had been induced to draw up in the face of the threat of industrial action with which general practitioners were confronting him. It does not specify clearly what services doctors should provide. There have been many changes in the past 25 years. I will remind the House of the key changes that have taken place during the years for which we have been responsible. They underline our motives which have been challenged by the hon. Member for Livingston.
Since 1979, the number of GPs in the National Health Service has increased by 20 per cent., from 25,614 to 30,789. Those numbers are likely to continue to increase. The average list size has fallen from 2,229 in 1979 to 1,928 now and that decrease in average list size is plainly going to continue. The number of practice staff—nurses, receptionists and other support staff—that make up the primary care health team has increased by 70 per cent. since 1977. We are introducing cash limits to target that help better, and the Government have made it clear that they intend to expand those primary health care teams and increase the help available to doctors to help them expand their teams by removing some of the limits that specify the type of staff who can be employed on primary health care teams.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Some of my doctors are worried that in future they may have to justify the employment of one of those members of staff. They feel that in those circumstances it would be difficult for them to plan ahead, because they would not know what they would be planning for.
Mr. Clarke: The Government will honour the commitment into which we have always entered, to reimburse 70 per cent. of the cost of all the staff employed by GPs from the relevant date, which is next April. Thereafter, when a post falls vacant, GPs will have to notify the family practitioner committee and the committee will have to endorse the continuing need for that post. The reason for that is that 70 per cent. of the cost of those jobs is paid out of public funds, so it is only fair that when the post is renewed, somebody should be given the opportunity to confirm that it is a justified use of public expenditure. I do not envisage that the average family practitioner committee will go around cancelling nurses' posts and rejecting receptionists or practice managers. However, we cannot simply say to the GPs that they can carry on hiring whoever they want and that the family practitioner committees will write off the cost. The post should be checked as it comes up for renewal when the existing contract holder withdraws.
There have been substantial increases in the number of doctors and their support staff, and there has been a dramatic decline in average list size. The last survey also showed the effects that had had on the work load of family doctors. The last survey was carried out in 1985–86 and showed that the average family doctor worked 38 hours a week on general practice. That 38 hours included calls made by the doctor when on call. That average will strike

335
all of us as low. I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston that it is easy to find general practitioners who are working many more hours than 38 a week on their practices. The reason that the figure is low is that there is a huge variation in time from one doctor to another. When one finds a doctor who says that he genuinely works double those hours, it has to be borne in mind that almost one in four of general practitioners were found to work fewer than 30 hours each week on general practice, and the remuneration system should reflect that.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On the question of the GPs' work load, does the Secretary of State care to comment on the fact that a Doctor Kermani at a health centre in Essex has stated that the Government will give GPs more work? He is being told by the Government to give information which is normally confidential between patient and doctor on the patient's housing, employment and family problems. Is that true?
Mr. Clarke: It is not, unless the doctor has the patient's consent to do so. The doctor's comment no doubt refers to the surveying of elderly patients when they are visited. That is an extraordinary description of the service, to which I shall return in a moment. The work we are specifying is work that is being carried out in every particular by practices somewhere in the country already.
There is a great variation in the hours worked, and the remuneration should reflect that more accurately. Overall, remuneration has risen dramatically under this Government. We now have 20 per cent. more GPs.
Ms. Harriet Harman rose——
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way or I shall be giving way after every other sentence.
Doctors' remuneration has increased as well. We have 20 per cent. more doctors than when we took office and the average total remuneration is up by 37·2 per cent. ahead of inflation, to £67,066. The net remuneration—I am not entering into the argument about the value to doctors of many of the indirectly and directly reimbursed expenses which, as self-employed men and women, they are also given—is up by 22·3 per cent. ahead of inflation to £31,105.
Our policy in government has been to increase the number of GPs dramatically, to increase the number of their staff, to bring down patient list sizes and to extend the range of services available by taking on nurses and support staff. We are paying doctors very much better than did the previous Government who, in their last years in office, allowed doctors' pay to drop. The numbers are continuing to rise and all those trends will continue.
Against that background, it is wholly reasonable to stipulate the patient services that we expect should be provided and to lay down some tighter stipulations about the availability to patients of individual doctors. That brings us on to consider the requirements of the contract. I described the hon. Member for Livingston as having used weasel words because he hardly addressed himself to any aspect of the contract. I suspect that, when we examine the items that we are specifying, almost all of which have been challenged by some of the GPs whose cause the hon. Gentleman is advocating, we will see that he actually agrees with them. Every time he mentioned en passant
336
night visits or something of that kind, he accepted that. The Opposition dare not oppose the great bulk of the real content of this contract. They accept that it is in the patients' interest, and they know that they should support it.
I shall deal briefly with some of the things that even the hon. Gentleman would not have the nerve to challenge. One is the minimum 26-hour availability for patient services at times convenient to the patient. That is a minimum. Of course many doctors will be more available than that, particularly if they have large lists. A 26-hour minimum stipulation is not unreasonable for someone in full-time practice. Higher fees for night visits were agreed. Plainly, patients prefer that if they must have a night visit it should be made by a doctor whom they know or one of his partners or close colleagues. When the doctor carries out that work, it is right that he should be paid more than someone using a deputising service.
I am sure that payments for minor surgery are agreed. The new arrangements for payment of child surveillance should certainly be agreed. As I said, that provision was inserted at the request of the British Medical Association. The details were worked out with the BMA over an enormous period to reach their present stage.
We are giving a higher capitation payment to GPs for their patients over 75. When we pay that higher capitation, it is right that the GP or a member of his team, such as a practice nurse, should try annually to check the home circumstances of the elderly person. It is not enough to say, "We will pay you more for having somebody over 75 on your list whom you might know little about and see rarely." It is a reasonable stipulation to have an overall picture of how that person is coping. Somebody should visit the home and make sure that the home conditions are all right, that the patient is coping with the shopping and cooking and that, generally, nobody else's attention needs to be drawn to that elderly patient.
All those services cannot seriously be challenged. At some of the meetings I have attended, some GPs have queried the need for me to specify that they might do some of those things.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. and learned Friend is defending his case very valiantly. Will the 26-hour availability that he mentioned for general practitioners, particularly those in large rural areas, include travelling time and not just availability in surgeries?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He has made that concession.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, that is correct. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It is a concession which I made in negotiations with the GMSC. I made it largely at the behest of Conservative Back-Bench Members from rural areas who challenged me about the 20-hour requirement without travelling time for home visits—a proposition I originally made.
Mr. Michael Morris: On availability to patients, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to 42 weeks, which is accepted, and 26 hours. Is he aware that, if five days occur alongside the 26 hours, a general practitioner on call over a weekend will work for 12 days without a break?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that they are required to work for 42 weeks of the year. The hon. Member for Livingston shares the problem of several of my critics—he has not read the contract. He thinks that we are slashing holidays to six weeks. Ten weeks are available, not only for holidays but for study leave and other things. Nevertheless, the six weeks have nothing to do with the contract.
On my hon. Friend's second point, yes, that can happen, but it is when the doctor chooses to be on call because he or she wants to give that service and wants to be paid more and not use a deputising service. We are not saying that they cannot use deputising services sometimes, but, when they are on call themselves because they choose to be, they should be remunerated more for those calls than for using the deputising service. That will be in the hands of the doctor.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: How does the Secretary of State propose to enforce the contract?
Mr. Clarke: The role of FPCs will be greatly enhanced. For example, on the 26 hours—[interruption] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) laughs at the idea that any of this might be enforced. At least he is not claiming that it is onerous—yet that was the argument, by implication, of his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I am greatly strengthening the family practitioner committees because they have a duty to manage and develop primary health care services in their areas. The committees will be notified by GPs of their ordinary availability to patients. That will mean that, if someone is not making himself available for the minimum 26 hours at times that are convenient to patients, he can be challenged by the family practitioner committee.
The Opposition will not have the nerve to attack the new requirements to strengthen the activities of GPs on health promotion and disease prevention, which is an important part of our contract. Some doctors are against that, but I do not think that many members of the public oppose it. Plainly, the family doctor service is an important arm of the NHS in health promotion. As a result of the contract, when patients first register with their GP they will be offered a check-up and three-yearly check-ups thereafter. The check-ups will be fairly minimal, but will provide an opportunity to give advice on developing problems and to detect problems early.
We have also set targets for proper levels of child vaccination and for screening for cervical cancer. The targets that we have set for vaccination are those recommended by the World Health Organisation. I do not see why we, with our National Health Service, should not set ourselves the objective of attaining World Health Organisation recommendations. Targets for cervical cancer are also important and make allowance for the fact that some women may refuse such tests and some may not require them. The 50 per cent. lower and the 80 per cent. higher targets reinforce all that we have done in recent years to improve screening for cervical cancer which, I remind the House, still causes about 2,000 deaths a year, most of which are wholly avoidable.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point and is developing his argument carefully and constructively. What happens if a doctor does his utmost to reach the target but does not
338
do so, through no fault of his own? Is it right that, after all the effort and time the doctor has put in, he should not receive the full remuneration?
Mr. Clarke: All doctors are paid for vaccination and for cervical cancer screening. Those things are now an ordinary part of a doctor's duties. We are talking about a kind of bonus payment for hitting particular targets. We are trying to encourage a positive effort by all doctors, which many of them now make, to advise and encourage patients to vaccinate their children or to undertake screening tests at the required intervals. There are still some doctors who challenge the requirement to drive ahead with cervical cancer screening in the way that we have suggested. I had such a challenge from a doctor yesterday. However, most doctors do not object to that.
The only argument was about how the doctors are paid. There is a big difference between paying people for each item, according to the number that they do in a year, and the system that we propose, which sets a target level at which a bonus will be paid because all the efforts of the practice have succeeded in encouraging people to take steps that are in their interests and the interests of then. families.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I must press my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter. I understand that the maximum bonus could be about £1,500. That is quite an amount of money to anyone, and certainly worth earning. If a doctor contacts every patient about cervical cytology or the immunisation of children but, because of religious or other grounds, does not achieve his target, is there any reason why that doctor should not be awarded the top bonus? He has done everything possible to reach the target.
Mr. Clarke: We shall measure the effort, and someone who is making such an effort has little to fear from our targets. We do not say 100 per cent. because we anticipate that some people who have religious or personal objections, which they are entitled to have, will not wish to undergo screening tests. That is why we have gone for 90 per cent. in one case and 80 per cent. in the other. Those are reasonable targets, which should certainly be reached by the most active practices.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I should like to get on. I am sure that this matter will be raised later, and I shall deal with it then.
When I set out the contents of the contract, I do not believe that many speeches will be made in the House—whatever letters hon. Members may have received from a few GPs—to challenge much of it. The hon. Member for Livingston, in an attempt to achieve topicality, suggested that the way in which we set about achieving that contract somehow reflects an unfortunate style on the part of the Government. Over the years, I have been engaged in the process of negotiation and consultation many times, but I have never been engaged in one that has been so tortuous and protracted as our consultations on the contract. I have not been engaged in many negotiations where I have made more concessions than I have in this respect.
The distant origins of this process lie in the time when I was Minister for Health—I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) now holds that post—and I tried to raise the

339
question of improving the contract with the royal college. The process got going with the 1986 Green Paper on primary health care. The Government then held 10 public meetings in consultation on those proposals and we received more than 2,000 representations. The overwhelming tenor of those representations was that the contract should be addressed to improving health promotion and disease prevention. There was a great deal of public response and that response was channelled into the White Paper. We then had more than 100 hours of negotiation with the BMA negotiators to discuss all the points.
On 4 May, I had a long meeting with the negotiators, who are extremely tough. The hon. Member for Livingston claimed that those negotiators "rolled over". That is a surprising description given my experience of the general demeanour of the GMSC negotiators. In their opinion and in mine, however, we reached a settlement on 4 May. On behalf of the Government, I made some substantial concessions to reach that position.
I wanted to get rid of seniority allowances—I have Labour predecessors who tried to do the same—as I do not believe that they are performance-related, All they show is that one is growing older. I conceded on that, however, and so long as doctors keep their full seniority allowance, we required that people should go in for the postgraduate training allowances that we are now introducing. I conceded on the basic practice allowance figures, partly in response to arguments, which I did not altogether accept, about the impact of that allowance on women doctors. I was also pressed on the rural practice payments scheme, as I was by a number of my hon. Friends. I agreed to abandon my proposals on that, although I believe that they were advantageous to doctors living in sparsely populated areas. We have agreed to refer that matter to the central advisory committee and it will come back to us on it in due course.
Target payments are an important part of the debate, and I conceded on the lower levels of target payment. That is an important concession as, especially with vaccinations, a high proportion of practices will hit the lower target payment.
On 4 May, I proceeded on the basis of the concessions made. The negotiators then recommended the resulting agreement to their members, but, because of the internal politics of the BMA, unfortunately, all that went wrong and there was subsequent controversy about the contract. [Interruption.] According to the medical press, the vote was conducted in extraordinary circumstances. Long after the vote had been taken, I had meetings that were full of reasonably friendly rural doctors. They all told me that they had voted against the contract because they should be able to keep their rural practice allowance. They were astonished when I told them that we were not withdrawing that allowance. The level of knowledge, among all the campaigning, was slight. Many of the people who forced the vote were attacking the negotiators as much as me. Given that I have had my difficult times with the negotiators I sometimes feel sympathy for them when I see the attacks upon them. Only yesterday I read The Journal of the Dispensing Doctors Association, which contained an editorial and an amazing article entitled "Willigo Wilson", both by Mr. Roberts and both of which attacked the chief negotiator of the GMSC,
340
Dr. Michael Wilson. He is a pleasant and friendly man, but an extremely tough negotiator. I shall give a flavour of the type of attacks that he has faced.
The Journal suggested that "Willigo Wilson" should go because he had surrendered so miserably to the Government over the contract, and stated:
"A further contribution to the ensuing disaster for general practitioners was that Dr. Wilson accepted that the emphasis in the fight should be almost solely on the effects of the Contract on patients".
The article set out what the themes and aims of the GMSC should be and asserted:
"The interests of doctors and patients do not always coincide!"
Having agreed that the interests of patients should be put first, the author of the article advises Dr. Wilson:
"I would remind him, as he splutters over his morning cornflakes, that military leaders have shot themselves for less!"
for conceding to the position reached on the contract. The editorial addresses me by saying:
"Yes, Mr. Clarke, the 1990 Contract will hit our wallets and I am not ashamed to admit it"
I have good news for the rather unpleasant Mr. Roberts —he is wrong. As I have already said, the new contract will not hit his wallet. The rubbish in The Journal, which is sent to all members of the association, no doubt inspired those members to cast an unreasonable vote against the contract and to mount unreasonable attacks upon Dr. Michael Wilson. He is an honourable man who defends doctors' interests, but, to be fair to him, he also remembers the interests of patients.
To be fair to the profession, I should note that doctors have re-elected Dr. Michael Wilson, who recommended the contract to them, as their leader. We all know that feelings about the contract are fading away rapidly as individual doctors find out more about it. With stuff such as that which appeared in The Journal still being written I wonder who advises the Opposition. Which section of the medical profession does the Labour party listen to when it trots out all its opinions? It is obvious that that medical opinion is not speaking on behalf of patients, but on behalf of the more hot-headed members of the BMA. Such people give the Opposition an inadequate briefing so that they can make selective attacks on parts of the contract.
Mr. Robin Cook: Since the Secretary of State has been so kind as to ask who advises us, will he state just which organisation, whether medical, the BMA, one representing patients or any other organisation concerned with health policies and medical politics, supports his proposal to increase the payments by capitation fees and increase the incentive for longer patient lists? I just want the name of one organisation.
Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that what we have done increases the incentive for longer patient lists. The Labour party's approach to the Health Service debate is to talk in terms of organisations. All it needs is for a couple of trade unions and associations to give their views and the public interest, public advantage and patient interest are instantly forgotten. The hon. Gentleman cannot challenge the patient advantages of the contents of my contract. All it needs is for a trade union to oppose it and he will vote against it. He cannot argue against the public interest involved.
The hon. Gentleman claims that capitation will encourage less time to be given to each patient. The main

341
effect of increasing the capitation element is that it will give added reward to doctors who attract and retain their patients. The idea that we should turn away patients from a particular doctor when those patients want that doctor is extraordinary. I also find it extraordinary that patients will be attracted to a list of doctors who give less and less time to each patient. That is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has tried to put together.
If a doctor has a large list, it is unlikely that he will want to increase it—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already decided not to. If a doctor wants to increase his list size, however, he must attract the patients on to his list. He is more likely to attract them if he offers them more time rather than less. If a doctor already has a large list, he is unlikely to want to increase it; instead, he will consider the services offered.
At the moment, nearly a quarter of our practitioners work more than 30 hours a week. If a doctor is induced to try to expand his list, I do not believe that he will say that at least seven minutes for each patient is not available when that patient comes in for a consultation. Doctors must decide whether they will be able to put in the increased work to justify the increased list. The judgment of the attractiveness of a particular practice will be made by the patients.
I agree with Which? and everyone else that most patients want more time with their doctor. Therefore, the ones that offer more time are the ones most likely to attract patients. The hon. Member for Livingston has already conceded that the idea that most lists will go up is a mathematical impossibility. I advise him to talk to some of the medical lobbyists about that, because I have been unable to persuade some of them that the lists of all doctors will not rise as a result of my proposals.
The female doctors point is an important one. I am glad that the hon. Member for Livingston anticipated that I had never heard of the extraordinary sentence which he read from a publication of the Conservative Medical Society. To be fair to the society, it may have been written by an individual member; I cannot believe for one moment that it represents the policy of the CMS.
We are seeing an every-increasing number of women GPs and wish to do so. Without doubt, we shall see an increasing proportion of women GPs because, at the moment, about 40 per cent. of the trainees up and down the country are women. There are changes in the contract which make it easier to employ women. Part-time contracts are to be allowed for the first time. The valuable concept of job sharing, which professional women of this sort are perfectly capable of organising, is introduced for the first time into the family doctor service. It has been made easier to employ a locum when a women doctor is absent on maternity leave.
I have never been able to understand the argument that the contract is hostile to female doctors, unless it is argued that the contract must be so constructed that male doctors will be given a financial bonus for taking on a woman doctor. I have faced arguments in which that seems to be the proposition. The contract is so based on consumerism and patient choice that rising patient demand for more women doctors and patients' preference to go to practices with women partners will have a key effect and make career possibilities in the family doctor services ever more attractive to women.
Mr. Tim Devlin rose——
Mr. Clarke: I am near the end of my speech and shall not give way as I have taken longer than I intended in this short debate.
This contract is much more attractive than the previous one and for the Opposition to vote against it is perverse if they really mean it when they say that they are in favour of a patient-oriented service.
What if some of the details are wrong? There is not much wrong in the drafting. There should not be, because, after we had reached the 4 May agreement, the consultation at the final stage of the drafting took months. The GMC was helpful and made helpful contributions to the drafting before we reached the present stage. Parts of the contract may be wrong and it may not be exactly as planned, although I believe that the impact on consumer patient services will be beneficial.
Sooner or later, the contract may be revised when new developments in practice come along. We shall take a look at the targets and consider which other services we should be encouraging. We should not wait another 25 years before doing that. If, in a few years' time, a successor of mine decides to take another look at the GP contract and start negotiating amendments to it, I hope that he will have less of a pantomime and a farce and can make more sensible progress than I or my predecessors at the Department have been allowed to make during the past two or three years. I also hope that he faces an Opposition who at last realise that all parties should be substantially on the patient's side in the disputes about the family practitioner service.
The patient must take advantage of the contract. We have taken the opportunity to make it easier for the patient to judge practices and choose a family doctor who exactly suits his or her family. The regulations will make it easier to change doctor, and this part of the contract will come into effect earliest. From 7 November in England and Wales and 22 November in Scotland, patients will be able to change doctors simply by registering with a new one. That removes the existing need for the patient to obtain the permission of his or her present doctor or family practitioner committee. That change was opposed by the negotiators during our discussions, but we have put it in place.
Under the regulations, GPs will have to provide practice leaflets. The last letter that I received on the subject was from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). One of his constituents wrote to me enclosing a copy of a practice leaflet that he had received. He said that this was the first time he had had any contact with his doctor for many years and thought that this was a highly desirable outcome of the discussions in which we have been engaged.
All over the country, GPs are producing leaflets and, from the information which the GPs will have to provide, family practitioner committees will produce local directories setting out the services available throughout their area. I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to the profession are soon accepted, so that the information can be made available to the public, and doctors, if necessary, can promote their services, as long as they do so in a responsible and professional fashion. That will ensure that, once we have created a more consumer-oriented family doctor service, patients will be in the best possible position to take advantage of it.

343
Therefore, I recommend the regulations to the House and ask for their endorsement. What we have done is wholly consistent with the Government's overriding objective of strengthening this vital public service and making our great National Health Service a better Health Service in relation to the family doctor service.
4.55 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Secretary of State for Health is to be congratulated on his characteristically skilful advocacy of his case. However, in these affairs, he represents a somewhat Jekyll and Hyde character. This afternoon we have heard a different Secretary of State from the one whom we have seen and heard talking about doctors over the past few months on national television screens, on national airwaves and in the press.
When the original agreement was concluded, I sat and watched the Secretary of State on Channel 4 news. The language he used was blunt and straightforward. He said that he had won his case against the BMA. That was not the tenor of his remarks this afternoon, because he has had some time to reflect. I dare say that passions have cooled on both sides of the negotiating table, but that was his frame of mind when he first approached the matter.
The Secretary of State this afternoon was not the man who enraged medical opinion—not just professional BMA opinion, but the very patient opinion the importance of which he was at such pains to stress in the later stages of his speech today. He was not the man who, on that infamous occasion, spoke of GPs being more interested in their wallets and incomes than in patient care and patients' standard of service. He presented a different face to us this afternoon. The negotiations are complete and the Secretary of State was right to say in his concluding remarks that there are significant passages of this contract which all of those who want to see an improved National Health Service, improved accountability, choice and sensitivity towards the patient as the consumer—in the non-profit sense—would wish to embrace.
There is more than a suggestion in the behaviour and oscillations of the Secretary of State in recent months to suggest that this is one example where the Government, who have benefited so much from high-profile media advertising have, for once, found themselves at the sharp end of that type of advertising. The Government—perhaps all parties, given that we debate health issues year in and year out—have learnt an important lesson. The lesson is certainly relevant to the Government, who have been at pains to stress how much they are doing for the National Health Service, although, apparently, they are not persuading the public of that—they cannot turn around the political opinion polls on that issue.
Some of us criticise the Government year in, year out, about the damage done to the Health Service. Perhaps that has some effect in persuading public opinion. Once doctors began to tell patients of the damage and potential damage being done to the Health Service, they carried more credibility than any elected Member, and certainly any member of the Health Department, whether official or ministerial.
The rash, intemperate and thoroughly provocative approach adopted by the Secretary of State over the past
344
few months made what would always have been a difficult, convoluted and intricate negotiation—there is no debate about that—a far worse task. In part, that was due to the deliberately provocative style adopted by the Secretary of State. To a certain extent, the Secretary of State has got his comeuppance.
Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comment on the fact that the House is substantially empty this afternoon? From what has been said, it seems that this matter should be one of great concern to hon. Members from both sides of the House. Perhaps, with the increased interest in the economy and the counter-productive propaganda put out by the doctors, particularly the BMA, which has turned hon. Members and people outside the House against the BMA, the contract which we are debating today—in which all of us are so interested—has ceased to be a controversial issue and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has won the argument.
Mr. Kennedy: I shall be generous to both sides of the House and assume that, as hon. Members can now stand in the Lobbies and watch live broadcasts of these proceedings, hundreds of hon. Members on both sides of the House are gathered round the television screens hanging on to every word of those contributing.
I saw for the first time today an example of "doughnutting", whereby the few Opposition Members present congregated around their Front-Bench spokesman. We also had a little bit of that around the Secretary of State, but there was a bigger hole in the middle. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has just joined me. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he makes a convincing doughnut. Let us put down the somewhat meagre attendance to the televising of our proceedings.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the heat has gone out of the issue, he is somewhat misguided. When the new Session begins later this month and the new Health Service legislation is introduced, he will find that, although the contract issue will be over from a legislative point of view, the rumblings and knock-on effects will be with us for some time.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
As one would expect, the Secretary of State referred to capitation fees and to the effect of likely increases in list sizes, which he dismissed. It is important to mention that both salary and allowances are included in the capitation element of a GP's income. The Secretary of State has been tempted to reflect the tendency on the part of the press to total all the available allowances plus the salary of Members of Parliament and say that that is our effective gross income. The Secretary of State has been slightly guilty of that at times, but it is not fair.
The capitation element will increase from 46 per cent. to 60 per cent. Much as the Secretary of State may try to reject or counter the argument, the near-certain effect of that will be to increase list sizes. Surely it is not desirable

345
for GPs, who should be spending more time with their present patients, to end up spending rather less time with more patients.
The Secretary of State tried to counter that, particularly in response to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), by talking about the extension of the range of services and how that would make general practice more attractive. I welcome further information for patients and the greater ease with which patients will now be able to change from one surgery to another, although that is much overdue. But the logic of the funding arrangements that the Secretary of State is modifying under the new contract is that the greater the demand for the range of services being provided by a given practice, the greater will be the increase in the list size and the less time there will be available for each patient. I do not see how the Secretary of State can make the kind of case that he attempted to make in a rather mollifying way this afternoon and at the same time be consistent on the arguments that he is otherwise praying in aid for the new contract.
The Secretary of State referred to immunisation and the system of bonuses in the new contract, with lower bonuses for 70 per cent. vaccinations and 50 per cent. smears, and higher bonuses for 90 per cent. vaccinations and 80 per cent. smears. A key consideration here is how one defines a target population, as the Government have been at pains to do. That is particularly true in areas of rapid population change, not least in the inner cities.
The clear evidence of the Black report's in-depth analysis of take-up levels and health deprivation shows how difficult it is to get through to the very target groups that one is trying to reach on matters such as immunisation, preventive medicine and recall facilities. All too often it is likely to be the more socially confident, the better educated, those with slightly better incomes and so on, who take advantage of any additional facilities that are offered. Despite the best efforts of GPs, health authorities and the Department of Health, the people who are considered to be the most vulnerable, and so the most valuable to reach, are missed as a result of the demographic and practical difficulties that the Government are trying to address.
A great deal needs to be done to overcome problems created by lack of knowledge and fear about, for example, immunisation. It is clear that the Government have a major role to play in health education. The rather worrying suggestion that has emanated from the Secretary of State, not so much this afternoon as on previous occasions, is that almost all the responsibility for that can be landed in the front line at the feet of the general practitioners.
In deprived areas, or among the more deprived categories of the population, the direct patient-doctor contact may come only at the point of acute illness. In the build-up period, where preventive measures could be taken rather than waiting for the crisis, intervention and cure, all too often related social conditions, such as housing or the environment generally, play a stronger part than the general practitioners in the front line. The Secretary of State has given insufficient attention to that fact.
Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Representing, as I do, part of inner-city Teesside, I am, like him, concerned about this matter. A point that he has omitted to mention, which he might like to consider, is the additional funding that will go to GPs
346
under the Jarman index of social deprivation, which is one of the new features of the contract. Will he also comment on the new system of visiting and inspection for the over-75s, a particular target group which is often overlooked in inner-city areas?
Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State said that the measures taken for the over-75s meet with general approval, and they have not been a source of any serious or significant contention. They are to be welcomed. I have no criticism of that. That section of the population will grow as people live longer, more active and healthier lives, and that is a welcome trend. Therefore, those measures do not go to the heart of today's debate.
With regard to social deprivation and the indices that can be used to show it, we have still not overcome the fundamental difficulty that Black discovered, to which I referred earlier. The problem will not necessarily be conquered by a simple statistical change. An increase in the range of services, material on those services and increased patient choice in the GP's surgery cannot be expected to overcome fundamental social problems which prevent people from going to the GP's surgery until illness strikes, as a result of ignorance, lack of education and counselling from an early age, when most of the interface can and should take place with the family doctor service. That fundamental difficulty cannot be overcome without going much further than the measure we are discussing this afternoon.
I do not wish to detain the House, so I shall conclude with one issue which the Secretary of State mentioned towards the end of his speech—the position of female general practitioners. He was quite right to mention the increase in the number of women GPs, which has almost doubled in the past 10 years. They now represent 22 per cent. of all general practitioners in Britain and 25 per cent. of general practitioners under the age of 40. The demographic shift is most apparent and is to be welcomed.
The Government claim to welcome that development and say that they want to encourage that trend. The primary care White Paper referred to
"special arrangements to attract women to General practice and to encourage their appointment to the vacancies which occur".
That is a noble sentiment indeed, and I do not think that there is much disagreement on that until we look at the contract. The likely effect of the new contract will be exactly the opposite of encouraging more women GPs into the Health Service, particularly because of the inbuilt disincentives it offers to part-time and flexible working arrangements.
I shall cite just one example. At present, on average., a part-time female GP brings about £15,000-worth of allowances by joining a general practice. If the practice pays her £18,000 which, on average figures, is about one third of a senior partner's annual salary, the practice is getting about 20 hours a week for an annual net outlay of £3,000 per year. Under the new arrangements, that female GP is likely to bring £6,000 or less in basic practice allowances, so there will be a major and significant shortfall, which represents an equally major and significant disincentive. The cost of employing her will therefore be much greater and the likely result is that, instead of additional part-time, flexible working arrangements being available as the Government claim and wish to enhance, the opportunities for female general practitioners will contract as GPs do exactly as the

347
Secretary of State says that they will not do, and build up their lists to make up for the financial shortfall which will occur. The contract is a discriminatory measure in that cardinal respect.
As I said earlier, many aspects of the contract are to be welcomed and carry all-party support. But there are also major aspects which have been thoroughly divisive and have not been helped by the belligerence with which the Secretary of State has pursued his case. In his previous post at the Department of Health, he was the only Minister I have ever come across who thought that BMA was a four-letter word. As soon as he came into any contact with that organisation, he seemed to adopt a most intransigent attitude and decide that it must be gloves off. On this occasion, when the BMA took the gloves off, he began to bleat and complain in a rather plaintive fashion. One does not normally associate bleating with the Secretary of State, but we shall give him the benefit of the doubt.
Generally, the motives behind the contract cannot be divorced from the motives involved in the broader issues arising from the White Paper and the legislation which will follow. Despite those areas in which significant progress has been made and which are not the subject of partisan disagreement this afternoon, it is clear that the basic motivation is the reduction of medical costs within a political context to suit the whims of the Prime Minister much more than to suit the priorities of the patients.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Would the hon. Gentleman care to point out one respect in which the contract will reduce costs?
Mr. Kennedy: Reduction in costs will occur in the very last example which I cited, relating to female GPs. That is a cost reduction in terms of the employment of those general practitioners and in terms of the availability of employment for female GPs. That is an obvious example.
The motto should be "people first" in health care. Sadly, it is proving increasingly to be "cash first, people last", and on this occasion the profession, in a rather muted sense, is somewhere in between as a result of the contract.
5.15 pm
Dame Jill Knight: I do not know whether the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) meant that his minuscule party will be voting for the motion. If that is his intention, he will be voting against a large number of excellent provisions for patients and doctors.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not only a much-maligned man, but a most unfairly maligned one. His opponents use every trick in the book to twist his words and muddy his intentions. I thought that he was being exceptionally mild and magnanimous when he told the Conservative party conference:
"I do not think the BMA have been trying to be entirely helpful."
Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dame Jill Knight: No, I wish to get into my speech first.
I thought that the description by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye of my right hon. and learned Friend's attitude towards the BMA was not accurate. I
348
thought that, when my right hon. and learned Friend most recently expressed his views on the BMA, he was being rather sweet. If that was an accurate comment on the recent activities of the BMA, I tremble to contemplate how members of the BMA would behave if they were trying to be unhelpful.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend's comment was accurate. The BMA has not only been obstructive, but has been intentionally misleading, putting the fear of God into elderly, sick and nervous people in the consulting rooms of its members. I find that very difficult to forgive. Members of the BMA have distributed leaflets which they must have known, not to put too fine a point on it, contained blatant lies. They misled people over the Health Service review and they are doing it now over a contract which is good for doctors and excellent for patients.
It will be excellent that the over-75s will have an improved service. Elderly people are well aware that many of their aches and pains are due to age, but I have heard of frequent cases where doctors hurriedly dismissed those aches and pains without checking. A great deal can be done to improve the hearing, sight and general comfort even of the elderly, and an annual check-up is exactly what they need.
I like the plans to improve health promotion clinics, immunisation and screening for cancer. I am interested in the women's national cancer control campaign. Now, due to the new contract, it is coming on stream with more energy than ever. I approve of regular assessments of the development of children. That used to be done far more than it is today by the ordinary school medical service; there have been gaps in that and I am pleased that it is clearly stated that children are to have regular assessments.
I am glad that there will be additional staff in the surgeries, especially chiropodists and physiotherapists. That is a new and good idea——
Ms. Harman: It is not new.
Dame Jill Knight: It is certainly a new idea to encourage all doctors to have such people in their surgeries. I will not answer any more sedentary interventions from hon. Members who do not know the whole position. These additional people are to be the rule rather than the exception.
It is sensible that doctors should be available to patients on an eyeball-to-eyeball basis for at least 26 hours a week. We appreciate that they work more hours than that because of travelling time, filling in forms and so on, but it is excellent that this improved service for patients is to be introduced.
So much for the way that the contract helps patients, but there is also a great deal that it will do to help doctors. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye claimed that my right hon. and learned Friend said that general practitioners received an average of £65,000 per year—
Mr. Kennedy: I did not.
Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman said that the sum quoted did not include expenses.
Mr. Kennedy: I said that when the Secretary of State referred to the total gross income of general practitioners, he was adding together salaries and allowances. I drew a comparison with the way in which members of the press talk about Members' salaries. They add up office

349
allowances, living allowances and salaries and make people think that we are millionaires. Some Conservative Members are millionaires, but some of us most definitely are not.
Dame Jill Knight: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend has always said that the sum of about £67,000 per annum includes expenses—
Mr. Kennedy: Sotto voce.
Dame Jill Knight: That is not true. I have my right hon. and learned Friend's press release, which clearly states that the sum includes all expenses. A press release cannot be sotto voce. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend has been fair in his remarks about average expenses.
For the first time, doctors will receive specific payments for carrying out certain duties such as minor surgery in their surgeries. It is a good and useful service because it alleviates the work load on hospitals, but previously doctors have not received a specific payment for that work. They will also receive payments for health surveillance and health promotion.
It is worth uttering a word or two on the subject of postgraduate education allowances. Although some doctors go to great lengths to keep abreast of all medical developments, others do not. There is to be an allowance to encourage doctors to keep up to date. There will also be increased payments for night visits—I hope that the Opposition favour that. Necessary improvements to doctors' premises will also attract specific payments, and there will be an increase in capitation fees.
One matter that worries me is the proposed supplement for every patient living in an area of deprivation. Not all needy people live in such areas. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would say a few words about what "area of deprivation" will actually mean. Does it mean that doctors will receive additional payments for looking after people who live at certain addresses in rundown inner-city areas? Part of my constituency is an outer-city area, and people ignore the fact that, for example, there are more one-parent families in that part of Birmingham than there is in the inner city. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear that in mind and think not only of where the patient lives, but the extent of his need. I appreciate that that is not always easy to delineate.
Under the contract, it will be easier for patients to change doctors. There will be much less bureacracy and patients can just turn up at a surgery and ask to be put on a doctor's list. I am sure that all hon. Members know of vexatious patients. Some doctors will have to have those patients on their lists. If a doctor says that he does not want them on his list any longer, they are passed around like a parcel. Under the contract, will a doctor have the right to say that he does not want a particular patient on his list? That needs to be clarified.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to repeat, in every speech, the following points—even though he and I know that they should be superfluous: first, that he has an unwavering and inflexible commitment to the principles of the NHS; secondly, that he believes in an NHS funded largely out of taxation giving free medical treatment to everyone regardless of means; and thirdly, that not for one moment will he contemplate privatising the NHS.
Repetition may be boring, but some people have such thick heads that only by repetition can we get the right
350
ideas into them. We must continue to repeat the truth. I am sick and tired of listening to accusations against the Government and Ministers that they want to privatise the NHS. Anyone who listened to the words that are used would know perfectly well that the allegations are untrue. All the attacks, all the aggro, all the unfairness will not, I hope, deter my right hon. and learned Friend from continuing to improve the NHS. Of one thing I am certain: he will go down in history as having been a great, reforming and improving Secretary of State.
5.29 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. Let me say first, however, that all the general practitioners in my constituency to whom I have spoken—and most have approached me—have said that they want the Secretary of State to know that his contract stinks. It is absurd for any hon. Member to say that the BMA executive supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman; anyone who knows anything about negotiation will be aware that there is a difference between expressing support and telling the membership, "This is the best that we can offer."
The question of changing doctors worries me. It is easy for the Secretary of State to say that if a patient turns up at a doctor's surgery he must take that patient on. In London, chronic traffic congestion means that it can take hours to cross from south to north; if a GP whose surgery is in the north-east takes on a patient who lives in the south-west, emergency call-outs are bound to be a problem. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edbaston (Dame J. Knight) pointed out, patients can be vexatious, and, unfortunately, some are even deranged. Such a patient might deliberately pick a GP whose surgery is on the other side of the map, just to be awkward.
I did not oppose parental choice in regard to schools, but it has nevertheless thrown up numerous problems. Excellent school buildings are half empty, and the Government are taking no steps to find out why. It is all very well for them to say that parents are still making up their minds; we have expensive buildings to keep up.
While Springburn was being redeveloped, it took us about 10 years to establish a health centre that is now second to none. We managed to persuade doctors to leave their converted shops in the high street and to provide the community with chiropody—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Edgbaston said about that—as well as eye tests, dental checks, nursing sisters and a chemist, all under one roof.
A large health centre may contain six or seven practices. Let us say that some of those doctors are not attracting patients, and that their existing patient lists are dwindling. The Secretary of State may say that the patients are switching to other practices within the centre, but let us assume that they are going elsewhere. In such circumstances, a conscientious doctor will have to pay higher overheads because of the new contract.
I know that the patient is all-important, and that he has the right to decide. If I did not like my doctor I should want to leave his practice. If, however, overheads must be spread among fewer doctors, what help will the Government give? What help will they provide when patients who quite enjoyed visiting a health centre are cut off from it by a new road, and the doctors' list suddenly

351
becomes smaller? Conservative Members shake their heads, but patients in my constituency have decided to stop visiting their health centre because the road is too dangerous to negotiate, and doctors are losing patients through no fault of their own.
The Secretary of State mentioned preventive care. In a middle-class community where people are relatively well off, a woman who becomes pregnant is more than likely to want first of all to find out about pre-natal care. In parts of my constituency, however, conscientious doctors know that, unless they go out and knock on the doors of women who have been housed under a "difficult to let" scheme, such women will not obtain the care they need.
We have been told that deprived areas are to receive an allowance. Bureaucrats, however, are terrific at drawing a line around an area on the map and designating it an area of deprivation in which a supplement is payable. An afluent area may contain one or two deprived streets, and the local doctor will know that he must visit the neighbourhood himself if he wants to obtain patients. I hope that we shall be told tonight that that will not happen.
The Secretary of State must be aware that, in areas of high unemployment, the problems for practitioners are getting worse and worse. Most people are visiting their surgeries suffering from depression because they are out of work; wives, too, arrive complaining about the pressures put on family life. I worry about the way in which the Government seem to think that practices should be run like nice, efficient businesses. A GP's work is not like a job churning out alarm clocks, for instance, in which payment is made for results. The Government's proposals will mean that the more sympathetic the doctor, and the more prepared he is to listen to patients, the fewer patients he will have.
A year ago, my wife had a serious operation. Two members of the local practice had said, "I will give you a prescription; you will be all right then." The third listened. He made an appointment with a consultant, and my wife obtained the necessary operation—from which, thankfully, she has now recovered. But what would have happened if all three doctors had been under pressure, and had not listened? A doctor who sits signing a prescription while the patient is still talking does not inspire confidence. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) just said, and I do not approve of the practice of speaking from a sedentary position.
When the Secretary of State glibly talks about choice and says that patients can move, he forgets that, even if they are dissatisfied, elderly patients may not be able to get around as well as they did when they were 30 or 40 years old so they may have to content themselves with the local practice. He must know that in many inner-city areas, our communities are getting older. That puts a burden on GPs. In areas where the community is young and upwardly mobile, a GP may have only a few elderly patients while in other areas where the community is becoming ever more elderly, he may have many. Comparisons must be made and allowances built into the system.
I heard what the Minister said about the emergency doctor service. I do not knock that service, even though it is privatised. I would rather have a doctor in the surgery
352
who is fresh then a doctor who had answered four or five calls the night before. We should examine the deputising service and in some cases encourage it, provided that the doctor does not lose contact with his patients or simply take the easy option. Doctors in the deputising service go out with a driver. Doctors may be afraid to go to areas with a high level of crime and drug problems. There have already been reports of assaults on doctors. Doctors have been called out by a bogus caller and assaulted for their drugs when they arrived in the street where they were expected. At least if doctors go on emergency calls with a driver, they will have some back-up.
I hope that the Minster for Health will examine thoroughly all the matters to which I referred, particularly the problems in inner-city areas, and that she and her colleagues will see that there are vast differences even within tightly knit communities.
5.42 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: I deeply regret having to speak and vote against the regulations. I do not vote against my party lightly, particularly on an issue that involves my family, whom I try to keep out of politics. However, occasionally one must do what one believes is right.
I declare an interest immediately and it proves that I know something about general practice. My wife has been a general practitioner for over 25 years, initially in the inner-city area of Hackney in London and for the past 16 years in Bedfordshire. At the Conservative party conference in Blackpool in 1973 she received a phone call asking her to stand in on an emergency basis in Biggleswade because there was a shortage of GPs. Blackpool conferences were different then. In those days people were allowed to speak against the motion and the debates were not fixed as they were this year. In those days speakers knew and worked in the National Health Service. This year we listened to a doctor who did not work in the National Health Service telling us how marvellous the proposed reforms were. I found that cheeky. Moreover, I understand that he is not particularly successful in private practice.
I have several other interests to declare. I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for the past 10 years and the member of that Committee who has asked the most questions about the National Health Service. The health side of what was the Department of Health and Social Security hardly covered itself in glory in the past 10 years. I expect that my colleagues on the Committee will agree that it is not an exaggeration to say that it was probably the most badly organised Department in the Civil Service. Perhaps now that we have an independent Department of Health, that will change. It certainly needs to do so. I also serve on the Council of Europe's health committee and I advise two pharmaceutical companies. I think that I can claim to know at least as much as the Secretary of State about the National Health Service.
The negotiations for the new contract have followed a familiar pattern. First, the Department issued a set of proposals. The Secretary of State has often been at pains to tell us how long the negotiations have lasted. After all this time and with so many civil servants and officials who are doctors in the Department, one would think that the initial cockshy would be somewhere near a contract that would be acceptable to all parties. But what did we have

353
in February? We had far-reaching proposals for changing both the terms of service and the remunerative system of general practice. My hon. Friends seem to forget the juxtaposition of those factors.
The changes in the terms of service—one of the key platforms—were to include no opting out of the 24-hours-a-day cover, which is right, and direct consultation in the surgery for at least 20 hours per week spread over five days. The Department seemed to forget about home visits. Doctors were to be required to live within a reasonable but undefined distance of the surgery. Several other conditions, which are well known to my colleagues, included regular medical assessments, practice leaflets, and production of annual reports. I listened to my colleagues with some incredulity. I wonder how many of them have read the statutory instrument issued by the Department of Health which sets down the required content of annual reports. They are to be long. Perhaps some of us should write a similar annual report for our constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do, every four years."] Some of us do it more often than annually. Changes in the percentage of the square footage of a surgery devoted to the reception, surgery or nurses' surgery cannot be of the least relevance. Other questions have to be answered in the annual report, the purpose of which is questionable. Family practitioner committees will have to be informed of other professional commitments. That is perfectly fair.
The changes to the remuneration system altered 50 per cent. of the revenue of an average GP's practice. The Department was not simply tinkering at the fringes of the regulations; it introduced a wholesale change in remuneration. Out went seniority, group practice allowance, vocational training allowance, postgraduate training allowance, supplementary basic practice allowance, supplementary capitation, cervical cytology fees and child immunisation fees. On top of that, the basic practice allowance, night visit fees and rural practice payments were changed. That is a long list. In came capitation fees of 60 per cent. We have all heard a great deal about advisers in recent weeks. Advisers have suggested that 60 per cent. will be only the start. Will it be 70 per cent. in a few years' time and 80 per cent. a few years later? My hon. Friend the Minister must state that 60 per cent. will be the maximum and that it will not be changed.
The proposals state that in order to receive full remuneration a doctor must have 1,500 patients, reach cervical cytology and immunisation targets, provide annual check-ups for the over-75s, medicals for newly registered patients and medical assessments every three years for patients aged 16 to 74, undertake minor surgery, organise health promotion clinics, establish staff training, produce a practice leaflet, provide an annual report, accept child surveillance responsibilities, attend specified postgraduate training sessions and carry out night visits on a practice roster.
It does not end there. Last year, I was happy to support the changes to fees and allowances that were incorporated in the Health and Medicines Act 1988. I have long believed that that element of GP work should be cash-limited. However, this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend said that there will be a review not just of new ancillary staff but of existing staff. When a nurse leaves a practice, the family practitioner committee will have the right to say to the doctor, "You may not have another nurse." I very much hope that that dimension, which has not been highlighted, will be dropped.
354
The Health and Medicines Act also contains provisions relating to isolated general practices and computerisation. The Bill that will come before the House in a few months' time will impinge on general practice. The main items for discussion are practice budgets for those with over 11,000 patients, particularly drug budgets, the medical audit and the recomposition and reorganisation of the FPCs. Each will lead to a new list of proposals before their introduction.
Throughout the summer months there was negotiation under duress. I met the Secretary of State several times. By August, there was a second edition of the contract. Seniority payments were mixed up with postgraduate allowances and seniority payments. The new two-tier system relating to cervical cytology and child immunisation is to be welcomed, but it is compulsory and will create problems in towns and cities that have large ethnic populations. That issue must be addressed.
Promises were made about rural practice payments, adjustments to the basic practice allowance and transitional payments to help small practices. That is greatly to be welcomed. The point that I made in an intervention about the 26 hours and five days need to be examined. The majority of general practices do not have access to a standby deputising service. It is all very well for hon. Members with inner-city seats to assume that all general practices have a deputising service. In many areas of the country they do not. It cannot be right, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, that any general practitioner should be on call for 12 days before he gets a break.
All this starts on 1 April 1990. The White Paper proposals to which I referred start a year later. That, by any yardstick, is a pretty tight timetable. It would have been better to roll it out as we went along, but my right hon. and learned Friend has decided otherwise. All these changes to the terms of service will have to be brought about in each surgery in fewer than six months. What other business would be expected to face a 50 per cent. change in its revenue within six months?
Family doctors are already busy people, as are their ancillary staff, but they will have to modernise and introduce computers. What, however, are the facts? Only 25 per cent. of general practices are fully computerised, and only a tiny percentage of FPCs have packages available to control everything from the other end. Those of us who are involved in health matters have received a mailing shot about an argument between the Department of Health and the private companies that are producing the software for the 25 per cent. of general practices that use computers. If something is to be up and running by next April, there should be no argument about who owns the software, with the GPs perhaps having to buy it off the particular company involved. I hope that when she winds up, the Minister for Health will deal with that point. It is absolutely central to getting everything moving by 1 April 1990.
All these changes are supposed to produce value for money, but can one find the figures? The only figure that I have found in either the first or second edition of the contract is the 50 per cent. reduction in the benefit that is to be paid to general practitioners. That is on record. As soon as the terms of service are in writing—I shall be grateful to know whether they are yet in writing and whether the red book has been updated—they will have to be priced by the review body. I hope that the statement of

355
fees and allowances will be available by 1 January 1990. Every practice is making its plans which will come into effect on 1 April, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that the statement of fees and allowances will be published by 1 January 1990.
There have been many changes to the administrative and clinical system. GPs can do without the additional problem of having to speculate about revenue. No one should be expected to negotiate for half the final package just on faith. Is the Minister able to say what the cost of the changes will be? I know that the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, will investigate that question with interest. It is only right that we should have the Government's forecast of the cost of the changes.
Very welcome though the new Minister for Health is at the Department, she will have to tighten things up a bit. Following the imposition of the agreement, we know that the directives on the national priorities for family practitioner committees arrived weeks late. I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has returned to the Treasury Bench. He promised to give general practitioners six months' notice of any changes. We are five months away from implementation of the scheme, so we have already lost a month.
I deplore the abuse that has been showered on hard-working general practitioners—in my constituency and by my friends. Equally, I deplore the British Medical Association's advertising campaign. I spent 20 years in advertising. The BMA should fire its agents.
I also deplore the assertion that GPs earn about £65,000 a year. That figure includes staff salaries, medical supplies and their share of medical premises expenses. They are not minor items. The taxable figure is £31,105. No Member of Parliament would expect his or her salary to be judged on a basis that included the secretarial allowance. Commentators such as Dr. Vernon Coleman in The Sun are being mischievous when they suggest a higher figure.
I deplore the lack of time, the bureaucracy that has been imposed on general practitioners, the unreality of the annual report and the intrusion into certain patients' lives, just to meet an arbitrary target. It will undermine the long-standing doctor-patient relationship which has never hitherto been based on financial considerations. That relationship is in danger of being changed. The new contract that is being imposed on GPs will not aid or improve general practice.
The passing of the regulations will be sad for general practitioners. General practice is the one part of the National Health Service that is admired the world over. The pressure that the new bureaucratic contract forces on GPs must mean that they will have less time for patients, and hence patient care. All the surveys show that every patient wants more time, not less, with his doctor. I fear that doctors who traditionally have counselled and consoled the bereaved will be forced to reduce some of that work.
This is not the freer, caring society for which I thought the Conservative party stood. I regard this as a bureaucratic system imposed from above, and I think that it should be rejected.
6 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie: I should like to begin by quoting from a letter sent to me by Dr. Michael Wilson, who is chairman of the general medical services committee of the BMA. It puts a rather different perspective on his views from that rather misleadingly given by the Secretary of State. It says:
"For the first time in the history of the health service, a Secretary of State has decided to impose his own contractual terms. There are some desirable components, but there are also important elements which are misguided and ill-conceived, for example, the target payments for immunisation and cervical cytology, and the shift towards a more capitation based payments system. Attached to this letter are more details of our views on these elements.
There have been misleading reports in the media that general practitioners would be taking industrial action as a result of this imposition. I deplore the fact that the public may have been disturbed in any way by these reports, and have written to the Secretary of State to make it clear that the BMA was not responsible for this press speculation.
At a recent meeting, the Committee decided firmly against any form of action which would be damaging to patients. In order to protect patients' interests, which remain paramount, and to sustain general practice in the NHS for the future, we will subject key aspects of the contract to a careful audit to provide us with information on the contract's defects and the problems arising from its imposition."
That paints a different picture from the one that the Secretary of State attempted to paint this afternoon.
I support most of the principles and motives underlying the contract, although I disagree profoundly with some of the changes proposed, which have not been properly thought out and will almost certainly damage rather than enhance the primary care service. The Secretary of State was good enough to acknowledge that we probably have the best primary care service in the world. We must remember that it is run very cost-effectively and that it takes only 7 per cent. of total resources devoted to health care.
There are two underlying objectives for the new contract, both of which are laudable. The first is to improve the health experience of the population, and the second is to provide a better and more uniform service. It is essential to consider the new contract in the context of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 and the Government's proposals in "Working for Patients", which contain a third objective, again with which I do not disagree, of cost containment to exert downward pressure on the inexorable increase in health care costs year on year. It does the Secretary of State no credit to suggest that that is not the case. He should defend honestly that laudable objective.
We are trying to make the service more cost-effective, and there is no doubt that the health of the British people needs to be improved. The Government have targeted immunisation in childhood and cervical screening of adult women. We now immunise against polio and diphtheria —fortunately, mainly diseases of the past—whooping cough, measles and mumps, which sadly are still subject to regular epidemics, and rubella, which is a mild disease in itself but which has horrendous consequences for the next generation if a pregnant woman has the misfortune to have an attack. Massive improvements have been made over the past decade or two. Better vaccines are available, so therefore much of the fear and prejudice associated with vaccines, particularly whooping cough vaccine, has been overcome, and there have been tremendous improvements in the methods by which we ensure that the service is

357
delivered to its target population. The same applies to cervical screening, which is responsible for thousands of preventable deaths every year. The failure of the present system to prevent those deaths is a national disgrace.
There is no doubt that, nationally, there is wide variation in the quality and standard of primary care and, regrettably in its accessibility. It is over a decade since Knox and others in the Dundee department of geography commented on this mismatch between the siting of GP practices in the centre of towns and the siting of the population on the periphery. Sadly, much of that problem has not yet been corrected. Housing schemes are ill-provided with basic services and do not have regular transport links to surgeries, and many people who live in them are on low incomes. I accept that inner London has particular problems that are the equal of those in smaller cities. That raises the first anomaly, because without a major effort to tackle the twin problems of multiple deprivation and poverty, all the Secretary of State's efforts in the contract are doomed to failure.
I do not propose to repeat the comments made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on the detailed proposals of the contract. I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's predicament tonight, and I welcome his rational opposition to the proposals. I see several critical deficiencies in the Secretary of State's proposals, which negate the good intentions of his objectives. He grossly understates the importance of collective, rather than individual, action in health care. That has been a major failing of the Government's philosophical approach to society since they took office, so we should not expect them to change their approach on health care.
There are long-standing deficiencies in the present service that the Secretary of State has failed to tackle, such as the fragmentation of responsibility for the community's health between district health authorities and family practitioner committees. The Minister should learn from the far superior administrative system in Scotland, where one health board is responsible for each area and provides a single coherent purpose to health care, which is sadly lacking south of the border. I shall give some examples from my county of Fife, which is a mixed agricultural and industrial region and which in many areas has massive problems associated with the recent loss of the mining industry. We have immunisation rates of well over 90 per cent. and a target of immunising 100 per cent. of children who are able to take the vaccine over the next few years.
The successful introduction of the new measles, mumps and rubella immunisation, which was piloted in the county over the past three years, is being followed in other counties and again has achieved high target success. There are lower, but still rising, figures for whooping cough. Over 75 per cent. of children are immunised against it, which compares favourably with other areas. We are proud of that success story, but it is the product of an enormous collective effort by GPs, health visitors, the community health service, health education and effective and enthusiastic leadership from the health board. The service is underpinned by an equally effective computerised call-up system, without which we would not have a hope of reaching the target population.
On cervical screening, there is a collective commitment to improving the take-up of the service, backed up by research into why women fail to attend for screening,
358
despite being sent an appointment and despite it having been followed up. Those facilities are starting to pay off in higher take-up rates.
Our GPs need no further incentive to improve their rates. They do not need bonus payments, which they will attract anyway because of the level of service that they are providing. They have been given the tools, support and leadership of the health board; they require no further incentive than their professional pride to ensure that standards are maintained.
Why has the Minister failed to benefit from our experience in Fife? Why is he introducing an untried alternative when there is such a patently successful system north of the border? There is no guarantee that the system that he has introduced will succeed, and he has produced no evidence to suggest that he has any expectation other than his own prejudice to support it. Are the Minister and his Department blind? Are they unable to see it? Can they not afford the eye tests which they brought in last year? Without an efficient system, the best GPs will be unable to meet their targets. The Minister's proposal is doomed before it is introduced, and he fails to realise that.
The second factor that obstructs the Minister's good intentions is the nature of the primary care system. GPs are self-employed, and that is one reason for the vast variation in standards which they apply. They can choose what level of service to give.
I thought it was a bit rich of the Minister, in reply to my earlier intervention, saying that GPs signing a contract was all that was required for family practitioner committees to ensure the proper level of service was provided.
I assure the Minister that GPs, as with any other body of people, vary in the quality of service that they give. I cannot see the FPCs following them around to see how long they spend in the car as a proportion of their 26 hours of patient commitment per week, or to see whether they finish surgery early because they are going to the golf course or somewhere else. Without a proper monitoring system, how can one say that the contract will be properly enforced?
Many GPs have a captive population of patients who are prevented, for geographical reasons, from moving to another doctor. There are few teeth in the contract to improve that.
Why does not the Minister look at the option of a salaried service in areas which have difficulty in providing a service under the present system? Why is there such a deafening silence about medical audit? I know why—it is so difficult to bring in.
Although I am a member of the medical profession, I have been a stern critic of it for the past 20 years and I have a stronger track record than the "Johnny-come-latelies" on the Conservative Benches who criticise only when they see that their own political futures could be damaged.
The Secretary of State professes to recognise the problem of working in deprived inner-city areas. Has he recognised that inner-city GPs earn well below his much-touted average earnings, let alone the combined salary that the popular press has quoted so frequently or even the average target taxable earning. We know of GPs whose take-home pay is less than £1,000 a month. Averages blur the difference between them and GPs who earn fat salaries, mostly in the home counties and in other areas where there are plenty of extra perks and extra fees to be earned. There are not many fat salaries to be earned in Tower Hamlets or in the centre of London. I can tell the

359
Minister that for a start. GPs there cannot afford nice premises, even if the buildings are available and if one takes into consideration the percentage of the cost which the Government so generously provide—70 per cent. I can assure the Minister that 30 per cent. of £1,000 will not provide much in the way of premises in the centre of London.
Any allowances that the Secretary of State proposes for deprived city areas will go no way towards solving those problems. GPs in those areas cannot find suitable staff to work for them. It is not a question of not being able to pay them. One of the reasons why they use deputising services so frequently, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, is that it is unsafe for them to visit many parts of the area after dark. They cannot afford to employ a driver as a bodyguard and the police are no help as they refuse to accompany them. At least with a deputising service there is a nice large driver sitting in the car downstairs to provide some form of back-up. This is another problem in the delivery of health care which is not being tackled.
It is easy for us to say that we have noble intentions with the contract, and that as long as GPs all work hard it will be all right. It will not. We have to change the system within which GPs are trying to operate; otherwise, we will not be able to change the result of what they do.
The Department of Health seems to be incapable of conducting the most elementary investigation in the real world in which GPs have to operate. The Department is bloated—although not quite so bloated as it was earlier this afternoon—by a large increase in the number of people that it employs directly in central services.
The saddest failure of these proposals is the change in the balance of remuneration between basic practice allowance and capitation fees. That will penalise the better GP who knows, because he or she faces the fact every working day, that a better, more comprehensive service is possible only with fewer patients. It is not so much that there will be a tendency for a bad GP, who gives a poor service, to attract as many patients as possible on to his or her list, as that a good GP, who wishes to reduce the number of patients on the list, will be unfairly penalised by the reduction in basic practice allowance and the move towards a larger capitation fee—unless the capitation fee is much larger than the Minister anticipates.
If GPs wish to engage another partner to provide a better service, they will suffer a catastrophic fall in income. Why has the Department of Health failed to set proper targets for list sizes? There is adequate information available to make it clear that the ideal size of a practice is between 1,200 and 1,500 patients per GP—well below the current level. I do not expect the Minister to achieve such a target overnight, but he should certainly set that target now. If the Minister's objective is to reduce list sizes to a level at which all the good things he has talked about can be achieved, he should structure the payment system in a way that will make it desirable to do so—by penalising GPs who have too many patients on their lists. I assure the Minister that GPs with a list size of more than 2,000 patients do not provide the service that he imagines they are providing.
It is not possible to do so. Is this vaunted commitment to greater care only a facade to hide his real objective of a cheaper, nastier service?
360
The Secretary of State has had a glorious chance to improve primary care with this contract. His failure to do so is due as much to the incompetence of his Department as to his own arrogance. I hope that it is not too late for him to think again.
6.16 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I was disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). He started well, as he seemed to support just about everything that the Government are doing, but he lapsed into momentary incoherence when he talked about the catastrophic decrease in GP incomes. He overlooked the fact that the Government have said that there will be a transitional period of two years when bringing in the regulations to stop that happening. It would be helpful if right hon. and hon. Members read the regulations.
Dr. Moonie rose——
Mr. Hayes: I shall not give way.
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said.
Mr. Hayes: I have become accustomed to the fact that the BMA has done for sensible political argument what myxomatosis has done for rabbits. I found it rich that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, to give him credit, has occasional moments of lucidity, criticised my right hon. and learned Friend's handling of the GP contract. Good heavens, in 1975, 7,800 GPs sent in their resignation letters. In 1975 there was industrial action by consultants and threatened industrial action by junior doctors.
I have always assumed that the House of Commons went barking mad only towards the end of July. It appears that there is also barking madness during the spillover period.
The House should analyse carefully, precisely what the Opposition and some of the other parties are voting against. They are voting against "Promoting Better Health," against the White Paper that received much professional acclaim, and against a higher capitation fee for rundown areas. They are voting against giving women doctors the opportunity of part-time work—not just half the hours but a quarter, which has never been in any contract before.
The Opposition are voting against screening and preventive medicine. They are voting against giving every person over 75 on a doctor's list the opportunity of getting a visit from either a GP or a member of the practice team. That is remarkable. They are voting against immunisation targets—for example, rubella immunisations, about which the hon. Member for Kircaldy talked. Our immunisation figures are appalling compared with World Health Organisation statistics. Surely setting targets is the way forward to protect our young people.
The Opposition are voting against payments to GPs for minor surgery and against the postgraduate training allowance. That does not seem to make any sense.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Rubbish.
Mr. Hayes: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered in from the streets, should come into the Chamber and say, "Rubbish." It is nice that there

361
are now four Opposition Members here during this debate on an Opposition prayer. However, I should not be too critical and try to score too many party political points.
These sensible measures were recommended by the BMA's negotiating committee. If only the BMA had not played such a foolish political game by winding up its members to such a degree that they believed that any contract from the Department of Health came from the jaws of Hades, there would not be such a mess and misunderstanding.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is in a mess.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. There is too much sedentary noise from so few people.
Mr. Hayes: What quality sedentary noise it is from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)! They say that empty vessels make the most noise.
Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is an empty vessel.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Kircaldy accuses me of being an empty vessel. His vessel is very full indeed, by the sound of it.
Dr. Moonie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members refer to my constituency, is it not in order for them to pronounce it correctly?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will correct the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. Hayes: I hope that I will pronounce the name correctly, especially as my parents have just moved to Scotland. The Conservative party has a great interest in Scotland.
The only difficulty of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should be aware is targeting. Many general practitioners throughout the country to whom I and many of my colleagues have had the opportunity of speaking are worried about targeting because they feel that they are meeting their targets now. They are worried that when they go to the family practitioner committees they will find that the family practitioner computer has gone horribly wrong. I ask for an initiative from the Department to ensure that FPCs get their act together to help GPs to look after their patients in the best way.
The Opposition are voting against some very sensible preventive health measures. I regret that. I am sure that my hon. Friends will join me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in supporting these health measures, which will help patients in our constituencies.
6.23 pm
Mr. John Battle: We should take the contract in the full context of the Government's health policy. Last weekend, the Government announced that 11 health districts would be chosen to carry out some comparisons of practice, as a prelude to introducing the White Paper proposals on the NHS. We had hoped that the Government could agree that it was crucial to have a comprehensive evaluation before any of their health proposals were implemented. Like others, we have regularly suggested that such an evaluation should include fuller assessments of health needs, especially assessments
362
that are locally and regionally sensitive. I say that as one who represents Leeds, West, which includes a section of the inner city.
In August, in response to the publication of the monitoring report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on infant and perinatal mortality, the former Minister for Health rejected further research on the wider social causes of ill health. He contemptuously dismissed regional and social factors. The principles in the contract, in terms of the index of social deprivation proposals, will be undermined because that research has not been carried out.
We all accept that any serious and major reform always involves risks, but it also imposes costs. It is difficult to carry out a genuine reform on the basis of a reduction in service. Unless an evaluation is carried out at an earlier stage, major mistakes, which later need correcting, may be made. The impression is that the reviews, and the contract as the vanguard for them, will set cash limits in concrete.
I remember the early days when the Departments of Health and Social Security were one Department. There are echoes now of what happened then. We were promised the great social security reviews—with the tag, of course, that they would be at nil cost, which in practice meant that they were reviews with a reduction. We all know of the great suspicion that this measure will end up as a cost-cutting exercise. To see this, we need simply to glance at the Government's practice, at the experience of cash limits which were imposed on, for example, the social fund. Budgets initially set at the centre included built-in factors based upon a declining take-up. Such approaches end in a reduction in service to the people and undermine sensitivity to local needs and demands. The people in need are left out. At the heart of the Government's approach is the issue of cost-benefit analysis. It may satisfy accountants, but it does not serve human needs. Emphasis on quantity can undermine the quality of provision. It may be forgotten that the purpose of the exercise is to serve people.
I am reminded of the inner-city initiative during the late 1970s and early 1980s. A former Secretary of State for the Environment introduced the urban programme monitoring initiative. That showed an obsession with monitoring on a quantitative basis, annual reports and micro-levels of accountancy, which resulted in officers being instructed to count the number of trees in environment improvement schemes and to send the information back in a report to the Department of the Environment. Pensioners in mini-buses provided to take them to luncheon clubs had to fill in journey measurement and time sheets. That was not the practical purpose of the programme, but is that the kind of contract monitoring which is envisaged in these proposals?
We are moving in a direction where "Yes, Minister" becomes real life, but it is a little too close to reality. I remember one of the "Yes, Minister" programmes about a totally efficient hospital which had a brilliant input and output ratio. In average accountancy terms, it ran perfectly—because it had no patients, as it had not yet opened. Unfortunately, patients would have messed up the ledger entries. Perhaps it is therefore better not to include patients at all. Human beings with whom we are dealing are not totally efficient animals.
Turning to the specifics of the doctors' contract, the Secretary of State might tell us what the assessment of the family doctors' future role in health care is. The emphasis

