Sitting of 15 November 1989

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

    PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)
    Motion made,
    That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
    That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Monday 20 November.

    PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL
    Motion made,
    That so much of the Lords Message [2nd November] as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
    That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session 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, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
    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.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Monday 20 November.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended in respect of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] and that the Bill be now read the third time—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answer to Question
  SCOTLAND

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for meeting the heads of the electricity generating boards in Scotland to discuss future electricity generation.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I meet the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the industry, including future electricity generation.
    Mr. Eadie: With regard to the discussions that the Secretary of State has had, or will have, does not his conscience trouble him? Is he not fully responsible for the destruction of the Scottish coal industry, in the stupid belief that nuclear energy is cheaper than coal?
    Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman as kindly as I can that the Labour Government of which he was such a distinguished member took the initial decision to build Torness nuclear power station and continued with the Hunterston power stations. As the hon. Gentleman was an energy Minister in that Government, I think that he had better look to his own record before he seeks to criticise others.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the heads of the generating boards are anxious that the Scottish flotation should go ahead as fast as possible—either before or certainly at the head of the list of English flotations. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say anything about the timing, particularly as export opportunities have been increased by recent announcements?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct that the export opportunities have improved. That will also benefit the coal industry, to which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred. The consequences of the announcement that I made last week will be in one respect easier to implement in Scotland than south of the border. We had already decided to put nuclear power stations into a freestanding Scottish nuclear company. That makes the organisational changes easier to apply to the new arrangements.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: In view of the uncertainty in the electricity industry following the shambles last week and the unknown increase in nuclear costs, how does the Secretary of State intend to protect the small electricity producers which at present sell their product to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? The payment to them has already been reduced by 7 per cent. since 1986.
    Mr. Rifkind: The precise arrangements between the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and small producers in the Highlands and Islands is a matter for the contractual relations between the board and the companies in question. Nothing that was announced last week will change that. I very much hope that the small, independent producers will continue to play what will

    341
    inevitably be a modest part, because of surplus capacity in Scotland, but nevertheless an important part in electricity generation during the next few years.
    Sir Peter Emery: As part of my right hon. and learned Friend's negotiations could affect the whole of the British Isles, can he assure the House that in view of its great importance to the nation, the distinguished research work on fast breeders carried out at Dounreay will be encouraged to continue?
    Mr. Rifkind: Dounreay and its activities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, I know that those who work at Dounreay and the Department of Energy are interested in a diversification of the research work carried out there. I very much hope that that will prove to be possible. As for the economic implications of the decision on Dounreay, I think that announcements to be made later today will outline useful opportunities for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to diversify economic opportunities in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly do not wish to dwell on the shambles that has been created in the Scottish electricity industry in recent weeks by a Government who seem to equate disorganised retreat with a planned policy. Let me invite the Secretary of State to look to the future. Has he seen the article by Patrick Donovan in The Guardian today which suggests that Ministers are still hoping to offset nuclear liabilities against the private sector and that the Scottish companies have been asked to agree higher than expected terms for the purchase of nuclear power? Is there any truth in that, and will the Secretary of State confirm what I think was said by the Minister of State on television last week: that there will be continuity of pricing and no attempt to save the Treasury's embarrassment at the expense of the consumer?
    Mr. Rifkind: As a central part of my comments last week, I said that there would be no adverse implications for tariffs as a result of last week's announcement. I add that tariff continuity, which is the principle that we have enunciated, is of great importance to us. As nuclear represents a higher proportion of the industry in Scotland compared with the industry in England and Wales, there are implications for what would be the rate of return on nuclear investment. We have explained to the nuclear company, the South of Scotland electricity board and the hydro board the basic principle that should be accommodated to ensure that tariff implications for the general public are no different from what they would have been had the whole industry been privatised.

    Hospital Laboratory Services
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had, or intends to have, with the medical profession in Scotland relating to the proposed privatisation of hospital laboratory services.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am not aware of any proposals to privatise hospital laboratory services. Boards are reviewing the way in which services are provided and giving consideration to the scope for putting out certain elements to competitive tender.
    Mr. Watson: Is it not ironic that today Opposition Members should feel it necessary to seek reassurance from the Minister on such a basic health matter as consultation with doctors? On this day in 1922 a general election was held at which for the first time we returned a large number of Labour Members, including the "Red Clydesiders". A major plank of that election manifesto was free and comprehensive health care for all. Yet 67 years later the Minister is determined to deny just that. Will he at least guarantee that in future, before introducing any further so-called health reforms, he will listen to and take account of the views of the medical profession in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The irony is that we should receive advice from the Labour party on the National Health Service. The Labour party in government cut spending on the Health Service and cut nurses' pay. As a result of competitive tendering, about £53 million has become available to the Health Service in Scotland. The Opposition opposed that, but it is equivalent to—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen do not like to hear the truth about the Health Service. The savings from competitive tendering to date in Scotland are equivalent to something like 18,000 additional hip replacements. I certainly give my backing to the management in the Health Service as they continue to get the best deal for patients.
    Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend explain why the Scots are so opposed to value for money in the National Health Service? As a Yorkshireman—like the Scots, we have a reputation for being careful—I am astonished that the Scots should be so canny about their private affairs yet are prepared to pay through the nose for their public services.
    Mr. Forsyth: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he must not make the mistake of confusing the Scots with the Labour party and Labour Members. It is certainly true that Labour Members of Parliament have opposed competitive tendering in the Health Service and value for money. That is because they speak for the public sector trade unions, while we speak for the patients.
    Mr. Sillars: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) should not confuse the Scottish people with the Minister either. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the moves made by Greater Glasgow health board? Will he talk to the health board and explain that it is unacceptable for patients to have their medical needs set against the need for profit of a private company, particularly in the important diagnostic services?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Greater Glasgow health board needs no advice from me on putting the interests of patients first. Services will be put out to competitive tender to improve their quality and to obtain value for money. The hon. Gentleman should not prejudge this matter. By organising laboratory services differently, a faster service offering better results more quickly for patients may be achieved. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would give management of the Greater Glasgow health board his backing for seeking to ensure the best interests of patients.
    Mr. Worthington: Recently, Opposition Members had the advantage of visiting the Greater Glasgow health board, where we saw a most demoralised collection not of public sector unions but of consultants. They had discovered that their services had been advertised in an obscure European Community journal. Does the Minister

    343
    agree that that is a damaging way to run the Health Service? Will he acknowledge that pathology, clinical, research and teaching services are an integral part of the Health Service? To encourage his appointed puppets on the Greater Glasgow health board to split up services so that they can make nice little earners is no way to run the National Health Service. Will he condemn that, as did the Prime Minister when she said that there was no intention to privatise the Health Service?
    Mr. Forsyth: The journal which the hon. Gentleman described as obscure was the "European Journal". The advertisement was not for contracts with the Greater Glasgow health board but asked for expressions of interest in the provision——
    Mr. Worthington: It invited tenders.
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman knows the answers to the questions, I am surprised that he bothers to ask them. The advertisement was placed in the journal to establish whether firms with the necessary expertise and ability might be able to assist Greater Glasgow health board to offer the best possible service to patients. Once again, an Opposition Front Bench spokesman makes it perfectly clear that he puts the interests of the public sector unions and the briefings that he receives from particular interests in the Health Service above the interests of patients.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that Labour Members stopped inventing scares that merely cause concern to the elderly and the ill and recognised that a record number of patients are being treated by a record number of doctors and nurses? The Health Service can look forward to more good news later this afternoon.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The building programme of the Health Service in Scotland is the biggest in its history. In Scotland a major new hospital extension has been built every two months since the Government took office. More patients are being treated and a wider range of services is being offered, which is due in part to the success of general management. Unfortunately, the Labour party seems to oppose every innovation. it opposed competitive tendering but supported those who went on strike, thereby leading to patients having their operations cancelled. Patients will benefit from the courage and determination of the management of the Health Service, who receive no support from the Labour party.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that I am at fault for allowing this question to go wide. I thought that I heard the Minister say that there was no intention to privatise hospital laboratory services. May we now please stick more closely to the questions on the Order Paper?

    Council of Fisheries Ministers
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to attend personally the next European Council of Fisheries Ministers.
    Mr. Rifkind: Scottish Office Ministers attend Fisheries Councils whenever possible, and in all cases where matters
    344
    of direct importance to Scotland are being discussed. I hope to attend the Fisheries Council meeting scheduled for December.
    Mr. Wallace: I congratulate the Secretary of State on what I think will be his debut at a Fisheries Council meeting. Will the meeting discuss the steps that the British Government and other Community nations are taking to reach the targets set under the multi-annual guidance programme? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes to that meeting, will he persuade his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury to show more willingness to implement a decommissioning programme? Many people in the industry believe that such a programme is necessary if the industry is to be managed properly so that it can face the present great crisis.
    Mr. Rifkind: As yet, we cannot be certain about the details of the December meeting, although it is likely that total allowable catches will be discussed.
    There are different views and great uncertainty about the principle of a decommissioning scheme. There was a decommissioning scheme in the past which was severely criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. We must take that into account before concluding whether another such scheme would be appropriate.
    Mr. Younger: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to be present at these meetings when required. Can he assure the House that he will be in the closest possible contact with the Scottish fishing industry during the negotiations? I ask him not to hesitate to make it clear that, although times may be difficult, the position would be incomparably worse if stocks were to be overfished, making them of no use in the future.
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to our deliberations on these occasions. We value highly our close liaison with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and other fishing organisations. I met leaders of the fishing industry on Monday and my noble Friend the Minister of State had a further meeting with its representatives yesterday. There is general agreement that those who have the long-term interests of the industry at heart must take account of the best evidence that we have on fishing stocks. Clearly, it would be against the interests of the communities that depend on fishing if stocks were overfished, thereby denying a future to one of Scotland's important industries.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the sudden closure last week of the North sea haddock fishery left the Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation with 600 tonnes of haddock for the remainder of the year? This will deprive fish producers of their catch and of about £1 million in revenue. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there appear to be proposals on the table for a further cut of haddock quotas of 30 per cent. compared with last year, and for another severe cut in cod quotas? This leaves the management of North sea fishing in an absolute shambles. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we need a sensible, rational, planned system of fisheries management if fishing communities throughout the country, especially in the north-east of Scotland, are not to face total ruin?
    Mr. Rifkind: The fish processors' organisations have made it especially clear to the Government and to the wider community that they strongly believe in the need to conserve fishing stocks because overfishing would not be in the interests of their industry. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made some sensible and attractive proposals on possible improvements to conservation measures. The Government believe that the federation is reacting constructively and helpfully. We intend to build on its proposals with regard to the possible introduction of new conservation requirements. We have recently published a consultative document on licence aggregation to help to deal with the problem of capacity. That, too, will be a useful contribution to making progress.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the strong feeling among English fishermen, especially on the Yorkshire and north-east coast, that there has been serious overfishing of haddock stocks in Scotland and that, because of a lack of control over Scottish fishing, my fishermen are being denied their rightful quota, on which they depend at this time of year? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make the Fisheries Council aware that next year we expect to have a compensatory increase in our quota and we expect measures to be taken to ensure that overfishing in Scotland does not continue?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will appreciate that at present there is neither a Scottish nor a Yorkshire quota for haddock. It is for the producer organisations to try to ensure, in the administration of the scheme, the best use of the available quotas. There has been some controversy not simply between Yorkshire and Scotland, but within Scotland on whether certain stocks have been overfished by some producer organisations to the disadvantage of others. That suggests that better administration of the scheme by the producer organisations may be appropriate.
    Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State will want to reconsider, in the light of advice, his statement, that there is no Scottish haddock quota. We noted in the press this morning a report that the "Buchan bulldog" is to return as a member of the A-team of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), to revive the fortunes of the Scottish Conservative party. For starters, the "Buchan bulldog" should get his teeth into the Secretary of State and force him to do something for the Scottish fishing industry. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a huge credibility gap between scientists and Scottish fishermen in the assessment of stocks, especially haddock, and will he tell us how much independent judgment is exercised by scientific advisers in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Scottish fishermen will note the hon. Gentleman's frivolous approach to their present difficulties. The Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland both receive scientific advice. It is in the interests of the fishing industry that, if the advice coincides, our attitude towards quotas is based on it. Our attitude cannot be based on aspirations or on a desire to maximise fishing irrespective of the implications for the long-term health of fish stocks. That might bring some short-term relief, but it would bring long-term criticism, and Her Majesty's Government would not wish to follow that course.

    GPs' Contracts
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the medical profession on general practitioners' contracts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met the Scottish general medical services committee twice earlier this year and on 16 March I wrote to all general practitioners in Scotland seeking their views on the terms of a new contract. My right hon. and learned Friend and I met representatives of the medical profession on 12 April when I wrote again to all GPs with proposals for changes to the contract in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend was also represented at about 100 hours of meetings with the profession's national negotiators which resulted in agreement being reached on 4 May.
    Mr. Hogg: Apart from the Minister's well-publicised clones in Chester street, who agrees with the Government's proposals? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to take the advice of the Secretary of State, as advanced at the Tory party conference, and listen to what the patients and doctors have to say? None of them consents to what he proposes.
    Mr. Forsyth: May I say in the nicest way possible to the hon. Gentleman that had he listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that agreement was reached on 4 May. He asked who agreed to the proposals. The answer is the negotiators on behalf of the doctors who recommended the proposals to their members.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of the misinformation put out by the medical profession to patients and our constituents, will my hon. Friend publish a document showing the undoubted gains to patient care from the medical contract and the gains to the medical profession in financial resources?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion carefully. It is important that good information about the contract is available and he is right to point to one of the unfortunate aspects of the dialogue. There have been many misleading claims about the Government's proposals for the Health Service which have frightened people and caused needless anxiety, especially among the elderly. I welcome the fact that the British Medical Association has now acknowledged that its assertions about indicative budgets for drugs, for example, which it claimed would result in drugs not being available to patients, were not correct and that patients will be able to obtain the services that they require. The new contract will ensure that doctors who turn up in the middle of the night, who are available to their patients and who provide a broad range of services are properly rewarded, and that must be a great step forward.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: If anyone is being misleading, it is the Minister, who has suggested that the contract was agreed by the doctors. The agreement was between the Minister and his officials, and the negotiators. The contract was rejected by the doctors and by the overwhelming majority of the patient population in Scotland. If the Minister has come here to mislead the House, he should try it on some other group, because we have discussed the Scottish

    347
    doctors' approach with them and they are 100 per cent. opposed to the contract. The Minister would do well to correct his statements to the House.
    Mr. Forsyth: I certainly said nothing in any way misleading. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his association with the trade union movement, will take a particular view of the difficulties that are caused when those negotiating on behalf of a group find the ground cut from under their feet because their members refuse to back a package freely negotiated between the parties.

    Patients
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage increase in out-patient attendance in day cases and in-patients treated in the Scottish Health Service since 1979.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Between March 1979 and March 1989 there was an increase of 608,717, or 11·7 per cent. in out-patient attendances, an increase of 95,699 or 119.2 per cent. in day cases and an increase of 144,531, or 19·6 per cent. in in-patient discharges.
    Mr. Jack: May I, through my hon. Friend, congratulate those involved in the provisions of health care in Scotland on those remarkable figures? May I ask my hon. Friend—on the other side of the medical balance sheet—whether he is undertaking any programmes to improve health education and preventive measures in Scotland to help to contain the need for further resources?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Our future priorities for the Health Service include an emphasis on preventive medicine and the new GPs' contract is intended to reward GPs who place more emphasis on preventive medicine. My hon. Friend is right to point out how remarkable those figures are. They show a Health Service that has never been better funded or treated more patients. That is the result of the Government's investment in the Health Service, which stands in stark contrast to the record of the previous Labour Government. In every year in which the Government have been in office, Health Service funding has increased. In recent times, only under the last Labour Government have cuts been made.
    Dr. Godman: We have been discussing the proposed changes in the provision of health care. Is the Minister aware that each and every one of the consultants at Inverclyde royal hospital voted against that hospital's opting out? Will he assure me that that balance of view against will mark the end of his proposal for the opting out of that hospital?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have no proposal for the opting out of any hospital. Self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. Self-governing status will be available on a voluntary basis to hospitals that wish to benefit from it. I should have thought that consultants and other professionals—and, indeed, Members of Parliament —would wish to wait for a proposal and then examine that proposal carefully to see whether it was in the interests of patients and the community as a whole. That is the basis on which proposals for self-governing status will be evaluated in future. It will be entirely a matter for the hospitals, including Inverclyde royal hospital, to decide
    348
    whether they will benefit from decisions being taken at local level rather than above their heads at health board level or by my Department.

    Migration
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people migrated from Scotland (a) to England, (b) to other parts of the United Kingdom and (c) to other parts of the world in the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Over the last 20 years, estimated net migration from Scotland has totalled 146,000 to the rest of the United Kingdom and 181,000 to other parts of the world.
    Mr. Greenway: Can my hon. Friend confirm that those figures show that far fewer Scots are emigrating under this Conservative Government than under previous Labour Governments—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Greenway: —presumably because the Scottish economy is now stronger than it has ever been? Will my hon. Friend explain the Scottish saying that when a Scot emigrates to another land, both countries benefit?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend puts his point well. I believe that it was an Englishman who said that for centuries Scots have travelled the world keeping the Sabbath and everything else that they could lay their hands on. Scotland has benefited from the fact that many Scots have found themselves important positions south of the border, for example as chairmen of companies such as ICI and Shell. The Cabinet benefits from the presence of a Scottish Lord Chancellor and a Scottish Minister responsible for information. I am sure that Scotland and the United Kingdom are the better for their presence.
    Mr. Canavan: Do the migration statistics include the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) whose reported advice to Scottish Tory Members is, "If you're looking to the future lads, you'd better follow my example and migrate to a safe Tory seat in the deep south"?
    Mr. Lang: Southend, East has never been better represented than it is now and Scotland still benefits from the knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Historically Scots have always left home to conquer, and most succeed—for example. my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. On the other hand there is a very tiny minority who do not succeed. A constituent of mine who found the going tough, went back home to Scotland and he is now the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). Does my hon. Friend agree that if Socialism spreads south of the border, we will witness emigration on a scale seen in East Germany today?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s overseas emigration reached about 150,000. In the past five years overseas emigration has been running at about one third of that level. Clearly, fleeing from Socialism occurred under Labour Governments before, just as it is happening now in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the harsh reality is that the population of Scotland is falling and that our brightest and best continue to leave? Even in an area like my constituency where the population is growing, matters are not helped by companies like BP which promise to bring jobs to Scotland and then make 900 people redundant.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about BP. It employs more people in Scotland now than at the time of the Britoil takeover. The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that all the regions of Scotland with the exception of Strathclyde and, to a very small degree, Lothian and Tayside, have had population gains. With regard to emigration within the United Kingdom, the recent figures suggest that there is at present a flow back to Scotland.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Since April 1979, nearly 164,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in that figure are over 117,000 sales by local authorities.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what percentage of the council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants and how that compares with the percentage in England? If the former is still lower than the latter, what is my hon. Friend doing to increase sales in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, I can say that the figure is 16·5 per cent. in Scotland and 21·2 per cent. in England. Since my hon. Friend last asked this question, the gap has been closed by 0·1 per cent. I am sure that that percentage will increase. It is very important that public sector sales released more than £1,600 million for other public sector housing in Scotland.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not immoral for construction companies in Edinburgh to try to bribe councillor Tom Darby when that councillor has proved his innocence? Is it not wrong that the hon. Gentleman's Government should bribe Barratts to the tune of over £300,000 to develop a site at west Pilton in my constituency? That sum of money has been kept secret—the Government will not divulge it, but we know it. Why do the Government reek of double standards? The Minister should explain that because many people want an answer.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to ask whether the SDA has made a grant for building renovation in his constituency. I strongly support the SDA's efforts to bring about urban renewal in Scotland, because they have benefited not only the hon. Gentleman's constituents but my own.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister agree that council house purchases can turn into a financial nightmare because of the Government's policy of high mortgage interest rates and because some house construction is fundamentally flawed, such as occurred with the Whitson-Fairhurst houses, even when bought in good faith? The Minister is aware of my constituents who are caught in a financial no-man's-land between Dundee
    350
    district council and the Government who are unwilling to rectify past mistakes. When will the Minister sort out that matter?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A number of houses have been designated as defective. When people bought public sector houses without the knowledge that they were defective, the Government were duty-bound to be of assistance. The hon. Gentleman's constituents are in a different category, but I will look into the specific case that he mentioned.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend the Minister condemn the disgraceful action by Glasgow district council in attempting to deny tenants their statutory rights to buy? Is that not a frightening omen of what might happen under a Labour Government?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. More than 14,000 tenants have been encouraged to sign forms stating that they will not exercise the right to buy unless they drop the discount if their houses are improved. The case against the district council has been won, and there the matter rests.

    Elderly People (NHS Services)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will allocate to health boards, the resources required to ensure that services for the elderly can be provided entirely within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: No. The effect of such a proposal would be to end the very valuable role played by voluntary agencies, such as Age Concern Scotland and Scottish Action on Dementia, in the provision of services to the elderly.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister recall his answer at the last Scottish Question Time, when he said that the Glasgow health board had sufficient capital? How does he square that with the health board's statement that its lack of capital forced it not to build a geriatric hospital at Rutherglen? Does he concede that his policy of starving health boards of capital is tantamount to blackmail and forces boards throughout Scotland to bring in private companies which are interested only in profit and not the care of the elderly?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we have a record level of capital spending in the Health Service in Scotland. This year it was £148 million. When the hon. Gentleman's Government were in office, they cut the capital building programme. The Greater Glasgow health board is inviting private sector companies to build facilities for the elderly, one of them in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which will provide unrivalled standards of care for the elderly. As a result, the board will be able to use its capital budget to carry out further improvements in the Health Service. It recently announced its proposals for consultation, which offer Glasgow the prospect of hospitals that are able to provide the standards of the next century. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. He has often asked for provision to be made for the elderly in his constituency. That provision is now being made. He should look at the

    351
    example of Takare—there are examples in England—and see for himself the standards of service which are being provided.
    Mr. Rathbone: I understand my hon. Friend's answer about the elderly, but will he ensure that sufficient services are provided for the treatment of drug misusers so that they can all be treated within the National Health Service?
    Mr. Forsyth: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I am a member of the joint ministerial group that co-ordinates activities in this matter. We have substantially increased expenditure on services for drug abusers and that is very much connected with the fight against the AIDS problem in Scotland, for which we have doubled resources in the past year.
    Mr. Dewar: If the Minister answers his case for short-term savings on the capital budget by using firms such as Takare, does he not run the risk of significant increases in revenue expenditure in the longer term, and has that been assessed? Does the Minister accept that there is justified anxiety about geriatric care becoming a profit opportunity in the private sector? In case the Minister gives the stock answer and accuses me of merely reflecting the views of the board's employees—the auxiliaries, nurses and doctors—will he test the opinion of patients, and if appropriate, their families on this issue and the proposal that firms such as Takare should be introduced in a way that will be seen as a move towards privatisation? Will he take account of the trenchant advice offered by his special campaign adviser in Scotland, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who told the press recently that the White Paper on the Health Service was doing a great deal of damage and, unless major concessions were given, should be abandoned?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that his account of what my hon. Friend said is not an accurate reflection of what he actually said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Forsyth: In respect of the substance of his question, the hon. Gentleman will also know that the Takare proposals provide an opportunity for elderly people, who are perhaps currently using hospital accommodation which is expensive and not suited to their needs, to be looked after in purpose-built facilities of the highest standard. That will result in a revenue saving for the Greater Glasgow health board. There are many examples of elderly people being kept in acute hospitals—where they block beds—at great expense in conditions such as we do not want to see in the Health Service. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) might like to join me in visiting the Takare facilities in the south and judging for himself the standard of care provided.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the view of many of us that the great unhappiness and distress caused to the elderly and disabled community is due to the shameful misinterpretation of our Health Service proposals? The Minister should concentrate on getting across the facts contained in the proposals. Would he appeal to the Labour party, irrespective of its views on political issues, not to use propaganda to cause misery and unhappiness to sick people?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the position and I agree that the Health Service and health care in our country is so important that it should not be the political football which the Labour party has made it. It is because the Labour party has no positive proposals for the improvement of the Health Service in this country that it has had to resort to misrepresenting our proposals in the way outlined by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of delivering care to the elderly in future will be by developing a proper system of community care? Does he agree that it is absolutely scandalous that his English counterpart, the Secretary of State for Health, is publishing the White Paper about community care in England tomorrow when no hon. Member will be able to cross-examine him? What steps is he taking to make available to the House his views about the future of community care in Scotland and what resources is he prepared to put behind the provision of those services?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have placed considerable emphasis on community care. He will see from the SHARPEN proposals, which were published some time ago, the priority which we give to care for the elderly. The White Paper will be published following a consultation period after our response to the Griffiths report. We certainly intend to take a flexible approach, and it is important that resources are transferred to local authorities to ensure that they play the key role—which they will have in the future—in ensuring proper care in the community.

    Defence Industry Employees
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of employees employed in the defence industry or defence-related industries in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The Ministry of Defence estimates that in 1986–87, the latest period for which estimates are available, some 17,000 people in Scotland were directly employed with contractors supplying equipment to the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the high level of involvement that he has mentioned, together with the disproportionately high contribution that Scottish people have made to the armed forces over the generations, confirms the strong commitment of Scottish people towards the defence of these islands and belies the pacifist attitude of many Opposition Members?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to confirm that. Indeed, 10 per cent. of United Kingdom defence industry employment is to be found in Scotland, which is higher than our share of the population. Scotland has always made a major contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Minister know that the engineering plant at Shank and Barchead has been threatened with closure and that that closure poses a threat to the defence of the British nation because it is the only engineering plant in Britain that produces a specialist valve for the Royal Navy? Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that the closure does not take place, thus safeguarding the nation?
    Mr. Lang: Commercial decisions of that sort are essentially for the management of the company, but I feel sure that if the valve is as special as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, a way will be found to ensure that it continues to be available to the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ensure that an early and favourable decision is made about the award of the radar system for the European fighter aircraft to Ferranti Systems in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not exclusively a matter for the United Kingdom Government; it requires agreement among the partners in the EFA project. Certainly Ferranti remains in contention, but the matter has yet to be decided.

    Scottish Police Federation
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the then chairman at the federation's annual conference in April 1988.
    Mr. Shersby: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he assure him that the negotiations that are currently taking place in the police arbitration tribunal will be completed before there is any question of reaching a decision or issuing draft regulations on rent allowances?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall certainly go ahead with the negotiations as quickly as possible. An important point for my hon. Friend and for the police officers concerned is that the level of rent allowances for the police will be restored to them and backdated by regulations from 1 April this year. Those regulations will be brought forward as quickly as possible which, I believe, is exactly what the police want.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister also discuss the case for a fair comparison of the remunerations of all the emergency services, including the ambulance service?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no responsibility for the ambulance service, but I have the utmost admiration for the emergency services with which I have had to work.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity when he next meets the chairman of congratulating the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway and all his police officers, and other Scottish police officers, on their outstanding work in the Lockerbie air disaster investigation? Will he associate himself with the remarks of the Lord Advocate that media speculation is singularly unhelpful in concluding an investigation and does nothing to alleviate the feelings of relatives?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on both counts. The police have been extremely painstaking in the investigation and nothing should be said or done to impede that in any respect.

    Ferranti
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any discussion with Ferranti's Scottish group about the necessary financial reconstruction of the company following the acquisition of ISL in the United States of America and its implications for the future of the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: Scottish Office officials are keeping in close touch with senior company management and with other interested Government Departments, and are keeping me very much informed about developments. The Government share the general concern about the future of operations in Scotland and elsewhere, and are taking a great interest in the company's efforts to resolve its present difficulties.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the more we learn about the prospective partners or purchasers to whom the Ferranti board is talking, the more worried we become about the thousands of Ferranti jobs in Scotland? Is acquisition by a company such as Singapore Technology seriously being considered? Does the Secretary of State accept that direct equity participation by Thomson CSF could be especially damaging to the highly successful Edinburgh-based operation? Finally, will the Secretary of State make it clear in Cabinet that the final financial settlement must be one that will allow Ferranti to make its substantial contribution to the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a significant number of companies have expressed an interest in a relationship with Ferranti, but it is primarily a matter for the company itself which, of course, is a private sector company. The extent to which there may be a Government interest either in the defence implications or the competition implications of any proposal will fall to be considered only when a particular proposal is put forward for either a merger or an acquisition of Ferranti.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Secretary of State aware that a growing number of people in Edinburgh are getting the distinct impression that the Scottish Office is acting like a disinterested spectator of Ferranti's future? Is he aware that the company's future, in defence and as a major component of the electronics industry, is too important to leave to the vagaries of the market place? Should not the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry take an active interest in the future of the company and start fighting to get the radar contract? Otherwise we will lose a major chunk of our electronics industry in Edinburgh and in Scotland. Is it not time that the Secretary of State did something about that?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman really had the interests of the company at heart, he would know that little can do more damage to the interests of the company and to confidence in it than the belief that the Government have had to intervene or should intervene to resolve matters. The company has made it clear that it is not seeking intervention from the Government and it believes that it must be permitted to determine its own future within the normal constraints. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, it shows how out of touch he is with the industrial world in which we live.
    Mr. Hayward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it amazing that Opposition Members stand up and plead on behalf of factories in their constituencies, when the Labour party has voted for a reduction in defence expenditure of as much as one third which would put at risk 7,000 jobs in Scotland alone?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those who work in defence industries in Scotland, or in the United Kingdom as a whole, have never been in any doubt about the disastrous implications for their employment of the Labour party coming to office with its old policies, its new policies or any future shred of policy it may care to put before them.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consequences for local authority manpower and expenditure of the recently announced changes in poll tax payments and exemptions.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The manpower and expenditure consequences of all but one of the amendments to the community charge legislation included in the Local Government and Housing Bill are expected to be minor. The one exception is the transitional relief scheme. The Government have already undertaken to reimburse reasonable administrative costs incurred by local authorities.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister have the figures which would show the massive increase in the cost of collecting the poll tax, compared with the rating system, and the massive increase in personnel involved? Will he take time to read yesterday's excellent editorial in The Scotsman, which said that no matter what the Government try to do with the tax, it is becoming a shambles and ought to be completely removed from the statute book?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Of course the collection of the community charge will be more expensive because it applies to more people. Before the hon. Member criticises that form of taxation he should remember what his own environment spokesman had to say. He said:
    "The two tax idea had a great deal of merit but when it was approved by the Home Policy Committee I took a lead in expressing concern about the difficulty of selling two taxes".
    The hon. Member should also make representations to his own Front Bench.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend think that if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is worried about an increase in expenditure on the collection of the tax falling on those who have to pay it, he should obey the law and pay his own?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I would say to my hon. and learned Friend that those who refuse to pay community charge when they are well able to do so are sponging of the rest of the community.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister yet able to tell us what the recalculated allocation to Glasgow district council will be? Does it not illustrate the obscurity of the poll tax system
    356
    that on 1 April there will be a massive increase in the poll tax for my deprived constituency in Castlemilk, while the wealthy citizens of Eastwood, Bearsden and Milngavie may have a cut in their poll tax? Is it not quite absurd, in the year when Glasgow is the city of culture, representing the United Kingdom throughout the world, that the Secretary of State is cutting the amount of money which he will give it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to say that this is being sorted out as a matter of urgency. The revised distribution proposals will be issued to COSLA and to local authorities within the next few days. I must make it clear that the figures issued in the statement earlier this week were provisional and that the grant is not payable until next April. Therefore, things will be sorted out quickly.

    A9
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements he proposes for the A9 between Perth and Inverness.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The A9 has been fully reconstructed between Perth and Inverness to the great benefit of the economy of Inverness and the surrounding areas. I hope to make a statement on an agreed package of further improvements in the near future.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that the recent spate of accidents on the A9 has caused a great deal of concern? Part of the cause of those accidents must be the road's design—alternate dual and single carriageway, long slow curves where overtaking is difficult and many crossing points. I look forward to hearing the statement that the Minister has promised us.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have consulted the hon. Gentleman's chief constable and his regional council and we shall introduce a package of accident remedial measures that could involve signposting, markings on the road and improving its surface in various parts. In the past few weeks I have travelled up and down the A9 to his constituency and, overall, it is an extremely good road. Certain parts of it, however, need urgent attention and that will be put in hand.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the operation of the 4 o'clock shuffle, which determines the order of oral questions due for answer two weeks ahead.
    With effect from the start of next Session the shuffle will be done by computer, instead of manually as at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I have inspected the new system and I am fully satisfied that it is more efficient than the present arrangements, and, more importantly, equally fair.
    If any hon. Member wishes to see the new system in operation, the Table Office will be glad to arrange this.

Autumn Statement
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Cabinet agreed the Government's expenditure plans this morning. I am now able to inform the House of the public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; proposals for national insurance contributions in 1990–91; and the forecast of economic prospects for 1990 required by the Industry Act 1975.
The main public expenditure figures, together with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed Autumn Statement will be published next Wednesday.
Tight control of public expenditure remains a central element of the Government's economic strategy. In the past seven years this has led to a sharp fall in the ratio of public spending, excluding privatisation proceeds, to national income. This fall has made it possible to improve dramatically the Government's finances while still making substantial reductions in tax rates. The ratio of public spending to gross domestic product was nearly 47 per cent. in 1982–83. In the current year, it is likely to be 38·75 per cent., significantly below the level expected at the time of the last Autumn Statement. For the next two years the plans I am announcing today show ratios of 39 and 38·75 per cent. Those are unchanged from the ratios published in last year's Autumn Statement, and permit a cash increase in general Government expenditure in 1990–91 of around £5·5 billion. By 1992–93 the ratio is expected to fall further to its lowest level since the mid-1960s.
For the current year, the outturn of expenditure is expected to be about £168 billion—£1 billion higher than the original planning total. This partly reflects a lower level of privatisation proceeds, but its principal cause is massive overspending by local authorities on both current and capital account. As the House knows, new arrangements for the finance and control of local authority expenditure in England and Wales are being introduced on 1 April 1990. This year's outturn shows how necessary those new measures are. Central Government spending remains firmly under control.
The plans for the next three years have been set on the new definition of the planning total which the Government announced in July last year and which was welcomed by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. This includes central Government support for local authorities, but excludes their self-financed expenditure. The composition of general Government expenditure remains unchanged.
For 1990–91, the new planning total has been set at £179 billion and, in the following two years, at £192 billion and £203 billion respectively. Within that, the estimates of privatisation proceeds are unchanged, at £5 billion a year. There are also substantial reserves, rising from £3 billion in 1990–91 to £6 billion and £9 billion in the following two years.
The new plans also show continued real growth in spending on the Government's priorities. Thus, between this year and next, spending on the National Health Service in the United Kingdom will rise by £2,400 million. Taking account of income generation and cost savings, that is equivalent to a £2,600 million increase in resources,
358
or 5·5 per cent. in real terms. These plans will finance the improvements in the management of the service outlined in the National Health Service review. They provide more than £200 million extra for hospital building and other capital expenditure next year; and they will finance continuing growth in services for patients. They are the clearest possible evidence of the Government's practical commitment to improving the care available in the National Health Service.
There will be substantial increases also for investment in transport. Spending on national roads is planned to double between 1988–89 and 1992–93. Extra financing of £400 million to £500 million a year is being made available for the railways and London Regional Transport, including upgrading the services on Network SouthEast and the London Underground, to relieve congestion and improve safety, and for rail services for the Channel tunnel. In total we have added £1·8 billion to the planned spending on transport in the next two years.
The plans provide an extra £250 million over the next two years for a new initiative to tackle homelessness, to be announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Central Government support for the provision of new homes by housing associations will more than double from £800 million in 1989–90 to £1,700 million in 1992–93.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already announced real increases in benefits which will help 1·5 million families and 500,000 long-term sick and disabled people.
There will be a further increase of over £500 million in the total resources available for higher education in 1990–91 compared with this year. It will provide for the continuing growth in the number of students, which has risen by 30 per cent. since 1979, and is now at a record level and it will cover the cost of the Government's proposals on top-up loans. There is provision for more environmental research, including the new climate change centre and the doubling of our contribution to the United Nations environmental programme.
About £1·5 billion has been added to planned capital spending by central Government and public corporations in 1990–91. That represents a real increase of around 10 per cent. compared with 1989–90.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member for a long time, but I wish to know whether I am allowed to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. He is making a long statement. Am I allowed to ask a question and, if not, when can I ask him a question?
Mr. Speaker: Surely the hon. Member does not need to pose that question. If I call him later, he can ask the Chancellor a question then.
Mr. Major: The new plans include the money central Government provide to support local authority spending. The Government's proposals for aggregate external finance in 1990–91 were announced to the House in July. Measures have also been announced which will ease the transition from rates to community charge. The cost to the taxpayer of these measures will be nearly £700 million in 1990–91, with further substantial sums in each of the following two years.

359
Capital grants and credit approvals will provide central Government support for local authority capital expenditure under the new arrangements. The new plans provide support for a sustained programme of school and college building and modernisation, for local authorities to contribute to the homelessness package, for transport projects, as well as capital spending on other local services, including local roads and environmental improvement.
As in the past, these improvements have been possible only through a rigorous selection of priorities, substantial gains in value for money, and a very welcome reduction in the burden of debt interest. They have been found within an affordable level of total public spending. Overall public spending excluding privatisation proceeds is expected to grow on average by 1·75 per cent. a year in real terms throughout the period between 1988–89 and 1992–93. This was the rate of growth projected in last year's Autumn Statement and we have stuck to it. Over the 1970s, a decade of high borrowing and high inflation, as well as high public spending, it grew not by 1·75 per cent. a year but by 3 per cent. a year.
The Government's new plans demonstrate their continuing commitment to two vital principles: first, to maintain firm control over total spending; and secondly, to increase efficiency in order to provide more resources where they are most needed. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on his skilful and successful conduct of the public spending round.
I turn next to national insurance contributions. As the House knows, we have now implemented the reform of employee contributions announced by my right hon. Friend the member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in the Budget. From last month, two of the three step increases in contribution rates have been abolished. This means that employees who get pay increases taking them just above these steps can no longer lose more in higher contributions than they gain in extra pay. And the initial step at earnings of £43 a week, where people first enter the contribution system, has been more than halved. These measures have reduced contributions by up to £3 a week for nearly 19 million employees and are of particular help to many employees on modest incomes; they have also removed some important disincentives.
The usual autumn review of contributions has been conducted in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospective income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and taking account of the statement on benefits made in October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Next year, the initial class 1 contribution rate payable on earnings up to the lower earnings limit will remain at only 2 per cent. This means that a payment of only 92p a week will buy entitlement to the basic pension and other contributory benefits for those who earn just enough to pay contributions. On additional earnings, up to the upper earnings limit, the rate will remain unchanged at 9 per cent. For employers, the main rate will also be unchanged at 10·45 per cent.
The lower earnings limit will be increased to £46 a week, in line with the single person's pension, and the upper earnings limit will be raised to £350 a week. For employers, the upper limits for the three reduced bands will be increased broadly in line with prices.
I am also publishing today the economic forecast required by the Industry Act 1975.
360
It is clear beyond doubt that the economy has greatly strengthened over the last decade. We have experienced eight years of strong and sustained growth with inflation at moderate levels. This has brought an increase in employment of about 2·75 million since March 1983 and a sustained rise in living standards.
However, it is also clear that in the last two years, 1987 and 1988, demand, and with it output, rose at a rate which exceeded expectations and could not be sustained. That became apparent in increased inflationary pressures and the growth of the current account deficit.
These pressures had to be reduced and monetary policy was tightened accordingly. The effects of this tightening are already apparent in recent retail sales figures, and the turnaround in the housing market.
The Government's fiscal position is also very strong. I now expect this year's fiscal surplus to be about £12·5 billion, equivalent to 2·5 per cent. of GDP. That represents a very tight fiscal stance by any standards.
Both tax yield and expenditure are higher than forecast at Budget time, but lower proceeds from privatisation and the very high take-up of personal pensions mean that the public sector debt repayment will be slightly below the Budget projections.
Looking at the wider economy, as always, a great deal inevitably depends on the actions of companies and individuals. So there is bound to be uncertainty about the speed with which the economy will adjust to the present tight stance of policy. Our forecast is that growth in domestic demand will be a little over 3·5 per cent. in the current year—a sharp, but inevitable, slowdown from over 7 per cent. recorded in 1988.
Non-oil GDP is expected to grow by 3 per cent. this year. GDP growth as a whole for the current year looks like turning out at 2 per cent., a little below the forecast published at Budget time. This results from lower than expected North sea oil production, which is taking longer than expected to recover from the several serious accidents of the past two years.
Business investment is likely to increase by 9·25 per cent. this year, giving a total of over 40 per cent. in the three years to 1989. This is the largest-ever rise in business investment over a three-year period and is two and a half times as fast as the growth of personal consumption over the same period. This has inevitably contributed to strong import growth and a higher current account deficit in the short run. Notwithstanding this unwelcome effect, the resulting increase in productive capacity will help to sustain the growth of output and in due course bring the deficit down.
Looking ahead to 1990, our tight fiscal and monetary policy will have an increasing impact both on household spending and on company spending, which typically reacts later than the personal sector. Investment should continue to grow, but it will do so more slowly.
The slowdown in the economy means that GDP is forecast to increase by only 1·25 per cent. in 1990. This will bring the average growth in the four years to 1990 to 3 per cent. a year.
As domestic demand slows, import growth should moderate. At the same time, the strong rise in exports, which has been one of the most welcome developments in 1989, is forecast to continue. Non-oil visible exports are expected to rise by over 11 per cent. this year, the highest rate since 1973, and we expect a further substantial

361
increase next year. As a result, we now forecast that the current account deficit will fall from some £20 billion in the current year to about £15 billion in 1990
We will also see a further reduction in inflation. The headline measure of retail price inflation has already peaked at over 8 per cent. in May and June this year, and has since come down a little. Following the recent rise in mortgage rates, it will remain high for some months, but our forecast is for it to fall to 5·75 per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1990, and I expect to see it fall still further after that.
Our main priority must be to bring inflation decisively down, and keep it down. To achieve this, the economy must slow down for a while. This does mean that 1990 may not be an easy year, but the economy enters the 1990s in incomparably better shape than it entered the 1980s. The supply side reforms of the last decade have left business and industry better able to handle both the short-term difficulties before us and the longer-term opportunities to come. I have no doubt that we must stick to the policies that have turned the economy around, and that we are determined to do.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It directly involves the statement.
Mr. Speaker: If it directly involves the statement, it cannot be a matter for me.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
Mr. Speaker: No. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman now.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
Mr. Speaker: Sit down, please. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. He knows perfectly well——
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
Mr. Speaker: No. Sit down, please. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he will be able to ask a question on the statement.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: When will you hear it?
Mr. Speaker: When question time arises after the Front Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is about this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not hear it now.
Mr. John Smith: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised in his concluding remarks, this is the last formal economic statement to the House in the 1980s—the decade of Conservative Government. Is not the bogus economic miracle that has been boasted about on so many previous occasions revealed as a hollow sham by the admission that the Chancellor was forced to make that in 1989 we have, at £20 billion, the largest balance of payments deficit in British economic history?
The steady deterioration in Britain's balance of trade has been matched by appalling Government complacency, perhaps best exemplified by the Prime Minister, who said of the first month in which a deficit of over £1 billion was announced—January 1988:
362
"we believe that last month's trade figures were a freak."—[Official Report, 8 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 184.]
The average for every single month has been substantially over £1 billion—£1·3 billion to be precise. So does a freak become the norm, just as, I suppose, a blip in inflation keeps blipping relentlessly on? With that appalling record in mind, let us examine what we were told in the Autumn Statement of November 1988. The balance of payments forecast was £14·5 billion. Sadly the outcome today is much worse, although the Chancellor had the sauce to present it as if it were a fall.
To arrive at the erroneous prediction, the Government had to argue that the growth in exports would substantially exceed the growth in imports—once again they were wrong. Imports have increased by 9·25 per cent., not 4·5 per cent. as forecast. Far from falling behind exports, imports are, sadly, continuing to race ahead. The theory was that, as interest rates bit into domestic demand, industry would effortlessly switch to export markets and thereby output and investment would not decline. Clearly, that has not happened. Our trading performance has continued to deteriorate. In the last quarter for which we have figures—quarter three of this year—we are further into the red than ever before.
No one doubts that high interest rates are hurting, but clearly they are not working. Was that not the message of the Confederation of British Industry's latest industrial trends survey which warned that nearly one manufacturer in three is expecting to reduce investment in plant and machinery in the next 12 months? It said that the level of orders and the growth in exports have begun to decline and the growth in output has come to a standstill. Is that not the non-complacement and accurate autumn statement on British business?
Is it not abundantly clear that the balance of payments deficit is Britain's gravest economic problem? Why is that not recognised by the Government? Why can they not, even now, comprehend that our deficit is not some temporary mismatch of supply and demand, which matters little if it can be readily financed? Is not the truth that there is a fundamental structural weakness in British industry which has worsened sharply in the decade during which the Government have turned their back on it? Just as investment in manufacturing industry—which is different from business investment, the only investment figure that the Government quote—is clambering back to just a few points above 1979 levels, up go interest rates to slam the process into reverse. Are we not back to the familiar characteristics of Tory economic mismanagement: stop, go and stop again?
Does the Chancellor appreciate that in figures released this very day manufacturing output in 1989 has not increased at all, although the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expects world trade in manufactured goods to rise by 8 per cent. this year? The House and, no doubt, the Select Committee will look with care at the public expenditure figures that the Chancellor announced. They are detailed in the tables that accompany the Autumn Statement. However, I draw attention to what I believe to be a crucial fact about public expenditure.
The real estimate of general Government expenditure in 1989–90—table Al—is calculated at £1874 billion. According to the Government's own table, that is only £1·7 billion up on the previous year. That is an increase of less than 1 per cent.—lower than in 1985, 1986 and 1987. No amount of guileful presentation can hide that fact.