363
is emerging in the community care proposals, with which we have yet to deal. The change will surely shift the work in the direction of local GPs because there will be fewer people in hospitals and institutions. We are told that there will be a welcome emphasis on prevention, health
How much space will there be in the contract for home visits? Will the system simply be based on a bonus payments approach, or will there be a genuine increase in service provision, as is needed? Several questions will arise. Will the need for GPs to pay attention to costs, budgets and annual reports distract them from the quality of care that they offer? Will the paperwork and accounting reduce patient contact time? Will the good intentions of dealing with primary preventive care be undermined by budget considerations and bureaucratic proposals?
There seems to be further contradiction when we take the contract in the context of the Government's proposals. What is proposed for the doctors is to challenge their autonomy and unaccountability in the contract. However, under the proposal for hospitals there is a real possibility that self-governing hospital trusts will become privatised and independent, as is being proposed at the Leeds general infirmary. In other words, there will be a fragmenting of local provision, which contradicts the Government's approach to doctors' practices. On the one hand, they say standardise and on the other they say opt-out. When their proposals are put together, collective and co-ordinated provision in the Health Service will be undermined.
We welcome the introduction of child health surveillance services. Let us hope that that will not be dealt with simply in terms of remuneration. It will increase the work load, but more importantly, it should recognise that there are unequal starting points in the country's health provision. If we study birth weights, it becomes more than obvious that good health is not evenly distributed throughout the nation. The strains on some health authorities are greater than on others. The recent OPCS report on baby deaths published in August highlighted that the health divide between Britain's more prosperous regions and the poorer regions is growing wider. Although the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales in 1988 was 8·7 per thousand and the infant mortality rate was nine per thousand, the regional breakdown shows big variations throughout the country within that improving trend.
The Select Committee on Social Services said last December that Britain's infant mortality record is not improving as fast as it should. The Committee called for further research into the links between baby deaths and social deprivation. That research has yet to be initiated by the Secretary of State. That sensitivity to an area analysis demands a much more comprehensive approach before the contract can be introduced.
There is also the question of interpreting and enforcing the contract. If a GP wants to increase his list size, he would do best by attracting fit and healthy patients whom he sees rarely and who make few demands on his time. The long-term sick will be more time-consuming and he will do better if he refers them to another GP down the road. That is a perversion of the provision of health care to those who need it.
Not every person in Britain has an address as some are homeless and others live in hostels and accommodation
364
for the homeless. What is the provision in the contract for them? It is, incredibly difficult to arrange doctor provision for hostels in order to provide care for the homeless or mentally ill.
On enforcement, we have a stark reminder of what happened to the nurses. This morning I received a letter from a nurse in my constituency. She asked what will happen to community staff and especially preventive medicine. She said that she had been a health visitor and that she does two district jobs—she is both a specialist in diabetes and a mothers and babies health visitor. However, she is still waiting for her grade to be settled. She sees others doing less and with fewer qualifications moving to the H grade. We have a long way to go before the contract can be settled. If the experience of the nurses is anything to go by, we will have to wait years for implementation to be sorted out if the proposal is not first solidly thought through.
In their eagerness to transfer social costs into market prices, the Government manage to demonstrate gross insensitivity to the detailed effects of their proposals. Our challenge is to a Government who seem to be entranced by the business man's ethic of profit. The euphemism is now the "discipline of the market". In the current edition of The Salisbury Review I was interested to read an article by Ian Crowther entitled: "Thatcherism and the Good Life. "He said:
"A modern business enterprise, by its very nature, has as its highest goal the maximisation of profit; what it provides in the way of goods or services is secondary. But to force this commercial model on every other species of corporate life—for example, on public service broadcasting, the health service, the legal profession and the universities—is to betray either an indifference to non-economic motives or an ignorance of how in reality they are sustained. If it is obvious—as surely it must be, that the highest loyalty of a soldier or a policeman or a fireman can never be to material gain, it should be hardly less obvious that there are others in the community—among them dons, doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers—whose character would be altered irrevocably and for the worst if the pursuit of profit, instead of being incidental to their professions, were to be made central to them. Britain would be the poorer, literally, if millions of its citizens did not still think of service as the primary and profit as the secondary motivation in their working lives.
That they do so is testimony to the truth that man is not just an economic being but a moral, social and political being as well."
I would have hoped that those were the motives driving the Government but we know that that is not the case. However, perhaps the Government will bear in mind the parallel with the poll tax. We reminded the Government that if it was not thought out it would be brought back time and again with alterations.
Mr. Conway: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is a solitary figure on the Opposition Back Benches and he is trying to spin out the debate for the Opposition. However, even his colleagues are not listening. I would be grateful if you would bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the NHS contract.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that the time available for the debate is very short.
Mr. Battle: Perhaps Conservative Members do not like to hear what I have said. However, they might learn that when points are put to them in advance of the legislation it may save the country from the turmoil it is experiencing with the poll tax. I hope that they will withdraw the

365
contract. If they do not, the British people will pass judgment at the appropriate time and elect a Government who adopt a different approach from the market-driven one of the present Government.
6.37 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have only a few seconds in which to participate in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on his positive and rather more agreeable presentation of the Government's case on the GP contract. I only wish that what he said had carried a majority of not only general practitioners but the people of the country.
As yet, my right hon. and learned Friend does not carry a majority of either doctors or the people in what he is seeking to do in the contract—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) points out that he may obtain that majority in the future but he does not have it now. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the contract is somewhat misguided.
I have grave reservations about the increased percentage of doctors' remuneration that will come from capitation. It will go up from 46 per cent. to 60 per cent. I have performed considerable service on the Select Committee for Social Services and I can say from experience that one of the greatest services a doctor can provide is not minor operations, immunisation or screening but the counselling and advice that he gives either on a visit or in his surgery. The contract will lead to a position in which doctors have less time to spend with individual patients rather than more.
My remarks have been much supported by the Select Committee. If my right hon. and learned Friend reads our latest report—the eighth report—he will see that we say on page 38:
"A number of observers indicated their concern that increasing the proportion of GP income from capitation payments and the introduction of indicative drugs budgets could mean GPs will pay greater attention to the workload and financial implications of having some groups of patients on their lists."
I have said that to my right hon. and learned Friend before. The report continues:
"They indicated that this could mean refusals to accept elderly or chronic sick patients who apply to join the practice."
My right hon. and learned Friend assured the Committee:
"the Government intend to minimise this likelihood and that the number of chronically sick could be taken into account in determining actual or indicative GP budgets"
However, I must point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that the working paper on GP budgets does not explain how such patients will be defined and identified. Our views were strongly supported by the Health Visitors Association and by others such as the Faculty of Community Medicine, so we are not speaking in isolation.
Indicative drug budgets are another relevant issue. Clearly, there is downward pressure from Government on the cost of drugs, but surely effective prescribing should not be judged in terms of medicine costs only. Medicines provide excellent value for money compared with many other forms of treatment. Keeping patients out of hospitals or out of community care by appropriate medical treatment is both socially and economically advantageous. I hope that the emphasis on capitation and the
366
Government's clear move to cost-limiting and cost-fencing the family doctor services will not lead to a less good service than we have at present. For the reasons I have expressed and for others that I have not time to express, I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
6.41 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: I warmly congratulate the new Minister for Health on her appointment and on her involvement in the debate.
The debate has been useful in sounding a cautionary note for the future of the family doctor service and I hope that the Government will take heed. We are debating today the effects that we think the new GP contract may have. It could mean that patients have less time with their doctors, when we all know that they want more time and should have more time. It could mean elderly and chronically ill patients being culled from their GPs' lists. It could mean a widening gap between the service that one receives if one lives in a well-heeled suburb and the service provided in a deprived, inner-city area. It could also mean that patients have less chance to choose a woman GP, and there is much to justify those concerns.
Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Harman: I will not give way because I want to justify our concerns.
The Secretary of State flatly denies those concerns and simply asserts that patients will receive better care. However, if he is confident of his case and certain that his predictions about the beneficial effects of the contract will be justified, let him give the House the following assurances. He must monitor what happens to list sizes and not talk merely about average list sizes. He must monitor the length of consultations and what is happening to immunisation and screening. He must monitor the number of women GPs, the ability of the elderly and the chronically ill to have the GP of their choice and the gap between the inner cities and the suburbs. He must give the House and members of the public a commitment that, if his contract has the effect that we fear, and which he denies, he will come back to the House and amend the regulations.
The main concern expressed this afternoon has been that the effect of the new contract will be that patients have less time with their doctor. Once again, the Secretary of State has asserted that that will not be the case, but there is a widespread belief that an increase in the capitation element of a GP's income will lead to an increase in list sizes, and that an increase in list sizes will lead to less tame for each patient. That view is shared by Which? magazine, the magazine of the Consumers' Association, by the Select Committee on Social Services, about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke, and by the Patients Association.
The Secretary of State responds by saying that none of that will happen because we shall have the same number of GPs and patients, so average list sizes and consultation time will remain the same. The Secretary of State is content to say in defence of his contract merely that average list sizes will stay the same. Previously, the Government had supported a reduction in list sizes—a trend which had been supported by successive Governments—yet that aim

367
appears to have vanished today. We are talking only about whether we can prevent list sizes from increasing as a result of the contract.
We need to continue to reduce list sizes because it is only with smaller list sizes that doctors will be able to expand their preventive work and health promotion work. It is only with smaller list sizes that they will be able to play a real part in providing care in the community and to respond to the demands of patients which have rightly increased. In the past 10 years, the average number of visits made by patients to their doctors has increased by 35 per cent. That is one statistic that we never hear from the Government.
Above all, the Government should be presenting measures to reduce list sizes and to increase the time each patient has with his GP because that is what patients want, as all surveys show. Most notably, the Which? survey discovered that more than 90 per cent. in its survey listed time with their GP as their priority. However, it is clear that the proposals will not increase patient time and that is disappointing.
Worse still, there are good grounds for believing that patients will have less time with their GP. Increasing the fee per patient—which is what the capitation element is—as a percentage of doctors' incomes provides doctors with a direct incentive to take on more patients. The Government have been muddled about that. In July, the Secretary of State said:
"It is totally illogical to suggest that the new contract will increase average list sizes."
However, in October he said:
"We fully recognise that the high capitation element in the new remuneration system does not favour small list practices."
That is the case, because if one gives a financial incentive for doctors to increase their list size, they will do so, as GPs themselves believe. The widely held view is that increased list sizes will result not in doctors working longer, but in patient consultation time becoming shorter.
The Department of Health report on GP weekly work loads in 1987 showed that they spent about 38 hours seeing patients, plus 31 hours on call and six hours on other medically related work. If GPs work more hours, the quality of patient care will not improve. I do not want to see GPs dropping asleep in their surgeries in the same way that we see junior hospital doctors dropping asleep in the wards. General practitioners already have a full working week, yet under the contract they will be expected to take on more patients, to perform minor surgery, to carry out regular checks on the elderly, to carry out more immunisation and more childhood screening, to run anti-smoking clinics, alcohol control clinics and well person clinics, and to advise on diet, exercise and stress. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out, they will be expected to do all that in addition to taking on extra patients to increase their income.
If the best doctors attract larger lists, it will turn good doctors into bad doctors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said. The number of GPs is not fixed, as the Secretary of State would like to make out. Therefore, his argument about the average does not hold. GP numbers could quickly drop if demoralisation sets in again. Once again, general practice could become an
368
unattractive option. Women could get squeezed out, and earlier retirement could certainly mean a reduction in the number of GPs.
Only one in four GPs are women. That means that many women patients do not have the chance to choose a woman doctor and, therefore, must have a male GP. We need to continue the trend of an increasing number of women becoming GPs, but the contract threatens to reduce the number of women GPs. We must examine the figures. Women and men GPs have different working patterns. There is no such thing as the average GP. There is the woman GP's working patterns, hours and list sizes and then there is the male GP's profoundly different working pattern, hours, and list sizes. An effect of the contract—no doubt in an effort to squeeze out lazy and uncommitted GPs—is that the Government will squeeze out those women GPs who have fewer patients on their lists and work fewer hours. The reason why they work fewer hours is that women GPs, like most working women, must combine their work with their family responsibilities, whereas male GPs, like most men, leave family responsibilities to their wives.
If we are concerned to increase the number of women GPs, we must not discriminate against people for having smaller list sizes and working fewer hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned differences in care in inner cities and suburbs.
I now refer to the hidden agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was absolutely right. The Government think that the family doctor service is costing too much. Cash limiting——
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) should afford so little time to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom all hon. Members are waiting to hear with the greatest impatience?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Lady is watching the clock, as are all hon. Members. This debate must end at 7 o'clock.
Ms. Harman: It would be right to divide the time between myself and the Minister.
The problem is the hidden agenda. The hidden agenda is about public spending. The Government think that the family doctor service is costing too much. They are cash-limiting support staff and drug budgets, and they are encouraging GP budget holders to opt for cash limited budgets. Their ultimate aim, of which the contract is part, is to increase list sizes and to reduce the number of GPs and, as a result, reduce public spending on the family doctor service.
6.52 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I thank hon. Members for their kind and undeserved comments. I am delighted to take on this role. I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who magnificently piloted the Children Bill through the House. It is a Bill in which I had a special and particular interest.
I cannot fail to be aghast at the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). She had her eye on the wrong target. She represents a constituency in which I worked for many years. I know directly the difference

369
between the best of the good general practice, which demonstrates the excellent service provided by a family practitioner, and the general practitioner who is not available, who uses an answering service and who does not provide all that the hon. Lady and I want for those in the inner cities. Many hon. Members have referred to the particular problems of the inner cities, and that is why a special premium is to be available in those areas. The key must he how we can ensure that our family practitioners, who are one of the most important elements in our National Health Service, can play a fundamental part in primary health care and can achieve the standards which all of us want.
Before discussing the regulations, I must pay a tribute to the other members of the practice and primary health care team. I was not particularly sympathetic when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) dismissively referred to other members of the team. Frankly, a chiropodist, a clinic nurse, a counsellor and many community nurses can play a crucial part in improving patients' well-being.
Were the hon. Lady to have castigated the Government for failing to have refined the regulations and the contract for the past 25 years, she would have been nearer the mark. But to become agitated about the fact that now, at last, the Government are facing the responsibility of specifying precisely what we want general practitioners to do can only be a virtue and a force for good in the welfare of our people. Can it be wrong for any mother to know that children are to be more vigorously assessed, that their development is to be checked, and that immunisation is to be robustly pursued? Too many people are fearful of medical practices generally, and anything that we can do to encourage general practitioners to pursue the World Health Organisation targets and to look to the welfare of their patients must be good.
Can there be any objection to women having cervical cytology robustly pursued and ensuring that targets are met? I spent many years as the vice-president of the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. In years gone by, had we thought that general practitioners would have reached targets like these, we would have welcomed them. Can there be anything objectionable in knowing that elderly relations will be visited? How many people over 75 are fearful of contacting their general practitioners and feel that they do not want to trouble them with their ailments? Often those over 75 can have their lives significantly improved and their medical conditions addressed by a visit and by assessment. That is welcome indeed. Time and again, the Foundation for Age Research has said that relatively simple medical treatments can often improve and enhance the quality of life for our elderly.
Can anybody object to payments for training and education? Anybody who examines the British National Formulary will see the speed with which medication and technical science have moved forward. Having served on the Medical Research Council, I know the speed of change and the importance of making sure that our general practitioners are promoting and encouraging the most up-to-date and best practice.
As patients, all of us have rising expectations about what we want from our medical practitioners. The contract is about promoting patients' choice, providing information, and letting patients choose who they go to. That is the answer to those who fear the capitation allowances. The crucial point is that people should know
370
what is available and how much patients welcome the move towards greater health promotion and disease prevention. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has done a great deal to promote and encourage awareness of the importance of health promotion. How many people welcome the possibility of regular lifestyle checks and scrutiny when they go to their general practitioner?
I have not delayed the House in speaking about the role of women doctors. They have a crucial part to play. I welcome the fact that 50 per cent. of medical students and 40 per cent. of trainees are women. Many of the steps that we are taking are good news for women. Above all, the patient—the consumer who, too often, is not regarded—will be able to say, "I want to see a woman doctor." That will work as fast as any of our other objectives at ensuring that women doctors are available and have a crucial part to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) spoke about the information that was forthcoming. I can tell him that the statement of fees and allowances, the red book, will be available later this month—well ahead of the schedule that he anticipated. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is shortly to make a statement about information technology in general practice.
We want to ensure the well-being and safety of our Health Service. General practitioners have a crucial and vital part to play in primary health care. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has spent many hours in discussion. The regulations and the new contract provide the basis for an effective service that takes care of patients. I urge hon. Members to vote agains—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [27 October]: —
The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 319.

Division No. 365]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Callaghan, Jim

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Alton, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Armstrong, Hilary

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cartwright, John

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clay, Bob

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barron, Kevin

Cohen, Harry

Battle, John

Coleman, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beggs, Roy

Corbett, Robin

Beith, A. J.

Cousins, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Cox, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Crowther, Stan

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

Cryer, Bob

Bermingham, Gerald

Cummings, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blair, Tony

Cunningham, Dr John

Blunkett, David

Dalyell, Tam

Boyes, Roland

Darling, Alistair

Bradley, Keith

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

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

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Dixon, Don

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dobson, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Doran, Frank

Buckley, George J.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Caborn, Richard

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

371

Eadie, Alexander

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Faulds, Andrew

Morgan, Rhodri

Fearn, Ronald

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fisher, Mark

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Flannery, Martin

Mowlam, Marjorie

Flynn, Paul

Murphy, Paul

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foster, Derek

O'Brien, William

Foulkes, George

O'Neill, Martin

Fraser, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fyfe, Maria

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Galloway, George

Parry, Robert

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Patchett, Terry

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gordon, Mildred

Primarolo, Dawn

Gould, Bryan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Radice, Giles

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Randall, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Harman, Ms Harriet

Reid, Dr John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Richardson, Jo

Haynes, Frank

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Robertson, George

Heffer, Eric S.

Rogers, Allan

Henderson, Doug

Rooker, Jeff

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rowlands, Ted

Hood, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Salmond, Alex

Howells, Geraint

Sedgemore, Brian

Hoyle, Doug

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Short, Clare

Illsley, Eric

Sillars, Jim

Ingram, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Soley, Clive

Kennedy, Charles

Steinberg, Gerry

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Stott, Roger

Kirkwood, Archy

Strang, Gavin

Lambie, David

Straw, Jack

Lamond, James

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Leadbitter, Ted

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Litherland, Robert

Turner, Dennis

Livingstone, Ken

Vaz, Keith

Livsey, Richard

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wall, Pat

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wallace, James

Loyden, Eddie

Walley, Joan

McAllion, John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McCartney, Ian

Wareing, Robert N.

Macdonald, Calum A.

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McFall, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McKelvey, William

Wigley, Dafydd

McLeish, Henry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McWilliam, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Madden, Max

Wilson, Brian

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Winnick, David

Marek, Dr John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Worthington, Tony

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wray, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Meale, Alan

Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.

Michael, Alun

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert

372

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fallon, Michael

Amess, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Amos, Alan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Arbuthnot, James

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Ashby, David

Forman, Nigel

Aspinwall, Jack

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Atkins, Robert

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Franks, Cecil

Baldry, Tony

Freeman, Roger

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

French, Douglas

Batiste, Spencer

Gale, Roger

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bellingham, Henry

Gill, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Benyon, W.

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gorst, John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gow, Ian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Grylls, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hague, William

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brazier, Julian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bright, Graham

Hannam, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

Harris, David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Haselhurst, Alan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hawkins, Christopher

Buck, Sir Antony

Hayes, Jerry

Burns, Simon

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Burt, Alistair

Hayward, Robert

Butcher, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butler, Chris

Heddle, John

Butterfill, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carrington, Matthew

Hill, James

Carttiss, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Cash, William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Holt, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Hordern, Sir Peter

Chope, Christopher

Howard, Michael

Churchill, Mr

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

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Colvin, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Conway, Derek

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Patrick

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Couchman, James

Irvine, Michael

Cran, James

Irving, Charles

Critchley, Julian

Jack, Michael

Curry, David

Jackson, Robert

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

Jessel, Toby

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Day, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dicks, Terry

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Key, Robert

Dover, Den

Kilfedder, James

Dunn, Bob

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Eggar, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Evennett, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Knox, David

373

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Monro, Sir Hector

Lang, Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Latham, Michael

Morrison, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Moss, Malcolm

Lee, John (Pendle)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Mudd, David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Neale, Gerrard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Nelson, Anthony

Lightbown, David

Neubert, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Lord, Michael

Norris, Steve

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Oppenheim, Phillip

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Page, Richard

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Maclean, David

Patnick, Irvine

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Madel, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Malins, Humfrey

Pawsey, James

Mans, Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Maples, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Marland, Paul

Porter, David (Waveney)

Marlow, Tony

Portillo, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Powell, William (Corby)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Price, Sir David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Mates, Michael

Redwood, John

Maude, Hon Francis

Rhodes James, Robert

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Riddick, Graham

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mellor, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Miller, Sir Hal

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Mills, Iain

Roe, Mrs Marion

Miscampbell, Norman

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Rost, Peter

Mitchell, Sir David

Rowe, Andrew

Moate, Roger

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

374

Ryder, Richard

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Thorne, Neil

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thornton, Malcolm

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shelton, Sir William

Tracey, Richard

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Tredinnick, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trippier, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Trotter, Neville

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfleld)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Speed, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Speller, Tony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Squire, Robin

Ward, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Warren, Kenneth

Steen, Anthony

Watts, John

Stern, Michael

Wheeler, John

Stevens, Lewis

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wilkinson, John

Stokes, Sir John

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wolfson, Mark

Sumberg, David

Wood, Timothy

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—
[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.17 pm
Several Hon. Membersrose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I call Mr. Kevin Barron on a point of order.
Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice that I wanted to raise a point of order on this issue.
You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on Second Reading of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill on 22 June 1988 I raised a point of order about meetings that had taken place between the Secretary of State for Transport and the promoters of the Bill, Associated British Ports. On that occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker rightly ruled:
"Discussions that may have taken place outside the House are not a matter for the Chair."—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1187]
It is my understanding that, following a meeting between my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Energy, the Leader of the House and myself in July, an approach was made to Associated British Ports. They then made an approach to Parliament, and I understand that that approach may have gone, directly or indirectly, to the Chairman of Ways and Means. That suggests to me and to many others than a Government Department has interfered directly with this private Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I rise on a point of order because those discussions did not take place outside the House.
They have taken place in high office. I should like a ruling to be made about whether there are the fingerprints of a Government Department on this Bill. Perhaps it should not fall within the private Bill procedure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in supposing that the ruling is exactly the same. As he knows, a Committee has considered the private Bill procedure, so he can pursue the matter in whatever way he thinks appropriate. The points which he has made would be entirely in order in the debate on the suspension motion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter for you
376
because under the private Bill procedure there is not supposed to be whipping. I have heard people talk about the pairing system—although I have not been involved myself—and I know that it does not apply to the private Bill procedure because the Opposition and the Government are not involved. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, it is significant that the Secretary of State for Energy and the Leader of the House at that time—I know that there have been many changes since then, but in July two people were allocated to those posts—met the miners group to discuss this Bill's future. When that happened, the Bill was taken out of private Bill procedure.
Anybody can look at the matter in any way he or she likes, but the moment that those two Government spokespersons met the miners group they invalidated the private Bill procedure. As soon as those discussions took place in the room of the Leader of the House—not somewhere outside the building—the matter was removed from the private Bill procedure.
If the Government and their Ministers could manage to stop the Bill from proceeding in July, they have every justification—we have even more—for saying to the nation, the miners and others affected that the Bill is very flawed. It was flawed at the beginning because it was political from the outset. The person who took the Chair when the Bill was discussed voted to ensure that not one amendment went through. The Chairman is an adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, which has as one of its members a firm which is helping to sponsor the Bill.
When all those facts are considered, together with the South African connection, the fact that Conservative Members are being paid to take free trips to South Africa to help get the Bill through and the fact that we now have a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion whereas when the Bill started its passage through Parliament there was a balance of payments surplus, it becomes clear that the Bill should be thrown out. It will add a tremendous amount of money to the balance of payments.
For all those reasons, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be totally justified in saying today that the Bill is flawed and should be withdrawn. If Conservative Members want to bring it forward in the next Session, they should start at the beginning and not be allowed to obviate that by a carry-over motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This debate has got off to a good start. The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have raised perfectly legitimate points. My only complaint is that they were not points of order but matters for debate. It would be better if, instead of prefacing the debate with points of order, we got on with it along the lines which have so far been wholly in order.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that when the Bill was introduced I asked whether it was a hybrid Bill. The Chair ruled that it was not hybrid because the Clerk to the Private Bill Committee looked at it and told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chairman of Ways and Means that it was perfectly proper and fell within the private Bill procedure. It was impossible for us to question the Clerk any more because he left soon after.

377
When we raised the matter of the Bill's hybridity, there was nothing at that time to indicate Government involvement. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who controls private Bills, has the power, if ever a Bill becomes suspect, to take the appropriate action to remedy the procedure. In the circumstances which have prevailed since the Bill was first introduced, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule that the Bill has obviously become hybrid? Therefore, will you withdraw the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no change in the Bill's structure. The previous proceedings have been in order. We are now dealing with the suspension motion and I hope that we shall come to that so that we can continue to hear the arguments for and against it.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but in addition to considering whether the Bill should continue its passage, the House should be mindful of the fact that we are supposed to be a debating Chamber. When the House last considered the Bill, the only speech in favour of it was one of about 27 words by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I accept that his contribution covered about four columns of Hansard; there were 14 words in the first bit and 10 or 11 in the second.
I am making a serious point. If the House spends hours and hours debating a Bill and those in favour of it can move it formally, even though they do not have the support of all their hon. Friends—the only Conservative Member to speak, with perhaps one exception, opposed the Bill as we do——it brings the House into disrepute. It allows us to suggest not merely that we should refuse to allow the Bill to be carried over, but that it should be reviewed and revised before any hon. Member has the gall to present a similar measure in another Session.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he helps me by suggesting, as I have said, that the sooner we get on to discussing the suspension motion the better.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an important question: an this sitting be adjourned until the Secretary of State for Energy comes and says why, in a letter to me on 26 July, he said that all the coal which was produced would be burnt, whereas a Cabinet document shows that 30,000 miners will be sacked in three years?
When we spoke about this Bill we were not aware of those facts. Therefore, it is right and proper that this debate should be adjourned or the Secretary of State for Energy should come and tell us which is the true document. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) would not have moved the Bill if he thought that 30,000 miners would be compulsorily sacked within three years. Therefore, can any action be taken along the lines I have requested?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a helpful point and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I noticed that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was rising; no doubt he wishes to speak to the suspension motion. I also noticed that there was a Minister on the Treasury Bench. The sooner we move on to the suspension motion the sooner we shall hear what those two hon. Members have to say, should they rise to speak.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an awful smell in this place tonight. It stinks to high heaven. There is something crooked about what is going on and the smell is coming from the Conservative Benches. You know as well as we know what Conservative Members are up to.
I have been sent here by my constituents and they tell me that they do not like what is going on on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Mine is a mining constituency, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has just said about the report on further pit closures and job losses makes matters worse.
There is no doubt that the Government are pulling a fast one and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should take note of what we are saying. You saw it with your own eyes when they rolled in the payroll vote and they have a South African mouthpiece who is yawping like billy-oh, not only in here but outside. He stops me in the corridors and talks to me about it. I ask him how many times he has been to South Africa. He has been more than half a dozen times.
This smells; it really stinks. If the Government get away with this move, it will be at the expense of the British mining industry and the jobs in it, particularly in my constituency. I do not like it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You should take note of what we are saying. I am not criticising the Chairman of Ways and Means; he has a job to do.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is the point of order?
Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is always raising points of order and more often than not Mr. Speaker has to slap him down because he does not have one.
What I am saying is that this place stinks. The Bill should not be on today's Order Paper. We should not be discussing it tonight. The Government should do the right thing and damn well drop it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The points that the hon. Gentleman has made are perfectly in order in debate, but they are not points of order for the Chair.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise a number of points with you. First, in view of the association of the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee with the promoters. which has been the subject of previous points of order, would you be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to the carry-over motion so that it can be examined by the Committee and a recommendation made to the House? That would be the best way of proceeding in these difficult circumstances.
Secondly, the provision of trips to South Africa has been mentioned on several occasions. It appears that the Bill would give an advantage to enterprises in that benighted country to export coal to Britain. I should have thought that that raised the question of a fiduciary interest, as "Erskine May" has defined it.
I would like a clear ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it can be established that people have received any sort of inducement to go to South Africa, any travel facilities or hospitality, or if anybody has received any sort of assistance tonight—rumours of champagne parties and facilities to keep Members of Parliament here are circulating around the House—that that would constitute a fiduciary interest and would prevent Members of Parliament from voting on the Bill.

379
I have raised such matters many times before and I know that the general rubric is that it is up to individual hon. Members of Parliament. That standard is not good enough when this place requires local councillors to make specific declarations and does not even allow them to be present in the committee rooms of council chambers. It is incumbent on the Chair to maintain the standards of the House, which should be such that we can tell local authorities that we have at least the same standards as we impose upon them.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make it clear, as was made clear by Mr. Speaker during proceedings on the Lloyd's Bill, a private Bill that was submitted in 1981, that when Lloyd's members were involved they should not vote. People who have been scurrying to the South African Government who impose apartheid and produce coal with black miners' blood should not be allowed to vote in this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, it is not possible for me to accept a manuscript amendment on a suspension motion. Secondly, page 354 of "Erskine May" says:
"No Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question is allowed to vote upon it; but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character."
I hope that I have answered the two points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These points of order are not an attempt to delay the proceedings of the House; they go to the heart of the integrity of the House and its business. This is not the first occasion when we have been dealing with dock legislation that we have had to raise points of order about the direct or indirect pecuniary interests of Conservative Members.
Following representations made to Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Clerk of the House over a number of weeks. It is important to set out the procedure under Standing Order No. 20 and what emerged in relation to the Committee's Chairman and the written evidence that he and others provided who, to my knowledge, have not to this day been called to give witness to that evidence or for that evidence to be checked for its veracity.
Standing Order No. 120 concerns the declaration by members of Committees on opposed Bills and says:
"EACH member of a committee on an opposed private bill, or a group of private bills, shall, before he is entitled to attend and vote in such committee, sign the following declaration: —

I, having been selected by the Committee of Selection to serve as a member of the Committee on the………Bill or on Group……of Private Bills, hereby declare, that my constituents have no local interest, and that I have no personal interest, in the said bill or any bill included in the said group; and that I will never vote on any question which may arise without having duly heard and attended to the evidence relating thereto."

That is important——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear what the point of order is for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is now going over previous proceedings. He cannot do that. He must relate any point of order that he has directly to the suspension motion that is before the House.
Mr. McCartney: I can do so, and I am trying to assist in the matter. I have taken a great deal of trouble over this in my discussions with the Speaker's Office and the Clerk of the House and I would be obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would let me make the point.
Let me quote now from Hansard:
"I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to speak to you."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 893.]
On two occasions the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was challenged by Members of the House. On one occasion the Deputy Speaker made it clear that the hon. Gentleman had better come back into the general discussion and he went from under the Gallery back to his place.
Subsequently, on 24 May I wrote to Mr. Speaker on Standing Order No. 120. Mr. Speaker then arranged for a series of discussions to take place between the Clerk of the House and a number of hon. Members, including myself. I was asked to produce evidence of the allegation and submitted two written statements or affidavits——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the suspension motion. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
7.40 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: It is very important that the House supports the carry-over motion—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good run on points of order. I have explained to every hon. Member who has raised a point of order that, apart from those on which I have already ruled, they are not points of order for the Chair, but are perfectly legitimate points to be raised in the debate. I suggest that it would be far better if these points were raised in speeches and not under the guise of points of order.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that my hon. Friend is referring to quite specific points of order relating to private business that require not the declaration of interest but the absence from a Committee of anyone who has any possible interest to declare. Without challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it appears that my hon. Friend has raised a most material point of order by suggesting with some validity that the hon. Member who chaired the Committee on this private Bill was out of order in doing so. It would seem to any fair-minded person that my hon. Friend raised a valid point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible at this stage to challenge the validity of previous proceedings. We are now dealing with a suspension motion. As I have told the House more than once, it is perfectly in order to raise those arguments in favour of voting against the suspension motion. That is why I said that it would be far better if those perfectly legitimate points were raised not under the guise of points of order but as part of the general debate that has been going on for quite some time.
Mr. Dobson: Surely it cannot be the case that subsequent proceedings validate those that have gone before if they were wrong. Let us suppose that in the case

381
of another Bill an hon. Member who sat on an opposed Bill Committee was discovered to have been receiving sums of money from the promoter in clear breach of order. Surely that would invalidate those proceedings and allow them to be questioned at this stage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only a decision of the House could invalidate previous proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that further information has come to light which would appear to constitute a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege, he knows very well that the appropriate procedure in that case is to write to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michael Brown: As I was saying, the carry-over is required because the Third Reading of the Bill now stands adjourned. In those circumstances, it is absolutely necessary—[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Skinner: People should know what is happening in this cock-eyed place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. John Cummings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order follows the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). I have a copy of a letter dated 26 July from the then Leader of the House indicating that there was a certain tonnage to be bought and burnt from British Coal. We now have in our possession the leaked Cabinet document showing the implications for coal production——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?
Mr. Cummings: The point is that the Leader of the House has acted with duplicity, having had possession of the document before 26 July, and he should come here tonight and explain his action in calling us into his office—at his request—to discuss these matters.
Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order could not be raised in the debate as it concerns the consequences of tonight's debate. I am the only hon. Member present who served on the Committee considering the Associated British Ports Bill. I did so believing that the Bill was about planning permission, only to find myself in the midst of one of the biggest controversies of my two and a half years in the House. I feel that I can raise a point of order in all freedom because I have no coal mining or dock interests. Bradford lost its last coal mine more than 50 years ago. The Leeds-Liverpool canal goes through part of my constituency but there is no docking, although there is a boat yard employing one and a half workers. So I do not have any pecuniary or other interests.
When we debated the Bill on Third Reading, at the end of the debate I was still on my feet. Closure was not called, and as I understand it the debate was incomplete. Had we been debating a Government Bill, presuming the unfortunate event that the suspension motion is carried tonight, I would have the Floor when Third Reading is resumed. Do we have that right on a private Bill and will that be the effect if the carry-over motion is carried tonight?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving notice of his point of order, as that enabled me to look into it. The answer is that, if the suspension motion is carried tonight, the House would then proceed in the next Session to a Third Reading debate, and that debate would start from scratch. It would be de novo. The hon. Gentleman would be free to try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, but he would not have the Floor at the start of the Third Reading debate.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For many months I have been trying desperately to make a speech on the Bill, but I cannot be called to speak because of the controversy and the continual points of order. If the motion is carried and the Bill proceeds to Third Reading, will it be guillotined, will there be some form of closure and how many hours will the Government allow us to debate the Bill? Cart all the hon. Members who wish to speak on the many aspects of the Bill speak on it or will we be curtailed next Session and the Bill bulldozed through?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment. Let me clarify to the House the important and genuine point that, if a suspension motion for a private Bill is carried and the Bill is carried over to the next Session, and, as in this case, the Bill had an adjourned Third Reading, the Third Reading will start from scratch. That is the procedure which we operate and that is the answer to both hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can rule on whether the Bill can proceed with the carry-on motion? You and the House will be aware that, in paragraph 26 of the special report, the Committee put conditions on its recommendations, stating:
"In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect the coal mining industry."
We have received, no assurance whatsoever from the Government that they will take such action. In fact there has been evidence to the contrary. We have heard about the leaked document revealing that there could be another devastating attack on the coal industry. The recommendations and the conditions laid down in the special report have not been fulfilled, and I respectfully suggest that the Bill should not proceed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is a legitimate point to raise during the debate that we are now having. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Coming to this House after 20 years local authority service, I am absolutely astounded to find that half of the Members on the Conservative Benches have interests in South Africa, interests in coal and shares in coal, yet here we are debating with them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) can grin as much as he likes, but I am astounded at the contempt that this House has for our people, especially those in the mining areas. Conservative Members should be ashamed of that, and so

383
should you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You should not allow this debate to continue. You should suspend it—[Interruption.] You should forget it——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are in a difficult position because your concern is primarily with the procedures of the House and how the House should advance its business, yet most of the points of order that have been raised have questioned the legality of the measure if it goes through those procedures. I appreciate that some of those matters concern you, but they are also the concern of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. I suggest that the House is adjourned until either one or both legal officers come and make a statement on whether we should proceed with this measure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Thank goodness, I have no power to summon Ministers to this House.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We now have at stake the integrity of the discussions that I had with the Clerk of the House and with Mr. Speaker's office. I am quite sincere in this matter because I had detailed discussions with the Clerk on a number of occasions. The Clerk, in absolute good faith and integrity, did all that he could about my complaints.
There are two outstanding matters relevant to Standing Order No. 120. The first is that in the general investigation, the Chairman of the Committee admitted that he had discussions with the sponsors of the Bill; secondly—I now quote from a handwritten note by the Chairman—he conceded:
"I was unwise to speak to the sponsor of the Bill when I did."
The remaining content of that letter must remain private because it was a private letter——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is alleging that there has been a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege by an hon. Member, he knows the procedure that he must follow. He cannot raise the matter during proceedings on the Floor of the House; he must write to Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow him to proceed with that point if that is the nature of his allegation.
Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With all due respect, the establishment in this House is trying to gag Back-Bench Members and to deny us our rights in relation to the Bill. You are asking me to go back three months. I have done all that was asked of me by Mr. Speaker, so all that remains is that hon. Members, at 10 pm or even earlier, will have to vote on the Bill. My cursory investigations show prima facie evidence of a link between Conservative Members and the sponsors of the Bill. That calls into doubt the integrity of this House. Our integrity is now at stake. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now——
Mr. Skinner: The sitting should be suspended until the Attorney-General comes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These points of order have been raised before and I allowed them to have a good run.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on points of order. I have called every hon. Member who has risen——
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill and the hon. Member for Johannesburg knows it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have either given a ruling on the points of order or I have said that they were legitimate points to raise during the debate. It would be far easier if we were to continue with the debate on the motion, and I call Mr. Brown.
Mr. Michael Brown: Following on from the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) it is important to bear in mind——
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a corrupt Bill. It is disgraceful.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I try to assist you in what I appreciate is a difficult position? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked whether it would be appropriate for either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to come to the House and rule on the legality of proceeding with the measure. You said that that was not a matter for you.
If the House were to put a motion to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, requesting that the sitting be suspended pending the appearance of either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, would you accept that motion? We might then get out of the impasse and proceed with the business. Could you give me your guidance, please?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept such a motion. The motion on the Order Paper is perfectly in order and I hope that the House will now get on with discussing it.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Bradford, North was towards the end of his speech during our debate before the recess—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate——
Mr. Skinner: There are two points of order over here.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that I have listened to many points of order. Those that are now being raised are merely a repetition of the points with which I have dealt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no they are not."] Order. I have dealt with the points. I hope that the House will now agree that it would be more sensible and more orderly to continue to discuss the suspension motion.
Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With due respect to your earlier ruling, and while not wishing to challenge it, the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) have not been answered, although they have been heard in the Chamber and await an answer. I have a note of the words used by the Chairman of the Committee when he went under the Gallery. He said:
"Since I am totally in your pocket I had better come across to speak to you. Michael Brown has had a word with me"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those points can be raised during the debate; they are not points of order for the Chair. I am gaining the impression that the House is trying to involve the Chair in political controversy—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the House will realise that it would be unfair to put the Chair in that position.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been before the Privileges Committee in regard to a matter concerning contempt. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, points concerning privilege must be dealt with immediately, or they will be ruled out of order. Because of the recess, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) did not have a chance to raise the matter at the appropriate time, and Mr. Speaker would now rule it out of order.
In the light of the information that we have received, surely we need the guidance of the Attorney-General on whether there has been a breach of privilege, or corruption behind the scenes. The information in the letter in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has exposed a serious defect in the Bill, which ought to be examined at the highest level.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has helped me. As he rightly says, a point of privilege must be raised with Mr. Speaker immediately; if the point had been raised at the appropriate time, it would have been dealt with at that time. If any hon. Member is suggesting that new information has become available that could amount to a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege, the procedures of the House are wholly clear: the matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House, where I cannot deal with it, but the hon. Gentleman concerned should write to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I quote from the Standing Orders on Private Business? Standing Order No. 162, on Bills relating to water companies, is entirely relevant. The private Bill at present under consideration clashes with the interests of a water Bill promoted by the Government, and without a ruling on the interpretation of the Standing Order this Bill, in my view, should not proceed.
Standing Order No. 162 states:
"In the case of a bill whereby it is proposed that an existing water company shall be authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by puplic auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained, unless the committee on the bill reports that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which its opinion is founded."
The Committee has been considering this Bill at the same time as the water privatisation Bill is being considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those points in his arguments against the suspension motion, he is entitled to do so.
Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill was first presented to the House in November 1987. For some two years, therefore, the House has been able to consider the Bill on Second Reading, and then to instruct the Opposed Private Bill Committee to consider it at the Committee stage. The
386
Committee considered the Bill, and reported it to the House without amendment. I remind the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman, and he should be given the courtesy of being heard.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to remind the hon. Members that the House has had an opportunity to consider the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and in the first part of the Third Reading debate. The carry-over motion will enable the House to reach a conclusion in the next Session of Parliament. In those circumstances, I believe that it is crucial for the motion to be approved. [Interruption.]
Mr. Redmond rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is rising to make a speech?
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am seeing whether any hon. Member wishes to continue the debate.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? As I understand it, the House is about to discuss a motion on whether to carry forward a private Bill. Many points of order have been raised about whether the Bill should be dealt with on the Floor of the House this evening. In view of what has been said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to ask whether Mr. Speaker's office has been called into disrepute by the malingering and gerrymandering on the part of certain Conservative Members. I ask you to suspend the sitting so that you can consult Mr. Speaker on whether the Bill should be carried forward this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my job to ensure that the business before the House is proceeded with. If the motion had not been in order, it would not be on the Order Paper. I hope that we will now get on with the debate: the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was interrupted by points of order.
Mr. Michael Brown: I wish to end my speech by saying that the most important point is that the Bill is the subject of controversy among Opposition Members with mining interests, and those interests will not be adversely affected by the Bill. It will probably not reach the statute book until 1990, and by 1992 its provisions will be enacted.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me repeat that we have had a long run on points of order. Some were asking me for a ruling on our procedures, and I have given rulings in answer to them. Most of the others—as I have explained more than once—were perfectly legitimate for the debate on the carry-over motion. It would be more sensible if hon.

387
Members made the same points without prefacing them with the words "on a point of order", because they are not points of order.
Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only rarely do I rise to raise a point of order, but I find the position confusing. Along with, I imagine, every other hon. Member present, I have a copy of the special report by the Committee. The doubt cast on the validity of the report, in view of the role and actions of the Committee's Chairman, raise the question whether views that I might express relating to the report would be relevant. Much of what I would have to say bears on its content. It seems that we must question the work of the Committee, and its actions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, that is a perfectly legitimate point for the hon. Gentleman to raise during the debate, and he has now done so.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer to what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I am deeply disturbed that the House is being brought into disrepute. When as many hon. Members are on their feet as I have seen tonight—and I have not witnessed such a sight in two and a half years—it shows the depth of feeling that something very underhand, if not corrupt, is about to take place. I believe that the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker—one of the highest offices in the House—should address itself to the concern felt by hon. Members. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suspend the sitting, to bring the Law Officers to the House and to make a ruling.
Hon. Members, the press and those in the Public Gallery are not the only people listening to the debate. The eyes of the country are on us, and the country smells something pretty rotten. I ask once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what my hon. Friends have already asked: that you bring the Attorney-General to the House, suspend the sitting and give us a ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I am not prepared to do that. We must continue with the debate.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Solicitor-General has just poked his nose in. He is available now to have a look at this matter. Therefore, we should suspend the sitting and a discussion should take place between him, the usual channels and representatives of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. Then we can proceed with the Bill if necessary. You have the power to suspend the sitting. It was suspended last week when Nigel Lawson packed up. The matter is important because it involves the loss of thousands of jobs in various constituencies, money being made in South Africa and Tory Members lining their pockets. It is essential to suspend the sitting so that discussions can take place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I am not prepared to do that. Any discussions that take place through the usual channels have nothing to do with the Chair. Mr. Leigh.
8.12 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: The facilities are essential. It has been said that they are primarily required for coal imports——
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called an hon. Member to speak in the debate. I hope that he will not be interrupted by further points of order.
Mr. Leigh: The facilities could be used for coal. Associated British Ports has a duty to——
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Leigh: Are you going to protect democracy in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cryer: You have called two Tory Members on the trot.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have a point of order?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in difficulty because my hon. Friends are worried about rulings on the passage of the Bill. I ask you to consider the business on the Order Paper. The Bill is on the Order Paper because the Chairman of Ways and Means chose to allocate time to it. That was a decision about the priority given to private Bills. As you will be aware, many private Bills have not yet completed their passage through the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means decides which Bills have carry-over motions and allocates time to them.
My hon. Friends are worried about the propriety of the Bill's rate of progress. In Committee, the promoters asked for an undertaking that no amendments would be tabled so that they could avoid Report stage. Members of the Committee agreed, on the basis that a report would be submitted to the Government before the Bill proceeded any further. That was an odd procedure and it seems strange that the Chairman of Ways and Means found time for a debate on a carry-over motion for this Bill ahead of the long list of other private Bills.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has a unique position in the House. Sometimes he is in the Chair and the rest of the time he takes care of private business. It is perfectly legitimate for Opposition Members to challenge his choice and to ask why this Bill was chosen, particularly as it has had a chequered course. I realise that no hon. Member should challenge the Chairman of Ways and Means, but my hon. Friends have legitimate anxieties about why time was allocated to the Bill. Hon. Members have the right to look into private business.
It is extremely mysterious that one Bill should move forward at a faster rate than others. The promoters may make requests, but the Chairman of Ways and Means has to make the decision. How can the House influence the decision to allocate time to this Bill in preference to the other 15 or 16 that have not made progress? How soon can

389
we debate the report on private Bill procedure? The points of order raised today clearly show that hon. Members on both sides are dissatisfied with the present procedures.
I do not wish to push this matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will appreciate that I am close to challenging the Chairman of Ways and Means in that capacity as opposed to his capacity as Deputy Speaker. The House should have some way of asking questions about priorities in allocating time, without challenging him as an occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member said that he was not questioning the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has a difficult job in finding time for private business. He tabled this motion for today and it is in order. Like Mr. Speaker, he does not have to give his reasons when making a ruling. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the Bill was on its adjourned Third Reading.
Long before the debate this evening it was felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that some features of private Bill procedure were unsatisfactory. For that reason, the House set up a Select Committee some time ago. It has reported to the House and there has been a preliminary debate. The matter is now under consideration. If the hon. Member wishes to raise any point on that, he should address it to the Leader of the House, not to the Chair.
Mr. Leigh: Although the port of Immingham could be used for importing coal, what it really needs is to expand. It is crying out for additional facilities so that it can deal, in particular, with steel and chemicals. That point must be made repeatedly.
British ports face stiff competition from Rotterdam and other continental ports. Expansion at Immingham will help Britain compete effectively and allow businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to flourish. That is why we support the Bill. Opposition Members emphasise that the Bill is intended to allow imports of foreign coal, but it is not.
Mr. Michael Brown: We owe it to the House to declare the greatest interest of all—the welfare of our constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about our constituents?"] The only crime of which my hon. Friend and I have been accused is supporting the views of our constituents.
Mr. Leigh rose——
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the House is supposed to exercise a judicial function with regard to private Bills? The rules require that the people appointed to consider a private Bill do not have a constituency interest in it but are as disinterested as possible so that they consider it not through the eyes of an hon. Member with a constituency or financial interest but in a detached manner. I realise that we have moved on from Committee stage, but surely it is inappropriate for an hon. Member with a clear constituency interest as opposed to the interest of the promoters at heart to speak for the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says about the Committee is entirely correct, but, as he has already said, we are past the Committee stage. Its
390
proceedings were completed some time ago. What hon. Members say in this House must be a matter for their judgment and their judgment alone.
Mr. Leigh: It is a very strange state of affairs when a Member of Parliament who is attempting to ensure that his constituents' interests are safeguarded is criticised by Opposition Members.
Mr. McCartney rose——
Mr. Skinner rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have twice heard the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on points of order. I hope that they will not continue to interrupt the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who now has the Floor of the House.
Mr. Leigh: I shall bring my remarks to a close very soon.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member for Makerfield a very good run.
Mr. McCartney: I want to make a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now allow other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate to do so.
Mr. Leigh: The point that has to be made is that, because of the serious delay, it will be at least 1992 before the facility can be opened. That will provide ample opportunity for the Government, or any future Government, to reach a decision on their coal import policy. The carry-over motion relating to the Bill is not about coal imports. It is about increasing trade and helping to improve the economic outlook of constituencies in south Humberside and north Lincolnshire. It is on that basis that I support the carry-over motion.
8.21 pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie: It is probably silly to say that the Bill arouses a great deal of emotion and concern among my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, but no hon. Member should feel ashamed about their emotion and concern, particularly when the jobs of their constituents are at stake. Therefore I make no apology for attacking the motion. I said on a previous occasion that this was a bastard proposal. My view has not changed. One could also describe it as a pirate measure. I do not understand why the motion that the Bill should be carried over to the next Session is before the House.
The Opposition have said in many of our debates that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee. The case for doing so was overwhelming, consequent upon the information that was coming to light week by week and month by month. Since we last debated it, it has become even more of a pirate measure. In all fairness, therefore, it should go back to the Committee.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the Bill being sent back to the Committee for re-examination. It would not be the first time that a private Bill was referred back to a Committee for re-examination.

391
Does my hon. Friend believe that, if the Bill were to be referred back to the Committee, which any decent legislature would ensure, the Chair of the Committee would have to be changed?
Mr. Eadie: It would be a legal matter, of course. I tried to assist the Chair when I said that, since we were trapped in legalities, the proceedings of the House ought to be suspended so that the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General could be asked to make a ruling. My hon. Friend asks whether the Committee's Chairman would have to be changed. There might also have to be new Committee members. My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
The Committee felt that what it was being asked to decide was, to a certain extent, out of bounds: that it was considering not just private legislation but a proposal that involved national energy policy. The Committee's view, therefore, was that the Government should respond to that point. The parliamentary group of hon. Members with mining constituencies sought a meeting with the Government. As a result of the far-reaching consequences of the Bill, which I have described as a bastard Bill and as a pirate Bill, we thought that the Government should respond to what the Committee had said about its belief that the proposal involved national energy policy.
We were received with the ulmost courtesy by very distinguished people—the former Leader of the House and the then Secretary of State for Energy who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. They undertook to provide us with the Government's view on whether the proposal had any implications for national energy policy. I am in no doubt that that was said to us with the best will in the world.
I shall not bore the House with the details. Any independently minded person who examined the proposal with complete objectivity would be bound to agree that since July it has been completely out of date.
Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Committee's recommendations and the conditions that it imposed in its special report have not been met by the Government, the Bill should go back to the Committee?
Mr. Eadie: Yes, it should, but will we, as parliamentarians, be allowed to vote as free individuals?
Part of the difficulty throughout has been that when we met the Government's representatives, they said, "This is not a matter for us. This is a private legislation; it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He must decide when it will be debated in the House."
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a reasonable point. Anyone outside the House listening to what he said would agree that he was developing an argument of sweet reasonableness. The problem is that Conservative Members, with the honourable exception of one or two, are being whipped to defeat whatever arguments are advanced. Mention was made of winning the argument but losing the vote—we have won the argument.
Mr. McCartney: It is accepted that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is the Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was
392
talking about hon. Members being free to vote. An entry in the Register of Members' Interests on the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes says:
"Overseas Visits … 2–5 February 1988, to South Africa, as the guest of the Office of the South African Coal Industry."
The hon. Member will be entering the Lobby with a direct interest in what happens to the Bill. That is a public scandal which brings the House into total disrepute.
Mr. Eadie: I can understand my hon. Friend's emotions, which are shared by many Labour Members.
I wish that this debate was being televised. I am a super-idealist, but when people read about their conduct, Conservative Members' day of reckoning will come.
My hon. Friend for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) should not apologise for feeling emotional, because thousands of jobs are at stake. However, we must continue to argue against this bastard Bill.
Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this debate were being televised, anyone watching would say, "It is a fine state of affairs when National Union of Mineworkers-sponsored Members of Parliament were not allowed to sit on the Committee that considered the Bill because they are too close to the subject, but a Tory Member of Parliament can not only sit on the Committee but chair it while he is representing an interest through the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association"? Would not an independent observer say, "There is something corrupt in the House of Commons when that can be allowed to take place. There is no place for miners, but places for Tory Members to represent the bosses who are pushing the Bill through"? There is something dirty about that.
Mr. Eadie: Of course there is something anomalous in what my hon. Friend says. I was the Minister with responsibilities for coal in the last Labour Government for five and a quarter years. I remember that I received a note from a civil servant saying that I should not be dealing with an aspect of the coal industry because I was so emotionally involved as a coal miner. What a cheek! I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear what responsibilities I had.
Mr. Skinner: I bet that was Bernard Ingham.
Mr. Eadie: As a matter of fact, it was.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this had been a report from a local government committee to a full council, the full council would have sent it back to the committee? If that did not happen, Conservative Members would say that the district auditor should investigate such corruption and whether there was a case to answer. If the mother of Parliaments cannot send back to the Committee something that is suspicious, we are worthy of suspicion ourselves.
Mr. Eadie: I know that there are many views of Parliament and that sometimes people are very cynical about it. I say to them that they can be either Members of Parliament or outsiders. Labour Members have more reason to preserve this House than anyone. If we leave here, we have nowhere else to go. This is a forum for discussion, and our forefathers made great sacrifices to ensure that we would have a Parliament in which we can voice the opinions of the people whom we represent. We

393
are not anti-parliamentarian by any stretch of the imagination. If we destroy Parliament and the way that it works, we destroy the opportunity for putting the case of the people whom we represent. I make no apology for defending the House.
At the outset of my remarks I mentioned the great change that has taken place. I showed how, since July, the Government's energy policy had changed. I said that that policy is out of date, which itself is a good reason for the Bill to be referred back to the Committee. It is a good reason for the Government to reconsider it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that we have asked the Government to do that.
Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend said that the document on Government energy policy was out of date when it was forwarded to my hon. Friend in his capacity as secretary of the miners' group. That document was not only out of date but was compiled at the same time as the document that was leaked to the Financial Times publication "Power in Europe". It is contradictory to the information given in the letter from the Secretary of State for Energy. At about the same time as that letter, the Department of Energy gave evidence to the Select Committee about several matters, including redundancies in the coal industry. The information given to the Select Committee was contradictory to the information that we were given in the letter from the Secretary of State, and different from the information in the leaked document.
The Government's energy policy is upside down. It is absolutely futile for us to consider this Bill. Some 30,000 jobs in the coal industry are at stake because 15 million tonnes of coal will be imported through the Humber ports if the Bill is passed. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) reflect on that and on the fact that there is no representative from the Department of Energy on the Government Front Bench and nor is the Leader of the House there?
Mr. Eadie: That could be the subject of a speech which would probably last for all the time that we have available. My hon. Friend poses a pertinent question and if I have a chance to make this speech, that question will be the substance of my remarks, because he is correct.
I must plead guilty of inaccuracy because I said that the Government's statement was out of date. The words were out of date because, at that time, we did not have the knowledge that we now have. It is a damning indictment of the Government that they had the temerity to write that statement, knowing perfectly well that there was a Cabinet document that we knew nothing about, and which was subsequently leaked. That was clandestine and it must cause embarrassment to the Government to be found out issuing words that do not relate to reality.
Mr. Barron: Before my hon. Friend goes on to make his speech, does he agree that the most damning indictment of the Government in their involvement with Associated British Ports, is that, at the beginning of the Third Reading debate on the Bill, the Minister refused to get up and to offer answers about the special report or about the way the Bill had gone through the House? It will be interesting to see whether the Government have come, prepared with a statement, to pass comment on the implications of the Bill, as we proceed towards 10 o'clock.
Mr. Eadie: I am glad that I do not have to respond on behalf of the Government and that I am not responsible for what they do. I am not a supporter of the Government and I am always anxious to point that out in letters to my constituents. I do not know what the Minister will say, whether he will respond or try to defend the indefensible.
I shall list three aspects of how things have changed. I do not want to incur the wrath of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I have to say that the nuclear power argument has changed dramatically even when one considers the words of the Secretary of State in the document. I shall not go through the papers and quote exactly, but they talked about security of supply, a price that the consumer could afford and a proper pricing policy. That is old hat.
I do not know what the Government will do about an indigenous energy policy but it is well known—in fact it appeared in The Observer, at the weekend—that we will not be able to build any more pressurised water reactors after Sizewell B, because they are too expensive.
Mr. Barron: It should be on record when we are talking about building PWRs that the cost per KW hour could be somewhere between two and three times more than using British fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Mr. Eadie: If I had been able to proceed, I would have been able to produce ample documentation to substantiate the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but he was right to intervene. When one is speaking one can omit details. I am not chastising my hon. Friend, but pointing out that it was my intention to mention that issue.
I base my remarks about nuclear policy not on anything that I have calculated, but on a letter that we received from the Secretary of State for Energy about a country that was trying its best to have an indigenous energy supply, and that was trying to consider "security of supply". I was astonished to read that at the beginning of the week.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have made a meal of the fact that we are importing 1,500 to 2,000 MW of electricity from France. We did the best we could and we tried to find out the cost of that electricity coming across the Channel link. We know what it costs them in France but we can never find out what we have to pay.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Question Time today. He was complaining about subsidisation within the Common Market.
Mr. Skinner: Is that the man whose Spitting Image flatters him?
Mr. Eadie: I am talking about the man who said that he has no objection to a 12-year-old kid having a plastic card, as long as he has money in the bank. I am glad we are at one.
The importation of cheap energy from France will probably have to cease, and the reason that has been given is the drought. At the moment, France is supposed to be madly importing coal to start up coal-fired power stations to sustain indigenous sources of energy. It has been said in many debates in the House that if one depends upon energy supplies from any area, whether it is politically unstable or not, one places British people in jeopardy.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have asked the Government on many occasions to state the price that we pay for French nuclear power. In my view

395
—and it is a generally accepted view—it is an example of dumping. My hon. Friend may like to know that new initiatives are currently being pursued in Britain and elsewhere to ascertain that price. It might be useful, since it is relevant to this debate, if the Minister came clean rather than having to be dragged kicking and screaming to divulge that information.
Does my hon. Friend agree that another serious danger for energy in Britain is the policy which is now being pursued of importing coal at a lower price into Britain than into other European countries? This new port capacity will be used to do that—to smash the British coal industry. When they have succeeded, they will be able to put the price up. That is just as foolish as importing French nuclear power.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is spot on. The dream of many countries is to have a safe, secure indigenous source of energy. We in this country are fortunate in that we have an abundance of energy reserves. Some people used to say that we had sufficient coal for 600 years—when I was Minister, we probably had sufficient coal for 1,000 years.
We have been greatly helped by the exploration for North sea oil. When the seismic studies were perfected, we found that we were studying coal measures that we had not thought existed. The so-called exporters who want to destroy our capacity to produce our own energy have been terribly wrong. I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to remember what the experts said to us about North sea oil. They said that oil could never be produced from the North sea because of the hostile climate, with winds of more than 100 mph and waves of more than 100 ft. The Norwegians said the same thing but put it in another context. They said that we could drink the only oil we could ever get from the North sea, and, of course, they were wrong.
The biggest blunder by the experts was on gas reserves. That is why we must consider the proposition lying behind the Bill. They said that North sea gas would be gobbled up by the year 2010. We know differently now. Norway and Britain probably have sufficient gas for more than 100 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has talked about the experts. They say, "You need only close the pits, wave a magic wand whenever you need it and you will be able to get the coal." It does not work like that. Miners these days must be highly skilled. They will not sit around on the dole waiting on their country to decide to open its pits again. It is also a physical impossibility to reopen all the pits. One can mothball, but only to a limited extent.
Mr. Skinner: Not Lawson. He couldn't do it, could he?
Mr. Eadie: I do not know. I shall give an example from my constituency. After hundreds of years, there is no longer any coal mining in Midlothian.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: It is a shame.
Mr. Eadie: It is a disgrace. That has happened not because there is no coal——
Mr. Hardy: There is low-sulphur coal.
Mr. Eadie: There is very low-sulphur coal. There is no coal mining because of the Government's policy. They said that it was too expensive to produce the coal.
We have a new development in Midlothian, which is called Monktonhall colliery. The authorities spent £40 million or £50 million on its development. The work went on below the Firth of Forth. The men stopped drilling because it became too boring as they were finding more and more coal reserves. British Coal, aided and abetted by the Government, decided that Monktonhall had to close. The authorities thought about it again and said, "We have spent that £40 million or £50 million on developing some of these seams. We will mothball the development." It has been mothballed for about a year, in the hope that things will improve. If Monktonhall colliery is closed because of the water problem—thousands of gallons of water a day are pumped up—the coal measures in that vast area will probably be lost for ever.
That is not energy policy. It is sheer vandalism. Let us remember that the Government are destroying what is a priceless asset for generations yet unborn.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I wholly support my hon. Friend's point. Is he aware that the coal reserves in Scotland are echoed down the east coast? In my area in Northumberland, the mine in which I worked was so far out under the North sea that we always claimed that we were entitled to duty-free goods. We were 6 to 10 km out. One of the mines in Northumberland was closed in the 1960s because of bad management decisions. The management decided to use a technique that was not appropriate under the sea. Millions upon millions of tonnes of coal reserves in that area have been written off because the mine had to be flooded after a fire. That is the situation about which my hon. Friend is talking. Those coal reserves are to be found not only in Scotland but along the east coast of England.
Mr. Eadie: As a Minister with responsibility for coal, I was privileged to see the results of many of the examinations which were carried out. I had some in my house but was not able to lay my hands on them. My hon. Friend is talking about the Cannibie coalfield, which starts at Dumfries and goes on and on through Cumberland. It is probably the largest unexplored coalfield in Britain. Mining that coal is a matter of investment. If pits were opened, miners in Wansbeck, Cumberland and Dumfries would be employed.
People talk about limited coal reserves, but Britain is a rich nation in terms of its energy reserves of oil, gas and coal. We should be worried about silly propositions like the Bill and talk of importing coal, thereby putting our miners out of work and destroying our capacity to produce coal.
Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the sponsor of the Bill, heard the words expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) about closing coal mines and then reopening them. Only today the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, informed the Energy Select Committee that if a coal mine is closed, it cannot be reopened. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is aware of that.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you have to deal with some tricky

397
situations in the House but we are coming to a sorry pass. The sponsors of the Bill are sitting under the Gallery and there is a South African pin-striped fellow who has not yet opened his eyes. Despite all the talk, he is using the Chamber as a doss house—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Chair is accustomed to dealing with tricky situations. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, one is not supposed to refer to people present but not in the Chamber. However, the point has been taken.
Mr. Eadie: Some of us are sentimental and if someone is sleeping, we do not want to disturb them unduly. However, perhaps the Badge Messengers could point out that he should go to his bed.
Mr. Cunliffe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We should suspend the House for 10 minutes. I an extremely concerned about our honourable visitor—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cunliffe: We should suspend the sitting—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Barron rose——
Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Baron: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could look at no better region than the Scottish coalfields if we are studying the Government's energy policy, or the lack of it? There is a sub judice rule in the House and it is not my intention to comment on any particular case. However, two public bodies—British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board—are currently in court arguing about contracts. That sums up the Government's commitment to any form of energy policy.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend tempts me to deal with the absurd position in which we now find ourselves. The Government are supposed to reflect the needs of the nation but they are standing back and in the courts we have an expensive legal battle between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal.
The situation is becoming a farce. The problems are convoluted by the fact that last year the South of Scotland electricity board decided to import Chinese coal. If one is to depend on a particular area for one's energy supplies, one must look for areas of political stability. I do not regard South Africa as an area of political stability and I do not think that anybody would disagree that China can hardly be deemed as such. When we question the Government, they say that the case in the courts is a matter of commercial judgment for the bodies involved. That is an abdication of what good government should be about.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in May and June this year some of my parliamentary colleagues and I were in China during the student demonstrations? The instability still exists and my hon. Friend was right to say that China is not politically stable. We should not depend upon imports of Chinese coal. It will be 20 or 30 years before that country becomes stable again.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend adds substance to my earlier argument that we have an abundance of indigenous energy. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth say that some coal was low in sulphur content. However, some of the coals that we import are high in sulphur content. Earlier, I saw the green Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, sitting on the Front Bench. What are his views when the Cabinet decides on imports of coal? The Government supposedly went green. They are not very blue at times, but they are certainly not green either.
The coal deal made by the South of Scotland electricity board was absurd, yet it was done in Parliament's name. The price paid bore no relation to the cost of producing energy indigenously.
Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that only this week, 20,000 tonnes of Colombian coal, dug by small children, was imported on the east coast? For the past two years, large amounts of South African coal, dug by slave labour, has been imported via Rotterdam, where it is mixed with cheap coal, imported into this country and distributed. Is my hon. Friend also aware that an ex-employee of British Coal, who was a senior director of British Coal, is one of the directors of the main company involved in the mixing and sale of that coal?
Mr. Eadie: I know many people who are engaged in business and some of them are decent people. However, I also come across many people who argue that if it is good for business, it is justified. This is a question of morality. The analogy is to say that it is right to have cheaper coal even if it is produced by 10 or 11-year-old children. What kind of nation are we if we are prepared to countenance that? We are even encouraging it to some extent by buying such coal.
The Prime Minister talks about returning to good Victorian moral values. I do not know what moral values are for 1989 and 1990, but I know that my constituents take gross exception to the fact that as a nation, we argue on the basis that if it is good business and if it is profitable, we must carry on with it. I gave an earlier example which typified the Government's philosophy. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked a question today about 12-year-old children having plastic credit cards, he did not say that that was a bit much or unfair, as most people would have said. Instead, he had to bring the business aspect into his answer. He said that there was nothing wrong with it provided that 12-year-old children had the money. A Government who preach such moral values are wrong.
Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in addition to the feckless morality and social stupidity of a Government with such a policy, there is also demonstrable incompetence, which allows a current trade deficit of £18 billion a year which will certainly rise? Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that we shall soon see a pound-dollar relationship at least 25 cents lower than it is now? That will mean that although the Government believe that they are signing good deals to import coal from Colombia or elsewhere, in five or six years' time at the most, this country will find that it cannot afford the new price as a result of the changed sterling relationship.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have often heard that if one destroys one's indigenous

399
energy capacity, which is the key to a nation's requirements, and does not have sufficient energy sources, one dies. In the long run, a Government who subscribe to such a policy will be at the mercy of others.
A point was made about the financial problems that Governments encounter when they pursue such policies. Reference was also made to the estimated £20 billion trade deficit. To some extent, the Opposition are trying to help the Government and our constitutents. If we allow the importation of 15 million to 25 million tonnes of foreign coal, we will put extra pressure on our trade balance. Of course, we will never then be able to tackle the £20 billion defecit. It is absolutely crazy that the Government should be conniving. They are either sleeping or whipping the measure through. I cannot understand the crying need for this motion or for this three-hour debate,. It is absolutely unnecessary.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend will have noticed that one of the excuses—it can be put no better than that—given by Conservative Members is that there is a need for a port in that area and that coal was only of secondary importance. My hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the port transport industry: since the abolition of the dock labour scheme, there has been over-capacity in our ports. We need another port like we need a hole in our national head. I hope that my hon. Friend will dismiss the argument about the need for further port capacity in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Eadie: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. I was seeking to emphasise—perhaps overemphasise—the energy argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has brought a new dimension into the argument. Times have changed since this madcap, bastard Bill was introduced. My hon. Friend is saying that events have overtaken the Bill. He pointed out that the argument about port capacity is no longer valid. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There has been a cloth argument in favour of getting the go-ahead to import more than 15 million tonnes of foreign coal.
Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend is exposing the Secretary of State's double-dealing in his conduct of the Government's energy policy. I have a copy of a leaked document that mentions phasing in coal imports over five years. The Government are already talking about five years. The document states:
"In such a significant closure round, it would be almost impossible to shield the UDM areas from further closures, given that British Coal have already fallen over backwards to maintain in existence relatively high cost pits in Nottinghamshire."
Since the miners' strike, the Government have pursued the closure of NUM pits and kept open the high-cost Nottingham pits, as part of their ideological policy against the National Union of Mineworkers.
Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps later I shall be able to make the speech that I would like to make, at which time I can deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have all the vital statistics and I am sure that the House would like me to place them on the record. I shall tell my hon. Friend now in case I forget to tell him later that the facts he quotes are correct.
Mr. George J. Buckley: Understandably, my hon. Friend has dwelt on the consequences of the Bill on the coal industry. All Opposition Members expressed extreme concern at every stage of the Bill. The promoter of the Bill says that it will have no impact whatever on the mining communities. However, he introduced another dimension which I hope my hon. Friend will consider. He says that the Bill's main purpose is to introduce extra capacity for importing chemicals. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider that aspect, because it may pose danger to his constituents and to the constituents of other hon. Members. The Bill may result in the transport of toxic chemicals through our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) currently has a toxic waste problem in his constituency caused by imported chemicals.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will be able to respond to those points.
Mr. Eadie: I take your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My strictures are that interventions should be pertinent or should be questions, and they should not be so long.
Mr. Eadie: I take the strictures, but I understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) feels. He was a little emotional in describing the matter, but he need not apologise for that because I know that he speaks with great experience of this matter. My hon. Friend's first point was about the impact of the Bill on mining. Anyone who tries to suggest that the provision of facilities capable of handling the import of 15 million tonnes of foreign coal will not have an impact on mining is either not relating himself to reality or is economical with the truth.
We are not merely discussing the impact on one area of imports of coal because the importation of foreign coal touches every part of these islands. It touches south Wales, the north-east, Scotland, Lancashire—I could go through all the regions. It would have an impact throughout the United Kingdom. To some extent that is why the proposition has engendered such emotion in people from every part of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke about toxic waste, a matter of great controversy. At the moment I am concerned about the transportation of such waste by rail, quite apart from the possibility of its being conveyed from the ports. I accept that the toxic waste generated must be disposed of. My major criticism, however, is that, because of Government policy, we have not invested the necessary money to dispose of it by the best technological method available.
Vitrification was proposed long ago—it would not solve the problem of toxic waste, but it would make it easier to handle. Somewhere along the line, however, it was decided not to invest money in that process. The failure to do so has, of course, brought anxiety to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth, to those working at the ports as well as people living in different regions. Some countries approach this problem in a much more realistic manner and they already vitrify toxic waste—despite the fact that we invented that process.
Mr. Terry Fields: I know that my hon. Friend has had a long association with the Fire Brigades Union. He will be aware that that union resists the further development of the transportation of chemical waste. The fire brigade performs a tremendous task along with the ambulance service, which has been treated so shabbily by the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will get on to the substance of his speech, which he has been promising us for some time now.
Mr. Eadie: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—it is perfectly in order for me to comment on what he said—I know that the organisations to which he referred support the stand that has been taken in opposition to the Bill. He is entitled to that response from me so that it can go on the record. We are very dependent upon the emergency services—sometimes we do not want to be—if we are involved in a road accident or a fire. Those people do heroic work. It is right that what my hon. Friend has said should go on the record—they support our opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Michael Welsh: The two electricity generating companies have asked that they be able to reduce the amount of coal that they receive from British Coal from 25 million tonnes to below 60 million tonnes while getting the rest from abroad. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means that one third of British collieries will close? It means that the Nottinghamshire coalfields will disappear. What happens when something goes wrong with the importation of that coal? My hon. Friend will know that the critical life of a pit is 10 to 15 years. One cannot just find new coal. If we import coal we will be going into the unknown and generations of people will suffer as they discover that there is no fuel for them. That is what will happen within 15 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that scenario is correct?
Mr. Eadie: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said and I hope to do so at even greater length later. A study of the leaked Cabinet paper bears out exactly what my hon. Friend has said. Those suggestions come not from a particular group on the Labour Benches, but from the Government. That is the important thing that we must understand. We are not talking about something that has been cooked up, but about Government statements. Before the debate is concluded I hope that I shall have the opportunity to raise some further questions so that they are put on the record.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for allowing me to say a few words. I have previously attended debates on this subject because it is one of the most important which we have discussed during my time here. I have listened to the Prime Minister over and over again saying how she hates sanctions against South Africa, that the sanctions would hurt the South African working people, and that working is the way for South African people to obtain their freedom. That is absolutely and directly connected with the issue which we are discussing.
We all know that these ports are a deliberate attack on the miners. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who represents the Union of Democratic
402
Mineworkers, knows full well that having used the UDM the Government will ruthlessly sacrifice it and all the workers of South Africa, including the miners. They know that the coal will go to Holland, where there are no mines, and that the coal will come here from specially arranged ports in Holland. We know that and they know that, and the South African workers defend the British workers as we defend them. That is the reality of the struggle which is going on.
The Conservative party supports trade unions in Poland, and so it should, but it does not support them here. The Government's sanctions are against the miners of this country. They believe in sanctions against our miners and pretend that they are not in favour of sanctions against South African miners. Such hypocrisy is almost unbelievable and must be fought, even though they have the will of us in the end.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you refer to page 227 of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" on the matter of the misconduct of strangers in Galleries? For the third time in this House we have to raise the fact that the representative of the Parliamentary agents, Sherwoods, is guilty of gross discourtesy to this House by sleeping under the Gallery. He is not someone who is a stranger to the House and visiting it for the first time, but a professional. paid individual who knows the practice of this House. In accordance with Standing Orders, will the Serjeant at Arms remove the person because it is a gross discourtesy to this House for such an agent to come here and conduct himself in such a fashion?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but hon. Members should not refer to strangers in the Gallery. I assure the hon. Member that I have dealt with the matter in the firmest possible manner.
Mr. Eadie: I must respond briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has tried to argue in relation to South Africa. If the House has the patience to listen to me I shall describe what has happened in relations to the South African coal miners whose wages and conditions are a disgrace.
In the past, I have had the opportunity to speak to some of the leaders of the South African coal miners. I wish to make a point which I have repeatedly tried to make during this debate: the importation of energy does not assist our balance of payments problem. Worse than that, when we have an abundance of such energy of our own, it seems suicidal that we should consider contracting our indigenous energy capacity in order to buy energy supplies from overseas. Such a consideration is bedevilled by the fact that the energy is produced by semi-slave labour in South Africa.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough will accept that tonight we have been arguing that we want no part of that. One aspect of this debate has dealt with the morality and ethics involved in this matter. There is no morality in importing coal which is produced by 11-year-old children or slave labour in South Africa. Certainly we are very much against it.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I fully accept that the Bill increases port capacity and has implications for the coalmining industry, energy policy and the importation of coal. I have not sought to intervene earlier

403
because the Bill does not directly and immediately affect my constituents. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the beginning of this evening's debate many of his hon. Friends were seeking to deal with the motion, which has considerable significance for parliamentary and constitutional procedure, and it would be a great pity if between now and 10 o'clock those who wish to debate the substance of the motion were denied the opportunity to do so?
Mr. Eadie: I make no complaints about the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. If the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier, he will know that I raised a point of order. I did not like what happened in the House tonight. I told Mr. Deputy Speaker that a way out of the impasse would be to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes to allow the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to rule on the legality of the motion. It is only a guess, but we might then have been able to proceed. I do not know what can be done about the legality of the matter. My hon. Friends also have a view on that. The measure should not have been proceeded with tonight.
In the course of my remarks and in trying to respond to interventions, I have been trying to back up that argument. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree, but I hope that he will appreciate that some of the points that my hon. Friends have been putting to me, and some of the points that I have been putting, have sought to substantiate the fact that the Bill is out of date and that this carry-over motion should not have been before us tonight.
What happens in the next Session is a matter for us all to play for, but why on earth, with the Government under so much pressure to get their business through and with the House meeting at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, is this matter being treated with such urgency?
I might be told that I am behaving in an extraordinary way. I am not criticising anybody. The Chairman of Ways and Means may have been duty bound to put this measure on the Order Paper. However, I can say in all sincerity that I have been a Member of the House for getting on for 25 years and I know that any Government who do not want a particular thing generally succeed in their objective if they have the necessary majority.
We are reasonable men. The Leader of the House sent for some of us and we had a discussion. We said, "Look, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. You are saying that this is only a carry-over motion and that the matter will then be debated in the next parliamentary Session regardless of whether the matter is of the minor importance that you suggest." But if the matter has the insignificance that was suggested, why are we spending three hours debating this when the House is chockfull of parliamentary legislation that must be completed before the Queen's Speech?
If the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) feels embarrassed by what has happened tonight, we have a solution to the problem. We should not proceed with the motion. Nothing would be lost or gained if we did that and the promoters of the Bill would be completely up to date when they had to produce a fresh proposition to present to the House. The hon. Gentleman and I would be better informed. Since the Bill was first presented to the
404
House so many things have happened. That is a reasonable solution as it would do away with all the hassle and all the difficulty.
I do not like what has happened here tonight. I have already expressed my views about Parliament, parliamentary democracy, the authority of the Chair and the conduct of business. To some extent, Parliament and the Government have been injured tonight.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is really very kind of him to be so generous with his time. Will he accept from me that we are debating a procedural motion designed to carry the Bill over so that further discussion can take place? It is certainly the Government's view that there is nothing unusual about having a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As the Government are always neutral in respect of private Bills—[Interruption.] We believe that it is wholly consistent with that position that the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means for the carry-over should be supported. Therefore, if there is a vote, the Government will recommend to the House that the motion should be carried so that there can be further debate, and all the issues that have been raised this evening could be pursued on Third Reading. Will he therefore accept from me that it would be the Government's recommendation that the carry-over motion should be passed by the House?
Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why should we accept a statement like that from the Minister at the Dispatch Box when we know very well that on previous occasions when we have debated this Bill, all the Ministers have been wheeled in, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, to vote in favour of it? They have a Whip on it——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Eadie: Let me attempt to cool the anger of my hon. Friends. I want to respond to the Minister. It is unfortunate that the Minister is obviously not privy to what has happened. I do not wish to delay the House, but I could quote verbatim the Government's attitude, as it is contained in the letter I have here about the Bill. The Government argue that they want to be as reasonably objective as possible, but at the end of the day, it is a matter of ways and means. I and my hon. Friends are quite entitled to oppose the motion. The Government may disagree with us, but we are entitled to vote against the motion. But—this is what angers my hon. Friends—we know that there is a Whip on the motion. Therefore, the Government lack the candour that they should show on the matters.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have answered the Minister. I am not revealing any secrets as I respect confidentiality, but I was asked by the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House to go and see them. They asked what was the problem. I have a record of what I said then and also of what I said when we met the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State. We explained the problem to them. I know that the Minister was not privy to our discussions, so I do not

405
criticise him. We asked his Cabinet Minister why it was necessary to debate the measure tonight when the Government have such a pressure of business.
The Minister said that we were dealing with a technicality. Whether or not he believes that, he has been sitting at the Dispatch Box for most of the debate and one thing must be impressed upon his mind—that my hon. Friends do not think that this is but a simple technicality. If anything is marked on his mind, it must be how strongly my hon. Friends feel.
I said earlier that Governments with a commanding majority generally get their way. I am not suggesting that the Government would breach the private legislation procedure and usurp the powers of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Nevertheless, had the Government so wanted, they could have prevented this debate and all the agony felt by my hon. Friends. The matter is not as simple as the Minister has suggested, and we cannot allow the measure to proceed.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend consider the content of the Minister's intervention? He suggested that, if the carry-over motion was accepted, there would be a further opportunity for debate. Is it not true that if the motion is accepted, that will curtail further debate? If the Minister is anxious for further debate, what could be more satisfactory than to allow the Bill to lapse with other Bills on Prorogation so that it can go through all its procedures in a new Session of Parliament? If the Minister wants more debate, he should advance that argument. Does not all this demonstrate the Government's double standards and forked tongue?
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend argues with sweet reasonableness. However, I was even more reasonable when, at the outset, I said that because there had been great changes in energy policy—absolutely devastating changes—since the Bill was first born, the proper procedure would be to accept paragraph 26 of the Committee's report, which said that because the issue covered all aspects of energy policy it did not feel competent to make a judgment, and that it was a matter for Government to decide. My proposition was different from that of my hon. Friend. It was that we should decide to send the Bill back to the Committee, which would then examine it in the light of all that had happened, and report back to the House. Then we would have a proper, up-to-date report.
Mr. Hardy: May I add to the serious point made by my hon. Friend? Would he care to remind the Minister—a Transport Minister is on the Bench at present—that, just before the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill was, unfortunately, passed, a high-quality survey of port capacity in the United Kingdom was carried out by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, on whose council I then sat—as will be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is now a member of that council. That survey demonstrated beyond doubt that there was no need for the investment on the Orwell that destroyed a site of considerable importance.
There have been other approvals of dock investment since then, but the basis of the argument advanced against the Orwell investment is even stronger today because of that. We have, however, had no real opportunity to consider the transport implications of the Bill, because
406
economic and energy implications have been overriding. Does not the question of transport investment strengthen the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that proceedings on the Bill should start all over again? Would the Minister care to deny what I have said?
Mr. Eadie: I do not know how long I have been speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not long enough."] Indeed, I have not even started my speech. I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friends at this juncture; nor do I wish to be sandwiched between my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I was trying to demonstrate that I have been, to some extent, an example of sweet reasonableness. I had no intention of deviating from the proposition that I advanced at the outset as a solution to the problem.
I do not object to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has said; I am merely saying that we are giving the Minister not one but two options. If I could persuade the House to accept either, it would get us out of our present unnecessary impasse. I am astonished that as yet we have had no response from the Minister, but I suspect that he is not empowered to respond to the present climate of debate: if he were, he would surely have accepted one of those two propositions.
Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is probably one of the greatest authorities in the House on the mining industry, and, in his long speech, he has made some pertinent points and offered some solutions. The hon. Gentleman has talked about deep feelings, but does he not feel that they may be a little shallow, in view of the fact that only 51 of his colleagues turned out to vote against the Bill on Second Reading on 23 June 1988?
Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could rule on the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)? Is it relevant to the carry-over motion?
Madam Deputy Speaker: No breach whatsoever of our Standing Orders has been committed.
Mr. Eadie: At the outset of the debate, I said how emotional and indignant my hon. Friends feel about the motion. The point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) was synthetic. I made the mistake of courteously allowing him to intervene, but I am bound to say that he is the victim of his own Government's deception. The leaked Cabinet papers may have a devastating impact on jobs in the Nottinghamshire area and in his constituency. I predict that many Conservative Members will not be re-elected. They must be worried about their prospects. We have only the power of argument and persuasion, but Conservative Members ought to be able to exert some influence over the Government in a way that we cannot do.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points about the Government's energy policy and their attitude towards various other matters. It is entirely legitimate that he should pursue them in correspondence with Ministers, at meetings with Ministers, at Question Time and in debates that the Opposition wish to initiate. So that there is no confusion about it, I ought to point out

407
that we are debating the carry-over motion and that none of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is relevant to that question. I believe that I can explain to the hon. Gentleman in a way that he will understand why the Government support the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means to have the Bill carried over to another Session when it could be further debated.
Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to the Minister for elaborating on the Government's point of view, but my hon. Friends and I have already written to the appropriate Ministers and asked them to explain the Government's energy policy. We have also asked them to explain why they sent to us documents that they knew were out of date.
The hon. Gentleman ought to convey to his ministerial colleagues our view that these debates should take place not in Opposition time but in Government time. The Government are responsible for the leaked Cabinet papers and for the mess that they have made of the nuclear power industry. They were responsible for finding out that nuclear power has become so expensive that it is quite possible that we shall be unable to build another pressurised water reactor. The Government must say why electricity, reputed to be derived from nuclear power and equivalent to the output of one massive power station, will be imported from France. We are told that, having accepted that deal, we may not be able to import that energy. I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to the Secretary of State for Energy, because they are important for energy policy.
Mr. Barron: In view of the Minister's remarks about the neutrality of the Government, perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the neutrality of the Government's payroll vote when it is exercised on private business.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Debates on the Bill have illustrated the convoluted nature of private business.
To some extent, the Bill has been under a guise, and I make no personal criticism of anyone in the Chair of anyone associated with the business procedures. To say that Conservative Members will have a chance to vote without being subject to whipping by the Government is untrue. Hon. Members are concerned about the private procedure. It is untrue to suggest that hon. Members will be voting freely in the Lobby, because Conservative Members have been whipped—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be able to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).
Mr. Eadie: I had a friendly meeting with the Leader of the House, who received us with the utmost courtesy. I told him about a member of the Government going through the Lobby, but that Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, decided that the matter—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to hold meetings, perhaps they would do so on the other side of the swing doors.
Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put: —
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 169.

Division No. 366]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Hill, James

Amess, David

Howard, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Atkins, Robert

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Beggs, Roy

Hunter, Andrew

Bellingham, Henry

Irvine, Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Jessel, Toby

Bevan, David Gilroy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Kilfedder, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Knapman, Roger

Bowis, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Brazier, Julian

Knox, David

Bright, Graham

Lang, Ian

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

Lawrence, Ivan

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Butler, Chris

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Butterfill, John

Lightbown, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lilley, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Carrington, Matthew

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Cash, William

Lord, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Chope, Christopher

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

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

Maclean, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Madel, David

Colvin, Michael

Mans, Keith

Conway, Derek

Marland, Paul

Cope, Rt Hon John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Couchman, James

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Cran, James

Miller, Sir Hal

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

Mills, Iain

Day, Stephen

Miscampbell, Norman

Devlin, Tim

Mitchell, Sir David

Dorrell, Stephen

Moate, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Dunn, Bob

Monro, Sir Hector

Durant, Tony

Morrison, Sir Charles

Emery, Sir Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Fallon, Michael

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Favell, Tony

Neubert, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholls, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Norris, Steve

Fookes, Dame Janet

Page, Richard

Forman, Nigel

Patnick, Irvine

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Portillo, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

French, Douglas

Redwood, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rhodes James, Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Riddick, Graham

Goodlad, Alastair

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Gow, Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gregory, Conal

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Rowe, Andrew

Grist, Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Ground, Patrick

Ryder, Richard

Grylls, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hague, William

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Haselhurst, Alan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hawkins, Christopher

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Shersby, Michael

409

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Speed, Keith

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Squire, Robin

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Steen, Anthony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stern, Michael

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Ward, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Watts, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wheeler, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Widdecombe, Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Wood, Timothy

Thornton, Malcolm

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tredinnick, David

Mr. David Davis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

Trippier, David

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Allen, Graham

Flannery, Martin

Armstrong, Hilary

Flynn, Paul

Ashton, Joe

Foster, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fraser, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fyfe, Maria

Barron, Kevin

Galloway, George

Battle, John

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Beckett, Margaret

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

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

Gordon, Mildred

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bidwell, Sydney

Grocott, Bruce

Blair, Tony

Hardy, Peter

Blunkett, David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Boateng, Paul

Haynes, Frank

Boyes, Roland

Heffer, Eric S.

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hood, Jimmy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hoyle, Doug

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Buckley, George J.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Caborn, Richard

Illsley, Eric

Callaghan, Jim

Ingram, Adam

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clay, Bob

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clelland, David

Lambie, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lamond, James

Cohen, Harry

Latham, Michael

Coleman, Donald

Leadbitter, Ted

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Litherland, Robert

Cousins, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Cox, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

Loyden, Eddie

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAllion, John

Darling, Alistair

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Mcl-all, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

McKelvey, William

Dewar, Donald

McWilliam, John

Dixon, Don

Madden, Max

Dobson, Frank

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Doran, Frank

Marek, Dr John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Martlew, Eric

Eadie, Alexander

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Meale, Alan

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Michael, Alun

Faulds, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fearn, Ronald

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Moonie, Dr Lewis

410

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliot

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Marjorie

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, Paul

Stevens, Lewis

Nellist, Dave

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

O'Brien, William

Stott, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Strang, Gavin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Parry, Robert

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Patchett, Terry

Turner, Dennis

Pike, Peter L.

Vaz, Keith

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wall, Pat

Prescott, John

Walley, Joan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wareing, Robert N.

Reid, Dr John

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Richardson, Jo

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Robertson, George

Wilson, Brian

Rogers, Allan

Winnick, David

Rooker, Jeff

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rowlands, Ted

Worthington, Tony

Ruddock, Joan

Wray, Jimmy

Sheerman, Barry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Short, Clare

Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.

Skinner, Dennis

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

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly: —
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 169.

Division No. 367]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Dunn, Bob

Amess, David

Durant, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fallon, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Faveil, Tony

Atkins, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Beggs, Roy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bellingham, Henry

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bendall, Vivian

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fox, Sir Marcus

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Freeman, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

French, Douglas

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowis, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burns, Simon

Gow, Ian

Butler, Chris

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Grist, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Ground, Patrick

Cash, William

Grylls, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Chope, Christopher

Hague, William

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Colvin, Michael

Hawkins, Christopher

Conway, Derek

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hill, James

Couchman, James

Howard, Michael

Cran, James

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

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Day, Stephen

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Devlin, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

411

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Irvine, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jessel, Toby

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Ryder, Richard

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lawrence, Ivan

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shersby, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lightbown, David

Speed, Keith

Lilley, Peter

Squire, Robin

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Steen, Anthony

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Summerson, Hugo

Maclean, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Madel, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marland, Paul

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Miller, Sir Hal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thorne, Neil

Miscampbell, Norman

Thornton, Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David

Thurnham, Peter

Moate, Roger

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trippier, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moss, Malcolm

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Neubert, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholls, Patrtek

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Ward, John

Norris, Steve

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Patnick, Irvine

Watts, John

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Wheeler, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Jerry

Portillo, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Winterton, Nicholas

Redwood, John

Wood, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. David Davis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Armstrong, Hilary

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clay, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Barron, Kevin

Cohen, Harry

Battle, John

Coleman, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bermingham, Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Bidwell, Sydney

Cox, Tom

Blair, Tony

Crowther, Stan

Blunkett, David

Cryer, Bob

Boateng, Paul

Cummings, John

Boyes, Roland

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bradley, Keith

Darling, Alistair

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

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

Buckley, George J.

Dewar, Donald

Caborn, Richard

Dixon, Don

Callaghan, Jim

Dobson, Frank

412

Doran, Frank

Meale, Alan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Michael, Alun

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Eadie, Alexander

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Eastham, Ken

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morgan, Rhodri

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Morley, Elliot

Faulds, Andrew

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Paul

Flannery, Martin

Nellist, Dave

Flynn, Paul

O'Brien, William

Foster, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Fraser, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fyfe, Maria

Parry, Robert

Galloway, George

Patchett, Terry

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Pike, Peter L.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Powell, William (Corby)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Prescott, John

Gordon, Mildred

Quin, Ms Joyce

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Richardson, Jo

Hardy, Peter

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Robertson, George

Haynes, Frank

Rogers, Allan

Heffer, Eric S.

Rooker, Jeff

Henderson, Doug

Rowlands, Ted

Hood, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Hoyle, Doug

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Illsley, Eric

Short, Clare

Ingram, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Kilfedder, James

Soley, Clive

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Steinberg, Gerry

Lambie, David

Stevens, Lewis

Lamond, James

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Latham, Michael

Stott, Roger

Leadbitter, Ted

Strang, Gavin

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Litherland, Robert

Turner, Dennis

Livingstone, Ken

Vaz, Keith

Livsey, Richard

Wall, Pat

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Walley, Joan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wareing, Robert N.

Loyden, Eddie

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McAllion, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McCartney, Ian

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McFall, John

Wilson, Brian

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Winnick, David

McKelvey, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McWilliam, John

Worthington, Tony

Madden, Max

Wray, Jimmy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Marek, Dr John

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Tellers for the Noes:

Martlew, Eric

Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill., stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second
414
time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Nitrate Pollution
10.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4136/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 relating to control of nitrate pollution; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community action to control nitrate pollution takes sufficient account of the range of circumstances in each Member State.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sitting immediately behind the Minister, but I cannot hear a word that he is saying.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I accept that point of order. Would hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so a little less noisily so that those who are interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about this important motion can do so?
Mr. Moynihan: The Scrutiny Committee, in its 14th report of this Session, recommended that the House should consider the proposals for a Council directive concerning the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrate from diffused sources. The debate has been arranged as the result of that recommendation and I should like to emphasise the value that the Government place on hearing the opinion of the House on such proposals. I assure the House that the Government will carefully consider the points made by right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
Before describing the Commission's proposals and saying something about the Government's response to them, the House might find it helpful if I say a few words about the current stage of negotiations.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be pleased to hear that this debate is well timed. The first substantive consideration of the Commission's proposal by Environment Ministers will be at the Council in November, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to know the views of the House in advance of that discussion. However, we do not expect a final agreement on the detailed terms of the directive at this Council, rather that Ministers will give guidance for the coming negotiations.
The Commission's proposals for this directive were published in January. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health issued an explanatory memorandum on 22 February describing the proposal and, more recently, on 19 October, I issued an updating memorandum on proposed changes to the text, to which I shall refer later.
Lead responsibility for this proposal rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In view of the potential implications of the proposal for agriculture—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should appreciate it if the House would come to order. The Minister is attempting to move this motion and he deserves to be heard.
Mr. Moynihan: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to this debate. This is the first proposal from the Commission to introduce controls on diffuse sources of pollution, which arise from multiple localised small sources of pollution. That is a welcome extension of existing environmental control measures, but means that we are breaking new ground in these negotiations. The directive may come to be seen as a precedent.
In their original form, the proposals would require member states to designate as vulnerable zones areas of land which drain into the following waters: first, surface fresh waters which are intended for use for drinking water and could contain more than 50 mg of nitrate per litre if protective action is not taken; secondly, groundwaters intended to be used for drinking water which contain more than 50 mg of nitrate per litre, or could contain more than this level if protective action is not taken; and thirdly, water which may become eutrophic with nitrate as the limiting factor, if preventive action is not taken.
The latest Commission proposals have modified the details of these requirements, particularly as they relate to surface waters.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend answer a simple question? As he rightly said, this is a precedent, an order relating to the environment which has been produced since the publication of the Single European Act. Has he, or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or anyone in the Department of the Environment, asked the Commission how it can present this order when article 130R subsection 2 of the Single European Act makes it clear that any actions in the Community relating to the environment will include the principle that the polluter should pay? Since this measure makes it clear that the general taxpayer and not the polluter will pay, will the Minister explain why he is willing to consider an order which is in direct contravention of the Single European Act?
Mr. Moynihan: I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be covering the important "polluter pays" principle. The 1986 nitrate co-ordination group report concluded that there were problems in applying the principle fairly to nitrate and individual producer levels. We agree with that, for several reasons.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose——
Mr. Moynihan: I appreciate the technical point that is being raised and I wish to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) by responding to it. First, current concentrations reflect agricultural activity and policy over decades, including the ploughing up of grassland. Secondly, different farmers following the same agricultural practice can produce significantly different nitrate leaching rates because of local circumstances.
Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is quite right? These policies of declaring nitrate-free zones on a voluntary basis will not mean that the polluter pays but that the polluter is compensated. Compensation will actually be given to those who are polluting.
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have given two good reasons why it is impossible to apply the strict polluter pays principle in this example.
Mr. Michael Lord: Does the Minister agree that the two hon. Members who have just intervened are not correct because until recently what farmers have been doing has been regarded as best agricultural practice? Some sections of the community have now decided that it causes pollution. It will be hard on farmers if we start backdating in this way.
Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point.
The latest Commission proposals have modified the details of the requirements that I have outlined, particularly as they relate to surface waters. Within those vulnerable zones, member states will be required to introduce controls on the application of chemical fertilisers and livestock manure. In the case of livestock manure, the original proposals were for limits on the amount that could be applied in terms of maximum livestock numbers per hectare of land. The Government would prefer to allow member states more discretion to adjust those limits to take account of local needs. The Commission is now suggesting an alternative limit of 170 kg per hectare. We shall need to consider whether either approach is satisfactory.
Member states would also have to take further preventive measures where necessary. Those are set out in annex 3 of the proposal and could potentially be very far—reaching in their effect.
Although the Commission's proposal deals with the problem of nitrate-limited eutrophication, we do not believe that to be a significant problem in the United Kingdom, and I shall confine my remarks to the other aspects of the proposals. However, the House will be aware that other factors, such as phosphate, may also be limiting agents for eutrophication. We understand that the Commission is likely to bring forward separate proposals to control discharges of waste water, and those may involve controls on phosphate.
The Government have welcomed the Commission's initiative in proposing a directive to control nitrate pollution. However, we see the need for a number of changes to be made to the detailed proposals. In particular, we consider that it is important that the proposals are sufficiently flexible to enable member states to tailor solutions to circumstances found in their particular areas.
The development of Communitywide action to control nitrate is to be welcomed. Most member states have a nitrate problem, and need to take action to protect water. There are rising concentrations of nitrate in many groundwater sources in the United Kingdom. Therefore, independently of the progress of negotiations on this directive, we are taking action domestically to control nitrate reaching water sources. Other member states are also taking measures domestically and the new directive will help to ensure that all member states develop appropriate preventative measures.
The underlying problem confronting Governments in all member states in respect of nitrate, which the directive is intended to address, can be stated simply. It is the potential conflict between ensuring the long-term ready supply of wholesome drinking water, and the plentiful
418
supply of food. In developing policies to control nitrate, there must be recognition of both the environmental and agricultural implications of what is proposed, and a proper balance drawn between them.
The problem of controlling nitrate pollution of water sources is complex. Solutions are likely to depend on factors such as the rainfall and hydrogeology, and on the existing balance of land use in the area. However, as most nitrate found in water comes from agriculture, it is essential that agriculture contributes, where appropriate, to action to reduce high nitrate concentrations in water sources. Of course, farmers should follow good practice in respect of nitrate. But the problem goes deeper and some cases may require measures that go beyond good agricultural practice, including changes in land use.
The Commission's proposals are wholly concerned with preventative measures to control nitrate pollution. However, it is important to select solutions, or combinations of solutions, that are appropriate to local conditions. In some cases, blending before supply of water of higher nitrate content with water from another source low in nitrate, or treatment of the water to remove nitrate, could be the most effective option. Such water engineering solutions are used already——
Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Minister clarify the issue of blending? Blending has so far been used to try to get within the limits laid down by the EC. Is the Minister saying that the blending will be used to continue to ensure that the water supply meets EC standards as well as the protection zones that will have to go with that, or is he suggesting that blending can be used as an alternative to the protection zones to reduce nitrate pollution in the longer term?
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the objective is to reach the desired standard. My point is that we need to be flexible according to local conditions to make sure that that is achieved at the best possible price: in the best interests of the water consumer. To that extent it is not possible simply to draw a general principle, as the hon. Gentleman would seek to establish, but where, for example, in high season there are high levels of nitrates compared with low season, blending with appropriate waters can be the right mechanism. Such water engineering solutions are used already, and will ensure that water supplies contain no more than the permitted level of nitrate.
For the Commission's proposals to be acceptable, it is important that the requirements of the directive are clear. It would be quite wrong for the United Kingdom to agree to a Community directive without being fully aware of the responsibilities it places on the United Kingdom, and the steps necessary to implement the proposal. The Commission proposals could have a major effect over wide areas of the country, but the requirements in the initial draft were obscure. We are pressing in the negotiations to remove ambiguities from the text of the directive. That is particularly important in relation to the circumstances in which land use measures should be introduced. It is also important to establish our responsibilities under the transboundary pollution provisions in respect of the North sea.
The directive must also strike an appropriate balance between the environmental benefits of measures to protect sources and the economic effect of the measures on the

419
area in question. The treaty of Rome requires all environmental proposals to take account of the economic effect of proposed measures. This approach must apply in this case, for example, on the circumstances governing the introduction of land use measures. We are concerned that that point was not addressed in the Commission's proposals, and we are suggesting ways in which it could be incorporated.
The effect of the directive will, to a large extent, depend on the areas of the country that will be designated as "vulnerable zones" under the proposals. The size of the zones will depend on the way in which any numerical limits in the criteria are interpreted.
As I have said, the initial proposal from the Commission for vulnerable zones to protect surface water was for these to be required whenever the nitrate concentration of water in a river exceeded 50 mg per litre. That is a very strict test, particularly in view of the natural variability of nitrate in river water to which I have just alluded. It would require that river water be maintained at the same quality as drinking water at all times, regardless of whether a water undertaker intends to use that river source.
The Government have said that they would prefer an average level of 50 mg per litre to be used for designation of a surface water source, rather than an absolute level. We have represented to the Commission that the effect of an absolute level would be disproportionate, provided that drinking water is maintained at the appropriate quality. I believe that the Commission accepts our arguments on that point. They have proposed an alternative and rather technical approach, which is set out in the updating memorandum. We are still studying the Commission's new proposals.
The control of nitrate is a difficult and complex problem and the Community directive makes a contribution to finding solutions. We recognise that the directive as drafted would have a very extensive effect and we shall need to be sure that it allows us to strike the appropriate balance between land use for agriculture and the use of the land for water catchments. It is also essential that the directive should provide us with sufficient flexibility to match measures to United Kingdom conditions. The Government will take note of the points raised here this evening, and we shall also make sure that the European Commission is aware of the views expressed. I commend the motion to the House.
10.37 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I listened with care to the Minister, who did no more than read his brief. The Government have tried persistently to belittle the problems related to nitrates and algae blooms caused by sewage discharges. The Minister gave no sign that the Government recognise that the problems need to be addressed with a little more urgency and willingness to accept the facts.
Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies are well aware of the conflict of interest between those who consume water and those who farm the land. I should be surprised if any hon. Members representing rural constituencies had not received representations from people concerned about polluted water supplies and
420
farmers concerned about the implications of farming in a way that did not lead to nitrates getting into small and private water supplies in particular.
The problem of nitrates has to be tackled. There is a clear difference, which the Minister acknowledges, between the Commission's proposal that 50 mg should be the maximum and the Government's approach, which was first to argue for 75 mg and then to accept 50 mg as an average, which presumably means that they may allow even more than 75 mg in some cases. In a sense, the Government are seizing the Commission's initiative as an opportunity to put forward an even weaker proposal than the one that they had been prepared to negotiate. That is a genuine concern about the Government's attitude.
It is a pity that the Government are in no position to appear credible on the problem of eutrophication. The problem of polluted water, sewage effluent and sewage discharge is absolutely central to the cost of water privatisation and will have to be confronted by those who invest in the industry. It is inevitable that the Government should say that there is no problem, yet evidence from others, notably our continental neighbours, suggests that it is a serious problem and that blooms are occurring around the coast of the British Isles—which the Government will not acknowledge, but of which others are aware.
It is hardly surprising that the Government do not wish to acknowledge the problem. If they did, they would also have to accept that the cost of putting the problem right could be up to £3·5 billion. If that sum had to be absorbed, it would not make privatisation of the water industry attractive. Although the Minister has tried to present the debate as centring around a technical response to a technical initiative from the Community, it represents a much more fundamental problem that the Government have tried to duck for years. Not only have they not implemented the previous directives on nitrates; they have actually sought to delay them. It is only in the last month that the European Commissioner has finally said that he will take the Government to court. When my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) met him, the Commissioner made it clear that that was the only way that the Government would respond, given their commitment to water privatisation and. their unwillingness to face the full implications of the proposals.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I share the Government's concern about the impact of the regulations on farming and farmers. Labour Members forget that working people live and work on the land. They need their livelihood——
Mr. Morley: Only 3 per cent.
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman shows no understanding of the fabric of the rural economy and how agriculture underpins it.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman justifying pollution and the destruction of the environment, as do some Conservative Members, on the basis that it is agricultural pollution rather than industrial pollution?
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman was so anxious to intervene that he did so a little early——>
Mr. Roberts: Answer the question.
Mr. Bruce: I am not in favour of agricultural pollution, and I am in favour of the Commission's proposals. I understand that they cannot be imposed overnight. Farmers must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, especially in current circumstances when many are facing financial difficulties. The difference between my party and the Labour party is that we are concerned about workers, whether they are in industry or in any other sector of the economy, whereas the Labour party chooses to represent only those workers who will vote Labour in certain areas.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman and I have participated together in many debates and I have often heard him refer to the rural position. Unfortunately, when other members of his party address audiences in more urban areas they are as willing to castigate the rural areas as he is to castigate members of my party. There seems to be a difference between his hon. Friends who represent Scottish rural constituencies and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who takes a quite different approach to urban affairs.
Mr. Bruce: On a point of information, my seat is not rural. It is a mix of a substantial rural area and a substantial urban area. The record will show that the hon. Member for Bootle intervened in the Minister's speech and said that he was not interested in farmers. I am, and I think that the Government are, too.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: No, I will not; I think that I have given way enough. I have made my points, and I stand by them.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is only a brief intervention.
Mr. Bruce: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is not giving way.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman please give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has been here a long time, and he should know better.
Mr. Bruce: This is a short debate, and I do not want to prolong it more than necesary. I have made my points. I think that my case rests, and I am entirely satisfied with the record.
My conclusion—which I hope that the Minister will address—is that we should not delay for the sake of agreement about getting the facts straight. We should ensure that there is proper time to adjust, but the Minister should acknowledge that it is not good enough to go on pretending that there is no problem, particularly in regard to eutrophication. Clearly there is a problem. The Government should accept that, one way or another, the problem must be addressed and money must be invested —not least in ensuring that we do not discharge raw sewage into the seas around our coast. We must set ourselves a timetable to eliminte that process.
10.45 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I should like briefly to tell the House something about the south Devon coastline, which is part of my constituency. Those 88 miles of coastline have more designated areas than any other coastline in the country: it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and is called "the heritage coastline" and "an area of great landscape value". It contains a good number of conservation areas, a national park is close by it, and it has many sites of special scientific interest. Yet at Thurlestone——
Mr. Hoyle: Stop reading.
Mr. Steen: I will stop reading when I wish to stop reading, not when the hon. Gentleman wishes me to stop reading.
At Thurlestone there is a sewage outfall which is at 300 times the Common Market beach pollution level. I am afraid that, in the summer, a swimmer contacted hepatitis A as a result of contact with sewage flowing into the sea there. At Street, some way along the coastline, raw sewage flows out to sea: it goes over the cliff through a broken pipe, having been carried through agricultural land. All the sewage of Dartmouth, together with sewage from 50 other outlets, flows into the River Dart untreated.
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Steen: I will not give way.
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, having been told to stop reading, to continue to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not told the hon. Gentleman that he is reading, and in any case it is not unusual for hon. Members to refresh their memories with notes, sometimes copious notes.
Mr. Steen: It is clear that Opposition Members are not taking the matter seriously; they just want to make fun. My hon. Friends believe that this is an extremely serious debate, which will have serious consequences.
Mr. Hoyle: It is very serious, but the hon. Gentleman should not read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warrington, North knows that he must not persistently intervene from a sedentary position. This is a serious matter, and I very much hope that the House will take it seriously.
Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is a serious matter, but I am sure that the rules of the House apply—do they not, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Lord: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members, simply because they dined quite well, to disrupt a very important debate? I should be grateful if you would give some thought to dealing with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) if he continues to carry on in this way.
Mr. Hoyle rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be more sensible to get back to the debate.
Mr. Hoyle: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] We cannot allow aspersions to be cast on Opposition Members who take a deep interest in debates, at whatever time they may be held. We cannot allow someone to come along and say, just because it is 10.49 pm, that certain people may or may not have dined well—and that usually applies to Conservative Members.
Mr. Steen: I have referred to the enormous amount of sewage that flows into the rivers and then into the sea along the south Devon coastline. The Government need to be more robust and active than merely taking note of a European Council directive.
On the south Devon coast there is a natural freshwater lagoon, Slapton Ley. It is a site of special scientific interest. The freshwater lagoon is separated from the sea by a few yards. It was recognised as one of the finest fish and bird sanctuaries in the country. During the last 20 years, however, the fish population has declined by 70 per cent. and the lagoon is attracting fewer and fewer birds.
A few months ago I was asked to open a bird hide for the handicapped. When I pushed the first old lady in her wheelchair into it we found that there was not a bird to be seen. The reason is simple: the rivers are polluting the lagoon. Apart form the acids pouring into the ley, South West Water is pumping sewage into it. About a year ago I started a campaign to draw the Government's attention to the fact that this site of special scientific interest in an area of great landscape value and outstanding natural beauty is being destroyed by pollution.
On 25 August 1989 a Totnes newspaper reported that I launched a campaign to clean up Slapton Ley. I explained what I thought ought to be done—that there ought to be
"a pilot scheme designed to safeguard this environmentally sensitive area."
So far, however, I have singularly failed to persuade the Government that they should take any interest in the matter. I pointed out:
"Toxic materials washed off surrounding farmland and treated sewage effluent have upset the ley's natural balance and have resulted in a serious decline in fish and bird populations".
I explained:
"The reserve, a site of special scientific interest, is being clogged by an unnatural growth of algae which blocks out sunlight and starves the water of oxygen. There is a clause in the Water Privatisation Act for wildlife havens like Slapton to be designated nitrate sensitive areas."
I received the Minister's response yesterday. I hope that I shall not embarrass him, but it shows our Government's commitment to green issues and to doing something about preserving one of the most important sites of special scientific interest. He said:
"I was very sorry to hear that this nature reserve, and SSSI, appears to be deteriorating in quality and wildlife interest. Our Regional staff are of course aware of the problem and have"
had meetings with various people. He continued:
"It is one of our oldest and best known SSSIS and I am sure everyone will wish that it can be quickly restored."
He then went on to say that, broadly, the problem had been identified as both nitrate and phosphate run-off from agricultural land but that there was no evidence that local farmers had not been observing good agricultural practice.
The evidence is overwhelming that the damage to fish and bird life has been caused by sewage, pumped into the ley by South West Water, and the use of nitrates and
424
phosphates by farmers. They are perfectly prepared to stop using them if the Government will compensate them for not doing so. The Minister said:
"I am afraid that MAFF cannot simply designate the Slapton area as a Nitrate Sensitive Area in our pilot scheme. The National Rivers Authority is responsible for selecting the 'candidate' areas, and they have recently notified us of areas which we are now looking at in depth before any Scheme is introduced. I am copying this correspondence to Michael Howard at the DoE, which is the Department with responsibility for sewage treatment".
How can the Minister duck an issue affecting one of the most treasured areas of this country? Why was he not more positive in his response to me? There is national concern that a site of special scientific interest is being killed off by lack of Government action. I hope that the Minister will realise that the directive has given us an opportunity to draw attention to the Government's failure to practise what they preach.
I should like to mention another problem that has arisen in south Devon and many other parts of the country —the taking of more and more water from the water system, particularly reservoirs, because of the unrestrained growth of house building. Water authorities are not telling the planning authorities that they cannot supply increasing quantities of water. They are pumping more water from the reservoirs and reducing the amount of water flowing down the old river course. Nitrates are flowing off farm land—I do not blame farmers for that—and poisoning the reduced levels of water.
I shall give as an example what is happening at the Avon dam in the Dartmoor national park, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. When the Avon reservoir was built, 0·95cu m per second of water was diverted from the mains water supply down the old river course. That figure reduced to 0·68 in 1978 and from that to 0·026. In August 1989, South West Water applied to the Government to reduce the figure from 0·026 to 0·012. Experts said that if that had happened it would have taken three to five years to restore the river to health.
By reducing the amount of water flowing down the old river courses, we are allowing nitrates to have a powerful effect on aquatic life. We are reducing the amount of water to such an extent that nitrates are not being diluted. The reason for that is that the water authorities are not telling the planning authorities, "We cannot allow any more building until we have a greater water supply."
Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is aware of my knowledge of his constituency. Does he agree that over the years the provision of reservoirs in the area has been grossly inadequate?
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's interest in my constituency is well known, and I am grateful for his intervention.
Instead of the water authorities refusing to allow more houses to be built until more water is available, they have allowed water to be used to such an extent that the rivers have become depleted and the poisons are not being sufficiently diluted.
Although the Minister will say that it is not his Department's responsibility but that of the Department of the Environment—they are both passing the buck—as a Government we should be committed to purifying rivers, to reducing pollution and to ensuring that more house

425
building is not allowed until the supply of water is adequate. We cannot continue destroying aquatic life in our rivers because we want more houses built.
It is regrettable that we are debating a matter in which Britain should be taking the lead only because the EC decided to produce a directive. However, because it has done so, we are obliged to ensure that we make fast progress in ensuring that our river life is not destroyed, that we stop building until we have enough water, and that we do not destroy our sites of special scientific interest.
Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North): My hon. Friend is right, and what he is saying strikes a chord in all of us, especially those who represent rural areas. I think that my hon. Friend will find that his call is being responded to by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to judge from a speech that he made in Blackpool at a certain occasion not long ago. My hon. Friend is making the right noises, and I think that there is reason for optimism.
Mr. Steen: Because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), which took five minutes out of a speech that I had to make in 10 rather than 15, I think that it would be right for me to sit down and allow others to speak.
11 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) should say that Conservative Members are expecting a positive response from the Secretary of State for the Environment on this issue and the pollution of our rivers and seas.
The Government are committed to a policy of sewage sludge-dumping at sea. They are committed to a policy of using long outfalls to dispose of raw sewage further out to sea—so it lands on different beaches. I hope, but doubt, that hon. Members who are now complaining about sewage damaging our rivers and seas voted for Labour's amendment to the Water Bill which would not have exempted private water companies from prosecution for such pollution.
I understand that the present Secretary of State for the Environment has not altered the policy of his predecessor. Private water companies are still to be exempted from prosecution for breaching discharge consent levels on sewage discharges into rivers and seas. The 12-year moratorium that applies at the moment, which we voted against, but which Conservative Members did not vote against, could be extended by the Secretary of State. It is agreed that water companies can produce proposals for expenditure and the possibility of dealing with the problem. There is no time scale. There is no expenditure —only proposals for expenditure./
The Government are clever at saying one thing and doing another. They claim to be concerned about the environment and nitrate and nitrate pollution, yet they adopt policies that will ensure that action is not taken. The Times of Monday 14 August—when the House was in recess—reported:
"£3 million grant cut puts water nitrate and crop studies at risk. A cut of £3 million by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
The Ministry is the culprit. It is preventing wiser voices in the Department of the Environment from taking real action on nitrate and nitrite pollution because of the
426
National Farmers Union and the agriculture lobby. Whatever we say, the agriculture lobby is pernicious in this respect.
Such pollution derives directly from the common agricultural policy, the commitment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—one could call it the MAFFIA—intervention, and our membership of the EEC.
The Times said:
"A cut of £3 million by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for horticultural research has jeopardised studies into nitrate levels in crops, the water supplies and the future of a bank of plant genes. The decision to withdraw Government support amounts to a 20 per cent. reduction in spending over the next two years for the Institute of Horticultural Research."
Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is being rather rude about British farmers, but he obviously enjoys that. Would he like to explain how individual farmers are to blame for the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Roberts: I did not say that individual farmers are to blame for the common agricultural policey. I said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, intervention and our membership of the Common Market, as long as the CAP is in operation, are responsible for nitrate and nitrite pollution and the overuse of fertilisers. We pay the richer farmers through the subsidy system for producing more food than we need.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was at the Conservative party conference. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not, but the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was. The people who attend Conservative party conferences must not be very bright, because the right hon. Gentleman had a visual aid—"This is a butter mountain. This is a smaller butter mountain." He boasted about having reduced the butter mountain. The butter had been given to the Russians.
Mr. Andy Stewart: It is Conservative party policy to reduce mountains of surplus food.
Mr. Roberts: It is Conservative policy to have visual aids showing butter mountains. There are butter mountains, beef mountains, wine lakes and so on. If we get harmonisation, they might mix the mustard with the wine —I do not know. As long as the common agricultural policy continues and farmers are subsidised, they will be reluctant to stop using nitrate fertilisers, and the pollution will continue. Something must be done.
We are being prosecuted under the provisions of an EEC drinking water directive on nitrates—80/778—because of the high nitrate levels in drinking water in East Anglia, Tower Hamlets and other places. Nitrite pollution is linked with the blue baby syndrome. It may also, although the research is not conclusive, cause stomach cancer. If we accept the Government's commitment to a declaration signed by North sea countries and adopt a precautionary approach, we should take action to ensure that nitrite and nitrate pollution does not occur in our drinking water. Cancelling research into the problem does not help.
This directive aims to reduce pollution of fresh, coastal and marine water caused by nitrates from diffuse sources —agriculture, fertilisers, animal manure and slurry. The Government could adopt a policy of giving farmers assistance, even grants, to provide facilities for the storage

427
of slurry. The designation of vulnerable zones is welcome. The Government's desire to designate those zones was welcomed even by Labour spokespeople in the other place. However, all the designations will be voluntary. Lord Crickhowell spoke in favour of the voluntary approach and criticised the EEC directive on the lines that the Government were doing something—meaning that no decisive or precise action will be taken.
When will the National Rivers Authority be seen to be independent of the Government? When will it have a chairperson who is not a Tory placeperson and former Cabinet Minister?
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Nevertheless, even the NRA has designated 24 lakes and rivers which suffer from the problem of eutrophication of algae, yet the Government continue to say that there is no problem.
Mr. Roberts: I agree. During the summer, lakes and reservoirs were closed because of the production of algae. Nitrates are a problem not only because they get into our drinking water through the use of fertilisers but because they get into natural fresh water lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, which become eutrophic. In simple terms, that means algae grows, becomes poisonous, and damages the environment. If no action is taken where high nitrate concentrations are identified, the algae continues to grow and to kill plant and animal life. That is a serious problem. It is in our drinking water, lakes and reservoirs. It also gets into our rivers and ground water and flows into the sea and around our coastal areas. It over-fertilises the photo-plankton and the seaweed around our coasts which flowers more than it should. That takes the oxygen out of the sea which means that fish and other life forms cannot survive. It is a major problem that needs to be addressed by the Government.
Could pesticides and nitrates get into our food and cause problems in the products we buy in our supermarkets?
Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some farmers have to use fertilisers to make a living and that if they use fewer fertilisers and acids, they should receive compensation? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the algae but a unique condition was caused this summer by the drought. It is not right to conclude, as he has, that the problem occurs every year.
Mr. Roberts: It does happen every year but not on such a large scale and it is not given as much media attention. However, I agree that it is made worse when the weather is hot.
I am in favour of the declaration of zones within which nitrates and nitrites are not to be used. Action should be taken in vulnerable areas in which nitrates and nitrites may find their way into ground water and fresh water sources and into drinking water. However, I do not believe that the Government's solution, under which farmers would voluntarily declare and operate zones, will work. I saw a farmer interviewed on television and he said that if the farmer next door is not forced to stop using nitrates and nitrites, he would not stop, even if his area was declared a vulnerable zone.
428
The problem can be solved only by a mandatory approach. I do not object to help being given to farmers to deal with the problem. However, the long-term solution to the over-use of nitrate and nitrite fertilisers is to stop using them and to ensure that they are not necessary. To do that, there would need to be some changes to the common agricultural policy.
I am not against facilities to farmers as long as they are used wisely and the benefit is felt by the consumer and the farm worker. However, that is not what happens to many of the subsidies now. It is Labour party policy——
Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Am I right in saying that he has committed the Labour party to the huge increases in food prices that would result from the abolition of nitrate fertilisers?
Mr. Roberts: Conservative Members are always trying to make mischief and misrepresent what people say.
Before I gave way I was about to say that the Labour party will assist the poorer hill farmer in a way that does not happen under the CAP. We will assist those who grow and develop programmes for producing crops organically. That will help the consumer considerably. We will not adopt the policies that the Government now seem to be embracing having commissioned the Pearce report. The report says that we should tax the polluter and polluting activity. That includes farmers. Therefore, if farmers use polluting fertilisers and pesticides they will be taxed. That will mean not that the polluter pays but that one pays to pollute. What is likely to happen is that farmers will continue to use nitrate fertilisers and will pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer.
Mr. Hardy: I ask my hon. Friend not to allow himself to be diverted by hon. Members who are trying to ensure that we start talking about the plight of the farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as a farmer himself, would find that attractive. They are trying to ensure that my hon. Friend moves away from his scathing indictment of Government environmental policy, which should be at the heart of this debate.
Mr. Roberts: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, but we must remember that one of the Government's answers to agricultural pollution through the use of nitrates and nitrites is to tax the farmer. The Pearce report recommended that and, generally, the Government have embraced the Pearce report. The Government's policy may be to tax the polluter, but in practice it will be a policy not that the polluter pays, but that one can pay to pollute and can pass on the cost to the consumer.
We are not surprised that the Government's policy means that the consumer will pay. The Government claim that they want to clean up our water environment, but they have made it clear that if there are any improvements in our water environment, the consumer will pay for them. The polluter will not pay and the private water companies discharging the sewage will not pay. All the cost will be borne by the water consumer. The Government's policy seems to be that the consumer pays.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roberts: I will give way, for the last time.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman has said that we produce too much food. In fact, we grow 85 per cent. of the temperate foodstuffs that we need. If nitrogen application is to be reduced in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, what proportion of food will be home grown?
Mr. Roberts: Eighty-five per cent. Europe produces beef and butter mountains and Britain contributes to some food mountains. It is not advisable for the Government to continue policies that are polluting our drinking water, rivers and seas. They also pursue policies—which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) supports—that produce beef and butter mountains, and wine lakes. We are opposed to that. We shall continue sane and rational policies, which will help poorer farmers, such as the hill farmers, and encourage organic products for the housewife and the househusband.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Roberts: No. I said that I had given way for the last time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Frit."] It is not a matter of being frit; it is a matter of time. I shall receive complaints if my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are cut out of the debate because I speak for too long.
The Government's response to the directive is acceptable, but inadequate because it does not go far enough. The Government are damning with faint praise and assenting with civil leer, as they usually do. They claim to accept the main thrust of the directive, although they deny the principle behind it, which is a requirement for more direct action by Government to deal with the nitrate and nitrite pollution problems. Nine advisory areas, on a voluntary basis, and pilot schemes are not acceptable at this stage when one considers the problems caused by this pollution.
The Government should take stronger action and intervene in the market to assist farmers who are prepared to adopt environmentally acceptable methods of farming which do not involve the use of damaging fertilisers and pesticides. They should intervene in the market through legislation to have more powers over what is happening. The Secretary of State for the Environment should tell the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he does not accept the views that are being pushed on him by his colleague and that concern for the environment is as important as concern for the farmers and agriculture—which is important—and the common agricultural policy.
11.20 pm
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): I shall contribute only briefly to the debate and shall not take up the majority of the arguments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. Many of my constituents will be interested to hear, however, about the new policy of the Labour party to phase out the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers at the earliest possible moment. The effect of that on food production and food prices would be dramatic.
I wish to emphasise the extent of the concern in my constituency and, I believe, in the country generally. The efforts of the European Commission are obviously well intentioned and all the contributions to the debate have been well intentioned, but the content of the directive and its presentation are not good advertisements for the work
430
of the Commission. It has produced an inflexible scheme, the potential cost of which is enormous, without proper evaluation of the options.
The scheme is highly unpredictable in its consequences. The Select Committee in another place estimated that a reduction of one third in arable crop output could result from a strict interpretation of the directive's proposals. Perhaps that is an outside estimate. I have no doubt that it is possible to exaggerate, but it is a large enough number to merit considerable concern. That will or could be the result of a directive for which the Commission has published no scientific evidence. It has never been able to clarify where the limit of 50 mg per litre comes from. We all agree that there has to be a limit and that the problem must be tackled, but the Commission should be able to produce more scientific evidence than it has presented.
No doubt the Commission would say that a limit of 50 mg per litre would be on the safe side. It is a good thing to be on the safe side, and that is the side on which we all want to be because the hazards of excessive nitrate pollution accumulating in future are great, but we want to be on the safe side in the most practical, sensible and cost-effective way. It is not clear that the most cost-effective way is to endanger the productive capacity of vast tracts of agricultural land.
The United Kingdom is unusual in the European Community in the proportion of its drinking water that originates on the surface rather than under the ground. Our circumstances are different from those in many parts of the continent. Such factors must be allowed for in any agreement that is reached in the European Community.
Nor is it clear that it is sensible to introduce a limit which has to be broken only once for compulsory restrictions, as set out in the directive, to come into force, especially when it is likely to be broken occasionally in some areas because of unusual weather conditions or the onset of winter. There will be dilution subsequently in any event as the polluted water flows into large bodies of water. It has not done the Commission any good to produce such a proposal. I can presume only that it did not have the research capability and background to enable it to evaluate the consequences.
I support the Government's effort to allow greater national variation. The extent of the problem varies widely according to local rock formation and local agriculture practice. If the Government accede to a compulsory scheme—and hon. Members who have referred to the unwillingness of farmers to adopt a voluntary scheme should remember the success of the voluntary environmentally sensitive area scheme, for example—the problems of deciding on fair compensation for farmers will be immense. How will we decide how to compensate the farmer who has invested heavily in the drainage or irrigation of his land and the farmer who has not? The problems will be enormous.
I hope that Ministers will approach the forthcoming negotiations with their customary resolve. I hope also that they will take the message from the House that it would have been better if the Commission had concentrated on laying down common standards, subject to sensible interpretation for different conditions, rather than troubling itself to seek to introduce inflexible rules and compulsory restrictions, the consequences of which it has shown little evidence of recognising.
11.24 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I well understand his caution before he embraced the criticism that is justly levelled at the Government. The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House, but he will be aware that I have been concerned for a long time about environmental matters. He knows that in our home area—I think that it is still his home area—we have some of the foulest rivers in Europe.
In 1971 when I had been in the House a short time, I campaigned—which is the word that I think the Yorkshire Post used—for clean rivers. I was promised that the dirty, foul sewers of South Yorkshire would reach class 2 or recreational standard by the middle 1980s. We were advised in the mid-1980s that our dirty, open sewers might reach recreational standard by the early 21st century. Far from making progress we appear to be slipping back. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am rather more impatient than his speech suggested that he was, although he recognised that if the case were proved, action would have to be rather more urgent.
I am not prepared to accept that we should refer to yet another body for scientific research so that we can determine that our rivers are dangerous, unhealthy and foul. They are. Next month I shall take the chair at a conference in Paris to discuss the North sea. Although some of our European neighbours are a little holier than thou at times, we in the United Kingdom cannot hold up our heads with any sense of pride.
It is a pity that we have to have a dry summer before we recognise the evils or errors of our ways. Because of the dry summer, untreated sewage bacteria is falling on the heads of a substantial proportion of the population in the eastern part of my county. That is the result of taking untreated sewage water into the cooling towers at power stations. I heard a Conservative party Member say that that was because of the miners, because of having to burn coal at power stations.
Some of us have been arguing that we have not been cleaning our rivers for anything like as long as we should have been. Our rivers are foul. When I raised the matter in 1971 I was concerned about the industrial rivers of South Yorkshire. In those days the Ure, the Swale and the Nidd, all the rivers in our county, some of which water the constituencies of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, were clean.
Those of us interested in these matters have discovered that in recent years the rural rivers of Yorkshire are deteriorating faster than ours. For example, we discovered a couple of years ago that the number of offences committed by people in the rural areas of Yorkshire in our own water authority area had risen enormously. I was extremely critical of our water authority because the number of prosecutions was falling and had reached a pathetically low level. Then I acquitted the Yorkshire water authority because it can only operate within the law of the land. When it took out prosecutions it found that some people were making a fortune out of poisoning our water. Having been brought to justice, the commercial undertakings responsible for that poisoning were fined a
432
mere £200 or £300. It was scarcely worth the effort of the authority. It brought the law into disrepute and encouraged criminal action.
It is not only corrupt private businesses which are polluting our rivers; some farmers are also doing so. I recognise that many farmers do not wish to pollute the environment and that many of them have taken a great deal of trouble to avoid doing so. However, excessive use of nitrates is damaging our rivers and streams and the health of our country.
When people talk about the greenhouse effect and global warming they associate that with coal-fired power stations. I am not a scientist and I am not qualified to give an expert analysis of the facts, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that emissions from fertilisers make a significant contribution to the pollution of the atmosphere. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will recall that in the Committee considering the Electricity Bill I forecast the number of low-lying constituencies that would be inundated as a result of the greenhouse effect. The political benefit to the Opposition, prior to the election, would be enormous. In a party-political sense my attitude is relatively unbiased, however, as we must accept that the emission of greenhouse gases should be limited. We must ensure that the interests of man do not supersede those of the world climate. The Government should be spurred into action.
Perhaps there is some justified criticism of the Commission for prosecuting the British Government when it may not have had adequate information. Those of us concerned with nature conservation do not, however, require any more information to make us believe that the Government are guilty of negligence, incompetence or worse.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke about his site of special scientific interest. Last Saturday I addressed the annual meeting of the Yorkshire wildlife trust. As evidence for the thesis that I advanced I took a document entitled "Losing Ground", recently published by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. In February a noble Lord in the other place, answering questions on behalf of the Department of the Environment, suggested that he could not find one example of damage to a SSSI. In June a ministerial colleague confirmed in a parliamentary answer that in the past 12 months 228 SSSIs had been damaged. As the Nature Conservancy Council does not have the resources that it should, one cannot be sure that that list of damaged SSSIs is complete.
That background of administrative incompetence led the Prime Minister, on 16 January, to call for our wetlands, woods, moors, marshes, fields, ponds, rivers and hedgerows to be protected. She said that we are merely trustees and that no generation has a freehold on our island. My hon. Friends will remember that I responded to that call by tabling a Bill that very day to protect hedgerows. The Government blocked that Bill despite the fact that many Conservative Members, including some who occupy the Treasury Bench, wanted that Bill to succeed. I wrote two letters to the Prime Minister in which I criticised that decision, but she suggested that other things, as well as conservation, matter. The Prime Minister takes such an attitude when she is considering legislation, but on other occasions, for example when she spoke at the Royal Society of Arts, she is prepared to be as green as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues.