363
General Government expenditure has efectively been at a standstill in real terms during the last five years. No wonder that our public services, right across the range, are hardly being sustained, let alone achieving improved standards. No wonder that there is massive skepticism—[Interruption.] I shall deal with hospitals in a moment. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to shout from a sedentary position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was heard in silence. I ask the House also to listen in silence to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Smith: I do not doubt that the reiteration of these facts causes pain to Conservative Members. They must console themselves with the thought that it is the price of being Conservatives in modern Britain. It is when we know the truth about the present and the past that we are sceptical about the future.
I turn to the National Health Service, about which claims are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says that there is to be an increase in resources amounting to £2·6 billion—£2·4 billion, plus cost savings of £200 million. Is it not correct that, of this amount, £1·2 billion will be accounted for by the general Government deflator. that £500 million will be accounted for by the additional National Health Service deflator, that £200 million is accounted for by supposed savings, not yet achieved, that £250 million is the cost of the National Health Service review and that about £500 million may be available for increased patient care? I should like the Chancellor to go through each of those points and tell me whether they are correct. People are familiar with claims being made about additional resources having been made available to the National Health Service, although it seems to them to be declining every time they need to make use of it.
I should also like to ask the Chancellor about his homelessness package of £250 million to be spent over two years. Is it not correct that that is likely to provide about 5,000, or perhaps at a stretch 10,000, new homes? Is that an adequate response when we know that there are 100,000 extra homeless persons each year—that is, people accepted on to local authority housing lists?
On education, may we have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that education expenditure this year will he sufficient for him to come to the House next year and say that no children are being sent home from school because there are no teachers to teach them?
The Autumn Statement shows that, compared with last year's forecast, output is down, the balance of payments is worse and inflation is up. What is worse, for the year to come, output will fall from 2 per cent. to a meagre 1·4 per cent.—one of the lowest predicted rates since the last recession and in marked contrast to our competitors. But, in spite of the slowdown, according to the Government's predictions, the balance of payments deficit will remain in double figures—still the worst performance among the major industrial countries—and inflation will remain high, well above the level in other major industrial countries. The price may well be paid by those who become unemployed as a result.
I fear that this is yet another revelation of the extent to which our economy is being mismanaged, whoever is the nominal Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to ask a question——
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am raising a point of order. Until you have heard it, Sir, how can you rule me out of order?
Mr. Speaker: When an hon. Gentleman raises a point of order, he should not say he wants to ask a question about the statement. By definition, that is patently not a matter of order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We are all meant to be hon. Members of the House; some are more honourable than others. On such an important statement, Front-Bench spokesmen have the statement an hour before, and other hon. Members have it a quarter of an hour before. As we are all elected Members, on such a statement why should some of us be trusted and some not? Why cannot we all have the statement at the same time? Why are they to be trusted more than us?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he is in the latter category. It has always been a convention that Front-Bench spokesmen have received the statement in advance and Back Benchers do not have that privilege. I wish that they did.
Mr. Major: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) raised a whole series of points and I shall deal with them. I must say that he has a considerable capacity for gloom, and I really wish that he would not paint down the performance of British industry. In his gloomy package in which he sought to paint down British interests, he overlooked entirely that growth is continuing, investment is continuing, inflation is falling and the trade gap is narrowing. Apparently all those points escaped the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
In regard to the detailed points that he raised about whether or not there is a standstill in public services, I draw his attention to the increase in capital expenditure on public services of £1·5 billion next year on roads, housing, education, health, rail and the urban development corporations. I remind him that, under the last Labour Government, capital spending fell and it has risen very dramatically under this Government.
In regard to the National Health Service, of course the factors that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned are incorporated in any increase in public expenditure, notwithstanding that there is an increase in real terms of 5·5 per cent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot stomach the fact that on revenue and capital year after year we increase the resources available to the National Health Service.
Next year, there should be a substantial correction to the balance of payments of over 1·25 per cent. of GDP, which is one of the largest corrections ever. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would have welcomed that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong about exports, which are continuing to grow. Our forecast is that exports and manufacturing output will continue to grow next year.
Interest rates, contrary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, are working. There has been a slowing down in activity, which is necessary to bring down

365
inflation. Monetary policy is playing a key role in that slowing down, and will continue to do so in the forthcoming months.
Manufacturing investment has been speeding ahead successfully. It rose by nearly 11 per cent. in 1988, and, although final figures for 1989 are not available, yet again it showed considerable and strong growth.
We expect the homelessness package to provide at least 15,000 new lettings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will give full details of the package later this afternoon.
As I said earlier, there will be a substantial real increase in resources for higher education, which will assist the education process all the way down.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any Autumn Statement it is important to combine prudence with the right sense of priorities? Is he aware that it is important that he has achieved the same ratio of public expenditure to national income as was predicted last year for the period that we are about to enter? Does he accept that increased expenditure on the National Health Service is much to be welcomed? Does he agree that he has selected the right combination to manage the economy since a tough monetary policy is being backed up by a massive surplus and a tight fiscal policy?
Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. If one is to maintain a prudent budget, the importance of declining public expenditure as a share of national income is self-evident. In this year's public spending round, we have sustained precisely the ratios forecast in last year's Autumn Statement. For the new year three of the forecast, the ratio will fall yet again. We have certainly met my right hon. Friend's strictures on that point. In my judgment, the majority of people in Britain and in the National Health Service will give the increases a warmer welcome than the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. My right hon. Friend was entirely right to draw attention to the twin capacity of monetary policy and fiscal policy to bear down on inflation. I give him a clear undertaking that we shall continue to use both.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Chancellor recognise that his attempts to pull rabbits out of hats will not fool those who must consider the figures in detail or those who must use them to try to hold together declining public services? Does he recall last year's promised increase of 4·5 per cent. for the Health Service, which turned out to be 1·5 per cent. and was insufficient to cover extra inflation in the Health Service or the range of demands on it?
Does the Chancellor accept that the figures that he quoted for transport will not build the two lines through central London for which the previous Secretary of State for Transport argued and will not fund the high-speed rail links that the north and Scotland need to the Channel tunnel? How many houses will be built as a result of the package that he announced today?
What has happened to the medium-term financial strategy, which was always quoted in previous statements? Does the Chancellor now accept his predecessor's view that some stronger external discipline, such as full membership of the European monetary system or an independent central bank, is needed?
366
How does the Chancellor expect industry to expand on present interest rates? As his predecessor's forecast of the trade deficit was so wildly inaccurate, does he expect us to believe the forecast of £15 billion? Does he realise that he is presiding over an economy that is on the edge of recession and therefore needs prudent public expenditure, or does he still hold out to Conservative Members the hope of tax cuts in his first Budget?
Mr. Major: There were so many inaccuracies in the hon. Gentleman's introduction that I can scarcely list them all. We are certainly not in a position of recession. We are forecasting further growth, although slower than before. The slowdown in growth is necessary if we are to bring down inflation and ensure that there is a return to the steady and sustained growth that we have had for the past eight years. We are not prepared to let inflation get out of hand. Although that means slower growth next year, it is necessary for that to happen before we return to the levels of growth that we have seen in the past two or three years.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a standstill in public services is a parody of my statement today which provides an extra £350 million in capital for roads, £190 million for housing, £100 million for education, £120 million in capital for health, £250 million for urban development corporations and £195 million for rail services. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman did not hear me mention that the homelessness package will provide an extra 15,000 homes and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a further statement about the details later today.
On transport, the increase in capital over the next two years is £1·8 billion, which, even in the hon. Gentleman's wildest imagination, cannot possibly be a standstill.
Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reaffirmation of his tight fiscal and monetary policy will be widely welcomed not only in the House but in the City? Does he agree that this year's public expenditure and next year's are the same proportion of GDP, which means that we are on target? For too long, the Opposition, and often the media, have been talking down sterling and our economic performance. They never once give any credit for our achievements. It was interesting to watch the reception that the Opposition gave to my right hon. Friend's statement. They were glum. If the Autumn Statement had been a bad statement, they would have been jumping with glee, as everyone knows. Let us not for one moment put off our strict monetary and fiscal controls until we have conquered inflation. There is no question but that the whole country will be grateful for that.
Mr. Major: I give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that the reduction of inflation remains the Government's central and main priority, and that will continue. My hon. Friend is entirely right about public expenditure. We have maintained the target which we set ourselves on the ratio of expenditure to national income. That, too, is important as part of the counter-inflation policy. The reception that the Opposition gave the Autumn Statement speaks for itself. For them, bad news is often good news, and their glumness is self-evident.
There will be real improvements in services. They are eminently affordable because of the growth and improvement in the economy in recent years.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Chancellor aware that the most serious point in this serious economic statement is that the balance of payments is expected to be £20 billion this year and £15 billion next year, which is higher than the estimate in last year's Autumn Statement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, to sustain this, he will have to attract money from overseas at high interest rates, thereby damaging manufacturing industry? Will he ensure that some assistance is given to manufacturing industry, possibly by increasing investment allowances?
Mr. Major: I do not underestimate the difficulties of the trade gap. The most serious problem that we face is undoubtedly inflation, and it will remain inflation. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed the dramatic reduction in the trade gap, which we forecast, of well over 1·25 per cent. of GDP—one of the largest reductions year on year that we have seen.
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend has public finances under excellent control. His calm presentation is in pleasant contrast to the gabbled pronouncements of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I realise that the other half of his Budget, on revenue, will not be formulated until February or March. However, when he comes to formulate the tax side of his Budget, will he bear in mind that a large surplus is not necessarily an undisguised blessing and that he should be thinking about a balanced Budget? Will he reject the advice of some Opposition Members and others who argue—for their own sake, I suspect—that there should be substantial tax increases to create a large surplus in the Budget when a balanced Budget would be the most necessary and desirable?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks and also for the first budgetary representation I have received. As my right hon. Friend will know, our policy has been for a balanced Budget in the medium term, although, in the short term, we need to retain a strong fiscal position.
Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the Chancellor's comment about the reduction in the trade gap this coming year, is it not clear that the additional deficit of some £15 billion will result, together with the deficit over the past three years, in a cumulative current account deficit of £50 billion, equal to one half of the total net assets earned by this country over the centuries in its dealings with other nations? Is that not evidence of a serious loss of competitiveness in British industry and British trade? What proposals does he have for dealing with that loss of competitiveness and what are his assumptions about the exchange rate in the coming year?
Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman defines the wrong cause when he refers to the size of the trade gap. The substantial problem is the level of demand, rather than the extent of competitiveness. The fact that British industry is competitive at the present levels of exchange rate is more than evidenced by the tremendous growth of exports in the past year, which most certainly would not have occurred if that were not true. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look up the figures. he will see that the growth in our exports far exceeds the growth in the level of world trade. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am keen
368
to see the deficit reduced, although I draw to his attention the fact that we have perhaps the second largest net overseas investments in the world.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure us that ample funds will be provided for the security forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland in the fight against terrorism, as such terrorism must be extirpated regardless of the financial cost?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. We all have great admiration for the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland, and they will continue to receive our full support.
Mr. William Ross: I understood the Chancellor to say that there would be an increase in expenditure from £168 billion to £203 billion over a relatively short period. If the Government really have the defeat of inflation as their first priority, will the increase be met out of taxation or by a decrease in the sums available for the repayment of the national debt? If the second option is chosen, how will he prevent inflation in future years, when those huge sums seep into the general economy?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard the figures. The increase in expenditure on the general Government expenditure measure next year will be £5·5 billion, and he will observe that we have a strong fiscal surplus.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members view with equanimity his statement that 1990 will not be an easy year because the corollary is that 1991 and 1992 will be very difficult years for the Opposition?
May I welcome the fact that reports in the newspapers about the Autumn Statement are belied by what my right hon. Friend has said in the House this afternoon? Matters are by no means as gloomy as some representatives of the media would have us believe. However, does he agree that the Government should continue to reduce the proportion of GNP that public expenditure takes? It is only by doing that that the supply side reforms which have done so much to produce high growth over the past 10 years can be continued.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right that it remains our medium-term objective to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of national income. My hon. Friend can be utterly sure that we are determined to get inflation down further, and that will be a significant part of our economic policy for the future.
My hon. Friend referred to matters trailed in the newspapers. The situation is by no means as gloomy as some of them portray. Growth will continue. There is no recession. Investment will continue. Inflation will fall and the trade gap, too, will fall.
Mr. Heifer: Is not the right hon. Gentleman speaking with two voices? On the one hand, he tells his hon. Friends that he is doing his best to cut public expenditure, while on the other hand he has made a mini U-turn by deciding to listen to some of his Back Benchers and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and proposing to increase public expenditure in certain directions.

369
Would it not be better if, in increasing public expenditure on housing—which I fully support—the right hon. Gentleman agreed that the only bodies that can deal with homelessness are the local authorities, and that they ought to be given greater help in doing so? Should not the money be directed to local authorities—and increased—to help those in local authorities to deal with homelessness, the greatest scandal that the Government face?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice by suggesting that what I say to Opposition Members differs from what I say to my hon. Friends. But I am bound to say, "If you can't ride two horses, perhaps you ought not to be in the circus." Our policy is to cut public expenditure proportionately to national income, and that certainly leaves the opportunity for public expenditure increases on priority programmes. That has been our policy—and has been carried out as our policy—for a considerable number of years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about homelessness. I am very pleased at the package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing this afternoon. Local authorities have a role, but not, I think, the only role, and the direction in which the resources are to go is the best direction that will produce the best result for the homeless.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not have been possible to allocate considerable extra resources to priority areas of expenditure, and at the same time to exercise general constraint over total public expenditure, had it not been for the saving of debt interest, which is the direct result of responsible budgets over many years? Will he not hesitate —in support of tight monetary policy—to introduce an austere Budget in the spring if necessary, recollecting that tight monetary policy is most effective in bringing down inflation when it is coupled with tight fiscal policy?
Mr. Major: I shall introduce next spring the Budget that I think is right for the country in the circumstances that prevail then. My hon. Friend is entirely right about debt interest. There is a saving between this year and next year of £2 billion in debt interest because of the prudent and successful manner in which the economy has been run in recent years. That means that this taxpaying generation will be the first for 200 years to pass a smaller level of debt on to the next generation.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Chancellor aware that, although the House is properly and understandably divided on macro-economic issues, we are almost completely united in wanting the Treasury to provide full and immediate compensation to haemophiliacs affected by the AIDS virus. As a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled he must understand that, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer he is in a powerful position to do something about it. Will he help please?
Mr. Major: The whole House knows the sincerity with which the right hon. Gentleman speaks on these matters. However, this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Government made £10 million available to the Macfarlane Trust last year and the Department of Health has always made it
370
clear that if representations were made that further contributions were necessary, it would be prepared to consider them.
Mr. John Townend: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on keeping a firm control on public spending this year despite all the pressures. I am sure that his statement will reinforce the Government's policy to bring inflation down and will be welcomed in the City. What is the level of the contingency reserve for next year? Is he satisfied that it will be adequate as it has been overspent by £1 billion this year? Will he consider returning to the practice of looking at broad money when fixing monetary policy?
Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the control of public expenditure is vital, and we will maintain that control in future. I have set a figure of £3 billion for the reserve for the first year of the account, £6 billion for the second and £9 billion for the third. That is smaller than in the past because some local authority expenditure will no longer come out of the reserve as it is now dealt with outside the planning total, but within general Government expenditure. The overspending of the reserve this year was overwhelmingly due to an overspend by local authorities on current and capital accounts of £2·75 billion and a shortfall in privatisation receipts of £0·75 billion.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Chancellor accept that the only way in which the deficit can be reduced to £15 billion as forecast is either by recession or depreciation—or both?
Mr. Major: No. We have neither, and the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during his excellent statement the faces of the Opposition Members slowly became glummer and glummer? The extra £2·6 billion for the National Health Service must mean that spending on health in this country will be at record levels. Is it not time that we took the Opposition's claim that we are out to destroy the NHS, wrapped it in £2·6 billion and stuffed it down their unwilling throats?
Mr. Major: I have less forceful tendencies than my hon. Friend. However, I certainly accept the thrust of her points. It is perfectly clear that good news is bad news for the Opposition. Their expressions showed that only too clearly today.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Chancellor confirm that his forecast of an increase in gross domestic product of 1·25 per cent. next year is based on a number of assumptions, perhaps the most crucial being the level of sterling which the Treasury document refers to as remaining near or close to present levels? Will he allow the market to determine that, or will he try to buck the market, as did his predecessor? Has that fatal issue at the heart of the Government yet been reconciled?
Mr. Major: General Government expenditure is expressed in cash and the figure that I gave for it was £5·5 billion. I said earlier that our exports had done extremely well, notwithstanding the level of the exchange rate in recent months. I believe that a firm exchange rate is an important component of our anti-inflation policy.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it not significant that in his main statement my right hon. Friend said nothing about the exchange rate? Is it not ironic that during this last year, while the Government have been proudly proclaiming that the pound will not fall, it has in fact fallen by 10 per cent. against the deutschmark? Is it not possible that the Government are moving towards being able to proclaim publicly that it is not possible for them or any Government to decide the external value of the pound?
Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend will know, the exchange rate is not mentioned as a matter of course in the Autumn Statement year upon year. The present exchange value of sterling is almost precisely the same as it was two years ago.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer understand the concept of the warranted rate of economic growth? If he does, can he explain why it is so much lower in 1989 than it was in 1979? Will the deliberations of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the Autumn Statement be helped or hindered by the appearance before it of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former chief economic adviser to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is most certainly not a matter for me. I certainly look forward to making an appearance before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and all the delights that that usually provides. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the economic growth in recent years, and we have forecast further growth next year.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for two increases in real terms which he did not mention this afternoon—those for the arts and for overseas aid?
Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. There has been a significant increase both for the arts and for overseas aid in the plans announced today.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: One of the right hon. Gentleman's first observations when he became Chancellor was that if it is not hurting it is not working. How many more people will not be working as a result of the estimated decline in growth from 3·5 per cent. to 1·5 per cent?
Mr. Major: The crucial factor in how many people will be in work will be the level of wage settlements that are decided upon in the months to come.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind Opposition Member's correctly placed emphasis on manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend remind them that manufacturing output actually fell under the previous Labour Government, whereas it has risen substantially, especially in recent years, under this Government? Will he comment on the balancing item, which shows that our balance of payments deficit is not nearly as bad as the figures indicate?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is certainly correct about the statistical difficulties of the balance of payments, although it is difficult to draw conclusions as to the precise extent to which the balance of payments deficit is
372
overestimated. That it is overestimated is certain, but I suspect that most of the balancing item relates to capital rather than current, so I would not care to give an estimate of the extent to which it is inaccurate.
Mr. Peter L Pike: The Chancellor talks of reducing the trade deficit from £20 billion to £15 billion as though it would be an achievement. Does he recognise that investment in a key manufacturing region such as the north-west is 36 per cent. less in real terms than it was in 1979? Does he recognise also that he will do more to improve that great deficit if the Government do two things —first, take a positive approach to manufacturing industry and, secondly, take a positive approach to the regions, which would also be in the best interests of the nation as a whole?
Mr. Major: The regions have been doing extremely well over the past few years. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the tremendous growth in investment is certainly welcome in terms of improved productive capacity in this country, but, in the short term, it is widening and not narrowing the trade deficit. In the medium term, it will undoubtedly narrow the trade deficit, and we welcome it from that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to say that manufacturing investment has been falling. It has been rising, and rising substantially.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the genuine and general welcome to the increased expenditure for the National Health Service will grow throughout the country if he heeds the plea that has already been made this afternoon on behalf of haemophiliac AIDS victims? Will he please talk to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and urge him to devote a significant proportion of that money to providing adequate compensation and not merely welfare payments to those people?
Mr. Major: I do not think that I have anything to add to my answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). We all share the sympathy and concern that has been mentioned, and no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will approach me if he thinks that it is necessary to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that, 10 years ago, one of his predecessors said that the Tory Government were inviting the British people to ride in a solid gold Cadillac called monetarism? The right hon. Gentleman has had to attend the House today with another vehicle, a junk bond economy vehicle. The economy is now being put into reverse. He is asking the British working classes to tighten their belts to save the economy. Instead he should take back the £26·2 billion which, cumulatively, has gone into the pockets of the wealthiest 1 per cent. of the population. If he wants another £1·3 billion, why does he not stop water privatisation? There is some money there which he could transfer to the Health Service.
Mr. Major: As the hon Gentleman may have heard mentioned a few moments ago, we have just transferred a substantial amount of money—£2·6 billion—to the National Health Service, which is a substantial increase in real terms. If the hon. Gentleman wants to remind people

373
about 1979, I can remind him about the substantial reduction in capital expenditure on the National Health Service which occurred in the period up to 1979.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is no part of the economy or services which, between now and 1979, could be compared to the advantage of the Opposition? That is why the Opposition select various overseas examples from countries which often have worse underlying economies than ours.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition are specialists in fantasy figures.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With the announcement in the past few hours that there was a 1·1 per cent. reduction in manufacturing output in September, and with the problem of an unclosable trade gap, why do the figures—published by the Government and just made available in the Vote Office—show a steady reduction in support for trade and industry over the next three years? Surely that is exactly where the money should go, and yet, in all the projections, the budget allocations and the planning totals are down for subsequent years.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Industry does not want handouts; it wants the right economic tax structure and bases, which is what it has. The output figure to which he referred is a one month's figure and is known to be an erratic indicator. Output has not fallen during the past three months
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of economic restraint, most people are glad that he has been able to concentrate on investment for the future and provision for the sick and needy? Does he share my concern that the Labour party did not welcome the huge investment in housing but instead requested that it should be given to the municipal authorities? Does he share my suspicion that the Labour party wishes to recreate the feudalism of the massive municipal council estates? Has the Labour party perhaps learnt that those who we have set free through the right to buy are no longer voting Labour?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is right about that and he is also entirely right to draw attention to the 10 per cent. real increase in capital investment in the public sector for the forthcoming year.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Chancellor accept that his statement today showed a cut in spending on science compared to last year's plans and no real growth for next year? What would he say to the scientific community, whose hopes of sustained investment in Britain's long-term economic future will have been dashed?
Mr. Major: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says because he is wrong. There is to be an 8 per cent. increase in science expenditure in the coming year which is on top of a 24 per cent. increase—I take that figure from memory—last year.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on the public sector surplus of £12
374
billion for the forthcoming year, which shows that the tight fiscal stance, alongside the high cost of money, is bearing down on the inflation rate? Will he note the welcome given to the targeted increases in public expenditure, particularly in areas which will affect the supply side of the economy, such as transport? Will he confirm that these increases in public expenditure are not inflationary, particularly when the cost-benefit analysis shows that their benefit to the economy will be greater than their cost?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The increases are affordable and targeted on priority areas. My hon. Friend slightly underestimated the public sector debt repayment figure, which is £12·5 billion.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of what he said last year, it is perfectly understandable that the Chancellor's predecessor has not turned up today.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that today's statement will mean continued misery for millions of people who are repaying mortgages and who will continue to face high interest payments? Does not the Chancellor recognise—with his background, perhaps he should—that there are so many people who could never afford a mortgage, the homeless and the near-homeless, who are desperately in need of rented accommodation, whose problems will certainly not be resolved in any way by the small amount of rented accommodation that the Chancellor has predicted will be available. Do the Chancellor and the Prime Minister understand the problem? Will they be visiting homeless people and those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation this coming Christmas?
Mr. Major: It was precisely because of concern about people in difficult circumstances that the targeted increases in the new homelessness package were brought about. They should be a significant help. I entirely understand the difficulty that high mortgage rates are creating for many people. However, if it is necessary to bring down inflation and to use monetary policy to do so, we must do that. If inflation gets out of hand, everybody will be hurt—home owners and non-home owners alike.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his sound and sensible address, but will he tell me whether he is concerned or worried about the alarming increase shown in table 11 of Britain's net contribution to the EEC, which has increased from £1 billion in the last financial year to £2,000,030,000, which is £3 per week for each British family? Will he carry on the excellent work of the Prime Minister in seeking to reduce that crazy high figure that is costing every family in Britain far too much?
Mr. Major: I certainly noticed the figure to which my hon. Friend refers, but he will know that it is substantially less than it was before its renegotiation by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is the highest ever.
Mr. Major: For the future, I know that my hon. Friend will join me in saying that there are still substantial amendments to be made to the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer note that his predecessor regularly came to the Dispatch Box at the time of the Autumn Statement to tell us that he was wrong about inflation, wrong about the money supply, wrong about the trade deficit and wrong about the state of the economy? Is it not a fact that those wrong forecasts in the past have now led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House today to say that 1990 will not be an easy year? Will he confirm that, with inflation touching 6 per cent. in a year's time, with growth rates at 1·25 per cent. next year, and with the balance of payments moving from £20 billion to £15 billion, the British public will think that these last 10 wasted Tory years are the years that the locusts have eaten?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. If he looks at the record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), he will see, first, the most remarkable supply-side changes in the economy to have been delivered at any stage this century and, secondly, a far higher living standard across every range of income in this country than existed a few years ago. That is a record of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby can be justly proud.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who remember the record of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 are little short of amazed at the effrontery of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? Would it not be useful, as we are looking back to 1979, to look back a little further, and to recognise that the events that we are now seeing in East Germany are at last releasing the people of the countries of eastern Europe from the miseries of the Weimar Republic, where all this trouble started, when there was a Government who could not control inflation? Is that not something that the British people should ponder?
Mr. Major: It is entirely true that, when people in eastern Europe are given a choice between Socialism and free markets, they choose free markets. It would be deeply embarrassing for the Opposition if I were to remind them of the period leading up to 1979 and of the significant cuts that they made in public investment; but if I am tempted, I am prepared to do so.
Mr. John P. Smith: I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say in the Autumn Statement that there will be an increase in benefits and that about 1·5 million families will get help. Can he tell me whether my constituents, Mrs. Hewson and her son, will benefit from that? That lady came to my surgery in tears the other week to explain that she receives an income of only £58 per week to keep herself and her son. She has been burgled and food taken from her pantry. She went to the Department of Social Security and got a loan that she cannot afford to pay back. I have just been told on the telephone that her benefit has now been stopped entirely. Will that lady benefit from the statement?
Mr. Major: It is impossible for me to comment on the particular circumstances of Mrs. Hewson, but I am sure that if she is in difficulties her local branch of the Department of Social Security will do everything that it can to help her.
376
The hon. Gentleman may know that, as I said in my statement, 500,000 long-term sick and disabled people will gain from the disability package; 200,000 people deferring pensions will now be able to draw whatever earnings they have, following the abolition of the earnings rule, and 2·25 million poorer pensioners will gain from the October income support and housing benefit increases.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order as the House knows, there is an important debate after this in which a great many hon. Members wish to participate. I shall call six more Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House, and I am afraid that we must then move on. I shall certainly bear in mind those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call when we come to debate this matter in the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend's combination of a well-judged fiscal and monetary policy will be successful in bringing down not only the rate of inflation as measured by the RPI, with all its deficiencies, but also the rate of asset inflation, which has been such a powerful engine of the excessive domestic demand that our policies are now deisgned to curb?
Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is absolutely no doubt that the growth in asset inflation, especially in housing, has added to the extent of the credit boom and the consequent problem with inflation. My hon. Friend is quite correct.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is it any wonder that Opposition Members are concerned about the implications of the Autumn Statement when we know that the money allowed to local authorities for the education of 92 per cent. of the nation's children will not rise next year even in line with inflation; and that at the moment schools are having to implement the new national curriculum, with all its additional resource implications, and to face new testing procedures, again with additional resource implications, and that there are severe teacher shortages up and down the land? What hope, what help, has the Chancellor offered to teachers and to children today?
Mr. Major: As it happens, a considerable amount of help, with a 10 per cent. real increase in education and science provision in the next year; a large increase in support for students and for the fabric and equipment in our schools and colleges. Capital spending per schoolchild is up 8 per cent. in real terms over recent years and local authority capital spending on education is up 25 per cent. in real terms, with three quarters of that money provided by central Government. That is the help that the hon. Lady has overlooked.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Is not my right hon. Friend's determination to control inflation the best possible news for this country? However, will not his projection of a £15 billion trade deficit depend to some extent on the strengthening of the surplus on invisibles? Will he tell the House the basis on which he calculates that improvement?
Mr. Major: During the past year invisibles have been depressed, largely because of a net outflow of interest payments on the invisible account, which is reducing the

377
net figure substantially. We think that that will improve significantly in the next year. My hon. Friend is entirely right in intimating that control of inflation must have primacy.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the help that the right hon. Gentleman claims has been given to education, will he tell me why, in Tory-controlled Bradford, there are still 500 rotting temporary classrooms and why children in my constituency have to be bussed from three temporary classrooms, which are now long overdue for repair, to another school where the classrooms are wind and watertight? Is he saying in the Autumn Statement that there will be an injection of money into our education system so that the crumbling schools of Victorian Bradford, which have expanding school rolls, will be able to provide permanent extensions so that the temporary shanty town can be removed?
Mr. Major: The problem arises because Bradford has not been Tory for long enough.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend has announced welcome increases in spending on public services. Does he agree with me that that will go a long way towards ensuring that the rate of unemployment continues on a downward trend in the next financial year?
Mr. Major: Unemployment has fallen dramatically, but it is even more relevant that there are 2,750,000 more people in employment than in 1983. The future level of employment will depend on the future of wage settlements.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 11 per cent. increase in expenditure on the arts is warmly welcomed, as a flourishing arts sector draws visitors to Britain whose spending helps the balance of payments? It must be right to build on our strengths, and to give the lie to any suggestion that the Conservative party does not care about the arts.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend will also be pleased to hear that the arts programme is a three-year programme, which will provide a firm basis for forward planning by subsidised bodies. It allows for real growth of 7 per cent. next year and a further 2 per cent. the year after.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it a breach of privilege for a Member of the House to be blackmailed by a known criminal—Dermot Redmond, of 21 Charles road, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Sussex? Is it in order for that to happen, bearing in mind that he is using information stolen from the House by a former employee? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some help and advice because, take it from me, other hon. Members could find themselves in the same position?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that no hon. Member is being blackmailed. If the hon. Gentleman is alleging a breach of privilege, it is best that he writes to me in the usual way, and I will carefully examine the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I am not able to call the hon. Members who are rising to ask a question on the statement, but I will bear them in mind in the future.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As long as it is not a continuation of the previous point of order.
Mr. Bruce: Conservative Members have noted that, during questions on a statement, as long as Opposition Members rise in their places, questions continue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a scandalous allegation for the hon. Member to make against the Chair. I hope that he will not continue with that line.

Vehicle Emissions (Reduction)
4.52 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage the fitting of catalytic converters to all new motor cars.
Just over a year ago I introduced a Bill, under the same procedure, to encourage the use of unleaded petrol. At the time, sales of unleaded petrol were less than 2 per cent. of sales and fewer than 1,500 filling stations sold unleaded petrol. Now, sales account for over 30 per cent., and over 80 per cent. of garages stock unleaded brands.
My intention was to speed up the transfer towards the use of unleaded petrol, and to cut the amount of lead in the atmosphere—that amount is now well below what it was a year ago.
My Bill is designed to reduce other emissions from vehicles. Apart from lead, car exhaust emissions contain carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, which are associated with photochemical smog, acid rain and health risks, such as respiratory problems.
The latest European Community directive on small-car emissions means that all new cars will have to be fitted with a catalytic converter by 1 December 1992, and new models will have to be fitted with one five months prior to that date. Directives on larger cars are likely to repeat the small-car emissions standards and time scales.
I should like those standards to be applied sooner in Britain. We should not wait until the last minute to make those changes. My Bill provides that all new models would have to be fitted with a catalytic converter by 1 July 1990, and all new cars the following year.
To help the move towards cleaner car exhaust emissions, the Bill provides for tax incentives for car manufacturers and car owners to fit catalysts.
A reduction in new car tax, equivalent to 80 per cent. of the extra cost of fitting a catalyst, would apply to all new cars where work was carried out by the manufacturer. For owners of cars that can be fitted with a catalyst, a refund of the annual vehicle licence fee would meet most of the extra cost.
The catalyst is a relatively inexpensive item, which costs between £50 and £100 for most family cars. In addition, a stainless steel exhaust, and in most cases, fuel injection equipment has to be fitted. The total cost for most cars works out at under £400. Fuel injection equipment results in greater engine efficiency, which usually cancels out any loss of economy from the catalyst. A stainless steel exhaust gives savings in exhaust replacement costs over the lifetime of the motor car, and second-hand cars with catalysts normally command higher prices.
380
It has been suggested that fitting a catalyst will increase carbon dioxide emissions. That has to be balanced against the reduction in carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which are both greenhouse gases. Carbon monoxide has a greater effect on global warming than carbon dioxide.
The final part of the Bill calls for the adoption of strict limits on emissions from diesel engined vehicles. Diesel engines do not require lead additives in their fuel and their emissions are generally less polluting than petrol engines, but they produce higher levels of particulates, mainly hydrocarbons, which cause an unpleasant smell and considerable soiling in built-up areas. Of greater importance is the reduction, which they cause, in visibility and the formation of photochemical smog. Recent studies have shown that the fumes are likely to be carcinogenic, as well as causing respiratory problems in some individuals.
The European Community has not tackled the problem of diesel engines effectively. European emissions standards for diesel engine vehicles are well below those proposed in the United States of America. The Bill would set limits for emissions from diesel-engined vehicles, in line with the standards the United States Government are bringing into force in 1991 and 1994. They would cover all diesel-engined vehicles and would lead to improvements in engine design, better fuel quality, a reduction in the sulphur content of the fuel, and the eventual fitting of improved catalytic traps.
Cleaner car exhaust emissions result in a cleaner and healthier environment. The Government are rightly committed to such an environment. We must not delay reducing emissions from petrol-engined vehicles and we must bring standards up to those in Germany and the United States of America.
We are in a strong position to give a lead to the European Community by tackling the problem of emissions from diesel-engined vehicles now. Let us reinforce our commitment to the environment by doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Julian Brazier, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Steve Norris.

Vehicle Emissions (Reduction)
  VEHICLE EMISSIONS (REDUCTION)
  Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to encourage the fitting of catalytic converters to all new motor cars: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 November and to be printed.—[Bill 221.]

European Community (Developments)
4.59 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Developments in the European Community January-June 1989 (Cm. 801).
Once every six months the House has an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on developments in the European Community. The document before us is the White Paper covering events during the Spanish Presidency in the first six months of this year.
Customarily, the House has used this occasion not just to discuss the achievements of the past, although they are considerable, but to look at the possibilities and prospects for the future. For that reason, the timing of the debate is spectacularly good. It would, of course, be unnatural in the course of it to say nothing about the past weeks' events on the Community's frontier.
Last week, in East Germany, we saw successively the resignation of the Politburo, the appointment of successors, the opening of its borders, and a commitment to political reform. There are times when we feel a sudden seismic movement in history, when almost the only certainty is that things can never again be the same. Last Thursday and Friday was such a time.
I arrived in Bonn late on Thursday night for routine discussions on Community matters with my German colleagues. I felt that I had been privileged to share those moving and momentous hours with my German colleagues. They know that we share their exhilaration at those dramatic changes, at this further proof that, as the Prime Minister said at the Guildhall on Monday,
"when people are free to choose, they choose freedom".
Of course my German colleagues and I talked about the dramas of the night. But although their hearts and minds must have been in Berlin, I was profoundly impressed that their response was to turn back to the more prosaic Community matters which I had gone there to discuss. That was perhaps symbolic of our joint commitment to the Community; to our common conviction that the Community can rise to tomorrow's challenges only if it is united in its determination to make the Community succeed. One of those challenges will undoubtedly be the developments in East Germany. Community Heads of Government will have the chance to reflect on this at their meeting this Saturday.
It must be clear to all that the issue for the time being is not reunification, but reform. It must be clear that our common objective must be the establishment of a genuine democracy, with free elections. It is a hazardous process; and we must not risk its failure.
The Community must show that it is ready to extend the hand of friendship to the emerging democracies. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister foreshadowed that in her speech at Bruges last year, when she urged the Community never to forget those east of the iron curtain, cut off by it from their roots in European culture, freedom and identity.
If the iron curtain is indeed coming down, we in the west need to be imaginative and responsible in reacting to the new opportunities created for those behind it. We must be imaginative and responsible with cool heads and warm hearts, for we need to be alive to new risks, as well as new opportunities, for eastern Europe.
382
We must ensure that we in the west hold firm to the policies and principles that have served us so well for so long. The Community must rise to this historic challenge. I have no doubt that it will, but in the same way that reform in East Germany, Poland and Hungary, will only endure if built soundly and steadily, we must ensure that the development of the Community, for development there will be, is both robust and measured. That overriding need is independent of developments in eastern Europe.
The later stages of the prescription for economic and monetary union set out in the Delors report do not cease to be bureaucratic and centralised simply because the Berlin wall has been breached.
It has been said, and said rightly, that the European Community has been a beacon to peoples living under tyranny behind the iron curtain. What they have seen is a Community founded on freedom and building in prosperity. If that beacon is to shine as brightly in the future, we must resolve in unity to build surely and soundly.
The White Paper reviews Community developments in the first six months of this year. It covers a wide range of activity, from the environment to trade policy, from the greenhouse effect to the GATT. It also covers the Community's relations with other European countries, and while eastern Europe justifiably holds our attention, let us not forget the six members of the European Free Trade Association.
I am sure that the House would want to pay tribute to the Spanish Presidency's achievements on the single market: 68 measures removing barriers to trade in the Community were agreed or adopted in the first half of the year. That is the best record of any presidency. Now more than half of the 1985 Commission White Paper measures have been agreed—an average of a measure every 10 days. As is now widely recognised throughout the Community, our role in those deliberations was central and influential.
The thrust of the single market is now liberal and deregulatory. Because we have argued our case reasonably and persuasively, and because it is a good case, we have won the arguments.
For almost two years, I attended the Internal Market Council, conducting negotiations for 1992. During that time I voted against a single market on only one occasion. That was not because progress was too fast, but because it was too slow. I am concerned that progress should be sustained. We earnestly hope that by the turn of the year, the French presidency will have achieved, as did the Spanish, a record number of agreements. We shall work hard to assist them.
In June the European Council in madrid revised the single market priorities to reflect progress that had already been made. The new priorities included financial services, technical standards, transport and public purchasing. I think it lamentable that some of those priorities are moving so slowly.
It is a commonplace that travellers in the Community pay extortionate fares to subsidise national air carriers who are protected from competition. The European Commission has a proposal to reform this. I hope that all 12 member states will give that proposal the same robust support that we do.
We must end the absurdity whereby empty lorries cross frontiers every day because protectionist regulations

383
prevent them from picking up return loads. Again, the Commission has proposals for reform. We hope that they will advance swiftly.
Telecommunications are among the most protected industries in the Community. It has been estimated that of £50 billion spent yearly on telecommunications in the Community, no less than £4 billion could be saved if there were liberalisation. The European Commission wants this; we want this; but some of our partners are blocking it.
There has been good progress on frontiers. Many of the problems to which we pointed at the outset have now been widely understood, and solutions are being sought.
Sir Russell Johnston: For some time the Minister has been telling us how robust, vigorous and marvellous the Government are and I concede that that is so in the free market area that he has described. There is a social area as well, however, where the Government have been extremely curmudgeonly, one example being their recent failure to agree the markings on cigarette packets. In due course I hope that the hon. Gentleman will discuss those things.
Mr. Maude: I shall certainly come to those matters and I am sure that I shall deal with them to the hon. Gentleman's complete satisfaction.
I recollect that at the start of the discussions on frontiers it was suggested that because we identified problems in the proposals we were somehow being negative or obstructive. The reality, of course, is precisely the reverse. We all want it to be easier to cross frontiers. I am confident that that can be achieved. But no one would thank us if the price for that was a reduction in effective action against terrorism, drugs and crime.
Unless problems are identified realistically and early, it is quite impossible to devise solutions in good time. We are centrally involved in the search for such solutions, and I am confident that they can be found. So throughout the single market programme, it is we who want progress, it is we who want liberalisation, it is we who want integration. It can be seen that the Commission, in its admirable drive for progress, has no stauncher ally than us.
Increasingly alarming has been the growing gap between agreement and implementation, between rhetoric and action. The Commission has properly taken that seriously. The figures show that our record is exemplary. The Commission will have our full-hearted support in requiring other member states to meet their obligations.
Mr. William Cash: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the Financial Times a few days ago which completely misinterpreted the Commission's document on implementation to suggest that we were in breach on many occasions? That simply was not the case. Does he agree that the Financial Times should rectify that?
Mr. Maude: That should first be rectified by the Commission. When the figures and the report were published in the summer, I wrote immediately to the Commissioner responsible to point out that the figures on our record were wildly wrong. It is generally understood that our record is exemplary.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that that attitude has been displayed not only in the top brass? When I had the honour to serve on a Committee of the European Parliament, some of our colleagues from other countries could not understand why
384
we persisted in dotting the i's and crossing the t's. We did it because we knew that we should implement the measures under discussion so we had to get them right. Others took them more lightheartedly because they had no intention of implementing them.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right. We take a literal view of our obligations, which means that before we sign up to a dossier or proposal we want to make sure that it will work satisfactorily in practice. As a result, we sometimes take longer than other countries to approve proposals. It is easy for people to sign up to something if they have no intention of implementing it.
I have a theory that the strength of a Government's commitment to the Community can be judged in inverse proportion to the grandiloquence of its rhetoric. There can be no two-speed Europe, with some countries matching their deeds to their words, but with others lagging far behind. That is something with which the House has always concerned itself. The interventions of my hon. Friends bear that out.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the Minister agree that the Department of the Environment's interpretation of the 1976 bathing water directive defined bathing beaches in such a way that no beach in the Principality of Wales could be considered a bathing beach? The United Kingdom was not in compliance with the directive. Is the Minister proud of that?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating point. I cannot give him a detailed answer off the top of my head. Our record on cleanliness of beaches is extremely good, as is our record on water quality and the cleanliness of our rivers. We have nothing to be ashamed of.
Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister confirm that the figures produced by the water authority in north-east England showed that Seaton Carew centre had 3 million E. coli per millilitre of water? Is that the type of standard of which he is proud?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman leads me onto matters on which he appears to have detailed knowledge. I should want to scrutinise his suggestions carefully and subject them to proper analysis to see whether they are borne out by the facts. I am confident that our record on the matter is good and that we have no reason to be ashamed of it.
The process of scrutiny is better developed in the House than almost anywhere else in the Community. It is a process to which the Government are wholeheartedly committed. The Procedure Committee, and the Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), have studied its future development. We shall study with care and sympathy the Procedure Committee's forthcoming report.
Two weeks ago as part of the process of scrutiny, the House debated economic and monetary union. Our policy is based on what was agreed unanimously at the Madrid council. It is essential that the Community should adhere to those conclusions. One conclusion was that the Delors report was no more than a basis for further work, and that no intergovernmental conference to consider further changes beyond the first stage should be held without full and adequate preparation. In our debate earlier this month, it emerged with remarkable clarity that there was

385
no support in the House for stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. That has been noted elsewhere in the Community. Indeed, it accords with a growing concern elsewhere in the Community.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of the overwhelming events of the past week and the impact that they are bound to have on the Federal Republic of Germany, has my hon. Friend had any feedback from the Germans that their view on stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report may be significantly different in a few weeks' time?
Mr. Maude: The Government of the Federal Republic have no clear view on the timing of the next stages. A lively debate is in progress within that Government and in public about what the next step should be and I shall deal with that in due course.
We strongly support the commitment to stage 1 of Delors and we strongly support further steps to be made beyond that. But we should be clear that stage 1 will result in far-reaching changes to the economy of Europe. We hope that it can be completed quickly. We shall certainly not hold it back. The right time for an intergovernmental conference to consider treaty changes is when there is a clear view emerging on what treaty changes are needed.
Mr. Giles Radice: Do not the Government have the problem that no one is listening to them, first, because we are not a member of the exchange rate mechanism so we have not completed stage 1 and, secondly, because their plan for competing currencies does not find favour in Europe. The Government are not in a position to influence other Governments?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has observed these matters for so long that he has perhaps lost touch with what is happening. Other Governments are certainly listening to us and we have discussed in detail and depth our paper and approach to the Community. As people study our approach and as our arguments are understood, we make headway. The fact that we have not yet joined the exchange rate mechanism makes no difference.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the president of the Bundesbank has already welcomed our initiative on competing currencies and agrees with much of what we have to say?
Mr. Maude: He went further. He gave a warm endorsement to our approach. That is to be welcomed. There is huge scope within the existing treaty for rapid and dramatic changes. Until we have begun to exhaust those possibilities, further changes would be recklessly premature. Our own paper, published two weeks ago, set out an alternative approach; as my hon. Friend says, it was warmly endorsed by the president of the Bundesbank, and has attracted growing interest and support elsewhere. It will take progress substantially beyond that set out in stage 1 of Delors, and would, we argue, achieve the objectives of economic and monetary union. It need not be a slow process. We hope it could advance swiftly, but we must take the right decisions.
Economic and monetary union cannot be just a slogan: it would have to be made a practical reality, and we believe that our approach leads to that. Of course this will be discussed at the Strasbourg European Council, where
386
there may also be discussion of the social dimension, with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment will deal at greater length when he winds up the debate.
We support the unanimous conclusion of the Madrid Council that the Community's top social priority should be job creation. We do not believe that the present draft of the social charter would achieve that. I stress that this is not only a United Kingdom view; both UNICE, the Europewide employers' organisation, and the European round table have given robust support to our views.
UNICE has said:
"The charter should give more recognition to the vital need for Europe to remain competitive in a global and open trading system, since that is the only way to guarantee the creation of wealth and of jobs".
The Madrid Council also said that the principle of subsidiarity should apply—that what can be done at national level should be done there, not at Community level. It is not enough to pay lip service to that principle; the substance of the text must reflect it——
Mr. George Robertson: That is what the charter says.
Mr. Maude: It may say it, but it does not do it. We should not just utter the word "subsidiarity" and assume that that is all that needs to be done. We must make sure that the proposals, directives and regulations emerging from the Community reflect the principle in practice, and that is what we shall seek to do.
Mr. Robertson: When the first draft of the charter came out, the Prime Minister said that it was Marxist in origin. We have now gone through several drafts watering down the original. Would the Minister say that the current draft is still of Marxist origin?
Mr. Maude: It is not a text that we could sign—it is wholly unacceptable. If implemented in a programme of proposals from the Commission it would put people out of work. The hon. Gentleman may want that, but we do not.
Mr. Marlow: Whether the charter is Marxist or not is irrelevant at this stage, but if it were passed would it not give more power to central bureaucratic institutions?
Mr. Maude: If, as we expect, a programme of action from the Commission leading to legislative proposals followed behind it, there would certainly be legislation at Community level which could more properly be dealt with at national level.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has been giving way a great deal —[Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) says that I should not intervene, but he has already done so several times.
As, on all the evidence, the premier capitalist economy of Europe—West Germany—is wildly more successful than any other economy, including that of the United Kingdom, and seems happy with the social charter, why are we so panic-stricken about it?
Mr. Maude: Perhaps unknowingly my hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. West Germany has a high level of protection and regulation, so it may not be averse to less prosperous parts of the Community having to shoulder the same amount of regulation, thereby removing the competitive advantage that they may have. We are

387
concerned that less prosperous parts of the Community might be denied the advantages of the lower costs which might improve their economic standing. That is reflected in our view and in that expressed by UNICE and the European round table.
Mr. Dykes: These matters must be of great concern to all hon. Members. Are we living in the real world or are we indulging in the rhetoric that my hon. Friend has denounced? If Germany is protectionist, bureaucratic, subsidised and inefficient, can we have a bit of that here? How come it is so prosperous?
Mr. Maude: I did not say that Germany was inefficient; I said that employers and industrialists there work with a high level of regulation to which they have become accustomed and with which they can cope. But if anyone seriously thinks that the economy of Portugal will be helped by having German levels of regulation imposed on it from Brussels, he is wrong——
Mr. Robertson: Why do they support the social charter?
Mr. Maude: The Portuguese are becoming extremely anxious about what is contained in that programme and in the action programme following it up. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should take the trouble —he has not done so—to talk to his Socialist colleagues in Portugal, whereupon he will find that their view is very different from his. They take seriously the process of job creation and the need to protect jobs—clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not.
Mrs. Gorman: Is it not true that the productivity of German workers in much higher than that of those in this country? For example, Ford workers in Germany are 50 per cent. more productive than Ford workers here, and because of that the Germans can carry such an enormous burden of social legislation as is incorporated in the charter.
Mr. Maude: Each country and economy in Europe has developed a system of social legislation appropriate to itself. There is no reason to suppose that uniform social regulations imposed from Brussels will help anyone. The Germans may have come to live satisfactorily with their system. It works there, hut that does not mean that it would work here or in Portugal or Greece. We shall strongly resist its imposition here.
In our determination to carry forward the process of internal integration of the Community, it is essential, perhaps especially at the moment, to keep our eyes on the Community's relations with those beyond its frontiers. We are very clear that Europe after 1992 must not be closed, or be seen to be closed, to the world outside.
We have argued long and hard, and with formidable success, against fortress Europe. It is essential that the Community gives full effect to the principles of liberal trade beyond its frontiers that it has now firmly espoused. In particular, we are very glad that real discussions are now taking place with the member countries of the European Free Trade Association.
The Commission is due to report to the Council later this month, and there will be an EC-EFTA ministerial meeting on 19 December, which could well open the way for detailed negotiations during 1990. The prospect of a wider single market of all 18 countries is a stimulating one. Of course, the negotiations will raise difficult issues, but
388
difficult issues can be resolved with good will and determination. We firmly believe that a greatly enhanced EC-EFTA relationship is both in our interest and in the interest of the Community. This is a cause which we have promoted, and we wish it well.
I started by talking a little of events in eastern Europe. The present tide of events has been long awaited and fervently hoped for, and it is essential that we do all in our power to sustain the process of change. At all levels, I believe, the response has been generous and imaginative.
For ourselves, we have set up know-how funds for both Poland and for Hungary. These will be worth significant sums, focused on specific projects crucial to successful reform. They range from programmes on parliamentary democracy to agricultural reform. We are now looking at ways of increasing our support.
At Community level, the response has also been excellent. Apart from immediate food aid in Poland, worth £70 million, longer-term support is being provided by a substantial package of trade liberalisation measures. This means an end to all discriminatory quantitative restrictions on Polish and Hungarian imports from the beginning of next year. Providing a market for competitive goods is the best stimulus to economic reform.
In addition, the Council has approved a package worth about £200 million next year covering support for agricultural reform, environmental measures and management training in both Hungary and Poland. That signals that we stand four square with the peoples of eastern Europe in their determination to achieve reform that endures.
People of my generation in eastern Europe have never known freedom or tasted the prosperity that for us is routine. Now at long last across Europe tyranny is retreating and a new freedom is dawning. Those who have known only the cold repression of totalitarian regimes will need our help. We must not fail them.
5.29 pm
Mr. George Robertson: Precious few people around last Wednesday, when this subject was slated for discussion, could have imagined what the succeeding seven days would produce. As the Minister has rightly said, these seven days have seen a political earthquake in Europe, and its tremors will inevitably dominate the European Community, the wider continent and our future in a way undreamed of last week. In this debate we may be considering events and a White Paper that cover the first half of 1989, but these events include the germs of the situation that we see in graphic form today.
How western Europe rises to the remarkable new challenges in the next few months, which will determine what continent we shall inhabit for generations to come, is of crucial importance. This week, when we talk about Europe we no longer speak about western Europe. The whole focus has shifted and when Community leaders meet this Saturday and again in three weeks' time, they will no longer simply be involved in the internal affairs of the 12 European Community nations. They have to be conscious of, and concerned with, those other members of a European family who want to rejoin and to act with us, and who will sorely need us as well.
We must share the emotion and the sheer joy that was written all over the faces in Berlin last weekend, of a people free at last for the first time since 1933—free from tyranny,