433
We should develop a bipartisan policy to such matters because we are talking about not simply the conservation of rare species, but the survival of mankind. Some of the conditions that develop from the eutrophication of water and the fact that our generation has been careless with the liberal doses of toxic material with which we have laced the environment have led us to recognise that we have gone too far.
I do not suppose that many hon. Members have had a similar experience to the one I have faced since August when I discovered that tonnes and tonnes of toxic waste was being kept one mile from my home. Immediately I found out I came to see the Minister on duty at the Department of the Environment. He was courteous, saw me immediately and gave immediate instructions that the toxic waste should be put into secure containers. It took about six weeks before the containers were obtained, and nearly two months—certainly eight or nine weeks—before the task was completed. The result is that I have hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste in my constituency, one mile from my home, in an area of Britain which is, more than most, crying out for regeneration and environmental enhancement. No one, not even the highest paid officials in public agencies or Ministers in the Treasury Department, knows what we are going to do with it.
The waste came improperly, if not unlawfully, from the United States of America. I had hoped that by now we would have made effective representations to the American Administration to get it shifted. However, we have 2,700 drums of toxic waste less than 1 km from my home, which has caused enormous anxiety. From the occasional visits which he has made to our area, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks will be aware of the problem. Despite all that, the drums are still there and I do not know when they will he moved. It is about time that I did.
This is a classic illustration, not merely of the historically low priority that these matters have enjoyed, but of the gross inadequacy of law and regulation which I hope will be put right in the green Bill because little measures of this sort will not suffice to meet the environmental challenge. The green Bill must do so, and I hope that when it comes before the House it will be of such character and content that it can be accepted on the bipartisan basis which I mentioned.
11.37 pm
Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): I shall bring the House back to the topic which we are supposed to be debating: nitrates and the Community directive. I respect the knowledge of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and his concern about the environment, but he has given us a quick canter around the environment and that is not what we are here to talk about tonight.
I shall devote my remarks as quickly as I can—because I know time is short—to three items: first, how these matters impact on the nation's health; secondly, the role and image of the Community; and thirdly, our farmers' welfare. The Government's proposals in relation to nitrate levels and the time scale for improvements are reasonable. They have recognised the problem, and it is being tackled.
I shall turn to the question of the nation's health and what we are trying to protect the nation from. It is important on any environmental issue to get the facts right, otherwise we do ourselves and the issue no service.
434
We are talking of the possibility of nitrates causing the blue baby syndrome and cancer. The House of Lords report said of the blue baby syndrome that it was
"now virtually non-existent in Western Europe".
There have been
"14 cases … in the United Kingdom in the past 35 years, the last of which was in 1972 … the only recorded death was in 1950 when the nitrate level was found to be 885 mg/l". That is not a good case for identifying a desperate need to do something about nitrates in relation to blue baby syndrome.
The House of Lords report said about cancer:
"Studies of fertiliser workers exposed to very high doses of nitrate have not shown any increased level of cancer and the overall trend in the United Kingdom has been a fall in the incidence of stomach cancer whilst nitrate levels in water have risen. Indeed, the incidence of stomach cancer is lowest in Eastern England where nitrate concentrations in water are highest … Most witnesses discounted the importance of nitrate in drinking water as a factor contributing to cancer development … The Institute of Cancer Research considered the evidence …to be 'very weak' … the Medical Research Council said that 'nitrates in water at levels of 50 —100mg per litre do not present any hazard with respect to gastric cancer'."
Without wanting to disregard those matters, that puts the situation into perspective.
It is important that the Community should not act in an arbitrary way. Our eyes are upon it and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has some strong feelings about it. If the Community is to maintain its credibility, it is important that it should not act in too arbitrary a way.
The Government invited the Commission to suggest any practicable ways in which work on these matters could be speeded up, but it was unable to come up with a single idea. That is how helpful it was. When it was trying to make us go faster, it could not come up with any ideas itself.
The farming community has been unfairly and harshly treated by the Opposition tonight, and I want to say a few words about farmers in general and about my Suffolk farmers in particular. We are talking not just about farmers, but about all the other industries that depend upon them in our rural communities, from the merchants and the fertiliser manufacturers, right down to the village shop and the local pub. All depend on a thriving agriculture.
It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Bootle (M:r. Roberts), and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that it is one thing to have too much food, but let us hope that we never see the day when we do not have enough food.
Suffolk has some of the best cereal farmers in the world, but they are feeling increasingly beleaguered. They are unfairly accused of surpluses when they were doing only what they were asked to do. They are also unfairly accused of damaging the environment when those who understand such things know that they have been good custodians of the environment. Anyone who cares to come to East Anglia will see that the countryside has never looked better.
Until recently the use of nitrates was regarded as good agricultural practice. Suddenly it is not, but it is unfair to start talking of pollution and to expect farmers to change their ways immediately.
My farmers are extremely fearful of Europe, 1992 and unfairness. One and a half pages of the directive relate to the United Kingdom and how we should tackle our nitrate

435
problem, compared with only four lines to describe the problem in Spain and two lines for Portugal. That shows how we are giving chapter and verse while others are not. That is an important point. Farming is a long-term business and farmers must be given time to adjust, with adequate compensation during that period.
Our farmers have served us well. We take them for granted at our peril. They deserve our fullest concern and support, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that he will provide just that.
11.42 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): This has been an interesting if wide-ranging debate, which often did not stick too closely to the exact terms of the directive.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may have misunderstood the Government's position. Let there be no mistake that the Government are committed to the 50 mg level in drinking water as it comes out of our tap. However, we want some flexibility on the water in the river, not at the point of abstraction or when it comes out of the tap. An averaging system would be perfectly acceptable there, and that is what we have been urging on the Commission.
Let me give a simple example in relation to blending. The Commission's original proposals were so inflexible that if river A had 20 mg and river B had 60 mg and they merged into river C which then averaged 40 mg, that, at the point of abstraction would be acceptable under the directive, but we would be forced to take a panoply of measures in order to deal with river B at source which was technically over the 50 mg limit even though no one was drinking it. We see no point in that response. That is why we have been negotiating with the Commission and making good progress.
It is true that some coastal regions in the North sea appear to be at risk of eutrophication. The algae blooms along the coasts of Denmark and Germany are an example. The ministerial declaration of the second North sea conference in November 1987 required states to take effective national steps to reduce nutrient inputs into areas where they are likely directly or indirectly to cause pollution. We would not consider possible eutrophication due to nitrate in parts of the North sea not adjacent to the United Kingdom as legitimate grounds for designating vulnerable zones in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Gordon also said that we need time to adjust. I agree entirely. One of the reasons we are going ahead with our candidate nitrate-sensitive areas is so that we can have a voluntary system up and running and so that we can assess the measure and its effectiveness before the EC directive becomes fully functional in four years' time.
Turning to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), I must tell him that I and my hon. Friend are not trying to duck the issues. Much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said is important but not within the terms of the directive. I shall try to give him a fair response.
The Government are engaged in a £1 billion programme to deal with the problem of sewage going directly into the sea. Part of the reason for privatising the
436
water companies was to generate capital investment from private sources to build more reservoirs—I understand that two are planned in my hon. Friend's part of the world —to deal with the problems of too great extraction.
My hon. Friend quoted from the letter I sent him about Slapton Ley. I am not ducking the issue, but the directive deals with nitrate in drinking water. It does not deal with pollution of a water supply causing damage to wildlife and to conservation. That is why my Department, with specific responsibilities for that, could not give him a more helpful reply. I am happy to discuss that problem with him, but if there is any pollution in his river from any farmers, I shall not defend farmers who cause pollution. The National Rivers Authority will have teeth and it will prosecute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is absolutely right to urge flexibility and some national variation. That is exactly what the Government have been urging, supported by our colleagues in other European countries who want some flexibility. The French in particular are aware of the possible dangers to their food supply and of the unnecessary disruption to good agricultural practice in the countryside if rigid limits are imposed when they are not strictly necessary.
I respect the long experience in the House of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He has been here much longer than I have and has a long commitment to the environment. I was fascinated by all he had to say about the general problems of pollution in the environment. However, the Government are committed to cleaning up our rivers. We are entirely committed to the 50 mg nitrate limit in drinking water, which is the reason behind the directive. Let me repeat that I would not defend any farmers who are causing pollution from whatever source. My Department has a grant scheme for slurry containment systems to make sure that pollution is eliminated or reduced to the absolute minimum. Even then, if farmers cause pollution in spite of the generous grants available from my Department, that is a matter for the prosecuting authorities.
I am not a scientist. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are not all scientists. I do not know the exact effects of fertilisers on global warming. However, in the past few years my Department has been instrumental in urging farmers not to overdo the use of fertilisers. We ask farmers to optimise fertiliser not to maximise it—to use no more than the right amount at the right time of year.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclean: I am coming on to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He need not worry about that.
We have been successful in reducing nitrate leaching by 60 per cent. by reducing the amount of autumn fertiliser applied when there is no uptake of it.
Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Maclean: No. I have only three minutes left, and I want to save at least two minutes to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roberts rose——
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman spoke for about 20 minutes. I have only 7 minutes and I am going to utilise them. My hon. Friend——
Mr. Roberts rose——
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is trying to stop me from speaking in this debate. If he does, it will be on the record——
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Members who lengthened my contribution, who caused me to speak for as long as I did, were Conservative Members who intervened——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Roberts: The Minister accused me of lengthening the debate——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Maclean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on making some valid and sensible points. It is right to stress the importance of the food supply in this country. Many countries do not have an adequate food supply—thank God that we do, and we should not forget that.
I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). We have had a good, sensible and wide-ranging debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regret some of his remarks. He did not address himself to the debate, but instead made a ragbag of bitter accusations against farmers and the agricultural lobby, which he described as pernicious, and my Department, which he called the MAFFIA. I do not care if he calls me the MAFFIA, but he should remember that in my Department there are hundreds of good, honest civil servants—scientists and doctors—and it is disgraceful to refer to them as the MAFFIA.
We are not cutting research on nitrate pollution. If the hon. Gentleman cares to visit the experimental research station that I visited at Gleadethorpe, he would realise the success of our nitrate research. The hon. Gentleman brought in the blue baby syndrome; he just cast it into the debate without any facts. He also threw stomach cancer into the debate. There is no evidence of stomach cancer related to nitrate use.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose——
Mr. Maclean: No.
Mr. Roberts: Give way.
Mr. Maclean: No, I shall not give way. I have only 30 seconds remaining——
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business.)
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4136/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 19th October 1989 relating to control of nitrate pollution; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Community action to control nitrate pollution takes sufficient account of the range of circumstances in each Member State.

Burma and Cambodia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
11.52 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister in the task that he has to perform because not only has he flown overnight from Washington, but the matters that I shall raise do not fall within his area of responsibility. However, I have great faith in his ability and his intelligence, and I am sure that the debate will be both constructive and helpful.
I realise the difficulties of dealing with two critical subjects in an Adjournment debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and others in pressing for time for a major debate at the earliest opportunity. It is because there is a sense of urgency that I bring these matters before the House tonight. Both countries under discussion—one with a recognised Government of questionable standards and the other the only country in the world where Britain does not recognise any Government, whether internal or external—are engaged in a civil war that is increasing the wholly unacceptable risk of a return to power of the Khmer Rouge by military force. It is the result of the ambivalent policy of the Western powers and their inability to adjust quickly enough to the changing situation.
First, I shall deal with Burma. It appears that it has less impact in this country than in America and Australia, yet we have very much more reason to be concerned about events in that country. Anyone who, like me, has visited the war cemetery in Rangoon and seen the 33,000 graves there will recognise how many lives have been laid down in the interests of a free Burma.
Now, however, there is not a single foreign journalist in Burma: the stringers who write for our newspapers are circumscribed by the present Burmese Government. I can only say thank God for the BBC, which is listened to everywhere in Burma. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the BBC has received 80,000 letters from Burma in the past six months—a third of the number that it receives from all over the world. That is an indication of the way in which those people reach out for our help, and it is a matter of concern that, apart from speaking in Adjournment debates, we can do so little to muster that help.
I especially want to raise the position of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League of Democracy, who has been under house arrest—as have those of her fellows who are not in prison—since July. According to figures that I have obtained from various sources, thousands have been arrested since then. SLORC itself says that it has over 1,200 political detainees, and other reports suggest that the figure is nearer 3,000.
Evidence given to the sub-committees on human rights and Asian and Pacific affairs of the House of Representatives provides overwhelming corroboration of what has been said. I shall read out only brief extracts, but I can give my hon. Friend all the evidence. It raises serious doubt over how free and fair elections can be held in May 1990, as has been promised, if the effective opposition—which commands the majority of support—is either in prison or under house arrest.

439
According to one of the statements to the House of Representatives committee by the Under-Secretary responsible for this part of the world—the deputy assistant Secretary of State, Mr. David Lambertson—
"The government denies that it is making political arrests or is mistreating detainees. It likewise denies credible reports we have of instances of torture. Instead, it claims that those detained are criminal offenders who will be tried as such. In our view, given numerous credible, firsthand reports of the regime targeting opposition political activists, in the absence of verifiable charges, the Burmese government's version of events simply does not square with the facts. Indeed, there seems to be a pattern of attacks against the larger opposition political parties."
Further evidence given to the committee by Ambassador Richard Schifter, the assistant secretary for human rights, states:
"In July, the regime granted to local military commanders summary powers of trial and execution. Under present martial law, there are effectively no legal means for accused persons to defend themselves. Military tribunals, completely lacking legal training, have the final say on all cases, political or criminal. Defence lawyers are severely limited in what they are allowed to say and reportedly under warning that too vigorous a defence can result in negative consequences for the client and the lawyer."
I also wish to raise with my hon. Friend the position of the students who fled from the Rangoon riots and civil disturbance to the Thai border. I met many this summer at a conference in Caux. One of the saddest aspects is the fact that those young people have been torn from their education and living in atrocious conditions, hunted down by the army. In September, one of them wrote to me:
"The current situation inside Burma is in adversity. The … military regime has again suppressed brutally … the opposition force in the country-wide mass arrest. Because of this … repression there is a sudden influx of more students from inside Burma to many of our camps … The military regime is also reorganising its troops to make an all out offensive to wipe out all our student camps along the border in the coming dry season. All these efforts come from within their despair towards the situation. I would say that they are in despair because the foreign currency reserves are virtually reaching to the bottom … and the general public feelings towards the army is in the form of hatred."
How do the Government and the European Community stand in terms of ensuring that foreign observers are able to oversee the treatment of opposition parties during elections? Unlike Cambodia, where there are many foreign observers, they are unable to report what goes on. Under what conditions would the Government consider resuming aid? In the meantime, do we have any plans to follow the example of the United States which has granted $250,000 in aid to students in the camps, both on humanitarian grounds and also to help some of them to complete their education?
What is being done by the international agencies? We were ready to use them in Cambodia. Are we prepared to involve them in what is happening in Burma? We seek fairness of approach because Cambodia and Burma have various things in common. They are beautiful countries, rich in natural resources. Both have been devastated—Burma by years of Socialism and both of them by having been involved in a geopolitical war.
One has a great sense of urgency about Cambodia. There is to be a debate in the United Nations on 15 and 16 November. I have the draft resolution here. I notice that the new words, in italics, are a change from the previous debate. They must sound very strange to the hon. Member
440
for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who went with me to Cambodia. The words sound very strange to me, too. They read:
"Noting the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under the leadership of Samdech Norodom Sihanouk to achieve the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status of Kampuchea".
That is an example of the fact that we are supporting only one side in what, in effect, is a civil war.
We seem to be unable to change our attitude quickly enough because we continue to support only the coalition, which I have described as a coalition of convenience. It is not a united coalition. They have separate camps. There are even separate camps for Aung San and Sihanouk. They have separate armies and different political philosophies. Nevertheless, we support a resolution that welcomes the continued and effective struggle of the Kampuchean forces under this leadership to achieve independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status for Kampuchea.
The only common theme in the coalition is its opposition to Vietnam, a theme that is shared by other Governments, even though Vietnam has withdrawn the majority of its forces from Kampuchea. That common theme makes it impossible to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the problem.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley and I have been twice to Cambodia—in 1987 and again very recently. We realise that we need a better balance between the Hun Sen internal regime, which is running the country with increasing success, despite immense difficulties, and the external Khmers. They have held together in coalition, but during the last 10 years they have done nothing towards assisting the country's development. Without question, the Khmer Rouge is most secretive. It will not reveal its military strength. It will not allow other people to enter its camps. Its military strength is the most powerful in the region. It is the only faction that stands to gain from the attitude that we adopt. I think that I am the only hon. Member who has visited not only the Association of South East Asian Nations countries and Thailand but Cambodia twice.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the UNDP report entitled "Kampuchea Needs Assessment Study". The United Nations commissioned the report to investigate the state of Cambodia and to see what it needs, but it was prevented, by prejudice, from visiting Phnom Penh and was ordered to remain in Bangkok. To its credit, whether it worked from Bangkok or Saigon, it produced this report, which will shortly be published. It covers Kampuchea to an extent that one cannot do in this debate. The preface says:
"Where discussion of prospects requires policy assumptions, the Mission has generally assumed continuation of the recent progress. It has become clear in our numerous discussions with all concerned, that there is an aspiration to return the country to the social and economic status that it enjoyed in the late 1960s, when the outlook was so promising, and to achieve this with less emphasis on state ownership and control of commercial activities. The Mission therefore makes reference to conditions … so as to provide a datum against which to measure the current situation."
The report analyses every aspect of life in Kampuchea, including social services, industry and the state of the roads.
That document should be considered in the debate on the draft resolution, because it is nonsense that we are

441
taking sides against a regime that has built up the country in the past 10 years and recently granted freedom of religion. Furthermore, it has a market economy and has declared itself to be neutral. To that extent, it has abrogated its treaty with Vietnam. I object most strongly to the fact that we constantly seem to be taking sides against the Cambodian Government on behalf of people who have never been anywhere near it throughout the difficult times.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that, unless we are able to stop the current hostilities, there is a risk of the worst scenario happening—that the Khmer Rouge could succeed militarily? That is too high a price to pay for our present policy. I do not know where we would hide our faces, given the statement of Western leaders, the Prime Minister and the American President, if Pol Pot and his regime were allowed to return./
I press my hon. Friend to state our support for the Prime Minister of Thailand, Chatichai Choonhavan, and for what he is doing to bring together the two sides. It is essential that we try to get hostilities and arms supplies from the Americans, Russians and Chinese suspended. If we are to make progress, it is essential that we accept the invitation of the Hun Sen regime for a mission to visit Kampuchea as a creature of the Paris conference.
One mission of the Paris conference has already paid a visit, but I should not have thought that it was too much to ask for a second mission to verify that the Vietnamese have withdrawn and that the 1 million Vietnamese settlers, who are constantly thrown into the argument by China and the coalition do not exist. The mission could take with it external Khmers, who could tell the difference between Vietnamese and Khmers and talk to the locals. That would be one way of dealing with the myths and arguments that so dominated Paris. As my hon. Friend may know, the arguments in the ad hoc committee were on the basis of genocide on one side and Vietnamese settlers on the other. The reality is that the genocide happened—we can all verify that—but the Vietnamese settlers can be found whether they are there or not.
If we want a comprehensive settlement, an interim government must be formed based on the Jakarta proposals for two sides—the internal Khmers and the external Khmers. There should be no special place for the Khmer Rouge. While it is agreed that it can be part of Prince Sihanouk's team, it is totally unacceptable politically to him and, I believe, to the people of Cambodia that it should be in a quadrapartite interim Government in its own right with its army intact. We could have what we all want—free and fair elections supervised by the international community that allow the people to decide —if we pursue that course. What we cannot do, and what we seem to be seeking to do, is to impose a regime from outside with too high a risk and, in my view, leading to the worst possible solution—the success of the Khmer Rouge currently fighting in Cambodia.
During discussions on my travels through this part of the world, people cry out for Britain to play a greater role. In Burma, the people look to us as a country steeped in diplomacy and fairness. Cambodians look to us as the only member of the Security Council which has not had a direct involvement in the geopolitical situation there. I only hope that I can put over the yearning of these people for Britain's greater involvement because of our history and our tradition and because we have something real to offer.
12.11 am
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady must have the consent of the hon. Member whose debate it is and the Minister. Does she have that consent? I see that she has.
Mrs. Clwyd: I join the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) in appealing to the Government to rethink their policy on Cambodia.
With the hon. Gentleman, I recently visited Cambodia for the second time in two years, and I totally agree with what he has said. I would like to ask the Government—this may be the one point on which the hon. Gentleman and I disagree—to challenge the seating at the United Nations when Cambodia is debated on 15 November. That may seem relatively unimportant to us, but it is of great importance to the people of Cambodia because they regard the seat as an important symbol of the world's attitude towards them. It is invidious to have in that seat, as the dominant partner in the coalition, people who represent the Khmer Rouge and who were closely associated with its regime.
Everyone who knows the Khmer Rouge and how it currently thinks, knows that its attitudes have not changed. The people of Cambodia fear that, in some guise, the Khmer Rouge may return. They have great doubts about involving it in any political solution. They believe that they can contain the threat of the Khmer Rouge on the border, but are deeply fearful about the effect of its being allowed back into the country as part of a political settlement.
We know of the desperate need of the country and the fact that it is still isolated by the West. The Leader of the House told me during questions last week that he had no doubt that the Vietnamese have withdrawn from Cambodia. There can be no doubt about the fact that the Vietnamese have not remained as settlers.
We know, too, of Cambodia's desperate need for proper development aid so that the people can improve their infrastructure and their health services and rebuild their country. I cannot stress too strongly their wish to be non-aligned. They do not want to be part of the Eastern bloc. They want to be non-aligned. That is why they do not understand the continuing attitude of the West towards them.
Last week, I put to the Leader of the House, who was answering on the Prime Minister's behalf, a question about an allegation made in Jane's Defence Weekly that the United Kingdom had been training guerrillas over the past four years on the Thailand side of the border in several secret camps. That point was repeated in a film by John Pilger, which was shown last night and in a headline in today's Daily Mirror,
"Thatcher orders the SAS into Cambodia's killing fields".
The Leader of the House said that the Minister would deal with that question in summing up this debate. I hope that he will, because it would be the greatest duplicity for the United Kingdom to be involved in training guerrillas to fight the Government in Phnom Penh having signed a communiqué in Kuala Lumpur on south-east Asia stating clearly that Cambodia must be allowed to decide its destiny free from foreign interference. I should like to have the Minister's assurance on that point.

443
I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe for giving me some of his valuable time. The eyes of the world are again on Cambodia and the civil war which persists there. The people are looking to the world, especially Britain because of its past role, to play a constructive part in getting a political settlement and ceasefire. We know the desperate need in that country. Unless we play an active role in trying to bring about a settlement, we too shall be guilty of causing bloodshed in that country.
12.16 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I have three minutes per country and therefore cannot do justice to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) or of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I say with no false modesty that my hon. Friend knows much more about these subjects than I do. They are not within my remit in the Foreign Office. I have returned today from America to find myself answering this debate.
I know Burma a little. I suppose that one begins to feel old when one can say that 20 years ago one was doing something in a grown-up way. Twenty years ago, to this very month, I was in Burma, which is a beautiful, inherently rich country with a fascinating and ancient culture. It has been ruined by a system of government which made one weep then and makes one weep now. In the past, the wasted opportunities made one weep; now it is worse.
For the historical reasons which my hon. Friend mentioned, the many friends of Burma in the House and in this country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), share the British Government's horror at the violent suppression of the pro-democracy movement and the reversal of the initial steps forward which the State Law and Order Restoration Council appeared to take when political parties were first legalised.
For a few months, opposition leaders were allowed to make speeches. If anything, this respite from the authoritarian rule of the previous 26 years has made the crackdown even more depressing. Hundreds of political organisers and activists have been imprisoned or placed under house arrest, perhaps the most important among them being Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy. It is clear from the evidence released by the United States Government and others that some of those arrested have been tortured. The SLORC has now announced that politicians under detention will not be permitted to take part in the elections. Also, visas have been denied to foreign journalists. All the
444
developments this summer cast grave doubt on the sincerity of the regime's commitment to the democratic elections that have now been postponed until 1990.
Our clear opposition to the regime's disregard for human and political rights has been made clear and unequivocal, When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was the Minister for Overseas Development he announced in November 1988 our decision to freeze all but emergency relief aid to Burma. Similar action has been taken by our partners in the Twelve and by the United States, Japan and Australia. In every way, with our partners in the European Community, we have been trying to bring home to the Burmese authorities the concern that we feel.
I am summarising briefly the positions we have taken but they are unequivocal and clear. The most recent and perhaps the most powerful reference was in my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to the United Nations General assembly on 27 September. He referred to the
"urgent need for the restoration of human rights and democracy through free elections".
I have only two minutes to devote to Cambodia. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley on her election today. However, I must tell her and my hon. Friend that I have nothing new to offer the House tonight. The arguments put by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and the changing situation in the period following the failure of the Paris conference must make us consider the future carefully.
I will not waste time by repeating the arguments for the policy we have adopted. There are arguments for it, such as that absorption of some part of the Khmer Rouge movement might diminish the power of the rest of the movement and prevent it from overturning a Government who excluded it totally. Something like that has been the structure of the argument followed by countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations and others, and justifies the attempt to include some part of the Khmer Rouge movement—but not the Pol Pot supporters—in a future Government.
I understand the argument put by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that we must be extremely cautious even about that, since the basis for power that that might offer might be just the standing ground needed. As a result of the debate and world events, we will be analysing policy closely and I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend said——
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying exercises have been carried out by the Royal Air Force and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation over the Hexham constituency for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Weapons Security
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received from the United States Government a copy of the latest nuclear weapons surety report to the United States President which deals with security of United States nuclear warheads and weapons deployed in the United Kingdom and Europe; and whether his Department received earlier copies of this report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. We do, however, work closely with the Americans on a range of nuclear safety and security matters.

  Bullets (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of compensation paid for(a) deaths and (b) injuries inflicted by (i) rubber bullets and (ii) plastic bullets fired by the Army in Northern Ireland from 1969 to the present.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, our records show that of the claims received since 1 April 1987, we have paid out to date a total of £8,250 in compensation awards for injuries caused by rubber or plastic bullets in Northern Ireland.

  HMS Tamar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the considerations which influenced him to order the relocation of HMS Tamar from Hong Kong to Stonecutters island.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The defence estate in Hong Kong is the property of the Hong Kong Government. Under long-standing arrangements, whenever defence land is required for redevelopment, for economic or social purposes, the Hong Kong Government reprovide defence facilities, as required, at other suitable locations. The naval basin and related facilities at HMS Tamar lie in an area required by the Hong Kong Government for a major new development. No decision has been taken on the future of 180
  the Prince of Wales building (headquarters British forces Hong Kong), which is unaffected by the reprovision of the Royal Navy's facilities at Stonecutter's island.

  Vanguard Submarine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out into the power-to-weight ratio of the Vanguard class submarine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The power-to-weight ratio for the Vanguard class was calculated in the course of deciding on the submarine's design. Adequate power will be generated to satisfy the operation requirement.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the joint tactical information distribution system will be fitted to aircraft of the Royal Air Force, and to which aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The AEW Sentry E3D will enter RAF service in the early 1990s fitted with JTIDS class 2. On current plans the Tornado ADV will have JTIDS fitted shortly after. Consideration is also being given to fitting JTIDS to tanker aircraft in the mid-1990s. A reduced size version of JTIDS is specified for the European lighter aircraft.

  Field Howitzer
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to order the evaluation on behalf of his Department of the 155 mm ultra lightweight field howitzer.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training and material resources have been provided to Cambodian resistance groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 30 October 1989.

  Tanks
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's plans to coordinate the development of the next generation of tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  NATO nations generally consider opportunities for collaboration in the development of equipment, and are doing so in relation to elements of armoured fighting vehicle technology. There is at present no project aimed at the development of a complete tank.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  EC Education and Training Policy (Seminar)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representation there was from his Department at the seminar on the education and training policy of the European Commission held at the university of Manchester and Wales on 14 October.

  Mr. Jackson
  None.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will initiate a national child abuse education campaign to explain the problem of child abuse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department last year issued a circular entitled "Working Together for The Protection of Children From Abuse: Procedures Within The Education Service", which was designed to help local education authorities and others to increase the effectiveness of their efforts to prevent and deal with child abuse.

  The circular discussed the potential contribution of the curriculum in this matter and invited local education authorities and schools to consider carefully the extent to which teaching should be directly concerned with warning children of the risks of child abuse. The circular also invited local education authorities to consider the extent to which, within their responsibilities for adult, further and higher education, there was scope for personal and social education about the prevention of child abuse.

  The Department has recently asked local education authorities to report on the action they have taken to give effect to the recommendations of the circular.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up a programme to train teachers to recognise the signs of child abuse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department is currently providing grant of some £70,000 towards the costs of a programme to help local education authorities to train teachers in the protection of children from abuse.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Civil Catastrophes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the preparedness of United Kingdom emergency services to deal with major civil catastrophes.

  Mr. John Patten
  As my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary said on 15 June at columns 514–15, the emergency services provide an excellent response to such incidents, and recent events have confirmed that.

  Risk Conference (Bradford University)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution was made by Ministers or officials of his Department to the conference on risk held at the university of Bradford on 12 September.

  Mr. John Patten
  The conference was attended by two officials from the emergency planning division and the 182
  principal of the Emergency Planning College. A presentation was given on the outcome of the Home Office review of peacetime emergency arrangements.

  "Making Rehabilitation Work"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to respond to the recent Apex Trust report, "Making Rehabilitation Work:" and if he will make a statement regarding implementation of its proposals in future legislation.

  Mr. John Patten
  We wrote to the Apex Trust on 22 August. I will put a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Dispersal Prisons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the latest available figures from the staff-inmate ratios in dispersal prisons during the time that inmates are unlocked.

  Mr. Mellor
  The seven dispersal prisons vary considerably in size, design, function and population. Comparisons between staff/inmate ratios need therefore to be made with some care. As at 1 September 1989 the position was as follows:

  Prison

  Prisoners

  Officers in post

  Prisoners per officer

  Typical number of prisoners per officer at time of unlocking

  Albany

  375

  317

  1·2

  3·0

  Frankland

  388

  396

  1·0

  2·4

  Full Sutton

  386

  381

  1·0

  2·5

  Gartree

  316

  290

  1·1

  2·7

  Long Lartin

  425

  337

  1·3

  3·1

  Parkhurst

  224

  338

  0·7

  1·7

  Wakefield

  689

  429

  1·6

  4·0

  Broadcasting (Children's Programmes)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation for a franchise section to provide for children's programmes;

  (2) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation for the protection of hours during which children's programmes traditionally are shown;

  (3) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation for children's television programmes to continue being provided as a public service, and not subject to subscription;

  (4) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation for the setting up of an independent panel to ensure quality children's programmes;

  (5) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation for the distribution of money through a public service broadcasting council, to the BBC and earmarked for children's programmes;

  (6) if he will make provision in the broadcasting legislation to permit the Independent Television Commission to arrange a minimum level of funding for children's programmes on channels 3 and 5.

  Mr. Mellor
  There is no express requirement in current broadcasting legislation to show children's programmes. Under our proposals for new legislation Channel 3 and Channel 5 will be required, among other things, to cater
  183
  for a wide range of tastes and interests, and Channel 4 will be required to include programmes appealing to tastes and interests not generally catered for by Channel 3. As new television channels proliferate it becomes generally less desirable for legislation to impose detailed requirements for particular programme types to be included in schedules at particular times or made subject to special funding or licensing mechanisms. But our proposals will suffice to ensure that children's programmes continue to be shown on both the BBC and on independent terrestrial television; and that the possible outlets for children's programmes will increase.

  Deportation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons from Liverpool have accepted voluntary repatriation at the latest available date;

  (2) how many persons have accepted voluntary repatriation at the latest date; and what was the total cost;

  (3) if he will list the number of deportations from Liverpool for each of the last three years to the latest available date;

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process in the years 1986 to 1988, including those who accepted supervised departure, and those on whom a deportation order was enforced, is published in table 14 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 31/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Second Quarter 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. Separate information on the removal of persons from Liverpool, and on the total cost of supervised departures, is not available.

  Wrongful Imprisonment (Compensation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, dates and amounts paid to persons who have been wrongfully imprisoned and the method of calculating compensation for each year since 1970.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not our practice to publish details of individual payments to applicants for compensation. The assessment of the amount paid is based in the main on written submissions setting out the relevant facts. In making his assessment, the independent assessor will apply principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what applications for compensation in respect of unlawful conviction of Paul Hill, Carole Richardson, Gerard Conlon and Patrick Armstrong he has received; how they will be assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Applications for compensation have been received in respect of Paul Hill, Carole Richardson, Gerard Conlon and Patrick Armstrong. As I informed the hon. Gentleman in my written reply on Monday 30 October, on the advice of the independent assessor my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed that interim awards of compensation should be made to all four pending a final settlement of their claims, for which purpose further information has been sought.184
  Arrangements are in hand for the early payment of the interim awards, and my right hon. and learned Friend will accept the assessor's recommendation as to the final amount to be paid in due course.

  West Midlands Police (Investigation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report on investigations into the west midlands serious crime squad currently being conducted by Mr. Donald Shaw.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the reports on these investigations will be made to the Police Complaints Authority and the chief constable of the West Midlands police. I understand that reports on individual cases will be submitted as they are completed and it will be some time before all cases have been examined.

  The chief constable of the West Midlands police has been asked to inform my right hon. and learned Friend if anything emerges which casts doubt on the safety of any conviction.

  Pub Bombings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police since 1 January; and on how many occasions the convictions for the Guildford and Woolwich public house bombings were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) had three meetings with the commissioner this year. The subject of the convictions for the Guildford and Woolwich public house bombings arose at one of those meetings.

  Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the UNHCR concerning the right of appeal for asylum seekers under United Kingdom law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In a variety of contacts over a number of years UNHCR officers have made clear their preference for an in-country right of appeal for all asylum applicants. The Government have responded by explaining the risk that we see of encouraging abusive asylum applications from passengers who have been refused leave to enter for other purposes in order to benefit from the delays inherent in an extended appeal system. The experience of those countries that operate such appeal systems is that the delays in deciding cases typically run into several years. Despite this difference of view, both sides have worked together in establishing and operating the UKIAS referral arrangements, which successfully provide an independent input to the consideration of port cases.

  Downing Street (Barricade)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority members of the public are prevented from walking along Downing street.
  185
  Mr. Waddington
  Access to Downing street is controlled under the police's common law powers which allow them to take reasonable steps to preserve the peace and prevent threats to it.

  Bingo
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to amend section 42 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to allow bingo organisers to advertise specific games of bingo at pre-arranged times and places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The advertising of licensed bingo clubs is controlled by section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968. We have no current plan for Government legislation to amend the section, but we are considering arguments put forward by the Bingo Association of Great Britain for supporting a private Member's Bill entirely to remove bingo clubs from these advertising controls. Bingo clubs can, and do, advertise freely as social clubs; specific games of bingo, and certain prizes in them, can already be advertised on the front of licensed bingo club premises.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to increase staffing levels at Wormwood Scrubs unit for sex offenders, and to improve training for staff.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: Wormwood Scrubs therapeutic unit for addicts and sex offenders is carrying vacancies at senior and principal hospital officer level; action is being taken in connection with current promotion boards to fill them. In-house training is provided by the establishment's medical staff, who are considering what further steps can be taken, and by visiting consultants; a senior hospital officer was released last month for a one year course in group psychotherapy and the possibility of further external training will be reviewed as vacancies are filled.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Leasehold Flats
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor has yet received the draft Bill to reform the leasehold system of ownership of flats, which he indicated on 13 June that he was expecting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Work is continuing at the Law Commission with the preparation of draft legislation to give effect to the recommendations made in the report of the working group on commonhold. The Lord Chancellor hopes to announce a decision about the matter in the next few months.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects his Department is presently sponsoring to use British forestry expertise in pursuit of conserving the rain forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under our bilateral country programmes we are currently supporting 64 forestry projects in 27 countries; in addition we are funding 23 forestry research projects. We are also co-financing 38 projects under our joint funding scheme with British NGOs. I am sending a list of these projects to my hon. Friend.

  International Literacy Year
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to contribute to International Literacy Year; and whether additional public funds will be available to assist projects undertaken by non-government organisations in support of International Literacy Year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our contribution to International Literacy Year will be as part of our on-going programme of literacy activities within wider programmes of help for people and their communities. Examples are support for the Gujarat integrated family welfare project, the Hyderabad slum improvement project and the Ghana programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment. We shall also consider carefully any further projects in the literacy field overseas which non government organisations might wish to send us under the joint funding programme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Nursing Home Care)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the £3,000 savings limit which debars pensioners from having the costs of their long-term nursing home care met by his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pensioners with savings of over £3,000 can receive income support and, therefore, help with nursing home fees. However, an income of £1 a week is assumed for every £250, or part of £250, of any savings between £3,000 and £6,000. No income support is payable to people with more than £6,000. There are no plans, at present, to raise these capital limits.

  Archway Tower Local Office
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date he expects the Department of Social Security offices in Archway tower to close; how many staff will be transferred; and what will be the location, staffing levels and opening date of the new offices for Finsbury Park and Highgate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The restructuring of social security services in the Department's offices in Archway tower is due to start in August 1990 and should be completed by March 1991. During this period there will be a phased transfer of backroom work to the social security
  187
  centre in Glasgow and of administrative and specialised services to the district office to be located in Euston. Branch offices providing the full range of social security services to public callers will be established within Archway tower. At present we have no firm dates for the movement of these offices.

  A study is currently under way to find a better location for each branch office in order that it can meet our objective of placing service where our customers need it. Accommodation will then be sought within the required areas and plans developed to vacate the premises in Archway tower. In the meanwhile both offices will continue to provide a full personal service from their existing location.

  Staffing levels in the existing offices in Archway tower will start to reduce from August 1990 when the first tranche of back room and specialised work is transferred to the Glasgow social security centre and Euston district office. Rundown of surplus staff will be achieved by a combination of natural wastage and transfers to nearby offices or other Government Departments. Precise details of the numbers to be transferred will not become clear until nearer the date for relocation of the work.

  The number of staff required to support the remaining business at each branch office is estimated to be between 12 and 15 per office. These figures will, however, be subject to continuing review and adjustment in the light of departmental experience of existing offices whose backroom work has earlier been relocated.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to study ways of encouraging single mothers to return to work rather than depend on income support and other benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to help and encourage lone parents who want to become more independent through work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The number of lone parent families dependent on supplementary benefit income support has grown from 318,000 in 1979 to 722,000 in 19881 and approximately two-thirds of all lone parent families are dependent on income support.

  Legislation places a duty on absent husbands and fathers to meet their responsibilities wherever they can afford to. However, for over three quarters of the lone parent families receiving income support the absent parent pays no maintenance at all. We shall continue to look for ways to make our efforts to obtain a contribution even more effective. Regular payments of maintenance can provide a useful basis of non-benefit income for lone parents who wish to work.

  Lone parents are able to receive income support without having to be available for work, and it is right that they should be able to decide for themselves what is best for them and their children. However, where the lone parent does wish to work the family credit and housing benefit schemes give special help which recognises that lone parents can face extra expenses in working.

  In addition, as announced in my right hon. Friend's statement about the uprating of Social Security Benefits,
  188
  on 25 October, lone parents in work will receive extra help from next year. In housing benefit, the lone parent premium will increase from £8·60 a week to £9·70 from April 1990 and the earnings disregard will increase from £15 to £25 a week from October 1990.

  In addition, lone parent families in work will benefit like other families on low incomes from increases my right hon. Friend has announced of £1 a week in the family credit adult credit and 50 pence a week housing benefit family premium which are in addition to the normal uprating of these benefits.

  1 Sources:

  1979 Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  1988 Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  Note: The figures on the numbers of lone parents do not include prisoners' partners.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his national policy for the future management, operation and ownership of the non-emergency ambulance services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities will remain responsible for the operational management of ambulance services and they are currently considering how best to provide non-emergency ambulance services in the light of the review proposals and local circumstances.

  North-East Thames RHA
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will alter the composition of North-East Thames regional health authority to give due representation to Waltham Forest.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No; RHA members are appointed for their personal qualities and experience, and not to represent any particular or geographical interest.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the representation of residents of each district health authority area on the North-East Thames regional health authority, showing political affiliation where known.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  RHA members are appointed for their personal qualities and experience and not to represent the residents of a particular geographical area.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct Waltham Forest district health authority to increase the provision of essential life-saving emergency equipment at Whipps Cross hospital; if he will provide additional funding to the hospital for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of provision of health care services within a particular area is a matter for the health authority concerned, who are best able to judge the priorities for provision of services and equipment in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Insulin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have been reported of young diabetics who have switched from animal to human insulin; and
  189
  what study the Committee on Safety of Medicines has made of the effects of treatment by synthetic human insulin for diabetics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has received three reports of deaths of young diabetics who have switched from animal to human insulin. Such reports do not establish a relationship between cause of death and change of insulin type. The CSM considered a range of studies in relation to human insulin before product licences were granted and since this time has monitored published studies worldwide. Currently the CSM is working closely with the British Diabetic Association and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the United Kingdom and epidemiological centres in the USA to monitor the possible effects of changing from animal to human insulin and of improving diabetic control in patients under treatment with all types of insulin.

  The CSM has advised all diabetics not to make any change in the type of insulin they use, or the dose they take, without consulting their doctor.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is an adequate supply of animal insulin for the treatment of diabetics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are four suppliers of animal insulin for the treatment of diabetes in the United Kingdom. Each has given an assurance that there are adequate supplies available.

  AIDS
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the guidance and criteria for support grant for social services for people with AIDS and related expenditure will be forthcoming; and if he will make a statement.

  Abortions to non-British Isles residents by country of origin and gestation period for 1988

  Gestation weeks

  Country

  Total1

  Under 9

  9–12

  13–17

  18+

  unknown

  Other European

  7,357

  1,084

  1,366

  2,263

  2,644

  —

  Austria

  54

  4

  1

  13

  36

  —

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  33

  3

  5

  1

  24

  —

  France

  3,047

  45

  126

  1,335

  1,541

  —

  Gibraltar

  32

  14

  12

  4

  2

  —

  Italy

  631

  26

  32

  257

  316

  —

  Malta

  45

  19

  20

  2

  4

  —

  Portugal

  51

  17

  8

  12

  14

  —

  Spain

  3,188

  900

  1,107

  601

  580

  —

  Switzerland

  68

  9

  11

  14

  34

  —

  German Federal Republic

  140

  24

  31

  14

  71

  —

  Rest of world

  1,011

  371

  342

  172

  126

  —

  Algeria

  78

  11

  5

  22

  40

  —

  Australia

  40

  16

  17

  7

  —

  —

  Republic of South Africa

  400

  112

  156

  90

  42

  —

  United States of America

  66

  33

  24

  4

  5

  —

  Zimbabwe

  49

  14

  21

  8

  6

  —

  1 Only countries where the number of terminations exceeds 24 are included.

  The upper limits and circumstances in which abortions may lawfully take place vary widely from country to country but do not affect the availability in individual cases of abortions in this country to foreign women.

  Information about the sums paid to private clinics by non resident women is not collected centrally.
  190
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We will outline the criteria following consultation with the local authority associations later this year.

  Handicapped Children
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children up to 18 years of age are(a) mentally handicapped, (b) physically handicapped and (c) both, by health region and by severity of disability.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally. The third report from the OPCS on disability in Great Britain, "The Prevalence of Disability Among Children" contains estimates of the number of mentally and/or physically handicapped children under 16 years of age in each local government region of England, but these regions are not regional health authority areas. A copy of this report is in the Library.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were carried out on overseas women in the last 12 months; at how many weeks gestation they were undertaken; if he will list their countries of origin; what information he has on the allowable upper time limit for abortions in their countries of origin; how much was paid to private clinics in fees to carry out these abortions; how many were after 18 weeks gestation; and whether his Department requires an anaesthetic or pain killer to be administered to the unborn child before a late abortion takes place.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information regarding the numbers of abortions performed in England and Wales to overseas women, with a breakdown by gestation, is shown in the table.

  Decisions as to the drugs and anaesthesia to be given to a woman undergoing an abortion are entirely a matter for the clinical judgement of the doctor responsible for her care.

  Haemophiliacs
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what further consideration he has given to the settlement of compensation claims by haemophiliacs infected by the HIV virus through National Health Service blood transfusions: and what plans he has for an early out-of-court settlement with these victims;

  (2) what further representations he has received regarding financial compensation for haemophiliacs infected by the HIV virus through National Health Service blood transfusions.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study he has undertaken of compensation arrangements made by other Governments for people with haemophilia who, in the course of medical treatment, have been infected with HIV virus; and if he will now facilitate an out-of-court settlement of the claims of the British victims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received 30 further representations from members about compensation for people with haemophilia and HIV infection since my hon. and learned Friend replied to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 23 October at column 318. We understand that a variety of schemes have been adopted in other countries, although some have made no special arrangements.

  I am advised that the current legal action relating to haemophiliacs is sub-judice and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will respond to the sixth report, 1988–89, of the Social Services Committee on food poisoning, listeria and listeriosis.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have today published their response to this report. Copies have been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  King's Cross Fire
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total expenditure incurred by London Regional Transport and London Underground Limited arising from the King's Cross Underground fire.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport estimated last year that £266 million needed to be spent between 1989–90 and 1991–92 on proposals to enhance underground safety following the King's Cross fire. It is expected that about £80 million of this will be incurred in 1989–90.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether at the Council of European Transport Ministers on 16 October in Luxembourg he introduced any policies to promote the reduction in road traffic use in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
  192
  Mr. Atkins
  It is not the Government's policy to seek to influence overall levels of road traffic, but to secure efficient use of vehicles and highways. At the Council on 16 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pressed for action to liberalise road haulage cabotage across the European Community. The effect of allowing non-resident companies to offer road haulage services within a member state would be to reduce the number of lorries which return home empty.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions are made of the value of public open space needed for road schemes in cost-benefit analysis.

  Mr. Atkins
  Public open space taken for road schemes, like all land acquired for road schemes, is valued in the cost-benefit analysis on the basis of market prices as assessed by the district valuer, who is independent of the Department. Cost-benefit analysis is only one part of the total appraisal procedure for road schemes. Decisions are taken in the light of a comprehensive assessment which includes environmental effects, such as the effect on amenity and nature and environmental conservation. Under the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 if open space or common land is taken for a road scheme, the Department provides equivalent land in exchange or the compulsory purchase order is subject to special parliamentary procedure. The current approach to the valuation of public open space, like all elements in the appraisal of roads, is kept under review.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to the consultants for the London assessment studies with regard to(a) scheme components to be dropped from the studies and (b) scheme components to be added to the studies in advance of the consultants finalising their reports.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the study consultants to determine what components should or should not be included in their recommendations. I am still awaiting their reports.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what value was ascribed to that portion of Oxleas wood needed for the east London river crossing for the purposes of assessing the costs and benefits of the scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on 23 January 1989, at column 387.

  Air Traffic Congestion
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what strategy the Government have for tackling air traffic congestion in Europe.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government and the Civil Aviation Authority have reviewed the provision of air traffic control in Europe. We consider that in addition to initiatives taken in the last year, western European states
  193
  should now work urgently towards the integration of their air traffic control systems. In order to achieve this, states would need to enter into a specific commitment to integrate their system to an agreed timetable and to bring about the necessary changes to the institutional framework.

  We envisage that the integrated system would be operated from a series of area control centres which have compatible systems and equipment and would be connected by a common communications network. Some changes of air space boundaries might be agreed, but we would expect most control centres to continue to be operated by national authorities. The system would function irrespective of state boundaries, which would become transparent to airspace users. Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, would be given an enhanced role in developing a single integration plan and in helping national authorities to expedite its implementation.

  £ thousand

  Increases

  Current

  End year flexibility1

  Revised

  Class and vote

  cash limit

  Capital

  Running costs

  Other

  cash limit

  VIII, 1

  1,282,912

  22,832

  —

  265,000

  1,370,744

  2

  234,213

  2,000

  686

  31,970

  238,869

  4

  128,883

  1,913

  602

  —

  131,398

  5

  218,706

  —

  —

  41

  218,707

  1 Take up in full of entitlements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 July 1989 (Official Report, columns 258–62).

  2 Increases of £25 million towards preparation and supervision of new construction as part of the expanded roads programme described in the Roads for Prosperity White Paper (Cm. 693) and £40 million to meet faster than expected progress in schemes in the current roads programme.

  3 Additional running costs provision to cover work on the expanded roads programme.

  4 Token. Increased payments and recoveries in respect of traffic control systems.

  All these increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit of the Department of Transport has been increased by £3,258,000 from £284,873,000 to £288,131,000 as a consequence of the running costs increases referred to above.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money, and on what projects, has been spent by his Department on road schemes in Greater

  Expenditure on major DTP schemes in London—construction costs only

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  A12 Gallows Corner/Brentwood

  0·6

  —

  —

  —

  A406 South Woodford/Barking Relief Road

  32·8

  21·8

  5·4

  0·6

  A20 Sidcup Bypass Improvement

  14·2

  9·2

  3·8

  1·1

  A2 Rochesterway Road Junction

  7·3

  13·0

  2·7

  2·3

  A406 Great Cambridge Relief Road

  0·8

  5·7

  7·0

  8·4

  A406 Hangar Lane/Harrow Road

  —

  0·2

  1·6

  18·8

  A406 Chingford Road/Hale End Road

  —

  3·9

  1·5

  25·2

  A40 Swakeleys Road Junction

  —

  —

  4·7

  6·7

  A23 Waddon Marsh Bridge

  —

  —

  0·4

  0·4

  A40 Long Lane Junction

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  Hackney Wick/M11Link

  —

  —

  —

  1·9

  East London Traffic Control System

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  Final Accounts for earlier schemes

  0·6

  0·6

  0·1

  0·5

  Total

  56·3

  54·4

  27·2

  67·0

  194
  In response to a United Kingdom proposal, the European Civil Aviation conference recently established a task force to examine the scope for further integration of air traffic control systems in Europe. The United Kingdom will be playing a leading part in the work of the task force and we will be putting forward proposals at the first meeting of the task force on 3 November. The task force's report will be considered at a meeting of European Transport Ministers in the spring of 1990 at which I hope the Governments of western Europe will agree a timetable for the necessary technical and institutional changes.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits on his votes and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for my votes are to be changed as follows:

  London for each year since 1975 to date; and what is proposed to be spent, and on what projects, for the remainder of this year and each year until 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of construction costs for individual projects costing over £1 million each in progress in the period 1986–87 to 1989–90 are shown in table 1. All 1989–90 figures are estimates.

  Expenditure in future years will be determined by progress on preparation and construction of individual projects and the total funds available for road building.

  The information for earlier years could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  195
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report from Ove-Arup partners on the east London assessment study.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 October to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe),Official Report, column 373.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Meat Imports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the powers to serve notice requiring the re-importation of meat unfit for human consumption under the Imported Food Regulations (NI) 1984 are to be retained after the implementation of the Single European Act in 1992; and if he will make a statement about controls against the importation of unsuitable meat into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Until the EC negotiations are finalised it is not certain what effect the single market proposals for 1992 will have on public health inspection of imported meat, but in those negotiations the United Kingdom are arguing strongly in favour of adequate safeguards on meat from member states. The existing controls under the Imported Food (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984, require that imported meat shall be subject to inspection by authorised officers of district councils, to ensure compliance with the EC certification and health marking conditions.

  ACE Schemes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the operation of the ACE scheme and give the following information: how many people are currently employed on the ACE scheme, how many people currently employed on the ACE scheme are disabled and what this is as a percentage of the total number employed on ACE schemes, how many sponsor organisations within the ACE scheme employ 20 or more staff and which statutory provisions apply to these organisations, what information he has as to how many sponsor organisations within the ACE scheme fulfil their obligations under the 1945 and 1960 Acts to employ a minimum of 3 per cent. registered disabled people, what arrangements are made by the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland to monitor whether organisations in receipt of public money fulfil their legal obligations in respect of employing disabled people and what action is taken by the Department of Economic Development against organisations who are in breach of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) National Insurance Act 1945 and 1960; if he will list any prosecutions undertaken and the outcome in each case; what is his policy regarding promotion of equality of opportunity in obtaining employment under the ACE scheme for disabled people; and whether he has any plans to introduce further measures to ensure that disabled people have equality of opportunity to obtain employment under the ACE scheme.
  196
  Mr. Needham
  The Action for Community Employment (ACE) scheme provides temporary employment for up to one year for the long-term unemployed in work of community benefit. A total of 10,561 people are currently employed on the ACE scheme and 182 or 1·7 per cent. of the total work force have declared themselves to be disabled; 147 sponsors employ 20 or more staff; ACE sponsors are subject to all statutory provisions affecting employers;

  Information about the number of ACE sponsors who meet their obligations under the 1945 and 1960 disabled person's legislation is not available.

  Organisations in receipt of public money, in common with all other employers, are required to obtain a permit from the Department of Economic Development if they do not meet the quota obligations imposed by statutory provision and wish to recruit non-disabled employees. Permits are issued only where the Department is satisfied the employer has made every effort to recruit registered disabled people and has been unsuccessful. Employers with 20 or more employees are required to make an annual return to the Department of Economic Development showing the number of disabled workers in their work force. Visits are paid by the Department's disablement resettlement officers to employers not fulfilling their quota obligations to check on their recruitment practices and to advise on the recruitment of registered disabled people. It has not previously been normal practice for DRO's to monitor recruitment of disabled people into ACE jobs, but this matter is now under review.

  Employers in breach of the statutory provisions are liable to prosecution, but it is generally considered more appropriate to advise employers about any departures from their statutory obligations and provide advice and assistance in helping them to meet their obligations; there have been no prosecutions.

  The Department's policy is that registered disabled people should be given every opportunity to compete on equal terms with their non-disabled colleagues for ACE jobs, and should benefit from the special measures in operation to assist with the employment of this group. Under existing recruitment rules disabled people get preferential treatment in that they need only to have been unemployed for eight out of the previous 15 months before being eligible for the scheme and can obtain a further ACE job 16 months after leaving the scheme, instead of the normal 24 months. In a recent series of conferences with ACE sponsors special attention was drawn to the employment needs of disabled people and sponsors were asked to develop positive policies towards the employment of these people. The Department of Economic Development is currently reviewing measures that may be taken to increase the number of registered disabled people employed in the ACE programme.

  Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from(a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) other European Community countries are in receipt of state-supported education in Northern Ireland; and what is the total cost in Northern Ireland of support.

  Mr. Needham
  The total numbers of students from the Republic of Ireland and other EC countries respectively
  197
  attending Northern Ireland universities, teacher training colleges and further education college in 1988–89 were 1,783 and 110.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the overall cost of support. However, the cost of remitting the tuition fees of eligible students from the Republic of Ireland and other EC countries in 1988–89 (1,256 total student numbers of which four are from EC countries other than the Republic of Ireland) was £702,650 (£700,550 Republic of Ireland and £2,100 other EC countries).

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated total value of grants paid to students in Northern Ireland in the academic year 1989–90.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of £53,949,000.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of grants paid to Northern Ireland students in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Financial year

  £000s

  1986–87

  41,720

  1987–88

  44,912

  1988–89

  48,606

  Belfast Urban Area Plan
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an approximate date for the publication of the Belfast urban area plan.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 17 October 1989 at column 69.

  Education
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many secondary schools in Northern Ireland fall into a particular group category for promotional allowance values and are paid(a) at the lower allowance and (b) at the higher allowance.

  Mr. Needham
  One secondary school has a promotion allowance value which is lower than that appropriate to its group and six secondary schools have promotion allowance values which are higher than that appropriate to their groups.

  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those schools in Northern Ireland which fall into group 12 category for promotional allowance values for secondary schools and are treated accordingly.

  Mr. Needham
  Following is the information:

  Ballyclare High School

  Ballymena Academy

  Coleraine Academical Institution

  Grosvenor High School, Belfast

  Rathmore Grammar School, Belfast

  Sullivan Upper School, Holywood

  St. Mary's Christian Brothers Grammar School, Belfast

  St. Patrick's College, Maghera

  Thornhill College, Londonderry

  Wallace High School, Lisburn

  198
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those schools in Northern Ireland which fall into category group 12 for promotional allowance values for secondary schools and are paid group 11 allowances.

  Mr. Needham
  One group 12 school—Portadown college—has had a promotion allowance value appropriate to a group 11 school determined for it by the Department of Education for the 1989–90 school year.

  Arts
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the projects in Northern Ireland which have benefited from his Department's support for the arts in the last three years for which figures are available, and the sums granted in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners were registered at 31 December 1987 and 1988 to provide a National Health Service family planning service to their patients in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The total numbers providing such services were 876 and 904 respectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stationery
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the date of the expiry of the current contract to supply the House with stationery; when he intends to invite tenders for any subsequent contract; and whether it will be open to any company located in the United Kingdom to tender for that contract.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The HMSO is responsible for supplies of stationery to the House of Commons (Estimate Class XIX Vote 6). A contract for the supply of die-stamped stationery was awarded in May 1989 following competitive tendering. This is due to run for three years.

  Invitations to tender for a replacement contract will be issued in late 1991, following advertising in the Official Journal of the European Communities, to all suppliers on HMSO's tender list, together with any acceptable firms who may respond to the notice in the Official Journal. Interested suppliers may request inclusion on HMSO's tender list at any time.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much paper used by the House of Commons is(a) recycled and (b) virgin; and what are the comparative costs.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of 4 April 1989, column 69.
  199
  Papers used in the production of buff envelopes and file covers for HMSO are traditionally made from recycled papers and therefore a comparison with virgin papers is not possible. For general purpose printing papers the price of recycled qualities is similar to that for virgin papers. For higher quality writing papers savings of up to 10 per cent. may be obtainable.

  Refreshment Department (Packaging)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the policy of the Refreshment Department on the use of chlorofluorocarbons containing packaging material, non-bio-degradable wrapping and recycled paper.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Refreshment Department's policy with regard to the use of environmentally friendly products and recycled paper is in line with that of the House. The Department is not responsible for the manufacture of the wrapping and packaging materials it receives but does have plans to use biodegradable carrier bags when current stocks are exhausted.

PRIME MINISTER

  Whisky Look-alikes
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, she raised the subject of the appropriate steps to resolve the issue of whisky look-alike products.

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to Japan I told the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kaifu, of the concern in the United Kingdom about the sale of whisky look-alikes in Japan. Mr. Kaifu responded helpfully, saying that action would be taken to ensure that such products were clearly perceived as being different from genuine whisky. I understand that the Japanese authorities have given guidance to the trade to this effect. Our embassy in Tokyo continues to monitor the market situation closely.

  Advisers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her advisers, their terms and length of appointment and salaries.

  The Prime Minister
  My current advisers, who are not career civil servants, are:

  G. D. Bourne

  Sir Percy Cradock

  A. Dunlop

  Professor B. Griffiths

  G. Guise

  H. Harris-Hughes

  Mrs. A. Ponsonby

  I. K. Whitehead

  The conditions of service are broadly the same as those for established civil servants. The appointments may be terminated at the end of the current Administration; following a general election; or if the Minister who appointed them moves on. It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what are her plans regarding appointing a successor to Professor Walters as her economic adviser; and if she will make a statement.
  200
  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many advisers who were not career civil servants, indicating whether part time or full time, she had in 1979–80; and how many in each year since.

  The Prime Minister
  I have had the following number of advisers in the policy unit since 1979:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1979

  2

  —

  1980

  2

  —

  1981

  2

  —

  1982

  4

  —

  1983

  11

  —

  1984

  11

  —

  1985

  8

  —

  1986

  7

  —

  1987

  4

  —

  1988

  6

  —

  1989

  6

  —

  In addition Sir Percy Cradock has been my foreign affairs adviser since 1984. Professor Alan Walters was my economic adviser from 1981 until 1983 on a full-time basis and this year on a part-time basis. I have also had a personal assistant full-time from 1979 until 1986 and part-time since then.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all her current advisers who are not career civil servants, giving their date of appointment and fees.

  The Prime Minister
  My current advisers in the policy unit are:

  Appointed

  Professor B. Griffiths

  1985

  G. Guise

  1986

  G. D. Bourne

  1988

  A. Dunlop

  1988

  I. K. Whitehead

  1988

  H. Harris-Hughes

  1989

  In addition Sir Percy Cradock has been my foreign affairs adviser since 1984. Mrs. A. Ponsonby has been my personal assistant since February.

  It is not the Government's practice to reveal the salaries of advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the Prime Minister's advisers who were not career civil servants in 1979–80 and each succeeding year.

  The Prime Minister
  The total expenditure on the salaries of my advisers since 1981 is as follows (the figures for earlier years are no longer available).

  Year

  £

  1981

  35,762·50

  1982

  75,569·25

  1983

  1167,126·97

  1984

  145,022·52

  1985

  188,654·82

  1986

  210,746·87

  1987

  239,459·46

  1988

  215,379·85

  21989

  141,142·00

  201
  1In 1983 the CPRS was abolished and a few members became ministerial advisers.

  2 To date.

  Commonwealth Conference
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers and Government officials, respectively, accompanied her at the Commonwealth conference in Malaysia.

  The Prime Minister
  I was accompanied at the Commonwealth conference in Malaysia by the Foreign Secretary and his party, three officials from my office and 24 support staff (including secretaries, a duty clerk and security personnel).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of her visit to Malaysia for the Commonwealth conference.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on the cost of this visit is not yet available.

  Prime Minister's Office
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's Office in 1988–89; and what is the estimated cost for 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of my Office in 1988–89 was £6,553,712 (1). The latest estimate of the total cost for 1989–90 is £7,003,500 (1).Note: (1) Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is excluded, as are my pay and allowances as a member of this House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of staff in the Prime Minister's Office in 1988–89; and what is the estimated total for 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  The total number of staff in 10 Downing street during 1988–89 was 67. At present the number of staff is 68.

  Japan (Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any Conservative party official accompanied her on her recent trip to Japan.

  The Prime Minister
  Four Conservative officials accompanied me to Japan for the International Democratic Union conference.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much per copy it cost to produce the report of the British Council for the reporting years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British Council annual report and accounts for 1986–87 cost £1·96 per copy and the report had 64 pages. In 1987–88 the cost per copy was £2·23 and there were 36 pages. In 1988–89 the cost per copy was £3·41 and there were 72 pages.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send observers to the forthcoming elections in Chile.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no plans to send any official British Government observers to the forthcoming elections in Chile.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken at the Antarctic meeting in Paris to protect the Antarctic environment; what was the outcome of debate on the Franco-Australian proposals; what steps were taken by the British delegation to protect the Antarctic environment; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In line with our view that all possible concrete and practical steps should be taken to protect the Antarctic environment, building on the measures already adopted under the Antarctic treaty, including the Antarctic minerals convention, the meeting adopted an unprecedented number and range of environmental recommendations. These dealt with waste disposal; the prevention and control of, and response to marine pollution; environmental monitoring; improved descriptions and management plans for specially protected areas (SPAs); the amendment of article VIII of the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora to provide for management plans for SPAs; new sites of special scientific interest, the establishment of specially reserved areas, the establishment of multiple-use planning areas. The concentration of the siting of stations, the use of Antarctic ice, the role of Antarctica in understanding and monitoring global change, including the ozone layer, the charting of Antarctic waters, and co-operation to improve scientific productivity in Antarctica. Of the 14 recommendations covered in this list, 12 resulted from the initiatives of, and close collaboration between, the United States and the United Kingdom delegations.

  The meeting also considered the Franco-Australian proposals, as well as other proposals submitted by the Chilean, New Zealand, Swedish, United Kingdom and United States delegations, relating to comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment. While none of those proposals was endorsed by the meeting, it was agreed that meetings should be held next year:

  (i) to explore and discuss all proposals relating to the further elaboration, maintenance and effective implementation of a comprehensive system for the protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems, aimed at ensuring that human activity does not have adverse environmental impacts or compromise the scientific, aesthetic or wilderness values of Antarctica; and

  (ii) to explore and discuss all proposals relating to article 8(7) of the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, relating to the issue of liability.

  The venue or venues of these two meetings, and their timing, are to be decided through diplomatic channels.

  We are very satisfied with the results of this meeting which carry forward protection of the Antarctic environment. At next year's meetings our representatives will continue to support the process of further strengthening the system for protecting the Antarctic

  203
  environment. The outcome of the Paris meeting reinforced our view that the early entry into force of the minerals convention, with its strict environmental standards and procedures, remains an important objective as a necessary element in the overall system for protection of the Antarctic environment.

  I will deposit a copy of the report of the meeting in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he will now take to comply with the Antarctic treaty convention in respect of(a) the removal of rubbish and sewage from British bases, (b) the preservation of fish stocks and (c) the proposed environmental convention due to be held in Santiago in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) today about the XVth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting held earlier this month in Paris, which covers part (c) of his question. In answer to parts (a) and (b)

  (a) the British Antarctic survey is taking steps to ensure that it will be able to comply with the mandatory code for waste disposal in the Antarctic, adopted at Paris, when it enters into force; and

  (b) the preservation of fish stocks is a matter for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources meeting in Hobart from 6–17 November, and was not dealt with at Paris.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign Affairs Council meets on 6 November and again on 27–28 November. At the earlier meeting the Council will discuss progress in the Lomé renegotiation in the light of the outcome of the ACP/EC ministerial negotiating meeting in Luxembourg on 27–29 October. There will be a further ACP/EC ministerial negotiating meeting on the Lomé renegotiation towards the end of November in Brussels but dates have yet to be confirmed. A meeting of the EC/Egypt Co-operation Council will be held on 6 November in the margins of the FAC. Also on 6 November the FAC will consider proposals for further assistance to Poland and Hungary. The Council will discuss follow up to the Audio-Visual Conference which took place in Paris from 30 September to 2 October. The Council will consider the adoption of the Commission's proposals to renew generalised tariff preferences in 1990, to include Poland and Hungary in decisions for 1990 GSP schemes, subject to the Ministers' agreement to their inclusion in the GSP. The Council is also expected to discuss economic and monetary co-operation, and free movement of people. The FAC may also take stock of recent developments in its trade relations with third countries.

  A further meeting of the FAC will be held on 27–28 November, when it will discuss preparations for the Strasbourg European Council and the future of the Communities relations with eastern Europe; a meeting of the EC/Yugoslavia Co-operation Council will take place in the margins of FAC. The Council may also discuss the Commission's draft negotiation mandate for second stage
  204
  EC/GCC agreement. The Council is expected to discuss preparation for the 19 December EC/EFTA ministerial meeting. The ministerial meeting will review progress in recent discussions between the Commission and EFTA on closer economic co-operation. The Council will discuss the present state of play and prospects for the current round of multilateral trade negotiations taking place in Geneva under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Japanese cars and EC/US relations may also be considered.

  The Telecommunications Council meets on 7 November when the Presidency is hoping to reach a common position on the ONP directive, the pan-European paging directive and recommendation and high definition television. Discussion is likely on liberalisation of telecom services, ONP directive and recommendation on pan-European radio paging, common action on HDTV in CCIR, external aspects of telecoms policy, use of ECU in European telecoms accounting, new R & D in broad band telecoms and postal Europe.