389
fear and oppression. We must ensure that, never again, will they disappear behind walls, fences or barriers. Nobody who ever saw that Berlin wall, with the death strips, the shrapnel guns, the dogs, the watch towers and the floodlights could have been unaffected watching the pictures of last weekend, as the obscenity that was the boundary between East and West finally broke under the pressure of the people. Last week was a turning point in all our lives.
What is now in question is nothing less than the whole architecture of Europe and, along with that, understandable uncertainties and concerns. Undeniably, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help, or hinder, the evolution of a stable new European order. That task will demand genuine vision and imagination and the ambition to seize the moment, like the leap of imagination that produced the Marshall plan that helped post-war Europe to recover its democratic vitality or the Bretton Woods settlement, which saved the world's economic system.
What concerns us in this debate is what role Britain will play in this historic process. The first guiding principle must be that Europe will not encourage or reinforce the drive to democracy in Europe by looking constantly inwards at itself. This is precisely the time to look at what sort of European framework will be relevant, in two, five, 10 or 20 years' time, and to start along the road towards it.
In saying that, we do not in any way accept the Prime Minister's idea of some dead stop in the pace of European co-operation, to have a leisurely look around. Nor do we accept that our only role in helping the eastern European states is, at variable speeds, to complete a political and economic union, the nature of which is still not agreed or even designed. Instead, we say that we must seriously and urgently look at the breathtaking opportunity before us to embrace a truly wider Community and take the necessary steps while the opportunity is still with us.
Some will say that this is what the Prime Minister was referring to when she spoke in the House yesterday about her dream of a democratic Europe stretching to the Chinese border, but is that the case? As she talked about this greater, wider Europe, this week she sent a Minister to Brussels to block cancer warnings on cigarette packets. As she defends national sovereignty in economic and monetary decisions, her Chancellor had just 25 minutes of British sovereignty between the Bundesbank's decision to raise interest rates and our requirement to follow it.
On Monday night, as she said at the Lord Mayor's banquet:
"We must stretch out the hand of co-operation and develop new forms of association with the emerging democracies of eastern Europe",
her Government had given no welcome even to the application already on the table, from Austria. As she underlines the truth that only economic success will guarantee the existence of pluralistic democracies emerging in eastern Europe, the British funds to Poland and Hungary amount to a meagre £25 million to each country, spread over five crucial and decisive years. What a contrast with the £450 million-worth of aid voted by the American Congress to Poland last night.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the Paris summit, the British Prime Minister took
390
the initiative, which was agreed to by others at the summit, that the European Commission should co-ordinate aid programmes to, initially, Poland and Hungary? Was this not a fine British initiative, as a result of which the Commission is co-ordinating aid from 24 different nations?
Mr. Robertson: That was a commendable initiative and the Commission is to be congratulated on the efficiency with which it is carrying out its task. Sometimes the Government, who spend much of their time and energy attacking the Commission, forget that the Commission can act. It is using principally Japanese funds to disperse food aid to Poland. I am referring here to bilateral aid. The Minister did not mention £5 million—the small change of a Government Department—being given over five years as bilateral aid to reconstruct the economies of Poland and Hungary and to underpin the democratic system.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should know, and if he does not know, then he should find out, that the know-how fund is not there to reconstruct economies. It is there to provide know-how in a whole range of sectors such as developing elections and political democracy, and banking.
Mr. Robertson: Of course it cannot reconstruct an economy, but what are the Government giving to reconstruct the Polish economy? I know how much the know-how fund is giving, and I also know what it is being given for. I have been asked by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be a member of the advisory board on the Polish know-how fund, which meets tomorrow. I am also aware of the limitations of £5 million, given the nature of the Polish crisis and how much needs to be done. The American Congress had the generosity to recognise that, with the amount that it voted last night. I hope that we shall hear no more triumph from the Government over the tiny amount of money being given to Poland.
As the Prime Minister draws grand designs on the map and in the air, her approach to European co-operation in reality is nit-picking, carping and mean-spirited. We are repeatedly marginalised and ignored. The veto on the social charter, which has already been watered down and weakened in key areas in the attempt to get consensus in Europe—a consensus that embraces all the countries that the Minister this evening arrogantly said that he is defending—will leave Britain isolated, and exposed, yet again, as a spoiler in the Strasbourg summit in December. It is again stark evidence of the denial to the British people of the reasonable employment standards that they might expect from the completion of the single market.
Mr. Marlow: I agree very much with the imaginative first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech about the changes in Europe—the whole of Europe rather than parts of Europe. Why is it that the social charter is necessary?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has rocked me by saying that he agrees with the first part of my speech. I must now ask myself what was wrong with it. The social charter is necessary. If we are to have an internal market affecting the interest of employers and of capital, then it is eminently reasonable—all our colleagues in Europe agree, whether they are Left-wing or Right-wing—that the level playingfield must include some justice for those who are

391
employed. That is why the charter was instituted and why 11 out of the 12 countries in the Community agree with it and none of them agrees with us.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): Do the hon. Gentleman and his party support everything in the current draft of the social charter?
Mr. Robertson: No. We think it is too weak. We think that the partners in Europe have weakened it too much in a vain attempt to get the negative and reactionary elements of the Government to climb on board in what they believe to be in the general interests of completing the internal market.
Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that the social charter provisions, in whatever language, are an equal component in the preamble of the Single European Act just as the internal market is? They are not inferior to the single market.
Mr. Robertson: I agree totally. The Prime Minister accepted the Single European Act with all the commitments in the preamble, just as she accepted the Stuttgart declaration, which made many of the same points. The social charter is a direct and logical lineage with those commitments.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: We believe that the hon. Gentleman is a stalking horse and a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative party, so how can I not give way to him?
Sir Anthony Meyer: Could we not have a serious point? By stripping away what he sees as objections to the Prime Minister's attitude in these matters, the hon. Gentleman is hinting at his party's policy. When he was speaking positively on what his party's policy would be, he stopped short of saying how far he and his party were prepared to go in accepting a limitation on the right of Britain, or any other country, to exercise their veto on decisions which he would maintain—and I would agree—are in the interests of the Community.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman and I have attended many of these debates before. I am sorry if he regards my comments on his candidature against the Prime Minister as anything other than serious. We have made our position clear. We would use the veto constructively and our intention would be to establish a consensus in Europe. The Government's problem is that they are not interested in consensus even when other Governments are willing—as they have shown under the social charter negotiations—to make substantial concessions towards them. I thought that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and I stood side by side on that. Presumably that would be one of his central planks if—in the unlikely event—he was to be the challenger to the Prime Ministership. He may persuade her to convince him not to stand. She may change her mind.
As the Prime Minister sends this week's Chancellor of the Exchequer to Brussels to sell the hand-made competing currency idea cobbled together quickly by the last Chancellor, the Chancellor knows that his idea can work —if it works at all—only to the advantage of the strongest currency in the Community—the deutschmark. It will work only if we are full members of the exchange rate
392
mechanism. The Prime Minister cannot swallow that idea despite the commitments she and her Ministers have solemnly and regularly given on that subject.
The Prime Minister's baggage that she will transport to France this weekend will include the same old-fashioned, out-moded prejudices that will not let her escape from the cold war time warp that she inhabits. That blend of nostalgia for the special relationship with Ronald Reagan, combined with a little England nationalism, is as useful as the abacus in a computer world. The Prime Minister remains the high priestess of Balkanisation.
In June, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, I described the position then as the "bonfire of the certainties". Perhaps now the bonfire is bordering on a forest fire. Like a few other politicians, the Prime Minister looks on transfixed as the old, comfortable post-war structures lie in the rubble of the Berlin wall. She, and they, seem bewildered, almost like the guards on the Berlin wall, to be without the enemy they have planned and plotted about for 40 years. Well, those relics had better wake up soon, read the papers and the speeches and follow the street politics——
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Who wrote it?
Mr. Robertson: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has come in late as usual is making a characteristic contribution to a serious subject. If he and the Prime Minister were to look at the politics of the streets in eastern Europe, even they would have to come to terms with the realities. If they delay in doing so, they may give birth to the very forces about which they so solemnly warn us.
There is however a positive agenda for the European Community. On security, we must reassure the Soviet Union, whose leader President Gorbachev has been the visionary driving force behind the dash for democracy. The absurd and incredible attempt to claim credit for the collapse of Communism by the disciples of Thatcherism is as unhelpful as it is shamelessly dishonest.
The Warsaw pact and NATO must get together quickly to start work on a new order in Europe and the world with much lower levels of troops and weapons to reflect the new circumstances. Modernisation of short-range nuclear forces is now a military irrelevance and a political impossiblity.
On economics, there must be a major western European aid programme to the new democracies, linked to reconstruction and the development of pluralist structures. however, that will require resources and someone willing to pay for them. Trade access will also be an essential requirement if the economies of those countries are to perform and deliver the prosperity which alone will protect democracy. If that means new imports from the Eastern bloc—for example of food and textiles—who will pay for the effect on our industries? I am sure that the Minister will agree that those issues are not academic but issues that the whole Community will have to face and may start facing this weekend.
On the political front, Britain and the Community must —as I said before—examine the way in which a framework can be created to include the non-European Community nations. At this point we have to ask precisely what the Prime Minister meant on Monday night at the Lord Mayor's banquet when she talked about the new forms of association. In the treaty of Rome there is a precise

393
definition of associate status within the Community. Her amazing linkage with Turkey, which has apparently frightened the living daylights out of the Foreign Office, gives a new meaning to the suggestion that she made on Monday night. Is she advocating associate status for the eastern European nations in accordance with the treaty of Rome?
Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Turkey has an association agreement with the Community already?
Mr. Robertson: Of course I am. That is not the question. The question is whether the Prime Minister is proposing for the eastern European countries exactly the same association agreement that is enjoyed by Turkey. It was the Prime Minister who raised the comparison with Turkey in the answers she gave at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. Instead of asking me questions it would be helpful if the Minister could answer the question. Is that what she means? I will gladly give way to the Minister. Does he not know? Was it just a clever phrase dreamt up for the Mansion house speech and then the error compounded by a loose phrase thrown away at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday? The Minister's silence tends to suggest that my analysis is probably true. It would be interesting to know whether the Foreign Office agrees with the new policy. Will it apply to the GDR, Hungary and Poland? And what about the others?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman dignified his remarks with the title "analysis". He does himself something more than justice. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was referring to new forms of association. That goes on all the time. There are co-operation agreements with a number of countries outside the Community. There is an association agreement with Turkey. I said that we are considering a new form of association with the EFTA countries. There is nothing sinister about that. The Community ought to be looking at new forms of association and it is doing so all the time.
Mr. Robertson: We say that the link with Turkey at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday was a loose expression and meaningless in that context. Turkey's relationship with the Community is rooted in treaty law. It is not some form of convenient, new association, although the link was designed to gain applause on Monday night at the Mansion house. We have to go beyond loose phraseology and provide real help so that the economies of these countries can be rebuilt. We have already started, in a limited way, to give real help in building parliamentary and party institutions in those countries. We have acquired unique expertise. The work that has already been done this year by the Great Britain-East Europe centre and other organisations in bringing Polish, Hungarian and other parliamentarians to this country has already produced enormous dividends.
Why do we not also ensure that English language teaching is at the heart of our help for these countries? Financial help has been ruled out, but it would be one of the simplest ways to help and extend our future influence.
We must also keep in perspective obsessive speculation about a united Germany. Such an eventuality would require four-power agreement. It would also require an
394
implicit acceptance of the GDR's Communist party propaganda: that an independent GDR's only raison d'etre is its ideological identity. If the East German people eventually make the choice for reunification—and they have been denied any choice of any kind for 56 years—then so be it. They will have to do so, conscious of the wider implications at the time.
We might do better to consider the economic power of such a Germany rather than its potential military might, which is largely mythical. Beware the second Japan, not the fourth Reich. On this issue the Prime Minister would be wise to read the advice of Sir Nicholas Henderson, a very distinguished diplomat, a former ambassador to Washington and an adviser to the Prime Minister. In yesterday's Evening Standard he said:
"Those who insist on emphasising the nation state should not be entitled to complain if one of the most powerful nation states were to act increasingly according to its own national interests."
Perhaps one consequence of the present gale force change in our continent is that in place of the German question will appear the British question.
On the western fringes of a Europe that is looking east for security and trade and represented by a divided Government who abroad leave us out of the mainstream, marginalised and for ever tilting at windmills as they become increasingly beleaguered at home, what influence can we positively have on the recarving of a new European identity? The hard fact is that we need a new Government who will have the vision that the new world demands and that the British people expect.
5.53 pm
Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) began his speech with some good points, but I hope that he will not mind if I say that the centre of his speech seems to have been invaded by a word processor. He will have to accept that my mind was not captured by every nuance and phrase in his speech. Nevertheless, he agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister of State that we are holding the debate in the shadow of momentous events. We can see their origin long before the White Paper period that we are examining—the first six months of this year. They lie in the amazing process of liberalisation throughout central and eastern Europe. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was right when he said that fundamental questions had been raised and that we must re-examine where we stand and the way in which we want the European Community and the rest of Europe to develop.
We have now enjoyed the longest period of peace in European history since the very concept of Europe was invented. We have had peace for 44 years. On this side of what was the iron curtain, now crumbling, there are parliamentary democracies of one sort or another. Western Europe is engaged in building the largest single market in the entire planet. It is a massive creation, involving herculean work and effort. In itself that is enough to occupy business men, diplomats, politicians and law makers for a long time ahead. That is the position now, and a very incredible one it is. The question is, where do we go from here?
There are three points of view about the next moves in the European Community. Some of those points were referred to by the Minister of State in his very lucid opening speech. The first—what might be described as the

395
Delors-Mitterrand camp—argues for acceleration now of the process of European integration. Members of that camp say that history must be speeded up. It is essential, they argue, that European union should be moved forward in double quick time so as to lock in West Germany. That argument was used long before the dancing on the wall and its tearing down at the weekend. That would prevent the Federal Republic of Germany—the most powerful European economy, even as it stands—from being attracted towards its cousins in East Germany and towards eastern Europe generally, where historically many of its interests lie.
To that end we are told that we must move on beyond the single market—never mind that we have not yet achieved it—to the creation of an integrated monetary union with centralised institutions, including the establishment of a central bank. We are also told that there must be an intergovernmental conference that ought to turn its mind not merely towards the creation of these new institutions but towards the creation of new treaties and, in turn, further new institutions to control and balance the new institutions that are already proposed. That must be done, we are told, in the name of an advance towards the kind of federal Europe which, it is said, the founders of Europe had in mind. I am not sure whether, if one examined the sayings of Jean Monnet and others, that is what they had in mind, but that is what is now proposed. That is one point of view. I shall return in a few moments to its validity and worth because we ought to examine it with great care and reservation.
The second point of view which could be adopted—some of my hon. Friends may well take it in view of what has been going on in the Community during the last six months—relates to the word "Resist" that is stamped on the bottom of ministerial briefs when awkward amendments are being pressed. The Minister, it is said, would be well advised to resist. We are left on our own. We have to grow our own wings and devise our own devices about how to resist and about how to say no in a way that does not leave us looking too exhausted and isolated. Certain hon. Members may be inclined to adopt that point of view and to dig in and resist.
The third point of view is the one that I sense, from what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, the Government are moving towards: a recognition that the process of creating a European union of great power, strength and influence is irreversible—to use President Bush's word about what is happening in eastern Europe in another context—and that we in this island, a powerful, central and historic part of Europe, must work towards shaping and building that union with all the common sense, practicality, energy and genius that we have used down the centuries in the same cause.
We need to shape our endeavours and to decide that we are moving towards and wish to build a European union shaped in our way and our style. That is very much better than digging in and saying that we are against all forms of monetary and political union. That was a stance of weakness whereby events were bound to bypass us, and were beginning to do so. I am glad that there has been a clear change of emphasis.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his third option could include a pan-European approach? In the new, totally different circumstances, the emerging democracies of eastern
396
Europe may wish to adopt a different characteristic of private and public endeavour which is not possible in Britain or in the European Community. Is it not possible in future to widen that option to create a pan-European association of states, if not a union, which would incorporate the emerging democracies which the arrangement of the treaties would not allow at the moment?
Mr. Howell: I shall move on to my own preferred option and suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters with vast expertise, how best the emerging free republics of east and central Europe can fit into that scheme. We have to consider that very carefully.
I shall now explain the characteristics that I should like to see in the process of European union to which my right hon. and hon. Friends are turning their energies and efforts most constructively.
First, it should be an evolutionary process. That is reflected in the excellent paper by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the processes of monetary convergence in the European Community, emphasising the common sense and practicality embodied in stage one of the Delors report and avoiding the pyramid building and the creation of institutions, before defining their purpose, in stages two and three. In Britain we do not like, and need not be ashamed of disliking, the creation of institutions before working out their common and comfortable purposes. Stages two and three of the Delors report contain absurdities which common sense and realistic people throughout the community are beginning to recognise.
The same applies to social policy. Like other hon. Members, I see no need for that elaborate piece of rhetoric, the social charter. Although I am often in sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on European matters, it is not correct that the preamble to the Single European Act contains a commitment to the social charter. The hon. Member for Hamilton was also wrong about that. It contains a commitment to the charter of the Council of Europe, a very different document from the extraordinary social charter. If the hon. Member for Hamilton checks the preamble to the Single European Act he will see that.
The social charter arises from a reference by the Commission to a body called the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels. It is a curious body that has existed for a long time. It has its own mini-Parliament in Brussels and is a product of the corporatist thinking of the 1960s. That is why the social charter contains talk about social partners and economies being run solely by employers, trade unions and officials. Rather comically, it completely ignores the fact that nowadays most people are not in trade unions and we have completely new labour market conditions. I understand that in France membership of trade unions is down to 12 per cent. It is somewhat higher here, but it is shrinking. I am not saying that that is a good or a bad thing, but the modern labour market is not suitable for massive trade union organisation, as employment patterns are far more flexible. That is why the social charter is such an absurd and dated document, dripping with the illusions of the 1960s and 1970s which dragged Britain to the brink of bankruptcy, and I want no part of it.
Mr. Robertson: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Commission's thinking on the social charter derives

397
from the social charter of the Council of Europe. Conservative Members cannot possibly get away with all that abuse of corporatist thinking. If the social charter is corporatist thinking, how is it that the countries that support it most strongly have performance rates so considerably in excess of ours?
Mr. Howell: I do not think that support for it is that strong. It is rather perfunctory and it is beginning to give way under the logic of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the origins of the document are in the work of the Economic and Social Committee. Mr. Jacques Delors told me that he had made that reference and that is where he said it came from. I must go by his authority on the matter.
Mr. Dykes: I am sure that the British members of the Economic and Social Committee would be interested in my right hon. Friend's comment that that body is corporatist and out of date. It performs a very useful function and I do not think that there is any shame in acknowledging the peace of social partners in a socially harmonious society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the preamble to the Single European Act—if my memory serves me right as I do not have a copy with me—contains an equal reference to six broad areas of Community objectives in achieving union: economic and monetary union, the internal market—I agree that there is argument about the language used and the meaning of the wording —economic and social cohesion and a number of others that I do not recall at the moment? It is not true that the Single European Act identifies the single European market as a priority area.
Mr. Howell: There is argument about that, and if my hon. Friend checks, he will find that I am right.
As for the members of the Economic and Social Committee, my hon. Friend is quite right that one is bound to offend someone. I have acquaintances and colleagues who have done excellent work for that body in the past. But it is a body built around the concept of social partners, and the information-intensive economies of the 1990s are no longer organised in that way. Without any criticism of the people who work very hard in the Economic and Social Committee, I believe that we should think again about the fundamental ideas behind that structure. That is my first principle.
Secondly, the Europe of the future will have to be firmly rooted in nation states. The nation state remains the fundamental unit of politics. We are involved in a ridiculous debate about whether nation states are part of the Europe of the future. But if there were no nation states and western Europe was one great federal superstate, we would have to reinvent nation states for the sensible management and organisation of a vast continent of varied cultures, legislative and administrative areas and approaches to public affairs. Nations would have to be reinvented as they are extremely well-rooted and effective and are appropriately scaled organisations for managing the 1990s. The idea of federal pyramid building belonged to an age of centralism that has faded away. We have to consider how we can appropriately and usefully decentralise or maintain at a human scale level the
398
administration, the law-giving and the conduct of public affairs of different groups of people formed into the ancient nations.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the United Kingdom is a nation state or a state composed of nations?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me into other areas. For the purpose of my speech, I regard the United Kingdom as an ancient nation state, but I realise that I am treading on great sensitivities for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) who sits behind the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, they must admit the validity of what I am saying.
I must tell those who are concerned about the debate in the Community that began six months ago and is still taking place, about whether there is a challenge to the nation state, that that is an absurd worry. The nation state is, and remains, the most fundamental unit. From the idea of ancient nation states, the new Europe of the 1990s will emerge. What will be its structure? Do we have words to describe it yet? Can we describe it only in negative terms by saying that we do not like federalism?
We need not rest on those negative concepts alone. We should quite readily be prepared to embrace the noble, ancient and highly successful concept of a confederation of free states. Some of the most remarkably successful and permanent unions and alliances of states have been confederations in the past. I have no difficulty in foreseeing our Europe develop as a great and permanent union or confederation, as there have been confederations in the past.
I do not want to dispense tedious history lessons, but hon. Members should consider the example of our American friends, who are inclined to ask why we have not yet become a united states of Europe. We have to concede to them, "Your confederacy backed a losing cause and was on the wrong side." However, if one studies its structure, one finds that it was a remarkable institution, as were confederations before it. We should not apologise for saying that this is the vision that we have for the Europe that we are now building.
I am particularly in favour of that because it fulfils other conditions. What we build in Europe should be practical and useful; it should not be developed for reasons of broad theory and generality, which have no solid grounds. That is why I find the concept of subsidiarity valuable. It is a little difficult to understand, it is a political concept and it has no legal definition. If translated rigorously, it is a recipe that says, "Let things be done at nation state level which can most usefully be done at that level, but let things be done collectively that can more effectively, efficiently and necessarily only be done at the supra-national level." Let us stick with the word "subsidiarity", but let us see whether, as Anglo-Saxons, we can invent better words to describe it. One thinks of phrases such as the principle of the "least degree of collectivisation or centralisation necessary". We must apply our minds to show that we can devise a much more effective and well-articulated Europe than the old federal idea.
The Europe that we are constructing must think in terms of openness and expansion—not expansion in the old military sense, but expansion in embracing other republics and nations as they liberalise, become market

399
economies and form price structures and therefore become able to enter into the international trading system. That is not yet the case in Poland, although it may become so, or in Hungary and it is certainly not the case in East Germany. In all three countries, there are aspirations that this should become the way of things. Indeed, we may see those aspirations develop in Czechoslovakia at any moment. As they do, collectively in western Europe and through individual programmes—which must be co-ordinated because we do not want confusion or a muddle because everyone has their own bilateral programmes for a particular country—we should develop means of reinforcing the processes by which those countries become market economies.
Those means are not straightforward. It is not a question of rushing with massive official aid to those countries, because there are enormous difficulties in foreseeing how it could be connected with their economies as they currently stand. In all cases, radical currency reform is necessary. We shall have to tune carefully and sensitively our support and aid to ensure that Governments pushing through highly unpopular currency reforms, which will involve falling living standards and social pressures, are given support in the short term, before they get into their medium-term stride and we begin to see the attractions of inward investment, joint ventures and the driving force of wealth creation, which of course comes from the private sector.
Against that background, the processes of reunification between East and West Germany will have to move slowly. Indeed, as some Germans are wisely suggesting, they perhaps should be put aside almost indefinitely. It can be argued that the Federal Republic of Germany has been one of the most highly successful and mature post-war states. It has been enormously prosperous, has had amazingly balanced politics and has commendably sought to fulfil its role in the post-war world despite the enormous difficulties of the past. The current prospects for the Federal Republic must be very good indeed.
It is legitimate to ask why, therefore, some of our West German friends believe that they would be better off if they were to embrace the DDR in a greater Germany. It is not our place to dictate to the Germans whether they should reunify or not, but it should be our aim at least to point out to our German friends that, in terms of their prosperity and freedom, they would probably do far better to think of two republics, both liberalising and developing as market economies with intimate and friendly relations but, nevertheless, remaining as two republics for some time.
Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is that if the result of free elections is a demand by East Germans for reunification, Britain and any one else should not stand in their way?
Mr. Howell: That is right. It is not our place to stand in the way, but it is at least reasonable for us as friends to point out to two cool and sensible heads—which certainly exist in the Federal Republic and the DDR—that in terms of the broader scene of a free Europe, free states and a free confederation, they may be better off keeping, for the foreseeable future, two separate republics rather than joining as one giant united republic of Germany of 80 million people. As a friend, that is all I suggest we should point out to our German colleagues, but my hon. Friend
400
the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) is right to say that we have no right or locus to urge that unity be resisted if that is what free elections, free will and self-determination drive Germany towards. I am saying only that they would be better not to reunify with the East.
I wish to comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton about how we further help the eastern and central European economies. I do not believe that early on we should rush at those emerging market economies with massive official aid. We must help them through the difficult winter ahead and devise every conceivable detailed means by which they can build market economies, which means assistance with managerial, financial, entrepreneurial, advertising and market skills and using our resources carefully to promote those programmes.
The hon. Member for Hamilton seemed to deride the idea of £25 million at £5 million a year. If he thinks about it, in this context, that is quite a big programme for getting going the first management teams and for helping universities in Poland to begin to send people here to learn management skills. The administration of this programme, which may not sound vast in the language that we use of hundreds of millions of pounds, requires an enormous amount of administration and is a good, sensible and practical start. Nothing would be worse than throwing hundreds of millions of pounds at those countries when the mechanisms by which the money can be usefully spent on creating the sinews of a market economy simply are not present.
My message to my hon. Friend the Minister is that he is right to proceed carefully. He should leave Poland, Hungary—perhaps Czechoslovakia tomorrow and the emerging DDR as it liberalises—in no doubt that we are determined to offer practical help, and in the long term to help them to create the conditions in which private investment can begin to pour into these areas, thereby enabling them to use their skills, upgrade their technical knowledge, build on the vast number of educated people in eastern Europe, with all their wonderful talents and original design skills, thus will we create the great confederation of Europe which will be—I want to try to avoid triumphalism—one of the most powerful, prosperous, free and democratic areas on the planet.
6.19 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: By their very nature, debates on White Papers tend to be wide ranging. Much of a White Paper is often out of date by the time we can debate it. I shall try to choose my texts from a narrow context and speak about European monetary union, which is mentioned on page 7 of the document, linking it to East-West relations, especially in respect of eastern Europe, which is dealt with briefly on page 27.
I do not think that, even before the events in eastern Europe and the momentous events in East Germany over the past week, there was much support in the House for the Delors plan. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has echoed the misgivings about the plan. Stage 1 seems innocuous, but perhaps when one studies it, one sees that it is not quite that innocuous. There is little support in the House for stages 2 and 3. I should have thought that, given the upheavals that have taken place, the best course is to put stages 2 and 3 on the back burner until we have

401
worked out a stable basis for the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe—perhaps we should now call it central Europe.
My fundamental objections to stages 2 and 3 of European monetary union are fairly obvious to any hon. Member. The proposals involve handing over control of monetary policy, which means interest rates. They affect the private and public sectors and the Government's ability to fund public expenditure. The proposals involve handing over control of a major part of the economy to a body that is not accountable to anyone. It is not accountable to the House, the British Government—whatever party is in government—the British people or the electorate, whether in Britain or in western Europe.
Power is being handed over to central bankers, whether British, European, or a mixture of both. To paraphrase an expression used a few weeks ago, bankers may advise but Ministers have to decide. That is the basis on which we run our economic policy. Ministers are responsible to the House and the electorate. The idea that central bankers, however good they may be—although their advice is valuable, sometimes it must be turned down—can run huge sections of our economy is anathema to most of us. It is ironic that the EEC calls, quite rightly, for free elections in eastern Europe, yet the European Commission and Mr. Delors want to shift huge sections of economic power towards a body that can operate whether or not there are elections. We are rightly calling for the exercise of democratic control and for freedom in eastern Europe.
The Delors plan is not just about economic and monetary union. It is no secret that the plan was about controlling West Germany. The French, like most people, are worried about the power and strength of the German economy and reunification, which is understandable. The French often come up with clever theories which will not work in practice. The idea is that somehow West Germany can be locked into western Europe by a currency union, so the Germans will not look to the East and will not try to dominate it or produce as they are entitled to do. That is complete nonsense. The deutschmark is a strong currency, but the German economy is strong because the Germans produce goods and their industry is powerful. Whatever kind of union exists in western Europe, that will still happen. West Germany cannot be tied in a straitjacket that constrains and limits its power.
Even before the upheavals of the past few weeks and months in eastern Europe, the West German economy was looking east because of its geographical position, its historical ties and its power. There have been rapid changes, and West Germany will certainly look much more to the east because of the events of the past six months. Whether reunification occurs or not, before long East Germany will virtually cease to exist as an independent economic entity. The "ostmark" cannot compete with the deutschmark—the deutschmark would gobble it up. West Germany will invest considerably in East Germany, Hungary and perhaps Poland, eventually extending its investments to parts of the Soviet Union, especially the Baltic states. There is bound to be not only a western deutschmark zone but an eastern deutschmark zone, stretching from Berlin, through the Ukraine, to the Baltic states.
402
Most people do not want that to happen. I mean no disrespect to the West Germans. They work hard, they have a thriving economy, and they make things. I wish that the British economy were more similar to the West German economy in those respects. Those little financial wheezes of Mr. Delors will be swept away by the deutschmark and German economic power. We need not a currency union but a new basic structure in Europe to maintain stability and stop uncertainty. It will not be easy to achieve that.
I have a suggestion, which has been made also by members of the West German Social Democratic party and others. Perhaps the allied powers—the powers of Potsdam, plus perhaps France—should think about getting together and drawing up two treaties, one with each part of Germany. Obviously, before that happens, there must be free elections in the German Democratic Republic. I would not be surprised if those free elections take place fairly quickly, partly because of pressure from the population and partly because it is in the interests of the Socialist Unity party to go to the electorate as quickly as it can before other political parties can organise.
The SUP's roots are deep. The party goes back long before Stalin and Hitler. That is why it is no surprise to me that the East Germans, one after the other, talk about social democracy and Socialism. That is not just the voice of propaganda or because they have been brainwashed over the past 30 or 40 years. We must be aware of the deep traditions—many of them Marxist, but honourable, traditions—in that part of the world. If free elections are held, the allied powers should think about negotiating two treaties—one with East Germany and one with West Germany.
No doubt, the treaties will say many things, but they would have to deal with two points. First, a treaty should legitimise the East German state after free elections, whether the Socialist Unity party or the New Forum wins the elections. I believe that we have not recognised the East German state. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. I believe that there has been no de jure recognition and that there is still only de facto recognition. However, many countries do not recognise East Germany. There was once no de facto recognition and people from East Germany could not travel to the West because their passports were not recognised. There was then a long period of de facto recognition and I do not know whether it has now become de jure recognition.
Mr. Robertson: It has.
Mr. Davies: That must be enshrined in a treaty with the East German state which will legitimise it, and will legitimise East Berlin as the capital of the East German state.
Secondly, the treaties should finally establish the existing borders in Europe as the borders of the two Germanies in terms of their relationships with their neighbours. That has never been done. The West German Basic Law says clearly, as many hon. Members know well, that legally there is only one Germany. The borders are the borders of 1937 and that was confirmed by a decision of the federal constitutional court some years ago.
Most West Germans do not care about the Basic Law —I imagine that they do not even think about it—but

403
Germany's neighbours perhaps do. The Poles are concerned about it and the Soviet Union may be concerned. Let us end the farce and the fiction. Let us enshrine the existing borders of the two Germanies in a treaty made between the allied powers and Germany.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) said in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford that if the Germans voted for unification, they should be allowed to carry it out. I do not agree. The principle of self-determination does not go as far as throwing overboard the Yalta-Potsdam settlement. It cannot go that far for obvious reasons which I thought that all hon. Members would see.
Sir Russell Johnston: That is an incredible statement. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the Germans do not have the right to decide what they want for themselves. That is a profoundly undemocratic remark.
Mr. Davies: Mr. Gorbachev made it clear the other day that he was happy to see the wall coming down.
Sir Russell Johnston: Mr. Gorbachev!
Mr. Davies: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that. Mr. Gorbachev is the leader of the geographically largest country in Europe which suffered the loss of almost 20 million people in the last war. Mr. Gorbachev made it clear that the wall should come down and that there should be free elections, even though the Communist party might lose, but that there should be no reunification. Mr. Shevardnadze said the same. Is the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) suggesting that if the East German electorate votes for reunification, we should let it happen despite the problems in central and eastern Europe and the effect it would have on the Poles, who are struggling to reconstruct their economy? That makes no sense.
Mr. Dykes: The right hon. Gentleman said only a few years ago that 25 per cent. of the people of France were in agriculture so I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Was the implication of his remark about Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze that reunification was not on the agenda now?
Mr. Davies: It is not on the agenda now, but perhaps the Soviet Union will change its mind in future. However, if the Soviet Union does not change its mind, the idea that the East German people can vote and overthrow the post-war settlement is dangerous.
Mr. Michael Irvine: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that to deny the German people of East and West the right to unite, if that is their democratic will, would give them a considerable grievance and that grievance would be almost calculated to fan the flames of German nationalism?
Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if they vote for reunification, it should happen?
Mr. Irvine: Yes.
Mr. Davies: I disagree. It would be profoundly dangerous and irresponsible if that idea were accepted.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the implication of what he is saying? Is he saying that if the peoples of East Germany
404
and West Germany have free elections and vote for reunification, not only should it not happen, hut people should act to prevent it from happening? Is he saying that we should stand by and welcome, as he appears to do, intervention by the Soviet Union in that respect? That would be an incredible statement.
Mr. Davies: I am saying that the two treaties with the two Germanies should make it absolutely clear that there would be treaty obligations on both those countries. Treaties have to be observed and I should have thought that most people would wish those treaties to be observed.
We need to legitimise the present situation. Apart from a few Conservative Members, nobody wants German reunification and we should make that clear. We are told that neither West Germany nor East Germany wants reunification. Let us, therefore, legitimise the existing borders of the two Germanies so that they can operate side by side as democratic states. If East Germany wants to apply to join the European Community, that matter can be considered. If it wants associate membership, that, too, can be considered. However, until East Germany is legitimised as a state, such matters cannot be considered at all. Instead of going down the blind alley of currency reform, let us think about a more stable structure in Europe so that Germany's neighbours can be reassured and will not be afraid that at some time in the future, reunification will damage and jeopardise them.
6.35 pm
Mr. William Cash: One of the most significant events that occurred recently when Chancellor Kohl visited the Berlin wall was the hostile reaction he received from the ordinary people of the German Democratic Republic. The boos and catcalls that he received when putting forward his thoughts on reunification spoke volumes for the difficulties that he is about to experience in relation to the rest of Europe when he goes to the meeting on Saturday, and when he attends the summit on 8 December.
That reception may have come as a surprise in the light of the West German Basic Law, to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has just referred. The reason he received that reaction was that the people were calling not for reunification, but for democracy. They have sought freedom of choice and they will exercise that freedom of choice in their own way. I have watched most of the television programmes over the past few days and it has become increasingly clear not only that they insist on exercising that freedom of choice, but that the mayor of West Berlin, Mr. Momper, is clear that it would be extremely difficult for Berlin—or, as we discovered, Bremen, and many of the other cities in West Germany —to absorb reunification if it was followed or preceded by a mass exodus of people. However much the West German economy may wish to absorb the cheap labour and skills of the people of East Germany, the facilities are not there.
When we go to the Strasbourg summit, there will be a difficulty. On one hand, there is the expression of self-determination which we should like to see carried through in free elections, but on the other hand, Chancellor Kohl in his repetition of the call for reunification combined with a united states of Europe is in a directly contradictory position. To call for a United States of Europe with its federal connotations would be effectively to deny self-determination to the countries that

405
already have established democracies. That is a contradiction of the concept of self-determination and a dilemma for the German people.
I dealt with some aspects of federalism in my speech on 18 May, and I need not go into that again now, except to refer to the problems that we face because of the immense speed with which we are being pressed towards federalism —by President Mitterrand on 17 October and by M. Delors on 12 October, for example—and the increasing pressure that is being placed on us in the run-up to the December summit. They seem to be ignoring the fact that many of the European electorates—and indeed, national Parliaments—have not been fully informed or asked whether they want a federal system or not. More effort should be made not only to inform the electorate in this country but to allow and encourage electorates in other European countries to form a measured opinion.
Mr. Tim Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why the French are keen to proceed extremely quickly to some form of European unification—to a federal Europe—is that they fear the power of Germany and the reunification of Germany? One way of preventing their fears from becoming reality is, they believe, to lock West Germany into a federal Europe as fast as possible—with all the loss of sovereignty that that would entail for Germany, as for Britain.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has anticipated my argument. I had intended to conclude my point by referring to Disraeli's famous expression, "Trust the people." It is essential that the views of the people should be properly canvassed before a step of such immense importance is taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and others argue that we should follow the policy advanced by Konrad Adenauer, who said that the way to preserve stability in Europe and to solve the German question would be to bind Germany into a federal Europe. Such sentiments have been endorsed by Sir Leon Brittan and others, who exhort us to a central bank and a single currency, which, in my view, amount to the same thing. Others press us to accept stages 2 and 3 of Delors and others a lesser plan.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford suggested a form of confederation. Whichever plan is adopted, it will contain the ingredients of political unity. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, I think that he came pretty close to suggesting that he could envisage such a form of government. The difficulty is that if we adopt such a policy, we shall effectively be locking ourselves into a legal order. I voted for the Single European Act, and I repeat that I would do so again. We may have decided to accept majority voting but that does not necessarily imply an automatic progression towards a federal—or confederal—system. If we espouse such a policy we shall lock ourselves into the DNA of the European Community and will not then be able to escape.
An economic difficulty arises. People say that we must bind ourselves and West Germany into a federal system to prevent the domination by Germany of the rest of Europe. But by entrenching that same economic strength within a
406
federal Europe, we shall achieve the same result without securing the balance of power that would result were we to proceed with the voluntary agreement of nation states. That represents a vital difference. Moreover, such a move excludes the possibility of the wider liberalised Europe at which we are also aiming in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred to as "the evolutionary approach". I prefer to refer to "organic growth" because that implies the sentiments that lay at the heart of the thinking of Edmund Burke and others like him when these matters were last being considered several centuries ago.
It seems to me that we are being accused of breaking rules, when, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, we have been exceptionally good at complying with the rules of the Community. We are also being accused—this is the ultimate irony—of not complying with rules that have not yet been created. There is no definition of economic and monetary union and the concept of federal Europe has been no more than outlined in stages 2 and 3 of Delors. It is not part of a treaty that we have signed. It is not part of any structure to which we have an obligation to subscribe. It is not an inevitable progression from what has gone before. If we accepted that concept, we could say goodbye to Westminster and, in any real sense, to our forms of government. That is what worries me.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred in his interesting speech to the notion of subsidiarity. It is a matter of fact and of law that in the context of a federal system the distribution and allocation of functions at the macro level, including economic and monetary union, and the paraphernalia that goes with it —the binding rules, the determination of budget deficit, the penalties that would be imposed and the methods by which to impose them—would leave institutions at the lower level, including the United Kingdom Parliament with next to nothing.
I understood from the debate last Thursday that the House as a whole rejected stages 2 and 3 of Delors. If we reject them, we cannot follow a route that implies a degree of federalism and is implied in the notion of confederation, in the legal sense, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred.
I remain deeply concerned about the question of the dominant position of Germany within Europe. I regard the German people as friends and colleagues. It is nevertheless essential that we ask them to consider the path that they are constructing by the reassertiveness of their policies—shown, for example, in the speech of Mr. Genscher on 7 May, in subsequent speeches by Chancellor Kohl and in particular by the paper that was recently produced by Mr. Prill and Mr. Mertes, which suggests the path forward that Germany should take within Europe. That paper suggests a series of options that are highly dangerous in terms of the tensions that could develop if the German economy and the German political system became over-dominant rather than merely pre-eminent within the European Community.
A great deal is at stake. We must understand the position taken by France in relation to Germany in the light of the fact that 20 per cent. of French imports and exports are dependent on the German economy. Furthermore, the French have effectively surrendered to the deutschmark. That is the crucial point. We are determined to maintain our independence and ensure that we do not surrender to the deutschmark.

407
The West German economy has been reconstructed since 1945. We have reconstructed only since 1979 and the implications were not seen until 1984 or 1985. We need time and space. With or without reunification the Germans should be thinking hard about the necessity of maintaining the democracy that is intherent in our Parliament and to ensure that we maintain our independence. A member of the French National Assembly told me in the House only last week that the rest of Europe looks to Westminster for democracy. We forget that at our peril.
We have fought for several decades to preserve our democracy. It is important that we sustain it into the future. We face a crucial decision which we will have to take sooner than we would like. We must take it some time in the next 18 months and it will have to be faced on 8 December. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has staked out the case for Britain which has been endorsed by the United Kingdom Parliament. We will not be rushed into federalism. That would involve serious dangers for us, for Europe as a whole and also for the democracy of people in western Europe and in eastern Europe. We must not let those people down.
6.52 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I want to refer to several of the points made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I found the whole slant of his observations negative, depressing and old-fashioned. Nothing makes me more weary than to be told how much better we are than everyone else and how everyone else looks up to us. Sadly, I am afraid that that is a profound illusion.
The House of Commons is a very funny place. Last weekend saw the most glorious and marvellous affirmation of freedom since before the iron curtain dropped. There was so much joy along the Berlin wall and there was that fantastic street party on the Kurfurstendam. In the fact of all that, how do we react? There is little excitement. I hear that we must proceed slowly and have time and space. We must be very careful. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, said, "We must look with great care"; he then paused and said, "and reservation." That means that he is against it.
Mr. David Howell: That really is an out-of-context reinterpretation of my remarks. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will find that I was referring to the emotion that is being generated for the early reunification of the two Germanies. That is where I said that care is needed. I was only echoing the common-sense views expressed by many West Germans, East Germans and people in the other capitals of Europe.
Sir Russell Johnston: I was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman out of context. I know that he believes that his view is common sense. He also believes that his opinion was cool and sensible. There is no doubt that these incredible events have dominated the debate, and I want to spend some time referring to them.
The hon. Member for Stafford referred to the speeches made by Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Chancellor Kohl. I found it a great comfort that Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the Liberal Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, while welcoming the changes in the DDR,
408
stressed that the Federal Republic of Germany remained committed to working towards European union. I was also very pleased that Chancellor Kohl said something very similar in Poland. He said that Germany unification, far from being incompatible with increasing the pace of European unification—to which several hon. Members who have spoken today are opposed—was necessary to its peaceful achievement. I agree with that.
We do not know how long the process will take. No one expected what has happened to happen with such speed. Any relationship which will evolve between the two German states must be firmly rooted in the context of European union. Tim Garton-Ash, the political editor of the Spectator, wrote last week:
"If Europe is just a single market, then a Germany of 80 million people, with a GNP twice that of Britain, will dominate it. If Europe is also a single polity, it will not."
That is right on the mark. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), quoted from an article by Sir Nicholas Henderson in the Evening Standard last night. Sir Nicholas Henderson's article deserves to be quoted a little more extensively than the hon. Member for Hamilton quoted it because Sir Nicholas refers to points about which hon. Members have expressed concern. As everyone has said, Sir Nicholas is a most experienced diplomat and a very wise man—and there are not many people about whom it may reasonably be said that they are wise. Sir Nicholas stated:
"Whatever form unification takes"—
notice that he accepts that it will happen—
"Bonn will surely want the newly-added territory to be fully incorporated into the European Community. This could cause difficulties for Austria, which is already in the waiting room of the Community"—
I doubt whether that is very serious; I do not believe that the DDR can join before then—
"as well as other European countries. But the real problem that could arise would be over the size and weight of an enlarged Germany in the European Community.
A policy of promoting the concept of Europe on the basis of separate states rather than a closer union involving a greater sharing of decision-making would be likely to aggravate this problem."
We know exactly what he means by that. He is talking about the Prime Minister's view.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has touched directly on the central theme of my speech. If one were to construct a paper constitution with the power and degree of the Germany economy on the scale that the hon. Gentleman has just described, does he believe that that would soon lead to that paper being discarded in favour of real political and economic power because those who pay the piper call the tune?
Sir Russell Johnston: No, I do not think that, and nor does Sir Nicholas Henderson. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept a view within the Community that the evolution of a Community based on standards and policies is not related to national attitudes which are more and more out of date.
Sir Nicholas went on to state:
"It will surely be desirable for such a Germany to share as closely as possible in decision-making with its Community partners. Those who insist on emphasising the nation state should not be entitled to complain if one of the most powerful nation states were to act increasingly according to its own national interests."
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stafford said, I do not agree that that will happen if the Federal Republic

409
is integrated. I do not quote opinions out of suspicion or fear of Germany. Many hon. Members have such fears. Democracy is firmly rooted in the Federal Republic. Contrary also to what the hon. Member for Stafford said, I believe it is now a more democratic country than Britain and its society is more open and less repressive and intolerant. Historical national suspicions linger darkly among us. I do not believe that the idealistic approach —I supposed I could be accused of being idealistic—to the development of a federal state in Europe will come about unless Europe includes a fair balance between historical states. One is seeking not to contain Germany but to recognise that if Britain, France or Germany were dominant, it would not be good for the whole. The Delors argument is for our benefit as well as his.
Mr. Janman: I have been listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman's speech. In essence, is he saying that outside the federal Europe, in a framework which will continue as it is now, the German people are inherently superior to the other peoples of western Europe? Is he saying that a country with even 80 million people will automatically economically out-perform three nation states, including Italy, of 60 million people? Surely the hon. Gentleman's attitude is defeatist. We should be looking to Britain as a nation state and as an economy being able to compete with a country which, pre-unification, had only a few million people and, with unification, is only a quarter or third larger.
Sir Russell Johnston: I do not regard the Germans as inherently superior any more than I regard us as inherently superior. The simple argument is about the political necessity of creating the European Community out of states which are of roughly equivalent size, and therefore which can——
Mr. Janman rose——
Sir Russell Johnston: I will not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I am all in favour of giving way, but that is my answer. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister would probably agree with the hon. Gentleman, some powerful voices in the Cabinet do not, and they are increasingly expressing their view.
What is happening in eastern Europe is encouraging and exciting. We will not respond effectively if we stumble on our road to reconciliation. We must provide an opportunity for them to relate to something coherent. Therefore, the road ahead must be to accept that we are to be part of a supranational group which will be federal in some way. Within that group, we will not get everything our own way, but we will get a lot more than we would if we were outside it or if we spoil other countries' efforts to achieve it. We will be able to contribute to change.
The two great parties of this country are divided on this issue. I do not say that happily or even critically: it is a fact. There is a fear of commitment, almost like a child's fear of the dark. Supranational power is suspected as though it were a plot to undermine our standards. There was more than a hint of that in the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford. There is a fear that the fellows across the Channel will undermine our standards and impose unacceptable things on us in some way or another. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is a languorous chap
410
—decent, but very laid back. He was certainly very laid back today. He gave the impression of the superior Anglo-Saxon who thinks that all those fussy continentals are liable to be strange and misleading, and talked of Delors and Mitterrand as though they were a couple of recalcitrant political schoolboys. That is absurd.
Mr. Cash rose——
Sir Russell Johnston: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who seldom intervenes in hon. Members' speeches!
Late on Monday night—not many hon. Members were present—we debated a Commission proposal for a European environmental agency which would try to get common statistical bases for evaluating pollution. It could become more than that. It was a short debate, but it epitomised certain attitudes. The Government were unwilling to accept that even the collection of information about pollution should be other than voluntary. That is rather like saying that criminals should normally voluntarily report their misdemeanours to the local police station. The Labour spokesman spoke vigorously in favour of a British environmental agency which must be independent of Government. When I asked him how, if one accepts that, one can logically reject a European agency independent of countries—I can see no contradiction—he was silent.
One cannot reject it in logic, nor should one fight against an agency which, within the framework of the Commission, the Council and Parliament, would develop and regulate a policy. That is not bureaucracy; it is protecting our environment together. The Prime Minister conjures up a wholly false picture of the Commission seeking to devise a negative plethora of regulations, whereas, by contrast, she and her Government seek to release enterprise and create jobs. One wonders how the Left of the Labour party, which always regarded the Common Market as a capitalist plot, now views this matter.
The social charter is not negative. It is a search for a sensible balance between the release of private initiative and the protection of public well-being. Anybody who objects to the social charter should read John Kenneth Galbraith. I am ashamed that we should be isolated in that search. That is one of the things which the Liberal Democrats would say in the European Parliament if our distorted electoral system did not prevent us from going there.
The reason we do not enter the exchange rate mechanism is not because there is no right time, as we are always being told, but because there is a gut refusal to face up to the fact that the only way forward for us is to accept that our future is within a supranational Europe and to do our best to make it work. There is no difference of view between those on the two Front Benches about whether to join the EMS, which is both a matter of practical value and symbolic importance.
I shall briefly mention the developments in eastern Europe. I have been wanting to say the following for some time and I now have the opportunity: there is one present Member and one former Member of this House whom I would like to be here now. The present Member is the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), whom I have heard on my car radio in the deep watches of