  The Consumers Council on 9 November is expected to consider some key questions arising from the draft directive. The Presidency will seek member states' views in an orientation debate on the future of this proposal. Proposals for future representation of consumers at Community level (an oral communication from the Commission) will be presented orally. This may take the form of an informal lunch meeting. A draft Council resolution outlining future priorities will be considered and the Commission may also give an oral presentation of its three year future programme. The European home and leisure accident surveillance system (EH LASS) is also likely to be discussed at the Consumer Council on 9 November.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 13 November to discuss stage 1 of Economic and Monetary Union including the revised decisions on economic convergence and co-operation between the central banks of the member states. There will also be a discussion on the longer term, which will consider the report of the high level group and the Chancellor's paper on an alternative approach to that in the Delors report. The discussion of taxation of savings will focus on measures to combat tax evasion. ECOFIN is expected to discuss a further report on indirect taxation on rates and technical systems for both VAT and excise duties and on budgetary consequences. There will also be a discussion on, and the probable adoption of a draft directive co-ordinating regulations on insider dealing across the Community, thereby establishing standards and providing for collaboration in the exchange of relevant information.

  The Health Council is scheduled to meet on 13 November. The agenda will include the tobacco labelling directive, which requires member states to introduce legislation to ensure that standardised health warnings are printed on packets of tobacco products: the tobacco tar yields directive, which sets a maximum limit of 15 mg of tar per cigarette by 1992 and 12 mg tar/cigarette by 1995; tobacco advertising directive, which concerns advertising of tobacco products in the press and by means of bills and posters. The directive places restrictions on the content of advertisements, and requires them to include health warnings. Also to be considered are the 2nd action against cancer programme 1990 to 1994. This continues and expands work carried out under the first cancer programme with the aim of reducing projected cancer

  205
  mortality by 15 per cent. by the year 2000 through prevention campaigns, information, training and research. A solemn declaration on AIDS policy and conclusions on measures for the prevention of addiction and the care of drug addicts are expected. The Health Council will discuss a Presidency note urging meetings on a regular basis to discuss the problem of the movement of health professionals around the Community in view of the overall surplus of trained doctors and the shortage of nurses, and oral conclusions urging acceleration of work on European self-sufficiency in blood and blood products. The mutual recognition of pharmaceutical products will be discussed, in particular a note from the Presidency and possibly written conclusions on the current situation and problems and conclusions asking the Commission to report on developments so far and to make recommendations for future action to encourage the use of the European emergency health card. The question of a standard European number for calling emergency services will also be discussed.

  The Industry Council meets on 14 November. The textiles sub-group will be looking at the effects of the Uruguay round, the setting up of a monitoring body or observatory to improve statistics on the sector and possibly an exercise to improve the transparency of state aids to this sector. The Council will discuss how the Community should respond to United States proposals to eliminate all state aid to shipbuilding by the end of 1991. Cars and HDTV are also likely to be discussed.

  The Budget Council will meet on 14 November to consider the second reading of the 1990 draft budget and the amending letters.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 20 and 21 November to discuss the reform of the agricultural structures regulations and the cereals co-responsibility levy. It may also discuss milk quotas, veterinary checks, bovine somatotropin, and pigmeat.

  The Development Council will meet on 21 November. The Council will adopt conclusions arising from an evaluation of Community aid to Asia and Latin America, the period 1976 to 1988, and will consider annual guidelines for the Community's aid programme to Asia and Latin America for 1990. The Council is expected to adopt a resolution on priorities and the future direction of the Community's food aid programme, and will adopt conclusions based on a Commission paper on the implementation of the Community's aid control programme. The Council will adopt conclusions on desertification based on a Commission paper on action taken in this field since 1986, and will have a free-ranging discussion on other environmental issues, specifically the management and conservation of tropical forests. The council will also review progress on the current renegotiation of the Lomé convention.

  The Internal Market Council on 23 November will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 27 November to discuss prices, inspection and surveillance, processing and marketing of fisheries products and possibly EC/ Greenland and EC/USSR relations and 1990 TACS and quotas.

  The Environment Council is scheduled to meet on 28 November. The Presidency is hoping for a political agreement on the terms of reference for a European
  206
  environment agency to co-ordinate and analyse environmental information from existing national and regional networks for Commission and member states' use. There is likely to be a detailed discussion of the proposal concerning the protection of habitats and of wild fauna and flora and an attempt to resolve some of the outstanding difficulties. Early exchanges of views are expected on the proposal to protect waters from nitrate pollution and on the proposal to guarantee the public freedom of access to data on the environment.

  The Social Affairs Council is due to meet on 30 November, when Ministers will discuss health and safety directives on work place requirements, work equipment and personal protective equipment. In the field of vocational training the Council will also discuss Eurotech II, and the medium term guidelines for education and training the Community. The establishment of a employment observatory may also be discussed.

WALES

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disabled people are currently in local authority, health authority, voluntary and private sector homes in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of disabled people in local authority, voluntary and private sector homes in Wales is shown in the table:

  as at 32 March 1988

  Category of resident1

  Residents in local authority homes

  Residents in private and voluntary homes

  Total residents

  Elderly

  7,067

  6,497

  13,564

  Younger

  physically handicapped

  99

  198

  297

  Blind

  —

  101

  101

  Mentally ill

  288

  258

  546

  Mentally handicapped

  676

  699

  1,375

  Alcohol dependence

  —

  48

  48

  Total

  8,130

  7,801

  15,931

  1 These categories are as defined under Sections 21 and 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and under section 1 of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will conduct a detailed HMI survey on further education provision to assess the demand for and availability of provision for students with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Her Majesty's inspectors are currently undertaking a survey of the provision for students with special educational needs in the Welsh further education colleges.

  Common Land
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received a copy of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation's report on common land; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards commons.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have received a copy of the report "Wildlife importance of common land" prepared by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation (RSNC) under contract to the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand that there is another report, "A Future for Wildlife on our Commons" published by the RSNC itself, which I have not been sent. The Government are considering our future policy on common land.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report (a) the number of people in Wales who receive water from supplies granted relaxations to the aluminium standard under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989, (b) the location of each supply, by county and (c) the number of people served by each of those supplies.

  Mr. Grist
  Under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted undertakings from Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig relating to the aluminium parameter in respect of the water treatment works shown in the following table:

  Location and water treatment works

  Estimated population served

  Clwyd

  Bylchau

  2,350

  Cynwyd

  3,230

  Glascoed

  30,270

  Meifof

  1,470

  Trecastell

  9,700

  Alwen

  108,750

  Bretton

  12,640

  Cilcain

  9,640

  Dyfed

  Bontgoch

  22,050

  Strata Florida

  21,750

  Bolton Hill

  53,780

  Hotwells

  590

  Preseli

  41,450

  Valley Court

  10,870

  Capel Dewi

  21,150

  Bryncoch

  15,870

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  Bryngwyn

  87,580

  Felindre

  311,500

  Powys

  Llanwrtyd Wells

  1,470

  Llandeilo Graban

  5,880

  Portis HL

  3,820

  Hereford and Worcester

  Byton

  2,645

  Broomy Hill

  99,330

  Gwent

  Cwmtillery

  36,150

  Nantybwych

  10,580

  Georgetown

  10,000

  Craig Dhu

  7,940

  Rhymney Bridge

  18,220

  208

  Location and water treatment works

  Estimated population served

  Gwent and Mid Glamorgan

  Pontsticill

  164,300

  South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan

  Cantref

  133,700

  Llwynon

  22,600

  Mid Glamorgan

  Hendre Bailey1

  3,530

  Penderyn BH

  2,940

  Maerdy HL and LL

  37,030

  Gwynedd

  Abergynolwen

  290

  Total Population

  1,325,065

  1 Currently not in supply.

  Note.—Population figures have been derived by Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig from the average daily output of the works when in use, and therefore represent the potential number of customers.

  Toxic Waste Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the ports in Wales currently registered for the import of toxic waste and the amount of such waste imported through each of those ports for the last 10 available years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information on imports of special/hazardous waste through Welsh ports, based on returns made by waste disposal authorities, is shown in the table:

  Tonnes

  Port of entry

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Briton Ferry (Neath)

  2,300

  15,000·0

  12,360

  Fishguard

  50

  0

  0

  Holyhead

  124

  383·5

  221

  Newport

  3,082

  448·0

  0

  Health Service (Information Technology)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the information technology requirements under the proposals of the National Health Service White Paper for(a) acute hospitals, (b) general practitioner practices that opt. to control their own budgets and (c) general practitioner indicative prescribing budgets; and for each, what assessment he has made of (i) capital equipments costs and (ii) manpower costs.

  Mr. Grist
  The Information and IT implications of the White Paper for all levels of the NHS have been subject to a detailed and widespread consultation and review. The results will be published shortly in the form of a Strategy of Wales which will include recommended core strategic systems for each tier. The implementation costs are currently under examination.

  Renal Unit (Wrexham)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive a case from the Clwyd health authority containing a justification for a renal unit in Wrexham.
  209
  Mr. Grist
  I understand that the authority will be presenting its case in response to consultation which is presently taking place on the report of the evaluation of renal services in Wales.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when, as a result of a request from the Clwyd health authority, he decided to decline funding to the authority for a renal unit in Wrexham; and when, subsequently, he invited the authority to present to him a case containing a clear justification.

  Mr. Grist
  Funding by the Welsh Office was considered inappropriate and the authority was invited to present a detailed case for the regional designation of the unit on 24 January 1989.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for class XVII and to his Department's provision for running costs in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit on class XVII vote 2 is to be reduced by £1,499,000 from £90,947,000 to £89,448,000 reflecting (i) a decrease of £1,500,000 in the public dividend capital provision for the Welsh Development Agency and (ii) a token £1,000 Supplementary to open a new subhead to make a special contribution to the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society. The reduction in the provision for public dividend capital will enable a corresponding increase to be made in the agency's non-voted borrowing facility with the National Loans Fund and assist in meeting the higher demand for capital investment loans from small businesses in Wales.

  The cash limit for class XVII, vote 5 is to be increased by £2,260,000 from £266,711,000 to £268,971,000. The increase covers the transfer of responsibility for payment of grants in respect of hostel deficits from the Secretary of State for Social Security (£20,000), an increase to the grant-in-aid for the Wales Tourist Board to be met from existing but unallocated public expenditure provision (£100,000) and an increase for the carry forward of 1988–89 capital underspends under the end year flexibility scheme (£2,140,000).

  The cash limit for class XVII, vote 8 is to be increased by £5,000,000 from £830,510,000 to £835,510,000. The additional provision is required to help meet the cost of implementing the National Health Service Review proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  The cash limit for class XVII, vote 9 is to be increased by £1,786,000 from £46,271,000 to £48,057,000. This increase covers the take up of 1988–89 capital and running costs underspends under the end year flexibility scheme (£317,000 and £205,000 respectively) and makes provision for the running cost implications of the National Health Service review (£1,000,000), for the statutory audit of National Health Service activities in Wales (£200,000) and for the administrative cost of introducing two new grant regimes (£64,000). The Department's running costs limit is to be increased by £1,469,000 from £44,688,000 to £46,157,000.
  210
  In accordance with the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 26 October 1989 to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), the cash limit on class XVII, vote 13 is being increased by £276,000,000 from £1,000 to £276,001,000. This increase provides for the establishment of an appropriate capital structure for Welsh Water plc.

  The cash limit changes total £283,547,000. Allowing for the cash limit reduction on vote 2 (£1,499,000), the total of the cash limit increases is £285,046,000. Of this sum, the increase in respect of the capital structure of Welsh Water and compensation by the residuary company (£276,000,000) will be met from the privatisation proceeds programme; the increases on account of end-year flexibility (£2,662,000), the National Health Service Review (£6,000,000) and the administration costs of National Health Service Audit and the new grants regimes (£264,000) will be charged to the Reserve and the increases for hostel deficit grants (£20,000) and the Wales Tourist Board (£100,000) are covered by my existing PES resources. These increases will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the factors he took into account when announcing on 27 July Official Report, column 950, his decision to maintain the rates of payment for set-aside unchanged.

  Mr. Curry
  I see no reason to alter rates of payment which have attracted a good level of uptake in two successive years.

  Eggs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action he has taken concerning imports of contaminated eggs from other European Community countries; and what evidence he has that other national governments are taking any steps to prevent such exports or to apply standards similar to those which have been imposed in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what proportion of eggs imported into the United Kingdom are tested for salmonella and other forms of contamination; how many incidents of such contamination have been verified during the last 12 months; and how many consignments found to contain such contaminated eggs have been disposed of.

  Mr. Curry
  Arrangements have been made for port health authorities and the public health laboratory service to monitor imported eggs for salmonella. This is done by taking a sample of 60 eggs from each consignment, for testing. Since April when these arrangements commenced, six isolations of invasive salmonella have been made from imported eggs. We have, as a matter of the utmost seriousness, taken these up straightaway with the member states concerned.

  The aim of the monitoring is to determine the risk of infection that imports pose over a period of time. No consignments of imported eggs have been destroyed.

  No other member state is taking such comprehensive action as we are to deal with salmonella contamination in

  211
  eggs although I am aware that the Dutch Government have introduced measures in respect of the presence of Salmonella enteritidis in breeding flocks. For the future, effective safeguards depend on taking action on an EC-wide basis and we are pressing for the introduction of effective EC measures on specified zoonoses as soon as possible.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer to him of 31 October 1989.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions are taking place between his Department and the European Commission about proposals to restrict the current European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund contributions to hill livestock compensatory allowances; what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall South-East (Mr. Hicks) on 30 October 1989.

  Beagles (Death)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish in full the results of his Department's investigation into deaths of 79 beagles in the care of Alpha-Sirius (Perrycroft Lodge Kennels);

  (2) whether he will initiate a prosecution against Alpha-Sirius (Perrycroft Lodge Kennels) under the Transport of Animals (General) Order 1973 for failing in their duty of care in respect of the deaths of beagles transported to Sweden; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department is investigating this tragic incident with a view to possible prosecutions. We cannot divulge details of the case in advance of any proceedings.

  Papain
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is expecting to announce guidelines on the use of the tenderising agent papain in administration to cattle.

  Mr. Curry
  I intend to include guidance on the handling of cattle injected with papain in a code of practice on the welfare of livestock at slaughter. I propose to issue the code under new enabling powers which it is proposed to take in primary legislation when parliamentary time permits.

  Hens
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of hens slaughtered under the provisions of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order for each month of its operation.
  212
  Mr. Curry
  The provisions relating to the compulsory slaughter of poultry are contained in the Animal Health Act 1981, as applied in respect of salmonella through the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1989. The number of birds compulsorily slaughtered since 1 March 1989 when the order came into force is as follows:

  Numbers

  March

  207,379

  April

  95,378

  May

  48,178

  June

  91,941

  July

  47,718

  August

  55,221

  September

  131,379

  October (to 20)

  39,141

  Hormone Implants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions his Department has initiated following the discovery of cattle with hormone implants.

  Mr. Curry
  Two farmers have been prosecuted following the discovery of cattle with hormone implants and convictions were achieved in both cases.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the monitoring procedures whereby samples of animals at point of slaughter are taken and tested for hormone implants; by whom the sampling and testing is carried out; and what numbers and proportion of animals are tested.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the terms of the Animals and Fresh Meat (Examination for Residues) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/848) animals are sampled by staff of the state veterinary service for veterinary residues including evidence of illegal hormone implantation. All samples for hormone analysis are forwarded to the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory. Each year some 3,700 samples are collected at slaughterhouses in Great Britain. These comprise about 0·15 per cent. of those fattening bovine animals which are slaughtered and 1,300 samples from cull cows, sheep and pigs.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the most recent figures available on the proportion of cattle sampled which carry traces of hormone implants.

  Mr. Curry
  In the course of routine monitoring for illegal hormone use a total of 1,296 samples were taken from cattle at slaughterhouses in Great Britain between January and June of this year. 0·3 per cent. of these were found to be positive.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the existence of hormone implant stocks in other European Community countries.

  Mr. Curry
  None. I am not aware that such information is collected.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that live cattle or beef imports have not been subjected to artificial hormone treatment.
  213
  Mr. Curry
  Under Community monitoring arrangements (Directive 86/469/EEC) responsibility for hormone testing of cattle and beef entering intra-Community trade rests with the Member State of origin. In the case of supplies from third countries the Community has obtained assurances that production is subject to controls equivalent to those operating in the Community.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those recommendations he has received from the Food Advisory Committee during each of the last three years, and which have not been implemented by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not practical to answer this question in quite the way the hon. Member has asked. The following list represents the committee's published reports over the last three years on which the recommendations have yet to be implemented.

  Final Report on the Review of colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973 published March 1987 (MAFF Press Release No. 83/87).

  Report on Coated and Ice Glazed Fish Products—published March 1987 (MAFF Press Release No. 58/87).

  Caffeine and Saccharin and Soft Drinks—announcement made in May 1988 (MAFF Press Release No. 180/88).

  Use of the term "low alcohol" in the labelling of Alcoholic Drinks announced September 1988 (MAFF Press Release No. 358/88).

  The Use of Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food—published February 1989 (MAFF Press Release No. 53/89).

  Slimming pills—announcement made in May 1989 (MAFF Press Release No. 212/89).

  Use of Nutrition Claims in Food Labelling and Advertising—published July 1989 (MAFF Press Release No. 309/89).

  We have accepted all these reports in principle. We shall shortly be announcing my decision on the recommendations in the Colouring Matter in Food report. On all the other reports we have either published implementing regulations for consultation or are in course of so doing.

  Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will refer the additives tartrazine and sunset yellow to the Food Advisory Committee for re-assessment.

  Mr. Maclean
  These two substances are covered by the recent Food Advisory Committee review on the use of colouring matter in food on which I shall be announcing my decisions shortly. I therefore have no plans to ask the Food Advisory Committee to re-assess them unless or until any new scientific evidence about them becomes available.

  Food Premises
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce measures in the forthcoming food Bill to provide for a compulsory licensing system for all food premises.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have already made it clear that the new legislation will provide for the registration of all food premises, for an associated system of improvement notices and for enhanced closure powers. We also envisage making provision for licensing in certain sensitive areas.

  Frozen Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to introduce legislation governing frozen food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I shall need to implement into United Kingdom law the provisions of Council Directive 89/108/EEC on quick frozen foodstuffs for human consumption and the provisions of Council Directive 89/395/EEC on food labelling which includes a requirement for the date marking of frozen foods. I expect to issue separate proposals for regulations under the Food Act 1984 on both these matters early in 1990.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends introducing legislation to regulate the use of descriptions such as low fat, no added sugar and high in fibre in food labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. The legislation is intended to form part of the regulations to protect consumers from misleading nutrition claims which I announced in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 28 July at column 1153.

  Meat and Meat Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist for the certification of meat and bone meal of ruminant derivation destined for export from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Departments provide certification for exports of meat and bone meal in accordance with the requirements of individual importing countries. Certificates are signed by officers of the Departments or by authorised local veterinary inspectors.

  Livestock Market (Computerisation)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has taken any steps to investigate the possibilities of computerising livestock markets.

  Mr. Curry
  The extent to which any market can or should take account of new technology is a matter for the commercial judgment of its operators.

  Pesticides
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to the report on pesticide use in the United Kingdom sent to him on 7 August by the Green Alliance and the British Agrochemicals Association.

  Mr. Curry
  I have replied to these organisations on behalf of all the Ministers responsible for the control of pesticides in a letter dated 26 September 1989. A copy of the letter has been deposited today in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The deficit on manufacturing trade reflects the surge in investment and the fall in personal saving in recent years. Tighter monetary policy is already slowing the growth in demand. As new capacity comes on stream, and domestic demand slows further, the deficit will narrow.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total United Kingdom trade deficit for the current year.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total United Kingdom trade deficit for the current year.

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

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A new forecast will be published at the time of the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further policies he has to deal with the trade deficit.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further policies he has to deal with the trade deficit.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further policies he has to deal with the trade deficit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No further policies are necessary. The current account deficit will gradually narrow as the Government's tight monetary policy continues to slow domestic demand.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information was published on 24 October in table 12 of the monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects the balance of trade to be in surplus.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Tighter monetary policy is already slowing the growth in demand. As domestic 216
  demand continues to slow down, and new capacity comes on stream, the deficit on visible trade will gradually narrow.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which European Community countries Britain is running a trade deficit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The United Kingdom's balance of trade in the first nine months of 1989 was in deficit with the following European Community member states:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Denmark

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further policies he has to deal with the trade deficit.

  Mr. Major
  No further policies are necessary. The current account deficit will gradually narrow as the Government's tight monetary policy continues to slow domestic demand.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current balance of trade with(a) Australia and (b) New Zealand.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the first nine months of 1989 the United Kingdom's crude balance of trade1 showed a surplus of £550 million with Australia and a deficit of £49 million with New Zealand.

  These figures are only available on an overseas trade statistics basis which tends to overstate deficits and understate surpluses.

  1 Exports free on board (fob) less imports carriage, insurance and freight (cif).

  Share Ownership
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the adult population owns shares(a) directly and (b) as members of pension schemes and life assurance schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  Twenty per cent. of the adult population owned shares directly at the beginning of the year. Subsequently the Abbey National flotation will have led to a large number of people becoming shareholders for the first time.

  Surveys suggest that around 60 per cent. of the adult population have some form of life assurance policy, 35 per cent. are members of company pension schemes and 13 per cent. have personal pensions.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total percentage growth in output in manufacturing industry for each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On the basis of the most recent published figures, manufacturing output grew by 6·8 per cent. between 1987 and 1988, following growth of 5·5 per cent. between 1986 and 1987.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments deficit for the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information was published on 24 October in table 2 of the monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, a copy of which is available in the Library.

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

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to answer this question with any acceptable degree of precision. It would depend on how industry reacted to the interest rate changes themselves and any changes in borrowing for other reasons. The costs to British industry of high inflation are far greater than the costs of higher interest rates. Tight monetary policy will ensure that inflation is brought down.

  Investment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on current investment levels in British industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988 business investment grew by 17½ per cent. to reach £51·3 billion at 1985 prices. Business investment is now at the highest level ever recorded as a proportion of GDP.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on levels of industrial investment and company profitability.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1988 business investment grew by 17½ per cent. to reach £51·3 billion at 1985 prices. Business investment is now at the highest level ever recorded as a proportion of GDP.

  Data for company profitability are available only up to 1987. The net real rate of return on capital employed for non-North-sea industrial and commercial companies rose from 9 per cent. in 1986 to 10 per cent. in 1987, the highest level for over a decade.

  High levels of investment and company profitability reflect the success of the Government's macroeconomic policy.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest figures for manufacturing investment, and show comparable figures in real terms for a similar period in 1978.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Revised estimates of investment in the second quarter of 1989—the most recent available—were included in the GDP press release issued on 22 September. Manufacturing investment including leased assets, is estimated to have been £3·2 billion (1985 prices, seasonally adjusted) in the second quarter of 1989, compared to £2·7 billion in the second quarter of 1978. The figure for the second quarter of 1989 is the highest 218
  recorded, and comes after growth of 8¼ per cent. a year between 1983 and 1988. Under the last Labour Government manufacturing investment grew by less than 2½ per cent. a year.

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

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The August 1989 index of manufacturing output (based on 1985 =100, seasonally adjusted) was 120·0, 8·1 per cent. higher than the level of 111·0 in August 1973. Figures for individual months can be erratic, however, and a more reliable comparison can generally be made on the basis of three-month on three-month changes. On this latter basis, in the three months to August 1989, manufacturing output was 7·3 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1973.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the development of the Government data network.

  Mr. Ryder
  In addition to the service provided to the initial four departments, Department of Social Security, Inland Revenue, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and Home Office, access agreements to use the network have been made between Racal Data Networks Ltd. and Department of Employment, Department of Energy, General Register Office (Scotland), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. Discussions with the contractor on development of the service, including its use to carry value added data services, are proceeding.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average yearly public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product from(a) 1970 to 1979 and (b) 1980 to 1988 as shown in table 2.3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The averages of the annual ratios of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to GDP for the financial years 1970–71 to 1979–80 and 1980–81 to 1988–89 on a basis consistent with the figures given in table 2.3 of the 1989 FSBR are 43·75 and 44·5 per cent. respectively. In the earlier period the ratio peaked at 48·5 per cent. in 1975–76. The highest level in the later period was 46·75 per cent. in 1982–83; and ratio in 1988–89 was 39·5 per cent.

SCOTLAND

  Exports
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of Scottish exports in the latest year for which information is available; and what was the comparable figure in the previous five years.
  219
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of exports from Scotland in the latest year for which information is available; and what was the figure for each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of exports from Scotland in the latest period for which information is available; and what was the comparable figure in the previous five years.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of Scottish exports in the latest year for which information is available; and what was the comparable figure in the previous five years.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no official figures for Scottish exports since overseas trade statistics are compiled on a United Kingdom basis only. This is because United Kingdom export statistics are collected at ports of exit and Scottish-produced goods can and do leave the country from ports throughout Britain. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) carries out an annual survey of Scottish manufactured exports. This is a voluntary survey of manufactured exports only, and the preliminary results for 1988 indicate Scottish manufactured exports of £7,166 million. The comparable figures for the previous five years are set out in the table.

  £ million

  1983

  4,254

  1984

  4,953

  1985

  5,522

  1986

  5,300

  1987

  6,393

  Birds (Isle of Islay)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many birds, by species, were illegally killed by poisons on the Island of Islay for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 17 birds were killed by the illegal use of pesticides on Islay, as confirmed by the wildlife incident investigation service, from 1979 to the current date. Details are as follows.

  1979

  Gyr Falcon

  1980

  —

  1981

  Buzzard

  1982

  Golden Eagle

  1983

  Crow

  1984

  —

  1985

  —

  1986

  Buzzard

  1987

  Buzzard; Crows (5)

  1988

  Buzzard; Raven; Golden Eagles (2)

  1989

  Raven; Buzzard

  Correspondence
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Minister of State responsible for industry the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, (Mr. Lang) has not replied to the letter on the Clyde port authority and the Rothesay dock in Clydebank from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.

  Mr. Lang
  I regret that I have no record of having received the letter to which the hon. Member refers until he sent me a copy under cover of his letter of 3 October. I220
  have arranged for the correspondence to be passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will send a reply.

  Public Sector Rented Homes
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial help the Government propose to give to councils to build new public sector rented accommodation in areas where there is a shortage of such accommodation, including Tweeddale.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is for individual housing authorities to determine their own policies and priorities, based on their own assessment of housing needs in their districts, and to programme capital expenditure accordingly within the resources made available. If councils identify a particular need for additional rented accommodation in the public sector then they should in the first instance include proposals for remedying any such housing shortage in the housing capital programme due to be submitted to the Scottish Development Department by Friday 3 November. Next year's capital allocations will be determined, as in previous years, in the light of the aggregate resources available and the competing requirements of all 56 housing authorities.

  Rents to Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to promote his rents to mortgages scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 30 October that Scottish Homes is now able to consider applications to purchase under the rents to mortgages scheme. This is a pilot scheme scheduled to run for three years during which time its results will be monitored carefully to ensure that any promotional opportunities are quickly identified and acted upon.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount a tenant, paying an average Scottish council home rent, would pay if the tenant participated in his Department's rents to mortgages scheme, showing the method of calculation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The scheme introduced by Scottish Homes does not apply to tenants of local authorities. The method of calculation would follow that outlined in the Scottish Homes booklet on rents and mortgages placed in the Libraries of the House of Lords and House of Commons. However the calculation following demonstrates the notional financial arrangements which would apply to a tenant of a local authority house (rather than flat) paying rent at the level of the average council house tenant, whose discount entitlement is that of the average council house tenant and whose home has a market value of the sale of the average council house in Scotland.

  Average

  Market Value of House

  £23,975·00

  RTM Discount (Equivalent RTB discount less 15 per cent. points)

  36 per cent.

  Therefore Purchase Price

  £15,344·00

  Weekly Rent1

  £18·79

  Sum Available for Mortgage Repayment (weekly) (Rent + 10 per cent. less £5 per week)

  £15·67

  221

  Average

  Amount of Mortgage Supportable (Assumes interest at 13·75 per cent.)

  £6,668·00

  Deferred Financial Commitment

  £8,676·00

  1This is the average rent for all council homes in Scotland.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many scientifically qualified persons work in the forensic science departments of each Scottish police force.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Four police forces have forensic science laboratories in which the following numbers of scientifically qualified staff are employed:

  Number

  Grampian

  7

  Lothian and Borders

  8

  Strathclyde

  25

  Tayside

  3

  The remaining four forces use these laboratories for forensic science services.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the funding of the independent forensic unit of the department of forensic science at Strathclyde university in the light of the requirement on police forces to pay for forensic services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Funding for the Strathclyde university department of forensic science as for universities generally is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Official Stationery
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if any reimbursement to public funds has been made for his use of official Government stationery to write an undated letter to students of St. Andrew's university inviting them to consider joining the University Conservative Association;

  (2) what is his policy towards the use by Ministers in his department of official Government stationery for party political purposes;

  (3) what was the charge to public funds of his use of official Government stationery to write an undated letter to students of St. Andrew's university inviting them to consider joining the University Conservative Association.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I regret that, through inadvertence, a sheet of Government stationery was used for the issue from my office of a letter with this political purpose. This was contrary to normal practice and should not happen again. The cost of reimbursement would be disproportionate to the amount involved.

  Roads
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) fatal and (b) serious road traffic accidents have occurred on the A98 Fochabers-Buckie road in each of the last five years including 1989 to the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of fatal and serious accidents requested for the Fochabers to Buckie stretches of the A98 are as follows:

  A98 Fochabers to Buckie

  Fatal

  Serious

  1985

  2

  1

  1986

  0

  3

  1987

  0

  2

  1988

  0

  3

  1989 (to June)

  1

  2

  I understand there has been a further fatal accident in October this year but the Scottish Development Department has yet to receive formal notification of it.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many SDD funded road improvement schemes have been completed on the Fochaber-Buckie stretch of the A98 in each of the last five years; how many proposals for SDD funded improvement schemes on that route are currently under consideration; and if he will give the costs involved in each instance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been one improvement carried out in the last five years. This was at Tulloch Farm corner and was undertaken during the financial year 1988–89 at a cost of £108,000. Three further improvement schemes are planned for this section and will be started after completion of the statutory procedures and when available resources and other priorities permit. These are Portgordon crossroads, Arradoul to Barrhill road and Swiss Cottage corner and are estimated to cost £122,000, £238,000 and £650,000 respectively.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of enrolled nurses who undertook bridging courses in each of the past two years, giving a breakdown per health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Only certain health boards offer such courses. The numbers for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are set out in the table.

  Nurses Undertaking Bridging Courses

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  16

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10

  19

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  4

  Fife

  18

  32

  Forth Valley

  14

  13

  Grampian

  47

  49

  Greater Glasgow

  142

  152

  Highland

  3

  12

  Lanarkshire

  28

  38

  Lothian

  45

  36

  Tayside

  31

  21

  Total

  353

  392

  Mortgage and Rent Arrears
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the number of owner-occupiers whose homes were repossessed, (b) the number of owner-occupiers whose mortgages were six to 12 months in arrears and (c) the number of owner-occupiers whose mortgages were over 12 months in arrears for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is available only for building society loans, for the United Kingdom as a whole. The most recent figures were published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in the 9 September issue of its newsletter "Mortgage Finance Monthly", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Hospitals (Self-governing Status)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what method he intends to consult staff and patient representatives or local communities before awarding self-governing status to hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: Our proposals are set out in the document "Self Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide" which was issued when we debated the health service in the Scottish Grand Committee estimates debate on 25 July.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action he is taking this year to promote or publicise the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations; and what estimates he has of the costs involved for the agricultural industry in complying with these regulations;

  (2) what estimates he has of the costs involved in implementing the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations for (a) industry and (b) small businesses in Scotland; and what steps he is taking in the current year to promote or publicise these regulations for those sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  Where substances hazardous to health were adequately and reliably controlled and where there was full compliance with existing legislation, the costs of implementing the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations should be marginal; they will arise mainly from reviewing and formalising existing arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive estimated in its cost-benefit analysis for the COSHH proposals that for a typical small firm, the additional costs arising would amount to no more than about one quarter of a percentage point of the firm's net output. This estimate included the costs of monitoring of exposure and health surveillance which apply to only a minority of firms. For most larger firms, the costs will be substantially smaller in relation to net output.

  No special analysis for any particular geographical region, nor for any sector of activity, including agriculture, has been carried out.

  The Health and Safety Executive has promoted and publicised the regulations by a variety of means, including national and trade advertising and the distribution of some 3·5 million introductory leaflets. Many activities have been
  224
  particularly geared to the need to reach small firms, including the provision of information to the principal small firms advisory organisations.

  Standards Register
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what finance was provided by or what participation the Scottish Office had in producing the United Kingdom standards register; and what steps he is taking to promote it.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The publication "Standards significant to health and safety at work", launched by the Health and Safety Executive on 22 June 1989, updates a similar publication first produced in 1983. It is a list, published for information, of those standards to which frequent reference is made by HSE in its advisory and enforcement work.

  A press release was issued by HSE at the time of publication of the list and the British Standards Institute has co-operated with the publicity.

ENERGY

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much plutonium has been recovered from the uranium dioxide breeder fuel pins and pellets integral in the Dounreay prototype fast reactor core fuel subassemblies; and if this matter was reprocessed with, or separately from, the uranium/plutonium dioxide fuel pellets incorporated into the same core sub-assemblies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the UKAEA. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to the Federal Republic of Germany for each year since 1959;

  (2) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to Japan for each year since 1959;

  (3) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to Canada for each year since 1959;

  (4) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to Belgium for each year since 1959;

  (5) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to Italy for each year since 1959;

  (6) if he will list the number of export licences granted for the export of plutonium to (a) Sweden, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Switzerland, (d) the United States of America and (e) Austria, for each year since exports of plutonium to each country began;

  (7) if he will list the number of plutonium export licences granted for the export of plutonium to France for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It has been the standard practice of successive Governments not to make public the number of export licences granted for the various categories of goods controlled.
  225
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, under existing arrangements one export licence for the export of plutonium is sufficient to cover more than one contract for the supply of plutonium, or more than one load of plutonium; and what information is required to be supplied by the applicants for such an export licence to be granted.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Export licences for plutonium are issued for a specific quantity of material destined for a specific purpose. Multiple shipments can be made under an individual licence.

  Applications must be made on the Department of Trade and Industry's official export licence application form which calls for detailed information, including the end-use and user. Additional information may be requested in support of a particular application depending on the circumstances of the case.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has assessed the proposals contained in the two volume report "Energy Technologies for Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases", from an experts' seminar at the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris in April.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A number of copies of the report have been received by my Department and the energy technology support unit. Members of the Department and the energy technology support unit attended the seminar, and subsequently have been assessing some of the more significant of the many technical papers that were then presented.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he, any other Minister, or any official of his Department was present at, or presented a paper to, the seminar on the greenhouse effect at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 29 September.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Officials from this Department and the energy technology support unit (ETSU) attended the seminar. An official from the chief scientist's group within ETSU gave a short paper at the meeting.

  Earthquakes (Nuclear Plants)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make available to the state of California the expertise of the nuclear installations inspectorate team which evaluated the Calder hall and Wylfa nuclear plants in the United Kingdom after earthquakes, in order to assist in the assessment of the safety of nuclear plants in California following the earthquake on 17 October.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate would, if asked, be willing to provide assistance.

  Conservation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to evaluate the applicability to the United Kingdom of energy saving and energy efficiency proposals contained in the United States National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (1987).

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 10 226
  July 1989 at column 378, my energy efficiency office has already commissioned a study of domestic electrical appliances. The United States National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (1987) is among the matters to be examined in this study.

  Solar Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he, any departmental Minister or departmental official, was present at, or presented a paper to, the conference on energy policy and the environment at the Geological Society, London, on 9 October.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No Minister or official from this Department attended the meeting "Energy Policy and the Environment" organised by the United Kingdom section of the International Solar Energy Society on 9 October.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department, or the energy technology support unit at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, has studied the development of the Rheinische-Westfaelische Elektrizitaetswerke 340 kilowatt photovoltak solar power plant at Kober-Gondorf, to judge the applicability of this technology to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Preliminary results from the photovoltaic plant at Kober-Gondorf were presented at the ninth European Commission solar photovoltaic energy conference in September 1989. A representative of the energy technology support unit attended the conference. The 340 kW peak, array covering 15,000 square metres has just completed its first year of operation since commissioning in October 1988. It produced a little over 73,000 kWh against an expectation of 250,000 kWh when fully available.

  A review of solar technologies is currently being undertaken within the United Kingdom renewable energy R & D programme and the results are expected to be published shortly.

  World Energy Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what Ministers and officials of his Department were present at the world energy conference held in Canada in September; what papers his Department contributed; and if he will make a statement on the beneficial outcome of the conference in regard to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Three officials from my Department accompanied me to Canada last month where, inter alia, I addressed the World Energy Conference on "Sustainable energy development, possible or impossible?" The main purpose of my speech was to alert the conference to the need to adapt energy strategies to take account of environmental consequences, particularly in relation to climate change. I outlined some possible responses, in particular market-related measures and sought the world energy community's help in resolving the problems which I see as critical to increasing the well-being of all countries, particularly developing nations. My speech was distributed as a conference document. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The Department contributed no other papers.

  The conference provided a valuable opportunity for scientists, engineers and industrialists from the western,

  227
  eastern and developing nations to explore new ideas for meeting global energy needs in an environmentally responsible fashion.

  Geothermal Energy Projects
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has evaluated the research undertaken by the Federal German Ministry for research and technology since 1982, on geological research in Bavaria into hot dry rocks, in terms of its relevance for the United Kingdom geothermal energy projects.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The British geothermal hot dry rock research team is fully aware of the German research and assisted with the early experimental work. The Falkenberg project in north-east Bavaria was operated by the Federal Republic of Germany Ministry of Research and Technology between 1978 and 1987. Investigations were made into the hydraulic and heat-transfer properties of fractured granite at depths between 300 and 500 metres. The British team conducted comparable work at Rosemanowes quarry in Cornwall between 1977 and 1980 with similar results to those obtained later in Germany. The British team has of course gone on to more advanced work at greater depth in Cornwall.

  Decommissioning Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what volumes of decommissioning waste will be sent from Sellafield to that Federal Republic of Germany arising from section 2(a)(iii) of the joint declaration between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, signed in Bonn on 25 July; and how this will be calculated.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Contractual negotiations are still proceeding regarding the reprocessing in the United Kingdom of further quantities of German spent fuel. Therefore it is not possible to estimate the volume of waste which will be returned following reprocessing.

  North-West Hutton Platform
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at what time crew members were mustered to emergency or lifeboat stations during evacuation of the north-west Hutton production platform; how many crew members were evacuated; how many crew members were left on board after the evacuation; and why these crew members were left on board.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  At 10.38 hours on 3 September 1989 the crew were mustered to emergency stations; 108 persons were evacuated as a precautionary measure. There was no immediate danger and 77 crew members remained on board to continue the well controlled operation.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether during the drilling programme prior to' the evacuation of the north-west Hutton production platform, full mud returns were recorded while setting the casing and cementing it into place; whether a cement bond log was run after the casing was set; what was the equivalent mud weight recorded during the formation integrity test; what was (i) the expected and (ii) the actual formation pressure at the depth at which the kick or unexpected increase in pressure originated; and what was(a) the programmed and (b) the actual mud density and weight.
  228
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Full mud returns were recorded while setting and cementing the casing. A cement bond log was not run after the casing was set. Formation integrity tests measured at two points in the well bore were 14·1 pounds per gallon at 6,837 ft. and 13·3 pounds per gallon at 6,892 ft. The expected and actual formation pressures were 7,800 psi and 9,600 psi respectively. The programmed and actual mud weights were 12·8 pounds per gallon.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many previous wells had been drilled in the structure, including exploration and appraisal wells, where drilling operations were taking place prior to the evacuation of north-west Hutton production platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A total of 55 exploration, appraisal and development wells have been drilled in the north-west Hutton field.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the well in the drilling operations prior to the evacuation of north-west Hutton production platform production was shut in using the blowout preventers; if the choke above the blowout preventers was open when the well was shut in; after the blowout preventers were closed what well head shut in pressures were recorded; if a formation higher up the well from the kick zone fractured or broke down, allowing the uncontrolled movement of gas or fluid from the kick zone via the well bore into the fractured formation; if an underground blowout occurred; and at what depth the formation fractured.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The blow-out preventer and the choke were closed simultaneously to shut in the well. Drill pipe pressure of 500 psi was recorded which fell to 375 psi indicating that a zone higher up in the well formation had fractured and an underground blowout had occurred. It is not possible to be precisely certain at what depth the formation fractured.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in which well drilling was taking place on the north-west Hutton production platform prior to evacuation; and what was the rig activity at the time of the kick or unexpected upsurge of pressure in the well.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Drilling was taking place on well 211/27-A42. At the time of the well incident, drilling was being undertaken with a 12.¼" bit at a measured depth of 13,113 feet below the kelly bushing and a true vertical depth of 11,710 feet.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made in relation to the north-west Hutton production platform of the possibility of an abnormally pressured formation in the field, charged by gas or fluid from another formation, and of the hazard posed thereby in respect of other wells which may be drilled in the formation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The possibility of encountering an abnormally pressurised formation is present in all drilling operations. Before consent is given to any well operation, my Department must be satisfied that the drilling programme has been designed to provide safeguards against this eventuality.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what remedial action was taken to stabilise the well at the
  229
  time of evacuation of the north-west Hutton production platform; at what times pumping of cement into the well (a) commenced and (b) ceased; at what time all movements of gas or fluids through the well bore ceased; if the well is now safe; and if it has been re-entered since the incident which led to the evacuation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  After the well was closed in, attempts were made to kill it by circulating mud of a higher density. The first cementing operation commenced at 23.00 hours on 4 September 1989. Operations continued for several days. The first occasion when movement of gas and fluids appeared to have ceased was 12.00 hours on 4 September 1989 although subsequently there was some further movement. It is not possible to be precise about when movement actually ceased. The well is now considered safe and has been re-entered.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the diameter of the last casing set around the drill hole in the drilling operations prior to the evacuation of north-west Hutton production platform; at what depth, measured and true vertical, the casing was set around the drill hole; how many attempts had been made by the operators to set the casing around the drill hole; and at what depth, measured and true vertical, the casing was programmed to be set around the drill hole.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The diameter of the casing set was 13⅜ in at a measured depth of 6,823 ft and a true vertical depth of 6,102 ft. No difficulty was experienced in setting and cementing the casing. It was programmed to be set at 150 ft into the cretaceous formation but a re-evaluation of the indicators used to determine the setting depth suggests that the casing was set just in the top of the cretaceous.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the immediate reason for the evacuation of the north-west Hutton production platform; at what time the evacuation took place; what was the sequence of events leading to the evacuation; and at what time each of these took place.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Evacuation was undertaken as a precautionary measure to reduce the number of persons at risk because the well was not responding to measures to regain full control using normal procedures. At 18.27 hours on 2 September 1989 the well was closed in by the use of the blow-out preventer. Thereafter attempts were made to kill the well by the circulation of mud. At 09.00 hours on 3 September it was concluded that the well could not be killed in this way. At 10.30 hours the decision was taken to reduce the numbers on the platform and at 10.38 hours the platform was shut down and the crew mustered to emergency stations.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the measured and the true vertical depth of the hole in the drilling operations prior to the evacuation of north-west Hutton production platform; if, in the drilling

  Table 1

  Non-housing

  £ (cash)

  Rate support1 2 grant

  Urban3 programme

  Derelict land grant

  Clean air grant

  Public open spaces grant

  1979–80

  10,706,558

  18,542

  73,016

  —

  254

  1980–81

  12,055,507

  22,477

  263,762

  —

  254

  1981–82

  4,430,147

  31,245

  180,420

  —

  254

  230
  operations, the reservoir had been reached; and if, prior to the drilling operations, or concurrent with them, the reservoir had been recently pressurised, through gas, or water injections, or by any other means.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The measured depth of drilling was 13,113 ft and the true vertical depth was 11,710 ft. A reservoir had been reached. The reservoir had been subjected to water injection.

  Nuclear Plants (Security)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many members of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary have applied for voluntary early retirement on the special terms circulated on 26 May;

  (2) how many staff employed by the Royal British Legion security division are currently engaged at the Sellafield site; and if he will list by site the numbers of Royal British Legion Association staff engaged elsewhere on United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority sites;

  (3) if he will list the number of Atomic Energy Authority constabulary employed at the Sellafield site, West Cumbria on 1 July for each of the last 10 years; and what is the projected number for July 1990;

  (4) if he will show for each relevant site the proposed reduction in posts of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the UKAEA. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list those areas of the Sellafield site which are patrolled by staff of the security division of the Royal British Legion Association;

  (2) if he will state when Royal British Legion Association security officers were first engaged at the Sellafield site; how many were initially engaged; and what is the projected number for July 1990;

  (3) what qualifications are required of people applying for employment as Royal British Legion Association security officers at the Sellafield site, west Cumbria.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for BNFL. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pendle (Financial Support)
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will summarise the financial support provided by his Department to Pendle in each year since 1979 divided as between the different programmes.

  Mr. Chope
  The following financial support has been provided by the Department to the borough of Pendle since the 1979–80 financial year.
  231

  Rate support1 2 grant

  Urban3 programme

  Derelict land grant

  Clean air grant

  Public open spaces grant

  1982–83

  4,438,542

  47,183

  207,408

  —

  254

  1983–84

  4,351,523

  63,991

  82,393

  2,502

  254

  1984–85

  4,395,197

  81,776

  95,503

  —

  254

  1985–86

  4,171,795

  83,102

  51,940

  4,632

  2,519

  1986–87

  4,330,327

  94,673

  39,005

  —

  —

  1987–88

  4,502,649

  97,597

  349,719

  —

  —

  1988–89

  4,712,923

  92,878

  372,239

  —

  —

  1989–90

  4,971,859

  36,146

  Not available

  —

  —

  1 1979–80 and 1980–81 figures include grant towards county council expenditure, paid direct to the county council in subsequent years.

  21979–80 and 1980–81 figures comprise needs, resources and domestic elements; figures for subsequent years comprise block grant and domestic rate relief grant.

  3The 1988–89 and 1989–90 figures are on account and have not been finalised.

  Table 2

  Housing

  £ (cash)

  Housing Subsidies and Grants

  Main housing

  Modified rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Slum clearance

  Homes insulation

  Improvement contributions

  Improvement for sale

  Housing efects

  1979–80

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1980–81

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1981–82

  710,585

  456,978

  33,492

  171,255

  52,002

  711,486

  7,827

  —

  1982–83

  95,694

  599,181

  47,320

  257,079

  77,671

  873,906

  30,607

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  330,841

  78,741

  1,151,830

  16,700

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  433,117

  70,590

  1,528,366

  26,107

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  584,125

  50,544

  1,782,609

  27,835

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  628,778

  55,686

  1,877,589

  40,160

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  691,253

  41,234

  1,960,378

  17,575

  3,918

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  742,594

  13,820

  2,030,063

  65,216

  13,885

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  810,000

  10,840

  2,222,910

  —

  2—

  Notes:

  All figures are those claimed by the local authority in the relevant years.

  1981–82 to 1987–88figures are from the audited claims for those years.

  1988–89 figures are from the unaudited final claims for that year.

  1989–90 figures are taken from the advance claim, subject to adjustment on audit.

  1— Figures for 1979–80and 1980–81 are not readily available.

  2—Cannot be claimed for in advance.

  Table 3

  European Regional Development Fund

  The Borough also received the following payments from the European Regional Development Fund.

  £ (cash)

  1979–80

  84,453

  1980–81

  84,243

  1981–82

  5,380

  1982–83

  —

  1983–84

  4,480

  1984–85

  1,779

  1985–86

  89,567

  1986–87

  35,604

  1987–88

  52,579

  1988–89

  57,040

  1989–90

  1—

  1 No payments have been made to date.

  Table 4

  Capital Allocations

  In addition, the Department made the following capital expenditure allocations1 to the Borough of Pendle during the period:

  £ thousands (cash)

  Housing

  Urban programme

  2Other

  1979–80

  3,378

  —

  —

  1980–81

  2,954

  —

  —

  1981–82

  4,079

  16

  492

  1982–83

  5,163

  166

  869

  1983–84

  4,469

  85

  543

  1984–85

  3,815

  211

  400

  1985–86

  3,157

  82

  340

  1986–87

  2,980

  69

  280

  232

  Housing

  Urban programme

  2Other

  1987–88

  3,191

  468

  272

  1988–89

  3,196

  372

  307

  1989–90

  2,574

  n/a

  416

  1 Comparable data before 1981–82 not available except for Housing.

  2 Includes waste collection and disposal, sport and recreation, planning and economic development.

  n/a.= Not available.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the threatened legal action by local authorities against the water and sewerage plcs on the flotation of the companies.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  On the basis of legal advice, including advice from leading counsel, we are confident that the threatened action is groundless and that there is no legal foundation for it. It was Parliament's clear intention in 1973 that all the pre-1974 local authority assets connected with the functions of the new water authorities should be vested in the water authorities. Similarly, in 1989, the vesting schemes under the 1989 Act were designed to ensure that such of those assets remaining in the ownership of the water authorities and not required for the functions of the

  233
  National Rivers Authority should be vested in the water service companies. We are satisfied that in both cases the legislative provisions fully achieved those objectives.

  None the less my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have today put before Parliament departmental minutes describing indemnities which the Government propose to grant to the water and sewerage companies appointed under the Water Act 1989. Under these, the companies would be indemnified against any material additional expenditure incurred as a result of legal claims, of the kind understood to be planned by a consortium of local authorities, against the proceeds of sales of assets which cease to be used for water and sewerage functions.

  We believe that such indemnities are extremely unlikely to be called upon. But we nevertheless feel duty bound to protect the interests of taxpayers by securing flotation on the basis that Parliament intended.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to make an order specifying the amounts eligible for capital allowances to successor water companies under section 95 of the Water Act.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I propose, and Her Majesty's Treasury consents, to make an order today under section 95 of the Water Act, specifying the amounts eligible for capital allowances on plant and machinery and on industrial buildings in respect of the qualifying assets transferred from the water authorities to the successor companies.

  The total amounts eligible to be specified for each company will be:

  Industrial buildings £'000s

  Plant and machinery £'000s

  Anglian Water Services Limited

  80,681

  1,149,424

  Northumbrian Water Limited

  56,348

  344,428

  North West Water Limited

  83,748

  1,076,092

  Severn Trent Water Limited

  43,995

  1,018,365

  Southern Water Services Limited

  36,710

  559,525

  South West Water Services Limited

  33,695

  281,621

  Thames Water Utilities Limited

  58,016

  1,031,962

  Wessex Water Services Limited

  6,575

  460,925

  Community charge benefit: Net income at which minimum CCB of 50 pence is payable

  Annual Community Charge

  Single under 25 working

  Single 25 to 29 working

  Single Pensioner aged 60–74 not working

  Pensioner Couple aged 60–74 not working

  Couple 2 children under 11 working

  1989–90 Benefit rates

  £250

  54·72

  62·22

  68·42

  119·81

  142·76

  £300

  59·85

  67·35

  73·55

  130·07

  153·02

  £350

  64·98

  72·48

  78·68

  140·32

  163·27

  1990–91 Benefit rates

  £250

  56·11

  64·06

  70·86

  123·58

  147·68

  £300

  61·26

  69·20

  75·97

  133·78

  157·90

  £350

  66·36

  74·26

  81·06

  144·05

  168·15

  Landmark Trust
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet Bryn Jones the director of the Landmark Trust.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. I understand that the director is, in fact, Mr. Robin Evans.
  234

  Industrial buildings £'000s

  Plant and machinery £'000s

  Yorkshire Water Services Limited

  63,825

  783,952

  Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedid

  48,262

  451,387

  These amounts have been determined after consultation with the companies and Inland Revenue.

  In the same way as other businesses the water service companies are subject to corporation tax and are entitled to capital allowances on their qualifying assets including those transferred to them from predecessor water authorities. As the predecessor authorities were exempt from tax and no consideration passed on transfer of the assets, it was necessary to determine opening figures of eligible expenditure for capital allowances purposes. The amounts shown represent the depreciated historical cost of the qualifying assets and are a fair measure of their value for tax purposes.

  Eligible expenditure incurred after the transfer date will be agreed with the Inland Revenue in the normal way.

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of the income levels up to which community charge rebates will be payable on hypothetical 1989–90 community charges of (i) £250, (ii) £300 and (iii) £350; and what the income levels will be for (i), (ii) and (iii) for actual 1990–91 community charges.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply. The levels of income at which community charge benefits will be payable will be dependent upon the personal circumstances of the claimant. The information requested is set out in the table for various representative groups of claimants. The figures in the table assume that: claimants under pension age are working and the standard disregard has been applied; claimants over pension age are not working; all claimants have savings of less than £3,000; and no member of the household is disabled.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment if, following Her Majesty's Government's signing of the Basel convention on transfrontier transport of hazardous toxic waste, on 6 October, he will make it his policy to refuse entry to the United Kingdom of any hazardous waste cargo originating in a state that has not signed the convention.
  235
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Basel convention prohibits a party from importing hazardous waste from a non-party. An exception to this is permissable where there is a bilateral, multilateral or regional agreement or arrangement with a non-party. The Government urge all countries to ratify the convention.

  Only if there are sound environmental reasons would the United Kingdom contemplate entering into agreements or arrangements with non-parties to allow imports of hazardous waste.

  GRID and GEMS
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what involvement with the United Nations global resource information database and the global environmental monitoring system his Department has had over the past year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Government policy is to support the work of UNEP. Departmental statisticians have been closely involved in the production of the second edition of UNEP's environmental data report (EDR) which became available last week. The EDR is the main vehicle for presenting the data from GEMS and GRID to a wider audience. The Department also supports UNEP's global monitoring efforts through GEMS. Data are supplied to GEMS annually from the United Kingdom national air pollution monitoring network and from the harmonised monitoring network on water quality. The co-ordinator for the water monitoring programme in GEMS is in DOE.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each case where an application for direction has been made since 15 July 1988 what further information has been requested from the developers, local plannng authorities or others; and what additional scientific or technical advice has been sought before determining whether environmental assessment is required.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In most cases in which the Secretary of State has been asked for a direction on the need for environmental assessment, he has been able to make a decision on the basis of information already available to him. In a few cases he has informally sought further advice from the local planning authority or from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In one case, a proposed incinerator for medical and hospital wastes at Kirkby, Merseyside, the developer was formally asked for further information under regulation 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988; the developer subsequently withdrew the related planning application and no direction was given.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those developments where a direction whether environmental assessment is required has been given without application by the developer, and the effect of each decision.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A direction has been given without an application by the developer in the following case which concerned a local authority's own development proposal:
  236

  LPA

  Proposed development

  Date of direction

  Effect of direction

  Lincoln City Council

  Business Park, Bishop's Bridge, Lincoln

  13 April 1989

  EA required

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to monitor and assess the quality of environmental impact statements which have been required subsequent to the implementation of the European Community directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are about to commission research to monitor the operation of the regulations which implement the EC directive in respect of projects requiring planning permission. The research will include some assessment of the adequacy of environmental statements submitted by developers.

  Yachting
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the implications for participation in the sport of the International Yacht Racing Union's proposals to categorise yachtsmen into professional and amateurs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received no such representations though I am aware of the Royal Yachting Association's concerns. This is a matter for the governing bodies of the sport.

  Plastics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a coding system for grading plastics similar to that used in the United States of America to encourage the development of efficient plastic collection and recycling programmes involving the general public.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced our aim to improve the level of recycling of domestic waste. We are, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, looking at the possibility of establishing a coding scheme to assist in the post-consumer recycling of plastic.

  Rosehaugh Self-build Housing Initiative
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an assessment of the Rosehaugh self-build housing initiative and issue recommendations to district councils on the applicability of this initiative to those who are unemployed or on low incomes in their areas and could be thus assisted to build their own homes.

  Mr. Chope
  The first scheme under this initiative is still under way; so it is too early to make an assessment. I understand a number of similar schemes are in prospect, which give people the opportunity to harness their energy and commitment to provide a home for themselves. I very much hope that they will be successful, and I would encourage local authorities to consider whether this initiative would be of help in their own areas.

  Partridges
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the extension of the open general licence to release chukar and hybrid partridges into the wild;

  (2) whether his Department is aware of any research into the impact on partridge populations of the release of chukar and hybrid partridges into the wild.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Last year the Game Conservancy produced a paper "The Chukar Report" dealing with the 'impact of releasing hybrid partridges on wild populations of red-legged partridges'. The main conclusion was that releases of Chukar partridges and their hybrids have an adverse conservation effect on the native partridge and should be phased out. General licences which expire at the end of 1992 have therefore been issued. This will enable game farmers to phase out releases of Chukars and their hybrids.

  Myopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will commission research into the incidence of myopathy in wild deer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no plans to do so.

  Housing Policies (Monitoring)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has put in hand to ensure that councils monitor the effectiveness of their housing policies and publish the results.

  Mr. Chope
  The Local Government and Housing Bill will require every local housing authority in England to publish information about their housing management performance, for their tenants. We are consulting the local authority associations at the moment on the type and extent of information to be provided. The consultation paper, issued on 10 October, has been placed in the Library.

  Building Land
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that councils will be able to provide sufficient land for five years' building requirement in the light of his new planning guidance note; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yes. While we propose to end the special presumption in favour of housing development which currently operates in certain circumstances, the draft guidance nevertheless stresses the need for adequate planned provision for new housing, and for regular monitoring of land availability.

  Parkinson Homes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many owner-occupied Parkinson homes remained unrepaired at the latest available date; and how many of these were built in Bristol.

  Mr. Chope
  By April 1989, all but 187 of the 730 privately owned Parkinson houses identified by local 238
  authorities had been repurchased; of these, 178 were built in Bristol, of which 17 have either been repaired or are registered for repair under the PRC Houses Ltd warranty scheme.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest actions to try to prevent the build-up of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Co-ordinated international action is the only effective answer to this global problem. The United Kingdom proposals for strengthening the Montreal protocol would require a complete phase out of chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. These proposals, which have now been adopted by the European Community, will require a faster phase out than proposals made by any other country.

  Sewage Discharges (Bristol Channel)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to refuse permission to water authorities or water companies to construct or maintain long sea outfalls delivering raw sewage into the Bristol channel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Applications for consent to discharge sewage into the Bristol channel are matters in the first instance for the National Rivers Authority. Each application will be considered on its own merits.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to distribute copies of the United Nations environment programme's environmental data report for 1987–89 to interested bodies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The environmental data report was prepared for the United Nations environment programme by the monitoring and assessment research centre at King's college, University of London, in association with the World Resources Institute, Washington and the Department of the Environment. It is a valuable contribution to UNEP's global environmental monitoring programme and an important and authoritative source of environmental information. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. The report will be publicised at a seminar on environmental awareness on 10 November organised by the United Kingdom committee for UNEP which will be attended by a wide range of interested Government and non-governmental organisations, including industry, the media and the academic community.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As I mentioned in my letter of 19 October to the hon. Member, I was able to visit his constituency on 27 October. I am writing to the hon. Member with details of my tour of the Brunswick enterprise centre on that day.

  Downing Street (Barricade)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated scrap value of the gates to be erected across Downing street.

  Mr. Chope
  Less than £1,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total cost of the permanent gates to be erected across the end of Downing street.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not the Government's practice to comment on the costing of individual security measures.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Downing street ceased to be a public thoroughfare.

  Mr. Chope
  Access to Downing street is controlled under police common law powers which allow them to take reasonable steps to preserve the peace and prevent threats to it.

  The present barriers at the Whitehall entrance to Downing street, which the demountable gate will replace, have been in place since 1982.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the permanent gates to be erected across Downing street are expected to provide more security than the present barrier.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

EMPLOYMENT

  Skills Shortages
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the industries and the areas where he has been advised that there are significant shortages of skills such as to present a risk to effective or planned industrial production; and what action he proposes to take in response.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The detailed information is not available in the form requested.

  It is for employers to assess their future skills needs in the light of their overall business plans and take the appropriate action. Details of the Government's sizeable contributions are set out in the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s" (Cd 540).

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the increase in average and median earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing and non-manufacturing workers since April 1979.

  Earnings of full-time adult employees in Great Britain whose earnings were not affected by absence; April of each year

  Weekly earnings

  Percentage increase Hourly earnings

  1970–79

  1979–89

  1970–79

  1979–89

  (i)Males

  (a)Manuals in manufacturing

  243

  139

  249

  142

  (b)Non-manuals not in public sector

  226

  200

  n/a

  200

  (ii)Males and Females

  (a)Manuals in public sector

  267

  126

  n/a

  137

  (b)Non-manuals sector

  226

  169

  n/a

  171

  240
  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information from the new earnings survey is provided in the table:

  Increase in weekly earnings April 1979–April 1989

  Percent.

  Average

  Median

  Manufacturing

  139

  134

  Non-manufacturing

  138

  137

  Note: Full-time adult male manual employees in Great Britain whose earnings were not affected by absence.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the average earnings of full-time adult male manual workers in the motor vehicle industry and (b) the average earnings of full-time adult male non-manual workers generally at (i) the latest available date, (ii) for 1959 and (iii) for 1972; and what information he has as to the nearest comparable figures for 1972 and the latest available date in West Germany.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is provided in the tables:

  1. Average gross hourly earnings of adult male employees in Great Britain: pay not affected by absence, April of each year

  1972 £

  1989 £

  (a) Manual employees in the motor vehicle industry

  0·93

  5·69

  (b)All non-manual employees

  1·11

  8·23

  Source: New Earnings Survey

  2. Manual workers in the motor vehicle industry in West Germany, October of each year

  1972 DM

  1988 DM

  Average gross hourly earnings

  8·55

  21·79

  Source Eurostat

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in (a) 1959 to 1968, (b) 1968 to 1979 and (c) 1979 to date in weekly and hourly earnings of (i) full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing and all other full-time adult males excluding those working in the public sector and (ii) for manual workers and other workers in the public sector.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information from the new earnings survey is provided in the table:
  241
  Note: n/a denotes not available.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, what are the latest available monthly statistics since September 1988, showing for each month(a) the number of referrals to employment training from Restart interviews, (b) the number of employment training action plans completed, (c) the number of starts with employment training training managers, (d) the number of employment training filled places, and (e) the number of profiled or contracted employment training places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As the information requested is contained in a number of tables I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, what are the latest available statistics for employment training showing the number of trainees in each monthly period who(a) have entered employer-based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in employer placements at the latest available date and (b) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered project-based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in project-based placements at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Reliable statistics on the number of trainees on employer and project placements are not currently available at an area office level.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training places, at the latest available date, in each Training Agency area have been filled with starts with training managers; and what percentage that is in each case of total employment training places contracted in each training agency area, for the latest available four months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: The figures are given in the following table.

  Table 1

  Number of employment training places: June-September 1989

  Area office

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,267

  1,544

  1,502

  1,603

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  1,729

  2,152

  2,027

  2,234

  Essex

  1,750

  2,194

  2,144

  2,238

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,260

  2,898

  2,836

  2,793

  Kent

  2,060

  2,536

  2,476

  2,422

  Surrey

  499

  594

  610

  752

  Sussex

  1,926

  2,618

  2,652

  2,759

  London Region

  Inner London North

  6,054

  6,362

  6,434

  6,986

  Inner London South

  3,302

  3,485

  3,429

  3,556

  London East

  2,338

  2,519

  2,523

  2,502

  London North

  3,704

  3,772

  3,922

  4,180

  London South

  1,759

  1,698

  1,598

  1,798

  London West

  1,186

  1,152

  1,086

  1,186

  South West Region

  Avon

  2,675

  2,616

  2,567

  2,841

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,654

  5,696

  5,706

  5,681

  242

  Area office

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Dorset and Somerset

  1,889

  1,907

  1,769

  1,909

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1,568

  1,563

  1,529

  1,604

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,677

  7,894

  8,151

  8,119

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,674

  2,768

  2,777

  2,831

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,907

  2,937

  3,020

  3,029

  Staffordshire

  3,635

  3,693

  3,698

  3,513

  The Marches, Hereford/ Worcester

  2,702

  2,781

  2,865

  2,908

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  3,161

  3,141

  3,129

  3,004

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,703

  1,759

  1,736

  1,793

  Derbyshire

  2,962

  3,089

  3,157

  3,072

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  2,830

  3,000

  3,105

  3,297

  Lincolnshire

  1,389

  1,475

  1,519

  1,483

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,230

  3,272

  3,329

  3,333

  Nottinghamshire

  3,428

  3,779

  3,911

  3,907

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  4,590

  4,616

  4,630

  4,561

  Humberside

  5,231

  5,214

  5,187

  5,040

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  4,494

  4,404

  4,397

  4,632

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  5,492

  5,475

  5,515

  5,575

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  5,389

  5,496

  5,390

  5,368

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  3,192

  3,405

  3,330

  3,227

  Cumbria

  1,399

  1,524

  1,518

  1,563

  Lancashire

  4,202

  4,201

  4,489

  4,464

  Central Manchester

  4,136

  4,327

  4,060

  4,136

  Greater Manchester North

  2,810

  2,983

  2,963

  2,899

  Greater Manchester East

  2,560

  2,642

  2,433

  2,546

  Merseyside

  9,266

  9,882

  9,885

  10,249

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  6,312

  6,448

  6,500

  6,375

  County Durham

  5,535

  5,732

  5,884

  5,854

  Northumberland,

  North Tyneside and Newcastle

  4,607

  4,878

  4,929

  5,249

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  6,531

  6,793

  6,875

  6,740

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  4,404

  4,613

  4,607

  4,749

  Gwent

  2,237

  2,344

  2,410

  2,552

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  3,222

  3,620

  3,654

  3,889

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  4,957

  5,186

  5,289

  5,285

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  3,144

  3,182

  3,239

  3,431

  Central and Fife

  2,870

  2,891

  2,794

  2,884

  Glasgow City

  4,739

  4,807

  5,042

  5,304

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,522

  2,516

  2,598

  2,655

  Highlands and Islands

  993

  1,149

  1,133

  1,175

  Lanarkshire

  2,628

  2,697

  2,971

  2,901

  Lothian and Borders

  3,492

  3,549

  3,590

  3,542

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  2,817

  2,941

  3,064

  3,161

  243

  Table 2

  Number of employment training filled and contracted places at 30 September 1989

  Area office

  Filled places

  Contracted places

  Percentage of contracted places

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,603

  2,269

  71

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  2,234

  2,201

  101

  Essex

  2,238

  2,324

  96

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,793

  3,108

  90

  Kent

  2,422

  3,232

  75

  Surrey

  752

  964

  78

  Sussex

  2,759

  2,560

  108

  London Region

  Inner London North

  6,986

  7,974

  88

  Inner London South

  3,556

  4,286

  83

  London East

  2,502

  2,620

  95

  London North

  4,180

  4,398

  95

  London South

  1,798

  1,965

  92

  London West

  1,186

  1,604

  74

  South West Region

  Avon

  2,841

  3,393

  84

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,681

  6,125

  93

  Dorset and Somerset

  1,909

  1,855

  103

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1,604

  2,109

  76

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  8,119

  8,725

  93

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,831

  3,553

  80

  Dudley and Sandwell

  3,029

  3,735

  81

  Staffordshire

  3,513

  4,286

  82

  The Marches, Hereford/ Worcester

  2,908

  4,095

  71

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  3,004

  4,110

  73

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,793

  1,968

  91

  Derbyshire

  3,072

  3,412

  90

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  3,297

  3,559

  93

  Lincolnshire

  1,483

  1,536

  97

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,333

  3,250

  103

  Nottinghamshire

  3,907

  4,100

  95

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  4,561

  5,147

  89

  Humberside

  5,040

  6,315

  80

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  4,632

  5,195

  89

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  5,575

  7,080

  79

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  5,368

  5,350

  100

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  3,227

  4,245

  76

  Cumbria

  1,563

  1,619

  97

  Lancashire

  4,464

  5,874

  76

  Central Manchester

  4,136

  6,876

  60

  Greater Manchester North

  2,899

  3,505

  83

  Greater Manchester East

  2,546

  3,269

  78

  Merseyside

  10,249

  11,383

  90

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  6,375

  6,861

  93

  County Durham

  5,854

  5,474

  107

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  5,249

  6,315

  83

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  6,740

  8,323

  81

  244

  Area office

  Filled places

  Contracted places

  Percentage of contract- ed places

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  4,749

  5,220

  91

  Gwent

  2,552

  3,719

  69

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  3,889

  5,216

  75

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  5,285

  6,703

  79

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  3,431

  4,200

  82

  Central and Fife

  2,884

  3,124

  92

  Glasgow City

  5,304

  7,010

  76

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,655

  3,754

  71

  Highlands and Islands

  1,175

  1,249

  94

  Lanarkshire

  2,901

  3,585

  81

  Lothian and Borders

  3,542

  3,619

  98

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  3,161

  4,695

  67

  Note: Contracted places figures only available for end September.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many starts have been undertaken at employment training training managers on a monthly basis(a) nationally and (b) by training agency area, since May.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]The figures are provided in the following table.