411
the night telling me on DDR radio about the excellence of the Honecker regime. He could come along and admit that he was utterly wrong. The other chap is a former Member of Parliament, Mr. Robert Maxwell, who once called Mr. Honecker "the father of the nation". He might use the Daily Mirror to say much the same thing. Those people defended the indefensible when it was easy to do so. If Egon Krenz can admit fault, they should also.
What happened in Berlin last weekend was wonderful. However, the problem of shifting economies with subsidised, state-imposed pricing towards liberal, economic systems against a background of economic confusion is enormously difficult. For example, one third of the DDR budget—as I found when I was there last April—goes towards maintaining food and rent prices based on 1949 prices and transport prices based on pre-war prices, not to mention a series of other impossible arrangements. That means that it will be difficult to transfer from that position, which applies to all Eastern bloc countries. The transition must be managed gradually and we must help.
I was sorry that the Minister who introduced this debate said nothing specific on this matter. Perhaps the Minister who winds up will do better. At the summit in Paris this weekend the Community should try to put together a package of credit, and technological and managerial assistance, to help with proposals related to joint ventures and food assistance—particularly to Poland —which they can put to Presidents Bush and Gorbachev when they meet early next year.
It is too soon to talk of associate status for eastern European countries within the European Community, but I hope that the Government are alive to the useful role that the Council of Europe can play in providing a bridge between East and West for information and contact.
I could speak at much greater length and I apologise to Conservative Members; perhaps I have been a bit self-indulgent because there are not many Members present.
I shall conclude by making two points. First, the huge changes in the East which we so enormously welcome will not be confirmed and advanced by the European Community hesitating to seek to weld itself closer together. That suggestion, which was contained in the Prime Minister's Mansion house speech, was wrong. Secondly, we in Britain must finally face up to the fact that our future lies not in clinging to illusory sovereignty, but in committing ourselves wholeheartedly to work with other countries of similar sizes and shared cultures and experiences in the European Community, which will be some kind of federal solution. Let us stop pretending that we can do everything ourselves and are cleverer than everyone else. The future lies in working with others in Europe.
7.13 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: There can be no doubt that recent events in eastern Europe will dramatically change the lives, not only of the people living in the countries directly involved, but, to a considerable extent, the rest of us who live in Europe and even beyond. While I am delighted at the prospect of freedom and democracy spreading eastwards. I urge the greatest possible caution in the period ahead which could well usher in a time of great instability.
412
I shall briefly consider what is happening and point to an existing stable framework which might be used to enable the changes taking place to proceed in the safest and most orderly way. As a member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, I believe that these two organisations are uniquely placed to play a key role in the changing pattern of Europe. I shall explain why later. However, before doing so I shall consider three aspects of the changes now occurring: why they are happening, what uncertainties they will usher in and how we should react.
The first question we must ask is not why the East German people have streamed through the Berlin wall or why democracy is being returned to Poland and Hungary, but why the authorities have allowed it to happen instead of rolling out the tanks, Chinese fashion, as they might have done years ago to quell what was happening. All this must have been sanctioned by Moscow, and again we must ask why.
The high level of military spending in Russia may well place an intolerable burden on its ramshackle economy. There is no doubt that its power is being eroded and its involvement with Afghanistan showed it the folly of following military excursions, and also cost a great deal. There may now exist in Russia a general and genuine desire to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. That may be true but, if so, we must again ask why tanks, aircraft and submarines are still being built at a steady and alarming rate.
The Soviet Union's intentions may be totally benign. It is quite reasonable to suppose that it is now prepared to try democracy and capitalism, but the result of the recent actions has been to introduce into Europe the greatest note of uncertainty for 40 years. More potential damage has been done to the western Alliance and NATO by the knocking down of the Berlin wall than Russia's massive armaments programme ever achieved. If the intention was to create uncertainty and a weakening of its opposition, these recent changes could be the most effective offensive Russia has so far launched, without the need so much as to lift a rifle.
As a result of these actions, uncertainty abounds for many good reasons. We do not know the reasoning behind these changes at the highest level. The outcome of the move towards democracy and freedom in the East is still unknown. We do not know why President Gorbachev surfaced in the Soviet Union, what support he currently enjoys and, more important, how long he will remain in office. The role of the European Community in all this is uncertain. There is a very real possibility of the unification of Germany. Most important of all, there is the effect of all this on the Warsaw Pact, NATO and our indispensable American allies.
Tonight is not the time to go into detailed debates about exactly what will happen over the weeks and months ahead. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) talked about what hon. Members from both sides of the House wanted to see in Germany. It is not a matter of what any of us want, but of what will happen. If, as many people believe and expect, Germany is reunified—perhaps sooner rather than later—it will clearly be important for that country to be stitched comfortably and happily into the fabric of Europe.
In the midst of all this uncertainty, how should the United Kingdom respond? Our response should take advantage of all that is happening in order to improve the

413
freedom, democracy, safety and stability of Europe as a whole, without in the slightest way reducing—except by negotiation and verification—the West's defensive position and watchfulness. What is necessary is a framework, flexible enough to allow beneficial changes to take place but firm enough to provide the stability needed in times of change and perhaps also able to act as a benchmark against which to measure change and judge exactly what adaptations to the existing framework, which has kept the peace for 40 years, are most likely to lead to a more co-operative and secure Europe. I believe that in conjunction with other organisations the Council of Europe and the Western European Union have key roles to play in these matters.
The Council of Europe, uniquely, embraces every democracy in Europe and in a unique breakthrough earlier this year granted Russia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia guest status. Those countries now join us at our parliamentary assemblies in Strasbourg and no longer simply observe our proceedings but, in fact, participate in our debates in the Assembly and will increasingly be involved in all aspects of the Council of Europe's work. The House will, I am sure, recall that it was to the Council of Europe that President Gorbachev chose to come earlier this year to make his historic speech about our "common European home".
So, a working forum already exists which will enable discussions to take place between East and West on all these issues in the widest possible European context—a forum in which, as West Germany is already a member, the future of East Germany could most naturally be debated.
The other organisation that surely has a crucial part to play is the Western European Union, which is currently being enlarged to embrace Spain and Portugal and which has in recent years been reactivated and is playing an ever-increasing part in European defence.
It has been suggested that as West Germany is already part of the European Community, East Germany can simply join as well. It is, however, a common market, not a defensive organisation, and while this move may be helpful in many ways, it is clearly not a complete or even adequate answer. The Western European Union, however, which has both West Germany and France as members, and which is entirely concerned with defence, is the obvious organisation to discuss the future position of eastern Germany in military terms.
The fact that the USSR is now able to enter into debates at the Council of Europe must be a help in the whole process, and it is for these reasons that I believe that both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union have vital parts to play in these rapidly changing times.
May I just enter a note of caution on placing too much emphasis on the personality and motives of any particular leader or trying to wish ourselves into a happier, freer Europe, which may still be quite a long way away? In matters of defence, the heart must never be allowed to rule the head. I have already said that none of us knows exactly what reasons lie behind the present situation and it would, in my view, be fatal to build, shape, or even alter, however slightly, our defence policy on the basis of what we guess may or may not be in the minds of other nations' leaders —in Russia or elsewhere. It is rather like expecting the
414
Politburo to agree to disband the Warsaw pact simply because they have come to a unanimous conclusion that our Prime Minister is "a good egg". Our defensive disposition must be totally unchanged by recent events until we see how matters develop. Provided our guard is kept firmly up, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Finally, while the full effects of recent events are unfolding and to ensure that constructive dialogue continues, I very much hope that both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union will be given the maximum encouragement by all Governments concerned to play their part.
7.22 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on developments in the European Community between January and June this year when a total of 410 European documents were deposited in Parliament. It is important to take part in this debate for no less a reason than that many of my constituents seem to believe that 1992 is to be the celebration year of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and do not seem to realise that 1992 has some important implications for the European scene.
It is tempting to explore the many subjects referred to in the documents, many of which are extremely important, such as the reference to the change in the blood alcohol level that will be brought forward in new directives on the breathalyser test. That is an important matter because in this country we still have the spectre of as many as 1,000 drivers a year being involved in fatal accidents while in excess of the legal alcohol limit. The document refers also to the problem of water pollution that is caused by nitrates and to the difficulty of harmonising tyre depth treads, on which we were unique in opposing the European Commission's proposals. There is also the matter of the lorry weight derogations.
When one reads these documents, it is important to do so carefully to find out what the Government are saying about what is happening. A classic example is the position regarding heavy lorries. Paragraph 1.16 on page 6 points out:
"the United Kingdom's existing derogation from the Community weights and dimensions for 5 and 6 axled vehicles should continue until 31 December 1998."
Paragraph 7.13 on page 20 states:
"derogations … should end on 31 December 1998."
Those two paragraphs say exactly the same thing. The second paragraph clearly points to the fact that by the end of December 1998 there will be 44-tonne lorries on British roads and, by then, the weight maximum will probably be 50 tonnes. Without careful reading, it is difficult to deduce what the Government are allowed to derogate and what they are not. One must read such documents closely.
Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the derogation won by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport was substantially better than that originally proposed by the European Commission and that he should be talking about 40-tonne lorries, not 44-tonne lorries?
Mr. Wardell: Yes, I accept that the former Secretary of State for Transport won that derogation, but I should have preferred him to do better and to ensure that such lorries will not be allowed on Britain's roads until the

415
bridges in this country can accommodate the loads that those lorries will impose on them. I am extremely concerned that we ensure that when that derogation becomes invalid or is completed at the end of 1998, resources should be made available to ensure that that will not pose a major threat to our existing infrastructure.
I listened carefully to the Minister and to what he said about how well we are performing relative to other European Community countries in our compliance with various directives and regulations. In the intervention that he kindly allowed me to make, I referred to environmental pollution and pointed out that the way in which the Department of the Environment deliberately avoided implementing the bathing water directive of 1976 was something of which the Government should be ashamed.
The Government defined a "bathing beach" by the numbers of people using the beaches, in such a way that not one single beach in Wales could be classified as a bathing beach. The Government then said that that directive therefore did not apply to any beach in the Principality. That has meant that raw sewage is still poured into the sea from about 120 short sea outfalls. We need to accept that such things are happening. It is a pity that the Department of the Environment was not big enough—I do not mean in size, but in its moral attitude and stance—to admit that that was a deliberate way to avoid and evade that important directive.
I am concerned about the way in which the House deals with European legislation. The Select Committee on European Legislation said in its report that an inquiry is taking place into the way that legislation arises. Paragraph 15.4 of the Select Committee report states:
"In two cases the Council adopted a common position on a proposal before the debate recommended by the Select Committee could be arranged."
A Minister may go to the Council of Ministers and make a decision, but there is not enough time for the House to debate the issue. I find it completely unacceptable that the House is denied the opportunity to debate matters of concern
I hesitate to say this as I may be incorrect, but I imagine that very few right hon. and hon. Members know that every hon. Member is automatically a member of the Standing Committee on European Community Documents and has the right to attend its meetings. That ignorance is a great shame, because, although hon. Members cannot vote, it would be an interesting spectacle to see most of us turning up to one of the debates and to discover what contribution we could make.
It is a great disadvantage to the people of Wales that no Welsh Office Minister, including the Secretary of State, has ever been to a meeting of the Council of Ministers. I find it incredible that the way countries vote in the Council of Ministers is not recorded. It is high time that the way in which Ministers vote is made known, so that we understand the exact position of each country.
I can think of two examples which illustrate the inadequacy of current procedures, and both involve industries which are important to the United Kingdom —steel and aluminium. The beverage container directive of some years ago would have dealt a major blow to the only three plants in Britain that manufactured tin plate which were located in south Wales. Sadly, their number has now declined to two—in Trostre and in Ebbw Vale. They would have been decimated if the directive had been implemented in its original form. However, the director of
416
British Steel's tin plate division telephoned me a few days before the Standing Committee met. He knew nothing about the directive that was being considered in the House, and he had no opportunity to discuss it with right hon. and hon. Members.
The second example is this year's hazardous waste directive, which proposes a bizarre definition of waste. For example, material which is a by-product from nickel or aluminium plants is regarded as waste, when it is a valuable commodity elsewhere in the industry. The Aluminium Federation did not know that that important draft directive was being considered in the House.
I hope that there will be major reforms in the way in which directives are dealt with following the Select Committee on European Legislation's report and recommendations. Some 410 documents have been deposited in the House. Few of them have seen the light of day for detailed consideration and that worries me greatly.
I find it infuriating to witness the Prime Minister remaining obdurate in her isolation against the proposed social charter for human rights. The Prime Minister said at the Madrid summit on 27 June this year:
"The Council's conclusions on this subject recognise that the highest priority is to create the conditions for more jobs. The Government do not believe that the Community's proposed social charter would help to achieve this aim. Indeed, we believe that imposing extra burdens on industry would make the Community less competitive."
That seems like a voice from the past—more in line with the Ottoman empire in decline. It is the voice of a state in disarray. That is an anachronistic and moribund view. It offers us the bizarre spectacle of Britain as the poor man of Europe, deeply worried that Greece, Portugal and Spain are keen to implement the social charter to ensure that the increased competition generated by the single market does not drag down wages and working conditions to the lowest common denominator.
I do not go along with the Prime Minister's philosophy. I would rather take a different view—that of the report drawn up on behalf of the EC Committee on Social Affairs and Employment on the social dimension of the internal market, on 23 February this year, which shows why we need the social charter. It says:
"The completion of the internal market should not be used, therefore, to undermine established social standards in the Member States by reference to job losses as a result of excessive wage levels by comparison with those in Member States. The social framework of the internal market should not be left to market decisions, but must be regulated at Community level. In the field of the health and safety of workers in particular it is essential that national provisions should be harmonized. Product-related provisions must therefore be harmonized at the highest possible level to ensure that a worker is not at greater risk merely because he is operating a machine for which the safety standard differs from that operated by his colleague. Within workplaces, non-product-related labour protection can be regulated on the basis of the highest possible minimum standards. Countries with higher levels of labour protection should not be allowed to reduce them."
I apologise for the length of that quotation, but it makes my point.
The social charter offers the citizens of post-1992 Europe the prospect of social improvements, especially in living and working conditions, social protection, education and training.
When the summit meeting of the European Council takes place on 8 and 9 December, Opposition Members will hope that there is a unanimous decision to adopt the

417
charter. There is no longer any merit in striving for political machismo by flexing one's muscles in a minority of one.
7.38 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to the Select Committee on Procedure and to an examination of the scrutiny procedures of the House. I agreed with many of the points he made, but as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I should emphasise that paragraph 15(2) on page 33 of the White Paper states:
"the Lord President said that the European Legislation Committee did a very good job and he did not see any need to make many changes to the basic system, but thought that the way European legislation was handled in the House could be improved".
Recently there have been a couple of press leaks which suggest that, in about three weeks, the Select Committee on Procedure will produce what appear to be extremely interesting and admirable suggestions. As a member of the EC Scrutiny Committee—perhaps I can engage the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—I hope that those suggestions will not fundamentally change the way in which that Committee functions.
Mr. William Powell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dykes: I shall give way in a moment, but I am rather worried about the time available for remaining speeches.
The European Legislation Committee acts as a sifting mechanism. I do not say that to defend, in any way, a vested interest—far from it. The sifting and advisory directional functions of that Committee—it could suggest to other Select Committees that they might consider investigating a particular area—represents a welcome matrix. I shall give way to my hon. Friend without, I hope, incurring your displeasure, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. William Powell: As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure I can tell my hon. Friend that he is not likely to be disappointed.
Mr. Dykes: I am grateful. That is a vindication of the thing of which all hon. Members should be proud—the fact that we have the strongest scrutiny procedures of the member states. The Minister said that earlier. That scrutiny is a good and a bad thing. It is good because it shows, once again, that the House is addicted to careful and meticulous scrutiny of national governmental and Community decisions. We notice, however, that an enormous quantity of national public spending goes through here late at night and is voted upon without many people paying much attention. We cannot, however, do everything perfectly.
The bad effect of such scrutiny is that it engenders over-preoccupation and anxiety. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was right when he said there was an anxiety about leaping into the dark. Although we joined the Community in 1973, it is still seen by some as a perilous and dangerous institution. The reaction provoked by such scrutiny may be, "You be careful what those foreigners are up to, George, or we will
418
really be in trouble." I use the name George in the symbolic sense and I am not referring to any particular Minister or Opposition spokesman. We should get away from such an attitude.
Without sounding oppressive to my colleagues, I must say that we have had a series of fantasy speeches today about the realities of the Community. It is rather disturbing that many of those speeches were made by my hon. Friends rather than Opposition Members. A fantasy feeling abounded about the attitude of the Germans. The German dream of reunification is perhaps the most powerful cement that binds those two nations. It is absurd to believe that we or any other European country could say, "We know that, after the war, we said that you should be united and that it was terrible to have a divided Germany, but we were, in fact, only pretending." Imagine suggesting to the Germans that we have our old ideal blueprint for them and then accusing them of being aggressive and militaristic should they refuse to accept it. That is totally absurd.
The Germans also suffered enormously during the second world war—6·5 million of its people were killed. The nation suffered at the hands of the Nazi terror gang that seized power without any parliamentary majority in 1933. Unlike after the end of the first world war, however, the Germans, especially in the western part, were treated well in 1945. The story of the eastern part was a sad one, but the treatment meted out to those Germans by the Soviets later improved somewhat. After the second world war, however, the West Germans were brought into the comity of nations and they were not excluded as in 1918. No revanchism has arisen and we all view with admiration the firmly anchored tradition of moderate politics and moderate economics in the Federal Republic.
The process of reunification is a complicated matter. I believe that whatever form it may take, however, it will happen faster rather than slower than expected. The East Germans are motivated by two principal aspirations. One is reunification, but, at the moment, the main one is the search for freedom, participation in Government and exercising their choice. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I do not believe that East Germans are on the verge of embracing Horatio Alger-type capitalism. I would be delighted if that were so, because, as a Conservative, I believe that free enterprise is the best means of economic organisation.
I believe that the East Germans are still addicted to their Socialist form of society, but that they want social democracy and freedom of choice within that framework. Perhaps a small minority will become addicted to the capitalist system later on. If the vast proportion of the new, greater united Germany remains relatively heavily collectivistic but socially democratic, and West Germany remains a much more mixed capitalist system—we are told that that system operates a high degree of regulation and is inefficient in some respects, but for all that it is an amazing economic miracle—those differences will gradually fade away. The similarities between the systems will then begin to emerge.
Why cannot such changes take place within the context of the European Community? It is manifestly ridiculous for people now to suggest that because of the interesting, fascinating and heart-warming upsurges in eastern European countries and in East Germany with the breaching of the wall, that means that there should be an end to any programme of integration and European

419
union. It would be absurd to suggest that the Community should pause for several decades to wait for the complicated east European geo-political processes to be worked out into a final result. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The 11 member states—perhaps I should say 10, as Greece remains an awkward member of the Community—are committed, enthusiastic perpetrators and exponents of increasing and developing European integration and union, including monetary union. Once again the danger is that the United Kingdom remains on the sidelines of that process looking unenthusiastic, curmudgeonly and churlish. That does not serve the interests of our people. The Government show enormous enthusiasm, however, for particular areas of Community policy—the internal market is one good example. On 4 May I asked the then Paymaster General, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
"Will my right hon. Friend respond positively to the idea of contracts being gradually and increasingly in ecus as well as in national currencies?"
My right hon. Friend replied:
"The British Government in their separate actions have shown an enthusiasm for such ecu transactions and have regarded them as a much more sensible and practical way forward."—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 440]
That is a good example of our enthusiasm for developing European instruments of one kind or another. We make the mistake, once again, however, of not approaching all developments with common enthusiasm. I do not suggest that the Government should agree every jot and tittle and every proposal in a rigid framework. We should try, however, to emulate the enthusiasm of the newest member state, Spain. That country is obviously enthusiastic because of the benefits that will come to Spain as a result of its membership, but its enthusiasm for the Community is genuine. We should share the interests and enthusiasms of the other member states for developing all the aspects of integration mentioned in the Single European Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—he is not present at the moment —persists in arguing that other proposals for European union, apart from the internal market, are not mentioned in the Act, but that is not so.
We have nothing to lose from our enthusiasm and everything to gain. The fantasy that we should hold on to our national sovereignty, like some old-fashioned concept which overrides all other considerations, is manifestly absurd. Why are we not worried about the seeming loss of sovereignty in NATO? In NATO it is almost possible—I say "almost" to exaggerate the point—for an American Commander-in-Chief to order this country to war. Our sovereignty is subsumed in NATO in terms of voting and collective decisions. We should consider the European Community in the same light as NATO.
In the process of obfuscation and myopia, which continues to represent our rather silly, old-fashioned attitude towards the European Community, we misrepresent—sometimes, unfortunately, in a rather offensive manner—the proposals of Mr. Delors. We misrepresent the remit given to him by the Council of Ministers in respect of European monetary union and regarding the other proposals he makes as a senior member of the European Commission. The Delors blueprint was a blueprint only because the Council of Ministers and the central bankers committee specifically requested that
420
blueprint. That does not mean that it is rigidly couched and cannot be negotiated on in terms of the stages not yet agreed.
The Madrid meeting agreed to stage 1 only. I believe that there is plenty of room for compromise, flexibility, agreement and give and take in the later stages. Notwithstanding the polite response of the Bundesbank president—his response may have been dictated by devious reasons as he is a devious as well as an extremely witty gentleman—we are making a mistake by, once again, being the odd man out. We have said that we have our own rather special esoteric "free-market forces in competing currencies" document and that is what should be accepted. We are continually selective, to the irritation of our European partners, and that is a grave mistake.
There is misunderstanding not only of Delors's aspirations as president of the Commission, but about the form that the Community will probably take in future. It will not be some rigid, bureaucratic, centralised body directed by a Brussels bureaucracy which is a single governmental entity. The accidental modern American definition of federal government as a single government entity is a historic aberration. Federalism did not originally mean that. It meant what nationalists in Britain presumably aspire to—a federation of powerful component elements with a weak central authority embracing the whole federation which carries out only the functions common to all the components, as agreed by the components.
Perhaps that is not possible now because of centrifugal forces within a country and between member states in a cohesive grouping, such as the European Community. No one in the Community has suggested that Europe should have one Government. A federal system would be a co-operative structure based on majority voting and the Single European Act with each sovereign Government willingly pooling its sovereignty and agreeing to the necessary treaty changes arising therefrom.
Mr. Janman: I am interested in my hon. Friend's definition of federalism and his reference to the United States. Does he agree that the Delors report in its present form, which proposes a single currency in Europe and a central bank, would make national decisions on monetary, budgetary and fiscal policy meaningless? That is centralisation, as opposed to the federalism of the United States where individual states have federal power over their budgets.
Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into detail. Delors and his colleagues were asked to produce a tightly drawn-up blueprint and that has been done. It does not mean that matters will not be negotiated and then changed. I do not want us to reject those proposals.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman also reject the idea that there will be some sort of European Government one day? I trust not.
Mr. Dykes: I would not necessarily reject that. Although I am regarded as a Eurofanatic—whatever that may be—I do not see a federal Europe as a single governmental entity. We are developing a unique new mechanism which will be the pattern for the future. That is historically exciting. The future is unascertainable even

421
to the sage Members of the Social and Liberal Democrats. None of us can tell the future. There will not be a menace to this country.
If we had the economic authority and success of some other member nations, people in Brussels would not laugh when we said, "We have lessons, strictures and advice on economics and politics to hand out to you. Please listen to us because we know better." It is absurd for us to do that until we have a more successful economy. Sadly, despite well-meaning propaganda, which I use in my speeches outside the House, we have not had a supply-side miracle yet, although I hope that we shall have one soon.
I hope that we shall not be too selective and say, "the internal market is wonderful. With free enterprise, it is easy to achieve. How dare other member states be so slow?", but in other areas say, "No that is dangerous, we must not do that. We must go slowly and not make haste."
On 12 July I asked my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
"There is a certain amount of puzzlement in Athens because, when it comes to social charter provisions, the differences between countries and traditions are too great to make any similarity possible whereas in respect of the internal market, for ecomomic and financial reasons, it is possible for us to achieve total harmony within a few years. Why is there a difference in the British Government's attitude to those two aspects?"
She answered:
"As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, the difference is that we believe that the social dimension should help to improve economic performance across Europe. It is clear that the Council of Europe social charter, which provided a framework, was a very good text, but it did not extend to deciding at European level those matters that we properly believe should be decided by each nation state. We know that liberalisation and deregulation are the only way to achieve economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. We believe that we should be entitled, in accordance with the Commission's principle of subsidiarity to decide which way the country goes."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 966.]
In Brussels that is seen as a glaring contradiction of our attitude to the internal market. It is a pity that such glaring contradictions persist in our attitude to Europe.
7.54 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), speaking as a representative of the Western European Union, asked about the motivation behind changes in the Soviet Union and other parts of eastern Europe. It may be instructive to ponder the words of the Italian leader of the Communist party, Antonio Gramsci, who accurately defined a crisis as something that happens when the old order is dying but the new order has not yet been born.
When we witness, particularly in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, the collapse of an ideology, we should bear in mind that the Marxist ideology is a secular religion, if that is not a contradiction. Marxists believed that Marxism and Leninism provided a scientific methodology according to which they could understand the history of the world and, more importantly, its future. They carried that certainty with them from the October revolution of 1917 until the times of Leonid Brezhnev. Since then, we have witnessed in the Communist parties of the Soviet Union and its satellites the collapse of that so-called scientific certainty. We have seen ideological collapse and intellectual
422
bankruptcy. Once Communist parties reached the stage of ceasing to believe in the inner core of what motivated them, change was bound to arise.
What changes are we likely to see in east and west Europe as a result of recent events? I do not speak simply as a partisan who dislikes the Prime Minister's ideology when I say that I was disappointed by her speech at the Mansion house. However, she was right when she said that recent changes in eastern Europe represent danger. Everyone accepts that at times one has to be cautious. The one concept that did not come through in her speech was an understanding of the opportunities now opening up in both east and west Europe for a permanent settlement of the post-1945 situation, which many people thought was permanent, but proved to be impermanent. I was struck by the Prime Minister's attitude. She seemed to regard events, particularly in East Germany, as a chance to launch a tactical attack against those arguing for greater integration and unity. She seemed to present the usual Downing street tunnel vision precisely when a wider understanding was needed from the head of the British Government.
As someone who wishes Scotland to be separate from the British state and separately represented in the European Community, I am frustrated that folk like me will be represented at the Paris summit by the lady in Downing street who does not reflect majority Scottish opinion about developments in eastern Europe.
Recent events in eastern Europe were a shock to the regimes in power there. It seems to have been quite a shock to folk in the west, too. I was entertained on Sunday by an article by Bruce Anderson in The Sunday Telegraph in which he said that some people may be nostalgic for the stability of the cold war. Such nostalgia has been displayed in the debate tonight and in several public statements by individuals from various interest groups. I was surprised that people were taken aback when German reunification came back on to the agenda. From the moment when change began in the Soviet Union, I thought that the reunification of Germany was bound to re-emerge as the cardinal political dispute in Europe.
I welcome the reunification of Germany. There can be no permanent settlement of post-war Europe or any serious development of unity within the European Community without that reunification. It is central and it must be dealt with. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—I hope that he does not mind me calling him that—I was disturbed by the note of apprehension in a number of speeches today about a reunified Germany. It is not justified.
The people of West Germany have a history which everyone knows, but they have had decades of democratic development; their democratic roots have grown deep in their political culture. They have prosecuted their Nazi war criminals and made atonement for what was done between 1939 and 1945. There must come a time when we stop telling 19 and 20-year-old West and East Germans that they are guilty of what their grandfathers did. They have a good record of the development of democracy.
The green movement is a good example of this. It originated in Germany and it could have sprung only from a society that is concerned about the whole of humanity —the global village.
Since 1945, the people of East Germany have been subjected to Stalinist propaganda—a superior type of malign propaganda—yet at the end of it they are as thirled

423
to the idea of freedom and democracy as anyone else. They managed to withstand that sort of assault on their intellects, which says a great deal for their quality and worth.
We should approach German people as we would any others. We all have things in the history of our countries of which to be ashamed, and people should be examined in terms of what they have done recently and of their potential for a constructive contribution in the years that lie ahead.
We must accommodate the reunification of Germany. I do not suggest that that will be easy or that other states will have no opinions about it. We are involved in the geopolitics of western Europe and of the Soviet Union and the United States. We all recognise—some of us emphasise it more than others—that the Soviet Union is paranoid about the necessity of some buffer between it and what it reckons to be a potential Western enemy. We may deplore that historical fact and say that it is unjustified, but it is a geopolitical fact of life, and the Soviet Union's point of view will be important.
However, the fundamental right of the people of Germany to be reunified must be recognised, and all the pieces on the political chessboard must be moved to accommodate it.
Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman mentioned regimes disintegrating. My point was that, if that is happening, it is within the power of some of those regimes to make sure that they do not disintegrate. They have done so in the past; this time for some reason, they are choosing not to.
My other point was about the great dangers in the changeover period. I am as keen to welcome it as anyone, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that now that people are talking about the reunification of Germany, the implications of that for the Warsaw pact and NATO and defence generally—I am not talking about the Common Market—are enormous? I am worried about the instability and the problems that we face in getting it right.
Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman sounds as though he ghosted the article in the Yorkshire Post which was written by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who managed to get through the entire article about problems in the East without ever mentioning the European Community.
I can understand people's anxiety about NATO and the Warsaw pact. and I do not suggest for a moment that they should voluntarily dissolve themselves tomorrow morning. They are part of the geopolitical chessboard about which I was talking earlier. Of course the interests of the core group in each of these alliances must be taken into account, but I am coming to some practical suggestions on how we can constructively seize the opportunity to tackle the problem.
One of the biggest factors in the continuing instability is the economic crisis in the eastern zone; another is the political problem that Mr. Gorbachev faces. It is strangely paradoxical that Gorbachev is much more popular outside the Soviet Union than inside it. Cries of "Gorby, Gorby" are heard on the streets of West Germany, but not in Moscow or Kiev and certainly not in the Baltic states. Unless we assist the Gorbachev faction—he represents an important school of thought inside the Soviet Communist party—to remain in the ascendancy, problems in the Soviet Union can spill over and create further instability.
424
We should be concerned about underpinning the Gorbachev faction and about how to remove some of the instability. My party has written to the Foreign Secretary about this.
We do not suggest starting at the highest political point of discussion. There are three major trading groups in Europe—the COMECON countries, the European Community and the EFTA countries. The European Community is the most cohesive group—a voluntary political and economic partnership which has existed for some time and shown the capacity to expand and absorb new members. It has an agreement about the coordination of foreign policy and we are approaching the single European market. It also has a monetary system from which but a few recalcitrant people dissent. The EC is the biggest, most powerful group in terms of economic power. We suggest that it takes the initiative and calls a major conference of these three trading groups so that the whole of Europe can sit down together, analyse and agree on the problems and then begin to solve them, to create better trade between West and East by studying and understanding each other's systems.
There will need to be more investment in the East by the West. Because of the system on the other side of the former iron curtain, that will have to be done through institutional methods, not the methods of the Western liberal democracies. We shall need to consider how we can transfer technology from the West to the East to raise the competence of its economies, and to consider how we can help train the East's manpower—senior and middle management—to cope with the trading opportunities that should flow from better relations between West and East. This conference and decisions on trading would be a mechanism of practical co-operation with beneficial results for the economies of eastern Europe. If we can start to raise the standard of living of these folk, we shall remove a great deal of the tension and instability.
The Scottish National party's final point concerns what will happen at the summit between Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, which has been described by Gennady Gerasimov as "from Yalta to Malta". There is a big difference between Yalta and Malta: there were more than two people at Yalta, but there will be only two at Malta. As a European, I object to this sort of summit taking place with us excluded from it. I read that President Mitterrand was hoping that this week's Paris summit would make representations to President Bush to the effect that he would talk on our behalf when he met Gorbachev, but that is unacceptable in principle and in practice and it is not sensible from the point of view of the development of Europe.
The Soviet Union and the United States of America remain nuclear super-powers, but their recent history shows that they are no longer political super-powers. The European Community, along with other peoples in Europe, should be saying to those at that summit, "You may meet on this occasion on your own, but on future occasions, particularly if there are substantive matters concerning the development of unity within Europe, we shall invite you to our summit." That rather alters the basis on which the power equation is established.
We have been disturbed by the negative tone and approach from the British Government. It looks as though history is about to repeat itself. The Government have missed nearly every European bus, and it looks as if they are going to miss this one.
8.10 pm
Mr. John Marshall: We welcome and note the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to Europe, but he said that this is a Government without a vision on Europe. It is pretty rum for any speaker from the Labour party to complain about the Government's vision on Europe. During the six months covered by the report, the British Labour group in the European Parliament was led by a committed opponent of the European Community and British membership of it. During the past five years, two former leaders of the British Labour group in the European Parliament were thrown out because they dared to support the principle of British membership. The British Labour party in Strasbourg did not show much European vision.
As to the British Labour party in the House of Commons and Britain, its policy veers from bitter opposition to the Community to lukewarm support for it. It has more often shown downright hostility, and when it has not shown that, it has indulged in niggling criticism. The Labour party has no grounds for boasting of its vision on Europe. On the other hand, all the major developments in the European Community over the past 10 years have been the result of actions taken by the Government. The campaign for fairness in the European budget was essentially a British campaign, as was the pressure to secure changes in the common agricultural policy. The whole 1992 programme, which will bring so many benefits to everyone, was essentially a British campaign.
While others have been willing to make fiery speeches and indulge in European rhetoric about the ideals of the internal market, they have at the same time been willing to impose restrictions and to indulge in chauvinism. We do not need to be lectured on our commitment to Europe or our commitment to freedom by the French and Italians, who still impose exchange controls, or by the Germans, who are quite happy to indulge in a less than free market in financial services. No one can criticise the Conservative party for a lack of vision on Europe, because the British Government have been both practical and visionary in their approach to this issue.
Sometimes, our debates about Europe are dominated by whether Britain should remain in the Community. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will yet again raise that issue. However, we should recognise where the tide of history is. It is clear that the destiny of the United Kingdom is increasingly involved with that of our European partners. We have to recognise that Europe takes 50 per cent. of our exports and provides the basis of our defence. Those who seek to deny that our future is in the European Community are seeking, Canute-like, to stop the tide of history.
During the six months covered by this report, the chief issues were the future of the European monetary system, 1992 and the social charter. A number of outside commentators speak as if entry into the exchange rate mechanism would act as a panacea for the British economy, remove uncertainty over currency movements and, somehow or other, lead to faster growth and lower inflation. However, if we look at the way that the British economy compares with those of other countries in the ERM, we see that our inflation rate has been lower than
426
some and that our growth rate is higher than that of West Germany and other members. Those who argue that there should be early British membership of the exchange rate mechanism may be guilty of committing the same mistake that we committed in 1925, when we joined the gold standard at the wrong rate of exchange. If we were to join the ERM at current deutschmark-sterling parity, we would be doing a gross disservice to British exporters and those who are competing with continental manufacturers in the British market.
Those who argue that we should join the ERM now ignore the fact that when the French and the Italians remove their exchange control restrictions, the ERM will be a highly volatile organisation. It is surely better for us to join after all that volatility and change have taken place rather than get on, helter-skelter, just before it may, if not get out of control, have a rocky ride. Some say that we should join the ERM not for economic but for political reasons, but we do not need to join the ERM to prove ourselves to be a good European power. We have shown over the past 10 years that we have a strong commitment to the European Community and it is not necessary to join that talisman to demonstrate that commitment yet again.
The social charter poses a great threat not only to the United Kingdom but to other countries in the European Community. We have to recognise that within Europe there are wide variations in living standards, productivity and efficiency in industry. If we seek, through the social charter, to impose standardised obligations throughout the Community, the chief victims of those standardised obligations will be those who live in the poorest parts of the Community.
It is wonderful to stand up and say that we are all for the social charter, but we should ask ourselves what it will do to employment in the Community. Will it encourage the creation of more jobs? I doubt it. What will it do to internationally mobile investment? We in the United Kingdom are pleased by the large number of American and Japanese companies that come to invest here. Will the social charter encourage one internationally mobile company to come to the European Community? Of course it will not. It will act as a deterrent to future investment, restrict economic growth and therefore reduce job opportunities.
The policies of Jacques Delors—remembering what happened in Northern Ireland we might almost call them de Lorean dreams as they would be even more expensive than that venture—must be put on hold because of what is happening in the East. It is not sufficient to say to the people of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany that we are willing to consider their countries joining the Community in association. After all, when Spain, Portugal and Greece threw off the yoke of dictatorship in the 1970s, we welcomed their applications to join. We must look forward to a Community that includes Eastern European countries now within the Warsaw pact. Were we to do that, we would do a major deal for peace in the whole of Europe and for future prosperity. If we proceed quickly with the Delors proposals it would do nothing to encourage those countries to join the Community and it may discourage them. If we look to the future, there is great merit in saying that we should put all these proposals on hold for at least 12 months to see what is going to happen elsewhere in the world.

427
I will now turn to the attitude of Europe to the rest of the world post-1992. It is fashionable to make wonderful, visionary speeches—that is what the Opposition would call them—about the attitude of Europe to the Third world and other countries and to say that the European Community will not indulge in the fortress-Europe policies that we all condemn. However, so far fortress-Europe is winning. The common agricultural policy is based upon the concept of Community preference, which says that if we can grow it in Europe, we should buy it from the European grower and not import it unless it is unavoidable. The EEC sugar regime is based upon the concept of dumping sugar on the Third-world market, pauperising the Third-world growers and then taking a little sugar back and saying that we are being good. That policy has pauperised many Third world economies.
The essence of the broadcasting directive, which is referred to in the document we are debating, is to restrict the amount of television that is produced by non-Community producers. Surely that should be left to the viewer to decide. Some time ago, when there was a difficulty in the Community's photocopier industry, it was solved by putting tariffs on Japanese imports. Again, the Community was saying that it would restrict competition in the Community market in order to restrict one Community producer and make it more difficult for people to import into the Community. The Community does not have a good record in respect of fortress Europe.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will emphasise the British Government's commitment to that philosophy. Unfortunately, it is not a philosophy that is always shared by the Commission in Brussels, nor by the President of the Commission, who, as a good Socialist does not think too much of the consumer but is more concerned with the producer.
8.21 pm
Mr. William Powell: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and my hon. Friend the Minister reminded us that the subject for debate is developments in the European Community until 30 June this year. However, since then we have been overwhelmed by events that have made the real topic of discussion almost irrelevant to our proceedings.
Whatever the reason in the past for having twice-yearly debates reflecting upon developments that had finished, some time ago, I hope that this will be the last such debate that occurs in the House. I hope that in future we shall move to a system—the Select Committee on Procedure may have something to say on this in its soon-to-bepublished report—of twice-yearly debates taking place just before the European summit meetings so that hon. Members have an opportunity of looking forward to what those summit meetings might achieve rather than looking back upon events which may be in the dim and distant past.
The Select Committee on Procedure—of which I am a member—will shortly publish a major report which I commend to all hon. Members. It will produce at least some ways in which we can considerably improve the handling of European debates and legislation in the House. Those hon. Members who have referred to the inadequacies of the present procedures are absolutely
428
right. The report will be a solid document and I hope that hon. Members will look at the evidence as well as the conclusions.
During his speech so many hours ago, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the French presidency. I do not wish to be critical of France; far from it. Many of my hon. Friends know that I am an enthusiastic Francophile. I am used to negotiating with the French as my wife is French and it is something that I have to do every day. It is much easier than many hon. Members realise.
However, it has to be said that so far the French presidency has been disappointing. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the success of the Spanish presidency in advancing the single market. That same praise could have been extended to the German presidency just over a year ago. However, the current presidency is not making a great deal of progress. The French still have time to redeem the position and I hope that they will. However, I fear that their single-minded determination to advance the Delors proposals has blinded them to the necessity of proceeding with the 1992 programme as quickly as possible.
I speak as one who has taken an interest in the reform of copyright law in the House. I regret the fact that progress is not being made in establishing the common copyright law for which we had hoped under the French presidency as fast as looked to be possible when the Spanish handed over the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers.
The French appear to want us to join the exchange rate mechanism and appear to he surprised that we are not keen to be involved in that evolving new Community institution. When they express those thoughts, they do so in a rather resentful and critical way rather than in a way that woos us and tries to spell out how advantageous it would be to us if we were in the exchange rate mechanism. It has to be said that that is different from the traditional analysis of the way in which the French character operates when it is trying to get people onto its side. I hope that my remarks about the French presidency will be picked up by them and that they will try to redeem what is proving to be —this is not just my view—a rather disappointing presidency.
I want now to deal with checkpoint Charlie in the American sector of Berlin. Many hon. Members have visited checkpoint Charlie, some on a number of occasions. One of the places most worth visiting there is the museum standing close by. Some museums may be magnificent but essentially dead places recalling the past. There is nothing rich and magnificent about the museum at checkpoint Charlie. However, although it commemorates the dead, it lives; it lives with fire—for freedom. At that museum is celebrated—I use that word deliberately—the 175 people murdered so that they could be free. They were murdered at the Berlin wall. I am amazed that so far during the discussion and with so much public comment made because of the exhilarating events in the past week, we have not taken the time to recall those who gave their lives, not only that they should be free but that others should be free as well. In the past week we have seen the realisation of a dream for which people gave their lives, not just in Berlin but along the length and breadth of the iron curtain from Stettin to Trieste.
The other matter which is not commemorated but appears in the museum is the graphic map of the environs of the city of Berlin—east and west—and around it the

429
disposition of Soviet armed forces. There are 380,000 men and many thousands of tanks and they are the best forces that the Soviet Union is able to deploy. The events of the past week have certainly made that level of deployment no longer necessary. One message which we should send from the House tonight to the President of the United States and the President of the Soviet Union when they meet in a week or two in Malta, is that all Europe will be expecting an agreement from them to lower the threshold of conventional weapons in both the East and the West.
President Bush has already made some notable proposals. Negotiations about them are taking place in Vienna. The very least that should come out of that meeting of the two presidents in the Mediterranean is a reduction in the enormous level of conventional armed forces in both East Germany and West Germany. As Mr. Gorbachev has always been prepared to accept what are called asymmetrical reductions, the size of the Soviet conventional forces is no longer appropriate to the political circumstances in East Germany, the Soviet sector of Germany.
A number of hon. Members have referred to what may or may not happen in eastern Europe in the coming weeks, months and years. The assumption is that these countries are moving towards democracy. May I stress with every sinew in my body that I hope that they are moving towards democracy. At this stage, however, we should make no assumptions. Eastern Europe is an economic disaster area. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the state of the East German economy, with subsidies holding food and house prices down to 1949 levels and further subsidies holding transport prices down to pre-war levels. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to the fact that the ostmark would be no longer a sustainable currency. However, what has happened in eastern Europe for a whole generation amounts to no more than a suspension of the laws of arithmetic. Prices have been held down to levels that no longer reflect economic reality.
The changes that are most likely to come about in eastern Europe are surely these: prices will rise, and they are likely to rise faster than wages and salaries. If they do not, it is extremely likely that the countries of eastern Europe will make no economic progress. If prices rise sharply but wages and salaries do not rise so fast, that will be a recipe for considerable social conflict.
Inflation and social conflict are the most likely outcome of economic developments in eastern Europe during the next few years. Democracy may emerge out of that. Let us all hope so. However, dictatorship of one sort or another is another possible outcome. It would be a very bleak outcome indeed for eastern Europe. We in the West must do all that we can to ensure that that is not the final outcome. It cannot all be done within the space of a week, by means of an instant reaction to these exhilarating events. The West will have to provide capital, education, accountants, managers—just about everything. I have had the opportunity to visit three of those countries during the last few months. Anyone else who has been there, too, will know just how deficient they are in all the elementary things that are needed to sustain economic life. We must
430
all hope that the most optimistic scenario is the one that eventually emerges, but there is a real danger that that may not happen.
The events of the last week cannot now be reversed without shattering consequences for the whole of the continent of Europe. It is still possible that the Red Army could seek to impose law and order in eastern Europe, but if it did it would shatter everything. Eastern Europe would be unable to make the economic advances that it seeks to make. The West has a most profound interest in ensuring that that is not the outcome of future Soviet policy. If, however, the East German regime were to bring down the iron curtain again, the pressure to leave East Germany would be even greater and a gasket would blow. Without question, there would be fighting in the streets in East Germany.
We face very difficult, very testing times. We must hope for the best and most optimistic outcome, but we must be prepared to accept that that may not be the final outcome.
8.35 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is right to be cautious, but he is probably even more right to be hopeful.
On 27 April I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the following question:
"If my right hon. Friend were the Chancellor of the West German Republic, would her main priority not be the unification of Germany and further traditional moves towards involvement with eastern Europe? What does this mean not only for NATO, but for the European Community?"—[Official Report, 27 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 1088.]
My right hon. Friend, quite naturally in those circumstances, was unable to answer the question. I raise it now, six or seven months later, just to point out that there are some who are less fanatic and less myopic in our views about Europe and who have seen, early, the strategic direction in which European developments are likely to take place.
Since January to June this year, the political earth's crust of our continent has been convulsed. The future political geology of Europe is as yet unknown, but one thing is certain: that the landscape has changed out of all recognition. Like the rise and fall of the Roman empire, the EEC—from January to June of this year—is history and it is scarcely more relevant than the Roman empire as a means of seeking the future well-being of Europe. Obviously it would be rash to rule out a takeover by the marshals in Moscow. As my hon. Friend has just said, we must fully maintain our defence posture until we can safely negotiate lower levels of defence and new treaties. However, we must make plans for the development of what Mikhail Gorbachev rightly calls the European home under the more likely conditions of military detente.
During the last fortnight the people of East Germany have diverted the mainstream of the European river into a more exciting, a more positive and a very different course. If I may caution the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), anyone who relies on the old maps and charts is inviting the political equivalent of a disaster of titanic proportions.
Much is unpredicatable, but there are some certainties and they should be defined. First, there will be a united Germany—whether a federal Germany or a confederation it is too early to say. The extent of that united Germany is unknown. It is too early to define. Its role is too early to

431
define. Its relationship with Austria and the other eastern European countries is also too early to define. One thing, however, is certain: that there will be a larger and more powerful German entity. The fourth Reich—if I can simmer down those who get excited by the words—means commonwealth. The fourth Reich of the tabloids is at hand.
Secondly. the defence structures of Europe are bound to change radically. We are not yet in a position to predict the German position in that defence structure, but what we can say now is that Germany herself will make that decision.
Thirdly, the nature of the European Community is about to change radically. It was conceived as an economic and political grouping within western Europe, with its own internal balance of power. Of the 12 nations, four are roughly of the same size, population and importance. However, the new Europe, covering the whole continent, will be a Europe in which one country is more equal and predominant than any of the others.
The old blueprints of the clerks of the European Commission are about as relevant to the future of Europe as bows and arrows are to the future of warfare. The countries of eastern Europe will develop their own democracies, and naturally, at the same time they will be concerned to redevelop and rediscover their own identities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite right. After two generations of totalitarian submergence they will not substitute the central control of Moscow with that of Brussels. Having taken power from their gaolers it is hardly likely that the people of Dresden will hastily hand it back to the beampters of the Berlaymont.
The feeling persists among a shrinking minority of antediluvian federalist dinosaurs who pay court to the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that nothing has happened and that the world is the same—still flat. Their champion is President Mitterrand of France who naively believes that locking the Federal Republic into an ever-tightening EEC will somehow prevent the unification of Germany, and if not, will ensure that what takes place is acceptable to Mr. Delors. They would have slightly less chance of success imprisoning a mature eagle in a soggy cardboard box.
Sir Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marlow: I am sorry but other hon. Members wish to speak.
Sir Russell Johnston: Palaeolithic poppycock.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said, "Palaeolithic poppycock." I reject that totally.
Germany will unite and it will be unified in a manner which is suited and satisfactory to the Germans—not to France and still less to Brussels. As Germany unites, it will progressively develop its penumbra of political and economic power into eastern Europe. As the Gulliver of German manufacturing industry ruptures the Lilliputian constraints of French policy, France may discover—I hope not too late—the traditional attractions of the balance of power—the economic balance of power rather than the military balance of power. Perhaps when the French discover that, they will discover that the country they need most is not Germany but the United Kingdom.
432
Hopefully, their short-term manic obsession with a federal Europe will not lead them to blow up too many bridges which should be maintained against future needs.
Germany, while pursuing the rhetoric of stability and status quo, will quite naturally seek to advance her own interests. She will talk of Delors, but does anyone really believe that she will put European unity ahead of Germany? Would we do that in those circumstances? Given the strategic strength of the German position and the German economy, the only way in which the cup of success can be dashed from her lips would be through the spread of alarm. So it is not surprising that every statement from the Federal Republic will be designed to lessen that alarm. Even so, the reality of German interests will be the driving force of German policy.
The Germans have a massive prize within their grasp—the economic domination of Europe, the rebuilding of German pride and prestige and the final absolution from the guilt of 1939–45. How will that be achieved? Massive aid will pour into Prussia, Saxony and the rest of central Europe, financing the purchase of West German capital goods, technology, equipment and investment. East European industries will develop rapidly further in the interests of the countries involved and increasing still further the dominance of German manufacturing and the German economy within Europe.
Naturally, the cornucopia of aid to the East will drain the reservoir of German financial generosity available to the Common Market and at the same time German interest in and commitment to the ever-burgeoning social pressures and financial extravagances of the EEC will decline.
Whatever Germany says, she will be slow on Delors and monetary union. Whatever Germany says, she will be resentful of the power-centralising ambition of Brussels bureaucracy. Whatever Germany says, she will be impatient with the unnecessary development of yesterday's European institutions.
The future is exciting but uncertain. At this stage, all we can do is seek objectives, not set out detailed policies. I am amazed and not a little disturbed to read that this weekend the Commission had a brainstorming session on how to bring the rest of Europe under its control. This is a matter for elected Governments not clerks, for democracy and not for bureaucracy. I understand that the Commission may feel that its vested interests are threatened and I rejoice in that. Never again should so much power—including the power to initiate policies—be passed to bureaucrats.
The new Europe will be a democratic Europe, not a bureaucratic Europe. There will be a new Europe without barriers to trade but a Europe of nations, each country with its own identity, its own democratic institutions and its own economic and social priorities. It will be a Europe to which all nations from the Atlantic to the Urals are welcome. Federal Europe is dead. Long live Europe.
8.45 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: When my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate he pointed out that such occasions were used to examine the possibilities and the prospects for the future in Europe, and many right hon. and hon. Members have used the debate to talk about the future—quite naturally, because of the exciting times in which we live.