  Starts with Employment Training managers 1989

  Area office

  In month figures

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  253

  428

  199

  378

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  308

  614

  310

  492

  Essex

  406

  786

  264

  508

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  494

  915

  342

  572

  Kent

  365

  762

  283

  491

  Surrey

  128

  155

  92

  248

  Sussex

  433

  876

  382

  679

  London Region

  Inner London North

  1,005

  1,073

  955

  1,638

  Inner London South

  543

  542

  469

  823

  London East

  452

  452

  290

  467

  London North

  549

  544

  592

  999

  London South

  399

  261

  216

  530

  London West

  198

  206

  138

  307

  South West Region

  Avon

  325

  326

  261

  681

  Devon and Cornwall

  971

  733

  623

  882

  Dorset and Somerset

  297

  221

  180

  344

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  328

  218

  148

  354

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,254

  1,079

  1,033

  1,461

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  449

  454

  415

  641

  Dudley and Sandwell

  452

  426

  467

  622

  Staffordshire

  597

  499

  389

  647

  The Marches, Hereford/ Worcester

  455

  414

  388

  615

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  609

  598

  489

  550

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  254

  260

  249

  396

  Derbyshire

  510

  444

  430

  512

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  476

  571

  733

  960

  Lincolnshire

  264

  271

  334

  196

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  549

  526

  395

  540

  Nottinghamshire

  740

  1,062

  929

  964

  245

  Area office

  In month figures

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  906

  730

  745

  953

  Humberside

  847

  748

  653

  1,167

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  911

  727

  639

  1,230

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  927

  810

  808

  1,171

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  901

  776

  704

  991

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  839

  666

  416

  548

  Cumbria

  228

  272

  175

  325

  Lancashire

  876

  652

  946

  978

  Central Manchester

  965

  871

  643

  937

  Greater Manchester North

  871

  589

  569

  609

  Greater Manchester East

  588

  516

  458

  588

  Merseyside

  1,969

  1,753

  1,323

  2,193

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,360

  719

  838

  1,226

  County Durham

  919

  790

  704

  931

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  874

  810

  668

  1,003

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  1,037

  1,014

  734

  1,427

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  807

  807

  596

  1,068

  Gwent

  322

  358

  327

  622

  Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys

  558

  651

  682

  983

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  959

  850

  741

  1,019

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  603

  366

  481

  694

  Central and Fife

  534

  297

  402

  700

  Glasgow City

  991

  636

  1,005

  1,122

  Grampian and Tayside

  535

  364

  457

  713

  Highlands and Islands

  269

  295

  173

  282

  Lanarkshire

  638

  465

  677

  611

  Lothian and Borders

  692

  565

  781

  703

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  558

  437

  554

  732

  Residential Training Colleges

  105

  92

  31

  314

  Great Britain Total

  36,642

  34,342

  29,924

  44,337

  1 Cumulative since 1 April 1989.

  Parliamentary Answers (Drafting)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals were employed by his Department whose primary role it was to draft answers to parliamentary questions in November of each of the last five years; and how many he expects will be so employed at the end of November.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department does not employ any individuals whose primary role is to draft answers to parliamentary questions. Answers are drafted by officials employed with policy responsibility for the subject area to which the question relates; it is part of their normal range of duties.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he plans to take regarding the Health and Safety Executive office at Baynards house.
  246
  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans regarding the Health and Safety Executive office at Baynards house.

  Health and Safety (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each Health and Safety Executive area, on how many occasions in the last three years Health and Safety Executive inspectors have arranged for letters to union appointed safety representatives to be translated into the appropriate mother-tongue language.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Service Men's Wives
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has, for the latest year for which records exist and for the preceding three years, on the number of wives of service men seeking but unable to find employment(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the British Army of the Rhine and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: This information is not available.

  YTS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have not been offered places on YTS schemes in their own localities in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The Government guarantee the offer of a suitable YTS place to all young people under the age of 18 who are not in full-time employment or in full-time education who apply for one.

  The guarantee continues to be met nationwide. At the end of September there were over 500,000 YTS places in contract, of which 110,821 were still unfilled.

  Training (Statistics)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the monthly statistics for the latest available four months for Great Britain and each standard training agency area for employment training showing(a) entrants in each monthly period and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) the total number of currently filled places, (c) the number of trainees in each monthly period, on employer based work placements and on project-based placements and (d) the number of trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 October 1989]: The figures for entrants and filled places are provided in tables 1 and 2. Information about trainees on employer and project-based training on a particular day is not available at area office level. The figures are collected quarterly; the most recent figures for Great Britain are given in table 3. Information on leavers is not available at area office level. The figures for Great Britain are given in table 4.
  247

  Table 1

  Starts with Employment Training training managers 1989

  Area office

  In month figures

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Cumulative since 1 September 1988

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  253

  428

  199

  378

  3,325

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  308

  614

  310

  492

  4,238

  Essex

  406

  786

  264

  508

  4,793

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  494

  915

  342

  572

  6,224

  Kent

  365

  762

  283

  491

  5,361

  Surrey

  128

  155

  92

  248

  1,519

  Sussex

  433

  876

  382

  679

  4,789

  London Region

  Inner London North

  1,005

  1,073

  955

  1,638

  13,526

  Inner London South

  543

  542

  469

  823

  7,364

  London East

  452

  452

  290

  467

  5,220

  London North

  549

  544

  592

  999

  8,430

  London South

  399

  261

  216

  530

  3,784

  London West

  198

  206

  138

  307

  3,054

  South West Region

  Avon

  325

  326

  261

  681

  5,121

  Devon and Cornwall

  971

  733

  623

  882

  11,464

  Dorset and Somerset

  297

  221

  180

  344

  3,893

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  328

  218

  148

  354

  3,630

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,254

  1,079

  1,033

  1,461

  15,915

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  449

  454

  415

  641

  5,949

  Dudley and Sandwell

  452

  426

  467

  622

  6,769

  Staffordshire

  587

  499

  389

  647

  7,622

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  455

  414

  388

  615

  6,241

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  609

  598

  489

  550

  7,503

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  254

  260

  249

  396

  3,920

  Derbyshire

  510

  444

  430

  512

  6,668

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  476

  571

  733

  960

  7,087

  Lincolnshire

  264

  271

  334

  196

  2,992

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  549

  526

  395

  540

  6,988

  Nottinghamshire

  740

  1,062

  929

  964

  9,708

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  906

  730

  745

  953

  11,175

  Humberside

  847

  748

  653

  1,167

  12,212

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  911

  727

  639

  1,230

  11,073

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  927

  810

  808

  1,171

  14,027

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  901

  776

  704

  991

  12,160

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  839

  666

  416

  548

  7,999

  Cumbria

  228

  272

  175

  325

  3,230

  Lancashire

  876

  652

  946

  978

  11,483

  Central Manchester

  965

  871

  643

  937

  10,644

  Greater Manchester North

  871

  589

  569

  609

  7,886

  Greater Manchester East

  588

  516

  458

  588

  7,327

  Merseyside

  1,969

  1,753

  1,323

  2,193

  21,064

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,360

  719

  838

  1,226

  13,665

  County Durham

  919

  790

  704

  931

  10,778

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  874

  810

  668

  1,003

  9,541

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  1,037

  1,014

  734

  1,427

  13,349

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  807

  807

  596

  1,068

  10,349

  Gwent

  322

  358

  327

  622

  5,092

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  558

  651

  682

  983

  7,622

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  959

  850

  741

  1,019

  11,456

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  603

  366

  481

  694

  6,203

  248

  249

  Area office

  In month figures

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Cumulative since 1 September 1988

  Central and Fife

  534

  297

  402

  700

  6,269

  Glasgow City

  991

  636

  1,005

  1,122

  11,146

  Grampian and Tayside

  535

  364

  457

  713

  6,682

  Highlands and Islands

  269

  295

  173

  282

  2,217

  Lanarkshire

  638

  465

  677

  611

  7,323

  Lothian and Borders

  692

  565

  781

  703

  8,867

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  558

  437

  554

  732

  6,459

  Residential Training Colleges

  105

  92

  31

  314

  1707

  Great Britain Total

  36,642

  34,342

  29,924

  44,337

  451,102

  1Cumulative since 1 April 1989

  Table 2

  Number of Employment Training filled places: June-September 1989

  Area Office

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,267

  1,544

  1,502

  1,603

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  1,729

  2,152

  2,027

  2,234

  Essex

  1,750

  2,194

  2,144

  2,238

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,260

  2,898

  2,836

  2,793

  Kent

  2,060

  2,536

  2,476

  2,422

  Surrey

  499

  594

  610

  752

  Sussex

  1,926

  2,618

  2,652

  2,759

  London Region

  Inner London North

  6,054

  6,362

  6,434

  6,986

  Inner London South

  3,302

  3,485

  3,429

  3,556

  London East

  2,338

  2,519

  2,523

  2,502

  London North

  3,704

  3,772

  3,922

  4,180

  London South

  1,759

  1,698

  1,598

  1,798

  London West

  1,186

  1,152

  1,086

  1,186

  South West Region

  Avon

  2,675

  2,616

  2,567

  2,841

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,654

  5,696

  5,706

  5,681

  Dorset and Somerset

  1,889

  1,907

  1,769

  1,909

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1,568

  1,563

  1,529

  1,604

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,677

  7,894

  8,151

  8,119

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,674

  2,768

  2,777

  2,831

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,907

  2,937

  3,020

  3,029

  Staffordshire

  3,635

  3,693

  3,698

  3,513

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  2,702

  2,781

  2,865

  2,908

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  3,161

  3,141

  3,129

  3,004

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,703

  1,759

  1,736

  1,793

  Derbyshire

  2,962

  3,089

  3,157

  3,072

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  2,830

  3,000

  3,105

  3,297

  Lincolnshire

  1,389

  1,475

  1,519

  1,483

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,230

  3,272

  3,329

  3,333

  Nottinghamshire

  3,428

  3,779

  3,911

  3,907

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  4,590

  4,616

  4,630

  4,561

  Humberside

  5,231

  5,214

  5,187

  5,040

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  4,494

  4,404

  4,397

  4,632

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  5,492

  5,475

  5,515

  5,575

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  5,389

  5,496

  5,390

  5,368

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  3,192

  3,405

  3,330

  3,227

  Cumbria

  1,399

  1,524

  1,518

  1,563

  250

  Area Office

  June

  July

  August

  Sept.

  Lancashire

  4,202

  4,201

  4,489

  4,464

  Central Manchester

  4,136

  4,327

  4,060

  4,136

  Greater Manchester North

  2,810

  2,983

  2,963

  2,899

  Greater Manchester East

  2,560

  2,642

  2,433

  2,546

  Merseyside

  9,266

  9,882

  9,885

  10,249

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  6,312

  6,448

  6,500

  6,375

  County Durham

  5,535

  5,732

  5,884

  5,854

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  4,607

  4,878

  4,929

  5,249

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  6,531

  6,793

  6,875

  6,740

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  4,404

  4,613

  4,607

  4,749

  Gwent

  2,237

  2,344

  2,410

  2,552

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  3,222

  3,620

  3,654

  3,889

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  4,957

  5,186

  5,289

  5,285

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  3,144

  3,182

  3,239

  3,431

  Central and Fife

  2,870

  2,891

  2,794

  2,884

  Glasgow City

  4,739

  4,807

  5,042

  5,304

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,522

  2,516

  2,598

  2,655

  Highlands and Islands

  993

  1,149

  1,133

  1,175

  Lanarkshire

  2,628

  2,697

  2,971

  2,901

  Lothian and Borders

  3,492

  3,549

  3,590

  3,542

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  2,817

  2,941

  3,064

  3,161

  Residential Training College

  512

  560

  528

  730

  Great Britain

  194,201

  202,969

  204,111

  208,069

  Table 3

  Employment Training

  Percentages of Trainees on Placements with Employers and on projects as at 30 June 1989

  Employer Percentage

  Project Percentage

  Great Britain

  25

  50

  Table 4

  Employment Training Leavers (Estimated)

  Month

  Leavers

  June

  31,000

  July

  25,000

  August

  28,000

  September

  40,000

  Cumulative (since September 1988) 239,000

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways including the introduction of regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on price indications and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Imports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the rise in import penetration in manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Ridley
  Import penetration in manufacturing industry rose from 27 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in the year ending March 1989.

  Petrol Retailing
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol retailing.

  Mr. Redwood
  The deadline for completion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report has been extended to 20 December. The nature and timing of the response will depend on the findings of the report.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans for a review of competition policy.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans for a review of competition policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are in the process of implementing the conclusions of our wide-ranging review of competition policy, which were published last year, and have no plans for a further review.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State far Trade and Industry if he has any plans for a review of competition policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are in the process of implementing the conclusions of our review of competition policy, which were published last year, and have no plans for a further review.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans for a review of competition policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are in the process of implementing the conclusions of our review of competition policy, which were published last year, and have no plans for a further review.

  EC Meeting
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I intend to maintain close contact with all my EC counterparts, and a whole range of matters will be discussed.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus, or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product, than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus, or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product, than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus, or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  All OECD countries except Portugal, Greece and Spain were in one or other category in 1988, the latest year for which complete figures are available.

  Textiles (False Labelling)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received over the question of false labelling of textiles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representations have been received from the west Yorkshire trading standards service and a number of hon. Members in west Yorkshire expressing concern about overstatement of the wool content in imported carpets, and in garments made from Italian reclaimed fabric. Responsibility for enforcing the regulations which require the fibre content of textile products to be accurately described rests with local authority trading standards departments.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of the footwear industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department is fully aware of the difficulties facing United Kingdom footwear manufacturers and of their continuing concern over low-cost imports, particularly from the far east. We expect the Commission to publish the findings and recommendations of its Community-wide investigations into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea shortly and we will give these prompt and serious consideration.

  Labelling
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for the labelling of consumer goods.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for the labelling of consumer goods.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for the labelling of consumer goods.

  Mr. Forth
  Additional labelling requirements will come into force over the next year for toys and all-terrain vehicles. The Government has made clear its support for the early introduction of a Community-wide voluntary eco-labelling scheme. In addition my Department is supporting work designed to establish a certification trademark which could be awarded to goods which consistently meet high specifications, although launch of such a scheme would depend on adequate support from industry.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to conduct a review of the way regional selective assistance has operated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An evaluation of the operation and effects of regional selective assistance in the period 1980 to 1984 has recently been completed and will be published in the first part of next year. The findings will be taken into account in the future operation of the scheme.
  254
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individual firms and undertakings in the north west have benefited in the last 12 months as a result of funds made available through the regional selective assistance programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the period 1 October 1988 to 30 September 1989, payments of regional selective assistance were made to 483 firms and undertakings in the north west region.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for stimulating industry in Britain's regions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for stimulating industry in Britain's regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Changes in the focus of our regional policies were made early last year. There are no plans for further changes.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further help is being given to companies to enable them to take full advantage of the establishment of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department's own "Europe Open for Business" information service is continually updated and expanded. Practical help is available through our enterprise initiatives—the consultancy initiative and the export initiative are particularly relevant to firms preparing for the single market.

  There is also a growing range of information and advice available from private sector organisations and my Department will continue to work with such organisations to help enhance the services they offer.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British industry.

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

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British industry.

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

  "British Business"
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.
  255
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.

  Mr. Forth
  Following the decision that responsibility for the statistical series with which DTI was previously concerned should transfer to the Central Statistical Office,British Business magazine lost much of its market and was no longer viable.

  I understand that the CSO are about to launch a series of business bulletins containing most of the new data previously published in British Business.

  Consumer Councils
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect nationalised industry consumer councils have had in protecting the consumer against above inflation price increases and poor service.

  Mr. Forth
  The national industry consumer councils are consulted by their respective industries on price increases. The industries concerned take a number of factors into account in arriving at a decision on such increases, and the national industry consumer councils play a valuable role in ensuring that the consumer view is adequately presented. The councils also have an influential role so far as standards of service are concerned, seeking improvements where experience shows this to be needed; and they are able to take up individual complaints with their industries where the consumer has failed to resolve the matter direct with the industry.

  British Telecom
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any estimate of the number of people who own shares in British Telecom.

  Mr. Forth
  British Telecom's annual report and accounts indicate that at 31 March this year there were 1,203,243 shareholders.

  Furniture (Safety)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the British Standards Institute's recommendations with regard to revising relevant furniture standards to specify the use of toughened or safety glass in low-level locations and methods of fixing glass panels in furniture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A Committee of the British Standards Institution is preparing a specification for testing glass used in furniture and it is expected that a draft standard will be issued for consultation by mid-1990.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in response to proposed changes in the conduct of business rules at the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of representations about proposals by the Securities and Investments Board to amend its rules. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the questions raised in these representations are, however, a matter for the board.
  256
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings he or the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has had since 31 July with(a) the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, (b) the chairmen of each of the self-regulating organisations recognised by the Securities and Investments Board and (c) the chairman or president of each of the professional bodies recognised by the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 31 July I have met the chairmen of the Securities and Investments Board and four of the five self-regulating organisations. I shall meet the chairmen of other bodies as and when necessary. My right hon. Friend will meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board shortly.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies announced inward investment projects in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and which regions benefited the most.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the latest figures readily available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, on a regional basis as distinct from a national total, 330 inward investment decisions were made during 1988 to locate in the United Kingdom. These include the establishment of a new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture. The projects were expected to create about 27,500 new jobs and to have safeguarded a further 18,000. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and do not take into account subsequent developments. The table lists the details of the number of projects and jobs on a regional basis:

  Region

  Projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Scotland

  58

  5,392

  1,978

  Wales

  55

  5,856

  2,085

  Northern Ireland

  22

  2,610

  916

  North East

  22

  2,041

  31

  North West

  24

  1,604

  3,169

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  1,507

  250

  East Midlands

  16

  836

  880

  West Midlands

  66

  3,656

  7,824

  South East

  45

  2,240

  983

  South West

  5

  479

  0

  Knitwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next proposes to meet representatives of the knitwear and textile industries to discuss current difficulties facing the industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no immediate plans to meet representatives of the industry although I take a close interest in matters of concern in the textile, clothing and knitwear sectors.

  However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade met with the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance on 4 October to discuss in some depth the difficulties faced by the three industries. He is also meeting a delegation from the TUC to discuss trade in textiles this afternoon.

  Business Confidence
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has commissioned any research into the current level of business confidence and the implications for manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on business confidence is regularly collected by a number of private organisations, and the results are among the economic indicators available to the Government. I have no plans to duplicate the work of these independent organisations.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is able to report regarding repayments to investors affected by the Barlow Clowes collapse; what steps he has taken and will take to ensure fair treatment to both those who invested in the United Kingdom-based funds and those who invested in the Gibraltar-based funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The matter of payments to investors in Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd. and Barlow Clowes International Ltd. is one for the joint receivers and joint liquidators, Cork Gully and Ernst and Young respectively. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my letters of 16 August and 30 October to all Members, copies of which I have placed in the Library.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the delay in publishing his Department's figures for import penetration.

  Mr. McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the delay in publishing his Department's figures for import penetration.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1988 a new commodity coding system was introduced by Customs and Excise resulting in a complete revision and renumbering of the existing tariff codes.

  Each of these new codes had to be allocated, whole or in part, to industries of the standard industrial classification before import penetration figures could be derived. The size and complexity of this task has resulted in an interruption to the normal publication timetable.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the rise in import penetration in manufactured goods for 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the rise in import penetration in manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the rise in import penetration in manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Import penetration in manufacturing industry rose from 27 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in the year ending March 1989.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has had with representatives of Ferranti; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The company has informed my Department of its financial difficulties. However, it is for the company to explore the various solutions that may be open to it.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he or his officials has met representatives of Ferranti International Signal plc to discuss the company's current financial difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade has listened to the views of Ferranti and senior management of the company have met officials of my Department.

  However, it is for the company to explore the various solutions that may be open to it.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had concerning the recent difficulties of Ferranti Limited; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about the position of Ferranti. However, it is for the company to explore the various options that appear open to it.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department is giving to export industries regarding the exchange rate of pound sterling.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 17 May,Official Report, column 233.

  Takeovers and Mergers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made among European Community partners in agreeing a takeover and mergers regulation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Significant progress was made in discussions on the draft EC merger control regulation at the most recent Council of Internal Market Ministers on 10 October. However, a number of important issues remain to be resolved, including the turnover thresholds, the criteria for assessing mergers and the review mechanism for the EC system. These and other issues will be the subject of further discussions at the next Internal Market Council on 23 November.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the Chairman of British Shipbuilders on 16 October1989 to discuss the disposal of
  259
  the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. We also both gave evidence at the Trade and Industry Select Committee hearing on British Shipbuilders on 18 October.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent information he has as to the level of outstanding British Shipbuilders' commercial borrowing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: Government funding of British Shipbuilders is designed to keep the Corporation's commercial borrowing requirements to a minimum. As at 13 October, actual commercial loans amounted to £3 million. On a year on year basis, however, total net aid provided over the course of the year is subject to the terms of the European Community's sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding. Limitations on Government funding under this Directive necessitated British Shipbuilders borrowing some £90 million in the market in December 1988. By December 1989, it is estimated that this level of borrowing liability will have fallen to about £65 million against the sixth directive's parameters.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to bring forward his proposals designed to regulate the activities of those estate agents engaging in undesirable practices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My proposals to underpin a code of practice for estate agents by an order under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 were announced to the House of Commons and published in the report of my review of estate agency on 21 June. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to develop the code of practice with the industry, consider the scope of the proposed order under section 3 of the Act and report back to me early next year. When I have considered his advice I shall circulate for consultation proposals for an order, as is required under section 30 of the Act.

  Japanese Market
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding British access to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 19 July. In the first nine months of this year our exports to Japan increased in value by 28 per cent.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the future of small rural sub-post offices.

  Mr. Forth
  I meet the chairman of the Post Office regularly to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest and concern.

  CBI
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the Confederation of British Industry on 24 October 1989 when the main topic of discussion was the preparation by British business for the European single market.

  Counterfeit Electrical Products
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to investigate the production of counterfeit electrical products being produced by Taiwan and sold under English company names to Third-world countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the absence of diplomatic relations between the UK and Taiwan, formal representations cannot be made there. UK companies experiencing difficulties with counterfeit products from Taiwan are referred to the Anglo-Taiwanese Trade Committee, which will give advice. Nevertheless, the UK Government regularly make representations to countries where counterfeits are known to be sold and will continue to do so.

  I would be pleased to receive more information, particularly about the volume and destination of counterfeit products, in order that the most effective representaions can be made.

  Business Development Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give(a) the total number of applications for the business development consultancy initiative received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved. (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, in cash and constant prices, for each of the standard Department of Trade and Industry regions, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: In the period from 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989, 31,415 applications were received for the business development consultancy initiatives. In the same period 24,081 applications were approved for assisted consultancy. The Department's contribution to the cost of completed consultancies totalled £27·1 million. It is estimated that those consultancies not completed by 30 September 1989 will cost the Department a further £29·3 million. A breakdown of numbers and cost of consultancy projects for each DTI region and for Scotland and Wales is as follows:
  261

  (a)

  (b)

  (ci)

  (cii)

  DTI region/country

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved for assisted consultancy

  DTI expenditure on completed consultancies (£'000)

  Estimated expenditure on outstanding consultancies (£'000)

  North East

  1,590

  1,225

  1,300

  1,404

  North West

  4,453

  3,780

  4,945

  5,032

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,878

  2,254

  2,932

  3,042

  West Midlands

  3,325

  2,427

  2,966

  3,218

  East Midlands

  1,957

  1,530

  1,839

  2,048

  South West

  2,990

  1,995

  1,820

  2,136

  East

  2,568

  1,725

  1,398

  1,726

  South East:

  London

  3,818

  2,871

  2,669

  2,867

  Reading

  1,861

  1,486

  1,427

  1,726

  Reigate

  1,910

  1,487

  1,349

  1,580

  Scotland

  2,293

  1,976

  2,860

  2,779

  Wales

  1,772

  1,325

  1,585

  1,697

  Total

  31,415

  24,081

  27,090

  29,255

  The total amount of expenditure on the business development consultancy initiatives in 1988–89 was £43·1 millions. The Estimates provision for 1989·90 is £80 millions. Plans for future years will be reflected in the 1990 Public Expenditure White Paper. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of total expenditure or provision on the consultancy initiatives for each DTI region or for Scotland or Wales.

  Rain Forest Timber
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines he has laid down for the import of timber from tropical rain forests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Guidelines for sustainable forest management would need to be established at the international level. The United Kingdom itself and the EC as a whole are promoting work on this issue at the International Tropical Timber Organisation's current meeting in Japan.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the effect of high interest rate levels on manufacturing industries in the north-west.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North West industry is very diverse which means that the impact of present interest rates may vary. My Department's assessment is that the current policy is having its desired effect in the region. Industry is performing well, profits are satisfactory and essential investment by companies intended to secure their position in the market is being maintained. The region's manufacturing companies recognise the importance of defeating inflation and are responding well to the present situation.

  Co-operation Initiatives
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives have been taken to encourage firms to work together, particularly on new technologies; how many projects have been supported; and at what cost.
  262
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The research and technology initiative was launched in January 1988 to provide support for research and development in collaborative projects under four main schemes:

  —LINK, which encourages firms to collaborate with universities and polytechnics in pre-competitive research.

  —EUREKA, which encourages firms to enter collaborative ventures with firms in other European countries.

  —Advanced technology programmes (ATP), which assist companies to collaborate in selected fields of new technology.

  —General industrial collaborative programmes, which provide support for projects at research and technology organisations and for other collaborative projects not covered under the above headings.

  These schemes build on previous experience of supporting collaborative research and development: on the LINK scheme was a wholly new initiative.

  Both the LINK and the ATP schemes seek to promote advanced technology. Under these schemes 29 programmes have been initiated. The areas of technology that will benefit are:

  LINK

  Electronics and IT

  Molecular electronics

  Advanced semiconductors

  Personal communications

  Opto-electronics

  Power electronic devices

  Biosciences and Food

  Eukaryotic genetics

  Biotransformations

  Food Processing

  Protein engineering

  Plant metabolism

  Selective drug delivery

  Engineering and measurement

  Industrial measurement

  Nanotechnoloty

  Ventilation, airconditioning and refrigeration

  High speed machinery

  Molecular sensors

  Analytical and physical measurement

  Construction and refurbishment

  Biochemical engineering

  Materials and chemicals

  Structural composites

  Catalytic processes

  263
  ATP

  High temperature superconductivity

  Gallium arsenide

  Information engineering

  Electronics

  Systems technology and integration

  Computer aided engineering

  Advanced robotics

  Wealth from the oceans

  The number of collaborative projects that have started since January 1988 and the expected contribution to those projects by the DTI are set out in the table:

  Scheme

  Number of projects

  DTI support (£m)

  LINK

  40

  112·0

  ATP

  80

  19·7

  EUREKA

  43

  17·5

  General industrial

  187

  27·6

  Total

  350

  76.8

  1Contributions by DTI and other Departments.

  In addition there are over 600 collaborative projects under discussion between the Department and industry. Strong growth is expected in particular in numbers of new LINK projects. Small and medium-sized enterprises are well represented, particularly in the general industrial collaborative category.

  It is expected that DTI expenditure in support of collaborative industrial research and development in 1990–91 will be about £85 million.

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has of the costs involved in implementing the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations for(a) industry and (b) small businesses and what steps is he taking in the current year to promote or publicise these regulations for those sectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  Where substances hazardous to health were adequately and reliably controlled and where there was full compliance with existing legislation, the costs of implementing the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations should be marginal; they will arise mainly from reviewing and formalising existing arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive estimated in its cost/benefit analysis for the COSHH proposals that for a typical small firm the additional costs arising would amount to no more than about one quarter of a percentage point of the firm's net output. This estimate included the costs of monitoring of exposure and health surveillance which apply to only a minority of firms. For most larger firms, the costs will be substantially smaller in relation to net output.

  The Health and Safety Executive has promoted and publicised the regulations by a variety of means, including national and trade advertising and the distribution of some 3·5 million introductory leaflets. Many activities have been particularly geared to the need to reach small firms, including the provision of information to the principal small firms advisory organisations.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Lord Crook Lord Crook —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Nuclear Power Stations
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the building of new nuclear power stations and whether it will be influenced by the reports of public inquiries.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the construction of new nuclear power stations in England and Wales is a matter for the CEGB. In considering any application for his consent to the building of a new power station, the Secretary of State will consider all relevant factors including the report of any public inquiry held.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware, and will he inform his right honourable friend, that according to research carried out at the Rocky Mountain Institute and elsewhere investment in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy is between five and seven times as effective both in terms of cost and in reducing the greenhouse effect?
In view of the massive amounts of money now being spent by British Nuclear Fuels in persuading the public that nuclear energy is the answer to the greenhouse effect, will the Government use some of their publicity money in order to inform the public of the true facts concerning the greenhouse effect and various forms of investment in energy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government believe that nuclear power has a vital strategic role to play in achieving security of supply. Nuclear and renewables help to limit the damage which burning fossil fuels does to the environment. Energy efficiency is not an alternative to building power stations. Both are needed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, there is strong evidence to support the view that nuclear energy reduces the risk of acid rain and of damaging the ozone layer? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore uphold their policy of encouraging the nuclear power programme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Fossil fuels are not without their hidden costs. Burning coal has environmental costs in terms of acid rain and the greenhouse effect, as my noble friend has said. The cost of coal-fired
240
electricity does not take into account the £1 billion per year in grants which the taxpayer is making to British Coal.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that if we stopped building nuclear power stations we could run out of nuclear engineers? When we finally needed them there would be no one available to build stations. That would be another of our heavy industries to go down the drain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We need all the nuclear engineers possible, both now and in the future.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that policy on building nuclear power stations has a bearing on the future of the coal industry? Can he say what truth there is in the report from the Department of Energy that in order to ensure the success of the privatisation of the electricity industry, including nuclear power plants, the Government intend to force the closure of 26 coal mines, with the eventual loss of 30,000 miners' jobs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not prepared to comment on those figures. What I will say to the noble Lord is that the Government's aim is to help to secure British Coal's future as a competitive supplier. We believe that British coal can be a competitive fuel. The Government invest more than £2 million a day in British Coal and have invested £6·5 billion since 1979. Those who supply fuel to the electricity industry will have to ensure that they are competitive.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, that is just not good enough. The Minister should be frank with the House. First, is he not aware that the report from the Department of Energy exists and that it has been submitted to a Cabinet sub-committee? The figures that I have suggested are in the report. The noble Viscount ought to face the House with the frank answer that the eventual effect of that report means the closure of mines and job losses in the coal industry once again.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the House would not expect me to continue with these speculative items.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the French are now 70 per cent. dependent upon nuclear power stations for the generation of electricity, which they export to this country in substantial quantities? Will my noble friend consider giving a free ticket to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to go to France to try to persuade the French that they have been entirely wrong in everything they have done for the past 20 years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The French electricity industry relies enormously upon the PWRs that it has built.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Viscount prepared to give an indication to the House of what he considers to be the likely comparative trends of the costs of nuclear power, taking all factors into account? Will he say the extent to which existing nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom are competitive with other forms of electricity generation, or to what extent that could become the case in the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think it is right to say that the Government have never denied that nuclear power is more expensive than fossil-generated power. That is the reason for the non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy. Electricity customers benefit from the diversity of supply that nuclear provides. The Government believe that those who benefit should contribute to the cost.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Viscount studied the document entitled Power in Europe and the document to which my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley referred? Does the noble Viscount agree that the cost per kilowatt hour of nuclear unit is nearly three times the cost of a coal-fired kilowatt hour? In that case why are we so keen on developing our resources of nuclear engineers? Why is the diversity of supply so important, and why will it cost £1·4 billion a year in the nuclear levy to keep this going? Is there any hope of the PWRs being built at anything near an economic rate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions. The Government have decided that the public electricity supply companies should fulfil the non-fossil fuel obligation. The cost of nuclear fuel, as I said, is recognised to be higher than that of fuel produced from the fossil fuels. I also said that there are some other costs involved with generating electricity from fossil fuels which have not been taken into account so far.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us think that it is counter-productive to have to listen to the conclusions of various reports which are quoted, such as that by the Ark group, merely because they fit in with the preconceived ideas of the people who quote them? Is there any evidence at all to show that people who have to make the decisions have deliberately ignored any evidence for or against the desirability of having or not having nuclear power?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think my noble friend is correct. In the construction of any new nuclear power station all the costs and the requirements for the industry will be taken into account.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that a reputable organisation has produced the figures to which his noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and I referred as being part of a document which formed a presentation by the Secretary of State for Energy to Cabinet colleagues?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that that document is also confidential. I am sure the House would not expect me to comment on the figures.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we are now half-way through the time which the House has itself decided we should allow for Questions. I suggest that we take one final question. If that question has to be from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because he feels he wishes to ask a final question, then of course the noble Lord is free to do so.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I, as well as any other noble Lord, am in the hands of the House. It is for the House to decide the matter, but I suggest to your Lordships that one more question would be enough.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that I am quite prepared to go to France to look at the nuclear programme there at his expense? Is the noble Viscount also aware that the French nuclear programme is now in severe trouble, as can be seen from a Question that has been tabled for Written Answer? We are talking about the future of the human race. Is he aware that it is not gossip but scientific research which has shown that the use of nuclear reactors to produce electricity, far from reducing the greenhouse effect, will add to it? Is he further aware that the use of renewables and energy efficiency are far safer methods of producing electricity and reducing the consumption of electricity and thus reducing the greenhouse effect?
Noble Lords: Speech!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that nuclear fuel poses the environmental dangers that he suggests. I should also say that, yes, we need energy efficiency, but that does not mean that we need to reduce the amount of power generated.

Factory Farming: Pig Welfare
2.50 p.m.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their attention has been drawn to the article "Pigs in the Machine" in the colour supplement of The Sunday Correspondent of 1st October and other similar articles and whether they are satisfied that the present system for inspection of factory farms is adequate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Tr umpington): Frankly, my Lords, not only did I read the article in The Sunday Correspondent, but as written, I found it disgusting. The Government are well aware of that and similar articles which in part reflect the general

243
concern over the need to ensure proper standards of animal welfare. The Government share that concern. Such articles, however, sometimes tend to be emotive and describe normal husbandry practices in sensational and appalling terms.
Despite the most zealous arrangements under which the Government's state veterinary service spends a considerable amount of time and effort in visiting livestock farms, both intensive and extensive, to check and advise on animal welfare, the system of inspection can never achieve perfection.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Having spoken to the author of the article I am sure that a great deal more might have been said than appeared in the article. Will the Government consider a licensing scheme for these intensive units and a scheme for better training of the stockmen involved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, many of the practices are covered by legislation and the welfare code for pigs. They are recognised as acceptable provided they are performed by competent stockkeepers in a humanitarian way. However, we would not condone some of the actions described but were unable to identify the farms concerned because the newspaper would not give the names of the premises. I understand that the NFU also tried and failed to identify the farms.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether her Ministry has a definition of factory farms? If it does not have such a definition will she consider asking the Farm Animal Welfare Council to devise one? Does she agree that it is important that in the forthcoming Bill we should consider the licensing of food processors and factory farms as well as food shops?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, provided that stockmanship is of a high enough standard intensive systems can be operated without welfare problems. However, the Government have stated in response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's assessment of pig production systems that stall and tether systems impose an unacceptable welfare burden on animals. We have therefore accepted the council's recommendations for change and are seeking to have those changes accepted on a Community basis.
I should also say with regard to training, because I did not do so in answer to my noble friend's earlier question, that the Government are encouraging the industry to give stockmen the necessary training to operate alternative systems successfully.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 10 years ago a Select Committee in another place, of which I had the privilege to be chairman, looked into intensive methods of food production and concluded that the sow stall house was without any question cruelly intensive? Will she, at her absolute convenience, look at the subsequent report of that committee with a view to implementing some of its recommendations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the report. We are sponsoring research which is directly related to pig welfare. That amounted to £500,000 in 1988–89, of which £160,000 was on alternative systems and pig behaviour. More research has started this year and there are plans for future work on alternative systems.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a well-bred pig is more intelligent than a great many human beings? Secondly, is she willing to prevail upon the media to let the consumer see more of the miseries of the rearing and slaughter of that sensitive animal? Thirdly, will she prevail upon the authorities of the House to give the right message to the consumer by banning pork, veal and venison from our dining room until we are satisfied that the animals are more humanely treated and slaughtered?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can sum up the noble Lord's question by saying, speak for yourself.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as one of the ministerial signatories to the code of good practice issued by the Department of Agriculture in the early 1980s, which I believe has subsequently been amended, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether she is satisfied that the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which are very important, are being implemented with the necessary degree of urgency. I appreciate that we have to carry Europe with us on that point, but the council made a number of extremely important recommendations. Will she pursue the matter with real vigour?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have here a copy of the code of practice, and I congratulate my noble friend if it is the one with which he was associated. Of course we are aware of the recommendations. As I said, we shall be pressing as hard as we can for them to be implemented when the Community working group meeting starts in Brussels this month.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, have the Government been made aware of the so-called family pig system which has been developed at the school of agriculture in Edinburgh which appears to be a very much more humane way of keeping pigs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has looked at that system and is looking at other extensive systems. That is part of the way forward but more research is needed before it becomes a viable alternative.

Dentistry: NHS Care
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision is made in the proposed new NHS contract for general dental practitioners to

245
ensure that NHS dental treatment will continue to be available to patients in high-cost areas such as the major cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the new contract, with its emphasis on continuing care, will generally reinforce the profession's commitment to the National Health Service. The proposals have been welcomed by the General Dental Services Committee as better for dentists, patients and dentistry. The proposed pay structure will reward dentists who attract more National Health Service patients. We believe that that will be just as effective in the major cities as elsewhere.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I know that she is aware that I retire just before the new contract comes into force, so this is not personal pleading.
Is she not aware that throughout the country in the high-cost areas other jobs and professions normally attract some form of weighting? I speak for London which I know best. Is my noble friend aware that in areas such as London, where rents and rates are so high and staff often have to be paid at a much higher rate because they want a form of weighting, dentists will find it impossible to accept those conditions? When she says that the profession has accepted the contract, is she aware that at a major meeting of the metropolitan section of the British Dental Association great concern was expressed about how dentists could possibly afford the additional overheads while still giving a proper service to patients?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is nothing in the new contract that will make the problem of major city and London costs in particular any worse. The contract will enable legitimate mixing of private and National Health Service care. But we shall of course monitor the effect of the proposals and see how they work in practice.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the last intervention by the Government in the dental price mechanism —namely, the imposition of charges for sight tests —was very damaging to patients' interests and to dental health? Will she now give an assurance that, whatever new formula is worked out between her department and the British Dental Association, it will not impose new burdens on the public in terms of charges?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the present pay system was introduced in 1948 when the main need was to encourage dentists to carry out as many fillings and other treatments as they could. Nowadays there is general agreement that we need a more preventive approach, a more even coverage of the population and to improve the service to the patient. Hence the proposed new contract. About 20 per cent. of dentists' earnings will be for all-round care, including preventive work, rather than individual pieces of work. Dentists have long argued
246
that the fee scales should be less work-related, and they welcomed this change.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with respect, I asked whether the Minister can give an assurance that that will not lead to higher charges for patients.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I see no reason why it should.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm the fact that 75 per cent. of the charge is now paid by patients. Will she confirm that she is aware that a practice, which is not considered desirable, of selective treatment is now carried out in high-cost areas whereby dentists carry out only profitable forms of treatment on the health service? Will she also confirm that, under the new contract, the selective system which has been used by dentists to survive in those high-cost areas will no longer be available, and that patients will have to have either fully national health treatment or fully private treatment; or will she tell us whether the Government are considering salaried community dentists, for example, particularly in deprived areas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the new contract will not reduce the scope for private practice. Indeed, it includes proposals to liberalise the rules which limit the circumstances in which private treatment may be mixed with National Health Service treatment. If patients wish to receive private treatment from a dentist who previously cared for them under the National Health Service, they will, as now, be free to do so. The contract will ensure, however, that patients understand the options open to them and that, if they are accepted as National Health Service patients, they will have access to the full range of NHS treatment if they need it. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this removal of any possible confusion to patients on their entitlements under the National Health Service. I must emphasise that in these proposals it is the interests of patients which come first.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her last statement will put back the whole situation? We know, as she said, that patients will have the right to continue with private treatment, but we also know that dentists will not have a right to refuse any one treatment, whatever it may be. Therefore, my fear is that they may refuse all treatment. That is my point. Is the Minister aware of that problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said previously, the profession welcomed the opportunity to negotiate a new contract which it felt was long overdue. The new contract offers benefits for dentists which they welcome, in particular, greater clinical freedom and a stable flow of income. The contract is unlikely to have the effect of driving dentists away from the National Health Service. There is a strong feeling among many members of the profession that demand will increase and that people will be attracted as a result of the new proposals.

Sandeels: Fishing Restrictions
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will consider a moratorium on the fishing of sandeels.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, licensing arrangements were introduced earlier this year to regulate fishing for sandeels in Scottish inshore waters. As part of the detailed arrangements for 1989, fishing for sandeels around Shetland has been prohibited since 1st July, and restrictions have been placed on the level of fishing on the west coast of Scotland. Arrangements for fisheries for 1990, including the need for a ban on fishing, will be considered before the end of the year.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous, informative and only slightly encouraging reply. Is he aware that the sanded —Ammodytes marinus —is a small fish and that it forms the staple diet of Common and Arctic terns, Great and Arctic skuas and puffins, and that in 1988 there was almost total breeding failure in these varieties in Shetland due to tens of thousands of chicks starving to death because their parents were not able to find sufficient food for them?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right to say that the sandeel reaches a maximum size of eight inches. I accept that Arctic terns have been under stress, as the numbers that have died recently show, but there is not sufficient evidence to know the precise reasons for the fall in sandeel recruitment at the present time. However, I can assure my noble friend that increased amounts of research and cash for research are being put into that area.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the statement in a national newspaper earlier this week that the census that has been taken of sandeels this year is about equivalent to the census that was taken 15 years ago? Perhaps I may inquire of my noble friend how the number of sandeels is counted and how many of his officials are engaged in what might be a rather laborious task.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that counting sandeels is extremely difficult to do accurately as they exist in waters up to 30 metres deep in sandbanks round about Shetland, where the problem happens to be. However, I assure my noble friend that current research will give us at least some further clues as to the problem affecting not only the fishery that exists in that area but the birdlife of the area.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlarge on the question of research? Is it not a fact that there is some difficulty because the responsi-
248
bility falls between DAFS and the Department of the Environment? Will he assure the House that, whoever may be responsible in the end, sufficient finance for that research will be available?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the current expenditure on research into sandeel stocks by our marine laboratory in Aberdeen is running at £70,000 this year and is expected to increase next year. In addition, a project on the availability of sandeels to birds is being planned with consortium funding of £140,000 from various conservation bodies.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has been a great deterioration in the numbers of sea trout this year and last year around the Scottish islands and in the rivers and lochs? Does he agree that the salmon is the poor man's sporting fish? Is he further aware that the sea trout in Loch Maree, which has the best sea trout, has distinctly deteriorated this year, and that in my own loch, Loch Ba, which is famous for the size of its sea trout, the numbers have dropped by two-thirds?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very interesting dissertation on sea trout and salmon, but as I understand it we are here dealing with the problems which genuinely exist around the coast of Shetland. I can assure the House that we shall take all necessary powers to deal with the situation if it means a further cutback on the amount of fishing effort. However, I am not persuaded at this time that fishing effort is the only problem in relation to the low recruitment of sandeels.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised this matter because it is causing considerable concern in Scotland. Has the Minister or the department given serious thought to the control, or perhaps even the prohibition, of industrial fishing in those waters, which many people believe is part of the problem? I am grateful that the Minister was able to say that there had been implementation of the proposal made by his honourable friend in another place on 4th April about the control of fishing in Scottish inshore waters. He said that the measure had been introduced on 1st July. Can he give us any indication of the progress that has been made on this subject?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. There are two separate problems involved. First of all, the closure of the fishery from 1st July to the end of the year helps the small sandeels to grow and develop, because that is the time when they are most at risk. So far as concerns licensing, which is the other aspect, we have introduced licensing arrangements off the west coast to cover the Minch area. We shall be looking at licensing along with the question of the prohibition time by the end of the year, in time for next year. I can assure the noble Lord that both those points are actively being considered at the moment.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government and Housing Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Politically restricted posts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("(4A) Nothing in subsection (3)(b) above shall be taken to refer to an officer whose principal form of contact with journalists or broadcasters is the giving orally of factual information rather than the presentation of the policy of the authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequent upon a very helpful debate and amendments which were agreed by the House at Report stage. Like some of the amendments which follow it seeks to clarify anomalies which appear as a result of the amendments agreed at Report stage and to press the Government slightly more about the detailed application of the Bill as it now reads.
Let me stress that we do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on these amendments. They are amendments which have been tabled in order to establish with greater clarity the Government's attitude. At Report stage the Government clarified the position with regard to giving advice to committees and sub-committees of a council by local government officers in the context of the programme of political restrictions which the Bill imposes on those officers. In particular, I want to refer to the clarification that giving advice to committees and sub-committees does not include the provision of factual information.
At the same time, with the support of the Government the House agreed that the restriction of contact with members of the public would no longer be enforced and therefore that the giving of information to members of the public was no longer an element in political restriction. This amendment seeks to secure the same treatment for those who deal with members of the press or broadcasting media, and press officers in particular.
There are many press officers working for local councils whose role very largely consists of issuing press releases —a post which it has now been agreed is no longer a politically restricted post —but who also deal with factual queries from members of the press. For example, they deal with requests for information about council services or the programme of activities of the mayor —that kind of relatively non-political matter which does not involve the press officer in acting as a policy spokesman for the council.
In this amendment we seek to exclude from the political restrictions those posts which principally
250
deal with factual information rather than the presentation of the policy of the authority. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to indicate that either the amendment is acceptable or that the principle that giving factual information is not politically sensitive should be extended to press officers. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, this amendment would exclude from the second of the categories of politically sensitive posts in Clause 3(3) officers whose principal form of contact with journalists or broadcasters is the giving orally of factual information rather than the presentation of the policy of the authority. The amendments to Clause 2(3) that we agreed at Report reduce to two the number of categories of politically sensitive posts subject to the restrictions on political activity, to those who advise the council and its committees, and those who speak for the council to the media.
On the first category the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that we should make it clear that simply providing purely factual information was not advising the council. This I was able to do by assuring the House that advising someone goes beyond providing information —just the distinction with which we were concerned in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Strange. That amendment is now Clause 38.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, now suggests that we make a similar change here to make it clear that when someone in a local authority's press office simply provides factual information to the media, he is not doing something which justifies applying the political restrictions.
I do not think that that would be sensible. In the first place, we do not believe that life is like that. Dealing with the media does not divide into two neat packets of "giving factual information" on the one hand and "presenting policy" on the other. In real life the two will be inextricably linked. It would therefore be wrong to suggest that it is possible neatly to separate the two.
Nor do I think that press offices and public relations departments are organised in a way that corresponds to that division. Calls come in from the media in a mixed sequence, and I have yet to hear of any press officer who deals with a question by saying, "Oh no, I only dish out the facts; it's my colleague who presents the policy". I therefore think that it would not be sensible to suggest that this distinction corresponds with real life.
Finally, on the positive side, I do not think that the amendment gives sufficient weight to the restrictions already built into the definition. To fall into the category it must be a duty of the post to speak to journalists and broadcasters, rather than to the public at large. It must be a duty to do so regularly, rather than on an occasional basis; and it must be a duty to do so on behalf of the authority, which implies that something special to the authority is being communicated —not information which is generally available.

251
In the light of my last remarks in particular, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister does less than justice to the drafting of my amendment. We anticipated the response that some people would be both giving factual information and representing the authority's policy. That is why in the amendment we refer to the principal form of contact with journalists or broadcasters. I had hoped that that would have helped the Minister to take a slightly more favourable attitude than he has done.
However, as he indicated, his last remarks were helpful enough, at least in clarifying the position and in enabling local authorities to make a sound judgment from the beginning about who should be excluded and who included. In those circumstances I am able, as he suggested, to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 13, after ("duties") insert ("fall within subsection (9A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 refer to an issue which has been discussed. It is the definition of deputy chief officers. When we raised the matter at Report stage, the Minister quite rightly referred to a number of examples. A director of technical services would have a number of very senior officers reporting to him —such as the chief architect or the chief building surveyor, or whoever it may be —who would be acting as deputies and ought to be covered by the chief officer and deputy rules. We agree. That is certainly correct.
However, as the post of deputy is defined in the Bill, not only would such people be covered but those who because of the nature of their functions report directly to a chief officer but are nowhere near being deputies would also be covered. For example, a mayor's secretary or programme officer could report directly to the director of personnel, or to the chief executive or the town clerk. Those are junior or middle ranking officers rather than people in the position of a chief architect. It seems to us to be inappropriate that as the Bill is at present drafted they should be included simply because they report directly to a chief officer. We hope that the formulation in the amendment makes matters clearer and excludes people who on any objective view ought not to be included in the political restrictions. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to give the adjudicator to be appointed under Clause 3 power to direct in certain cases that a post should not be regarded as that of a deputy chief officer. He would consider whether certain posts which came within the definition of a deputy chief officer in Clause 2(8) should nevertheless be excluded because in practice they were not senior enough for the holders to be regarded as such.
252
The House considered at Report stage an amendment which would have attempted to restrict the definition of a deputy chief officer. I explained then that the proposed definition in the Bill is a response to the widely ranging management structures that exist in local government, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred in his opening remarks.
To establish a common measure of what is a chief officer, we have used the concept of those who directly report, for all or most of their duties, to the council, a committee, a sub-committee or the chief executive.
We think that it is reasonable to treat as the next tier of officers all those who directly report to a chief officer for all or most of their duties. We exclude those who provide secretarial, clerical or similar support services, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh For the rest, I stress that they must report directly for all or most of their duties. Someone who reports directly on some limited aspect will not therefore be covered. Likewise, I stress that the reporting must be direct. This means that there must not be anyone interposed.
What this means is that, if the chief officer is not there, it will be for the deputy chief officer, on our definition, to handle matters within his bailiwick. In considering the definition of what makes an officer sufficiently senior to be brought automatically within the political restrictions, we therefore think that it should be the chief executive and those in the next two tiers. It does not matter that the officer may, in comparison with other similar officers, be paid less. What matters is that, in the absence of the chief officer, he or she is going to be dealing direct with councillors on matters in his or her area.
That is why we have proposed the definition as it is, and that is why we think that it should remain so. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is sad that we have reached this point without agreement. I do not think that the Minister's reply covers the complexities of situations that are found in local authorities. He did not refer to the example that I gave of someone who is responsible for the mayor's diary for ceremonial functions, or for a member's services. Such people meet the qualification for political restriction because they report entirely to a chief officer —the director of personnel or the chief executive. They do not report to anyone else. There is no one else between them. Nevertheless, they are not giving advice to committees or taking part in the policy of the council.
With respect, I do not consider that the Minister's definition would exclude them although common sense would indicate that they should be excluded. However, we have pursued the matter as far as we can. We have recorded our objection to this relatively minor defect in the provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Grant and supervision of exemptions from political restriction]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
( "(7A) Any individual applying under the section to be exempted from the consequences of holding a politically restricted post shall not be regarded as holding such a post during the period in which the application for exemption is being considered.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 refers to a matter of considerable urgency. We have had a number of amendments which reduce the scope for the appeals procedure. That must be helpful both as regards the appeals procedure within a local authority and the request for guidance. That must be good. The urgency arises because these issues must be settled by the May 1990 elections, which cover councils in a very large part of the country. It is not simply the campaign itself. We have to be concerned with the selection of candidates for the election —in other words, with the public identification of people with the party for which they will be candidates —and the process of run-up to the election period.
Despite all the good things that have been done to reduce the scope for appeals, and the undertaking which government have given that the cases of those who are affected by the May 1990 elections will be given priority in the appeals procedure —for which we are grateful —there is still the possibility that appeals will be outstanding at the time the May 1990 elections take place or are being prepared for. People who may ultimately turn out not to be restricted could be restricted pending the appeal. In the amendment we are asking that there should be a fail-safe position: that while the appeal takes place they should not be restricted. The restriction should take effect only when the appeal has been determined by imposing a political restriction.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 4 is to enable those categorised as politically restricted under Clause 2 of the Bill to continue to engage in public political activity until such time as the adjudicator has ruled on the admissibility or otherwise of the application for exemption.
In order to deal with applications as expeditiously as possible, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will appoint the independent adjudicator as soon as possible after Royal Assent. Moreover, the Bill provides that the adjudicator must give priority to those who declare that they are candidates for an election. Furthermore, the restrictions will not come into effect immediately. There must be a period during which the necessary lists can be drawn up, and applications for exemption made. We envisage that the actual restrictions will not come into force until about the beginning of next March; and then those affected who are councillors will be able to continue until the end of their current term.
Finally, there is power under Clause 2(2) to make exemptions for descriptions of posts. We envisage that that will be used, for example, to deal with the question of those whose posts are brought into question by reason of annual increments.
254
We shall be consulting local authorities on the use of that power. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I shall be glad, subject to one point, to include in that consultation the question of whether the power should be used also where an application for exemption has been lodged but not determined. The only reservation I have is that I do not think it would be right to permit a transitional arrangement of that kind where the employing local authority has determined that in its view the post should be restricted. In that case the restrictions should apply unless and until the adjudicator takes a different view.
I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask a point of clarification. I heard him say that when the restrictions come into force next March sitting members will be allowed to stay until the end of their term. That means that county councillors elected last year will be able to see through the remaining two years of their term. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is entirely correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must be grateful for the indication that the matter will be included in the consultation document and also for the assurance and reminder that powers are available to make regulations and orders giving effect to our request. I should have wished the consultation document to include all the cases raised by the amendment. However, the fact that any are to be raised is a step forward and gives me art opportunity to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [Duty to adopt standing orders with respect to staff]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 34, at end insert ("clearance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is familiar to the Minister. It has been re-tabled because, during the last stage of the Bill, there appeared to be a genuine misunderstanding. On that occasion I invited the Minister to consider his remark in Committee on 20th July when he said:
"We feel that it is enough for the monitoring officer to sign a clearance report"—
The word "clearance" is the operative one,
"without having to submit it before the appointment is confirmed. This should ensure that, except where an appointment has not been properly made appointments are not delayed … The Government's intention is that this power to require a report by the monitoring officer should be used only in respect of posts where councillors are involved in the appointment process".—(0fficial Report, 20/7/89; col. 979.)
The final formulation of that answer was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on 19th October. It is clearly understood to be the Government's

255
intention. However, in responding on that occasion to Amendment No. 24, the noble Lord said:
"These amendments would instead provide that the monitoring officer should merely issue a clearance. Such a clearance would not be a report in the sense of Clause 4".—(0fficial Report, 19/10/89; col. 1077.)
That was not the purpose of the amendment. The word "clearance" is inserted merely as an attempt to qualify the type of report which is required and to give effect to the Government's intention as expressed in Committee —that it should be a clearance report which need not be submitted before the appointment is confirmed.
The amendment was intended to be constructive and not to disrupt the basic scheme in Clause 8 of the Bill. At col. 1078 of Hansard I made the point that I was genuinely puzzled as to why the amendment could not be accepted in the light of what the Minister had said in July. I said that the arguments that had been made on Report did not appear to me to match the remarks of the Minister in Committee in July.
I suggest that today the Minister may be able to say whether at an earlier stage there was a misunderstanding. Whatever the merits of the amendment, it is suggested that the Government's intention is still not fully reflected in the Bill. Clause 8(3)(c) requires a report to the authortiy in respect of every proposed appointment of a person to a politically restricted post. That suggests that the report must be submitted before the appointment is confirmed. It is precisely the opposite formulation to that put forward by the Government in Committee.
The Minister can help me and also many people outside the House who are seeking clarification by way of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to amend the description of what an authority's monitoring officer can be required to prepare in respect of proposed appointments. Instead of simply preparing a report, he or she would have to prepare a clearance report.
At Report stage we discussed the question of what the monitoring officer should prepare. I was then unwilling to accept the replacement of the word "report" with the word "clearance", because I felt that it was important that the provisions of Clause 5 should clearly apply to whatever is prepared if it shows that all is not well.
Although the amendment would make it clear that what is to be prepared is a report, I think that there might still be some doubt about whether an adverse clearance report was a report within the meaning of Clause 5. Someone might ask: why use a different phrase if they are the same? The important thing is not what the report is called, but what it says. The requirement that can be applied is that the monitoring officer should state whether in his opinion the proposed appointment can properly be made. As the report of the joint working group on the implementation of these proposals suggests, that opinion should be to the best of his knowledge and belief and, once it has been stated, the appointment can go ahead. It is only where an adverse report is given that any further proceedings are needed.
256
I must re-emphasise that we do not believe that the word "clearance" in any way changes the effect.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, do I take it that the Minister is rejecting the amendment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, yes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, at least we have clarification about that matter. The Minister and his advisers are clear that there can be no dubiety about what is meant. We must wait to see what happens in practice. I appreciate that the Minister has taken the trouble to go over the ground again. Today it appeared to me to be a little clearer than on a previous occasion and I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I hope that people outside the House share my opinion that we have clarity if not clearance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 25, line 50, after ("regulations") insert ("(bb) a financial loss allowance;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. The purpose —particularly of Amendment No. 6 —is to insert a power enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to create a financial loss allowance. As a result of his long experience in local government, my noble friend Lord McIntosh was on the last occasion able to illuminate and entertain the House on the aspect of seeking to make proper recompense to those who serve on local authorities. The time that they give is part of the structure, the history and the raison d'etre of local government.
The Minister will know that the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities —in other words the big three local government associations —have expressed views on the matter. A joint statement issued on 18th October stated that there were,
"a number of members who feel that Financial Loss Allowance is an important and valuable alternative to attendance allowance and who will greatly regret its demise. It is not much used, but can make all the difference in enabling some members to avoid serious financial detriment as a direct consequence of being a councillor. Its existence encourages and extends the representative nature of local government and there will be councillors still hoping for the possibility of an option to give up the Basic Flat Rate and Attendance allowance in exchange for continuing Financial Loss Allowance"
The statement, which, I repeat, is from the three senior local government organisations, went on to say that if the Government see difficulties in offering such flexibility in that it would add uncertainty within the constraints of the new cash limit system, then the associations would wish to see an element of flexibility in the operation of the cash limit to be applied to each local authority. I hope that the

257
Government will be able to confirm that the option should be kept open, at this stage, of creating a financial loss allowance alternative for certain members by regulation. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
In relation to the uprating of the quantum available to each local authority, the associations continue to express their regret at the Government's failure to make available for members' allowances the full amount represented by Widdicombe. The Minister will be familiar with the Widdicombe Report on this aspect. The associations have said:
"It is, however, to be regretted that the Government is not proposing the level of expenditure, suitably updated, which was proposed in Widdicombe and which was seen by that report as an intrinsic part of its general approach to members' allowances. At current levels the Widdicombe quantum would be £75 million. That is what the local authority associations think appropriate and would have wished to see, as the chairmen of the associations stated in their letter to the Minister. The Associations' concern is to maintain a healthy, efficient and effective local democracy".
Of course the Minister will share those aims. The people at the sharp end are saying that an aid or a tool to maintain a healthy, efficient and effective local democracy would be allowances of this kind and in these terms.
The associations went on to say to the Minister:
"The financial consequences of service on a council should not become a powerful disincentive to participation in local government; especially given the desirability of encouraging a variety of councillors from all walks of life, representative of their communities in the round. The aggregate quantum proposed is actually a very small element of expenditure when seen in the context of the services and budgets for which local government is responsible".
I hope that the Minister will give an indication that the overall figure available for local government, and therefore the amounts available to individual local authorities, will at least be uprated annually. The ideal way of doing that is to have recourse to the retail prices index. The Minister will be well aware of the genuine distaste felt when people have to argue annually about the level of expenses, let alone the level of salaries. Many noble Lords will recall the difficulty and, sometimes, public distress caused in the past when Members of Parliament had to consider on a regular basis at what levels their salaries should be pitched. That is now taken out of the controversial public arena because their salaries are pitched at a grade in the Civil Service. In my view, that is a powerful step forward. There is a good analogy here. The expenses legitimately claimed for loss of allowances in respect of their pay by councillors could be dealt with in the same way as the salaries of Members of Parliament.
There is a second point which needs to be dealt with. If the Government cannot accept the argument put forward by local government associations controlled by Labour, Conservative and indeed no party at all, so that it is not a party political matter, perhaps the Minister can respond to my request that there should be no diminution in real terms in the amount in future years. If the RPI is not seen to be the best vehicle, perhaps the Minister could suggest an alternative.
I speak as a local government man, as do many other noble Lords on both sides of this House, and
258
I am anxious that we should have the best quality and calibre of men and women in our communities to serve on our councils. We do not have to provide them with a lucrative reward but we must make sure that the disincentive of their business or employment suffering is taken care of by the level of allowances which we are prepared to vote for them. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments would make small but nevertheless important changes to Clause 18 which your Lordships included on Report to enable the Secretary of State to set up a new system of councillors' allowances. Amendment No. 6 deals with the payment of the financial loss allowance to councillors.
Clause 18 already provides for the payment of financial loss allowance to appointed members of local authorities and their committees. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to provide for local authorities to pay financial loss allowance also to councillors. Only 1 per cent. of councillors opt for this allowance. The issue is therefore likely to be of interest to only about 250 councillors in the whole of Great Britain.
Having said that, on Report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, chided me for saying that only a few people were concerned and that it would complicate administration. I was not arguing that the extra expense was a determining factor, but that with so few involved —less than one councillor in every two councils on average —it would unreasonably complicate the schemes which local authorities will have to adopt. But the basic objections to continuing to have financial loss allowance as an optional extra under the new scheme are greater than mere administrative convenience.
The principal attraction of FLA over the present attendance allowance is that, for historical reasons, it is payable under the present system at a somewhat higher rate than attendance allowance. I doubt that it is right that there should be two different systems of remuneration for councillors, under one of which those lucky enough to be able to opt for it do rather better. But such an arrangement becomes even less justifiable under the new system, since all the allowances will come out of one pot and the higher rate of FLA could only be continued at the expense of those who did not claim it. We believe that all councillors should be treated equally.
I turn now to Amendment No. 7 which would require the Secretary of State to increase the limit on allowances payable by local authorities under Clause 18, each year in line with the retail price index. As I am sure most noble Lords are aware, it is not the normal practice of this Government —or indeed of previous governments —to provide for index-linking of grants, resource levels or expenditure limits of this type. The Government must decide what is the appropriate level at any given time, and in doing so will take account of relevant factors and indices.