433
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) expressed some concern that there had not been much excitement and enthusiasm in the House this evening. I am most enthusiastic about the events that are unfolding in Europe. We cannot fail to ignore the fact that so many people in eastern Europe are rejecting totalitarianism. We have to ensure that we make it easy for eastern Europe to form closer and firmer links with the European Community. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, we must extend the hand of friendship. We must not in any way make it difficult for those people; we must make it easier for them. We have to remove the obstacles of centralism and interventionism, and just about every hon. Member knows what I mean, because as a nation we have foundered on those rocks in terms of our wholehearted commitment to Europe.
Hon. Members have referred to the obstacles presented by Delors stages 2 and 3, but there is a more urgent need than ever before to stake out the common ground, not as Socialists, Liberals, Democrats or Conservatives but as Britons, Poles, French or Germans working together in a united and peaceful Europe.
Surely we can agree on matters affecting our environment, because so many of those matters transcend frontiers and are pan-European. We can agree on removing barriers, the physical, technical and financial barriers which obstruct the free movement of goods and services in Europe. We can agree on standards—not on prescriptions or recipes but on parameters. We can agree on security. President Gorbachev said that Europe is at the crossroads, and I agree with that. We are faced with a series of choices between a wider or a deeper Europe. I should like to think that we shall choose the wider Europe, capable of accommodating not only the 12 nations of the European Community but the six nations of the European Free Trade Association and the nations of eastern Europe, where the ideologies of the past are being rejected in a dramatic and unprecedented way. We want to create a Europe that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Minister, is "founded on freedom and building on prosperity".
The United Kingdom must weigh up carefully whether it sees Europe as a threat or an opportunity. Do we see it as a threat to our livelihoods because we are reluctant to increase our productivity to the best levels of Europe? Do we fear that we cannot improve our competitiveness so that we are as competitive as any other nation in Europe? Do we fear a threat to our national identity? I suggest that that is doubtful. Paragraph 4.4 of the report shows that we have hung on to our national identity. The fact that we have hung on to the pint, the mile and the acre shows that we are not prepared to submerge our national identity and that we shall continue to fight for it.
Let us consider the opportunities not only of the bigger domestic market but those for London to become the banking and commercial centre of Europe and for the United Kingdom to influence the debate and decisions on the course of European unity and to establish the traditional values that are so readily accepted in Britain of liberty and individual freedom as the central ethos for the European Community.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, there are no panaceas for Britain. We must not think that the bigger market will solve problems.
434
It will be of benefit to us only if we exploit it. Similarly, the exchange rate mechanism is not a passport to lower interest rates or a guarantee of sound money. None of those things will do for us what we are not prepared to do for ourselves. In that context, to establish sound money, stable exchange rates and lower interest rates, we might as a Government and as a nation look hard at what we could do for ourselves by restoring the independent status of the Bank of England and freeing it from its current political control. There are other and more varied ways in which we can take steps to do for ourselves—things which, I suspect, hon. Members and certain sections of the British public are looking for Europe to do for us, which is totally unrealistic.
In the final analysis, we have a further choice. We have a choice to do so many things sooner rather than later; sooner while the spirit moves throughout Europe; sooner while the portents are good and our neighbours are beckoning for British leadership; and sooner while the opportunity exists as it never existed before. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the opportunity as "breathtaking". Does it not behove us to do those things sooner rather than later? Let it never be said that we did them later because we lacked the confidence, motivation or will to take the opportunity of this floodtide in European history.
8.53 pm
Mr. Michael Irvine: Paragraph 15.3 of the White Paper records that the Select Committee on European Legislation considered 468 European Community documents between January and June 1989. In the event, seven debates covering 12 of those documents took place in Standing Committee and 22 debates covering 40 documents took place on the Floor of the House.
What the White Paper does not say is that the majority of those debates on the Floor took place after 10 pm, that they were poorly attended and that, in many cases, the documents under discussion were made available only a short time before the debate. Furthermore, the House was invariably faced with a fait accompli. All too often we found ourselves doing no more than taking note of what had already been formulated by the European Commission and decided some time beforehand behind closed doors by the Council of Ministers. We were not even rubber-stamping the legislation because it did not need our rubber stamp. It did not matter whether we rubber-stamped it or not because it had already been decided. As a House, we were only taking note.
I would go so far as to say that the ineffective way in which we deal with European Community legislation should be a matter of shame for the House. When we allow European legislation that is of much importance to the citizens of this country to pass into law without proper scrutiny, we are not merely failing to do our job properly but being false to the traditions and obligations of the House.
How can we put this right? First, we can do so by allocating more time to the scrutiny of European Community legislation. Hon. Members should compare the time that we spend scrutinising Community legislation month by month with the time that we spend scrutinising domestic legislation. Earlier this year, I spent 160 hours on the Standing Committee of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Sillars: Serves you right.
Mr. Irvine: I was glad to do so. The Bill was interesting and was of great importance. It deserved much scrutiny, and it got it.
Mr. Sillars: When we Scots depart from here and return north of the border to an independent Scotland within Europe, the hon. Gentleman will have bags of time to consider European legislation.
Mr. Irvine: Quite a few Scots, such as myself, have come south and are doing very well here, thank you.
Leaving aside that interruption of questionable merit, the point remains that, although domestic legislation is important, European Community legislation is just as important, and sometimes more so. Both kinds of legislation need proper scrutiny. At the moment, the balance is wrong. If we are to exert maximum influence over European legislation, we must correct the imbalance.
Mr. Janman: I am genuinely interested in why my hon. Friend thinks that it is worth while spending much more time scrutinising European legislation, given that, because of the Single European Act amendments to the treaty of Rome, if we do not do what we are told, we will be taken to the European Court anyway. Why will spending all this extra time be worth while?
Mr. Irvine: My hon. Friend brings me to the second point which I wish to make about our scrutiny of European legislation. The other great weakness is the point of time at which we consider European legislation. At present, time after time we consider it when everything has already been decided. I hope that we will reform our procedures so as to address European legislation after it has been formulated by the European Commission but before it reaches the Council of Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) pointed out, that does not mean that we can determine which way the legislation will go, but it will enable us to exert maximum influence.
It is fair to say that we have some influence. I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the effect of last week's debate on European monetary union and the exchange rate mechanism on our partners in the European Community. He said that the strong cross-party feeling expressed in the House against stages 2 and 3 of the Delors proposals had had an impact on our partners' thinking. That powerfully reinforces my point. It shows that, if the House bestirs itself and we make our views known clearly at the right point, we can hope to influence our partners in the European Community and also the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Lord: I am following my hon. Friend's comments carefully. I think that he is saying that it is necessary for the parliamentary cycle in Britain to be fitted in with the European parliamentary cycle on all these issues, so that these debates can take place at the proper time.
Mr. Irvine: Precisely. We must tailor our procedures and practices to give proper scrutiny to European legislation. The present structure of the European legislative process is highly convenient to bureaucrats and is not without its advantages to certain statesmen, but it is profoundly undemocratic. There are dangers here for the European Community. Unless the institutions of the Community and of individual member countries are
436
adapted to provide proper scrutiny of Community legislation and proper accountability to Parliament, somewhere along the line there will be trouble for the Community. There will be a reaction by the peoples of member states against the Community's autocratic tendencies.
Parliaments are always inconvenient to bureaucrats, but they are essential to democracy. The House has a particular part to play in developing Community institutions and parliamentary scrutiny. After all, the House of Commons developed the traditions of parliamentary democracy that won control first over the monarch and then over the Executive. We must now bestir ourselves and do the same in a European context. If we do that effectively, we will do a signal service for not only the nation and the House but our partners in the Community.
9.3 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: Earlier in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) implied that I might seek to raise the issue of whether Britain should be in the European Community. Although I do not wish to raise that issue tonight, I thought that his speech gave a long catalogue of reasons that could put that thought in one's mind. He listed many of the major problems that Britain faces as a result of its being in the European Community and I believe that, unless there is a rather sudden and dramatic sea change in the politics of the Community, this Government—and I suspect any future Government of either political persuasion—will be continually tussling with the European Community over matters that should be purely for the consideration of the national Government, as opposed to being matters that can be interfered with by the European Community as a consequence of the passing of the Single European Act.
I want to mention briefly three major developments in the Community which were documented in the White Paper and to spend far more time on a fourth. The Madrid meeting of the European Council in June and the Delors report on economic and monetary union are important, and I shall come back to them in detail. I want to put on record the other three developments in the White Paper which are of significance.
First, there are the on-going general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations between the European Community and the United States. I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is important that we continue to exert the maximum pressure possible on the European Commission and the Community through the Council of Ministers not to pursue a protectionist philosophy vis-a-vis our relationship with our great ally the United States. If we pursue such a policy, they will retaliate and we shall strengthen the seeds of protectionism on the other side of the Atlantic as well. We must continue to pursue a free trade approach from the European Community.
Secondly, I note that progress has been made in eliminating trade barriers with the European Free Trade Association countries. In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, I cannot resist the temptation to observe that if we continue to be in conflict with the European Community over which issues are sovereign and which are pan-sovereign and if the EFTA nations continue to win an increasingly good relationship with the European Community, we could eventually

437
receive most of the trade benefits by being outside the Community, without the constitutional and political hassles that come from being in it.
Thirdly, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the draft Community charter on fundamental social rights is essentially a Marxist document. It goes completely against the policies and philosophy of the past 10 years in this country, which have resulted in a most dramatic fall in unemployment. We have virtually the lowest unemployment rate in Europe. France, for example, has an unemployment rate twice as great and there is no real sign or hope of that rate coming down.
I want to concentrate on economic and monetary union, and the European exchange rate mechanism. There are two key aspects. The first is the economic aspect, and the second is the more insidious and subversive political aspect. Should we join the exchange rate mechanism now or at a future date? Joining the ERM now would be an unmitigated disaster. It would lock us into a corporatist system of stage managing currencies which would institutionalise our current large trade deficit for the foreseeable future, given the current exchange rates. Interest rates would go up and down like a yo-yo to keep our currency from being revalued and to maintain its staying in the right band. Membership of the ERM would not bring any stability, and if the Confederation of British Industry and other large business interests think that it would, they would receive a rather nasty shock. We would lose our right to decide our domestic monetary policy and inevitably we would effectively lose the right to decide our public spending policies, which are a ramification of the political policies that the Government of the day wish to pursue.
An exchange rate is a value put on a currency vis-a-vis that country's economic and social performance in relation to its peers. The European exchange rate mechanism is corporatist, if not Socialist, as it attempts to prevent the market mechanism from working. I thought that as Conservative Members we believed in markets and the price mechanism. Membership of the European exchange rate mechanism, followed by one currency—the second stage of the Delors report—followed by a central bank could lead to high inflation. The Delors report does not recommend separating the money supply from politicians and does not propose legal sanctions against the proposed central bank should it not maintain its objective of price stability, which the Delors report lays down.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned Germany. The reason why Germany has been so successful is that in 1949 it separated monetary policy from the politicians. That has enabled Germany to enjoy 20 years with inflation never going above 5 per cent. The result has been much better labour relations and much reduced strike activity because there have been stable prices and no political meddling or pressure on the money supply. The Delors report failed to propose that we go in that direction. The exchange rate mechanism and stages 2 and 3 of Delors are certainly no guarantee of low inflation.
It would be better to have competing currencies with the exchange rate mechanism being joined by Britain when
438
certain conditions are met. Those conditions are equitable inflation throughout Europe, the abolition of exchange controls, the completion of all other aspects of the single market—the free movement of goods and services—the abolition of industrial subsidies across the Community, and the removal of legal requirements in the member nation states that pension funds and insurance companies keep their investment at home.
Finally, let me deal with the political aspects of the exchange rate mechanism and monetary union. Jacques Delors wants economic and monetary union because he wants one currency, one monetary policy, one fiscal and one budgetary policy, one macro-economic policy, one Europe—one federal Europe—with one Government in Brussels. The spirit of the treaty of Rome has been hijacked by a new Napoleon—a dirigiste, corporatist, interventionist Napoleon in the best French tradition.
The spirit of the treaty must be regained before we join the European exchange rate mechanism. We want a free trade Europe, not a protectionist and dirigiste Europe. We want a Europe in which there is free movement of goods and services, not silly harmonisation. We have to reassert, through our Ministers in the Council of Ministers, the view that we want less government in the European Community, not more government. We want a Europe that is not federal or centralist but a Europe based on the fine thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in which the nation states can make positive contributions towards the creation of the single market while co-operating on issues such as pollution which affect us all.
9.12 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The debate has properly concentrated on the wider European scene—inevitably so, given the events in eastern Europe in recent months and particularly in recent days. I hope that I shall not disappoint hon. Members by moving to matters that may seem more prosaic, but it is important to place on record the importance of the role of the social charter in the development of the European Community.
I was interested to note the arrogance of some Conservative Members, who seem still to believe that under the present Government Britain is widely regarded as being at the centre of the intellectual decision-making process in Europe. They are so out of touch with the reality in western Europe and, to a lesser extent, in eastern Europe that they bring our debates into disrepute.
For a long time, the Prime Minister has been determined to place herself at odds with the rest of the Community. Her concept of any new thinking in the Community is so lacking that she can describe the European social charter as being inspired by the values of Marxism and the class struggle. As the Minister of State moves between the class struggle and the role of newspaper boy, I hope that he will tell us whether he believes that Chancellor Kohl and the other heads of European Governments in the Community are inspired by those values. Is it the Goverment's view and that held by the Foreign Office, that Chancellor Kohl is some kind of crypto-Marxist? Do they believe that the German Democratic Republic is inspired by secret yearnings towards Moscow?
That kind of nonsense from the Prime Minister has left Britain completely isolated, particularly with regard to the

439
social charter. There are 11 Governments in the European Community on one side of the equation and only one, inevitably Britain, on the other side.
Historically, the Prime Minister might have looked towards the West Germans for support within the Community. However, the Germans are actively leading a quest for another nine specific areas of concern to be added to the social charter. They want these areas to be brought forward in terms of EC legislation. Those issues include the right of all workers to have four weeks paid holiday and all workers to be allowed paid public holidays and 14 weeks paid maternity leave. They also include free Government job placement services and minimum security protection in the workplace. That agenda is not being set by the Socialists or the Marxists involved in class struggle in western Europe; it is being set by Chancellor Kohl and the Christian Democrat Governments that surround him geographically and politically.
It is little wonder that the Christian Democrats in Europe have lost all confidence in the Prime Minister. It is little wonder that when the Prime Minister agreed that the Conservative group within the European Parliament should snuggle up to the Christian Democrats, having lost all its other supporters, the Christian Democrats said that they were not terribly interested in that proposition because they did not see any great future in it.
Lord Bethell, the MEP for London, North-West, wrote in The Times recently of his great shock when the Christian Democrats decided
"neither to accept us into their group as members, nor even to broaden co-operation with us … Yet they prefer to cold-shoulder us, to kick us when we are down"
That sums up the shock and horror of one Conservative MEP. He gave away the game a little when he said:
"They resent the self-confident vigour with which the Prime Minister, representing a country with decades of mediocre economic performance, chides countries like Germany for corporatism and lack of enterprise."
Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: No. I do not have much time left and the hon. Lady has not been here for most of the debate.
Inevitably, the Prime Minister is now almost completely isolated within Europe on so many issues. The Department of Employment has spent months doing little other than issue press releases on the infamies of the social charter. These have stated that the social charter points in the wrong direction, that it could destroy enterprise and that it is out of tune with Community objectives.
Perhaps we should reflect on what the Minister of State has said about the social charter. He waxed eloquent about the damage that it would do to employment within western Europe. It is odd that only Britain feels that employment would be under such tremendous pressure. That view is not held by the Portuguese, the Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks, or the Danes. The Minister of State said:
"The proposed regulation of working hours, weekend working and shift work would destroy the flexibility which businesses, particularly small businesses, need in order to be competitive and take advantage of the opportunities opened up by 1992."
The Minister obviously had in mind certain classifications of small businesses when he made that point. He went on to say:
"Why should Brussels, for example, make it impossible for youngsters under 16 to do paper rounds?"
The Minister has demonstrated his grasp of the fundamentals of the British economy and of small firms.
440
The threat from Brussels is that, once and for all, the newspaper rounds of Britain will be abolished and cast into the dustbin of history. That comment is extremely silly. Clearly, had the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister been prepared to take part in dialogue and in the process of developing a consensus approach to the social charter, the idea that the newspaper rounds of Britain have been threatened would have been as ludicrous to those in Brussels as it is to the Opposition. That is an example of the Government's reluctance to take part in a dialogue. That is why the rest of Europe and the Opposition are totally mystified by the Government's position.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way, as time is extremely short.
The social charter is accepted by virtually all informed bodies within the European Community.
Mr. Marlow: The Opposition may take a different view on the content of the social charter from the Government. They are entitled to do that. One of the things that we are concerned about on this side is that a social charter, whatever its status appears to be, will actually give more power to European institutions—the European Court and the Brussels Commission—to initiate policies in areas where they cannot currently initiate policies. Does that not worry the hon. Gentleman as well?
Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will refer to that point when I discuss the Single European Act and the role of majority and unanimous voting [Interruption.] The answer is simple. The Minister may find it difficult to understand, but the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will probably be able to keep up with me.
The social charter is well accepted throughout Europe. The Minister gave the game away when he had to pray in aid the European Round Table as one of only two bodies which feel even remotely akin to the British Government on this issue. The British Government accepted that there is a role for social legislation when they signed the treaty for the Single European Act. The preamble to the Single European Act states:
"Determined to work together to promote democracy on the basis of the fundamental rights recognised in the constitutions and laws of the Member States, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the European social charter, notably freedom, equality and social justice."
Social justice was accepted as central to the Single European Act. Social justice can occur only if, along with the single European market, we are prepared to put forward serious proposals to allow for the development of an even playing field in social matters.
Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way. The hon. Lady must recognise that I do not have time to do so.
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is a chauvinist. He allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to intervene and refused me twice.
Mr. Lloyd: I have been accused of many things, but chauvinism is not one of them.

441
The Government are prepared to accept their own social charter. The Secretary of State for Employment is on record as saying that the Government want a social charter. The Secretary of State's social charter apparently accepts that the Government are committed to making progress in employee involvement, but his involvement is the narrowest possible. He claims some great move forward through share ownership by the population. The Secretary of State for Employment said:
"Let me take one example. The British Government is fully committed to making progress on employee involvement. But we believe there is no more effective way of involving employees in the running of their company than for those employees to own shares in their company."
That may be an arguable point, but the number of share owners in this country is slightly lower than the number of people who by any definition are in low-paid work. If the Secretary of State is saying that share ownership is open to the many millions of people whom the Government have cast into low pay, he sadly fails to understand the mechanics of our economy and our society.
It is precisely for this reason that the European Community is right to put forward proposals for a social charter which includes provisions for employment and pay. Britain has a horrendous record on pay. We know that, since the abolition of the wages councils' protection of young people, the number of young people paid less than the former wage councils rate is as high as 75 per cent. of the young work force, and the percentage has increased during the past 12 months. When the Government claim that young peoples' earnings have not plummeted but continued to rise, that claim is at odds with the evidence. The number of people on low pay in this country has increased from 38 per cent. to 47 per cent. Of the work force during the past 10 years, so it is no surprise when a demand comes for some form of minimum wage protection.
The Government claim that Germans can afford to suffer some over-regulation in their economy because of its strength. One aspect of the social charter relates specifically to the importance of training in the economies of Britain and Germany. Any comparison between the British economy and, not just the German economy, but other western European economies, shows that the British economy continues to lag behind. When the Secretary of State and the Minister tell the House that we have a credible record on training, that view is not shared, not only by those on YTS and ET schemes, but by many in industry who reject those schemes and compare the position in Britain with that in the Federal Republic of Germany, where spending on training every year is three times that in Britain. That is why there is a demand from many quarters in Britain for a social charter to guarantee adequate and proper training throughout the working life of those involved, particularly throughout the nonworking life of those whom the Government still maintain in unemployment.
The social charter inevitably brings forward the debate into which the hon. Member for Northampton, North invited me a few moments ago. It involves a question which I want to pose to the Minister. We have heard many times that it is the Government's intention to take this matter to the European Court if necessary. The social
442
charter contains a number of issues which would not go to the European Court because, under the Single European Act, they can be decided by a simple qualified majority.
I should be pleased if the Minister would comment on these issues, including health and safety legislation which, under the treaty, falls outside the unanimous decision system. There are other issues such as information, consultation and participation which, if the Commission decides to move in a certain direction, could well be put through under the qualified majority voting system. It is important for the Minister to tell the House whether the Government intend to press strongly for those to be decided unanimously and how they intend to insist on that.
In answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, the important point is a simple one. The Opposition have always made it clear that we do not want an extension of qualified majority voting. We have made it clear that we believe that the way forward lies in consensus. I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of one central point. As things stand, there is an 11:1 majority in favour of the implementation of the social charter. Eleven states within the European Community are prepared to search for that consensus. The one state which stands alone is the one represented by the Minister.
If a Labour Government were in power in Britain the voting would be unanimous. A Labour Government would search for the sort of consensus to allow us to make progress on the issues worrying the hon. Member for Northampton, North and Opposition Members. That search for consensus is lacking under this Government, but would be available to us, even at the level of looking after newspaper boys. More importantly—this is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point—it would be available to us when we come to the concept of subsidiarity. At that point, it would be up to the British Government to negotiate with our Community partners.
We should be clear about this because the Minister of State himself referred to the level of control of the social charter. The reality is that, of itself, the social charter implements nothing. Nothing will come into practice automatically. Every provision will have to be turned into some form of action under the action programme and directives from the Commission. At every stage a Government in Britain who are prepared to co-operate with our Community partners, prepared to look for consensus and to accept the need for a social charter to provide workers as well as employers with a level playing field, would allow consensus to emerge——
Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me I cannot give way because of the shortage of time.
Mr. Janman rose——
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will have to accept that I do not have the time.
Mr. Janman rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lloyd: A Labour Government committed to that kind of co-operation in Europe would be in a position to ensure a role for Britain in that debate; indeed, that debate could lead to a conclusion that was to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Marlow rose——
Mr. Janman rose——
Mr. Lloyd: I give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
Mrs. Gorman: That is very nice.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has said that if the social charter were passed through, a Labour Government would argue and negotiate for subsidiarity under that social charter. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he therefore believes that if the social charter were agreed, it would pass power to other European institutions. That point should be noted by the House.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand what the social charter is. Of itself, the social charter passes no powers to any other European body. It is a declaration of intent——
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman must be wet behind the ears.
Mr. Lloyd: Well, the hon. Gentleman may think that I am wet, but he will have to accept that even the Government are arguing that the time to prevent action is under the action programme. As I understand it, that is why the action programme was today delayed in Brussels and has not moved further on. That is the time at which the proper interests of Britain must be protected as far as the provisions directly affect our citizens. That is the time when a Labour Government, involved in those negotiations, would be in a position to obtain the maximum benefit for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Maude: That would be signing a blank cheque.
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says that that would be signing a blank cheque. His point allows me to return to the question that I posed to his colleague the Minister of State at the Department of Employment. Will the Minister of State tell us whether any blank cheques have already been signed under the Single European Act? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear from the Dispatch Box tonight whether he and his colleagues take the view that no part of the social charter can be forced on this country under the qualified majority voting system of the Single European Act?
If the Minister of State ducks that question, it will not be the Opposition, but the Government, who are accepting that they have already signed a blank cheque. The Minister of State at the Foreign Office may feel that blank cheques are a prerogative of the Opposition, but we want to know —and the nation is entitled to know—whether those blank cheques have already been signed. The signing of a blank cheque may well have taken place when we concurred with the Single European Act, but their continuation and the guarantee that they could be cashed for any amount took place when this Government made a decision—when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made a decision —that they would take no role whatsover in trying to reach a consensus with other Governments in the European Community. That is what makes Britain's position now so stupid and so out of step with everybody else.
It is important that the Minister of State addresses that question. I ask him again, will he answer specifically whether any areas of the social charter will be brought into
444
operation under the qualified majority voting system? That is not a trivial point; it is an important point to which he should respond.
I finish by saying that the mood within the rest of the European Community is clear. It has been summarised already. Under their presidency of the European Council, the French have attempted to make a compromise available to the British Government. However, each time the French have done so, the British Government have rejected the approach. Each time there has been an amendment to the social charter—because there have been amendments and I was sorry to see them emerge—the British Government have spurned those approaches. At every stage, the British Government have made it clear that they want little or nothing to do with the social charter.
Mr. Jean Pierre Cot, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, spoke for the majority in that Parliament when he said:
"We want 11 signatures on the proposal we have rather than 12 on something that is watered down."
I must make it clear that that is the Opposition's view.
9.35 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): We have had a good debate, which has spread across a broad canvas, as we would have expected after the events of last weekend.
I have taken careful note of the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need to consider the scrutiny procedures.
I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council is in touch with the Scrutiny and Procedure Select Committees about improving arrangements.
Scrutiny is important in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other right hon. and hon. Friends who have been in Europe recently, have explained to their EC colleagues that, for example, in the debate on the European monetary union, there was no dissent in the House about the view which the Government put forward in that debate, when they expressed considerable concern about stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan. We want that kind of scrutiny and it is the kind that carries weight in the European Community.
There are few of us who did not associate the division of Europe with the epic photograph of an East German border guard jumping over the wire as the wall was built up, some 20 years ago. That was the image which many of us had of a divided Europe.
The image that will remain with many of us of a Europe which is changing dramatically is that of youngsters on top of the Berlin wall and of the people flooding through the gaps in the wall. I shall also remember the interviews with young East Germans, who had been to the West for the first time, and were deliberately returning to their country. They were saying publicly that they had the chance of freedom and that they were positive that they would be able to enjoy it in the future. Therefore, they were returning to East Germany to make a success of their country within the new horizons that had opened up. The events of the weekend were truly dramatic and the images are strong.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the reunification of Germany.

445
What is at issue is the right of the people of the German Democratic Republic to choose their future, democratically and in freedom. East Germans are calling for reform and not reunification. What they will ultimately choose we cannot foretell, but surely the first objective must be the pursuit of real self-determination, followed by the building up of democracy.
Chancellor Kohl has stressed the need to remain level-headed and to maintain a sense of perspective. It has long been the aim of successive British Governments and of the Governments of other Western countries to achieve a reunified Germany based on a liberal democracy, linked to the Western community. That has been our objective and it remains our objective.
There has been much discussion about the future relationship between the European Community and eastern European countries. The way in which we respond to individual eastern European countries will depend on their circumstances, and, crucially, on the extent to which they have carried out economic and political reforms. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised that we must give every possible encouragement to that reform and to the emergence of democracy.
We must look imaginatively at ways in which to develop new forms of association with eastern European countries. Hon. Members have already mentioned a number of existing models of association such as the association agreements with Cyprus and Turkey that confer particular benefits of trade access and financial support. We also have the model of EFTA, which provides free trade access for manufactured goods. None of those existing models is tailor-made to meet the challenges posed by the eastern European countries, but we must work to extract the relevant elements of the existing forms of association and we must build on them to fashion an adequate response.
The Community must support those in eastern Europe who have striven for democracy and reform. I am absolutely confident that the Community will respond to that challenge. Certainly that is the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take to the meeting of Heads of Government in Paris next Saturday.
Mr. Cash: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about a united states of Europe, which is in line with everything she has said about the issue in the past few years. My hon. Friend referred to what Chancellor Kohl said about a united states of Europe. Does he agree it is possible to equate the united states of Europe with the idea of self-determination for the people of Eastern and Western Germany?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend tempts me down a number of avenues and I am not entirely sure which one he would like me to follow. I have listened to the debate tonight and it is clear that there are a number of different possibilities. We are living in a time of tremendous change and opportunity. We should not spend too much time speculating, but we should look imaginatively and constructively at those opportunities when they emerge. I am sure that we shall see many important moves in the coming months.
Mr. Robertson rose——
Mr. Eggar: No, I shall not give way.
It is not for the Community to shape events in eastern Europe, but the strength of the Community will help us to support and to encourage eastern European countries through critical times. Before we get too mesmerised by the debate about the future structure and development of Europe we would do well to remember for a moment the external economic challenges that face western Europe. If we are to assist in the development of eastern Europe, we must first ensure that we are equipped to compete worldwide.
We must remember that the current Community unemployment rate still stands at more than 9 per cent. compared to the United States unemployment rate of 5·3 per cent. We must consider relative economic growth records. Since 1985 the Pacific basin economy has grown by 20 per cent. whereas that of the Community has grown by 12 per cent. only.
The challenge will not get any easier. Between now and 2010 the population of the Third world will grow 45 per cent., that of the United States will grow by 17 per cent., that of Japan will grow by 8 per cent., but the European Community population will grow by a mere 2 per cent. The prospects for the 1990s are that the Community will be faced with a static labour market and will be competing against the low-cost, labour-intensive economies of the far east and elsewhere. That is the scale of the challenge facing us in the 1990s and such is the record that we have achieved in the past four years. When we talk about assistance for eastern Europe let us recognise the scale of the challenge that we have already faced in the Community.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said, we want a prosperous and thriving Community, which, through deregulation and increased competitiveness, creates jobs and reduces unemployment. That is the Community we have already begun to build, a Community in which Britain is so often helping to set the agenda.
All members of the Community are committed to the single market. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, Britain is forcing the pace. We have opened up our markets in banking, insurance, and telecommunications. The depth of our commitment to Europe and to the people of Europe is clear from the way in which we have played a leading role on adoption of single market measures. We have no intention of dragging our feet on those vital issues. Efficient and expanding firms create jobs and prosperity.
Successful enterprise provides improvements in living standards, working conditions and social protection in every country. That is the message at the heart of the social dimension of the single market, and the message that the people of eastern Europe have heard and responded to dramatically. The single market means giving the wealth creators of Europe the chance to create wealth for the people of Europe. Yet some people present the single market as a charter for business, not for people. That is not our view or that of any Community country. All 12 member states share the objective of improving people's living and working conditions through the completion of the single market. They all want to see the market work, because that is the best way to ensure that the people of Europe benefit from improved standards of living and wider choice.

447
Britain strongly supports Community action to recognise each other's product standards, to remove outdated regulations which restrict the ability of firms to establish themselves in new markets and, importantly, to enable individuals to take advantage of the new opportunities that the single market will offer.
The Community has agreed on how we see Europe developing and that the way forward is not through imposed harmonisation, but through cross-fertilisation of ideas, approaches and experiences. In other words, we share a vision of diversity within a framework of common goals. We should remember that vision when we consider the proposed social charter.
I stress to Opposition Members that we have never said that we could not accept a charter. We have said categorically that we cannot accept the charter in the form proposed by the Commission. The present draft charter ignores the unanimous agreement of the Madrid summit that any action in the social area should take account of differences in member states' national practices and traditions. In trying to impose uniform arrangements, it ignores member states social systems, developed over the years to suit their own circumstances. We do not want to impose our systems on other member states and we do not see why other member states' systems should be imposed on us, particularly in the light of the Madrid conclusions. We believe that by increasing regulations, the charter will raise costs and lead directly to job losses.
To answer the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), we welcome parts of the draft social charter and support them as a statement of agreed objectives and a commitment to further progress. Those include measures to promote freedom of movement, commitment to the principle of equal opportunities and treatment for all, further progress on health and safety at work and measures to assist the integration into working life of people with disabilities. We have always made it clear that we have no difficulty with those aspects of the social charter. But taken as a whole, and even with the changes that have been made during discussions, the charter remains a deeply flawed document. It seeks to impose harmonisation where diversity is critical to the success of Europe.
What does the charter mean for British people? Ms. Papandreou said in London that she
"cannot believe that people would choose part-time work."
In other words she does not think that there is any value in part-time work. She is wrong—6 million people in this country choose to work part-time because they want to, not because they have to. The hon. Member for Stretford shakes his head, but that is the view of his party, although he may not recognise it. The Labour party's policy review claims:
"rigid work patterns … deny people choice and opportunity"
Amen to that.
Does the Labour party believe it helpful to deny older children opportunities of Saturday jobs or work experience at school? Does it believe that a 17-year-old who wants to put in a few hours' overtime should be banned from doing so, or that an adult worker who wants to work and save for a family holiday should be limited to a few hours' overtime each week, whatever the wishes of his employer? Is that what the Labour party supports? It is what the social charter means——
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Where does it say that?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Stretford both said that they were not happy with the social charter because it did not go far enough. How many more restrictions do they want to put on the people of this country? How many more jobs do they want to be lost?
The social charter seeks to impose a legally binding minimum wage, which I am sure Opposition Members will welcome. They have said publicly that they want such a wage set at 50 per cent. of male median earnings. Like the Commission, the Opposition have not estimated what the effect of a minimum wage at that level would be. We have done a little work; we have analysed the economic impact of the minimum wage proposed by the Opposition. It would lead to the loss of about 750,000 jobs. The Commission and the Opposition support that proposal, but they should reconsider their support for it.
The draft social charter seeks to ban the closed shop. We would welcome the intention behind that, but we do not think that the Commission should have a role in deciding Britain's industrial relations legislation. The article of the social charter would be wholly incompatible with the closed shop legislation of the last Labour Government. I remind the House that that legislation resulted in hundreds of people being sacked from their jobs without a penny of compensation merely because they refused to be dragooned into joining a trade union.
I trust that the hon. Member for Stretford will make it clear where his party stands on the closed shop. He says that he supports the social charter, so he supports an end to the closed shop. In that case, why has he not supported my colleagues taking the Employment Bill through the House? Can the Opposition give a categorical assurance that if we brought legislation forward to deal with a pre-entry closed shop they would support it? What do the Opposition believe? Do they believe in the social charter, or in the policy on the closed shop that they have pursued ever since the disgraceful days of the mid-1970s?
Other articles in the charter would mean the virtual end of legitimate limitations on strikes and would go further to protect the rights of strikers than the Labour party has ever gone when in Government. For example, secret ballots before strikes, which the Labour party now claims to support, curbs on secondary action and limits on picketing would all have to be abandoned under the social charter. If we agreed to the draft of the social charter, almost all the trade union reforms that we have implemented since 1979, and which have been widely supported by the people, would be overturned.
There is a case for a discussion about the form of employment law that we want. The right place to have that discussion is across the Floor of the House. It should not be imposed by some entity in Brussels.
Let us take another subject—employee involvement. The charter presents us with a choice between the German, the French or the Dutch models. We have a different approach. For us, successful employee involvement is best developed on the basis of voluntary agreement.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is that approach better?
Mr. Eggar: I wish the hon. Gentleman would think before he interrupts. The three models offered by the social charter would be as unacceptable to the Labour party as

449
they are to the Government. The hon. Gentleman's previous boss, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), made that quite clear when he wrote in Tribune:
"a top priority must be … that worker representatives … can choose whichever option for power-sharing they believe will assist them to control their working environment".
There is no scope within the social charter for "choosing whichever option". The only choice is between the German, French or Dutch models. That part of the social charter is no more acceptable to the Labour party than it is to the Conservative party.
I notice that Labour Members are keeping very quiet. I put a serious question to them. What will the Labour party choose? Will it choose to create jobs or will it choose the social charter, which will destroy jobs? Will it choose to support its own stated approach to industrial relations or will it choose the social charter? Will it choose to support flexible forms of employee involvement or the social charter? Will it choose to support the Labour party's policy review, or the social charter?
The Government are quite clear about our objectives. We have made our view on the social charter clear from the beginning, but the Opposition spokesmen have said that they are not in favour of the social charter only because it does not go far enough. They have not bothered to look at what the social charter includes and how that relates to their policy.
Mr. Lloyd: I have here a copy of the social charter. Can the Minister show me those parts of it that justify anything that he has said in the past 10 minutes?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman simply has not read it.
Mr. Lloyd: Show me where they are.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has not denied that my interpretation of the social charter is correct. I have been prepared to give way to him so that he can deny that there is a distinct difference between what he says that he will support in the social charter and the policies that his party espouses in practice.
450
The Community has agreed on our priority—it is the creation of jobs for the people of Europe. The social charter will not create jobs. It will destroy them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, Developments in the European Community January–June 1989 (Cm. 801).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  That the draft Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  That the draft Apple and Pear Research Council Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Hotel and Catering) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  Mrs. Patricia Mary Moore
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: In some ways it is apposite that I should have the last Adjournment debate in the current Session, although the case of the late Mrs. Moore goes back much further than that.
  Mr. Leslie Moore and his son came to see me in my surgery four years ago, in January 1986. His wife had been assessed by the medical appeals tribunal as being 35 per cent. disabled. Her claims for allowances were thus disallowed, except on that basis. Mrs. Moore appealed against that assessment. Her appeal was lodged on 24 September 1986. She was not examined until 8 July 1986 and she died on 6 December 1986. Mrs. Moore died before her appeal against the tribunal's decision could be heard. Perhaps everybody thought that the case would die with Mrs. Moore, but they reckoned without Mr. Moore who was not prepared to allow that to happen. He felt, in honour of his wife and son, that an injustice had been done and he wanted the case to be pursued. He came to see me to ensure that it was pursued.
  We appealed in January 1987. Somehow, that appeal was mislaid in the works. In April 1987 Mr. Moore attended a hearing in Newcastle. After he had attended that hearing, lo and behold, his wife's medical condition was determined to be 80 per cent. disabled, but not all the way back to July when she was examined—only from 1 September.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall that at that time I wrote and asked who picked on 1 September—why not 2 September or 30 August? How could they know, on a hypothetical date after someone had died, that the disability had changed from 35 per cent. to 80 per cent.? That was the wisdom of the medical practitioners who conducted the hearing and reached these decisions.
  Mr. Moore was still not satisfied. Nor was I. Therefore we pursued the matter still further. We have now reached the stage where Mr. Moore has been granted 80 per cent. for the period when Mrs. Moore was alive, but only after 1 September 1986.
  I reckoned that the tribunal's decision was complacent and arrogant. I wrote accordingly to my right hon. Friend. He replied saying that we could appeal further. He said that it was not a DSS matter but a matter for the medical appeal tribunal. Imagine how Mr. Moore felt as a recently widowed gentleman with a young son in a depressed area in the north-east of England. He could not understand why he was being shoved from pillar to post, and as the person who was supposed to be helping and guiding him, I must confess that I was just as dizzy.But we were told that the MAT was administered by the office of the president of the social security and medical appeals tribunal. So I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 1 June 1987, asking him to look into the case on our behalf.
  One year later on 8 June 1988, I again wrote to my right hon. Friend reminding him that 12 months earlier he had written to Mr. Justice Byrt QC, the president of the tribunal, placing the case before him. But the Minister's reply on 30 June said that there was no trace of Mr.
  452
  Moore's claim for attendance allowances. He promised to follow up the president's office to determine what investigations had been made.
  On 18 July we sent to the Department details of Mrs. Moore's claim for the attendance allowance which had come to the surface. On 5 September 1988, all that long time later, Mr. Justice Byrt replied that on the balance of probabilities Mrs. Moore might have been severely disabled, and on the evidence that was available she would have a right of appeal to a social security commissioner.
  We thought that we were getting somewhere. But there was only one small snag. The social security commissioner, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to grant my constituent right of appeal.
  In September 1988, having received that decision, we had to ask to have it set aside. In January 1989 we received a letter from the secretary of the office of the president. The papers had been sent to his office on 28 September 1988 but extensive inquiries in Leeds and Newcastle revealed no trace of Mr. Moore's set-aside application, the implication being that it had been lost in the post. It was bad enough to lose the appeal without the information being lost in the post, but we resurrected it, got it back to the surface and pursued it further. We sent photocopies of all the information to those who had lost it.
  In February 1989, I received a letter from Mr. Moore saying that he still had not heard, so on 2 March I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to bring pressure to bear on that bureaucratic quango which appears to be responsible to nobody and able to do or not to do whatever it wishes. My right hon. Friend replied immediately saying that tribunals were independent and it would he wrong for him as a Minister to seek to bring pressure to bear on them because he could be criticised for so doing.
  On 29 March 1989 we knew that we had been refused and the only course of action was to apply to the social security commissioner for leave to appeal, and that had to be done within 42 days. We checked it at our office at the House of Commons because we were no longer satisfied with the competence of the people who were charged with that responsibility. We were told that it had been dealt with expeditiously. That was on 12 April.
  On 16 August Mr. Moore again telephoned me to say that he had heard nothing and I again contacted my right hon. Friend's office to ask whether anything could be done to bring some compensation, or at least some consolation to my constituent in respect of his late wife who had been dead for some considerable time, yet as far as he was concerned, the case was still alive.
  On 8 August, Mr. Moore was told that the case would be heard in four weeks and that Judge Bromley would decide it, but on 6 November—a little more than four weeks later—Mr. Moore again rang my office to say that nothing had been heard.
  At that stage, I took advantage of an hon. Member's right to initiate an Adjournment debate on the subject. Lo and behold, the day after your Office, Mr. Speaker, informed me that I had succeeded in obtaining an Adjournment debate, my constituent received a reply saying that he had been given leave to appeal. Was that not miraculous? We still have not an affirmative judgment in our favour, although the amount of money involved is very small. However, it involves a big point of principle.
  I am raising this matter tonight because my constituent cannot be the only person who has been treated in this

  453
  abominable way by those charged with the responsibility of ensuring that tribunals and justice are dealt with expeditiously and that no one is kept hanging around.
  I received a further letter today, which I shall read so that it is on the record. It comes from a high source. It says:
  "I write to apologise to you directly"—
  the letter is to my constituent, but this is my copy—
  "for the very regrettable delay at the Office of the Social Security Commissioners in dealing with your application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. Let me explain how the delay came about.
  OSSC received your application for leave initially in February 1989, but I understand they were obliged to ask you for a copy of the decision of the lower tribunal"—
  That is the letter that was lost by somebody else
  "after which they returned the application for leave to lower tribunal on 15 March 1989 because it could be dealt with by the lower tribunal's Chairman within the 3-month time limit allowed for applications for leave to appeal. The Chairman of the lower tribunal refused your application for leave on 21 March, after which the papers returned to OSSC. In April, OSSC requested all the necessary background papers from DSS and the local tribunal's office in Redcar. All the papers were received at OSSC on 10 May, but at this point things went wrong".
  This is on 10 May 1989, but I have been pursuing the matter since 1986.
  "What should have happened is that OSSC staff should have made up a complete file and put it, with your application, to a Commissioner for a decision. Unfortunately, instead OSSC clerical staff misfiled the papers, putting them away in a registry where files are held pending the receipt of further papers which are expected from the DSS or the lower tribunal.
  The error was only discovered on 10 November, when my Department and OSSC first became aware of your case as a result of the intervention of your Member of Parliament, Mr. Holt, who will raise the matter at an Adjournment Debate on 15 November. As soon as OSSC realised their error, they constructed a case file and put it before a Commissioner, who considered your application for leave to appeal and granted it. I am advised that notification of that decision was sent to you on 10 November by first class post. Thus, the way is now open to you to proceed with the appeal in the usual way.
  I very much regret the anxiety and distress that this long and unnecessary delay must have caused you—all the more so, because it concerns an appeal on behalf of your late wife. Unfortunately, mistakes of this sort do sometimes occur and I know that the staff at OSSC are very sorry for what went wrong. The work very hard and appreciate the importance of their work to appellants and their families. On their behalf, I apologise to you again most sincerely and I trust the appeal will now proceed smoothly.
  I should add that I am most grateful to your Member of Parliament for bringing the matter to our attention so that it could be sorted out quickly. Therefore, I am sending him a copy of this letter."
  That was signed by Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
  We cannot have a more fulsome apology from a more senior person in Government. Is it not disgraceful that I have had to raise this matter on the Adjournment after all this time and that the medical evidence which is the subject of this appeal to some extent cannot be verified in any way? Doctors have to say whether another doctor has made a mistake. Doctors do not do that—doctors never make mistakes. The report of 8 August 1986 stated that the chest condition would deteriorate at some future date. The doctor was right. Six or seven weeks later, after the fourth course of chemotherapy, my constituent—who was still assessed as only 35 per cent. disabled—died.
  454
  I hope that there will be three happy postscripts to this saga. I shall be able to remove this file from my live files. Mr. Moore will be given that small sum of money covering that period during his wife's severe illness, and he will be able to put his file away. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, we will wish Mr. Moore well, because he remarried last weekend. We want to put this matter behind us and wish him well for the future. I realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot answer all my points because the matter is sub judice. This use of bureaucracy to befuddle people must not happen again. Most people would have dropped the case by now. Mr. Moore deserves justice. I hope that he will receive it.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My hon. the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has recounted what all those listening will recognise as a sad and, in many ways, very unsatisfactory story. That it started four years ago and is still unresolved is distressing for Mr. Moore, who is the person most directly concerned.
  Looking at the matter from my point of view, independent of the social security commissioners' office, I like to think that, although this may not be the only case that has gone so badly wrong, it would be exceptional for any case to go quite as wrong at this one has. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the letter that he has received from the Lord Chancellor will be regarded, in the administration of these matters, as something that Lord Chancellors rarely have to produce even for such distinguished Back Benchers as my hon. Friend. Lessons will be learned throughout the organisation about the importance of delivering a more effective service than was delivered in this case.
  I reiterate the gratitude that the Lord Chancellor expressed in his letter, when he said that he was grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to his attention so that it could be sorted out quickly. It is in my interests and the Government's interests that those who are entitled to benefits get them and that if matters are to be settled independently of Ministers—as they must be when medical conditions are involved—they are at least managed expeditiously. I acknowledge that in this case that has not happened.
  My hon. Friend acknowledged in his closing remarks that tribunals have to manage these matters. One cannot establish essentially medical criteria to entitle someone to receive a benefit—whether mobility allowance, attendance allowance or, as in this case, severe disability allowance —and establish a medical body to make the decision and then have Ministers who are not qualified trample all over it. It would be nonsense to do that, as I know that my hon. Friend recognises.
  My hon. Friend has recounted much of the story, but perhaps I may tell it from the point of view of those on this side of the fence although, as I have said, it does not bring much credit to the workings of the system. The benefit that Mrs. Moore was claiming was severe disablement allowance and there are various criteria that have to be satisfied if a person is to be successful in such a claim.
  A person must have been incapable of work for a continuous period of 28 weeks. Additionally, a person who claims after reaching the age of 20 needs to be assessed as being at least 80 per cent. disabled for the whole of this qualifying period. I gather from the records that the late

  455
  Mrs. Moore last worked on 31 October 1985 and claimed severe disablement allowance on 4 April 1986, which is when my hon. Friend began his story. Her local social security office, which deals with claims for the allowance, properly arranged for the claim to be referred to an independent adjudicating medical practitioner to assess her degree of disablement.
  Arrangements were made for her to be medically examined for this purpose on 16 June but, unfortunately, she was unable to attend. New arrangements had to be made and the examination took place on 8 July. The adjudicating medical practitioner assessed her degree of disablement at 35 per cent. and a notification that her claim had been disallowed was issued on 22 July. That may not have been a satisfactory outcome, but at least at that point everything was proceeding with some promptness.
  We recognise that these decisions cannot be simply referred to Ministers and the way in which decisions can be challenged is through the independent appeal system. Mrs. Moore's appeal to a medical appeal tribunal was received on 1 September and the relevant papers, with the Department's observations on them, were sent to the tribunal on 24 September. It was thought that the tribunal might need additional medical information to help it with is assessment. Case notes were then requested from hospitals where Mrs. Moore had been treated. Extracts from those notes were made by a medical officer on 16 October and these were approved by the tribunal on 5 November. That was still reasonable progress.
  The tribunal was held on 14 April 1987 and it decided to assess Mrs. Moore as being 80 per cent. disabled from 1 September 1986. Unfortunately, no benefit was payable as a result of that decision due to the fact that the assessment had not run for the continuous 28-week qualifying period by the time of Mrs. Moore's sad death on 6 December 1986. I can well appreciate that Mr. Moore found this decision very disappointing. I should put it higher than that and say that he found it extremely distressing.
  In June 1988 my hon. Friend raised the matter with the then Under-Secretary of State and, following inquiries within his organisation, judge Byrt, the president of the social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals, wrote on 5 September 1988 to explain that Mr. Moore had been advised of his right either to apply to have the tribunal decision set aside or to appeal to the social security commissioner, but that no such application had been received. Mr. Moore applied to have the decision set aside on 28 September 1988 and, on that same day, his application was forwarded to the regional chairman's office in Leeds. As my hon. Friend will know, it was not until he again made representations that it was realised that the application had been lost between London and Leeds. The president's office wrote to my hon. Friend on 13 January apologising for the delay and arranged for a tribunal to consider the application on 20 February 1989. In the event, the tribunal refused the application. Mr. Moore was notified of that and was advised of his right to seek leave to appeal to the commissioner.
  I turn now to the involvement of the office of the social security commissioners in this case. The commissioners are
  456
  the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, as my hon. Friend made clear he realised when he read out the letter from my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Moore applied on 24 February 1989 for leave to appeal to the commissioner against the medical appeal tribunal decision, but he omitted to send a copy of the tribunal decision. He was asked to produce it and, it was realised that the decision was within the three-month time limit enabling leave to be granted by the tribunal chairman. The tribunal chairman refused leave on 21 March 1989, after which the papers were returned to the commissioner's office. Efforts were then made to retrieve them. Some of them had been destroyed by the tribunal office and eventually our Department of Social Security office in Redcar produced a complete set of the original papers, which were received at the commissioner's office on 10 May 1989.
  At this point, something went very seriously wrong. A file should have been made up and put before a commissioner promptly for him to make a decision. Unfortunately, the clerk misfiled the case papers into a holding registry where case files sit pending receipt of further papers. This error was not discovered until 10 November 1989—a date of special significance to my hon. Friend—when the Lord Chancellor's Department was first made aware of this evening's debate.
  My hon. Friend may take some comfort from the fact that the case was put before a commissioner on the afternoon of 10 November and that leave has been granted. In an attempt to speed things along, observations have been requested within 21 days instead of 30 days as is normal. I am advised that notification of this decision was sent to Mr. Moore on that day, and the way is now open for the appeal to be considered by the commissioner in the normal way.
  The Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the office of the social security commissioner, has asked me publicly to reiterate the apology that was conveyed to my hon. Friend in writing for this most unfortunate delay in dealing with Mr. Moore's application for leave. Although there have been some delays at the commissioner's office in dealing with such matters—caused by the significant increase in the work load and the number of appeals over the past 18 months—the delay in this case was caused by a clerical error which, when discovered, was dealt with with great promptness.
  The Lord Chancellor has also asked me to thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter and to say that he has written personally to Mr. Moore to apologise. It was generous of my hon. Friend to acknowledge the heartfelt and generous nature of the apology that he received from my noble Friend. I can but add my apologies to those of my noble Friend for the problems that Mr. Moore has experienced in this distressing case. I cannot, of course, predict the outcome of an appeal—my hon. Friend would not expect me to do so—but our apologies are heartfelt.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  County Courts
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps are being taken by the Lord Chancellor to correct the delays and errors in the county courts.