259
I announced on Report that the allocations to individual local authorities for 1990–91 under the new scheme would be worked out within the context of a clear ceiling of £42 million at current prices. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a fair and reasonable starting level which takes account of the views which have been put to us by the local authority associations and others.
However, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that I cannot make any absolute commitments about what would be appropriate in say five or 10 years from now. Perhaps I could remind the House that this Government have increased the limits on allowances in every year since we came to office, and for the last three years these increases have exceeded the increases in the retail prices index. I can however assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we shall review the allocations on a regular basis and make increases where appropriate. I hope that on the basis of that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of why he is unable to accept my amendment. I seem to recall that the Minister said that he had taken into account the views of a number of people, and he listed them. However, he failed to say that he had taken into account the views of Widdicombe which had recommended £75 million which is something like 60 or 70 per cent. more than the £42 million. And that followed an in-depth inquiry and face to face interviews with hundreds of people.
With great respect to the Minister and his advisers, they live in Marsham Street. The real world of local government is out in the town halls and county halls of the country. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the figure of 250 because the associations were uncertain of the number. But even if it is 250, that is one between two councils. If there is one good man or woman who is dissuaded from serving on one or two councils as a result of the financial nexus then we will be the poorer. When I say "we" I do not mean that man or woman, or even the council, the community or the country. There is a desperate shortage of people who are good people in the sense of being good public servants at the lay democratically elected level, whether it is to serve in the other place or in council chambers.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to take the point, but I acknowledge what he said in his concluding remarks. Although he is not prepared to accept a write-in of an automatic increase, the Government's record in latter years has been one that ought to inspire confidence in those outside. When the matter is reviewed then at least the level that is required is given and, sometimes on the margin, a little bit more than that. I think that is the best that I am going to get this afternoon. I am grateful to the Minister. Those outside will read very carefully what he had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 28, line 40, after ("to") insert ("subsection (1A) below and to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and with it speak to Amendment No. 9. These amendments are in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. We are dealing here with the issue of standing orders which are extremely important. There is no dubiety about that. We know that there has been substantial progress in the working party between the department and local authorities, but Amendment No. 9 states:
"No regulations made under subsection (1) above shall apply to any authority which resolves, with the agreement of all parties, to make local provision in respect of standing orders to which this section would otherwise apply, and gives notice of such resolution to the Secretary of State."
The working party recommended in respect of certain standing orders not falling within the Clause 8 staffing provisions of the pool that local authorities should, with all party agreement, be able to opt out of the statutory prescription and produce their own standing orders and arrangements. We understood that the Minister could give some encouragement to that view. Can the Minister tell us what the Department of Environment and local authority sides have said on this issue in the working party? We wonder whether what they have said will be accepted by Ministers in respect of standing orders which are covered by Clause 20.
Will the Minister indicate which standing orders the Government are currently considering making available for a potential opt-out by local authorities? I do not think there is any dispute at any level here. There is a recognition that there are circumstances in which write-in additional standing orders are appropriate, but the Minister can help us if he indicates what the working party recommended on this matter and what is the Government's thinking. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments would allow local authorities to make local provision for standing orders instead of complying with the requirements of any regulations made under Clause 20, provided they do so by resolution with agreement of all parties, and give notice of such resolution to the Secretary of State.
For many years there has been a model set of standing orders. This was last revised in 1963, since when much has changed. It was clearly appropriate that there should be a review. At the same time, following the Widdicombe Committee's review of the conduct of local authority business, the Government took the view that there were certain matters on which it was approriate that there should be uniformity. That view is the basis of the power in the clause to prescribe a "core" of required standing orders.
To ensure that the review was carried out properly, and to take forward the Government's proposal, a working group was set up jointly by the Government

261
departments concerned and the local authority associations. Its task as to review the operation of the current model standing orders and to prepare a draft code of standing orders for discussion including those proposed by the government as "core".
The report of the working group has now been presented to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and to the local authority associations. My right honourable friend intends shortly to consult local authorities about it before deciding which matters should be prescribed by regulation.
I understand the report recommends that standing orders should be divided into three categories. First, and most numerous, there would be those which local authorities would be free to adopt or modify or reject as they thought fit. Secondly, there would be some which would be required under the powers in this clause unless all the political groups on a council agreed that they were not necessary. These would be those aimed at protecting the rights of minority political groups. Clearly it is reasonable to let these be set aside if the political groups agree.
Finally, there would be those which would be required absolutely. They would be those, for example, dealing with matters of staff appointments and discipline and those dealing with the rights of individual members of the council. The arguments in favour of such an absolute requirement are that, in the former case, the staff appointments will persist beyond the electoral period of the current council and that therefore there is an interest in ensuring that all is done properly and in order; and that the staff have an interest in having clear rules established. Likewise, where the rights of individual members are concerned, there is an argument against allowing the combined political groups to restrict the rights of an awkward individual councillor.
The general concept of the three levels of standing order seems sensible. Clearly there can be debate on which standing orders should be allocated to which level. That will be one of the matters on which my right honourable friend will be consulting local government. I hope therefore that, with the assurance of a general acceptance of the idea of required standing orders which can be put aside by general local agreement and my undertaking that we shall be shortly consulting on the working group's recommendations about which those should be, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I think I am most grateful, but before I say so can the Minister confirm, perhaps with a nod of the head, that broadly the view of the department is that the joint report dealing with the matter in this way —that is, the three categories —is something which is approved in the thinking in the department and that the consultations will be to get the views of local authorities on the proposals? The Minister nods his head and I am grateful.
If, substantially, the ability of standing orders to be managed in the way that my amendments are saying is possible I will withdraw the amendment
262
because the Minister will rely upon getting the evidence from local councils, if that is the way in which they want to work. The Minister also raises the crucial point that it all depends very much into which of the three compartments the various kind of standing orders are put. That is where these things can be manipulated (I use the word clumsily) or managed for good or ill. However, the Minister has satisfied me that there is good intent here and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Restrictions on promotion of economic development]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 42, line 43, at end insert —
("(2A) In any case where regulations made under subsection (1) above apply a geographical limitation to the exercise by an authority of the power in section 33(1) above, the Secretary of State shall make provision in such regulations for local exemptions within the boundaries of, or corresponding to, a metropolitan or non-metropolitan district or London borough, where he considers that the rate of unemployment in that area is, or appears to be, above a standard specified level, and in specifying such a level the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representative of local government as appeared to him to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The Bill as it stands provides for unemployment levels to be related to travel-to-work areas. The use of the travel-to-work areas for this purpose is, in our opinion, totally unsatisfactory as the measure is crude and obscures severe unemployment within a small geographical boundary.
The problem can be identifed from the following figures that I will quote for the Manchester travel-to-work area which relate to a date earlier in 1989. The figure for unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area is listed at 8·4 per cent. Within that area, in terms of the city of Manchester, the unemployment rate is 14·2 per cent. I originated from central Manchester, and the unemployment rate in that area is extremely high at 23·6 per cent. I am sure that similar figures can be quoted as regards Leeds, Liverpool and London, where the problem is particularly acute. London is divided between two travel-to-work areas both of which have relatively low rates of unemployment. However, those rates mask a very high level of unemployment in the inner London boroughs. We tabled this amendment in order to try to rationalise that situation.
It is understood that, as in the past, the Department of the Environment accepted ward-based census material for analytical purposes concerning urban programme designations and funding. The purpose of the amendment is to provide in the regulations for local exemptions corresponding to a metropolitan or non-metropolitan district or a London borough boundary, where the rate of unemployment in the area is or appears to be above a specified level.
It is proposed that, in determining such a level, the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate local government representative bodies from those areas. We believe it is important that this kind of discretion should be available to the Secretary of State so that boroughs and districts are not denied the benefit of the full range of powers available under the new economic development power.
The measure is insurance to protect local authorities at a time when Ministers concerned with inner city matters continue to indicate that the list of designated districts benefiting from inner city powers and funding is under review. There has been no consultation as regards the terms of reference of this review. It is well known that when the first list of partnership and programme authorities was introduced in 1968, financial experts, using the same data as were available to the Department of the Environment, produced a list of deprived authorities which was not the same as that produced by the central government criteria either in total content or in graduation.
This amendment is an attempt to put into the Bill powers that will enable the Secretary of State to consider areas individually where deprivation and unemployment are considerably higher within a travel-to-work area. I hope it will elicit a sympathetic response from the Minister because I believe it to be well founded on the facts that I have given. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment proposes that, where restrictions on the use of the new economic development power apply on a geographical basis, the regulations should make provision for local exemptions in areas where the unemployment rate is above a standard specified level. The amendment is clearly directed at ensuring that black spots in an area which otherwise has a fairly buoyant local economy will be eligible for the full range of economic help from the local authority. I believe that this is a problem which is more apparent than real. I shall explain why.
In the first place, we have only proposed that geographical limitations should apply to one form of economic development promotion; namely, grants, loans and guarantees above a certain level to commercial undertakings. All other kinds will be available throughout the country. This means that if there is a local black spot the local authority will be able to target that black spot with, for example, local training schemes. If the general local economy is buoyant, it is that type of scheme that is likely to make the biggest impact.
In the discussion, the size of travel-to-work-areas is often cited. It is said that statistics based on them mask local problems. But it is important to remember that these areas are what they say they are: areas within which people normally travel to work. If there are black spots within such an area which is otherwise economically buoyant, the most important task is to find out why those black spots exist and to tackle the specific causes, not to treat the area as though it was distinct from the rest of the surrounding area.
264
Secondly, the geographical limitation that we are proposing will only apply to grants, loans and guarantees above a certain level. The level we have in mind is £10,000 per annum per firm. If there is a small local problem it is much more likely to be small firms that will be able to help, and it is small firms that are going to be most helped by grants below the level of £10,000.
Finally, I think that there may have been a misunderstanding in our proposals. We have specifically indicated that we accept that there will be cases where training will sensibly be assisted by grants towards the costs of trainees, and cases where grants specifically to take on the long-term unemployed would be sensible. We do not intend that specific grants of those kinds should be restricted by the £10,000 limit. Such specific grants are responding to particular problems which are not restricted to specific areas.
I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the last remark made by the Minister, which is of a very helpful nature. However, I believe that he has rather downgraded the problems that I have been talking about as regards the areas which this amendment is trying to help. The Minister said that the problems are local and minor, but they are not. For example, the city of Manchester begins at the boundary of Trafford and ends at the boundary of Tameside. There is no question but that that area has become a black spot in terms of unemployment.
It does not require a genius or any research to understand what has happened. At one time the area to which I have referred was part of the huge manufacturing base of this country. It dealt in a wide variety of industrial activity, such as coalmining, general engineering, chemicals and aeroplane manufacture. Now almost all those activities have gone. That is why I believe that the Government are not appreciative of particular areas such as Manchester and inner London.
In terms of travel-to-work areas, Manchester people who work in those areas do not actually live in Manchester. The same argument can be put forward as regards London. People travel into London and the bad areas from outside those areas. When I was a member of Manchester City Council it was calculated that nearly half a million people travelled into Manchester during the day and travelled back out again at night to the dormitory areas where they lived.
I believe that the Bill as it stands is too rigid to deal with those very difficult black spots. The Minister referred to the problem as being of a minor nature and small in area but it is not because the areas involved are quite substantial. Though the inner city partnerships are welcome —I fully support them, and always have done —they are not necessarily the answer and will not cure the problem as it stands at present. However, in view of what the Minister said he is obviously not going to move on the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Information etc. on individuals' rights]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 46, line 26, leave out ("and Housing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, during Report stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Reay was pleased to support an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Strange which clarified local authorities' powers in relation to the funding of advice services. As the noble Lord explained then, the Government were prevented through drafting restraints from bringing such an amendment forward and so we welcomed the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness's amendment. The amendment was not however technically correct and, as promised, I am now bringing forward amendments to rectify that position. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15:
Page 46, line 33, leave out ("(whether") and insert ("either").
Page 46, line 34, after ("communications") insert ("or").
Page 46, line 35, leave out ("or otherwise").
Page 46, leave out lines 37 to 41.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Credit arrangements]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 57, line 21, at end insert—
("(5A) A lease of property is not a credit arrangement if the term of the lease is for a period not exceeding three years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that any three-year lease is not regarded as a credit arrangement. That means that such property, especially private houses, can be acquired by local authorities without giving up any of their limited capital allocations which are desperately needed to fund, for example, renovation or council housing stock.
The main use made by local authorities of three-year leases is to provide temporary accommodation for homeless families, as there is virtually no new building and council stock has been depleted by right-to-buy sales. The only alternative is bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As your Lordships know bed-and-breakfast accommodation is more expensive than leasing and is a much worse form of accommodation. It often threatens the viability of the family and is demoralising and degrading.
Within London, 10,000 properties have been acquired to house homeless families, but there are still another 7,000 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There are 25,000 households in temporary accommodation in London as a whole. The Department of the Environment has been kept informed of the acquisitions of property by local authorities, and its housing section, at least, has encouraged it. For example, in a letter to the Association of London Authorities' housing chair dated 8th February 1988, which I understand was during the passage of a previous Housing Bill, the
266
then Minister said that he needed no convincing of the undesirability of using bed-and-breakfast accommodation, especially for homeless families. There were certainly better forms of interim accommodation than bed-and-breakfast; for example, taking a short lease on a private sector property.
I am sure most of your Lordships would agree with that statement by Mr. Waldegrave. However, under the draft regulations, upon which the local authority associations have been consulted, there is a proposal which will effectively stop local authorities from making further use of that type of accommodation. If an authority acquires a three-year lease, it will be regarded as a credit arrangement if any other local authority has taken a lease on that property in the previous 10 years. The amount of credit cover required will be the capital value, not only of the three-year lease but in respect also of the previous authority's lease, if it was for three years or less.
The effect of the regulations will be to prevent authorities from renewing the leases of properties initially taken out by other local authorities. In time the 10,000 properties will revert to the private sector, and the previous occupants will be consigned to living in squalid bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
To understand the absurdity of those proposals, let us consider two properties which are next door to each other: one which had previously been leased by a local authority for three years and another which had not. In one case a new local authority would have to reduce its credit approvals —that is, its capital programme —by the value of a six-year lease. In the other case, the local authority would charge nothing to credit approvals. The effect on the real economy would be the same. However, the effect on a local authority's ability to act would be different.
The absurdity becomes even greater when one considers the relevant costs involved. The cost of accommodating a household in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is £50 a night. That is equal to £18,250 a year. The average gross cost, including government contributions through housing subsidy, of a leased property is less than £14,000 a year. There is a cost to the local or national taxpayer of over £4,000 per household to keep its members in much worse bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The cost to the local authority is mulch less on average—£3,500 for each household for a leased property. That figure is arrived at after deducting housing subsidy. From those figures it is seen that it will be difficult to maintain 10,000 properties or more on short-term leases. The effect of the proposals contained in the regulations is to add £42.5 million to public expenditure in London alone.
Nationally, the Government would probably blame that increase in expenditure on local authority over-spending. That has happened in the past. In practice, it will be the Government's fault that many homeless families will be housed in accommodation worse than that in which they could be living and at greater expense while private properties remain vacant.
It is easy to see which course is the best to take. There might be some logic in the Government's proposal if there were any indication that there would be a diminution in the number of homeless people and families. Unfortunately, there is not. Despite the Government's measures in previous housing Bills, which we were told were designed to reverse that trend, there is still a serious increase week by week. I know that most of your Lordships are looking with trepidation at the coming winter and hoping that it will not be too severe because of the number of homeless people and those with related problems. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is rumoured —I believe that it is correct —that the Secretary of State has managed to obtain something like £100 million to deal with the bed-and-breakfast situation which is particularly costly in London but applies also elsewhere. I understand that we may have a statement within the next 10 days or so on the homeless review. I do not ask the Minister to give me the answer today, but I believe that a statement is coming.
The number of homeless is unfortunately increasing. I was told only yesterday that the figure now approaches 120,000. The proposal is one of the ways in which local authorities can deal wih the problem. I believe the solution was originally devised by a Conservative-controlled council in Gloucestershire. It has been supported all around the country. It would be daft if we were now to close that method of trying to cut the cost of getting families out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and into at least some form of semi-permanent accommodation. I support the amendment.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has explained, the purpose of the amendment is to provide that leases of property for a term of less than three years should not be credit arrangements. In other words, a local authority would not need credit cover to enter into such leases.
Your Lordships are by now familiar with the arguments that we have advanced for requiring credit cover for leases. Where an authority leases rather than buys outright, capital goods are still being consumed in the same way and the economic effect is similar to borrowing.
We have always recognised, however, that there should be some relaxation of those requirements in respect of short-term leases of land and buildings. We have proposed that for that purpose a short-term lease should be a lease of three years or less, as in the present capital control system. That is included in the proposals for regulations on which we are consulting the local authority associations at the moment.
So the point of the amendment will normally be met by the proposed regulations, but there are two cases where it would not be. First, if a local authority takes a succession of short-term leases on the same
268
property, then once it has leased the property for three years, any future leases would not be exempt. Otherwise there would be an obvious incentive for authorities to take a series of leases just under the three-year limit, even when they intended at the outset to occupy the property for a much longer period. Such an arrangement would probably be less efficient than taking one long lease, and it would be wrong if the capital finance system provided an incentive for authorities to adopt it. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that. A similar provision exists in the regulations on leases in the present capital control system.
That brings me to the second case where the amendment differs from what we intend to provide by regulations. This is the point of real concern to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. It concerns the case where instead of one authority taking a succession of leases on a property, different authorities take a succession of leases on the same property. We have said in the proposals for regulations on which we are consulting that an authority would not enjoy the three-year exemption if the term of the lease —together with any previous interest in the property held in the last 10 years by any other local authority —exceeds three years.
The reason for our proposal is, I am afraid to say, that some local authorities are making use of the three-year exemption in the present system in a way that was never envisaged or intended. Local authorities are joining together to pass leases between each other every three years. Thus authorities are acquiring the use of property for much longer than three years but by the use of this device are avoiding the effect of the capital control system.
It is never a happy task to have to tighten up rules to deal with avoidance devices. But that is precisely what we have here. The three-year exemption is intended to allow authorities to lease property to deal with a genuine short-term need. When local authorities in effect acquire the use of property for much longer periods, then the acquisition of that property should come within the capital finance system in the normal way. That is what our proposal would achieve.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question as I find this particular manoeuvre rather interesting. Is it suggested that the officers of the council are a party to this sort of arrangement, which is a way of getting around the general principle behind the regulation in a rather underhand way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure about the position of the officers. However, I can reaffirm to my noble friend that some local authorities are using this as a device to get around the capital finance system. Of course it is disappointing that they should use this as a device to do so when it was introduced specifically to alleviate a short-term problem.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, especially those in regard to the impact of leasing on the problem of homelessness in

269
London. The Government are acutely aware of the problem. Indeed, noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill will know that we have debated the issue on more than one occasion. Noble Lords will also be aware, from having listened to our discussions, that one of the main objectives of the new capital finance system is to enable us to distribute resources where the needs lie. In the case of housing those needs include dealing with the problem of homelessness. I contend that that is the proper way to solve the problem.
Leasing can of course play a part in dealing with the homeless and in reducing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, referred to remarks made by my honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave when he was Minister of Housing. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one statement made by my honourable friend. He said that this was an interim solution. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, would agree that this is not an efficient long-term solution. That is why it is sensible to have a short-term exemption in this respect.
The practice which is developing among London boroughs of passing leases between themselves on expiry of the three-year period leads to unwelcome instability in the tenure of those properties. This is neither to the benefit of the tenants nor the neighbourhoods in which they are located. It is not a satisfactory arrangement from the housing point of view; it is a device to get around the capital control system. Moreover, for medium-term leasing which exceeds the three-year limit, we propose a major relaxation in the new system of which your Lordships should be aware. At present, if a local authority takes a lease of just over three years, it scores against its resources the full freehold value of the property. Under our proposals for regulations in the new system, the authority would only need credit cover for the capital value of the lease. For a three-year lease, I would normally expect that to be less than a third of the freehold value.
The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment. I explained earlier how it would allow an authority to keep taking leases on the same property without ever having to provide credit cover. As for the point about the treatment of authorities passing leases between each other, that is the subject of consultation on the proposed regulations at present. Indeed this very point was raised by the associations in a meeting of the capital programmes working party on Monday. As with all points made to us we will of course consider it carefully.
I should remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has been vociferous on more than one occasion in complaining about the regulation-making powers in Part IV. I hope that on reflection he will be grateful for them as they give us an opportunity to consider carefully the points made on these important matters of detail.
Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord in respect of one comment he made regarding the fact that the previous occupation has to be scored. He said that the amount of credit cover needed when a previous
270
authority had leased the property would include an allowance for the previous authority's occupation. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that that is not the case; only the new authority's lease will score.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am a little disappointed with the Minister's reply, although some of it was informative and helpful. He said that I had been rather vociferous during the passage of the Bill. In a sense I think that politics has entered a new age. Indeed, many people in the Minster's own party have been most vociferous in the past week —and not on the subject of housing.
I am sorry that the Minister and the Government seem to be obsessed with these cases of capital resources. If the Minister was able to say to those of us on this side of the House that the Government were mindful of the real increase in the problem of homelessess and that they will become involved in a large-scale low-cost house building programme for low wage earners, there would be some merit in what he said. Indeed, we may see the benefits of that programme by the end of the three-year period.
However, there is no possibility of that happening. In fact the Minister at the Dispatch Box only a few weeks ago in answer to one of my questions—although, not during discusions on the Bill —said that the Government no longer saw local authorities as being involved in large-scale building programmes. They would prefer this to be done by the housing associations in the private sector. Obviously, neither of those bodies will be in a position to do so.
If the Government really take that view seriously then they are living in cloud cuckoo land because it will not happen. The problem of homelessness is with us now. The Government would do well if they listened occasionally to some of their own people on the Back Benches as regards the issue of the use of capital resources and that of capital expenditure. I say that because all the signs are that there is still a menacing increase in the problem of homelessness. Further, if the Minister is saying that there is abuse, why is it not dealt with? Why bring a sledgehammer to crack a walnut?
As I said, I am rather disappointed in the answer. I believe the amendment put forward to be a reasonable one. It will not hurt anyone and it will assist the local authorities to carry out their function of being responsible for the homeless —not for housing. They have the statutory responsibility to look after the homeless. The Bill as it stands will reduce their capacity further to do so. On the basis of that argument I am sorry but I must test the opinion of the House although I had not intended to do so.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 137.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Mayhew, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Walston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Carnock, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Allerton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E.

Cross, V.

Astor, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Dulverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Bessborough, E.

Elibank, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Blyth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brookes, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gainford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caithness, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

272

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Onslow, E.

Harvington, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Havers, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hemphill, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hives, L.

Quinton, L.

Holderness, L.

Reay, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rodney, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Joseph, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Shannon, E.

Killearn, L.

Somerset, D.

Knollys, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lurgan, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Margadale, L.

Marley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Terrington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mountevans, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vinson, L.

Munster, E.

Weir, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Nelson, E.

Wise, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

Norrie, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Clause 59 [The reserved part of capital receipts]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 68, line 25, at end insert —
("with the exception that, where land is being disposed of to enable low cost housing provision for rent or shared ownership the reserved part of the capital receipt shall be nil").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. The object of the amendment is to assist local government in relation to their attack on homelessness and also in reducing the squalour, as well as the cost, of bed and breakfast accommodation. The amendment is concerned with how local government should deal with the reserved part of capital receipts. This is dealt with in Clause 59, in its present form: how to deal with the reserved part of capital receipts. This is the position. As many of your Lordships will be well aware, when a local authority receives a capital receipt, part of the receipt must be set aside by the authority as provision to meet credit liabilities. That is in effect covered by subsection (1) of that clause. Subsection (2) says this:
"(2) subject to the following provisions of this section, the reserved part of a capital receipt shall be—".
Paragraph (a) says that in the case of receipts from the disposal of dwelling-houses 75 per cent. must be reserved. That is in respect of the disposal of

273
dwelling-houses. Paragraph (b) says that in respect of any other receipts, 50 per cent. must be reserved.
My amendment is directed towards dealing with that. It gives another exception, which is that,
"where land is being disposed of to enable low cost housing provision for rent or shared ownership the reserved part of the capital receipt shall be nil".
The Government have already made a number of concessions regarding this clause, which was Clause 58 at Report stage, as announced by the Paymaster General to this House at the time. He dealt with a number of amendments, including this one, en bloc. He was dealing with nomination rights that will not be treated as a national capital receipt when land is disposed by local authorities for subsidised rented housing. The exceptions that he introduced are very welcome, and I should like to say how personally grateful I am for the concessions that he has made. I ought to have declared an interest in that I have been asked to put forward these amendments by the House Builders Federation. For many years, local authorities have worked in partnership with house builders and housing associations to provide social housing for those people who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market. A mix of local authority land, housing association grant and private finance has made possible a range of low cost housing initiatives such as low-cost sale, shared ownership, as well as private rental schemes. This has broadened the range of housing choice for low income households and increased the private sector's contribution to the social housing market, particularly in the urban areas. The Government have stated on many occasions that the rental schemes will receive favourable treatment, but what is the position regarding the low cost sale or shared ownership?
The provision of land at less than market value has been a key factor in the development of these important schemes for social purposes. Over the years the Government have made clear their support for the transfer of land from the public to the private sector on this basis. However, it now appears that as a by-product of regulations introduced by the Government and aimed at preventing local authorities side-stepping capital expenditure controls, as the Minister has explained on more than one occasion, the Government propose to introduce measures which will effectively reduce all incentives for local authorities to undertake partnership schemes of this type with either private developers or housing associations. If I may use a legal technical term, that is the mischief which the amendment is directed to deal with.
Few local authorities will be interested in partnership schemes on the terms proposed in the Bill. I am informed that already house builders' experience has been that a wide range of partnership initiatives has now been brought to a halt. The most noteworthy is shared ownership schemes targeted at low income households which cannot afford to buy on the open market. Therefore it is to some extent ironic that these are precisely the types of schemes which the Government seek to encourage private landowners to develop in rural areas, where their
274
contribution to meeting housing demand and stimulating the local economy is now widely recognised. Without a simple specific measure such as I have adumbrated to encourage local authorities to dispose of land to the private sector, including housing associations, it will be increasingly difficult to provide low-cost housing in urban areas. As the Local Government and Housing Bill stands notwithstanding the recent concessions on the former Clause 58, now Clause 59, made by the Minister there is no incentive to local authorities to dispose of land for low-cost housing and every incentive to them simply to sell to the highest bidder. Unless land disposal, which enables low-cost housing for rent and shared ownership to be provided, is exempt from the capital controls proposed in the Bill, there is a serious risk that the Government's other main objective of encouraging the private sector to meet housing need will become impossible to achieve.
The noble Earl the Paymaster General has made a number of exceptions and dealt with a number of amendments en bloc at the Report stage, including this amendment. I have been advised that although many of these exceptions are to be welcomed, the House Builders Federation, on whose behalf I propose the amendment, feels that this provision is of considerable importance since it deals with the capital receipts arising in local government.
It is usual with lawyers sometimes partly to give away their case. I fully realise that perhaps my amendment should not be included in the Bill but rather be dealt with in regulations which are to be produced later. I am sure that the Minister will help me on this procedural matter. I hope he will be able to be sympathetic —as he always is towards social problems —and say that at least I have his sympathy and if the amendment is not included in the Bill, he will consider it being inserted in regulations at a later stage. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has reminded the House that I made an announcement last week at Report stage concerning certain exemptions which we intended to provide by regulations. Let me remind the House what I said. First, where a local authority disposes of land for the provision of subsidised rented housing, and receives nomination rights to that housing in return, we propose that there should be no debt redemption in respect of the nomination rights. Secondly, we propose to have an exemption for build for sale schemes in the new system. Thirdly, we are urgently considering whether there should be help for other low-cost home ownership initiatives which received favourable treatment in the present system. That remains the position, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the reception he has given to the initiative which I announced. Obviously, I have to say that I am afraid that I cannot give the House final decisions on all the exemptions yet, but I hope we shall be able to make a further announcement shortly.
What I said last week I believe goes a long way towards meeting the spirit of this amendment. It

275
may well be that when we come to final decisions on the other exemptions we can go even further. I have to say though that we shall not go the whole way. For example, if a local authority facilitates a low-cost home ownership scheme by selling land cheaply, but still receives some cash for the land, there is no reason why there should not be debt redemption in respect of that cash receipt. The debt redemption would already be at the more favourable rate of 50 per cent. for housing land as opposed to 75 per cent. for council house sales. I know that the noble Lord will agree with me that if we make a concession on this, of course it reduces the scope for issuing credit approvals and therein lies the rub.
Nevertheless, as I said, we have gone some way towards the noble Lord. The announcement I made on nomination rights certainly meets the main concerns expressed to me on low-cost housing initiatives in my previous capacity as Minister for Housing. I can reassure the noble Lord on the question that he asked about shared ownership and repeat that this is one of the areas which we are considering.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the noble Earl's remarks. We shall read that speech in Hansard and consider it further. I sympathise over the technical difficulties which arise around Clause 59 and the exemptions. As the Minister knows, the matter has been discussed at considerable length with his colleagues. I wish to thank them for the courtesy that they have given to representatives of the federation which asked me to put forward the amendment.
I hope therefore that—as I am sure will happen—progress can be made with the discussions. In the light of the Minister's statement, I hope that the matter can be included in some form in the regulations which, as the noble Earl said, are under consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 [Duty to set certain amounts aside as provision to meet credit liabilities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 73, line 34, leave out ("an amount equal to") and insert ("not more than 50 per cent. of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this matter although it was debated on Report on a more ambitious amendment. However, we return to the matter partly because the response of the Government to our previous amendment was singularly unconvincing. In the response he gave, the Paymaster General made three points. There may have been more, but there were three which I noted in particular. First, he referred to difficulties which local authorities may have. Perhaps I should at this point introduce the amendment. I apologise to the House. I have assumed that everyone is familiar with what we are talking about.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that at least 50 per cent. of the money which comes in
276
grants to authorities which put in successful applications to the European Regional Development Fund is given to those authorities in addition to any other credit approvals. In other words, the amendment is concerned with the principle of what is called in the Commission, additionality. That is the principle that, when a grant is given for any purpose from the regional fund or the Social Fund or any other fund, it is available for the purpose for which it is intended, in addition to any other support from the national government for similar purposes.
In his reply to our preceding amendment, the Paymaster General referred to difficulties which authorities might have when they put in a scheme for approval which they are anxious to start but where they experience some delay in obtaining from the European Commission approval on funding. All I can say to the Minister is—I have enquired about this matter particularly —that none of the local authorities which have made representations to the department about this matter have indicated that that is any problem. Authorities say they have no fears on that score.
The second point the Minister made concerned the difficulty of authorities financing a scheme before the money arrives from Brussels. In other words, it is a cash flow problem. I can see that that could be a problem, but it would be very easy for the department either to give temporary borrowing powers or indeed to make a grant itself once a European Regional Development Fund grant had been given. The cash flow problem could easily be dealt with by central government.
The third and most serious point that the Minister made concerns the fact that, if all local authorities obtained spending authority to match the European Regional Development Fund grant, there would be less total credit approval available. But the grants from the European Regional Development Fund reflect, or ought to reflect, specific local needs which cannot be met from normal Government expenditure. It is a principle of the European Commission, and should be a principle of this Government, that these grants should be in addition to existing government expenditure, which presumably has been worked out on some rational basis of how much the country is able to afford for this head of expenditure. They should not be affected by the success or otherwise of individual local authorities in applications for European regional development funding.
There are two ways in which the Government claim that their proposals are satisfactory. I believe those claims are unfounded in both cases. First of all, the Government claim that the funding is certain and that the principles are clear. I do not think that is the case, because it is unclear how much will be taken away from credit approvals when a European Regional Development Fund grant is approved by the Commission. We can understand a clear yes or no. I am told that a betting tax is easy to understand. I do not bet myself so I do not understand it, but those who bet understand that they are paying a tax on the bet rather than on the winnings, if that is the right way round. However, the Government's

277
proposals for credit approvals in this case seem to be totally unclear.
Secondly, the Government claim that their proposals give local authorities an incentive to apply for regional development funds. That is true only to a very limited extent, in the sense that we understand that the Government are prepared to allow additionality for 25 per cent. of the amount of the grant. What we are saying is not that there should be 100 per cent. additionality, although I happen to believe that should be the case, but that at least 50 per cent. additionality should exist, and that there should be a real incentive for local authorities to apply for this European Regional Development Fund money. There should be a real incentive also for the Commission to go on granting the money on the basis that it will go where it is intended. Otherwise, the intentions of the Commission will be frustrated and I am bound to say that the sincerity of the Government in encouraging local authorities to apply for grant will be called in question. I beg to move.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I share to a large extent the anxieties which have been expressed about this provision by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. When we joined the Community we made great play with the fact that over the years the size and shape of the Community budget would change and that many areas in the United Kingdom would benefit from the regional development fund. There was then, of course, some discussion about whether or not they would get the full benefit. The indications were given that they should get it, ought to get it and would get it. Great play was made with that point at the time. It may be inevitable that, if the Community makes a contribution, that will have some effect upon the amount that the Government themselves have to provide. I should have thought that this measure was a reasonable compromise. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would indicate whether there is any other statute in which a provision of this kind —which, on the face of it, goes completely against the practice of the Community —has been made.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for intervening on this matter because he will know, as I am sure the Minister will also know, that while we hear about avoidance schemes by local authorities, local authorities likewise feel very aggrieved at the way in which the Treasury has over a number of years dealt with the principle of additionality. Local authorities have been penalised when they have received grants and money from Brussels. This is a Treasury manoeuvre which is very much resented in local government circles. If the Paymaster General could at least ease that situation, it would be a great step forward. Why should local authorities not receive the money for which they qualify under European grant systems?
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, believes that this is a relatively small matter for the Government, simply a matter of degree, because we have already proposed that in some circumstances ERDF grant should be matched by extra credit approvals equal to 25 per cent. of the grant. So why not provide that some of the grant should convey spending power directly?
However as I explained when this issue was raised on Report, there are a number of objections. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has itemised those objections, so noble Lords will now have to listen to them for a second time in this discussion.
One of the objections that I enunciated is that, if EC grant conveys spending power directly, this can create a considerable amount of uncertainty for authorities. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh suggested on Report and again today that this objection was trivial, but I raise it because it is a concern which local authorities themselves raised in response to the consultation paper. I know that a number of authorities are in the position at the moment of having started schemes although they do not yet know whether they will eventually receive grant to support those projects, or at what rate that grant would be paid. An authority has to know before committing itself to a project that it will be able to accommodate that project in its capital programme. The question is whether it should rely on the credit approval in hand, as the Government propose, or on the ERDF grant in the bush. That dilemma will not easily disappear.
Our objections are of principle as well as of practicality.Over wide areas of public expenditure —transport especially —the credit approvals which local authorities will receive will be tied closely to particular projects which individual local authorities need to carry out. So if a local authority had had its case for a road scheme accepted by the Secretary of State for Transport, it would have received credit approvals to fund that expenditure. If the local authority were then to obtain ERDF to support the same scheme, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would mean that the ERDF grant too would convey spending power. So the authority would be funded twice for the same scheme.
I am sure that your Lordships would agree that that would be neither fair nor sensible. It would be an extremely complex business to prevent such anomalies under the arrangement which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes. Any attempt to do so would almost inevitably be at the expense of local authority discretion in other areas.
I can reassure the House that the Government have considered carefully whether ERDF and other European grants should convey spending power directly. We have considered carefully whether, as an alternative, allowance should be made in the distribution of credit approvals for the expected likely distribution of ERDF receipts. We have decided instead to go down the road which prevents

279
the kind of anomalies which I have described. We have decided to continue the present approach; namely, in general capital allocations should be given to authorities based on overall assessments of their need to spend including their need to spend on the sort of projects which are eligible for assistance from Brussels, and no explicit account should be taken of whether expenditure may be financed in part through ERDF grant.
A great many ERDF-funded projects directly complement the aims of Government expenditure programmes —assisting the economic regeneration of the inner cities and areas suffering from industrial decline. The Government's own assessment of needs complements that of the ERDF programme. We can point to many major ERDF-funded projects which have received very substantial support through the Government's own capital allocations —major airport, road development and public transport schemes are key areas.
For local environmental services expenditure, we intend to tie some £25 million of allocations to expected ERDF grant for individual authorities. But as I explained at Report stage, the reasons for that are very specific. Resources for local environmental services are distributed by means of formulae at the recommendation of the local authority associations. There is therefore nothing in the main local environmental services distribution which takes account of individual project needs. So with local environmental services expenditure there is a need for specific resources and, moreover, ERDF can be supported by extra spending power without creating the anomaly of funding the same project twice.
The Government's proposed approach ensures that local authorities retain the discretion to decide their own spending priorities locally, ERDF has already enhanced the total available for spending nationally, so if the amendment were adopted there would be less available to local authorities for credit approvals for their general spending purposes. We do not believe such a restriction on local authority decision-making would be desirable.
I was particularly interested by one point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He said that if there were a cash-flow problem for the local authority it was not really a cash-flow problem because the Government could take care of it. What he meant was that the taxpayer would have to take care of it. I should have hoped that there would have been a more responsible attitude towards taxpayers' money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister listened to what I said. I said that the Government could give temporary borrowing powers to local authorities for that purpose. In other words, the local authority and community charge payers would take responsibility for it and not taxpayers as a whole.
Taking the generality of his answer, the Minister has changed his ground to some extent. He did not put the uncertainty argument as strongly as he did earlier. He did not claim, as he did before, that the
280
Government's proposals are either certain or that they encourage local authorities to apply for European Regional Development Fund grants. What he has now said is a straightforward Treasury answer. He will not apologise for that because after all that is where he is based. It was a straightforward Treasury answer. The Government are seeking to benefit from any European Regional Development Fund grants obtained by local authorities in order to cut central government spending.
This is a matter on which we are not going to agree. It is a matter of fundamental principle concerning the relationship between local authorities, central government in this country and the European Commission. It is a matter on which we are totally dissatisfied with the Government's answer. I shall have to seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Annan, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Northfield, L.

Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Somerset, D.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Walston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

281

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Joseph, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Knutsford, V.

Allerton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Blatch, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Blyth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookes, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Dulverton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Slim, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Geddes, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Teynham, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hemphill, L.

Tranmire, L.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vinson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Weir, V.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 68 [Companies controlled by local authorities and arm's length companies]:
5.12 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 78, line 20, at end insert —
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall exercise his powers of direction under that subsection in respect of any company
282
which would otherwise be a controlled company for the purposes of this Part of this Act —

(a) whose activities, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are predominantly designed to facilitate co-operation between local authorities in the discharge of statutory duties; and

(b) whose financial transactions, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are such as to justify exemption from the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to controlled companies.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I said I would last week, I have come back to the attack. This amendment is in exactly the same terms as the amendment which I moved on Report. The House will see that it is supported not only from these Benches but, as before, by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. This is an entirely non-partisan matter. Those of us who are dissatisfied with the Minister's refusal to accept our case are concerned only for the well-being of our public library service and the importance to that service of the regional library systems.
Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate the case for those who may not have heard it. Each local authority is independent for the purposes of running its public libraries, but it makes sense for them to group together in regions for the provision of important common services, particularly for the operation of the inter-lending system which is infinitely superior in this country to that in many other countries and which is the facility that allows each authority to provide a much superior service for its customers than it could possibly do without such co-operation. I should like to stress the success of the inter-lending system. Such regional library systems exist throughout the country. Because successive governments over the last 25 years have failed in their statutory duty —a duty, not just a power —to create a legal form for those systems, they have had to find a legal form for themselves. Two of them (London and South-East Region and North-West Region) formed themselves into companies. That means that they are caught by the provisions of the Bill relating to companies controlled by local authorities.
Clause 68(1) allows the Secretary of State to exempt any particular company or class of companies from those provisions. We are asking the Minister to say that the Government will use that power, which they asked for, in respect of those regional library systems.
Rather than go over the whole ground again, I want to pick up the points made by the Minister in his speech at Report stage —23rd October, col. 1166 of Hansard—and try to persuade him that he is being thoroughly inconsistent and that there is no reason at all why he should not make the very mild concession for which we ask.
First, perhaps I may refer the Minister to his own remarks during a previous intervention in that debate. At col. 1162 he indicated that the Government would issue a consultation paper in which certain general exemptions from the Bill would be indicated. He then added:
"We shall be glad to consider others".

283
He later added:
"there will remain the possibility that there will be one-off cases where we are persuaded either that a company which comes within the criteria is nevertheless genuinely independent of the local authority"—
that will not be the case with the companies of which I am speaking —
"or that for some reason we can be certain that it will never undertake activities contrary to the rules and that there is some advantage in not formally applying the controls". —[Official Report, 23/10/89; col. 1162.]
I suggest to the Minister that the case that I have put to him in previous debates and in the meeting which he was kind enough to hold with me and representatives of the Library Association should abundantly convince him that that is exactly the situation here. He now knows very well that the practical difficulties for LASER and NWRLS in adhering to the requirements in the Bill are enormous and probably insuperable. In our various talks with the Minister and his officials, he has not attempted to deny that. What he has done is to suggest ways in which those regional systems might be able to avoid —I prefer to say evade —the normal provisions.
One of the ideas flung out in the course of our meeting with the Minister the other week perfectly illustrates the artificiality of the Government's notions on this. It was suggested that, in order to avoid the complications of getting tiny amounts of capital expenditure included in the borrowing plans of 42 local authorities, those 42 authorities might make revenue contributions to LASER to constitute a fund which would be set aside for use on capital expenditure when required. I myself, the Library Association and the expert on local authority finance who was with us were astounded by the suggestion. The idea that, in present circumstances, 42 local authorities could be persuaded to set aside a little nest egg of money for expenditure some time in the future is surely wholly unrealistic.
In brief, the case is as follows. First, the Government are estopped from arguing that no exceptions can be made to the provisions of the Bill, because they themselves have built in power to make exceptions in the Bill. Secondly, the Government cannot argue that the amounts of money that would be involved are so high as to undermine the very purpose of this part of the Bill. Thirdly, the Government cannot now argue that any definition of exempted companies would allow undesirable cases to creep through the partially open door. The Minister and his officials made clear the other week that exemptions would be not only by means of definitions, but also of named companies. So there is no reason why, after full consultation with his colleague in the Office of Arts and Libraries, he should not exempt those companies because of the particular circumstances applying to them.
The Minister will no doubt tell us once again that the amendment will not be appropriate to add to the Bill because the Minister already has power to make an exemption if he can be persuaded that it is right so to do. I know that perfectly well. The trouble is that he has not so far been so persuaded and it is therefore legitimate for us to table an amendment
284
which makes clear what we are seeking. I shall be more than happy to withdraw the amendment if the Minister would just do the simple thing and say that he is prepared to make the regional library systems one of the exceptions which he admits that he will make.
The Minister knows in his heart that he does not have a good case. He knows that he can make this concession without incurring any practical disadvantages for the Government or setting a precedent for other cases. I hope that he has had discussions with his right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts, as I suggested. If so, he will know that the Minister for the Arts is well aware of the enormous practical difficulties that failure to exempt the regional systems will create.
All that is required is for the Minister to go in for a little British common sense and refuse to follow the absolute line of logic to the point of downright silliness. I still hope for a sympathetic response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in my view the aim of this amendment, which is the exemption of two local government companies that would otherwise be caught by this Bill, is very commendable indeed. Its argument is strong on grounds of fairness to the local authorities concerned, which have acted in good faith in forming those companies, and from the Government's point of view on moral grounds as well.
Although the two groups of libraries are in England and are of much concern to the Library Association, I put my name to the amendment and I declare an indirect interest in that I am the honorary president of the Scottish Library Association. In his reply to the debate at Report stage, and in a letter which he sent to me today, for which I am extremely grateful, my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained clearly and fully why the Government must set upper limits on capital expenditure by local authorities and why they must resist the attempts of local authorities to get round those limits. I agree absolutely with him. In my view, local government capital expenditure is far too big a proportion of national public expenditure on capital projects to be allowed to run riot. This amendment is about something else.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that this is not at all a party political issue. The amendment concerns a statutory obligation imposed on central government by the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act under which the Government were required to group local authorities regionally in order that they might better be able to co-operate in sharing books and other resources across local authority boundaries without the extremely costly and inefficient process of shared capital expenditure and inter-authority revenue payments. That requirement was to enable local authorities to have a formal legal framework within which to fund that co-operation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, reminded us, over the years successive governments have failed completely in that duty. Because of the extreme difficulty of grouping informally and somehow

285
collecting funding every year —in one case from 42 participating authorities —and with no legal framework in which to do it (as noble Lords will realise, local government can do nothing that is not allowed by statute), authorities have had to find their own ways. It so happens that two groups of authorities have chosen quite legally to set up companies for that purpose. Those companies are now caught under this measure. It raises for those companies the most enormous practical difficulties which they probably cannot overcome.
There would have been no need for those companies if previous governments, including this one, had fulfilled their legal obligations. Those companies are creatures of successive governments' statutory default.
As the noble Baroness said, under this Bill Ministers have power to exclude certain classes of companies or specific companies by name from those caught by the Bill. The noble Baroness and this amendment simply ask Ministers to undertake to exclude two regional library systems—London and South-East and the North-West regions —or to exclude the class of company to which those systems belong.
The situation in which regional library companies find themselves is of successive governments' own making. Local government quite rightly felt that it owed it to its ratepayers to take action that the Government had never taken. It seems to me that now local government owes it to its community charge payers to resist the unfairness brought about by this Bill. At this late stage I very much hope, on grounds of justice to certain local authorities and on moral grounds, that the Minister will change his mind.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, these Benches very much hope that the Minister will take on board the absence of political animus in this matter. I submit that the stable from which the amendments come is impeccable. The amendment has been moved and seconded by two colleagues who in other respects are very much political ladies. They have spoken across party lines and certainly are motivated from a non-party viewpoint.
The Library Association is a body that has served this House well. It has indicated its views quite clearly. I think that the Minister should reflect seriously on the fact that this is a group of people who want to help themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, it represents a group of people who want to put away a nest-egg for a rainy day, who want to be prudent and sure that they are not caught out. They want to look to the future. Surely this Government ought to be prepared to accept that aim.
The Minister said that there were exceptions and levels and that one must be careful before creating precedents when exceptions are made. But the Minister and his Government must recognise that there is a case to be made for exceptions. The powerful case that has been made out this evening deserves, I believe, the approbation of the whole
286
House. I hope that the Minister will respond helpfully.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, my first chairmanship in local government was as chairman of the Library and Arts Committee. I should like very much to associate myself with the remarks that have already been made on this issue.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to exempt from the controls a company which is predominantly designed to help local authorities co-operate in discharging statutory duties. We again return to the vexed question of the companies set up to provide regional library services. Let me start by reiterating once again my personal admiration for the work that these companies and the other regional associations do.
I do not think that we should let our admiration for this work blind us to the purpose of this amendment. It is to give these companies a favoured status above all other local authority services. We do not think that that is right.
At Report stage I endeavoured to set out why we think that there is a problem with the approach advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I beg the forgiveness of the House if I weary it briefly with a little repetition. It is an important part of the Government's strategy to control the demands of the public sector on the national economy. The local authority sector is an important part of the general public sector. We believe that it is necessary as part of that control of the public sector to control the demands of the local authority sector for capital, which is why we have Part IV of this Bill.
In looking at the local authority sector we have to look not only at the local authorities themselves but also at the other entities which are, to all intents and purposes the creatures of local authorities. Hence the provisions of Part V to identify the bodies which go to form the local authority sector, and the provisions for applying the capital finance controls to them. The regional library services companies are two of those creatures of local authorities that are properly regarded as part of the local authority sector. Local authorities own a majority of them and local authorities control a majority of the votes in them.
I well remember that the noble Baroness chided me thoroughly at Report stage with offering devices by which these companies could cease to be regarded as part of the local authority sector. I am sorry to say that she did so again today. I was not offering such devices, but simply pointing out that if these companies are no longer the creatures of local authorities but are in the private sector, the reasons for applying controls to them disappear.
A case has been made for an exemption for these companies on the grounds that such an exemption will not make a difference to the Government's policy because the capital requirements of the two companies are, on that scale, too small to be significant. I agree. But where I differ is over the belief that this category is not only small but also

287
unique. I have doubts that arguments can be found to show that this case is unique. But I have no doubts that once it is accepted as a special case equally forceful arguments will be found that other cases share all the qualities of these two companies, and that those other cases should also be given special treatment.
We are trying to introduce a rational system of controlling the capital finance of the local authority sector. To single out these companies either means giving them an exemption denied to other parts of that sector or giving them a special allocation from the resources available to that sector in preference to the other local authority services.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour pointed out that the Government ought to fulfil their statutory duties by setting up statutory joint boards. Of course if that had happened the end implication would be that those joint statutory boards would come within the controls and would not be in a position to put forward the argument that is being presented today. It is an important point to remember. The noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out very clearly, with the greatest charm, that by just a little change I could satisfy the requirements of her amendments. For the reasons that I have given I fear that I shall be unable to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed at that reply. Indeed, I am rather shocked. The sums involved are small. It would be very easy to exempt these companies by name. The Minister gave no examples of other companies which might suddenly wish to join the queue. His reply shows the Government's general lack of care about education and the arts. We are very proud of public libraries. It is a great shame that they cannot have the help that exempting these regional companies would give. I shall not waste any more time. I shall test the opinion of the House.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amherst, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Falkland, V.

Bottomley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Fitt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grey, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hampton, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

288

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Northfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Oram, L.

Hughes, L.

Peston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jacques, L.

Rea, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Walston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Milverton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Monson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Nicol, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Joseph, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Knutsford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Clinton, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cross, V.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,L.

Dulverton, L.

Elibank, L.

Reay, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Erne, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Somerset, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Geddes, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harvington, L.

Royal, L.

Havers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hemphill, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Teynham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tryon, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

289

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Weir, V.

Young of Graffham, L

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 69 [Companies subject to local authority influence]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 80, line 38, leave out ("net assets of the company") and insert ("aggregate of the company's nominal share capital and capital grants received by the company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 21. This is an attempt —I hope that it is in the right form —to correct an anomaly which I am convinced cannot be intended by the Government. Noble Lords will recall that when at Report we considered the definitions of influenced companies, the Government —I am grateful to them —accepted an amendment which provided that joint ventures owned 50 per cent. each by the local authority and the private sector should be accepted as not being local authority influenced companies. That was a useful improvement and exemption of a form of enterprise jointly between local authorities and the private sector. It is valuable, has done good work and has been accepted by local authorities of all political persuasions as being worth while.
However, an anomaly exists. It often occurs that in the life of such a joint venture the first few years are conducted at a loss and then profits begin to come in from the project. The effect is that the company's net assets fall. As a definition of whether a company shall be influenced or not the Government have chosen its net assets. That means that during a period of loss a company which was not originally influenced becomes influenced and therefore is restricted in the ways about which we know. Presumably it again becomes not influenced when its net assets rise to their original level; that is, unless all kinds of absurd and irrelevant devices are undergone by the company so that its net assets are not influenced.
Amendment No. 21 proposes that, instead of being based on net assets, the definition is based on the aggregate of the company's nominal share capital and capital grants received by the company. We believe that that information should be readily available in the company accounts and could be required to be so.
In the second amendment we are looking for an exemption to the joint ventures in their first few years if, for technical reasons, they become influenced. We believe that the first amendment is better but we cannot see that the second will cause any difficulty to the Government. We hope that they will accept if not the first amendment then the second one. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are alternative solutions to what is seen as a
290
problem over joint ventures between local authorities and the private sector.
The problem is the fear that where a local authority and a private sector company have established a company as a vehicle for a joint venture the company might count as subject to the influence of the local authority because, initially at least, the company will incur losses which will diminish its net assets and thus make the local authority's contribution more than half of those net assets. In that way the company might satisfy the business relationship test for being subject to a local authority's influence. The problem is seen as particularly severe in the case of property development projects where losses may be inevitable at the start.
Amendment No. 20 would address this by replacing the reference to net assets with a reference to the sources of finance. We do not think that is acceptable because information about those sources of finance will not necessarily be available from a company's published accounts. We have designed the tests of a business relationship so that from its own records and from published accounts a local authority will be able to apply the tests. We would not want to modify a test so that the local authority was not able to satisfy itself of the position.
Amendment No. 21 attempts a different approach by providing a transitional exemption for certain types of company. If there is a real problem here we think that this is a much more promising solution. It ensures that, if a company is put into this position, the position is redressed if the situation does not prove to be merely transitional.
As the House knows, we are in the process of consulting local authorities on the implementation of Part V. We accept that theoretically there can be circumstances in which the problems addressed by these amendments might arise. We are not certain how realistic those circumstances are.
I am happy to give an assurance that, in the process of consultation, we shall look sympathetically at the question raised by these amendments, and that if it appears that there is a genuine problem we shall provide for appropriate general transitional exemptions. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his two amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have preferred assurances in respect of Amendment No. 20. However, assurances in respect of Amendment No. 21 are certainly most acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 81, line 4, at end insert —
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall, within 3 months of the date of Royal Assent, issue a direction under subsection (1) above in respect of advice services (including law centres) whether or not such services form part of a national network.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is an attempt to deal with what at Report stage appeared

291
to be an anomaly. The Government accepted that certain kinds of advice services —notably the citizens' advice bureaux, which are members of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux —ought to be exempt from the provisions of Part V relating to controlled and influenced companies. One of the criteria on which the citizens' advice bureaux were to be exempted was that they conformed to a national network. In other words, they were members of the national association. I readily agree that there are other criteria.
Although the national network criterion is obviously convenient for government in the sense that it is easier for them to identify members of a national association and exempt them en bloc rather than deal with many individual applications, it appears to us to be irrational in itself. Membership of a national organisation is not necessarily a guarantee of independence and lack of membership of a national organisation is not necessarily a guarantee of dependence.
As we stated on Report, the case arises particularly in respect of law centres. They have a Law Centres Federation which is more loosely organised than the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. However, not all law centres belong and they may fail the test of exemption simply because they are not members of a national association. I do not believe that the Government would wish to be stuck with that anomaly of membership of a national organisation. In particular, I do not believe that they intended the Bill to discriminate against law centres simply because they do not happen to be members of a formal national association.
If the Government are unable to accept the text of the amendment I hope that they will at least give an assurance that there is no deliberate intention to exclude law centres from the exemption or indeed that membership of the Law Centres Federation is an acceptable basis for exclusion because law centres are complementary to the work of the citizens' advice bureaux. I believe that everybody involved with that movement will agree that their work is complementary. In many cases they take up the cases with which the citizens advice bureaux are no longer able to deal. Therefore, a rational look at the exemption procedure would surely include law centres as well as citizens advice bureaux. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a direction under subsection (1) of Clause 69 within three months of Royal Assent of this Bill, in respect of all advice centres whether or not such services form part of a national network.
I must resist this amendment which seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement on the Secretary of State to exempt all advice agencies. I do not think it is appropriate to place such matters on the face of the Bill and I am unsure why advice agencies should be singled out in this way.
The amendment follows up debates we had at Report stage in this House with regard to the position
292
of advice agencies and in particular law centres. On Report I explained that the Government are willing to consider applications from any network of advice agencies which, although caught by the provisions in Part V, can demonstrate that they operate independently. The reason why we said that we would consider applications from networks of advice agencies is that where a national association exists, as for example is the case with citizens advice bureaux, that provides evidence that the agency operates as part of a national organisation with a specific set of rules and therefore independently of local authorities. But we are not saying that a national network must exist before an exemption can be considered although that would obviously provide at least part of the assurance we require that agencies are not operating as extensions of local authorities.
I should repeat therefore that we will consider sympathetically applications from any advice agencies which consider that their activities will be frustrated by these proposals. There will, of course, also be a general exemption for all charitable organisations which operate independently of local authorities. I set out in our debate on Report the criteria which would need to be fulfilled for such an exemption. It is quite likely that many advice agencies, including law centres, will be covered by the scope of this general exemption. That is why we resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when a Minister says that he will listen sympathetically to applications, that is certainly a good basis on which one should not pursue an amendment. If the law centres have any sense —and this is a word to the wise —they will seek to strengthen the rules of the Law Centres Federation; in other words, they will seek to make themselves more like the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux than they are at present. That may or may not be good. I do not know enough about law centres to tell whether or not that is so. Clearly there would be no difficulty for law centres —which operate in very much the same way throughout the country —to do that. Therefore, there seems to be a good chance on this ground, as well as on other grounds, for law centres to be exempted by regulation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 81, line 4, at end insert —
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall give a direction under subsection (1) above where he is satisfied that a company which, apart from such a direction would satisfy the tests in subsections (1) and (3) above, or would fall within section 73(2) below, carries out its activities independently of the local authority or authorities concerned.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows some observations by Ministers on Report. The Minister said:
"We have no intention of imposing unnecessary controls on companies which operate independently of local authorities even if they satisfy the conditions under strict interpretation of the rules". [Official Report, 23/10/89; col. 1153.]
The Minister was saying that the Government have set out in Part V of the Bill rules of such complexity and impossibility of compliance that, even if they rely on regulations rather than it being on the face of the Bill, there will have to be discretion for the Secretary of State as to the rules which he is establishing. The Minister also said that a consistent approach would be adopted.
We should not want the Government to be in the embarrassing position of putting forward legislation which they know cannot be adhered to—indeed, they are declaring that in advance. Surely when one has rules, their strict interpretation is the right way in which to have a consistent approach. We could put that on the face of the Bill and in Amendment No. 23 we seek to give effect to the indications which the Government gave on Report.
As it is, the Bill has nothing other than a bald power for the Secretary of State to exempt particular companies or types of companies from the clause. We do not believe that that is the way in which legislation should be approached. We believe that if the Government are to impose restrictions, they should do that on a consistent basis. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment as a step in that direction. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a direction under subsection (1) of Clause 69 to exempt companies which satisfy the tests for an influenced company if he is satisfied that the company carries out its activities independently of local authorities.
I have already explained in speaking to previous amendments that we have no wish to place unnecessary restrictions or controls on companies which operate independently of local authorities. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of general exemptions for categories of companies where it would not be sensible to apply the controls in Part V of the Bill. In tabling this amendment I think that the noble Lord has in mind those companies which do not fall easily into any of the general exemption categories but may warrant consideration for exemption in their own right.
We have been careful in setting the dual test for influenced companies so that only those companies which are without doubt under a dominant influence of local authorities are caught. The amendments we have made during the passage of this Bill both to the personnel association test and the business relationship test have tightened up the definitions considerably and we have been grateful to the Opposition for bringing forward some amendments which have clearly improved the drafting.
It of course remains a matter of judgment, nevertheless, when considering influence, to determine exactly where to draw the line. We recognise that there will be a few cases where the strict interpretation of the rules will catch companies which remain quite definitely independent of local authorities. We intend to deal with such circumstances by granting individual exemptions.
294
The Bill already provides the necessary mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to do so by direction. It is not appropriate to do so on the face of the Bill as proposed in this amendment. Each case must be considered on its merits, and company structure is simply too complex an area to attempt to place general criteria on the face of the Bill.
I reiterate therefore that the Bill already provides the Secretary of State with the necessary flexibility to deal with the circumstances highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We will be prepared to consider all cases sympathetically from companies who consider that their activities will be unfairly inhibited by these provisions. If we can be satisfied that an influenced company operates independently of local authorities and that it cannot be used by local authorities as a means of avoiding statutory controls, an exemption will be considered and if appropriate granted by the Secretary of State. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is always disarming when a Minister says that he is grateful to the Opposition for introducing amendments which clarify the rules. I suppose that I am expected to smile gracefully and withdraw. However, I am bound to say that this is a failure of legislation. The Government, having introduced extremely complex rules, are forced to say at the end of it that they do not believe that their rules, however complex, will work and the Secretary of State will have to introduce individual exemptions.
That conjures up an idea of the Secretary of State holding an audience like a medieval potentate with his courtiers around him. The applicants come forward, bow on their bended knees, touch their foreheads to the carpet in front of him and say, "Please Secretary of State, we know that the law is against us but will you give us an exemption?" He says, "By virtue of the powers entrusted to me by Part V of the Local Government and. Housing Act 1989, I will give you an individual exemption even though the law says otherwise".
That is not what the law ought to be about and it is not what the Secretary of State ought to be about. The Government should be ashamed of themselves, however well meaning they are in their response to this amendment. They should be ashamed of getting themselves into this position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 71 [Control of minority interests etc. in certain companies]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 84, line 12, leave out ("Subject to subsection (8) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to replace an incorrect reference in subsection (7) of Section 71 which was not amended at the time of an earlier amendment to Section 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Calculation of Housing Revenue Account subsidy]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 90, line 34, at end insert —
("( ) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, in determining a formula for the purposes of this section in respect of the year beginning 1 April 1990, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any information available to him concerning the amount of expenditure incurred by a local housing authority prior to 1 April 1990 on the repair of housing held for housing purposes by that authority the initial cost of which was not charged to the Housing Revenue Account and to which he has not had regard in issuing credit approvals under sections 53 and 54 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we again return to a matter which was debated on Report and we do so because the response of the Government to our amendment was not only ungenerous —we would not expect generosity —but was actually wrong. It misunderstood the issue of capitalised repairs.
I briefly summarise the issue in Part VI of the Bill. Many local authorities have legally and properly for a number of years used the receipts from disposal of homes under the right-to-buy schemes for repair and maintenance expenditure. Nobody has claimed that the maintenance and repair expenditure is wrong, but the Government are now proposing to deny local authorities the right to continue to do that by virtue of the restrictions which are to be placed on the capital receipts from the right-to-buy programme. In other words, the Government are requiring that a substantial part of the capital receipts from the right-to-buy programme shall be used for the redemption of the local authority's debt rather than for capital purposes.
I do not need to go in detail over the ground of why that would be disastrous, particularly for many local authorities in inner city areas. I gave examples at Committee stage of how this would work. It would mean that unless necessary expenditure on repairs and maintenance were cut, rents would have to go up by a very considerable amount. In Liverpool, this would mean increases of between £3 and £3.80; in Birmingham, between £4 and £4.80; in Southwark, between £4 and £7; in Camden, between £7.40 and 7.80, and in Wandsworth, a Conservative borough, between £9.70 and £10.60. Your Lordships can see the issue is extremely serious and the threat to local authorities which have been acting, I repeat, perfectly legally and properly under the law as it stood, is going to be extremely damaging.
The Minister will recall that the consultation paper of July 1988 indicated that there would be transitional provisions which would provide what is now called, in the current jargon, "a soft landing". What we want now is an assurance that the "soft landing" which was promised in July 1988 is still valid —at least let us have that assurance, if not more —and an assurance that compensation will actually be made on the capital side. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I will be brief, but I want to support my noble friend. Those of us who come from large cities which have a great
296
number of multi-storey blocks of flats-20 to 30 storeys —know that they have a real problem, now the blocks have been up for so many years, with their total management. Everybody who knows about building in concrete knows that it is a difficult substance to weather.
The capitalised repairs have meant that there has been a big surge forward in the repairs of high-rise blocks of flats. They have to be capitalised repairs and it is important for us to remember that fact if a local authority is not able to use this money. I remind the Minister again that, when properties and houses were sold, the idea was that local authorities would then use their capital receipts to the advantage of the residents. That is one aspect to be very careful about in depriving local authorities of their capital receipts.
It the first place the Government are breaking faith with local authorities but also it is important for us to bear in mind that many council properties —some of them were built just after the first world war —are really in need of substantial capital repairs rather than just maintenance. For local authorities which have been using the money in that way this is a retrograde step and will not only deprive the occupants but will also have the effect of downgrading the property still further.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, under the present system of local authority capital controls, the statutory distinction between capital and revenue expenditure is only loosely drawn. Some councils have taken advantage of this to spend capital receipts on day-to-day maintenance and jobbing repairs. They were permitted to do that. I do not want to imply that they were going beyond their powers. Most people, however, would expect a landlord to fund day-to-day maintenance from rental income, especially as housing subsidy had augmented that income for over one-fifth of the authorities.
Frankly, some authorities have acted imprudently. The new capital finance system which will be introduced by Part IV of this Bill will have the effect of preventing such expenditure being met from capital receipts in the future. The authorities will still be able to spend receipts on capitalised repairs to enhance the asset, but not on day-to-day maintenance. The authorities which have been capitalised in maintenance expenditure, which will not count as capital in the new system, will have to stop. They fear this will be a difficult adjustment, and we are being asked to give them additional resources to cushion the transition. That is the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It would require us to take into account, in setting future levels of funding, the amounts which authorities have spent on non-prescribed housing works. We would need to have regard to that expenditure either in setting the allowances for management and maintenance expenditure in housing revenue account subsidy or in setting each authority's credit approvals on the capital side.
We have thought long and hard about the proposal to include in subsidy an element which reflected past levels of expenditure on capitalised repairs. As I said

297
at Report stage, there are strong arguments against doing so. First, the fact that authorities have been spending surplus capital receipts on housing does not in itself give an indication of a continuing need for that expenditure. In the past, once receipts had been spent in that way, then they were used up. It is now suggested that we should provide authorities with additional resources to enable that expenditure to continue, irrespective of authorities' individual needs. This could only be done at the expense of other authorities and could therefore lead to an inequitable distribution of resources.
Secondly, in so far as the expenditure from receipts was on works which more properly might have been expected to be met from revenue, then we are being asked to compensate authorities for this rather imprudent use of capital resources, again at the cost of authorities which have not behaved in this way.
The noble Lord suggested that in order to achieve the smooth transition which we had promised we must take account of capitalised repairs and subsidies, otherwise we should not be achieving a "soft landing". It is going a bit far to say that smooth transition depends on compensating authorities for resources they have already used up. It is also going a bit far to say that a soft landing means that we must compensate them for the fact that they can no longer prudently meet their day-to-day expenditure out of capital resources. That would not just be a "soft landing", it would be feather-bedding, and the feathers would have to come from the nests of other authorities which have a real claim on our support.
On the second leg of the noble Lord's amendment, I hope I can be more helpful to him and to the House. To the extent that non-prescribed expenditure in the past was on genuine capital works which reflect a continuing need to spend on repairs, we can take this into account in setting borrowing approvals. And we will indeed do so. The context for this would be the annual series of housing investment programme, or HIP, meetings with the Department of the Environment's regional housing officials. I am sorry that when I referred to this at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, claimed that we were suggesting that authorities should have to beg for the resources they need. In truth, the system of bidding for resources is long-established, and the HIP meeting is the right forum for discussions of this sort to take place since it enables local issues and needs to be discussed locally.
For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot recommend acceptance of the consequences of the noble Lord's amendment regarding revenue subsidy. But I hope he will accept my assurances that where genuine capital expenditure has been undertaken in the past the present arrangements would enable that to be taken into account for future years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Earl the Paymaster General settles into his duties in the Treasury he will no doubt have to deal with the Finance Bill, if not in this House then as part of his departmental responsibilities. He will find that the distinction that the Government are now seeking to make between enhancing an asset
298
and more general repairs is a distinction that is virtually impossible to make in the context of tax legislation. Governments have always tried to treat enhancing assets differently in terms of capital allowance and other forms of corporate taxation from simple maintenance. This system has always been extremely difficult to apply in practice and led to very grave anomalies as between one business and another.
I do not think that the Department of the Environment will welcome being invited into this maze of complexity and paradise for tax lawyers which is already the experience of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. To that extent I believe that the Government's position is ill-advised and I am sorry that the Minister should repeat it. I am also sorry that the Minister said that the amendment would have the effect of providing authorities with additional resources. This measure is not providing authorities with additional resources. This is their own money; it is money coming to them from a discounted sale —not a sale at the full market value —of assets that the ratepayers have contributed to over the years. It is not money coming from central government, but their own money.
The restrictions that central government are putting on them are taking away their ability to choose how they spend their own money. The money is not being taken away because it will go to debt redemption. Local authorities with severe housing problems will rightly feel that debt redemption has a lower priority than keeping the housing stock in good repair. When the Minister speaks of feather-bedding as opposed to a soft landing, I must remind him of exactly what the July 1988 consultation paper said:
"It is essential therefore that the introduction of the new system should not of itself introduce any sharp change in the level of management and maintenance spending" —
there is nothing here concerning enhancement —
"in any individual authority".
In so far as authorities have been using capitalised repairs for management and maintenance spending, a reduction in the availability of capital for this purpose will undoubtedly result in a sharp change in the level of management and maintenance spending with individual authorities. It must do. Therefore the Government are reneging on the statements that they issued for consultation in July 1988.
In almost every respect these provisions in the Bill are backward-looking. They are damaging to the condition of our housing stock in the parts of the country where it is most important that it should be maintained. The alternative to a decline in the physical condition of public housing is that there should be a very considerable increase in council house rents. Neither of those conditions is acceptable. It is only because this is Third Reading and the matter has been aired before that I refrain from seeking the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 90 [Conditions for declaration of renewal area]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 95, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. We return, as we have done on a number of issues, to matters that have already had a good and fair airing. I believe that we have done a first-class job in exposing the issues. This issue relates to the conditions for declaring a renewal area.
Although we had a debate at Report stage, the issue certainly left us with some loose ends. On one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said:
"We have sought to strike a balance between giving local authorities freedom to declare renewal areas without the express approval of the Secretary of State and pursuing some flexibility" —
I stress the word "flexibility" —
"on size and therefore on the number of schemes to which resources are to be directed".
The noble Lord said that at one moment, and a little later he said:
"If I may put it in these words, we believe that a critical mass occurs and that 500 is about where it is".
The noble Lord then qualified that by saying:
"But there are liable to be special occasions". [Official Report, 24/10/89; col. 1330.]
The noble Lord will recall that later I asked whether if in fact there was some flexibility, we were talking about the possibility that renewal areas might comprise 20, 30 or 50 houses. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers and all the local authority associations are concerned that the size of a renewal area is irrelevant. But what concerns practitioners more —they should know best, but I fear the Government do not pay as much attention to them as we do —is the condition of the properties.
The range of houses included can be as few as 20 or 30 and as many as 700 or 800. The figure of 500 is far too tight. It will mean that many local authorities will be unable to help owner-occupiers and private tenants in the smaller pockets of houses which are unfit or in serious disrepair. The Minister was suggesting that the figure of 500 would be the norm and that there would only be exceptional special occasions.
We do not believe that there is any political animus as regards this matter, but someone —perhaps someone at Marsham Street—thinks that 500 is a good and right figure. What I am saying to the Minister is that people who will have to manage this matter will want far more flexibility than that. We are raising the issue through this amendment in order to give the Minister a chance to say to local authorities that he wishes local government to get on with the job and that private owners and tenants should benefit from the results of this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to remove the Secretary of
300
State's power to specify by directions the minimum number of dwellings which should be present in a renewal area. Your Lordships will recall that we debated an amendment having the same effect during Report. I explained that our aim is to ensure that renewal areas are large enough to enable a coherent plan of renewal to be undertaken, including, where necessary, clearance and rebuilding, and to attract investment from the private sector. We recognise, however, that there will be circumstances where a smaller than average renewal will be appropriate.
The Bill therefore leaves local authorities the freedom to seek the Secretary of State's agreement to declare renewal areas which do not comply with the general criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, queried how the Bill provides for this flexibility. The answer to that lies in Clause 99. Clause 99 empowers the Secretary of State to make different provisions for different cases, different descriptions of cases and different areas when giving directions under Part VII. In particular, different provision may be made with respect to different authorities, including individual authorities.
The requirements which must be met under Clause 99 are to be specified by directions. The intention is that initially those directions will be of general effect. Where an authority, however, is able to justify the need for a renewal area which does not comply with the general directions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is prepared to make directions specific to that area using the powers available under Clause 99. In that way, the Bill provides for variation in the general requirements although, of course, and authority will need to initiate the process by requesting the Secretary of State to use his direction-making powers in that way.
At present local housing authorities must seek individual approval in respect of each scheme of area renewal which they propose. The new provisions in Part VII would leave them free to proceed without such approval where the area complies with the matters specified in general directions and requires a special procedure only in the unusual cases. I believe that that represents a considerable improvement and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will see it in that way.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Clause 99 says, in effect, that the Secretary of State can do what he likes. He can approve. He can disapprove. He can look at all kinds of special circumstances. One has to ask the Minister why the Government persist in trying to hobble local government from using its own initiative. If, as the Minister said on the last occasion, he envisages that the number of designated areas may be as low as 20 or 30 (that is on the record), but that it could be higher (he has already talked about 500) why does he go to the trouble of ensuring that local government must go through the hoop? The department at Marsham Street will need the staff and resources to consider those matters. That runs counter to what the Government say publicly about letting people govern their own affairs.