  The Attorney-General
  Delays are occurring in some county courts because of staffing difficulties in conjunction with an overall increase of 6·5 per cent. in workload. An additional £2 million has recently been allocated to the court service, which includes county courts, from within departmental resources to stabilise staff numbers and maintain performance at the required level. The position will be kept under review to see if further action is required.

  A level of checking is required by the Department which is intended to keep errors to a minimum and is the responsibility of local supervisory staff.

  Legislation
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor will consider publishing a Green Paper on the subject of the drafting of legislation, its scrutiny and subsequent interpretation, following his rejection of the proposal for the scrutiny of selected Bills by High Court judges contained in the petition to this House on 17 April by George Bednar.

  The Attorney-General
  The drafting of legislation is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord President of the Council. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to publish a Green Paper on this subject.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the serious fraud office of the inspector's report on the takeover of the House of Fraser and the contents of the book entitled "A Hero From Zero."

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 6 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received for the issue of environmental impact assessments of planning applications for quarries of areas exceeding 50 hectares; what action he has taken in each instance; and if he will make a statement concerning any refusals he has made.
  240
  Mr. Moynihan
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to existing planning law.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Containers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to encourage the use of bottles and other returnable containers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We will continue to encourage the reuse and recycling of bottles and other containers through a combination of improved collection and separation facilities, raising public awareness and urging manufacturers and retailers to take account of environmental considerations in the design and production of containers. Our proposals to introduce new arrangements for waste disposal and management will, among other things, help to identify the costs of disposal to landfill and incineration and the benefits of reuse and recycling.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish(a) his latest estimates of the total numbers of people who will be exempt from the poll tax, (b) the estimates for each category of exempt persons, (c) the exact mechanism for applying these figures to the calculation of relevant population for each local authority, and (d) the procedure for reimbursing local authorities for poll tax forgone due to exemptions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The table provides the figures requested.

  On 6 November the Secretary of State placed in the Library a draft population report which sets out his proposals for calculating relevant population. It is the Government's intention that relevant population should be based on the number of people shown in community charge registers on 1 December 1989 as being subject to a personal community charge. Our estimates of numbers exempt do not feature in this calculation, except if community charge registration officers do not return the necessary information to my Department in time, or in other circumstances as specified in the draft population report.

  Revenue support grant will be paid to each receiving authority to ensure that if all local authorities spend at the level of their standard spending assessment, the community charge could be set at the same level in each area regardless of the number exempt. The grant calculation assumes that the community charge is paid only by the relevant population, which excludes exempt people.

  Assumed number exempt in England (Rounded to nearest hundred)

  Number

  Residents in hospitals or homes

  400,000

  Persons in detention

  46,800

  18 and 19 year olds

  155,300

  Visiting forces

  50,800

  Severely mentally impaired

  160,000

  241

  Number

  Others

  9,000

  Total

  821,900

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report recalculations of the tables in annexe J of card 9714 "Paying for Local Government" on the basis of (a) his statement and consultation papers of 6 November, but without his scheme of transitional relief and (b) his statement and consultation papers of 6 November, including his scheme of transitional relief; and if he will make a statement of the effect of his scheme of transitional relief on the pattern of gainers and losers under the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Updated estimates of the distributional impact of the new system of local government finance will be provided shortly. These figures will include the impact of the transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the community charge liability of(a) deaf and blind adults living at home with their parents and (b) deaf and blind adults living in residential institutions.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Year

  Net domestic rate income

  Per cent.

  Net non-domestic rate income

  Per cent.

  All Government grants

  Per cent.

  1982–83

  4,548

  13

  5,685

  17

  13,697

  40

  1983–84

  4,382

  12

  6,042

  17

  15,985

  44

  1984–85

  4,707

  12

  6,361

  17

  16,717

  43

  1985–86

  5,094

  13

  6,740

  17

  17,246

  43

  1986–87

  5,912

  14

  7,566

  18

  17,773

  42

  1987–88

  6,539

  14

  8,088

  18

  18,624

  41

  Notes:

  1. Percentages shown represent proportions of gross expenditure; that is, both current and capital expenditure. The other major sources of income are fees and charges and borrowing. 1987–88 is the most recent year for which this data is available.

  2. Domestic rate income is shown net of rate relief grant and net of rate rebate grants.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached conclusions on definitions on disability for community charge concessions and, in particular, with reference to blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The community charge transitional relief scheme will contain special provision for disabled people who are not former ratepayers or the partners of former ratepayers. A person will be regarded as disabled for the purpose of this scheme if he or she is in receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, mobility supplement, invalidity pension, or severe disablement allowance; or is registered blind.

  Arsenal-Norwich Football Match
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Football Association and the Football League following the scenes of disorder on the pitch during the match between Arsenal and Norwich on Saturday 4 November.
  242
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each charging authority area the difference between their actual level of expenditure in 1989–90 and the level assumed for calculating grant in the 1989–90 RSG settlement, expressed both in £ million and £ per adult, using the most recently assessed figure for relevant population.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed the available information in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each local authority the budgeted increase or reduction in financial reserves for 1989–90, expressed both in £ million and £ per adult, using the most recently assessed figure for relevant population.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed the available information in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the estimated amounts and the proportion these represent of total local government spending in England for (a) all grant towards local government spending from the Exchequer, (b) the total raised by non-domestic rates and (c) the total raised by domestic rates for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Moynihan
  At my request, officials at my Department discussed the incident with the Football Association on 6 November, since early press reports suggested that the association was unable to take action. We were informed that those reports were misleading. During the afternoon, the Football Association charged both clubs with misconduct and with bringing the game into disrepute.

  Minister for Sport (Football Matches)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many football matches the Minister for Sport has attended since becoming Minister for Sport; and on what date he last attended a League Division fixture.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have attended 27 league, cup and international football matches since my appointment as Minister for Sport. The last Football League fixture I attended was the match between Tottenham Hotspur and Queens Park Rangers on 30 September 1989.

  River Mersey (Pollution)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the companies currently given deemed consent to pollute the River Mersey, stating what pollutants they are empowered to discharge; and on what scale;

  (2) what fines were levied on companies and individuals responsible for polluting the River Mersey over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Howard
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what direct consultation is taking place between his Department and organisations working with homeless people in its review of homelessness; and when the results of the review will he published.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend announced the conclusions of the review on Wednesday 15 November. In conducting the review, we have appreciated the advice and information which organisations working with homeless people were able to give us.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his review of the homelessness legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are publishing the full conclusions of our review of the homelessness legislation today, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Our review has looked at the role and purpose of the homelessness legislation and at its effects. The legislation—now part III of the Housing Act 1985—was enacted in 1977 as the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, an all-party measure. Briefly, it requires local housing authorities to find accommodation for people they judge to be homeless according to the criteria specified in the Act.

  We believe that the Act remains important, as a "long stop" measure to help people in need who have become homeless through no fault of their own. The present terms of the Act strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the genuinely homeless and others in housing need. We do not intend therefore to change the law, but we have proposals to make it work better.

  We have also concluded that local councils remain the right bodies to take the lead responsibility in helping homeless people; and some of them are very good at it. However, it is clear from my Department's research and other reports that there is room for improvement. Some councils need to be much faster processing applications, for example; some need to try harder to keep families out of temporary accommodation like bed and breakfast; and in general all councils ought to aim for a better, more consistent service. I propose to amend the code of guidance (to which councils must have regard) and my Department will shortly put a draft out for consultation.

  The pressures of homelessness vary around the country. Statistics are neither as reliable nor as sensitive as I would like. For example, those figures most quoted—the numbers of homeless acceptances—can be affected as much by local policy as by real needs. But it is apparent that the problems are concentrated in London and the south-east. I propose to designate those regions as
  244
  "pressure areas" and to target to them additional resources and help. In particular, we are providing an extra £250 million for these areas over the next two years>—£148 million next year, and £102 million in 1991–92—to help councils and housing associations provide more homes for homeless people. This £250 million is on top of the major increase in the Housing Corporation's programme which will be more than doubled from £815 million this year to £1,736 million in 1992–93. We are reviewing with the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations how this programme can best be distributed to make the maximum impact on housing need, including homelessness.

  We must also make the most of the housing we already have; and this means effective management. Councils and housing associations have empty houses they must bring into use and the extra resources will help where necessary. Helping tenants to move, where they want to, is also important especially if this frees vacancies in the pressure areas. I will provide 100 per cent. funding and support for a new mobility organisation, formed from the three existing bodies, to provide a better targeted service.

  I will continue to encourage the important contribution of the voluntary sector and greatly increased grant aid will be available from next year for homelessness projects. We also want to stop people becoming homeless, as well as helping them when they have got to crisis point. Good practical advice can be vital and I want to set up a comprehensive, national service. Urgent discussions will be held with the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and other voluntary bodies.

  There is concern—which we share—about proper protection and help for young people who leave home and come to live in our inner cities. This affects the responsibilities of a number of Departments, which are reviewing at present the way their policies work together. The Government will make further announcements about this soon.

  We believe it is essential to make this concentrated attack on the problems of homelessness, but these must not be regarded as separate issues, outside the scope of housing policies in general. We cannot just try to treat symptoms, when causes lie deeper. The real and long-term remedies are to be found in an effective housing strategy, based on the contributions of the private and the public sectors, on the harnessing of the market to deliver opportunities and choice, on the targeting of resources to meet needs and on the efficient management of the stock. That is the strategy of the Government and we shall pursue it vigorously for the benefit of the community and those who are homeless or in need.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the annual cost of keeping a homeless family in hotel accommodation in(a) 1985, (b) 1988 and (c)

  Mr. Chope
  The estimate of the average annual cost of keeping a household in bed and breakfast accommodation based on figures provided by English local authorities to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in 1985–86 is £9,500 (£7,000 net of offsetting income such as DSS allowances). For 1987–88 the estimate is £12,500 (£9,500 net of offsetting income). Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. There is a wide range of costs for authorities in different areas.

  Dumping of Chemicals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with member states of the European Community regarding the illegal dumping of dangerous chemicals at sea; and whether he will propose amendments to the flag of convenience system to take into account the level of dumping.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Pollution (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies responsible for pollution have been successfully prosecuted over the past 10 years; and what were the total of fines imposed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on prosecutions in respect of offences under legislation controlling polluting activities in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Some information is published in the annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", and other public sources.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at how many sites in London are pollutant levels of air monitored; for each of the last five years, on how may days air at each of these sites failed to meet the World Health Organisation safety level for(a) carbon monoxide; (b) nitrogen oxides and (c) ozone.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Warren Spring laboratory monitors air pollution in London for my Department. The number of sites and their results are summarised as follows:

  Pollutant

  Number of sites

  Lead

  3

  148

  Black smoke/sulphur dioxide

  224

  Nitrogen dioxide

  3

  Carbon monoxide

  2

  Ozone

  1

  1 1984–85.

  2 1988–89.

  The World Health Organisation has published guideline values (not safety levels), which were exceeded on the numbers of occasions shown as follows:

  (a) Carbon monoxide

  1 hour guideline (25 ppm)

  8 hour guideline (10 ppm)

  11985–86

  none

  none

  1986–87

  none

  none

  1987–88

  none

  none

  1988–89

  none

  1 at site 1

  21989

  none

  1 at site 2

  (b) Nitrogen dioxide

  1 hour guideline (210 ppb)

  24 hour guideline (80 ppb)

  31985

  3 at site 2

  10 at site 2

  31986

  none

  2 at site 1

  11 at site 2

  41987

  1 at site 1

  6 at site 1

  1 at site 3

  4 at site 2

  246

  1 hour guideline (210 ppb)

  24 hour guideline (80 ppb)

  5 at site 1

  41988

  none

  7 at site 3

  3 at site 1

  21989

  1 at site 2

  9 at site 2

  6 at site 3

  (c) Ozone

  1 hour guideline (76 ppb)

  24 hour guideline (50 ppb)

  1985

  14

  35

  1986

  6

  12

  1987

  0

  5

  1988

  1

  1

  21989

  6

  17

  1 Year April to March.

  2 Results to 13 November 1989.

  3 No measurements made at site 3.

  4 No measurements made at site 2.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total daily weight of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants emitted by road traffic in Greater London on a typical Friday in(a) 1984, (b) 1989, (c) 1994, and (d)

  Mr. Trippier
  Warren Spring laboratory has provided the following estimates assuming the London annual total emission from road transport to be 7·55 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, and assuming Friday emissions to be 0·288 per cent. of the annual total.

  Typical 1984 Friday emissions; NOx, 200 tonnes; CO, 838 tonnes.

  Corresponding data are not yet available for 1989. The Department is currently revising its projections of future vehicle emissions in the light of the recent EC agreement on tighter emission standards and other developments, and I regret that the information sought for 1994 and 1999 is therefore also not at present available.

  Regional Rivers Advisory Committees
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the name of the nominating body for all of those who have so far been appointed to the regional rivers advisory committees in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Information Services
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will differentiate between the roles of the European Environmental Statistics Office, the Corine programme and the proposed European-environment monitoring and information network.

  Mr. Trippier
  The role of the Statistical Office of the European Communities is to collect, co-ordinate and disseminate statistics to assist in the formulation and monitoring of a wide range of Community policies. The office is mainly concerned with economic and social statistics; its programme of work on environmental statistics has only just begun.

  The Corine programme is an experimental project run by the European Commission to assemble information on

  247
  environmental topics that can be mapped and tabulated using geographic information systems as a management tool.

  The role of the proposed European Environment Agency and the European environment monitoring and information network is to provide the Commission and member states with objective environmental information and analysis. Where necessary the agency will draw on the work of the Statistical Office to avoid duplication of effort and the Corine-related work will pass to the agency if and when it is established in due course.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the provision of low-cost rented accommodation and the measures which he has already taken in this respect.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have taken a variety of measures to encourage the supply of rented housing, including the deregulation of private letting, the encouragement of private investment in housing associations and a major increase in public funding through the Housing Corporation for new rented housing development by housing associations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement today gives details of our plans for further investment in low-cost rented housing over the next three years.

  Liverpool (Budget Deficit)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Liverpool city council requesting assistance in meeting its budget deficit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any. It is the responsibility of the city council to take appropriate action to bring its revenue account into balance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth may expect a reply to his letter of 26 June referring to Mr. A. S. Johnson of 56 School street, Hillmorton.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Short-life Housing
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has studied the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Family Housing Association v. Jones and its implications for the use of short-life empty dwellings by housing associations and local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible to assess the full implications of the judgment in this case until it has been fully reported.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many official cars there are in the Government car pool, by make and engine capacity; and what is the cost of their repairs and maintenance.
  248
  Mr. Chope
  The information in respect of official cars in all Government Departments is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However in the London Government car service fleet there are currently 186 vehicles of various makes and engine capacities. The cost of maintaining this fleet over the last 12 months was £218,000.

  Circulars and Consultation Papers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the circulars and consultation papers issued to(a) county councils, (b) metropolitan district councils and (c) non-metropolitan district councils since 1 January, together with the dates they were despatched.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  CFCs
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England and Wales which are making arrangements for the recycling of CFC gases from freezers and fridges discarded at their waste sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  Comprehensive information on local authority facilities to recycle CFCs is not at present available, but my Department is to carry out shortly a survey on this and other aspects of recycling.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on discussions held and decisions taken concerning the uniform business rate for nationalised industries; and if he will indicate the anticipated amount to be paid by British Rail in the first year of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have held extensive discussions with representatives of all those industries whose rateable values are to be prescribed by orders made under paragraph 3 of schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and our proposals for new assessments were contained in a consultation paper issued on 4 October, the responses to which we are now considering. I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the Library. No decisions have yet been taken on the values for these industries. But if our proposed rateable value for British Rail is adopted and assuming the provisional multiplier of 36 pence which my right hon. Friend announced on 6 November, after the application of the transitional arrangements, British Rail's rate bill for property assessed on this basis in England in 1990–91 would be about £57·5 million.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has discussed the implications of the uniform business rate with the Forum of Private Business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The then Minister for Local Government met Mr. Mendham, the chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, on 5 May 1989 to discuss the business rate. Also officials have had several meetings with Mr. Mendham his year on the same subject.

  Council Houses, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the number of council houses sold to tenants in the Chelmsford local authority area from 3 May 1979 to the latest available date; and what proportion this is of the stock that existed on 3 May 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  Chelmsford district council is estimated to have sold 3,260 dwellings to its tenants in the period 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1989 (the latest date for which a return has been received). This amounts to some 26 per cent. of its April 1979 stock.

  Dolphinaria Report
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if those responsible for supervising and implementing the dolphinaria steering group report for new standards for United Kingdom dolphinaria have been informed that the necessary work will be undertaken;

  (2) when the new standards for United Kingdom dolphinaria, contained in the dolphinaria steering group report, will be included in the guidance notes for his inspectors.

  Mr. Trippier
  New draft standards for dolphinaria and the guidance notes for inspectors have been compiled and will be circulated to the appropriate bodies for comment shortly. A number of matters relating to the new standards and the steering group recommendations have raised scientific or technical questions and specialist advice is being sought. Several other items in the dolphinaria steering group report have already been implemented and work on the remainder is in hand.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the dolphinaria steering group report published in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  One dolphinaria operator has supplied details of his plans for implementation of the new standards. The Department is awaiting replies from the remaining operators. A reminder has been sent.

  Dogs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation requiring that all dogs for sale carry an identification tag and the tendering of a written specification prior to sale stating the purpose for acquiring a dog; and if he will give district councils the power to operate a neutering service.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We issued a consultation paper on 10 August which set out a package of measures we propose on dog control. We do not propose to impose the requirements in respect of the sale of dogs suggested by the hon. Member. We believe that some local authorities already subsidise neutering under existing powers.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation requiring dogs to be on leads at all times in public places.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are currently reviewing the operation and scope of dog-control byelaws and orders,250
  which include powers requiring dogs to be on leads on highways and other specified areas. The hon. Member's suggestion is one that was made in response to our recent consultation paper on dog control measures and we are considering it as part of our review.

  Housing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimates he has made of the demand for housing in the year 2000; and what policies he has initiated to help meet this demand;

  (2) when he last met the National Housing Forum; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Local Plans
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the occasions since 1971 when he or his predecessors have called in a local plan under the provisions currently set out in section 14A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 giving details of the plans concerned and the decision recorded in each case.

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1971 the following local plans have been called in by the Secretary of State under section 14(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or section 14A(1) of that Act as substituted by the Housing and Planning Act 1986:

  Date of call-in

  Title of plan

  Decision

  20 February 1985

  Berwick upon Tweed Town Local Plan

  Approved with modifications

  28 January 1986

  North Southwark Local Plan

  Rejected

  23 September 1987

  Wimbledon Town Centre Local Plan

  Approved with modifications

  13 June 1989

  Environment and Traffic on the A205 Local Plan (LB Lewisham)

  Still before the Secretary of State

  A further eight local plans prepared by former metropolitan county councils were called in in 1986 to enable them to be taken forward to approval following the abolition of the counties.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the failure of a local planning authority to implement a key recommendation of his inspector, following a local plan inquiry, constitutes grounds for him calling in the plans.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Authorities are not obliged to accept the inspector's recommendations following a local plan public inquiry, but failure to do so could constitute grounds for intervention by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he adopts in deciding whether or not to call in a local plan in accordance with the provisions of section 14A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government's policy on calling in local plans is set out in the memorandum on structure and
  251
  local plans accompanying DOE circular 22/84. This states that the Secretary of State's call-in power will be used only in a limited range of circumstances where central Government intervention is clearly justified—for instance, where the plan raises issues of national or regional importance or where the plan gives rise to substantial controversy.

  Water Standards
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of cases brought against each European Community member state by the Commission for failure to reach European Community standards for(a) bathing waters and (b) drinking water in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement regarding cases involving the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to improve the effectiveness of the provisions of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 in controlling the import and movement of toxic waste in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The regulations enable waste disposal authorities effectively to control imports of hazardous waste. The parent European directive is however to be reviewed in the light of operation experience, revised definitions of hazardous waste and the Basel convention. The Government are contributing fully to the review and have made proposals to reduce the volume of transfrontier shipments and to extend controls. We are considering legislation to enable us to extend controls in the future.

  Playgrounds
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to issue a new code of guidance to local authorities about playground provision and safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government regard it as essential that playgrounds should be as safe as possible and that children using them should not be at risk of accident. I have asked the national children's play and recreation unit to produce updated guidance on general aspects of play safety, including playground safety. This will make reference to the relevant British Standards and to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which requires local authorities and other playground operators to take reasonable measures to ensure safety in playgrounds which are under their control. We hope to issue this guidance in the spring of next year and copies will be sent to all local authorities and other interested organisations.

  House of Commons Accommodation
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has yet completed the work to the former Cannon Row police station to provide additional accommodation for the benefit of the House.

  Mr. Chope
  With the agreement of the Accommodation and Administration Subcommittee No. 1 Cannon row, as 252
  it is now known, has been modernised to provide short-term accommodation for the House pending redevelopment of the building as part of the Bridge street redevelopment scheme. I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that the building is ready for occupation and the first occupants have already moved in.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the listed building status of Battersea power station has not been infringed by work carried out by the current developers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rent Arrears
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table of all the London boroughs showing the current level of rent arrears for each of them.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: Local authorities report their rent arrears on their housing subsidy claim forms. A table was placed in the Library on 1 March this year showing rent arrears reported at April 1988 and those arrears as a percentage of rent roll. Figures for April 1989 are not yet available.

  London Blenheim Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will fix a date earlier than 10 April 1990 for the inquiry into planning appeal reference APP/L5240/A/89/133451, lodged by London Blenheim Estates Ltd. on grounds of non-determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: The public local inquiry date of 10 April 1990 is the earliest practicable for this appeal. An earlier date will be offered if or when an inspector becomes available—for example, on the cancellation of an earlier inquiry—provided the local planning authority agrees to the change.

  Derbyshire County Council Pension Fund
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent investigations into the operation of the Derbyshire county council pension fund by the stock exchange and the Takeover Panel.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: This is a matter for the stock exchange and the Takeover Panel. I understand that the latter has stated that it has found no evidence of any breach of the code on the part of either Miss World or Derbyshire county council arising from any connection between them and, accordingly, that it does not intend to take the matter further.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those measures which have been taken since 1985 to increase the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
  253
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: In July 1988 the Government announced their rural housing initiative which for the first time set out a specific policy on low-cost housing in smaller villages. The Housing Corporation established a special rural programme aimed at expanding the role of housing associations in villages with a population of under 1,000. Last Wednesday I invited the Housing Corporation to propose a further increase in this programme to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1,200 in 1991–92 and 1,500 in 1992–93. I also asked it to separately identify a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme, to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991–92 and 350 in 1992–93.

  We are introducing a scheme in certain rural areas whereby housing associations can repurchase former shared ownership dwellings at full market value when an occupier moves on. The Housing Corporation will guarantee to make the necessary funds available, without reducing the corporation's rural rented or shared ownership programmes.

  Last February we announced changes to planning rules which will enable local planning authorities exceptionally to release small pockets of land, not previously designated for housing, for low cost schemes to meet the needs of local people.

  In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced changes to capital gains and inheritance taxes on land sold at less than best price to registered housing associations.

  Tax is now based on the actual proceeds of sale rather than the market value, thereby encouraging landowners to release small units of surplus land for low-cost local needs housing.

  In addition rural areas can expect to benefit from the encouragement we have given to private investment in the rented sector through deregulation and the tax incentives available under the business expansion scheme. Areas with shortages of low-cost housing should also benefit from various measures that are being taken to improve the focusing of capital resources, both for local authorities and housing associations, on areas with the greatest needs.

  Taken together these measures should make a significant contribution to increasing supply in rural areas with a need for more low-cost housing.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has(a) been conducted by his Department and (b) been evaluated by his Department that examines the possibility that the intake of nitrates diluted in drinking water is harmful to human health.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Community Charge
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is his estimate of the numbers of adult residents of(a) each London borough and (b) each district council likely to be entitled to the maximum rebate, during the first year of operation of the community charge in England and Wales; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the estimated population of each local authority liable to community charge.
  254
  Mr. Christopher Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  East Kilbride Office
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the numbers of jobs in his Department being relocated in the East Kilbride office.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have reviewed recently the location of the work of the ODA and have identified a number of functions which might be transferred away from the ODA's London headquarters. About 100 posts are involved, a number of which are currently the subject of more detailed scrutiny. A substantial proportion of these jobs will be transferred to the ODA office in East Kilbride, but the exact number has yet to be decided.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Refugees (Vietnam)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of refugees voluntarily seeking repatriation from Hong Kong to Vietnam; if, in pursuing compulsory repatriation, he will take into account the views of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on whether the authorities in Hanoi are able to cope efficiently with returning refugees; and if he will make a statement on the use of force against refugees moved to a detention centre.

  Mr. Maude
  There is no question of refugees being repatriated to Vietnam against their will, although five refugees have returned at their own request. So far, 507 people have returned voluntarily to Vietnam under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and arrangements are being made with the Vietnamese authorities for the return of a further 1,000 volunteers as quickly as practicable. These are overwhelmingly people who have not yet been screened to determine whether they are refugees. Of those who have completed the screening procedures, and whose appeals have been heard, only 13 per cent. are found to be genuine refugees. The Hong Kong authorities have taken careful note of the comments made by the UNHCR representative in Hong Kong. We have full confidence in the manner in which the Hong Kong authorities have handled this matter.

  EI Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by Her Majesty's ambassador or his staff in El Salvador with representatives of trade unions or human rights groups during the last six months; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's ambassador to El Salvador and his staff maintain regular contact with Salvadorean and other human rights groups, as well as
  255
  with trade unions and representatives of all shades of opinion in El Salvador. These exchanges cover a wide range of subjects.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been granted in loans to Indonesia by Her Majesty's Government during 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made two concessional loan facilities worth a total of £240 million available to the Government of Indonesia. Loans worth around £55 million have so far been signed for five projects. Of these, two, worth around £19 million, were signed in 1988 and one, worth around £17 million, has been signed in 1989. Contracts have been signed recently for two further projects worth around £40 million, and it is expected that loan agreements for these will be concluded shortly.

  South Africa
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by cost, all schemes in South Africa aided by the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We expect to spend some £3·9 million in 1989–90 on programmes of scholarships and training in the United Kingdom for South Africans. The United Kingdom share (expected to be some £3 million in 1989) of the European Community's programme of positive measures is attributed to the British aid programme. We also support the following schemes in South Africa: the costs given relate to forecast expenditure in the current financial year only:

  £'000

  1 Scholarships tenable in South Africa

  British Award Scheme in South Africa

  525

  British Awards Scheme

  150

  2 Projects

  Alexandra Health Centre

  250

  Contribution to Urban Foundation loan guarantee fund

  250

  Science Education Project

  100

  Assistamce to the University of Western Cape

  90

  Training Programmes for South African Trades Unions

  75

  Molteno Literacy Project

  60

  Primary Mathematics Project

  40

  Assistance to Early Learning Centres

  40

  Assistance to the READ Education Trust

  35

  English Language Training Seminars

  30

  Adult Education Project

  30

  Assistance to Get Ahead Foundation

  25

  Small business consultancy

  5

  Assistance to Business Skills Development Centre

  5

  Assistance to Programme for Technological Careers

  10

  3.Other schemes

  Small Projects approved by the Head of Mission

  650

  Gifts approved by the Head of Mission

  100

  Book Presentations

  70

  4.Emergency aid

  Operation Hunger

  95

TRANSPORT

  A19 (Safety)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to provide(a) lighting, (b) improved access roads, (c) improved drainage and (d) roadside emergency telephones on that section of the A19 which runs through the Easington constituency.

  Mr. Atkins
  A study of the length of the A19 trunk road in County Durham in 1988 recommended a number of improvements in priority order which could be made to the A19. All the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers were taken into account by the study. The study findings are being up-dated in accordance with the new national road traffic forecasts and costs of road accidents. The report recommendations will be included in a future regional roads programme of improvements and maintenance works to be implemented by the Department's agent authorities having regard to other regional priorities and available funding.

  Buses (Access)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what national statistical information he has on the proportion of buses in Britain which are fully accessible to(a) people with disabilities and (b) people who are wheelchair-bound.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no national statistical information available on these points. But I am glad to say that a growing number of operators, manufacturers and local authorities are now adopting the recommended specification drawn up by the disabled persons transport advisory committee.

  A new information video, "Welcome Aboad" is available from my Department on free loan to interested organisations.

  More work needs to be done to develop efficient and effective wheelchair accessible buses. We are working with our European counterparts on this.

  British Rail (Access)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what national statistical information he has relating to the proportion of British Rail passenger services which have toilets which are fully accessible to(a) people with disabilities and (b) people who are wheelchair-bound.

  Mr. Atkins
  Many ambulant disabled people are able to use the standard design of toilets available on long distance British Rail services.

  All services on the InterCity network on the Euston to Glasgow Central service are already equipped with wheelchair accessible toilets. By October 1991 services on the King's Cross to Edinburgh service will also have this facility.

  In the provincial sector about 200 trains representing many hundreds of journeys per day are already similarly equipped. By the beginning of 1992 the whole of that sector will have wheelchair accessible toilet facilities. Improvements are also in place on Network SouthEast.

  Salvage
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport.(1) how many representations he has received, and from whom, in relation to the policy of competitive tendering for the salvage of Government-owned wrecks and cargoes;

  (2) if he will list the Government-owned wrecks and cargoes which have been put out to competitive tender for salvage since his Department adopted such a policy; what were the dates on which tenders were solicited; and what are the numbers of such wrecks and cargoes upon which recovery work has commenced;

  (3) what were the considerations which influenced his decision to suspend the award of salvage agreements; when he anticipates that he will lift that suspension; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what were the considerations which influenced the adoption of a policy of competitive tendering in the salvage of Government-owned wrecks and cargoes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The policy of competitive tendering for the salvage of Government-owned wrecks and cargoes has been introduced to obtain the best return to the taxpayer. One representation has been received in relation to this policy, from Deepwater Recovery and Exploration Ltd. So far one cargo, on the SS Gairsoppa, has been put out to tender. Tender invitations were issued on 29 September 1989 and the closing date for bids is 28 November 1989. Further invitations will be considered in the light of the results of the Gairsoppa tendering.

  Automatic Railway Crossings
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been at automatic railway crossings during the last year; and how many people have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured.

  Mr. Portillo
  Provisional figures for 1988 show 26 accidents at automatic level crossings, in which there were five deaths and 13 injuries.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many automatic railway crossings malfunctions were caused by(a) equipment failure, (b) vandalism and (c) reasons unknown in the last 12 months;

  (2) how many reports of faults or malfunctions there have been with automatic railway crossings during the last year (a) in Wales and (b) in Britain.

  Mr. Portillo
  The statistics requested for the last 12 months are not readily available. Provisional details for 1988 show that no faults or malfunctions with automatic level crossings were caused by equipment failure, vandalism or unknown reasons. There were five "systems failures", two of which were in Wales, caused by

  (a) grease on rails (2)

  (b) train passing signal at danger (2)

  (c) train running into a barrier which had been damaged by a road vehicle.

  A systems failure is defined as any occasion, not resulting in a train accident, when a train runs onto a protected crossing when not authorised to do so.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many automatic railway crossings there are in(a) Wales and (b) Britain.
  258
  Mr. Portillo
  At the end of October 1989, there were 53 automatic level crossings in Wales and 764 in Britain as a whole.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether trains are required to stop when the warning lights for motorists at automatic railway crossings fail; and what failsafe mechanisms are provided.

  Mr. Portillo
  Arrangements vary for the different types of automatic level crossing. Those for the two major types are as follows. At automatic open crossings locally-monitored, such as Raven crossing near Ammanford, failure of the road traffic signals would extinguish the intermittent white light on the railway approach to the crossing. If this light does not show, drivers are instructed to bring their trains to a stand short of the crossing and may thereafter proceed with caution over the road when it is safe to do so.

  At crossings with automatic half-barriers, the barriers would descend automatically if the road traffic signals failed and an indication of the malfunction would be given to the signalman. He would set the railway signals at danger. After being warned of the problem, train drivers would be allowed to proceed with caution in the way described.

  North Circular Road
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the north circular road was closed at the Hanger lane interchange on Sunday 12 November; how long it had been closed; when it will be reopened; what is his estimate of the costs of repair; and what is his estimate of the costs of the delay to the travelling public affected by the closure.

  Mr. Atkins
  The north circular road was closed between Park avenue and Lytham grove in the London borough of Ealing from 1900 hours on Saturday 11 November until 0600 hours on Monday 13 November, to enable work to start on reconstruction of the London Underground, Piccadilly line bridge, at a cost of £2·099 million. The bridge reconstruction is part of the advance works for the improvement of the north circular road between Harrow road and Hanger lane.

  This was the first of a series of weekend closures announced in a recent press notice. No closures will occur during December.

  The closures have been arranged in consultation with the local authority and other bodies. No current estimate of the cost of the delays to the travelling public is available.

  Bridges (Local Roads)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the strengthening of bridge structures on local roads, and about the possible reclassification of local structural maintenance expenditure as capital.

  Mr. Atkins
  Hitherto, expenditure by local authorities in England on structural maintenance has been treated as current expenditure in the local government finance regime just like that on routine maintenance. Structural maintenance by central Government is, however, treated as capital, as is such maintenance by local authorities in Scotland. The appropriateness of this classification has
  259
  been reconsidered in the light of the recommendations of the Audit Commission, and of the implications of the need to have a national network of roads able to carry 40 tonne lorries from 1 January 1999. In accordance with what is proposed in the Local Government and Housing Bill 1989 it is proposed that structural maintenance should be treated as capital by local authorities, become subject to the capital finance regime, and eligible for transport supplementary grant.

  The immediate transfer of all structural maintenance would involve a substantial readjustment of local authorities' financing and accounting practices and a major adjustment to the TSG system. It is therefore proposed that the transfer should be phased over a period of years. In 1991–92—the first practicable year—£90 million would be transferred. This would he sufficient in the Government's view to cover all structural maintenance and renewal expenditure on bridges necessary in 1991–92 as part of a programme to enable the 1999 EC deadline for heavier lorries to be met without bridge restriction on any key routes. It is envisaged that the programme should be continued with the transfer of a further £100 million in 1992–93; the Government consider this sufficient to restore major road carriageways to a satisfactory condition in order to meet the increased traffic flows and heavier lorries expected by the second half of the 1990s. There will be further transfers in later years.

  The transfer would take the form of an addition to TSG, and an addition to credit approvals each covering half of the total transfer. The latter would feed through into standard spending assessment for the financing costs of capital expenditure. They would be balanced by a reduction in standard spending grant equivalent to the full amount of the transfer. The standard spending assessment total for road maintenance would similarly be reduced by the full amount of the transfer and the weighting for traffic in the assessment formula could be adjusted if necessary to reflect the change. The transfer is intended to be neutral in overall public expenditure terms; there is no reason why total local authority spending or community charges should be affected by this switch in accounting practices.

  Next year's TPP circular will give local authorities guidance on the way in which the first tranche will be

  Date

  Station closed on specified line

  Duration of closure

  Reason

  4 October 1989

  Metropolitan

  22 minutes

  Insufficient staff to meet statutory requirements

  6 October 1989

  Northern, Victoria, Piccadilly lines

  18 minutes

  Congestion

  9 October 1989

  All lines

  25 minutes

  Congestion

  20 October 1989

  Northern

  30 minutes

  Safety check by LFCDA

  25 October 1989

  Piccadilly, Victoria

  82 minutes

  Bomb alert

  26 October 1989

  Metropolitan

  37 minutes

  Insufficient staff to meet statutory requirements

  26 October 1989

  Northern, Victoria

  47 minutes

  Insufficient staff to meet statutory requirements

  27 October 1989

  Northern, Metropolitan

  15 minutes

  Bomb alert

  27 October 1989

  Piccadilly

  5 minutes

  Safety check by LFCDA

  28 October 1989

  All lines

  79 minutes

  Safety check by LFCDA

  1 November 1989

  Victoria

  15 minutes

  Congestion

  3 November 1989

  Metropolitan

  20 minutes

  Congestion

  4 November 1989

  Metropolitan

  118 minutes

  Insufficient staff to meet statutory requirements

  12 November 1989

  Metropolitan

  45 minutes

  Insufficient staff to meet statutory requirements

  Animal Feedstuff's
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ban the carrying of mixed cargoes in ships transporting animal feedstuffs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The codes drawn up by the International Maritime Organisation to regulate the 260
  allocated and how to bid for the relevant TSG. The local authority associations will be consulted about this in the usual way. In the interim authorities will need to plan composite bridge strengthening programme in consultation, where appropriate, with the regional offices of DTp in order to be able to meet the EC deadline and to achieve a significant improvement in carriageway condition, first on major roads.

  Local authorities are expected to respond to the change in classification by increasing capital expenditure, and reducing current expenditure, by the amount of the transfer. Authorities are expected to increase their effort on structural maintenance, and the amount transferred to capital will be greater than authorities are currently spending on this. Conversely, the overall reduction in current expenditure will need to be greater than the amount currently spent on structural maintenance; this can be achieved through efficiency savings in routine maintenance which have been recommended by the Audit Commission. Overall there should be no overall increase in local authority spending; the increase in capital expenditure should be offset by an equivalent reduction in current expenditure. The Government will take steps to monitor closely both capital and current expenditure on maintenance in the first year, and in subsequent years. Second and subsequent year transfers will be dependent on authorities responding in the desired way.

  The Government believe that this change will help to ensure that the nation's road system is well maintained and is able to provide for heavier lorries from 1999.

  King's Cross Underground Station
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request London Underground Limited to inform him of the occasions since 1 October when it has had to close part or all of King's Cross underground station, indicating for each occasion the period it was closed inside normal working hours together with the reason; and if he will publish its reply in the Official Report.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following is the information:

  carriage of dangerous goods by sea either in bulk or package form require a proper segregation to be maintained between the stowage of toxic substances and foodstuff. This safeguard should be sufficient but if upon investigation it is found that there is a need to strengthen it this will be pursued.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the disabled persons transport advisory committee will publish the report of its consultation and hearing held earlier this year.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The report on education and training in the transport industry is published today.

  This report focuses on a part of the potential market for public transport which has all too often been neglected in the past. Recent Government surveys indicate that there are over 6 million adults in this country who have a disability of some kind. That in itself is potentially an enormous additional market if our vehicles and systems are designed or adapted to their needs. Added to that, there is a large number of people who are not "disabled" in a medical sense but who have a "mobility handicap" which makes it difficult or impossible for them to use traditional forms of transport. People with heavy luggage, with shopping, with prams and with pushchairs, as well as those who are frail and elderly come into this category.

  The report highlights this hitherto neglected market section and makes a number of direct practical recommendations to ensure that in future our transport systems are better attuned to the needs of people who have mobility handicaps. Those recommendations which involve action by my Department will be looked at immediately. I warmly endorse the Committee's work and its findings and I urge local authorities, transport operators, and professional transport institutions, to whom many of the other recommendations in the report are addressed, to note it and act upon it speedily.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the vehicle inspectorate executive agency annual report will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The vehicle inspectorate's annual report and accounts, published today, provide a valuable overall picture of the general condition of Britain's road vehicles. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  The condition of the heavy goods vehicle fleet appears to have improved during the past year. The annual test failure rate for motor vehicles has decreased from 33 per cent. to 31·5 per cent. and there was also a marginal decrease in the failure rate for trailers, from 26·8 per cent. to 26·5 per cent. However, there was an increase in the frequency of some brake-related faults on trailers which is probably due to the changes to the braking requirements and tighter test brake performance standard introduced in the early 1980s.

  On environmental standards, there is encouraging news. Surveys carried out during the year show that the number of vehicles with diesel engines seen emitting excessive smoke continues to decline. The failure rate at annual test for excessive smoke remains unchanged at just over 1 per cent.

  The trends in the condition of the PSV fleet are also encouraging. Special roadside surveys and the PSV testing scheme indicate that PSVs are being operated and presented for test with fewer faults and that the improvement in annual test pass rates seen last year has been maintained. However it is less encouraging that the
  262
  number of immediate prohibitions issued at spot checks has shown a slow but steady rise over the last few years. The trend will be carefully monitored and the inspectorate will continue to work closely with the Bus and Coach Council which has been very supportive during the year, particularly with regard to a variety of road safety based training courses which have been held.

  Although the overall condition of cars and light goods vehicles has marginally improved, the annual test fail rate is still 41 per cent. It is encouraging that there has been a reduction in the number of failures due to poor brakes and tyres, both safety critical areas, but this contrasts with a rise in the number of vehicles with lighting defects.

  The condition of the motorcycle fleet appears to be deteriorating. The overall fail rate is the same as the last two years (30 per cent.) but there has been a continuous rise over the past four years in the total number of defects. The largest increases in 1988 were in the two critical areas of brakes and steering.

  Annual and spot checks of vehicle roadworthiness are important ways in which risk on the roads is contained. Whilst the results in the report show some improvements and encouraging trends, the failure rates continue to be too high and serve to remind owners and operators of the need to ensure that their vehicles are properly and regularly maintained.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Observance Act 1780
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to repeal the Sunday Observance Act 1780.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. We believe that the policy of successive Governments to leave the initiative with private Members should be maintained.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any provision to ensure that the Sunday Observance Act 1780 is enforced on 31 December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines to local authorities on the enforcement of the Sunday Observance Act 1780 in time for consideration of the issue of relevant licences for Sunday 31 December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for local authorities to determine whether or not to grant entertainment licences taking into account the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act 1780.

  Magistrates Clerks (Media)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has given magistrates' clerks about supplying lists giving details of defendants and charges to the media; what he has suggested the list should contain; what steps he is taking to ensure that it is not prejudicial to defendants for charges to be publicised prior to any trial and that such publicity does not stigmatise an innocent person; and if he will make a statement.
  263
  Mr. John Patten
  Guidance is contained in Home Office circular 80/1989, a copy of which I am placing in the Library. It does not affect the rights of defendants.

  Shotguns
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to take action regarding the open sale of shotguns disguised as walking sticks and umbrellas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The purchase of all kinds of shotguns is controlled under the provisions of the Firearms Acts 1968 and 1988. Such guns may be purchased only by persons who have been granted a shot-gun certificate by a chief officer of police, and all applications for such certificates are carefully scrutinised. A chief officer of police can refuse to grant or renew a shotgun certificate if he is satisfied that an applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring a shotgun. The carrying of a loaded shotgun in a public place without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence.

  Under section 18 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 a visitor to Great Britain may purchase a shotgun for export only, but is not permitted to take possession of it in this country.

  Tarek A. Shirief
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received recent representations from Tarek A. Shirief's lawyers about the return of his passport; and if he will make a statement about the inquiry into alleged misconduct by West Sussex police regarding this case.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 July at column 303. We have no record of having received any further representations from Mr. Shirief's solicitors since then.

  Mr. Shirief's complaint against the West Sussex police is being dealt with under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The investigation of such complaints is the responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned and Ministers have no authority to intervene. I understand that the investigation cannot proceed at present because Mr. Shirief's whereabouts are unknown.

  Forensic Units
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 2 November,Official Report, column 265, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) of 27 October, Official Report, column 637, if he has assessed the costs and benefits of the use of public funds to establish independent forensic units in universities, along the lines of Professor Brian Caddy's unit in Strathclyde.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. We are not convinced of the need for such a study.

  Sri Lankans
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the reasons why the whereabouts of the Sri Lankans who stripped at Heathrow, and whether any of them have left the United Kingdom, are not known.

  (2) when he anticipates that the remaining cases of the Sri Lankans who stripped at Heathrow will be resolved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cases will be resolved as soon as pressure of work in the refugee unit allows. We cannot guarantee that changes of address will have been notified to us promptly, but, unless there was some deception, embarkation from the United Kingdom would routinely be recorded.

  Visitors (Overstaying)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record is kept of the departure of visitors from the Indian sub-continent; how this is used to establish who is overstaying; and if he can quantify the level of overstaying in the clearest and most expressive way.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Deportation
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that the issue of the deportation of IMP A355695/55 Adeshola Adunni Adeloma will be resolved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid to victims of crime by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in(a) 1989 to date, (b) 1988, (c) 1987, (d) 1986, (e) 1985 and (f)

  Mr. John Patten
  Between 1 April and 30 September the board paid £27·6 million in compensation to victims. The payments in earlier years ended 31 March were as follows:

  Year

  Compensation £ million

  1984–85

  35·3

  1985–86

  41·6

  1986–87

  48·2

  1987–88

  52·0

  1988–89

  69·4

  Dowry Disputes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to investigate the incidence of violence associated with dowry disputes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  If the hon. Member will write to me about what he has in mind I will consider his suggestion.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give details of the information which is supplied to employers on the terms and provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

  Mr. Waddington
  The main source of information produced by my Department is the leaflet "Wiping the Slate Clean". Although the leaflet is intended primarily for people who have been convicted, it sets out the effects of the Act and indicates that an employer cannot dismiss or refuse to employ a person because he or she has a spent conviction.

  Copies of the leaflet have been made available for example through all citizens' advice bureaux and are available free of charge from Room 339, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's gate, London, SW1H 9AT.

  Burglaries
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries involving private dwellings took place in(a) Great Britain, (b) inner cities and (c) inner London in the last three years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information relates to police force areas in England and Wales and is published annually in table S3.1, "Criminal Statistics Supplementary Tables 1988, Volume 3", quarterly in table 4 of Home Office statistical bulletins (the latest issue is 29/89) and separate tables for each police force area and quarterly in separate tables for London boroughs (showing total burglary); copies of all these are in the Library.

  Attacks on Women
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were attacked by intruders in their homes, not including incidents of domestic violence, in each of the last three years for which figures are available in(a) Great Britain, (b) inner cities and (c) inner London.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available.

  Holmes System
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Holmes system, as operated by police forces in England; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Holmes system as operated by Hampshire constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The effectiveness of the Holmes system in meeting the requirements set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for computer assistance in the investigation of major crime is kept under review by the Home Office in collaboration with ACPO. The present system appears to be meeting these needs satisfactorily, although work is in hand to make improvements to the system in due course.

  The effectiveness of the Holmes system in use in individual police forces is a matter for chief officers.

  National Information Network
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy with regard to the establishment of a national information network for the police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our aim is to implement a national information network for the police as soon as practicable. A study has already been undertaken to determine the potential traffic between forces and between forces and other parts of the criminal justice system. The next stage is to undertake a number of pilot projects to ascertain the technical requirements for the interchange of electronic data and to establish standards.

  Pet Animals (Protection)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Council of Europe convention for the protection of pet animals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 1 December 1988 at column 401.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will mount a publicity campaign aimed specifically at children which instructs them how to keep themselves safe from child abuse.

  Mr. John Patten
  We believe that advice on this subject is best communicated to children through their parents or other responsible adults. It is for this reason that the Home Office crime prevention handbook reproduces advice for parents to give to their children prepared by the Kidscape organisation.

  Immigration
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate, for each of the past three years, and for the current year to date, how many people have been given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cases referred to cannot be identified separately in the figures for acceptances for settlement. As analysis of acceptances in the years 1986–88 and the first two quarters of 1989, by category, is published in table 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 31/ 89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Second Quarter 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. Corresponding information for the third quarter of 1989 will be published next month.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in gaols in England and Wales were offered prescribed methadone maintenance or withdrawal programmes for drug addiction in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) so far in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of drug addicts received into prison custody who are offered methadone as part of their treatment is not recorded centrally.
  267
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical treatment is available for prisoners with drug addiction problems in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to a question by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 27 July 1989 at column 794.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which community-based drug agencies have access to prison establishments in England and Wales; and whether the prison department meets their expenses.

  Mr. Mellor
  In developing throughcare arrangements, prison establishments increasingly take account of the potential contribution available from suitable community-based drug agencies. Details of those used are not collected centrally. Governors may meet reasonable expenses incurred by participating members of voluntary organisations.

  Prisons
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total prison population in(a) England, and (b) Wales, in each of the years since 1980.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The readily available information is given in the table.

  Population in custody in England and Wales on 30 June, 1980–89

  30 June Year

  Prison Service establishments

  Police cells

  All persons in custody

  England

  Wales1

  1980

  42,908

  1,028

  —

  43,936

  1981

  43,398

  1,063

  —

  44,461

  1982

  42,915

  1,085

  54

  44,054

  1983

  42,339

  987

  300

  43,626

  1984

  43,537

  896

  22

  44,455

  1985

  46,518

  985

  96

  47,599

  1986

  45,716

  919

  181

  46,816

  1987

  49,202

  1,063

  581

  50,846

  1988

  48,568

  1,010

  724

  50,302

  1989

  47,652

  880

  226

  48,758

  1 Cardiff, Swansea and Usk (Prescoed)

  Table A

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody1 by court England and Wales 1988

  Immediate custody

  Court

  Total sentenced

  Number

  per cent.