301
We are talking about responsible people, responsible councillors, and, what is more important, responsible professional officers who will not waste time and money. The Government however are wedded to the idea that the men and women in Marsham Street know best. We disagree. We believe that there are people out in the sticks (the council chambers and council offices) who understand their local circumstances far better. In practice, the Government will find that they will be accused of delay and of wanting to be too involved in the detail of running local government than they need to be. I can understand a great many of the macro arguments about control, but surely these are small matters. I do not denigrate their importance to local government or to the community, but they are small in the context of what the Bill sets out to do. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but I am not prepared to press the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Steps to be taken after declaration of renewal area]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 96, line 2, at end insert —
("(bb) provide, or secure the provision of, a service of information and advice to persons residing or owning property in the area who wish to carry out works to housing accommodation in the area").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 29 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 30. The effect of Amendment No. 29 is to require local housing authorities to ensure that an information and advisory service is provided in a renewal area either by themselves or by some other body or person. Amendment No. 30 would delete the similar requirement as to the provision of advice and information which currently appears in Clause 92.
The wording proposed to be deleted by Amendment No. 30 was inserted during Report by an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. In accepting that amendment I indicated that a clarifying amendment would be necessary, partly because of certain technical difficulties with the wording and partly because we wished to cater for circumstances where information and advice could most appropriately be provided by bodies other than local authorities. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, did not empower authorities to delegate that role.
Amendment No. 29 provides the clarification which I promised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Duty to publish information]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 96, line 25, leave out from ("shall") to ("comply") in line 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 99, line 10, at end insert —
("(2A) Contributions under this section shall be payable subject to such conditions as to records, certificates, audit or otherwise as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, impose.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 31 empowers the Secretary of State to impose certain conditions in connection with the payment of Exchequer contribution towards expenses incurred in relation to renewal areas. Amendment No. 34 applies the provisions of Amendment No. 31 in relation to Exchequer contributions payable towards expenditure incurred in respect of grants available under Part VIII.
Amendment No. 31 reproduces the existing provisions of Section 516(6) of the Housing Act 1985. Those provisions are used to require the keeping of certain registers and certificates which must be made available to the district auditor or other officers authorised by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the registers and certificates is to provide evidence of the propriety and regularity of grant payments and to form the basis of claims for Exchequer contribution. They therefore provide both protection for authorities and safeguards for the use of public money.
For that reason it has always been our intention to require a similar form of record-keeping in relation to renewal areas and the new grant system. It now appears, however, that there is some doubt as to whether the provision of Clauses 96 and 132 are sufficiently widely cast to permit this. For the avoidance of doubt a specific power is necessary. Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 provide that power. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Owner-occupiers and tenants]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 109, line 32, at end insert ("and
(c) shall make provision for determinations in respect of a disabled facilities grant, or of a renovation grant sought by a disabled person or by someone on whom a disabled person is dependent, to take full account of not only all the extra costs arising on account of disability but also all the expenditure that may need to be made to help a disabled occupant overcome or compensate for disability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to secure a realistic means test for disabled people. Disabled people, and many upon whom they depend, will suffer financial hardship, often grave financial hardship, if they are means tested as though they or their dependants were able bodied.
Research by the Disablement Income Group has shown that the extra costs of disability can easily use up to 25 per cent. of a disabled person's income. Thus, compared with non-disabled people, 25 per cent. of a disabled person's income is not available for renovation work or alterations to a home. Where income consists of social security benefits, the percentage can be as high as 47 per cent., according

303
to recent research. That recent research, following the OPCS report, has shown that the OPCS methodology seriously underestimates those extra costs. For severely disabled people (in categories 9 and 10 of the survey) receiving attendance allowance and/or mobility allowance, and considering only seven types of extra cost: home services, unprescribed medication, laundry, clothing, bedding, food, fuel and transport, the OPCS found average extra costs of £9.50. The Disablement Income Group found that the extra costs were much higher—£41.81.
As I said earlier, the amendment is designed to ensure that proper account is taken of the extra cost of being disabled when means testing is applied to disabled people. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment, especially as it would allow the extra costs of disabled life to be taken into account when determining the grant. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already briefly mentioned those extra costs. I must stress that they really concern the basic necessities of life which most people take for granted: for example, food, where people may need to have special diets; warmth, where extra heating is needed if one's circulation is bad; clothing, which wears out more quickly if one is using crutches and calipers; washing, where extra laundry costs are involved if one is incontinent; and mobility, where many people cannot use public transport and where the mobility allowance, although most welcome, does not fully cover the cost involved for other forms of transport.
Even if there is easy access to the shops and adequate parking available, the sheer extra time involved means that disabled people cannot usually shop around for the best bargains. All this is not intended to be a catalogue of moans; it is my intention to put forward concrete reasons why the test of resources as regards the application for disabled facilities grant should not be the same as that for an able-bodied person applying for a home improvement grant. There should be a little extra weighting just to balance the scales more justly.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment as indeed I did to other amendments on similar subjects at earlier stages of the Bill. The problem which lies behind the amendment was well aired during the initial stages and the situation has been explained again with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Therefore there is no need to repeat the arguments in detail.
I find it hard to understand why the Government wish to reject the amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain why the Government have changed their stance on the matter since the consultation papers in 1987 and 1989. The amendment is intended to correct that fault.
The Bill as drafted runs directly counter to the principle that disabled people should receive as of right an allowance to meet the extra costs of disability. That is a belief which I am glad to say was adopted by the Labour Party as official party
304
policy in 1988. The OPCS survey, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has shown graphically, and for the first time in great detail, the practical problems faced by people with disabilities. Of course we are all aware of the considerable financial problems which these people face. It is quite wrong that the Bill by way of this clause should add to those problems. Acceptance of this amendment would remove the possibility of further financial hardship for people with disabilities.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. We have, of course, had this debate before. I supported the proposal when it was first put forward. I have had a good deal of experience of housing conditions for handicapped people, which I gained while I was chairman of the housing committee of Roxburgh County Council. I am also concerned at present with a college for the handicapped in Birmingham which is doing a wonderful job.
However, the fact remains that it is quite an expensive undertaking to alter ordinary houses to suit certain types of handicap. Indeed, private people very often cannot do so. Moreover, if they cannot do so they are obliged to go and live in a home or an institution which is just what we do not want to happen. What is proposed is not only wise but it would also be very economic. It would also greatly assist people who need such help.
There is also another aspect to consider in the matter. Houses could be built for handicapped people. Here I must again mention Birmingham. There they adapt flats and houses for handicapped people so that they do not have to go and stay in hospitals or institutions. That is a most valuable project. The city of Peterborough has a similar scheme. Such projects help enormously. They enable handicapped people to lead the kind of ordinary life that we do. I think it is vital that we should accept what is proposed.
I understand that there was originally a Government Bill which made it perfectly possible to obtain grants for carrying out this kind of work; namely, adapting houses for handicapped people. However, it has now been removed. In my view it is high time that the Government put it back. I say that because this is one of the measures which would be of enormous help to such people. We have the opportunity by way of this Bill, which is now receiving its Third Reading, to make a rare contribution towards helping disabled people and thereby improving their living conditions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment which has the full support of the Disablement Income Group and of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. Those are organisations which are working for many disabled people throughout the country. It seems such a pity that families with disability who have to face so many struggles in life must work so hard to obtain those facilities which will enable them to stay in the community, especially as we hear so much these days about care in the community.

305
If disabled people are not able to live in the community because of financial costs, what will they do? I ask the the Minister to think very carefully on the matter.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I should like to also to express my support for these amendments, especially Amendment No. 45 which was referred to by the noble Baroness Lady Elliot of Harwood. The Peterborough Development Corporation, the city council, the DHSS, and the local builders' federation, joined together in the early 1980s. They agreed that it was much more sensible to give a grant to the builder who was building the house so that he could install the facilities needed for the disabled person who would live in the house, rather than build the house and then give a grant afterwards to enable doors to be widened, bathrooms and kitchens altered, and so on. It was agreed that the city council would give to the builder the same grant as it would give to someone to alter a house after it had been built, thus enabling the builder to install the right kind of facilities from the beginning. That was done quite happily, with consent all around, for a couple of years. However, the district auditor then came in and drew the attention of the department to the fact that the city council was acting illegally. He said that the money being used for the grant was money which was meant for the alteration of existing properties and therefore could not be used to make new properties right in the first instance. He ruled that the council was acting illegally. Therefore the scheme had to stop.
I have made inquiries of the city council and I understand that at that time the Department of the Environment was very sympathetic. However, there was nothing that could be done in the matter because there was no means of making those grants available under such circumstances.
The proposal in Amendment No. 45, which is grouped with this amendment, would provide the opportunity for cities such as Peterborough, and other authorities, to make grants available to the builders so that they could build in the right kind of facilities at the initial stages and thereby not have to go to the trouble of altering the house afterwards.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendment No.32 will require the Secretary of State, in making regulations under Clause 109, to provide for a test of resources which takes into account not only the extra costs incurred by disabled people but also any expenditure needed to compensate for disability.
Amendment No. 45 seeks to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow a local housing authority to approve a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to dwellings under construction.
We are dealing here with two rather different aspects of assistance for disabled people. The first is, in effect, the amount of grant which is to be made available and the second is the eligibility of works for assistance. The major common factor is the use of regulations to achieve those ends.
306
I should like to start with the question of the test of resources. During the Report stage of the Bill in this House I indicated that we were willing to consider any proposals which would help to make the test work better or which would direct aid to those most in need of it. The regulation-making powers provided under Clause 109 are wide enough to enable special provision to be made for the disabled if that can be justified. Therefore, I repeat that I am prepared to consider the details of the test in the light of any evidence which my noble friend Lord Swinfen may care to supply in support of his contention that our proposals make insufficient allowance for what disabled people, and those caring for them, can and cannot afford by way of meeting the cost of essential adaptations.
The amendment, however, goes far beyond the principles of a test of resources associated with capital expenditure required for adaptations. It touches on the level of support required to help disabled people to overcome or compensate for their disability.
Those are matters germane to the level of benefits generally payable to disabled people and not simply to grants to adapt housing. Your Lordships will be aware that the question of benefits is something which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been considering in the light of the recent OPCS survey. In particular, he has recently announced in another place his intention to bring forward proposals, it is hoped before the end of the year, to improve the balance and structure of social security provision for the long-term sick and disabled and those who help to care for them.
That is necessarily a longer-term plan, but in the meantime 10 immediate improvements were proposed. Among them are increases in she disability premiums for adults and families and the wider availability of attendance allowances. My right honourable friend has announced that the total full-year cost of these improvements wild be around –100 million a year, and they will Improve the incomes of more than 500,000 seriously ill or disabled people and carers. Many of those increases will feed through into the new test for adaptions.
Our intention is that the test of resources should reflect the level of benefits payable in recognition of the extra costs faced by disabled people. Any increases in benefits will therefore also be reflected in the test applied for the purposes of Part VIII of this Bill. In addition, the test will allow an extra premium to take account of the fact that expenditure required for an adaption is of a different nature from the expenditure needed to support daily living. However, it would be inappropriate to provide for a test which makes different assumptions regarding the basic level of support which is needed by disabled people from those made in relation to benefits generally.
We recognise that housing adaptions provide those who are disabled with valuable increased independence and the opportunity to maintain or regain a normal family life. We also recognise that an adaption can greatly ease the burden of carers where total independence by the disabled person is not possible. Indeed, the provisions in this Bill are

307
consistent with the policy of care in the community, where the primary aim is to enable disabled people to remain in their own homes whenever possible.
We also recognise the importance of grant aid in this respect, and for this reason we have provided an entirely new and specific provision. We have also agreed to extend the range of mandatory grants from that provided on the introduction of this Bill. I believe that so far as concerns the test of resources, the provisions of Clause 109 already provide flexibility to meet the particular circumstances of disabled people regarding adaptions and in order to make adjustments for the circumstances both now and in the future. However, as I have explained, I cannot accept that a test for adaption grant purposes should be a major feature of elements not directly related to the cost of adaptions.
Turning to Amendment No. 45, we have on several —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? Throughout his explanation of this amendment he has been using a word which is not in the dictionary. He used it at the Committee and Report stages. The word that I know is "adaptation". Is it in the noble Lord's brief as "adaption"?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is a victim of a 1960s education.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You are not 60!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the time refers to the decade and not to my age, though I may already be beginning to look it. However, I shall take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and endeavour to switch to "adaptation" for the remainder of our discussion on this amendment.
We have on several occasions debated the desirability of providing a grant to adapt properties which are being built. As your Lordships are aware, I am not unsympathetic to the principle of adaptation during construction in certain circumstances, although I believe that we need to ensure that the availability of grant does not discourage builders from seeking to meet the needs of their disabled customers as a matter of course and at their extra cost by building to basic mobility standards. The problem is that the disabled facilities grant, as provided for in this Bill, simply does not provide the right vehicle.
All the conditions as to eligibility, entitlement and approval presuppose that the building being adapted is already in existence. Examples that spring to mind include the requirements relating to the applicant's interest in the property, the conditions as to the starting and completion of work and the definition of "dwelling" itself. A major recasting of the various provisions would be necessary, and that is assuming that they could be recast in a sensible way.
I appreciate that Amendment No. 45 seeks to confer a simple regulation-making power, and I have already emphasised the flexibility of
308
regulation-making powers in the context of Clause 109. Amendment No. 45 is however still cast in terms of the disabled facilities grant and if it were to be used it would in practical terms mean the setting aside of a substantial part of the primary legislation. It would be a major departure from normal practice to give the Secretary of State powers to use subordinate legislation in such a way as to effectively rewrite the primary legislation rather than to supplement it. This is particularly so since Amendment No. 45 does not seek o confine the regulation-making power or even to provide a framework for its use in the way that, for example, Clause 131 does in relation to assistance with minor works, or indeed Clause 109 does in relation to the test of resources. I do not think therefore that this would be an appropriate way of using subordinate legislation or that it would be a desirable precedent to set.
I have already given an undertaking to consider how grant aid might be available for adaptations to dwellings under construction. I believe that a completely separate form of grant may be necessary and I want to look at this, not only in relation to adaptations but also in relation to grants for the reconstruction of dwellings, an issue which was raised in another place. Related matters are involved and we believe that the best way forward is to develop an appropriate grant not saddled with the restrictions and conditions which cannot readily be adapted. I repeat my undertakings to consider this point further. On the basis of that, I hope that the mover of this amendment will be able to withdraw it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when moving Amendment No. 32, I did not speak to Amendment No. 45. Therefore I shall deal with that amendment first, as we are discussing the two together. Despite what my noble friend has said, I am still very much in favour of Amendment No. 45. It does not commit the Government to do anything. It is purely enabling.
Should it be incorporated into the Bill, the Government may or may not wish to take advantage of it at some time in the future. If they so wished, they could repeal it at a time when they brought in what they considered to be more appropriate legislation. If my noble friend is given permission by his wife to go out for a walk, it does not mean to say that he has to do that. He may if he wishes. I am sure that he does not need his wife's permission: one would hope not. But it purely allows the Secretary of State to make regulations. The word in this amendment is "may" and not "shall". There have been numerous arguments on this in the past. "May" is enabling and not compelling, and I still feel that Amendment No. 45 should be in the Bill.
However, regarding Amendment No. 32, to which we are addressing ourselves in the main at the moment, the Minister has given certain undertakings with regard to the way in which the test of means will be administered and has asked me to write to him on that. That is an invitation which I shall accept. I therefore ask the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [Payment of balance of costs in case of certain disposals]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No.33:
Page 128, line 14, leave out ("and 121") and insert ("to 123").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 is a minor drafting amendment. Clause 130 provides for the circumstances in which someone who has participated in a group repair scheme must pay to a local housing authority the balance of the cost of works attributable to his dwelling. Broadly speaking, some payment is required if the dwelling is disposed of for more than a certain amount within a three-year period. There are, however, certain exempt disposals which do not trigger the requirement to make a payment. These are defined in Clause 124.
Clause 124 applies not only for the purposes of Clause 130 and the two clauses specifically referred to in subsection (5) of that clause —namely, Clauses 120 and 121 —but also for the purposes of Clauses 122 and 123. Amendment No. 33 therefore has the effect of inserting a reference to Clauses 122 and 123 into Clause 130(5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 129, line 42, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156 [Contingency planning and co-ordination in respect of emergencies or disasters]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 150, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. These amendments deal with the important matter of peacetime emergency planning. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I will have a more amicable discussion than we had on the previous occasion. I was sorry that a certain note was introduced into the discussions which was perhaps engendered by my remarks.
These three amendments hang together. Their purpose is first to clear up technical drafting matters relating to the Government's amendment at Report stage. The provisions are now incorporated as Clause 156 of the Bill. I know that the noble Earl has written to my noble friend Lord McIntosh in a letter dated 31st October which I have in my possession. I shall comment on it in due course.
The second purpose of the amendments is to underline the issue raised at Committee and Report stages concerning the desirability of a duty rather than a power to plan. A third purpose of the amendments is returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who played a major and
310
constructive part in the discussions. At Committee and Report stages he made the point that fire and civil defence authorities should be able to determine the overall shape of a plan in a metropolitan area.
The technical issue is covered by the second of these amendments. The new Clause 157 introduces a new power for lower tier authorities to undertake peacetime civil emergency planning and adds it into the existing Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972. This is where there is some confusion and a need for clarification. Section 138 gives councils powers to deal with disasters which have actually occurred, or which are reasonably expected to occur. In producing the new power, the Government have simply added to the existing power of local authorities, without altering the substance of the existing power to deal with an emergency.
The new clause also gives a power to fire and civil defence authorities and to counties to incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning. It has been assumed throughout that the co-ordination was intended to relate to the new planning power created for lower tier authorities. However the wording of Clause 156 leaves this unclear. Subsection (3) refers at line 39 of page 150 to co-ordination of plans drawn up, "under subsection (1) above". As inserted into the 1972 Act, this would relate not to the new planning power, but to the existing power to act in an emergency. It is assumed that the Government intended the two new powers in Clause 157 to fit together. Our amendment attempts to correct this For the sake of completeness, it gives FCDAs powers to co-ordinate both plans produced under the new power and any action taken in relation to actual emergencies under the existing Section 138(1).
We shall be quite satisfied if the Minister can explain the drafting and clarify the points which I have made. However, the Minister and his advisers may think that our amendment is helpful and they may accept it. It is hoped that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that the two new powers in Clause 157 are intended to fit together and that the upper tier is intended to co-ordinate the planning for peacetime emergencies undertaken by the lower tier.
The remaining two amendments raise more substantial issues which have been debated at the earlier stages, but on which there was a clear feeling that the Government could go further in order to respond to the views of the House.
The first amendment would simply replace the word "may" with "shall". As often happens, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already raised the interpretation of the words "may" and "shall" in legislation. The replacing of "may" with "shall" would produce a step towards a duty to plan for districts and boroughs. Those councils would be required to plan, where they considered it appropriate, for an emergency or disaster which would involve destruction of or danger to life or property in some or all of their area.
This formulation, I submit, is not as, strong as a strict duty to plan, but it puts the council in practice under a duty to consider the issue and to reach a view as to whether or not there are imminent dangers and whether planning is appropriate in relation to

311
them. It also serves to underline the point that councils need to be aware that resources are available from the Home Office, before they can with confidence undertake substantial expenditure in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said:
"One of the worst things that Parliament can do is to enact a dead letter—a nullity". [Official Report, 25/10/89;—col. 1469.]
This amendment seeks to move the Bill's proposals away from such an outcome. The Minister indicated at Report stage that the new civil emergencies adviser would be asked to consider the issue of a future duty to plan. The amendment is tabled to enable the House to express a view as to the proper direction of government policy.
The third amendment draws on formulations put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his amendments at Committee and Report stages. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is one overall plan, rather than several local plans which might not make sense in aggregate. The Government have given a clear power to plan to the boroughs and district authorities, on the basis that they are the authorities closest to the ground and most likely to have knowledge of local detail and needs. Major disasters, however, are likely to affect, or at least draw resources from, the area of more than one such authority. Under the Government's proposals as they stand, there is no guarantee that plans will synchronise to produce a coherent use of such resources.
Clause 157(3) gives a power to FCDAs to incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning. It leaves uncertain the situation in which either authorities disagree or there is a simple difference of approach, leading either to overlap or to gaps in provision. On such an important issue as this, it surely seems sensible for there to be a clear understanding at all levels of the respective roles which different organisations and authorities should play. The role of the FCDAs in this context is not to dictate the detail of plans, but to ensure in overall terms that needs are covered and that resources are properly distributed.
It is hoped that the Government can accept all these amendments as a constructive attempt to move forward a little further, using the opportunity of this legislation to develop peacetime emergency planning in this country. We know that during the next Session there will be no local government Bill. According to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, another opportunity may not occur for more than one Session.
The amendments all fall considerably short of those which I tabled on the last occasion and those which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, tabled at the Committee stage. They do not compromise in substance the step-by-step approach of the Government but merely suggest that a couple more steps at this stage could usefully be taken. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Minister of State (Home Office) Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for introducing these
312
amendments in, if I may say so, such an agreeable way. If there were any waves of concern on Report between us, I can assure the noble Lord that those have vanished entirely.
I shall discuss the drafting amendment, Amendment No. 36, first. This amendment seeks to replace the reference to subsection (1) with a reference to subsections (1) and (1A). This is a fairly harmless looking amendment, but it is in fact very complicated.
As drafted, the new subsection (5) in the Bill, which is to be added to Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, allows FCDAs to:
"incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning by principal councils in connection with their functions under subsection (1) above".
Those functions are defined in subsection (1) of the existing statute (Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972) as action taken:
"to avert, alleviate or eradicate … the effects or potential effects",
of an emergency.
The purpose of the new subsection (1A) which your Lordships agreed to on Report, is simply to extend the conditions under which it is lawful for a council to undertake planning. The only function in the new subsection (1A) is in fact contingency planning. If we were to include a reference to subsection (1A) here as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggests in his amendment, we should give FCDAs a power to incur expenditure in co-ordinating planning by principal councils in connection with contingency planning. That clearly does not make sense. It is for that reason that the draftsmen have correctly tied the planning to the functions —these are to be found in subsection (1).
I have gone into this in some detail and I can assure the noble Lord that the drafting achieves the effect that is intended. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who I know wishes to be helpful in this matter, will accept that that is the case. I agree that all kinds of planning are covered, including the new contingency planning element. The clause is intended to achieve that effect, and I think it does so.
I shall now turn to the other two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Amendment No. 35 seeks to make into a duty the new power for FCDAs to co-ordinate planning. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I do not think that the amendment has quite the effect he intends. I informed your Lordships on Report that the new civil emergencies adviser will be looking at the substance of this issue as a matter of priority. He will consider it not just as it affects FCDAs, but in its application to all principal councils.
In Amendment No. 37 the noble Lord also wishes to make any plans which are prepared by FCDAs binding on the relevant boroughs or districts. The point here remains that it is the boroughs or the districts which have the legal responsibilities in relation to an emergency, and they have the resources to meet them. It cannot be right that a body without the legal responsibilities or the necessary resources should dictate how those who are responsible should deploy their own resources. There should, of course,

313
be discussion and co-operation. However, we should be careful not to create in this statute powers which conflict with the existing statutory duties of the boroughs and districts.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is quite rightly concerned about the area we are discussing. However, I can assure him that it will be the task of the civil emergencies adviser to review and to consider all aspects of civil emergency arrangements. Those aspects are complex. It will be his task to advise on how these arrangements can be improved, if possible. These are delicate areas of interaction of duties and responsibilities both of local authorities, of Government, and of police, fire and other agencies. It is important that any alteration to the existing arrangements should prove to be both correct and better. The matter is not just resolved by a simple method of drafting. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to realise that. I want the noble Lord to know that we share his concerns, but we are anxious to get the matter right. I wish it were a matter of simple drafting, but I fear that if we are not careful we may land ourselves in more difficulty than we may anticipate.
I accept the noble Lord's concern, but I ask him in turn to accept that the best way to resolve this matter is to ensure that my right honourable friend is given good, considered advice by one who has studied the whole problem in depth. My right honourable friend will then be able to advise Parliament in confidence that any proposals for alteration are likely to be sound and lasting.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening now as I was not present — —
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is agitated. I merely made a speech and then sat down. As far as I know, it is perfectly all right for my noble friend Lord Renton to make a speech.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Earl was replying to the debate for the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I was replying to the debate for the Government. He is quite right that I was making a speech on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of the Opposition. However, that does not prevent my noble friend from contributing to the debate too.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as it is Third Reading no one is allowed to speak after the Minister has replied.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in that case I bow with shame to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. He was quite right and I, as usual, was wrong.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am genuinely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has not been able to make a contribution to the
314
debate because I believe he was not present when I said that he has followed these matters very carefully and constructively and is in great sympathy with the points I have tried to make. However, be that as it may, we are governed by the rules of procedure.
I shall certainly not press these amendments to a Division. I rest very heavily upon the assurance of the Minister that if there is any dubiety these matters will be considered very carefully by the civil defence coordinator. That person has a major responsibility in these matters. I very much hope that we can inject some urgency into the need for a review and for a report to be presented to the Government. I hope that the House will be told of its conclusions.
I can assure the Minister that the advice I have received is that some people who are very experienced in the legal world in respect of emergencies are not satisfied that the words on the face of the Bill are clear and unambiguous. It is very important that the words on the face of any Bill are clear and unambiguous. However, I am satisfied that the Minister has given a full reply. He has assured me that we are at one in wanting to make sure that the people with power are able to exercise it in this connection. The Minister said that it is the boroughs which have the legal responsibility and resources. We have been trying to give another tier of government some legal responsibility.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope this intervention is in order, if the noble Lord gives way. The point I wish to make is that the principal councils have no responsibility; they have only a discretion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that was a first class means of making a point, and I heard it. That point will be on the record. That, of course, is the nub of the question. However, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has contradicted what the Minister told the House and that, too, will be on the record. It is quite clear that we are all anxious to get the matter right. The final point the Minister made was that he wished to get the matter right as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the Minister and also to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has played a major part on this issue, not only on this Bill but on other occasions over the years. He and I have worked together not just on this Bill but in other ways. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 [Commutation of, and interest on, periodic payments of grants etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Electronic transfer of documents]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 152, line 45, leave out ("provision") and insert ("power to make rules providing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 61. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are technical. They correct a grammatical error in the

315
changes brought about in the Local Land Charges Act 1975 by the new Clause that was accepted on Report. Amendment No. 61 is an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to take account of the new clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since I have put my name to Amendment No. 61, together with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I should like to take the opportunity to thank my noble friend and the members of his department for their co-operation regarding the inclusion of the new Clause 158 to allow local authorities to use electronic transfer for documents.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 153, line 11, leave out ("provision to modify") and insert ("power to make rules modifying").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Removal of exception to the right to buy]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 155, line 33, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 40 is grouped with Amendment No. 46. Both are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 40 is intended to be purely a drafting amendment, whereas Amendment No. 46 is intended to apply to Scotland the changes which were introduced at Report stage to what is now Clause 165 for England and Wales.
It has been indicated to me that, whether or not my drafting is correct, the Government would be willing to help with the drafting of that part of the Bill. I should like to say now that I accept gratefully the offer of government help with drafting. I shall certainly want to use it. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will be able to give an indication of the Government's intentions concerning this part of the Bill, and in particular with reference to all the related amendments —Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 46. That will be most helpful.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the House accepted in Committee a Government amendment to repeal paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985, thus bringing within the right to buy housing which is particularly suitable for elderly people unless it forms part of a sheltered scheme. The reason for proposing that was our very grave concern over the unfairness suffered by tenants of such housing since January 1987, when the Secretary of State ceased to have the function of determining whether or not particular properties should be outside the right to buy.
At Report the House considered the subject again and accepted amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Clause 165 of the Bill is the result. Its drafting needs to be tidied up, as the noble Lord,
316
Lord McIntosh mentioned —I make no point on that —but the intention is clear. New housing for elderly people is to be within the right to buy unless it forms part of a sheltered scheme. Existing housing, on the other hand, returns to the position as it was before 1987: the Secretary of State is to have the task of determining whether or not particular properties are within the right to buy.
Before I say anything further regarding the amendments and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concerning the amendments that follow, perhaps I may say that the Government propose to acquiesce in the view which the House took at Report stage, namely that existing housing for elderly people should remain within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. The House made its views plain, and the Government are prepared to listen.
Landlords will remain free to seek a determination by the Secretary of State that a particular property falls within paragraph 11 and can therefore not be sold. New housing for elderly people, on the other hand, will be within the right to buy unless it is sheltered. In order to give effect to that intention the Government propose to table in another place an amendment restoring the Secretary of State's jurisdiction in respect of existing housing.
Amendment No. 46 seeks to bring the legislation regarding sales of amenity housing for elderly people in Scotland into line with the position reached for England and Wales as a result of the amendments carried at Report. In bringing forward the government amendments at an earlier stage it had been our intention that that policy should be broadly consistent on both sides of the Border. In those circumstances we are prepared to accept Amendment No. 46.
With the leave of the House, it may be convenient, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested, if I say something about the other amendments relating to the right to buy since the relations between them are complicated. Amendments Nos. 41 and 44 both seek to ensure that the right to buy is not denied where elderly persons' housing has been let for occupation by disabled people. There is general agreement with that. The amendment to be introduced in another place will take the point on board. The House may nevertheless wish to put its view on record. If my noble friend Lord Swinfen moves Amendment No. 44, I propose to commend it to the House.
It is right to say that Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 were tabled mainly to deal with the possibility that further amendments to the Bill might repeal paragraph 11 outright as the Government originally proposed. If, as is now proposed, the Secretary of State once more has the task of determining whether non-sheltered housing for elderly people should be outside the right to buy, that may go a long way to meeting the anxieties of my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Monk Bretton about housing for the elderly in rural areas and housing which is on the borderline of sheltered housing.
With those remarks, I hope that I have answered the points that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh,

317
raised. I hope that that can be seen as a satisfactory conclusion for your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response would be an understatement. The response of the Government has been most generous. It has reflected a view which was not only carried on a Division last week but, much more importantly, has been a matter of decision by this House over a period of eight years. On some occasions that has been with the agreement of the Government and on some occasions it has been on Divisions carried against the Government, but it has been a fairly consistent view.
I have said that I have accepted the offer to tidy up the drafting. I take it that that means that I should withdraw Amendment No. 40 but that I should put Amendment No. 46 to the House.
Before I do so, I want to make a particular point to the House about Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. I undertook to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), last week that I would do everything in my power to see to it that there was protection for the disabled in the final version of the Bill that goes back to another place. I hope that she will agree that what is now proposed —which is an acceptance of Amendment No. 44, to which I have put my name, rather than my own Amendment No. 41 —is a proper way for me to fulfil my pledge to her and for the House to satisfy the concern of both the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness.
I think that we have reached a satisfactory result of quite complex negotiations and a complex debate on the Floor of the House. I repeat my gratitude to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 40.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 42:
Page 155, line 35, at end insert —
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall make determinations excluding from the right to buy dwelling houses in rural areas which are particularly suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age and where both the present tenancy and the previous tenancy, if any, have been let to persons of pensionable age. Such determinations shall only be made in areas referred to in section 157(1) of the Housing Act 1985 and the Secretary of State shall designate areas under that section in such a way as to enable local authorities in rural areas to meet the housing needs of elderly persons and retired agricultural workers".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the Government's very realistic and positive response to the many views put by this House, it gives me great pleasure not to have to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 155, line 44, at end insert—
("(4) After paragraph 10(2)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 there shall be inserted —
"or (c) the services of a non-resident warden or other person designated by the landlord and a system for calling him, provided that the system was in operation either on 1st November 1989 or, if the tenancy was granted after that date, at the inception of the tenancy." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to speak to the amendment in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend.
I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hesketh very much indeed for the opportunity to discuss the matter which he afforded us following our discussions at Report. He has now solved the one remaining problem, which related to new sheltered housing which is being built by local authorities or by housing associations which are not charities. That was a problem because it was likely to be caught by the removal of Clause 11, despite the alterations made by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I take it that that is quite all right. I believe it is, but I thought that I had better just utter that word of caution. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that point. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hoped that, as a result of the fruitful discussions that took place earlier, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton would not move his amendment on the basis that we believe that we have now covered the principal point at issue.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said, I think that it would be quite in order and much the best course, to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 165 insert the following new clause —
("Amendment to exercise of right to buy with respect to certain dwelling-houses.
(". —(1) Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act (which deals with exceptions to the right to buy) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In paragraph 11(1)(b) the words "or a physically disabled person" shall be omitted.
(3) The amendment by this section of the said paragraph 11(1)(b) shall not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the coming into force of this section, unless at that time no notice in response had been served under section 124 of the 1985 Act (landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the 1985 Act (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on behalf not only of myself but of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for tabling Amendment No. 41 in his own name and for putting his name to this amendment, as he said at Committee stage that he would do, to bring back the right to buy for disabled people. I

319
understand that at least one local authority has been trying to encourage disabled people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves to accept a social service so that, under the provisions of another paragraph of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985, they would then be taken out of the right to buy. I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at that to ensure that the process is not being misused.
Perhaps I may also point out to the House that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List of amendments. There should be an additional word at the very end of the ultimate line of subsection (3), so it should read:
"or denying the right to buy".
The final word "buy" has been missed out, but I am sure that, if the amendment is accepted, the printing error will be put right when the Act is printed. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, in adding my warm support for this amendment, perhaps I may give my equally warm thanks on my own behalf to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for honouring his commitment to me at Report stage to reclose this loophole in the Bill which has prevented people with disabilities from exercising their right to buy. I must also offer my warm thanks to the Minister for indicating that he looks kindly on the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it has taken a long time to come this far. I hope that the Lady Lane-Fox is looking down on the House at this moment. She will be very pleased. Disabled people have been most worried by the many different deliberations over the right to buy, and I hope that the position will be made clear to them. Apart from rape, I have received more letters and telephone calls on this subject than on any other that I have taken up in this House. I have even received two letters today from very concerned people. It has been, and is, a great issue. I ask the Minister to make clear the position for those people. I thank him and everyone else who has helped with the matter.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment very strongly. It is vital. It affects rural areas, disabled people and any area where it is difficult to obtain houses and people want to live. The Government have an opportunity to include the amendment in the Bill so that it is possible for disabled people and others to buy their own houses. I do not understand why they cannot be allowed to do so.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I simply wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 170, insert the following new clause —
("Regulations to approve disabled facilities grant.
The Secretary of State may issue regulations to enable a local housing authority to approve an application for a disabled
320
facilities grant, where the relevant works are to be made to a dwelling in the course of construction.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I did not speak on this amendment before, and although I do not want to detain the House now I just want to say a few words.
When preparing the Bill, the Government could have done more to take into consideration the special needs of disabled people. It is typical of what happens when houses are built for disabled people; their needs are often conveniently forgotten. The amendment would remind those people responsible for planning and building that, if facilities such as a space for a lift or a reinforced ceiling were incorporated at the building stage, it would save money, time and energy. Many people will be disappointed at the lack of the Government's will to be more helpful in this matter. The Government want efficiency savings and I do not think that they have understood the helpful way in which the amendment would deal with the matter.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Masham. The Government have been extremely short-sighted on the issue. I have a strong suspicion that they felt that there was not sufficient Civil Service time to write the provision into the Bill at this stage. It would have paid the Treasury to have paid some overtime and it would have saved a great deal of money in the long run. I hope that my noble friend will give an indication that the proposal will be taken on board and brought forward as soon as possible.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not think that the House would thank me for repeating the arguments that I deployed on Amendment No. 32. Suffice it to say that we see a technical problem with relation to other points in the Bill. I have always accepted that the department has the point under discussion, and I can assure my noble friend that it takes the matter seriously. I have given an undertaking to consider how grant aid might be made available for adaptations to dwellings under construction.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 178 [Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 169, line 6, leave out ("cease to have effect") and insert ("apply to a dwelling-house only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of royal assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I want to refer to one drafting point; namely, that, because I withdrew Amendment No. 40, we do not have in this amendment the provision that we have in Clause 165(1) that the determination of the dwelling-house shall be by the Secretary of

321
State. Thus, if Amendment No. 46 were carried and Amendment No. 40 were withdrawn on the advice of the Government, we would land up with different provisions in Scotland from those in England and Wales.
In view of the fact that the matter will still have to be tidied up, I do not think that that matters too much, but it enables me to make the point that it was our intention —it should have been in the amendment that we carried last week —that the determination should be by the local authorities rather than by the Secretary of State. We certainly did not want to see the Secretary of State being forced to adjudicate on every dwelling-house which might or might not be determined to be appropriate to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act. I hope that, in carrying out the rationalisation which will undoubtedly be necessary, the Government will veer towards the Scottish version rather than the English and Welsh version which was carried last week. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this morning I was extremely reluctant to find anything to do with Scotland combined with something to do with England because all the troubles I have ever had in your Lordships' House tended to come from the Celtic fringe. I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of the department.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Local Government Finance Act 1988: Amendments]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 196, line 21, leave out first ("section") and insert ("sections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 50. I apologise for the fact that alone of my amendments these have been starred. There is a very good reason for that in that we obtained only yesterday —and I was given only today —the draft consolidation paper on the government proposals for transitional relief. I noticed that the paper was dated 28th October. I was interested to see the precedent of the finance policy director issuing consultation papers on a Saturday.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 return to the fundamental issue of who are the gainers and who are the losers in the poll tax. There are quite a number of administrative matters, to which I shall refer swiftly later, that arise from the consolidation paper. I assume that it is a consolidation paper and not a consultation paper, although I do not know whether that is in fact intended. In a sense it consolidates the letters of 11th and 20th October. On the other hand, it may be simply a misprint. However, there are a number of administrative matters to which I want to take this last opportunity to refer in the House before I return to the basic principle.
In paragraph 5 we are told that the regulations are due in late November. Is it not the case that a large number of anomalies and inequities have been revealed in the consultation so far? Is it possible that the regulations can be achieved by late November and respond to the great anxieties which have been expressed?
In paragraph 6 the Government propose to reimburse the actual administrative costs in 1989–90; but in later years they will base reimbursement on a formula which will be calculated by Peat Marwick. Will that formula adequately deal with the problems of recruitment that local authorities will undoubtedly have and with cash flow costs of late billing?
In paragraph 7 the Government say that 6 million people will benefit from transitional relief. That statement is based on a sample family expenditure survey. Although I am in favour of sample surveys, surely we need something more comprehensive and up to date than a survey in order to estimate who are the gainers and who are the losers. In paragraph 9 the impression is given by Ministers that the maximum increase in liability will be £3 a week. Will Ministers give an undertaking to make clear in any publicity that they issue that £3 a week is not the maximum because it is predicated on a national poll tax?
On the national poll tax, I turn to paragraph 11. The impression was given that the Government's benchmark figure was £275, whereas now it will be 3.8 per cent. or some other figure dependent on fine-tuning of the rate support grant settlement. I should like to have an undertaking that the Government will be completely candid in their expression of what the likely maximum increase will be in the first year.
I am sorry to see in paragraph 14 that it is still proposed that the only people who will benefit from the transitional relief are primary rate payers and that secondary rate payers in hostels, nurses' homes, barracks, etc. will not benefit from transitional relief.
In paragraph 16 the document states that each person's amount of transitional relief will be reduced to zero by 1993–94, but transitional relief is based on the 1990–91 entitlement. A person in otherwise identical circumstances but in an authority where no safety net is payable might not qualify for transitional relief. Yet that person may be faced with a higher poll tax bill in year two than is the first person. Will the Government ensure that that anomaly is dealt with before the regulations are finally issued?
Paragraph 23 refers to the matters that I raised in Amendment No. 49 and I shall postpone my remarks on that for the moment.
Paragraph 30 refers to pensioners. I understand that the position is that pensioners will have to prove that they are not the spouse or partner of a rate payer in order to qualify for supplementary relief. Does that mean that we shall have snoopers looking at whether pensioners are cohabiting with other pensioners? Surely that would be inappropriate. I hope that the Government will be able either to deny it or show that that is not the effect of the provision.
As regards rebates, in paragraphs 37 and 38 the intention appears to be that bills should be issued net of rebates and relief. Many of the firms which are providing advice to local authorities on, for example, computer consultancy and turnkey systems —notably Bull and McDonnell Douglas —are expressing deep concern about whether they can achieve even simple changes to the mechanism. What will the Government be able to do to help in terms of resources and computer consultancy to enable local authorities to meet the gain?
Finally, we understand from the document that this winter there will be a major advertising campaign on the poll tax. I have already asked for assurances that the campaign will be completely candid, but we need more than that. In order that it shall be effective in helping local authorities and not just in putting a political message, the local authorities ought to be consulted in the publicity campaign. I hope that the Government will be able to give that assurance.
The number of concerns is so great that we have had to table Amendments Nos. 47 and 50, which deal with the gainers and losers. Amendment No. 50 requires that the Secretary of State shall keep a close check on who are the gainers and the losers and on the social, financial and fiscal effects of the poll tax.
At Report stage, when what is in effect this new Bill was introduced, we sought to have the whole business put off for another year. The House did not agree with that course so at the very least the Government should provide adequate monitoring of what is, after all, a major and very ill advised social experiment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord ranged far and wide with the consolidation paper. I can assure him that it is a consolidation paper because it is the consolidation of two consultation papers, which is how it consolidates. As for 28th October, I cannot think of any reason other than that it was my birthday! Maybe it was some small compliment being paid within the department.
Obviously we shall take on board the noble Lord's remarks, but this document will be part of the process in which the local authority associations have it as a working draft. It will be discussed tomorrow, as it so happens. No doubt some of the points brought up by the noble Lord will be discussed within that forum.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 would require the Secretary of State to give reports to Parliament on the numbers of people estimated to be paying more in community charge than in rates in the first year of the scheme and less in community charge than rates; and then to make the same estimates for the second and third years of the scheme, and to make a new scheme if the number of losers exceeds the number of gainers in either of those years.
This amendment bears the heading "impact of transitional relief", but it has nothing to do with the transitional relief scheme proposed by the Government. It is important to remember that about
324
half of all households will gain as the result of the switch to the community charge. Our scheme is not based on a crude comparison between rates and the community charge. It is a transitional scheme, designed to ease the change. It allows for £3 a week of losses to come through in the first year; and it will be wound down in the succeeding two years. It is not based on actual community charges. Chargepayers will not be protected from high charges which could arise from authorities spending above the Government's assumptions.
The noble Lord's amendment would require the Government to estimate what people would have paid in rates for the next three years. This is an impossible task. It would be necessary to take account of moves, new properties, and so on, and the proposal makes no allowances for increases in the community charge which arose from higher spending or price changes.
The scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is ingenious but we do not believe it is relevant to the purpose of the relief scheme. That is why we resist it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister meant the word ingenious as a compliment. Nor do I think that his objections to the scheme hold water. The changes in the rateable value in a local authority from new construction in any one year, from one year to the next, or even over a period of three years, will not be significant. Removals do not affect it. In order to calculate the rates that would have been paid, one has only to consider the rates chargeable in 1989–90, the amount of money raised from those rates and how much is required to be raised from local authority taxation in the succeeding years. One then calculates a rate figure accordingly.
However, the issue is far too important simply to be brushed off. We do not deny that half the people will be better off and half the people will be worse off. That must be so if the same amount is being demanded from the same number of people. The point on which we have insisted all the time is that those people who will be better off are those who are better off now; and the people who will be worse off are those who are poorer now. As we have always said, the rich will be richer and the poor poorer. We wish to know the extent of that. The Government have already accepted that that will happen because they have accepted that one has to have the individual transitional relief. We have won the argument. All that we said as the Bill went through in 1988 has proved to be correct. The Government have been forced to accept the implication of the provision even though they will not come clean about the principle.
We require that the Government monitor what happens. If they do not, we shall have to find some way of doing so ourselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 196, line 50, at end insert—
("(4A) The rules mentioned in subsection (2) above shall require the amount of any reduced liability calculated in respect of a hereditament containing two or more adults to be apportioned equally among all the adults resident in that hereditament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I felt forced to raise this as a separate issue. It is perhaps the single most glaring absurdity in the proposals that the Government brought forward last week. It is proposed that the transitional relief shall not be available for more than two adults. Anybody who knows anything about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular those where rents are charged inclusive of rates, knows that very often these are people who have no relationship with each other. On occasions they may be members of an extended family but very often they are not even that. They may well be lodgers within the same dwelling house. Yet the Government say, first, that only two adults will benefit from the transitional relief, which is wrong to start with, and, secondly, that they have to sort out among themselves who is to be eligible for the transitional relief and who not. Anyone who knows anything about housing in multiple occupation or about large families knows that one will have fist fights if one tries to impose the provision in the way that the Government have put forward. It is an absurdity and an example of their lack of contact with real people that the Government can put foward such a proposal.
The amendment seeks not to correct the fundamental wrong, but at least to provide a mechanism to allow that wrong policy to be implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 would require transitional relief to be divided equally among all adults resident in a property which contained two or more residents. As the noble Lord has said, this does not accord with the Government's proposals which were published on 20th October.
As I have explained to your Lordships on past occasions, the aim of the transitional relief scheme is to provide protection for former ratepayers who would face significant increases arising from the change from rates to the community charge. It is not intended to provide universal relief; and only in the case of disabled people and pensioners is it intended that there should be relief for non-ratepayers. If we were to adopt the approach advocated by the noble Lord it would mean that the scheme was less well targeted and that more people who did not previously pay rates would benefit. It is true that under the Government's proposal some non-ratepayers would benefit.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would not, in any event, be very great. Many houses which contain three or more adults will have a rateable value which is too high to qualify the residents for relief. Clearly, the more people among whom relief is spread, the less the benefit to the individual. The Government have made it clear that relief is to be
326
based on a comparison between rates and a maximum of two community charges.
It may also be worth reminding your Lordships that the transitional relief which we are proposing is intended to be additional to the protection which is already built into the community charge system. It is important to recognise that it is not the only help that is available. There is a rebate system which directly links the community charge to ability to pay; and students are entitled to an 80 per cent. relief on their charge.
The relief is defined as transitional. That is not the same as the other forms of relief which are designed for the duration of the community charge and which are entirely separate. The noble Lord, as always, makes a seductive argument but tends to muddle the two issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are issues which arise because the Government have been forced into recognising that the simple-minded approach which was adopted in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will not work. The provision is a belated and inadequate recognition of the imperfections of the Local Government Finance Act and of the poll tax proposals.
We are familiar with the idea that the law is an ass. That saying refers to law which has already been enacted. We are now proposing blatantly to place on the statute book legislation that is absurd and cannot meet the intentions of the Government, if their intentions are expressed openly and honestly. The Minister states that many houses with more than two adults will be highly rated anyway. That is in total conflict with the accountability argument that was put forward when the 1988 Act was first proposed. It is not a matter on which we can divide at this stage. However, the record will show that the Government have given inadequate thought at all stages of these poll tax proposals to the implications of their legislation. As usual, the unintended effects of the proposals will be very much greater and more damaging than the intended effects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 197, line 32, at end insert—
(". In subsection (3) of section 26 (community charges registration officer for the Common Council) for the word "chamberlain" there shall be substituted "person having responsibility for the administration of certain of the financial affairs of the Council under section 6(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51, 54 55 and 56 are minor drafting amendments which tidy up the sequence of amendments being made to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in this schedule. They move two paragraphs into their correct position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 198, line 20, at end insert —
("( ) The following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 (the severely mentally impaired)—
"(2) The conditions are that

(a) he is entitled, or would be entitled but for any test of residence, for the day to an invalidity pension under Section 15 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(b) he is entitled, or would be entitled but for any test of residence, for the day to a severe disablement allowance under Section 36 of that Act;

(c) he is on the day of pensionable age within the meaning given by Section 27 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a potential anomaly in the most welcome recognition of the need for exemption for severe mental impairment —what is commonly called Alzheimer's disease. It was made in an announcement to the House on 11th October and was incorporated in amendments on Report. The problem which appears to arise is that one of the requirements for entitlement to the benefits of invalidity pensions, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement and unemployability allowance is that the person concerned has been resident in the UK for at least 10 of the past 20 years.
I cannot believe that if either the Minister, in speaking to this House and proudly announcing the concession on Alzheimer's disease, or his honourable friend who spoke to the Conservative Party Conference on the same lines, had realised that there is potential for discrimination against ethnic minorities in particular—that is, people who have not been in this country for long enough to qualify —the announcement would have gone down so well.
The definition of severely mentally impaired ought to be amended, if necessary by order, to allow those with degenerative mental illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease to be included; also, the qualifying benefits should be extended to include attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance. They are non-contributory benefits and the residence restrictions which exist for severe disablement allowance would not apply.
I hope and think that the Government have the same intention as we do in this matter. I also hope and think that they will agree that the residence qualifications ought not to apply and were not intended to apply, and that they will accept the spirit if not the wording of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained, the amendment is designed to avoid people failing to qualify for community charge exemption because they do not meet the residence qualifications for severe disablement allowance or invalidity pension. I understand that there is no residence qualification for invalidity pension but there is a contribution requirement.
As I announced in the House on 11th October, the Government intend to amend by order the definition of severe mental impairment in paragraph
328
4 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This is to enable people suffering from degenerative conditions to fall within the scope of the exemption. This will be done through the addition of attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance to the list of qualifying conditions and removing the references to arrested or incomplete development of mind and injury to the brain.
Attendance allowance has less stringent qualifications than severe disablement allowance and there is no contribution requirement. It is likely that most people who would satisfy the medical criteria for SDA will also be qualified for attendance allowance and would therefore be entitled to exemption. I can assure the noble Lord that in amending the definition in paragraph 4 by order we shall seek to ensure that no severely mentally impaired person will be deprived of exemption purely on technical grounds. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to be clear about the position. Does the expression "purely on technical grounds" mean purely on grounds of residential qualification?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I am sure will be those concerned with Alzheimer's disease. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 201, line 38, leave out paragraph 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment when moving Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 213, line 49, at end insert—
("(8A) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (9) after "(1)" there shall be inserted ", (1A) or (1B)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 214, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment. No. 57:
Page 293, line 29, leave out ("2(1)") and insert ("4").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 make drafting changes to paragraphs 17 and 24 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, which provides for local authorities to appoint sub-committees directly. Amendments Nos. 57 and

329
58 deal with social services sub-committees appointed under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 deal with advisory sub-committees appointed under Section 102(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Government are pleased to accept the original amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I hope that your Lordships will accept these further minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for these helpful drafting amendments. They improve the amendments tabled in my name and agreed by the House on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 60:
Page 293, line 29, leave out from ("after") to end of line 30 and insert ("subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(1A) A local authority may establish sub-committees of their social services committee and may delegate to any such sub-committee any of the functions of the committee."
17A. In section 5(4) of that Act for the words "section 4(2)" there shall be substituted "subsection (1A) or subsection (2) of section 4".").
Page 294, line 34, at end insert ("and").
Page 294, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert —
("(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) A local authority may appoint one or more sub-committees of a committee appointed by them under subsection (4) above to advise the committee with respect to any matter relating to the discharge of functions with respect to which the committee is appointed to advise." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61:
Line 23, after ("1973;") insert ("to amend the Local Land Charges Act 1975;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The amendment was spoken to with Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Once again your Lordships have demonstrated the effectiveness of this Chamber in revising the Government's legislative proposals. The Bill has received the most thorough consideration in your Lordships' House. Following a spirited four-hour debate on Second Reading we spent some 50 hours in Committee considering the details of the Bill. They were spread over seven sitting days before and after the recess. More recently, we considered the Bill for some 26 hours over four days on Report and, of course, we have had another full day's debate today. The Bill returns to another place with some 600 amendments, including some 32 new clauses.
330
Your Lordships would not thank me if I went into a long dissertation on what is in the Bill. I should just like to say a few words of thanks to the many people who have been involved with this Bill as it has proceeded through your Lordships' House. My task on this Front Bench has been considerably eased by having been able to share the burden with my three noble friends: the Paymaster General; my noble friend Lord Arran who went to higher and greater things halfway through our considerations; and my noble friend Lord Reay who has been a fine and doughty replacement for my noble friend Lord Arran, together with my noble friend Lord Ferrers who spoke for the Home Office and other noble friends who spoke for the territorial departments. I am indebted to them all.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, as always, led for the Opposition. He has proved a determined but courteous debater and I am particularly pleased that we have been able to have constructive discussions with him during the progress of this Bill particularly in the last few weeks and that we have been able to strike a sensible compromise on the issue of political restrictions. Of course, he has been well supported by the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Dean of Beswick.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, has contributed extensively from the Liberal Democrat Benches. To him and to all other Peers from all sides of the House who have contributed to our debates —and on some debates such as rural housing there have been many contributions —I express my thanks for the interesting and worthwhile speeches made.
Last but certainly not least, I wish to pay tribute to the many officials without whom we could not have reached this point, to the officers and staff of the House at all levels who have produced paper for us and looked after our creature comforts, to the officials of my own department and to all those in local authorities, voluntary bodies and elsewhere who have ensured that the debating issues have not been overl000ked. I thank them all and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that it is appropriate at the conclusion of this complex Bill to attempt as briefly as possible a summary of the results of our very long considerations of the Bill.
There have been significant improvements to the Bill and let us be quite clear about that. The first, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred, is the question of political restrictions. I share his pleasure that it was possible to reach sensible conclusions as a result of negotiations although I am bound to say that the sensible conclusions were assisted by a victory in the Division Lobby and by the approaching prorogation of Parliament.
In Part III we have achieved a better protection for voluntary organisations in Section 48 schemes. In Part V we have achieved some rationalisation of the rules which govern controlled and influenced

331
companies. We have, for example, achieved a very considerable and valuable number of exemptions for voluntary organisations and a whole variety of independently managed companies and organisations.
In Part IX reference has already been made to Alzheimer's disease and to the redefinition of severe mental impairment and that is very valuable. It looks as though we may be making some progress on emergency planning although perhaps not in the form which we would have wished.
On the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, we achieved an eminently just and valuable piece of protection for rural areas and for those who need and will continue to need homes at a reasonable rent in those areas. I hope that the Government will take full account of the strong feeling of the House expressed in the Division last week. It was not just a Division in which the official Opposition were strong; it was one in which a very considerable number of Government Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers took part and expressed their views very forcibly and effectively. I hope that there will be no intention to overturn that decision in another place.
Finally, and most recently, I am especially grateful for what has been done about the protection of housing which is particularly suitable for elderly people and the need to keep a significant amount of that in the public sector for those elderly people who are now living in unsuitable accommodation and who could never envisage the right to buy.
On the negative side of the balance sheet, there are many matters which are still wrong with this Bill. In Part I the resources for members' allowances are way below those envisaged by the Widdicombe Committee. In Part III, under the guise of giving permission for economic development powers which were previously operated under Section 137, there has been a series of severe and damaging restrictions to economic development powers by local authorities. In Part V the change as regards the treatment of capital receipts from the right to buy, to make sure that a high proportion is used for debt redemption rather than what the local authorities would wish to use it for, is extremely damaging and that has not significantly changed.
In Part V the whole provision concerning controlled and influenced companies seems to us to be a very severe case of chronic and acute paranoia. Because of a few perceived abuses by local authorities, a virtually unworkable structure of new central government controls over local authorities is being enacted.
In Part VI the provisions for basic credit approvals will mean either that rents increase dramatically or that the quality of other services, including management and maintenance, will decline or both. A particular abuse is the provision that those council tenants who pay on time will alone be responsible for the arrears of bad tenants. That is thoroughly bad law and will certainly have to be repealed at the earliest possible opportunity.
In Part VIII we are very disturbed about the means testing of grants, and the amendments made to the
332
Bill on that matter are inadequate to deal with the abuse which has now been introduced.
Finally, in Part VIII —and I could mention many matters —there is the introduction at a late stage on Report of, in effect, a completely new Bill amending the 1988 poll tax Act. In one way that is good because it is a climb down and a belated recognition of the arguments which we put forward in 1988 when the legislation went through. On the other hand, it is a disgraceful delay and it is a disgraceful way in which to treat Parliament. The results are clearly —as we have seen as recently as the past half hour —not going to work. The poll tax provisions, which have been cobbled together at the last minute, will simply not be in operation effectively by the next financial year.
Therefore, despite the many advances which have been made in the Bill, it still remains a bad Bill and still remains the Department of the Environment's annual interference Bill. I fear that there will be an annual interference Bill and an annual attack on local government in the next Session and the Session after. The pace of attack on local government independence and responsibility shows no sign of letting up. This is a particularly bad example. It is conspicuous that the Bill grew in this House from 220 to 320 pages. When one adds to that the regulations which will ensue and the powers given to the Secretary of State, it is another example of Marsham Street megalomania at its worst.
Despite it being a bad Bill in political and social terms, it has been a Bill in which we have had a considerable degree of co-operation and only a small amount of acrimony. First of all, I am deeply grateful to my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Dean and to other noble Lords who have intervened from the Back-Benches; to my noble friends Lord Dormand, Lord Carter, Lord Sefton, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and others too many to enumerate.
We have worked very successfully with what I insist on calling the Alliance Benches, because it is quicker. I am grateful to their spokesmen for the work that they have done. In dealing with the Government Front Bench, I can only echo what the Minister said. Our relationships have been businesslike and occasionally even cordial: but they have never been acrimonious or unpleasant. I am grateful for that and for the degree of co-operation and negotiation which has taken place.
I echo also the thanks to all who have taken part outside the chamber, and particularly I should like to thank our advisers from the housing associations, the local authorities, the local authority associations, other pressure groups and all the staff of the House who on occasion have had to put up with extremely late nights and with a gruelling timetable.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ross has been unavoidably called away. However, he would want me to express his appreciation of the remarks which the noble Lord the Minister made on this Motion, and to associate himself with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is a matter of regret to me that I was not able to hear all the speeches made by the Minister on this

333
Bill; but I have no doubt that they were made with his usual courtesy. This is emphatically not a listening government. However, there have been times when the Minister has given every evidence of paying careful attention to the points made on all sides in the House during the long passage of this Bill. On these Benches we are very grateful for that.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I apologise for rising at this very late stage on this Bill. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Lytton might be here to raise a particular point; but, as your Lordships can see, I stand alone on the Cross-Benches.
I promise I will take only a few moments. However, I think it is important that this should be placed on the record. The Bill as it stands appears not to reinstate Schedule 2, Part II of the 1984 Rate Act which allows for group assessment of moorings in yacht marinas. As a result, once this Bill becomes an Act it will in theory be possible for individual berths in marinas to be rated separately. That, as your Lordships can imagine, will upset the boating fraternity enormously and might run contrary to the Government's admirable policy of cutting down on unnecessary bureaucracy.
I know it would be improper of me, indeed impossible, to ask for any assurance from the Minister at this late stage, but I should like to place the matter on the official record in the hope that such provision might be included in future legislation as soon as the opportunity arises.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, amazingly I can in part provide an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. The noble Lord asked about the provisions for multiple moorings. It is one of those answers which is always to hand! I can assure the noble Lord that it is our intention to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to replicate the relevant provisions of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Rates Act 1984. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lords opposite for their kind words.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  MOBILITY SCHEMES: ASSESSMENT
  MOBILITY SCHEMES: ASSESSMENT
  NATURE CONSERVANCY SITES
  NATURE CONSERVANCY SITES
  CONSULTATION PERIODS
  CONSULTATION PERIODS
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN EUROPE
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN EUROPE