  Magistrates'

  1,456,925

  23,729

  2

  Crown

  98,435

  48,336

  49

  All courts

  1,555,360

  72,065

  5

  1 Includes both summary and indictable offences.

  Table B

  Persons committed for sentencing to the Crown Court 1988 and defendants sentenced to immediate custody at the Crown Court after summary conviction 1988

  England and Wales

  Court

  Committed for sentence to Crown Court

  Crown Court

  Total for sentence

  Immediate custody

  Number

  per cent.

  Magistrates'

  7,362

  1

  1

  1

  Crown

  1

  7,382

  4,113

  56

  1 Not applicable.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the total number of persons sentenced to a period of imprisonment in England and Wales during 1988 were put into custody by the Crown court; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many of the total number of persons sentenced to a period of imprisonment in England and Wales during 1988 were put into custody by the magistrates court; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many persons were committed for sentencing to the Crown court by a magistrates court in England and Wales during 1988; how many of those persons received a custodial sentence; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will list the number of persons given a custodial sentence in England and Wales during 1988 following convictions for theft, burglary, dishonestly handling, deception and fraud when the value of the goods stolen or damaged was (a) less than £2,000, (b) less than £1,000, (c) less than £500, (d) less than £200, and (e) less than £100; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what proportion of all persons sentenced to a period of custody in England and Wales during 1988 received a sentence of (a) 12 months or less, and (b) six months or less; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what was the total number of persons sentenced to a period of imprisonment in England and Wales during 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Information held centrally for 1988 is given in the tables which relate to the principal offence for which the offender was sentenced. Court proceedings data does not distinguish the value of goods stolen or damaged for offences committed.
  269

  Table C

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody for specific offences England and Wales 1988

  Offence

  Total sentenced

  Immediate custody

  Number

  per cent.

  Burglary

  48,491

  16,738

  35

  Theft

  140,112

  14,774

  11

  Dishonest handling

  23,508

  3,078

  13

  Fraud1

  20,041

  2,920

  15

  1 Including by deception.

  Table D Persons sentenced to immediate custody by sentence length and by court England and Wales

  Court

  Total sentenced to immediate custody

  6 months and under

  Length of sentence Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  Magistrates'

  23,729

  23,729

  100

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Crown

  48,336

  15,451

  32

  13,913

  29

  18,971

  39

  All courts

  72,065

  39,180

  54

  13,913

  19

  18,971

  26

  1 Not applicable.

  Immigration and Nationality Office (Birmingham)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Birmingham immigration and nationality office will open for public business.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: Not before the next financial year when the opening of the proposed Birmingham public inquiry office will have to be considered with other demands on the available financial resources.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations have been received by her Cabinet secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised that there have been no such representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public.

  Security
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's latest assessment of the threat from the Soviet Union to the security of the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  The Soviet Union, together with the other members of the Warsaw pact currently possesses a large superiority in conventional ground and air forces in Europe, as well as very powerful naval and nuclear forces, and will continue to do so even after the recently promised unilateral cuts have been implemented.

  As long as the Warsaw pact retains military forces on this scale, the capability that they provide for aggression, if intentions should change, cannot be ignored. NATO's aim is to remove the imbalance of forces in Europe by negotiated reductions, to create a lasting, stable peace, in which all states can enjoy security with freedom with the minimum necessary forces.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards reunification of Germany in the event of all foreign troop withdrawals from German soil; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 7 June at column 161.

  Employment (Ministers and Officials)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will introduce legislation to prevent Ministers and officials, including officials of the Bank of England, from taking up employment with any firm or organisation working in a sector with which they have been directly or indirectly associated in the previous five years.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Environment
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will publish or authorise the publication of all papers presented to, and the transcript of all evidence presented by, scientists and other experts at the meeting on the environment held at 10 Downing street on 26 April;

  (2) if she will list all the scientists and other experts who took part in the meeting on the environment at 10 Downing street on 26 April.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Haemophiliacs (HIV)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will consider waiving legal aid requirements to enable all HIV-positive haemophiliacs to instigate immediately court cases against regional health authorities; and whether she will consider granting a further ex-gratia payment prior to the courts receiving a settlement in these cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.
  271
  No. The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for such matters. It advises that legal aid will continue to be available subject to the usual criteria.

  In respect of a further ex-gratia payment, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South West (Mr. Butcher) on 6 November at columns 450–51.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase the disabled student equipment award.

  Mr. Jackson
  The disabled student allowance maximum within the mandatory award—which is not confined to equipment—has been substantially increased in recent years, and stands at £765 for 1989–90. My right hon. Friend will consider its level when he comes to review mandatory award rates for 1990–91 in the light of student needs and available resources.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Students with Disabilities Bureau; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities (SKILL). Officials in my Department, however, hold frequent meetings with representatives of the bureau.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will undertake a survey to discover how much is spent by visually impaired further education and higher education students on(a) equipment, (b) training on usage of equipment, (c) cost of human assistance and (d) production and storage costs of materials in Braille, large print and tape.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so, but will keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount spent on the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1987–88 local education authorities in England and Wales assessed disabled students allowances totalling some £158,000 within mandatory student awards.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of disabled students receive the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  All disabled students in receipt of mandatory awards who by reason of disability incur additional expenditure in attending their courses are eligible for this allowance. Information is not collected centrally on disabled students not in receipt of mandatory awards.

  ILEA
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the leader of the Inner London education authority; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
  272
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend met the leader of the Inner London education authority in his capacity as chairman of the education committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities at a meeting of members and officers of local authorities on 26 October to discuss local authority spending on education in 1990–91. I met the leader of the authority on 27 September to discuss teacher shortages and early years provision in inner London.

  Schools (Government Policy)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received in the last three months, to date, from head teachers(a) in Bradford and (b) in the United Kingdom expressing concern at the impact of Government policy in their schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend frequently receives correspondence from head teachers about various aspects of education provision.

  Education Resources (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received asking him to make inquiries into whether resources made available by him to Bradford for education purposes have been transferred into infrastructure schemes related to the west end development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. It is for local authorities to decide how to use the level of resources available to them, in the light of local needs and circumstances. They are free to use the virement arrangements between authority services.

  Grant-maintained Schools, Easington
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which boards of school governors have expressed a wish to opt for grant-maintained status within the Easington constituency.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is not aware of any school governing body in the Easington constituency area which has expressed a wish to opt for grant-maintained status.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his Department's plans for expenditure on education and science over the next three years.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement today, within the redefined public expenditure planning total the provision for the Department of Education and Science's programme in 1990–91 will be £6,589 million. This total is £876 million or 15·3 per cent. higher than the corresponding provision for 1989–90.

  My Department's spending plans include: an increase of over £750 million over the next three years in resources available for higher education—excluding provision for student maintenance awards and the new top-up loans scheme—enabling a substantial increase in student numbers to be funded;

  273
  the addition of over £175 million over the next three years to the science budget, which will reach £897 million in 1990–91—an increase of 27 per cent. over the figure for 1988–89; and annual capital guidelines for local authority capital expenditure in 1990–91 of £485 million; capital allocations for schools and colleges for 1989–90 totalled £352 million.

  Higher Education

  The Government's plans allow for a significant increase in participation in higher education. The number of full-time and sandwich course students is now expected to increase by over 50,000 or just under 10 per cent., between 1988–89 and 1992–93, reflecting mainly the welcome increase in the numbers staying on in school after 16. Despite the declining trend in the number of 18-year-olds, the number of students in higher education is expected to rise throughout the next three years. This means that about one in five 18-year-olds will be entering higher education in 1992–93, compared with one in eight at the end of 1970s. The table sets out the projections of student numbers on which the new expenditure plans are based.

  To fund this expansion, the resources available for higher education will increase by over £750 million over the next three years, compared with previous plans. That addition will include:

  (a) increased provision for recurrent and capital expenditure. Compared with previous plans, the Government are providing some £330 million more over three years for recurrent and capital funding for higher education;

  (b) savings on rates expenditure: higher education institutions will benefit by over £230 million over the next three years from the change in the law on rates payments by charities;

  (c) provision for fees, at the full rate of £1,675 from the academic year 1990–91, for the higher number of full-time students now projected. The increase in fees provision for these extra students is some £190 million over three years.

  Taking these components together, there will be an increase in available recurrent funds for higher education of 10 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Within the total of funds available, the balance between recurrent funding through the funding councils and payments made through tuition fees has been shifted, in accordance with the policy announced on 6 July. That adjustment relates only to previously planned student numbers and is financially neutral; it simply switches resources from recurrent funding to fees.

  Universities

  The plans allow for an increase, excluding the fees for extra students, of over £135 million in recurrent and capital funding for the universities over the three years from 1990–91 to 1992–93. In addition, the universities will benefit from a saving on their rates bill estimated to total over £200 million for these three years and from extra income from tuition fees of £1,675 for every additional student enrolled beyond the Government's earlier plans.

  After taking account of the shift of resources from recurrent funding to higher tuition fees in respect of students allowed for in the Government's earlier plans, the total available in 1990–91 to the Universities Funding Council for recurrent funding will be £1,685 million. As envisaged in earlier plans, this includes £52 million which will be earmarked for the restructuring programme. The
  274
  plans also allow for other committed items such as the continuation of the extra funds made available this year for the 1989 clinical academic pay settlement.

  The plans should ensure the financial viability of the universities as student numbers increase, and should enable them to make significant progress in dealing with maintenance costs and to reach satisfactory pay settlements with their staffs. The Government intend, however, to hold back £20 million of the provision being made available to the Universities Funding Council in 1990–91 for release only in the event of a satisfactory pay settlement for academic staff which incorporates greater flexibility and differentiation.

  Capital funding for the universities has been increased by some £30 million over three years, mainly to allow for new equipment. In addition, the plans allow for an increase in grant to the Open university of £7 million in 1990–91 for capital and recurrent purposes.

  Polytechnics and Colleges

  The plans allow an increase, excluding the fees for extra students, of £195 million in recurrent and capital funding for the polytechnics and colleges over three years. Polytechnics and colleges will also benefit from a saving on their rates bill over three years of some £35 million and from tuition fee income at the level of £1,675 per student for every additional student enrolled beyond the Government's earlier plans.

  After taking account of the shift of resources to higher tuition fees in respect of students allowed for in the Government's earlier plans, recurrent funding available to the PCFC in 1990–91 will be £1,014 million. As envisaged in last year's plans, £7 million of this will be earmarked for further restructuring in 1990–91 and £22 million will be available for contingencies, including maintenance and repairs for buildings. The plans also allow for other commitments including the cost of the additional institutions and courses to be transferred to the PCFC sector from April 1990.

  The plans should enable polytechnics and colleges to maintain financial viability as student numbers increase, and also to reach satisfactory pay settlements with their staffs. The Government intend, however, to hold back £12 million from the provision for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to be released only in the event of satisfactory pay settlements for academic staff which incorporates measures designed to achieve further improvements in efficiency.

  Capital funding for polytechnics and colleges has been increased by £60 million over three years mainly to meet priority building improvement needs.

  In both sectors, the money available allows for costs associated with the move of the funding councils to Bristol. It also takes into account developments in teacher training, in particular the need to enhance school experience for relevant academic staff.

  Student Support

  Planned expenditure on student support takes account of the increased numbers of students projected in the table and of the higher fee level of £1,675 from the academic year 1990–91. After allowing for the switch of funds to fees, total provision for student maintenance and the cost of fees in 1990–91 is £1,210 million. The details of the new rates of award and revised contribution scales will be announced in due course.
  275
  The Government's spending plans also include £109 million in 1990–91, £179 million in 1991–92 and £204 million in 1992–93 for the introduction of the top-up loans scheme from September 1990, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. Provision for the administration costs of the loans scheme will be added when final figures are available. The loan rates will be as set out in the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520).

  The plans include, in addition, provision for the access funds for students in further and higher education, including postgraduate students: £5·6 million and £3·5 million will be made available to the Universities Funding Council and Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council respectively to distribute to institutions within their sectors; £4·1 million will be made available to colleges of further education, and to institutions receiving grant from the Department.

  Science

  The science budget will increase by £178 million over the next three years, compared with previous plans. This reflects the importance which the Government continue to attach to funding basic and strategic science and follows the substantial additional sums made available last year.

  The cash limit for the science budget will he £897 milion in 1990–91, with provision of £912 million in 1991–92 and £935 million in 1992–93—increases over previous plans of £61 million and £58 million and £59 million respectively. At £897 million the science budget in 1990–91 is £189 million higher than expenditure in 1988–89—an increase of 27 per cent. over two years.

  I am inviting the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (the ABRC) to provide me with its advice on the distribution of the resources which the Government are making available, and how they can best be spent to further the Government's aims for civil science in the interests of the nation as a whole.

  Within the totals available I am providing an additional £8·7 million in 1990–91 to sustain scientific research programmes while meeting the construction costs of the Antarctic research and logistics vessel RRS James Clark Ross, and a further £8·5 million to meet the slippage in expenditure on that ship between 1989–90 and 1990–91. The James Clark Ross, which is due to be launched in December 1990, will play a key role in support of environmental research programmes in the Antarctic.

  The Government also intend to put the British Geological Survey on a sound long-term footing through a once-for-all investment in the national geological information service. I am providing a total of £6 million over the three years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 to stimulate the generation of outside income which can be reinvested in core surveying activity.

  We have also undertaken to provide a minimum allocation of £2 million in each year for a remote sensing instrument associated with the proposed earth remote sensing satellite (ERS-2) which is planned to be launched in 1993 by the European Space Agency. I shall be seeking the ABRC's advice on what further allocation is appropriate for earth observation instruments, particularly on polar platforms.

  City Technology Colleges and grant-maintained schools

  The Department's plans allow for the addition of £28 million over the next three years to secure progress towards the target of 20 city technology colleges. Our plans also allow for expenditure on grant-maintained
  276
  schools. The great bulk of this is funded by transfer from local authority current expenditure, but the Department pays grant for transitional, capital and some other costs.

  Local Authority and Voluntary Aided School Capital Expenditure

  In 1990–91 annual capital guidelines for local authority capital expenditure on schools and colleges in England will total £485 million; the capital allocations total was £352 million for schools and colleges in 1989–90. Building grants to voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools will total £118 million, an increase of £30 million over the corresponding vote provision in 1989–90. This extra provision will allow continued progress on improvement programmes in the schools, including building work associated with the introduction of the national curriculum, together with additional investment in further education colleges. Local authorities will also be able to finance capital expenditure from capital receipts and other sources: the actual level of total expenditure is for local authorities to determine in the light of local policies and their assessed requirements.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the level and type of provision of facilities for visually impaired students at each higher education and further education college in Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities extend only to the university of Wales, for which no information on this is held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the gross national product was spent on higher education for each year for which figures are available since 1979; and what information he has on the corresponding figures for Australia, Canada, France, West Germany, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is shown in the table. Corresponding data for earlier years are not readily available.

  Public recurrent expenditure1 on higher education 1986

  As Percentage of GNP

  Australia

  1·6

  Canada

  2·0

  France

  0·7

  West Germany

  0·9

  Japan

  0·5

  United Kingdom2

  0·9

  USA3

  0·8/0·9

  Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook.

  1 The data includes apportionment of expenditure described as unallocated which can be significant.

  2 Excludes expenditure on nursing and paramedical students on courses at Department of Health establishments, and the salaries of in-service teacher training secondments.

  3 Lower figure based on exclusion of 2-year courses from higher education.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of young people between(a) the ages of 16 and 18 and (b) the ages of 19 and 22 years, were in full-time education in the latest year

  277
  for which figures are available; and what information he has on the corresponding figures for Australia, Canada, France, West Germany, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following information is readily available. Figures for combined full-time and part-time participation, and for higher education participation at all

  Proportion in education, academic year 1985–86

  Per cent.

  Country

  Ages 16–18 education and training1

  Ages 19–22 education

  full-time

  full-time and part-time

  full-time

  full-time and part-time

  Australia

  50

  66

  2

  2

  Canada3

  75

  75

  27

  29

  France

  66

  74

  24

  424

  West Germany

  547

  590

  19

  36

  Japan

  77

  79

  6

  6

  United Kingdom7

  33

  69

  88

  823

  (35)

  (73)

  (8)

  (23)

  USA9

  79

  80

  30

  34

  1 Including apprenticeships, YTS and similar schemes.

  2 Not available.

  3 Excluding part-time students at Community Colleges, for whom age detail is not available.

  4 Part-time participation is negligible.

  5 Academic year 1986–87. Includes compulsory part-time education for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  6 Age detail for students aged over 18 is not readily available.

  7 Figures in brackets are for academic year 1987–88. Including nursing and paramedical students at DH establishments, and for 16–18s, estimates for public sector evening study and for private sector further and higher education, including training courses with employers. Includes adult education at LEA establishments.

  8 Based on ages 19–24.

  9 Including private sector higher education.

  Participation in higher education 19851

  New entrant rate2

  Australia

  39

  Canada

  ..

  France

  32

  West Germany

  329

  Japan45

  36/49

  United Kingdom

  34

  USA467

  30/61

  1 Australia 1984, Germany and United Kingdom 1987, USA and Japan 1986.

  2 OECD define new entrants to higher education as excluding postgraduates and those already qualified in higher education irrespective of age. The denominator is the age-group of the population including 70 per cent, of new entrants, divided by the number of years involved.

  3 Partly estimated.

  4 Including a significant private sector element.

  5 Figures presented as range. The higher figure adds students in advanced senshus, some of whom may be equivalent to level 5, to the official rate.

  6 The lower figure is the result of removing students on two year courses (some of which may be below higher education level) from the official rate.

  7 First year students.

  Sources:

  OECD Education in OECD countries—comparative statistics 1985–86.

  Correspondence with individual countries.
  278
  ages on the OECD definition, are also given to provide a fuller picture. Further comparisons of 16 to 18-year-olds will appear in a statistics bulletin, which will be published shortly. Figures for 19 to 22-year-olds in other countries tend to be inflated by longer duration of courses and higher drop-out rates. For example, university courses in the United Kingdom typically last three years compared with four or more years elsewhere.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Televising of Proceedings
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that live television pictures of parliamentary proceedings will be made available on equal terms as to cost to all cable television franchises in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The report of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, which the House has approved as the basis for the televising experiment, provides for all broadcasting organisations to have access to the signal, subject to the approval of the Committee in the case of those other than the BBC, ITN and other contractors within the jurisdiction of the IBA. The report states that the Committee's approval should be withheld "only in exceptional circumstances". The cost at which the signal is supplied to cable operators is a matter in the first instance for negotiation between them and House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd. The Select Committee emphasised in its report, however, that it expected the cost of the experiment"to be shared equally amongst the broadcasting organisations".

  The report also made it clear that, in the event of a complaint of alleged discrimination against one particular customer, or category of customers, in the price charged for the signal, the Committee would consider appointing an arbitrator who would have full access to information about the unit's costs. I should stress that the Committee sees this possibility very much as a final resort, to be invoked only in those rare cases where agreement cannot

  279
  be reached between House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd and an individual customer or group of customers for the signal.

  The Select Committee will, of course, exercise a general oversight over the arrangements for supplying and distributing the signal as part of its responsibility for monitoring the progress of the experiment, with a view to reporting to the House on its outcome in due course.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disablement Assistance
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce the date of the publication of the Government's internal review of employment assistance to disabled adults.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 13 November 1989 at column 58.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the average, median, quartile and decile full-time adult male manual and non-manual workers the percentage increase in real earnings, including overtime, between April 1979 and April 1989 together with the increase in the real value of sterling against the deutschmark, the dollar and the yen between the fourth quarter of 1976 and the first quarter of 1979 and between that quarter and the second quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The increases in real earnings are provided in the table:

  Full-time adult males in Great Britain

  Percentage increase

  Manuals

  Non-manuals

  All

  Lowest decile

  4

  17

  10

  Lower quartile

  8

  26

  14

  Median

  11

  33

  21

  Higher quartile

  14

  37

  29

  Highest decile

  17

  46

  38

  Average earnings

  13

  38

  28

  Notes:

  The increases shown do not relate to the same individuals at the different dates.

  Source: New Earnings Survey data deflated by the RPI (all items).

  There is no single definition of real exchange rates and bilateral real exchange rates are not published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) nor by OECD. Data on bilateral nominal exchange rates and various price indices for the relevant countries are published by the IMF in "International Financial Statistics".

  Skills Training Agency
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 31 October,Official Report, column 172, with reference to the Skills Training Agency, if he will place in the Library a copy of the information memorandum about the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms.280
  Armstrong) on 31 October, Official Report column 172. The information memorandum has been issued to potential bidders who have signed a confidentiality undertaking.

  STA staff and unions have been sent an STA bulletin about the memorandum. A copy of the bulletin will be placed in the Library.

  Agriculture Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and location of agricultural inspectors with responsibility for Wales in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number and location of agricultural inspectors in post in HSE's area and local offices in Wales is as follows:

  Cardiff

  Wrexham

  Carmarthen

  Total

  1 April

  19771

  2—

  2—

  2—

  17

  1978

  —

  —

  —

  17

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  19

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  19

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  16

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1985

  3

  6

  5

  14

  1986

  3

  6

  5

  14

  1987

  5

  5

  4

  14

  1988

  4

  5

  3

  12

  1989

  5

  4

  3

  12

  1 November 1989

  6

  4

  3

  13

  1 Agricultural inspectors joined HSE from MAFF from March 1976; the full field force was in place in March 1977.

  2 Information about the location of inspectors in Wales is not available for 1977–1984.

  The figures do not include inspectors in the inspectorate's HQ, or elsewhere in HSE, engaged on line management work or contributing to policy or technical work.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number and location of factory inspectors with responsibility for Wales in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number and location of factory inspectors in post in HSE's area and local offices in Wales is as follows:

  Cardiff

  Wrexham

  Swansea

  Total

  1 April

  19771

  2—

  2—

  2—

  31

  1978

  2—

  2—

  2—

  31

  1979

  2—

  2—

  2—

  32

  1980

  2—

  2—

  2—

  33

  1981

  2—

  2—

  2—

  31

  1982

  2—

  2—

  2—

  29

  1983

  2—

  2—

  2—

  23

  1984

  2—

  2—

  2—

  23

  1985

  15

  5

  3

  23

  1986

  15

  5

  3

  23

  1987

  16

  5

  3

  24

  1988

  17·5

  6

  3—

  23·5

  1989

  18

  5

  3—

  23

  1 November 1989

  22

  6

  3—

  28

  281
  1 Separate figures for Wales are not available until 1977.

  2 Information about the location of inspectors in Wales is not available for 1977–84.

  3 The HSE office at Swansea was closed in July 1987.

  The figures do not include inspectors in the inspectorate's HQ, or elsewhere in HSE, engaged on line management work or contributing to policy or technical work.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: There has been no discontinuation of any of the statistics collected or published by the Department of Employment since 1986 other than where changes have occurred in the administrative systems from which some statistics are derived. The few minor discontinuations between 1979 and 1986 were described on 10 December 1986, Official Report, columns 221–24 by the then Paymaster General in his reply to the then hon. Member for Oldham, East.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cross Media Ownership
  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the outcome of the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into cross media ownership; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement;

  Company name

  Names of inspectors

  Date of appointment

  Cost £

  Minet Holdings plc

  S C Boyd QC

  8 November 1982

  1,242,964

  W M D Underwriting Agencies Ltd

  P W G DuBuisson FCA

  10 November 1982

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd

  Miss E Appleby QC

  11 March 1983

  280,212

  Link Services Stations Ltd

  P W Foss FCA

  Bank Street Securities Ltd

  Miss E Appleby QC

  4 October 1983

  481,229

  Pennine Commercial Holdings plc

  P W Foss FCA

  Guinness plc

  D T Donaldson QC

  28 November 1986

  1,657,698

  I G Watt FCA

  Langford Scott and Partners
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of compensation paid to investors by his Department following the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the renewing of the licence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 of Langford Scott and Partners; how many investors were compensated; why his Department thought it appropriate to pay compensation; and whether the compensation paid extended to loss of interest and stress as well as loss of the principal sum invested.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department paid a total of £51,415 in compensation to 13 investors in Langford Scott and Partners. The payment was ex gratia and without acceptance of liability. The compensation paid covered the principal sum invested and loss of interest.
  282
  (2) when the Director General of Fair Trading is going to announce the conclusion of his investigation into cross media ownership.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is still considering competition questions relating to cross media ownership. We are also looking at wider aspects of this issue.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the opportunities for British firms wishing to export to Angola and the measures his Department has taken to encourage such trade.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A wide range of services is available to companies under my Department's export initiative. ECGD has short-term cover available for Angola and supports a line of credit for the Takula offshore oilfield development. Opportunities have, however, been limited by Angola's poor economic and security conditions. When peace is restored and plans for economic rehabilitation are fully implemented, there should be increased opportunities for trade.

  Companies Act Inspections
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each continuing Companies Act inspection, giving in each case(a) the name of the company under investigation, (b) the names of the inspectors, (c) the date of their appointment and (d) the cost of the inspection to date.

  Mr. Forth
  The following list provides the information requested.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of investigations into the purchase of the House of Fraser.

  Mr. Forth
  No. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  EC (Economies of Scale)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report an assessment of the industries in which the United Kingdom enjoys the greatest economies of scale within the EEC.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available.

  Textiles, Clothing and Footwear
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the reasons for the fall in the production of textiles, clothing and footwear since 1985; and if he will publish in the Official Report the reduction in the value of output in

  Textiles clothing and footwear

  Gross output (£ million 1985 prices)

  Imports (£ million current)

  Exports (£ million current)

  Total

  EC

  Other

  Total

  EC

  Other

  1985

  12,770

  5,793

  3,394

  2,399

  3,040

  1,441

  1,599

  1986

  12,870

  6,283

  3,665

  2,618

  3,107

  1,619

  1,488

  1987

  13,190

  7,074

  3,868

  3,206

  3,502

  1,950

  1,552

  1988

  13,040

  7,652

  4,112

  3,540

  3,560

  2,013

  1,547

  19881

  6,510

  3,714

  2,013

  1,701

  1,656

  940

  716

  19891

  6,330

  4,030

  2,158

  1,872

  1,765

  1,007

  758

  1 January to June.

  Classification:

  Gross Output: SIC classes 43 and 45.

  Trade: SITC divisions 65, 84 and 85

  Sources:

  Gross Output: Estimates derived from Annual Census of Production (1985 gross output) and Index of Production (current period: January to June figures seasonally adjusted).

  Trade: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Computers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the increase in the value and volume of United Kingdom exports of computers since 1985; what percentage of exports in 1985 were (i) imported in substantially the same form and (ii) assembled in the United Kingdom; and what is his estimate of the United Kingdom content of United Kingdom exports of computers in 1985, 1988 and in 1989 to date.

  Mr. Forth
  The value and volume of United Kingdom exports of computers1 were as follows:

  £ million

  Thousand units

  1985

  705·7

  1,241·6

  1986

  681·7

  373·9

  1987

  847·4

  392·8

  1988

  1,976·0

  3,179·0

  19892

  1,588·3

  799·5

  1 Computers are defined as items 752.1, 752.2 and 752.3 of the Standard International Trade Classification, revisions 2 and 3.

  2 January to August 1989.

  Notes:

  Official statistics do not distinguish between imports of computers for re-export and exports from United Kingdom manufacture.

  There are no official estimates for the United Kingdom content of United Kingdom exports of computers.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HMSO.

  Average annual percentage increase

  £ million

  Thousand units

  1985 to 1988

  41

  37

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HMSO.

  Japan
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of Japanese exports to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community are covered by voluntary restraint agreements.
  284
  terms of 1985 prices together with the figures for imports and exports of such goods to the EEC and to other countries.

  Mr. Forth
  Latest annual figures indicate that there has not been a fall in output in this sector since 1985. The available data are as follows:

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1988 16 per cent. of Japanese exports to the United Kingdom were covered by an inter-industry voluntary restraint arrangement on cars and commercial vehicles.

  As far as the Community is concerned there are no formal restraint arrangements with Japan approved by the Council of Ministers. Because of the nature of such arrangements we cannot be sure what informal arrangements exist within the Community.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing the number employed in(a) the merchant and (b) the warship building industry in each of the European Community countries, including the United Kingdom, and for Japan, Korea and Taiwan in 1979 and in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The table shows employment in merchant shipbuilding, in all the countries associated with the OECD working group on shipbuilding, in 1980 and 1987, the most recent year for which figures are available. OECD figures are not available for 1979.

  In the United Kingdom, employment in warship building in 1979 was approximately 26,000. At present it is 24,400. Statistics on employment in warship building in other countries are not regularly collected. The information requested will be supplied to the hon. Member as soon as it can be obtained.

  Countries

  1980

  1987

  Federal Republic of Germany

  25,000

  12,900

  Belgium

  —

  2,546

  Denmark

  11,400

  7,000

  Spain

  40,600

  23,600

  France

  23,700

  8,900

  Greece

  7,946

  5,858

  Ireland

  —

  —

  Italy

  15,380

  9,664

  Netherlands

  9,600

  3,600

  Portugal

  6,781

  5,020

  285

  Countries

  1980

  1987

  United Kingdom

  24,777

  11,499

  EEC Total

  165,184

  90,589

  Finland

  17,467

  11,615

  Norway

  13,000

  3,600

  Sweden

  11,874

  1,350

  Europe less EEC

  42,341

  16,565

  Total OECD-Europe

  207,525

  107,154

  Japan

  113,000

  59,000

  Total OECD WP6

  320,525

  166,153

  Turkey

  5,307

  —

  Republic of Korea

  42,484

  —

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide an updated list of the subventions on offer, in credit loan and direct subsidy facilities for the shipbuilding industry in each of the European Community countries, including the United Kingdom, and for Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The OECD working party on shipbuilding produces on a triennial basis a survey of shipbuilding state aid around the world. The latest version of this survey will be issued shortly. I will ensure that a copy is made available to the hon. Member.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by year for the last 10 years in real terms the amount of Government subsidy the British film industry has received; and if he will make a statement on the future of Government funding for the industry.

  Mr. Forth
  Direct Government support for the film industry since 1980–81 consists of the following:

  Financial year

  British screen finance

  National film and television school

  British film institute

  1980–81

  —

  1,126

  9,219

  1981–82

  —

  1,050

  9,248

  1982–83

  —

  1,266

  11,219

  1983–84

  —

  1,076

  9,167

  1984–85

  —

  1,193

  9,289

  1985–86

  569

  1,558

  9,281

  1986–87

  2,204

  1,212

  10,733

  1987–88

  2,210

  1,195

  10,642

  1988–89

  2,000

  1,600

  11,300

  1989–90

  12,000

  1,700

  11,800

  1 Actual

  In addition to the above, Her Majesty's Government provided funding of £370,000 for British Film Year in 1985–86.

  The Eady levy on cinema admissions was in operation during the period 1980 to 1985. Proceeds of the levy were redistributed to the industry as shown in the table:

  Levy year1

  Total payments to industry £000

  1980–81

  10,244

  1981–82

  5,865

  1982–83

  6,287

  1983–843

  4,496

  1984–85

  24,452

  1 October to October.

  2 Includes residual assets of the National Film Finance
  286
  Corporation.

  3 October to May.

  Note:—All figures at 1988–89 prices, deflated by RPI, unless otherwise stated.

  My Department announced on 20 July 1989 that funding for British Screen Finance Ltd would continue after expiry of the current contracts at the end of 1990 at the present rate of £2 million (actual) a year for the three years 1991–1993. As for future funding for the National Film and Television School and the British Film Institute, I refer the hon. Member to the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the years 1963, 1968, 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1989 to date the ratio of imports to output of motor vehicles, together with his estimate of the United Kingdom content of cars produced or assembled in the United Kingdom and the relevant weights in the index of manufacturing output.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: No information is available on the United Kingdom content of cars produced or assembled in the United Kingdom. The table shows the ratio of imports to output of motor cars by number for 1963, 1968, 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1989 (January-August) and the relevant weights in the index of manufacturing output for the base years of the index (ie 1963, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985).

  Motor Cars

  Imports as a percentage of output by number

  Weights in the index of manufacturing output1

  1963

  3

  1963

  28·32

  1968

  6

  1970

  19·86

  1974

  24

  1975

  20·55

  1979

  99

  1980

  14·01

  1984

  112

  1985

  17·20

  21989

  112

  1 Parts per thousand of manufacturing industry (Divisions 2–4 inclusive).

  2 January to August.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: As a result of the changes in the organisation of Government economic statistics in July, data formerly collected by my Department are now collected by the Central Statistical Office (CSO). The table lists those surveys which were discontinued between 1979 and July 1989.

  The policy of my Department has been to make available to the public, subject to confidentiality, the results of all statistical surveys that it has carried out. The CSO is continuing to publish nearly all the data for which it has assumed responsibility, and arrangements for publishing the remainder are currently under review.
  287

  Regular statistical series discontinued since 1979

  Year

  Quarterly survey of United Kingdom company sources and uses of funds

  1980

  Monthly inquiry into export prices

  1980

  Monthly rubber stocks and consumption

  1980

  Quarterly inquiry into catering turnover

  1980

  Quarterly inquiry into motor traders' turnover

  1980

  Annual and quarterly series on international trade and credit extended and received and direct exports

  1982

  Monthly inquiry into made-up clothing

  1985

  Monthly admissions and takings for cinemas

  1985

  Quarterly inquiry into oils and fats in soapmaking

  1985

  Quarterly inquiry into raw jute

  1985

  Monthly inquiry into paper and board

  1985

  Monthly inquiry into waste paper

  1985

  Quarterly inquiry into pulp

  1985

  Quarterly inquiry into exports of books and periodicals

  1985

  Annual inquiry into the film exhibition industry

  1985

  Monthly inquiry into production and stocks of wood chipboard and consumption of chipboard

  1986

  Paper and Building Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what area of new planting would be required to enable the forestry industry to displace(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent. and (e) 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom's current imports of the following raw materials: (i) mechanical pulp, (ii) chemical pulp, (iii) sawn timber, (iv) round logs, (v) paper and (vi) panel products.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Forestry Commission advises that because of the time it takes trees to grow and produce timber, it is not possible to make any meaningful estimate of the extent to which new planting would displace various categories of wood imports over the next 40 or 50 years, even assuming that these were maintained at current levels. As a DTI Minister I can add nothing to this advice.

  Accounts
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration his Department has given to reintroducing an exemption for small private companies from filing accounts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: A proposal to exempt small companies from the requirement to file their accounts is included in the draft directive adopted by the European Commission last year, amending the fourth company law directive on annual accounts. The responses to my Department's consultative document, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in February, were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed exemption, and we shall take this into account when negotiations on the draft directive resume.

  Building Industry (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps and what research his Department has undertaken to encourage safety in the building industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.
  288
  We will shortly be making the wearing of safety helmets on construction sites compulsory. The Health and Safety Commission has recently published a consultative document setting out proposals for new regulations to strengthen the management of health and safety on construction sites and the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors will be paying more attention to the quality of site management and levels of training and supervision. For the last two years we have met the HSC's requests for resources in full which has allowed real growth in their activities. For example, this includes increasing the number of HSE inspectors devoted to construction by 10 per cent. since 1988 and sponsoring research within the HSE and externally.

  Each year the HSE's research and laboratory services division (RLSD) devotes resources to research into safety topics of relevance to the building industry. Information on all such projects is included in the Health and Safety Executive's programme of research and related services, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. In addition to sponsoring research, the HSE also provides specialist input and advice to a number of construction-related research projects.

  Willow Watermark Disease
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 10 April to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North,Official Report, column 567, what developments the Forestry Commission has monitored in willow watermark disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave today to his question about the cricket bat willow research group at column 337.

WALES

  EC Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date projects under the integrated operations programme of the European Community in the three counties of rural Wales have to be completed; and whether, in the event of some projects still awaiting completion on that date, there is sufficient flexibility in his arrangements to allow grants to be paid after the integrated operations programme terminal date to enable such work to be finalised without the authorities being penalised by loss of grant.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The European Commission's arrangements for the administration of national programmes of Community interest (NPCI) provide that as a general rule physical works on projects to receive European regional development fund grant aid must begin before the end of the programme period and be completed within 12 months after the end of the programme period. Payments can be made for up to two years after the end of the programme period.

  For projects receiving aid under the Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys NPCI physical works should begin before 31 December 1991 and be completed by 31 December 1992. Payments could be made up to 31 December 1993.
  289
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the maintaining and developing of cottage hospital facilities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The term "cottage hospital" is not a formal designation of a type of hospital. The current concept which is closest to the cottage hospital is that of the community hospital. The Welsh Office's policy towards community hospitals was set out in the circular WHSC(IS)66 entitled "Community Hospitals" which was issued in 1974 and updated by the appendix to "Policies and Priorities for Health Services in Wales" published in 1985 and paragraphs 138 and 139 of "The Corporate Management Programme for the Health Service in Wales: Development and Change 1988–1993" issued in 1988. Copies of all three documents are available in the Library.

  It is for district health authorities to consider the application of this general guidance to their local circumstances.

  Schools (Capitation)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capitation per pupil, by education authority, for the last available year for(a) primary pupils and (b) secondary pupils.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many home buyers were in arrears with mortgage payments in the first six months of 1988; and what was the comparable figure during the first six months of 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Bridging Allowances
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales have been on weekly bridging allowances awaiting placements since the introduction of compulsory YTS.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest figures available, 1 November 1988 to 30 September 1989, show that 7,448 young people in Wales received bridging allowance whilst awaiting YTS placement. YTS is a voluntary programme, as are all Government training programmes.

  YTS
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people left their YTS placements four weeks or more before the placements came to an end.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During the period 30 September 1988 to 1 October 1989, a total of 19,241 YTS trainees left their placements four weeks or more before the placements came to an end.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by Welsh local district councils on housing investment in(a) 1988, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Grist
  Total gross capital expenditure by Welsh local district councils on housing investment for the periods requested are shown in the following table:290

  £ million

  (a) 1987–88

  226·2

  (b) 1978–79

  105·8

  (c) 1982–83

  140·5

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions have been undertaken by his Department in order to try and find an equitable solution to the ambulance dispute in Wales; what representations he has received about referring this dispute to independent arbitration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The proper forum for negotiations is the Ambulance Whitley council where the Department is represented on the management side; this is a national body and no separate discussions have been undertaken for Wales. Representations have been received from one of the unions involved about referring the dispute to arbitration. The Government believe that unilateral access to arbitration would not be helpful in pay negotiations in the NHS, where management must ensure that resources are not diverted away from patient care. We urge the unions to resume negotiations in the Whitley council and call off their action.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population of Wales are single parents; and what is that percentage among homeless persons.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  From the 1988 labour force survey it is estimated that 2·3 per cent. of the adult population of private households were single parents with children under 16.

  Local authority returns indicate that 29 per cent. of all adults in households accepted as homeless by local authorities in Wales in 1988 were recorded as lone parents with dependent children.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of new homes built by housing associations in Wales in(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1979 and (d)

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested for the years 1979–1988 is available in table 2.3 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 9"—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those hospitals in Wales which have facilities to treat heart diseases.

  Mr. Grist
  All general hospitals in Wales are able to offer treatment for patients with heart disease. Specialised facilities for invasive cardiology and cardiac surgery are provided at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homeless people are in temporary accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  On 30 June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available there were 793 households living in temporary accommodation in Wales. The Department is in touch with a wide range of organisations concerned with homelessness and a statement will be made in due course.

  Building Societies (Repossessions)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes have been repossessed by building societies during 1987, 1988 and so far in the current year in Wales; what was the comparable figure for 1979; what information he has on how many of these homes were owned by first-time buyers; and if he will provide a district-by-district breakdown of these figures.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on Wales of moving the inspectorate of pollution from Cardiff to Bristol; what representations he has received about this move; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The reorganisation of the inspectorate on a regionalised basis provides for the retention of an office in Cardiff.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out in the Official Report figures in respect of education in Wales, showing for the years 1978–79 and 1987–88 (a) pupil numbers, (b) spending per primary pupil, (c) spending per secondary pupil and (d) spending on education, and the percentage change, between the two years, the figures having taken inflation into account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  1978–79

  1987–88

  Percentage change between 1978–79 and 1987–88

  1. Total numbers of pupils

  (Full time equivalents) at January of each year

  543,059

  455,408

  -16

  2. Spending per pupil (£s)1

  Nursery and primary2

  789·9

  1,004·0

  +27·1

  Secondary

  1,086·0

  1,488·4

  +37·1

  3. Expenditure on education (£000s)1

  Current expenditure

  762·696

  838,556

  +9·9

  Gross capital expenditure

  47,812

  50,305

  +5·2

  1 All prices revalued to 1987–88 levels.

  2 Expenditure records do not differentiate between nursery and primary pupils.

  Between 1978–79 and 1987–88, expenditure on education in Wales has increased by nearly 10 per cent. in
  292
  real terms. Taken together with the 86,651 reduction in pupil numbers experienced during the same period, expenditure on each nursery and primary pupil has increased by more than £200 and for each secondary pupil by over £400.

  National Health Service Treatment Centres
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many hip operations he expects the treatment centre at Rhydlafar to carry out in its first year;

  (2) how many patients at present waiting for hip operations at the Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, he expects will receive their operations at the Rhydlafar treatment centre in its first full year;

  (3) what is the estimated cost to establish and run the proposed three treatment centres under the National Health Service.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office staff are currently finalising the details of operation of treatment centres in discussion with managers and clinicians in the National Health Service. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of these discussions, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many businesses will face rate rises of over 100 per cent. when the uniform business rate is introduced; and how many employ less than 250 employees.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The precise effect of the reforms to business rating cannot be assessed until the revaluation of non-domestic property is completed.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce a two-tier uniform business rate in Wales to reduce the levy on the small business sector.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. The transitional arrangements for non-domestic ratepayers which I am introducing provide for a maximum annual increase in real terms for small businesses of 15 per cent., compared to 20 per cent. for large businesses; and small businesses will be able to obtain any reductions to which they may be entitled more quickly than large businesses. It is estimated that 85 per cent. of Welsh properties will fall within the "small" category for these purposes.

DEFENCE

  Naval Guns
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to make available funding to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for development of a 155 mm medium calibre naval gun.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is currently no requirement for this equipment.

  Easington (Recruits)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits to Her Majesty's forces are drawn from the Easington constituency and serve in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force.
  293
  Mr. Neubert
  It is not possible to give figures for the number of recruits who originated from Easington without checking each recruit's personal file. However, the following figures show the number of recruits enlisted at the careers information offices in Durham, Hartlepool and Sunderland, the nearest offices to Easington. It is not possible to separate those actually living in Easington at the time of enlistment.

  RN/RM1

  Army1

  RAF3

  1987–88

  244

  423

  91

  1988–89

  286

  399

  61

  1989–90

  4136

  5245

  532

  1 Royal Navy careers information offices in Hartlepool and Sunderland.

  2 Army careers information offices in Durham, Hartlepool and Sunderland.

  3 Royal Air Force careers information office in Sunderland.

  4 The Royal Navy/Royal Marines figures for 1989–90 are to 6 November 1989.

  5 The Army and Royal Air Force figures for 1989–90 are to 30 September 1989.

  It is not possible to give comparable figures for officer applicants, as these are handled centrally.

  Seaham Corps
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present complement of sea cadets and air cadets in the Seaham corps; and how many cadets volunteered for the armed services year by year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  To June 1989, the complement of cadets in the Seaham corps was:

  Number

  Sea Cadets

  22

  Air Cadets

  33

  The total number of cadets recruited into the armed services during the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1989

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1988

  566

  4,444

  1,835

  1987

  576

  4,885

  1,798

  1986

  547

  4,510

  1,902

  1985

  577

  4,561

  1,986

  1984

  2—

  4,581

  2,045

  1983

  2—

  2,906

  2,225

  1982

  2—

  3,134

  1,319

  1981

  2—

  5,990

  949

  1980

  2—

  5,985

  1,809

  1979

  724

  5,477

  2,266

  1 Not yet available.

  2 Not available.

  Notes:

  1. These figures reflect numbers of Sea Cadets recruited into the Royal Navy and ACF Cadets recruited into the Army and ATC Cadets recruited into the Royal Air Force. Figures are not available for "cross Service".

  2. Figures reflect numbers recruited. Information on numbers applying is not held.

  Warship Procurement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect he expects the completion of the internal market to have on warships procurement policy after 1992.

  Mr. Neubert
  The completion of the internal market does not directly affect policy for the procurement of warships, since member states are allowed under the treaty of Rome to take the measures they consider necessary in the area of procurement of certain defence equipment. It may have an indirect effect in terms of the wider impact of industrial restructuring by our suppliers.

  Ex-Service Personnel
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many section 10 certificates have been issued since 1947 in respect of members of the services, excluding those who were nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress on the redevelopment of their part of the royal arsenal, Woolwich, which has already been vacated by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions have been held with the London borough of Greenwich to consider possible future uses of the riverside area at royal arsenal west as part of comprehensive disposal framework embracing the entire west and east sites at Woolwich, which we intend to vacate during the period 1993 and 1995. Officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Crown Estate Commissioners attended the Greenwich waterfront conference on 1 November and further meetings are now planned to continue the close working relationship which has been established.

  Aircraft Shelters, Boscombe Down
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the intended purpose of the 15 new aircraft shelters at Boscombe Down for which planning permission has been sought by the Property Services Agency;

  (2) whether the United States of America Air Force will use any of the 15 new aircraft shelters at Boscombe Down RAF station for which planning permission has been sought by the Property Services Agency.

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

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any flying training was carried out over Northern Ireland or the Irish sea between 7 and 10 pm on 11 November;

  (2) whether any missiles were tested over the Irish sea or Northern Ireland between 7 and 10 pm on 11 November;

  (3) whether any projectiles or explosives were tested over the Irish sea or Northern Ireland between 7 and 10 pm on 11 November.
  295
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Performance Guarantees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of the performance guarantee that is required by his Department for tenders being submitted to his Department;

  (2) if he will name the officer, and how he can be contacted, who is responsible for giving details to the general public on a performance guarantee which is required for tenders being submitted to his Department for Ministry of Defence contracts.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Performance guarantees are sought from contractors as and when circumstances so demand. Details are provided by the contracts branches responsible for particular tenders.

  Merlin Helicopter
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress with integration of electronic systems in the Merlin anti-submarine helicopter.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The MOD is examining the scope for appointing a prime contractor responsible for the overall performance of the complete mission system for the Royal Navy anti-submarine warfare variant of the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter. A contract has been placed with consultants to write a detailed performance specification, against which bids could be invited next year.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original target date for completion and the original budget of the Merlin anti-submarine helicopter; and what are the current estimated completion dates and budget.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The contractor's latest programme plan forecasts completion of development at the end of 1992, a one-year slippage against their original forecast. The original estimate of total Royal Navy development costs uprated to 1988 economic conditions was £779·6 million, which compares with the current estimate of some £1,000 million at the same economic conditions. It should be noted, however, that the latter estimate makes provision for uprated engines and the appointment of a prime contractor for the Royal Navy mission system, which were not included in the original estimate.

  Westland EH101
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent changes have been made to the management of the Westland EH101 project; what are the reasons for these; and if he will make a statement.

  District Council

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Antrim

  10·6

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8·5

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  0·4

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  9·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  82·8

  —

  Lisburn

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  7·0

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  0·1

  12·4

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  5·1

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  Omagh

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  296
  Mr. Alan Clark
  There have been no changes in the MOD's management arrangements for the EH101 project. The MOD is, however, seeking to improve the contractual arrangements for the RN EH101 through the appointment of a prime contractor with responsibility for the overall performance of the complete RN mission system.

  Tanks
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many main battle tanks are on order(a) under construction and (b) not yet constructed;

  (2) if he will take action to cancel orders for any main battle tanks not yet under construction.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  One regiment of Challenger 1 main battle tanks and nine Challenger 2 prototypes are on order. All are under construction.

  Defence Staff List
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list all the civil defence authorities that(a) have received and (b) have not received, the defence staff list document;

  (2) why defence staff list documents are being withheld from the South Yorkshire civil defence authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those parcels of land which were owned by Department of Economic Development, LEDU, or the Industrial Development Board, which were zoned for industrial development by the planning authorities and which were sold for non-industrial use in each of the years since 1980, giving details by district council area.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: The industrially zoned land sold by IDB (including Department of Commerce to September 1982) for non-industrial purposes is set out in the table. Neither DED or LEDU sold any land zoned for industrial development for non-industrial use.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the relationships between integrated schools and segregated schools, the provision of integrated nursery education, and the provision of integrated special education; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A number of views were received about the proposed management structures of controlled integrated schools and we have been able broadly to take these into account. This means that the legislation will continue to provide that in the case of a controlled integrated school which was formerly a controlled (non-grammar) school or a Catholic maintained school, its board of governors will include one seventh trustee representation and one seventh trasferor representation. Other controlled integrated schools will instead have two sevenths of their boards of governors appointed by the Department of Education.

  On the question of integrated nursery and special education, nursery and special schools will be ineligible for formal integrated status since admissions are based on specialised criteria to which it would be quite inappropriate to add statutory requirements relating to the religion of pupils. On the other hand, it will be possible for an integrated school to have a nursery or special unit attached to it.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken by the fire authority for Northern Ireland to obtain an acceptable fire brigade training site convenient to Belfast which will make training possible in a secure location and which will have the support of the local community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The fire authority had identified a site at Old Manse road, Whiteabbey, as suitable for a fire brigade training school. Planning permission was refused. The fire authority is now awaiting the outcome of its appeal against that refusal.

  Give the uncertainty of this site the fire authority has identified another suitable site at the former St. Nicholas secondary school at Minorca place, Carrickfergus. Conditional planning permission has just been granted. The fire authority has not agreed an acceptable purchase price for the Carrickfergus site. Negotiations are continuing.

  One-Teacher Primary Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of one-teacher primary schools in each education and library board area in Northern Ireland in the maintained and controlled sectors, together with the number of pupils enrolled at each school.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Education and library board area

  Primary schools

  January 1989 enrolment

  Western

  Controlled

  None

  —

  Maintained

  Edenderry

  22

  Altishane

  21

  298

  Education and library board area

  Primary schools

  January 1989 enrolment

  North-Eastern

  Controlled

  Bruslee

  20

  Newlands

  20

  Maintained

  Culraney

  8

  Rathlin Island (St. Mary's)

  11

  Tannaghmore

  22

  St. Colman's (Greenisland)

  24

  Southern

  Controlled

  Salters Grange

  18

  Shinn

  13

  Leitrim

  12

  Croreagh

  21

  Hilltown

  8

  Ballykeel West

  15

  Ballinderry

  22

  Coalisland

  14

  Maintained

  Lislea (2)

  12

  Belfast

  Controlled

  None

  —

  Maintained

  None

  —

  South-Eastern

  Controlled

  None

  —

  Maintained

  None

  —

  History Teaching
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assurance he can give parents that their children will have the opportunity to study British, European and economic history in the future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The programme of study for history will be drawn up by the history working group. Its report will be subject to wide consultation. I expect these elements to be included.

  Council for Roman Catholic Maintained Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made in the terms of reference of the Council for Roman Catholic Maintained Schools since that body was established.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Schools and Colleges (Safety)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of electrical rewiring to meet current safety standards for schools and colleges in the North-Eastern education and library board area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total estimated cost of electrical rewiring to meet current safety standards for schools and colleges in the NEELB area is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, I understand that the NEELB commissioned a study which estimated that it would cost £16 million at 1987 prices to rewire all the board's properties (including schools and colleges) and maintained schools in its area.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals have been made and what funding
  299
  will be allocated to the North-Eastern education and library board to correct the hazards in schools brought to his attention in the consultant's report presented to the Department of Education in 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Education (Northern Ireland) allocated an additional £1·6 million to the north-eastern education and library board in the current financial year to supplement the normal maintenance programme financed from its block grant.

  It is for the board to determine how these additional funds are used having regard to its own locally determined priorities.

  Family Credit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish figures showing the numbers and percentages of families with children(a) entitled to and (b) receiving family credit, in April 1988 and 1989, together with projections for April 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of families receiving family credit between April 1988 and 1989 increased by 1,383 from 13,525 to 14,908.

  Reliable estimates of the number of families who were eligible for family credit in Northern Ireland in April 1988 and April 1989 or who might be eligible in April 1990 are not available.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many farmers, in each district council area of Northern Ireland, are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances;

  (2) what is the total amount of hill livestock compensatory allowances which were paid to farmers from each district council area, in each of the years since 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not know. Information is not kept by district council area.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of proposals for Government spending to improve the quality of bathing waters in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 20 October 1989 to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) at columns 261–62.

  Glass
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the total amount of glass used and (b) the total amount of glass recycled in Northern Ireland in each of the years since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Records are not held centrally of the total amount of glass used in Northern Ireland. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. At present 10 of the district councils in Northern Ireland operate bottle banks. It is estimated that the 300
  volume of glass collected for recycling would be in the region of 600 tonnes per annum. No glass is recycled in Northern Ireland.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the progress of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I continue to receive representations on a wide variety of topics related to electricity privatisation.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most recent estimate of the gross cost of electricity privatisation to the national Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is too early to make an estimate of the likely total costs of privatising the electricity supply industry. However, a provision of £30 million has been made in the supply estimate for 1989–90 in respect of electricity privatisation costs. Expenditure in earlier years was £0·8 million in 1987–88 and £5·5 million in 1988–89.

  It is also too early to estimate the likely proceeds from the sale of the companies but experience from previous privatisations has shown them to have an outstanding record of value for money.

  Gas Sales
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the Director General of OFGAS to discuss progress towards the competitive sale of gas to industry.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Director General of OFGAS to discuss industrial gas pricing structures.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I meet the Director General of Gas Supply regularly and we discuss a range of issues of mutual interest, including progress towards competition in the supply of gas to industry and industrial gas pricing structures.

  Tidal Barrages
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence he has received that the River Mersey would provide the most cost-efficient site for the construction of a tidal barrage.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A study by Marinetech North West and Rendel Parkman published in 1985 concluded that the economic viability of a Mersey barrage was promising and that further studies were warranted.

  The Mersey Barrage Company is currently carrying out further feasibility studies for a barrage, jointly funded by the Department of Energy, to examine the engineering, environmental and regional impact, the economic viability and the choice of barrage alignment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department is undertaking of French experience in successfully operating a tidal barrage scheme.
  301
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Over the last ten years the Severn Barrage committee, the Severn Tidal Power Group, the Mersey Barrage Company, Ministers and Officials have visited La Rance tidal power station in Brittany. Many discussions with Electricite de France and French experts have taken place. The United Kingdom studies of tidal barrage schemes take full account of the French experience.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a decision on the construction of the Mersey barrage.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Energy and the Mersey Barrage Company are jointly funding feasibility studies into a Mersey barrage. The studies are being advanced to determine whether the Mersey Barrage Company can make an economic case for construction of a Mersey barrage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy met the chairman of the Mersey Barrage Company on 14 November to receive a progress report.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to make subsidies available for renewable sources of energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department is already giving substantial financial support to develop renewable sources of energy. We are supporting a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies to contribute to future energy supply. Around 250 projects are currently underway with a contract value of over £60 million and we expect to initiate 70–80 new projects during 1989–90. Over £50 million is earmarked for expenditure on renewable projects over the next three years. These projects include both research and development and a wide range of technology transfer activities designed to aid commercial deployment.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consultations he has had with the nuclear installations inspectorate regarding safety considerations in managing two or more nuclear power stations on one nuclear site in single or multiple ownership;

  (2) what proposals he has for the avoidance of more than one nuclear power station operator having control of generation of any one nuclear island.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 9 November at column 1175.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the nuclear installations inspectorate regarding safety considerations in managing nuclear power stations after vesting day in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department maintains close contact with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate on all matters relating to nuclear safety. The vesting of the electricity supply industry will not lead to any diminution of existing standards of nuclear safety.
  302
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list each nuclear power station giving the date on which they were authorised, when work commenced, when they were commissioned and when they first produced their design capacity;

  (2) if he will list for each nuclear power station their original designed output capacity, their revised output capacity, and their average load factors based on both the original and revised figures;

  (3) what is the maximum output achieved by each nuclear power station; and when it was achieved.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Much of the information requested can be derived from published information. I have, nevertheless, asked the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to write to the hon. Member, as this is an operational matter for the board.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has chosen a sales price levy or a transmission and distribution levy to pay for the extra cost of nuclear power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Section 33(2) of the Electricity Act 1989 makes clear that the fossil fuel levy will be calculated by reference to the aggregate amount charged for leviable electricity.

  Standing Charges
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the cost to the Treasury of underwriting the abolition of electricity standing charges for(a) all households and (b) pensioner households.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The cost of abolishing electricity standing charges for all households in Great Britain is estimated at about £800 million, and for pensioner households in Great Britain at about £190 million.

  Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what effect his statement in the House earlier today will have upon jobs and investment at Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Berkeley, Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is primarily a matter for the CEGB and the advisory boards of National Power and the nuclear company. The aim will be to minimise disruption as far as possible.

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many domestic electricity consumers had their supply cut off in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Electricity Council informs me that the figures for disconnections in England and Wales are as follows:

  Number

  1978–79

  87,258

  1979–80

  98,894

  1980–81

  118,221

  1981–82

  108,266

  303

  Number

  1982–83

  91,334

  1983–84

  90,722

  1984–85

  91,039

  1985–86

  102,714

  1986–87

  98,823

  1987–88

  88,910

  1988–89

  75,230

  There is a continued downward trend in disconnections and in the 12 months to the end of September 1989 the figure stood at 72,256.

  Gas Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many domestic gas consumers had their supply cut off in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for British Gas plc. However, I was delighted to note that in the year ended September 1989, disconnections fell by 58 per cent. and that the number of customers disconnected is now lower than at any time since records were first kept in 1977.

  Independent Electricity Generation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the 20 projects from independent electricity generation known to his Department which were referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on "Newsnight" on Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Contracts for the sale of power from Lakeland Power projects at Roosecote were signed last month. This is the first independent project to proceed. Details of other individual projects are commercial in confidence until the companies involved choose to announce them.

  Electricity Boards (Property)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a schedule of all the land and property currently owned by the Electricity Council and each electricity board.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Land and property assets are commercial matters for the industry.

  Electricity (Domestic Supplies)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in what circumstances he envisages that a domestic electricity consumer will have access to electricity supplies other than the proposed distribution companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The market in supply to customers will be progressively opened up to competition. Although transitionally the domestic consumer will remain a client of the area boards' successors there will be no permanent monopoly in supply.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements he has made to determine the price charged by the generating boards to the distribution boards from 1 January.
  304
  Mr. Wakeham
  The price charged by the Central Electricity Generating Board to the area boards is set out in the bulk supply tariff. This was published in March this year and will continue until the end of March 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the additional cost to domestic electricity consumers of the use of electricity from nuclear power stations in 1979–80 and each subsequent year expressed as a percentage.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The separate cost of nuclear power generation has not in the past been identified in the price of electricity.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the trend in electricity prices over the next five years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not our practice to publish forecasts of future energy prices.

  Coal Policy
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the effects on the balance of trade when deciding on policy for the coal industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This Government do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of either the coal industry or the country to restrict competition in coal supplies. To protect British Coal from competition would lead to British industry paying too much for its electricity, thereby reducing its international competitiveness; this would have serious long-term consequences for our balance of trade and employment in our manufacturing industries. The Government will therefore encourage British Coal in its efforts to become a fully competitive supplier.

  Industrial Customer Scheme
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the qualifying industrial customer scheme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None.

  BNFL
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the new nuclear company's commitments to British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Wakeham
  National Power has been in negotiation with BNF plc on revised contract arrangements for nuclear fuel services. The new company will be taking these discussions forward.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what estimate he has made of the consequences for the British Nuclear Fuels plc plant at Sellafield of the decisions on the nuclear power programme which he announced on Thursday 9 November;

  (2) what is his estimate of the impact on Sellafield and Windscale of the reduction of the immediate pressurised water reactor programme to one power station.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My statement on 9 November should have no impact on BNFL's operations at Sellafield.

  Power Station Boilers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the total spending in 1979–80 and each succeeding year by his Department and the industries for which it is responsible on improving the efficiency of the combustion of coal in power station boilers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The efficiency of combustion of coal in power station boilers has been consistently in the region of 99 per cent. over the last 10 years.

  Nuclear Electricity Company
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the insurance arrangements of the new nuclear electricity company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The insurance arrangements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will apply to the new nuclear company after vesting.

  CEGB
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to lay before Parliament the Central Electricity Generating Board's annual report and accounts for 1988–89; and if he will seek an explanation from the Central Electricity Generating Board for their late publication.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Preparation and publication of the annual report and accounts are a matter for the board of the CEGB. I am assured that the accounts will be published as soon as is possible.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the meeting of the Energy Council of the European Community Ministers on 30 October.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The council made progress towards adoption of a new programme for demonstration and dissemination of new energy technologies known as Thermie. However the European Parliament has not yet given its opinion on it and the Commission has not formally put forward an overall budget for the programme.

  The Council held a first discussion about four proposals from the Commission intended as steps towards establishing a single energy market and covering transparency of gas and electricity prices, right of transit on electricity networks and for gas networks and notification of investment projects. In the light of comments from member states the proposals have been remitted to officials for detailed examination. The proposals also await consideration by the European Parliament.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer on incomes to the hon. Member for Birkenhead of 11 July,Official Report, column 442–43 to include data for 1986–87.
  306
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 14 November 1989.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will break down the extra number of people who will become dependent on means-tested benefits due to the freeze in child benefit into(a) income support recipients, (b) family credit recipients and (c) housing benefits recipients.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 November to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at column 812.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his latest estimates of the numbers of employees who will cease to qualify for the higher rate of statutory sick pay as a result of the recently announced changes to the scheme; and if he will show a breakdown of the figures for male and female employees.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  About 1·9 million employees with earnings between £90 and £125 per week will no longer be eligible for the higher rate of statutory sick pay (SSP) if they fall sick on or after 6 April 1990. But the number of spells of sickness where the amount of SSP entitlement will be reduced will, of course, be much smaller; it is estimated to be about 290,000 out of an annual total of 5·8 million.

  It is estimated that about three quarters of those affected will be women. For the majority of employees occupational sick pay will make up any difference in SSP entitlement. All employees already receiving the higher rate of SSP at 6 April 1990 will continue to receive that rate until their current period of entitlement ends, regardless of their earnings.

  Of those currently eligible only for the lower rate of SSP, the majority are women in low paid or part-time employment. Such employees are generally less likely to be covered by occupational sick pay schemes, and will thus gain from the real increase which is being made to the lower rate as part of the overall SSP re-structuring. As my right hon. Friend said in his uprating statement, since the flat rate element of statutory maternity pay is the same as this rate of SSP, there will also be a modest gain for up to 230,000 women in this respect.

  War Widows
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of war widows currently receiving benefit whose husbands were killed in the second world war or the Korean war; and what is the amount of benefit available to them.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At 30 September this year, 52,217 widows whose husbands died as a result of the second world war, subsequent conflicts and attributable service were receiving a war widows pension under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department. Information about the numbers of those whose husbands were killed in the second world war and the Korean war is not readily available. The standard war widows pension is currently £56·65 a week. In addition, age allowances of
  307
  £6·10 at 65, £12·20 at 70 and £13·50 at 80 are paid. A widow receiving a war widows pension may also receive any national insurance benefit earned by her own contributions and some non-contributory benefits.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the benefits paid to war widows of two world wars to make them more comparable with the incomes of widows of service men who died after 1973.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 8 November at column 673–74. War widows receiving a war widows pension are eligible in addition for national insurance benefits earned by their own contributions and some non-contributory benefits. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House in his uprating statement on 25 October, from April 1990 we will raise the amount of the war pension or the war widows pension which is disregarded in calculating entitlement to income-related benefits from £5 to £10.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the eligibility criteria for mobility allowance to include people who are visually or mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham. North (Mr. Allen) on 13 November at column 51.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of applications for grants from the social fund are rejected and the percentage won on appeal within the Seaham and Peterlee areas.

  Mr. Scott
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  National Insurance (Fraud)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of employees' national insurance contributions collected by employers and subsequently not paid in to the Treasury in 1988, with a regional breakdown; what was the number of cases of national insurance evasion or fraud by employers where his Department took civil proceedings against the employer and the amount of national insurance contributions recovered by his Department as a result of those proceedings; what was the annual cost of crediting national insurance contributions to employees whose original contributions were defrauded by the employer; and what steps are being taken or may be proposed by his Department to counter such fraud by employers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Inland Revenue is responsible for the collection and enforcement of the majority of national insurance contributions from employers. Although precise figures are not available the Inland Revenue estimates that the total amount of employers' and employees' national insurance contributions not paid over at the end of the accounts year ended 31 October 1988 was about £193 million, of which approximately £93 million relates to employees' contributions. A regional breakdown of these figures is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
  308
  During 1988–89 the Department of Social Security approved the institution of civil proceedings against employers in 1,522 cases, involving about £4·2 million of national insurance contributions. Because some of these proceedings are not yet complete a final recovery figure is not available. Court action, however, usually results in recovery of 75 per cent. of the debt.

  All contributions shown in an employer's annual returns to the Inland Revenue will be credited to the individual employees' records irrespective of whether the employer has remitted the contributions collected. There is, however, no record of the cost of crediting individual contributions which have been shown in employers' returns but not remitted to the Inland Revenue.

  In 1988–89 in addition to inspections carried out by Inland Revenue auditors about 2,000 national insurance inspectors were employed in ensuring compliance with national insurance legislation. As part of that process they completed more than 80,000 surveys of employers' records.

  Where an individual's national insurance account for any tax year does not contain sufficient contributions to maintain benefit entitlement the contributor is notified. Deficiencies in the record can also come to light when a claim for benefit is made. In all cases of this nature, irregularities are then investigated urgently and will usually reveal any failure by the employer to operate the contributions system properly. These investigative measures are kept under constant review.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement outlining the procedures which are followed in ascertaining whether, for purposes of financial assistance, a young person is genuinely estranged from his or her parents; what evidence is considered in such cases; by whom the decision is made; and what right of appeal exists against any decision.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All staff dealing with young people have been fully trained, especially on the need for tact and sensitivity when dealing with this vulnerable group. All claims for income support from 16 to 17-year-old claimants are referred to an adjudication officer. Guidance on the treatment of such claims is contained in the adjudication officer's guide. Advance guidance has been given to adjudication officers in AOG (Memo vol. 3/13), a copy of which is in the Library. In addition, the Secretary of State has the power to direct eligibility if the payment of benefit is the only way to prevent severe hardship. A direction takes into account all the individual's circumstances including, if appropriate, estrangement from parents. Once such a direction is made the adjudication officer will consider entitlement in the normal way. All decisions of an adjudication officer carry the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases since the revised regulations became effective benefits have been paid to young people aged 16 and 17 years because they were deemed to be genuinely estranged from their parents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is that, over the period to the end of September, some 3,100 claims from 16 and 17-years-olds resulted in the award of income support at the higher 18 to 24-year-old
  309
  rate because of the changes introduced in July. This includes young people who were estranged from their parents but separate figures are not available for this group.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom residents who have been refused payment of the severe disablement allowance on the grounds that they have lived abroad for 10 of the previous 20 years; and what account is taken of whether while abroad, they were treated for tax and national insurance purposes as though they were domiciled in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  We estimate that about 1,000 people are unable to qualify for severe disablement allowance, in any year, because they have not been resident in Great Britain for 10 of the preceding 20 years. Those who have paid the required national insurance contributions may be able to qualify for sickness benefit or invalidity benefit and will not therefore be claiming severe disablement allowance.

  Number of families eligible for family credit

  Percentage of all families with children

  Number of families receiving family credit

  Percentages of all families with children

  April 1988

  1500,000 employees (self employed not available)

  7·4

  2253,000 employees

  3·75

  employees (self employed not available)

  2277,000 including self employed

  4·10

  April 1989

  Not known until 1989 FES data become available

  —

  286,0003

  4·23

  April 1990 (projected)

  Not known until 1990 FES data become available

  —

  Up to date projection4 not available

  —

  1 From Family Expenditure Survey (FES) data for April to December 1988.

  2 Average for April to December 1988.

  3 As at end of April 1989.

  4 Latest actual caseload figure 320,000 for July 1989 (4·73 per cent, of all families).

  A further advertising campaign started in the week commencing 6 November.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the family credit ceilings are arrived at; and what criteria are used to establish(a) need and (b) the need for uprating.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the Social Security Act 1986 entitlement to family credit is determined by reference to the maximum family credit in the particular case, which is made up of age-related child credits for each child and an adult credit which is the same for both lone parents and two parent families, and to the family credit applicable amount or threshold. If the family's income to be taken into account is no more than the threshold then the maximum family credit for that family is payable in full. If the income is more than the threshold then 70 per cent. of the excess is deducted from the maximum family credit and the amount remaining, if 50p or more, is payable.

  The family credit ceiling represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant income a family can have and still qualify for family credit is therefore the level of such earnings and income which, on the above basis, produces an entitlement of 50p per week.

  Family Credit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with children have net incomes, defined as for family credit purposes, within(a) £50 and (b) £100 a week of their family credit ceilings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The numbers of families with children whose net earnings and other relevant income are above the level at which family credit entitlement runs out are as follows:

  Numbers of families with children1

  (millions)

  (a) within £50 of run out point

  0·93

  (b) within £100 of run out point (including (a))

  2·20

  1 This excludes any families whose capital is more than £6,000.

  Note: Estimates are based on 1985 and 1986 Family Expenditure Survey updated to 1989–90.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the estimated numbers and percentages of families with children(a) entitled to and (b) receiving family credit, in April 1988 and 1989, together with projections for April 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The available information is as follows:

  The child credits, the adult credit and the applicable amount are set so as to create an alignment between the benefits available to those families in work and those out of work which will help to ensure that families will generally be better off in work than when unemployed.

  As with other income-related benefits, the credits and the applicable amount in family credit are reviewed each year in the light of the movement in the level of retail prices excluding housing costs.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the family credit ceilings for one and two-parent families of different sizes, with children of different ages, in April 1988, 1989 and 1990, at constant and at current prices, and as percentages of past and projected average male and average female manual earnings, as appropriate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I will write to my right hon. Friend when the information requested is available.

  Job Transfers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of jobs from his Department that are to be transferred to Scotland.
  311
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  After taking account of efficiency savings due to be made after implementation of the operational strategy the latest estimate shows that 470 posts will be relocated into Glasgow social security centre.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the loss to the Exchequer if widows' pensions were to be exempted from the earnings rule.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. The payment of widow's pension is not subject to an earnings rule.

  Hostels (Young People)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will extend the recent concessions for night shelters for homeless young people to cover hostels.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to change the arrangements at present, but will monitor carefully all aspects of the hostel changes.

  National Insurance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1990–91.

  Mr. Newton
  I have completed the annual review under section 120 of the Social Security Act 1975. The proposals will take effect from April 6 1990.

  Employers and employees

  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement earlier today, I do not propose to change the standard rates of contributions for either employees or employers, which remain at 9 per cent. and 10·45 per cent. respectively.

  In line with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £46 a week, which is just below the basic retirement pension rate for a single person, which I announced to the House on 25 October. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £350 a week, which is almost seven and a half times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Pensions Act. The new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £43 and £325 respectively.

  Under the new structure which came into force on 5 October employees whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent. of that limit and standard rate contributions of 9 per cent. on that portion of earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit. The reduced contribution rates of 5 per cent. 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. for employers of the lower paid will continue unchanged. However the ceilings for these rates will be extended further; they will now apply to weekly earnings which fall below the ceilings of £80, £125, and £175 (the previous ceilings were £75, £115 and £165 respectively).

  Not contracted-out employees and their employers

  Neither the employee nor his employer will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £46 a week. Those whose earnings do not exceed £325 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay 21p a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £3
  312
  of their weekly earnings will be subject to a 2 per cent. deduction rather than 9 per cent. For those employees with earnings above £325 a week, the maximum possible increase will be £2·04 a week. Employers contributions will generally be unchanged although some employers will gain where employees' earnings which were above the former ceilings fall below the new ceilings. There will be no corresponding increase for employers of the higher paid since there is no upper earnings limit for employers' contributions.

  Contracted-out employees and their employers

  Contracted-out employees will gain in the same way. The contributions due from employees earning less than £325 a week will drop by 15p a week. For employees earning over £325 a week the maximum possible increase will be £1·60 a week. Their employers will generally pay 11 or 12p a week more than at present because they will have to pay not contracted-out contributions on the first £46 of earnings rather than the present lower limit of £43 a week, although there will be gains in respect of lower paid employees whose earnings fall between the old and new ceilings for reduced rate contributions.

  Self-employed people

  The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 30p to £4·55 a week.

  The rate of class 4 contributions, currently 6·3 per cent., will not be increased. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £5,450 and £18,200 from £5,050 and £16,900 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £15·60 a year in 1990–91.

  For those self-employed people with profits between £5,450 and £16,900 (the former upper profits limit ) class 4 contributions will be reduced by £25·20 per year in 1990–91 assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the proposed upper profits limit of £18,200 in 1990–91, the annual charge for class 4 contributions will be £56·70 higher.

  Class 3 (voluntary) contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised to £4·45 a week.

  Employment protection allocation

  There will be no employment protection allocation for 1990–91.

  National Health Service allocation

  The allocation to the National Health Service, currently 1·05 per cent. from employees and 0·9 per cent. from employers, will not be changed.

  The draft order, together with a report by the Government Actuary, will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to credit the Guildford Four with class 1 national insurance contributions for the full period of their detention.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no legislative provisions which would enable credits to be awarded in these cases. However, I should be prepared to examine
  313
  representations from the individuals concerned in respect of their contribution records and to consider whether alternative arrangements might be made.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will present the data in the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 11 July,Official Report, columns 442–3, as cumulative totals for the years 1979 to 1985, both for percentage changes in living standards and for money changes in real household incomes; and if the data for the latter could be presented for two-person housholds, and for two-person households with one, two and four children.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: The available information, which is adjusted for household size and composition, is set out in the table. Cumulative percentage changes in real equivalised household incomes by deciles of all individuals are set out in table 1. Tables 2 to 6 show what the figures in table 1 represent in terms of changes in real income for various household compositions.

  Deciles of individuals in households—Great Britain

  Table 1

  Percentage changes in living standards (real equivalised household incomes) by decile of individuals in households

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -2·2

  -1·6

  5·9

  2

  -0·4

  1·4

  5·0

  3

  -1·3

  0·3

  3·4

  4

  -1·4

  -0·5

  3·6

  5

  -1·1

  -0·7

  4·1

  6

  -0·7

  -0·2

  5·7

  7

  -0·7

  -0·1

  6·2

  8

  0·7

  0·8

  8·7

  9

  2·7

  3·1

  10·3

  Highest

  11·5

  10·1

  18·2

  Total

  2·2

  2·5

  8·8

  Table 2

  Money change in real household incomes for a single person household—1985 prices by deciles of the whole population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -0·70

  -0·60

  2·00

  2

  -0·20

  0·70

  2·30

  3

  -0·70

  0·20

  1·90

  4

  -0·80

  -0·30

  2·10

  5

  -0·70

  -0·50

  2·80

  6

  -0·50

  -0·10

  4·20

  7

  -0·60

  -0·10

  5·20

  8

  0·60

  0·70

  8·30

  9

  3·00

  3·50

  11·40

  Highest

  18·00

  16·00

  28·40

  Total

  1·70

  2·00

  6·90

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as income from all sources less income tax and national insurance contributions.

  2. The incomes of all individuals within households have been adjusted for the size and composition of those households.

  3. The equivalence scales used to adjust for household size and composition use as their basis the income for a single person household. In other words, a single person household has been attributed an equivalence scale of one so that the income of these households is the same both with and without equivalisation.
  314

  Table 3—Money change in real household incomes for a two person household—(married couple) 1985 prices by deciles of the whole population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -1·20

  -0·90

  3·30

  2

  -0·30

  1·10

  3·70

  3

  -1·20

  0·30

  3·10

  4

  -1·40

  -0·50

  3·50

  5

  -1·20

  -0·80

  4·60

  6

  -0·80

  -0·20

  6·90

  7

  -1·00

  -0·20

  8·60

  8

  1·00

  1·20

  13·60

  9

  4·80

  5·80

  18·80

  Highest

  29·50

  26·30

  46·60

  Total

  2·80

  3·20

  11·30

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as income from all sources less income tax and national insurance contributions.

  2. The incomes of all individuals within households have been adjusted for the size and composition of those households.

  3. The equivalence scales used to adjust for household size and composition use as their basis the income for a household consisting of a married couple only. In other words, a married couple household has been attributed an equivalence scale of one so that the income of these households is the same both with and without equivalisation.

  Table 4—Money change in real household incomes for a household consisting of a married couple plus one child—1985 prices by deciles of the whole population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -1·50

  -1·10

  4·00

  2

  -0·40

  1·30

  4·60

  3

  -1·40

  0·30

  3·80

  4

  -1·70

  -0·60

  4·30

  5

  -1·50

  -1·00

  5·70

  6

  -1·00

  -0·30

  8·50

  7

  -1·20

  -0·20

  10·60

  8

  1·30

  1·50

  16·70

  9

  6·00

  7·10

  23·10

  Highest

  36·30

  32·30

  57·30

  Total

  3·50

  3·90

  13·83

  Table 5—Money change in real household incomes for a household consisting of a married couple plus two children—1985 prices by deciles of the whole population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -1·70

  -1·30

  4·80

  2

  -0·40

  1·60

  5·40

  3

  -1·70

  0·40

  4·50

  4

  -2·00

  -0·70

  5·10

  5

  -1·80

  -1·20

  6·80

  6

  -1·20

  -0·30

  10·10

  7

  -1·40

  -0·20

  12·50

  8

  1·50

  1·70

  19·80

  9

  7·10

  8·40

  27·40

  Highest

  43·10

  38·30

  68·10

  Total

  4·20

  4·70

  16·40

  Table 6—Money change in real household incomes for a household consisting of a married couple plus four children—1985 prices by deciles of the whole population £ per week

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Lowest

  -2·30

  -1·80

  6·30

  2

  -0·60

  2·10

  7·10

  3

  -2·20

  0·50

  5·90

  4

  -2·70

  -0·90

  6·60

  5

  -2·30

  -1·50

  8·90

  6

  -1·60

  -·40

  13·20

  7

  -1·90

  -0·30

  16·50

  8

  2·00

  2·30

  26·10

  9

  9·30

  11·10

  36·00

  315

  Decile

  1979–81

  1979–83

  1979–85

  Highest

  56·70

  50·40

  89·50

  Total

  5·50

  6·20

  21·60

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the effects of the proposed community charge benefit taper of 15 per cent. with tapers of(a) 12·5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent.and (c) 7·5 per cent., by showing for each of these tapers the cost at 1989–90 prices of paying community charge benefit to each of the following categories of income units, showing for each category how many income units he estimates would be entitled to community charge benefit (i) all income units, (ii) income units consisting of a single person over pensionable age, (iii) income units consisting of a couple both of whom are over pensionable age, (iv) income units consisting of a single person with dependent children, (v) income units consisting of a single person without dependent children, (vi) income units consisting of a married or cohabiting couple without dependent children, (vii) income units consisting of a married or cohabiting couple with dependent children and (viii) any income units not included in the above categories.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: I shall write to the hon. Member.

NATIONAL FINANCE

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

  Mr. Major
  The ECOFIN Council met in Brussels on 13 November. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed proposals for revised decisions on the promotion of economic convergence and on co-ordination between central banks and a common position was reached on the relevant legal texts. These texts form part of the stage I programme for economic and monetary union, which the Community has agreed will begin on 1 July 1990. Future economic and monetary arrangements beyond stage I were also discussed. It was agreed that the papers discussed by the Council, including the United Kingdom's paper "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union", should be forwarded for further discussion at the next meeting of the European Council in Strasbourg.

  On the abolition of fiscal frontiers, outline procedures for applying VAT and excise duties to intra-Community commercial transactions were agreed, involving minimal burdens for businesses and tax administrations.

  Proposals for strengthened mutual assistance arrangements between tax authorities were considered. Discussions will continue.

  It was agreed, at the request of Portugal, that the Commission and the Economic Policy Committee should undertake a study into the decline of household saving in the Community.
  316
  A proposed amendment to the solvency ratios directive by the European Parliament was also discussed and will be further considered at the December meeting.

  Customs and Excise (Relocation)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has been taken about the relocation of Customs and Excise headquarters work from London and Southend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  In June 1988 the board of Customs and Excise set up an internal review to examine the scope for relocating headquarters work from London and the south-east. The review team's report is published today and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  The Paymaster General and the board of Customs and Excise have decided to accept the review team's recommendation that a substantial proportion of headquarters work should be relocated. Altogether some 1,700 posts will be transferred out of the south-east, and around 250 posts transferred from London to Southend. The number of headquarters posts in London will be reduced by about 40 per cent. to around 900, and in Southend by about 30 per cent. to 2,100. The relocation moves are planned to take place in stages over three years beginning in the autumn of 1990.

  Final decisions have not yet been taken on a site or sites for relocation; the board of Customs and Excise intends to consult staff and the departmental trade union side before reaching a final conclusion early in the new year. The board's present view, however, is that the majority of the relocated posts might be sited in Liverpool, where a small part of the Department's headquarters is already sited, and in Manchester.

  These changes are expected to produce significant benefits both in terms of costs and staffing. Accommodation costs in particular will be reduced, and the opportunities for recruitment and retention of staff will be substantially improved. At least 1,300 jobs will he available for filling locally which will boost the economy of those areas eventually chosen for relocation.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage rate of growth in capital investment in fixed assets for each year 1979 to 1989 in(a) manufacturing industry and (b) other production industries on the assumption that all firms transferred from the public sector to the private sector during the decade had been in the private sector from before 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In classifying businesses to industries no distinction is made between the public and private sectors. Within industry groups, sectorial estimates which allow for classification changes are not available, for reasons of confidentiality. Available information for all businesses in the specified industry groups is shown in table 13·7 of "United Kingdom National Accounts" 1989 edition.

  European Community
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each and for the six original members of the EEC the average annual rate of growth in 1959–73, 1973–79 and 1979–88.
  317
  Mr. Ryder
  GNP/GDP figures for the six original members of the EEC are published by the OECD in "National Accounts Volume I 1960–1987", and for 1988 in "Main Economic Indicators".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it his policy to resist any extension of the European Economic Community's powers into any field for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Ryder
  All proposals for Community action are examined carefully as a matter of course. The Government's general approach is based on the principle of subsidiarity, namely, that action should be taken at national level unless it can be better undertaken at Community level. This approach is generally shared by other member states and the European Commission.

  RPI (Holiday Costs)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Retail Price Index Advisory Committee in its consideration of the inclusion of holiday cost expenditure in the retail price index; and when he expects a report to be published.

  Mr. Ryder
  Officials are working on a paper on this difficult subject. It is hoped that the advisory committee will complete its work programme during 1990.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the Exchequer of each 1 per cent. cut in the higher rate of tax from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  The 1988 Financial Statement and Budget report estimated the cost of abolishing higher rates above 40 per cent. at £965 million in 1988–89 and £2,070 million in 1989–90. These estimates did not include behavioural effects.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the causes of trade with the EEC in invisibles falling into deficit in 1988; what is his forecast for the current year; and how much of the deficit is accounted for by the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EEC budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The balance on transactions in invisibles with EC countries and institutions improved in 1988. Invisibles transactions with the EC are not identified separately in Treasury forecasts. Data on the components of invisibles transactions with the EC can be found in tables 10.1 and 10.2 of the CSO Pink Book.

  Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in capacity utilisation in manufacturing industry between 1987 and 1988 as a result of the increase in demand; what is the increase in 1989; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in the volume of United Kingdom imports and output of consumer, investment and intermediate goods from 1985 to 1988 and from 1970 to 1973, together with the degree of capacity utilisation and the level of unemployment in 1973 and 1988.
  318
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested on United Kingdom unemployment, imports and domestic production of consumer, investment and intermediate goods is available from the Monthly Digest of Statistics and CSO Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Because of differences of coverage and definition, the United Kingdom production and import figures classified by end use are not sufficiently close for meaningful comparison between the two. There are no official estimates of capacity utilisation, but the CBI publishes various data on capacity in its quarterly Industrial Trends Survey, copies of which are also in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in(a) the nominal value of sterling against the deutschmark between July 1985 and February 1987 and (b) the increase in wages and salaries per unit of output in (i) manufacturing, (ii) the rest of the economy and (iii) the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures can be readily derived from the information in the Central Statistical Office databank, accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Goverment have made of the contribution made to cost and price inflation by excessive wage claims in the industries making internationally-traded goods; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the year to last April the percentage increase in earnings, including overtime of (i) the median and quartile full-time male manual workers in footwear, textiles, clothing and mechanical engineering and (ii) the corresponding figures for non-manuals in retailing and financial and business services.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government's economic policy bears down on inflation through tight monetary policy. Excessive wage claims threaten job prospects.

  The requested information on earnings available from the new earnings survey is published in tables 74 (for manuals) and 75 (for non-manuals) in parts C of the 1988 and 1989 reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the share of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods in 1979, 1985 and 1988 which were imported in substantially the same form and the share of the rest which was imported in the form of manufactured materials and components; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for consumer, capital and intermediate goods the ratio of imports to output by volume and value in 1979, 1985, 1988 and in 1989 to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on which to base an estimate of the share of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods which were imported in substantially the same form is not available. The share of United Kingdom exports which were imported in the form of manufactured materials and components is not readily available for manufactured goods and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.
  319
  The definitions of consumer, capital and intermediate goods used for imports and output are not sufficiently close for ratios to be meaningful.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the percentage fall in the real value of the dollar against sterling and deutschmark since 1985 and the United States share of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures in the same period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There is no single definition of real exchange rates and bilateral real exchange rates are not published by the IMF or OECD. Series of bilateral nominal exchange rates and various price indices for the relevant countries are published by the IMF in "International Financial Statistics". Data on the destination of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures are published by the CSO in "Overseas Trade Statistics".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what factors he ascribes the increase in the deficit in trade in manufacturers in 1988 and 1989 to date; what was the percentage increase in gross domestic product and in manufacturing output in 1988; how these increases have been reflected in the increase since 1973, 1979 and 1985 in imports and output of shoes, textiles, clothing, mechanical machinery and metal goods; what was the 1988 increase in gross domestic product in manufacturing output and in investment in industry; and whether he will provide similar figures for 1983.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The increase in the trade deficit in manufactures in 1988 and 1989 is the result of strong growth in investment, and the fall in personal saving. All the data requested can be found on the CSO's computer databank, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on imports and on exports to third countries, including the United States of a stable exchange rate between sterling and the deutschmark, and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage of United Kingdom exports of manufactures which go to third countries and the ratio of imports of manufactures from and exports to the EMS countries together with the value figures in the current year to date at an annual rate.

  Mr. Ryder
  The effect on exports to and imports from third countries of stability in the sterling deutschmark rate would depend on how these currencies moved against those of third countries, as well as on developments in the United Kingdom and German economies.

  Data on the origin and destination of exports and imports are published by the CSO in "Overseas Trade Statistics."

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of sterling against the deutschmark and the average for January-February 1987.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to table 13·1 of "Financial Statistics" published monthly by the Central Statistical Office, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.
  320
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the coverage of consumer, intermediate and capital goods in the output figures includes products which are classified on importation as semi-manufactures; what proportion of imports of semi-manufactures and of finished consumer, intermediate and capital goods were accounted for by final demand; and whether he will provide similar estimates based on the input-output matrix for 1985.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  (a) The coverage of consumer, intermediate and capital goods in the output figures includes products which are classed on importation as semi-manufactures.

  (b) No estimates exist which give the proportion of imports of semi-manufactures and of finished consumer, intermediate and capital goods accounted for by final demand, and to derive these estimates would involve disproportionate costs.

  (c) To derive estimates from the 1985 input-output tables of the proportion of imports of semi-manufactures and of finished consumer, intermediate and capital goods accounted for by final demand would involve disproportionate costs, due to the lack of consistency between the industry classification of the input-output groups and the coverage of the semi-manufactures, finished consumer, intermediate and capital goods headings.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have considered how the United Kingdom deficit on current account will be eliminated if sterling is locked into the ERM of the EMS in the foreseeable future; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the deficit with the EEC and with the rest of the world in 1970, 1973, 1979, 1988 and the forecast for 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The current account deficit will narrow as domestic demand continues to slow. The timing of United Kingdom entry into the ERM is unlikely to make much difference to this. For the balance on current account with the EC I refer the hon. Member to table 10.1 of the CSO's Pink Book. Figures for earlier years are available on the CSO databank. A forecast for the current account deficit in 1989 is published in the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it his policy to link the £ sterling to the deutschemark within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system only on conditions which ensure that British goods became and remain competitive.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's description in the House on 2 November at column 490 of the factors that will determine when the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration the Government, in considering the effect of tying sterling to the deutschemark within the ERM of the EMS, have given to the effect of that on the French economy.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's description in the House on 2
  321
  November at column 490 of the factors that will determine when the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the eight conditions on which the then Government insisted in the Green Paper on the EMS Cmnd. 7405; how many have since been met; and whether the Government will continue to insist on full acceptance of the eight conditions as a condition for tying sterling to the deutschemark within the ERM of the EMS.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will publish a Green Paper on the European monetary system to examine to what extent, the reservations expressed in Cmnd. 7405 have been met.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government have already set out clearly the factors that will determine when the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it his policy to ensure before agreeing to enter the ERM of the EMS that the obligations on creditor and debtor countries are symmetrical as regards wages, prices, interest rates and the money supply.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier replies to him today.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any assessment of the likely effect of a reduction in the United States deficit on

  Net income after income tax, national insurance contributions and child benefit (£ per week)

  Percentages of average earnings1

  66 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  200 per cent.

  500 per cent.

  Married couple with one earner and 2 children

  1979–80

  64·97

  88·60

  125·22

  163·44

  327·96

  1989–902

  157·03

  218·88

  317·77

  410·73

  906·63

  Married couple with one earner and 4 children

  1979–80

  72·97

  96·60

  133·22

  171·44

  353·50

  1989–902

  171·53

  233·38

  332·27

  425·23

  921·13

  Single

  1979·80

  53·22

  76·85

  113·47

  151·30

  312·46

  1989·902

  134·89

  196·73

  295·62

  383·99

  879·89

  1 Average earnings are those for full time males working a full week at adult rates in all occupations. They are £109·30 per week in 1979–80 and assumed to be £275·50 in 1989–90, an increase of 7½ per cent, on average earnings in 1988–89.

  2 Provisional.

  Net income of one earner married couple with 2 children as a percentage of net income of single person on same level of earnings

  Percentages of average earnings1

  66 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  200 per cent.

  500 per cent.

  1979–80

  122·1

  115·3

  110·4

  108·0

  105·0

  1989–902

  116·4

  111·3

  107·5

  107·0

  103·0

  Net income of one earner married couple with 4 children as a percentage of net income of single person on same level of earnings

  Percentages of average earnings1

  66 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  200 per cent.

  500 per cent.

  1979–80

  137·1

  125·7

  117·4

  113·3

  113·1

  1989–902

  127·2

  118·6

  112·4

  110·7

  104·7

  322
  trade in manufacture on the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the United States in circumstances where sterling was tied to the deutschemark within the EMS at not less than the current rate of exchange.

  Mr. Ryder
  The effects of developments in the United States economy, including the trade deficit, on the United Kingdom economy are regularly assessed in the preparation of official forecasts.

  Imported Machinery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the input-output tables for 1984 and each succeeding year include as an import, depreciation on the stock of imported machinery in place.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Depreciation on the stock of imported machinery in place is not included as an import in the 1984 or 1985 input-output tables. The next set of full input-output tables will be for 1989, published in 1993.

  Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing the net incomes, after income tax, national insurance contributions and child benefits, in 1979 and 1989 of single people and single-wage married couples with two and four children, at 66 per cent., 100 per cent., 150 per cent., 200 per cent. and 500 per cent. average male earnings(a) in cash terms and(b) with the net incomes of the families with children expressed as percentages of the relevant net incomes of the single people.

  Mr. Major
  The information is in the tables.

  Sterling
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the influence of the interest rate differential between West Germany and the United Kingdom on the value of sterling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's speech during the Opposition Day debate on 31 October,Official Report, column 204.

  Transmission Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the transmission mechanism between a fall in interest rates and any increase in the rate of inflation in terms of(a) the money supply, (b) the fiscal balance, (c) labour unit costs and (d) the cost of living, including mortgage costs.

  Mr. Ryder
  Monetary conditions need to be considered as a whole and it is neither sensible nor possible to give precise estimates of the effects of interest rate changes working through each individual channel.

  Short-term Funds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a list showing the size of inflows of short-term funds, their contribution to the money supply and their effect on the price of assets and on the incomes of those who deal in assets, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures showing the inflows of funds to banks and building societies are published regularly in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. Inflows into non-residents' accounts do not count towards M4. No estimates of the effects on asset prices or the incomes of those dealing in assets are available.

  Consumption
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect at the margin of an increase in personal expenditure on consumption on the balance of payments; and if he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the effect of an increase of £100 in such expenditure in terms of the amount of such £100 spent of United Kingdom output of goods and services, respectively, and the corresponding increases in imports and loss of exports.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The balance of payments effect of an increase in consumers' expenditure will depend on why it has increased. For example, if higher income from domestic production is the cause, the effect on the current account may be negligible. On the other hand, with output unchanged higher consumers' expenditure would probably involve some deterioration in the balance of trade.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the increase in consumption in 1988 and the current year to date can be attributed to those in the top and bottom quartiles of incomes; and what is his estimate of the import content in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An analysis of consumers' expenditure is not available in the form requested.324
  Estimates of household expenditure, by income, for 1988 will be published early next year in a report of the family expenditure survey.

  Imported Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a matrix table showing for columns 6–21 of table 2·6 in the 1989 Blue Book, together with a total for these columns, the value of imported manufactured goods less food, drink and tobacco and where possible imported services.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information required can be obtained by simply aggregation of the imports use matrix given in table 3 of the CSO publication "Input-output tables for the United Kingdom 1985", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extent to which the increase in imports of manufactured goods in 1988 and in the current year to date was due to lack of United Kingdom production capacity; and if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the industries which were unable to increase output to meet the increase of demand together with a table showing in each case the volume of output and imports in 1988, the current year to date, 1973 and 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is difficult to make precise estimates of the effect of capacity constraints on manufactured imports. However, the CBI quarterly industrial trends survey reported a high proportion of firms working at capacity in 1988 and early 1989, particularly in consumer goods industries. More recent surveys have shown an easing in capacity constraints. The data requested can be found on the CSO's computer databank which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report in constant prices and as a percentage the increase in 1972–73, 1987–88, 1970 to 1973 and 1985 to 1988 in incomes, wages and salaries, disposable incomes, consumer's expenditure, imports and exports of manufactures and consumption of durables, clothing etc. and other goods.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information at constant prices, as constant is available, from which percentage changes may be derived, may be found in Government statistical service publications, available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office databank, which may be accessed through the Library.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect the measures listed in paragraph 4 of "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union" will have on output and employment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Stage 1 of economic and monetary union as described in the Delors report will
  325
  increase freedom of trade and create many opportunities for manufacturing industry to expand its output and employment.

  Bank of England (Intervention)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the inflow of funds in response to intervention by the Bank of England in the foreign exchange market in 1987, 1988 and the current year to date have been fully sterilised; and if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the debt instruments issued for this purpose and their value.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not sensible to hypothecate over or underfunding to individual components of the funding rule, such as intervention.

  Details of transactions in marketable Government debt are published in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Plant and Machinery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Government decided to stop publishing figures for investment in plant and machinery in table 1 of the monthly digest; and if he will publish the quarterly figures since 1987 in the Official Report.

  Mr. Lilley
  Publication was delayed until estimates of an acceptable quality could be prepared. It was resumed in the September edition of the monthly digest.

  National Debt
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the size of the national debt in(a) 1964, (b) 1970, (c) 1974, (d) 1979 and (e) at the latest convenient date.

  Married women by husband's income and by range of income liable to tax 1989–90

  Married women aged under 60 whose husbands have weekly incomes:

  Range of wife's weekly income (lower limit)

  Over £53·56 but less than £150

  Over £150

  £

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  0

  1,010

  59·4

  3,910

  50·4

  53·56

  50

  2·9

  250

  3·2

  60

  110

  6·5

  560

  7·2

  80

  100

  5·9

  490

  6·3

  100

  150

  8·8

  510

  6·6

  120

  80

  4·7

  410

  5·3

  140

  80

  4·7

  370

  4·8

  160

  50

  2·9

  380

  4·9

  200

  20

  1·2

  150

  1·9

  220

  20

  1·2

  170

  2·2

  240

  30

  1·8

  560

  7·2

  Total

  1,690

  100·0

  7,770

  100·0

  Adults by type and by range of income liable to tax, 1989–90

  Range of weekly income (lower limit)

  All adults below pensionable age

  Adult men aged under 65

  Adult women aged under 60

  All single adults below pensionable age

  £

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  0

  11,660

  33·3

  3,590

  19·7

  8,070

  48·2

  4,260

  33·2

  53·56

  720

  2·1

  240

  1·3

  480

  2·9

  250

  1·9

  60

  1,630

  4·7

  520

  2·9

  1,110

  6·6

  660

  5·1

  80

  1,710

  4·9

  580

  3·2

  1,130

  6·7

  820

  6·4

  100

  2,140

  6·9

  840

  4·6

  1,300

  7·8

  1,040

  8·1

  120

  2,150

  6·1

  1,120

  6·1

  1,030

  6·1

  1,070

  8·3

  140

  1,920

  5·5

  1,080

  5·9

  840

  5·0

  820

  6·4

  326
  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for the national debt are given in the table, which also shows the national debt as a share of GDP.

  National debt at end of March

  £ billion

  Per cent, of GDP

  1964

  30·2

  92·3

  1970

  33·

  65·7

  1974

  40·5

  50·5

  1979

  86·9

  46·

  1989

  197·4

  39·

  Sources:

  1964 to 1979 Financial Statistics, June 1989.

  1989 Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, November 1989.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his estimates of the numbers and percentages of(a) all adults below pensionable age, (b) all adult men aged under 65 years, (c) all adult women aged under 60 years, (d) all single adults below pensionable age, (e) all single adults in households including three or more adults, (f) all those married women aged under 60 years whose husbands have gross weekly incomes in excess of £55·36 per week but below £150 per week, and (g) those married women aged under 60 years whose husbands have gross weekly incomes in excess of £150 per week in the following weekly income ranges: up to £53·56, £53·56 to £60, £60 to £80, £80 to £100, £100 to £120, £120 to £140, £140 to £160, £160 to £200, £200 to £220, £220 to £240 and over £240.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Available estimates for 1989–90 are in the tables. The estimates are based on projections from the 1986 family expenditure survey and are provisional.
  327

  Range of weekly income (lower limit)

  All adults below pensionable age

  Adult men aged under 65

  Adult women aged under 60

  All single adults below pensionable age

  £

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  thousands

  per cent.

  160

  3,300

  9·4

  2,370

  13·0

  930

  5·5

  1,250

  9·7

  200

  1,530

  4·4

  1,170

  6·4

  360

  2·1

  540

  4·2

  220

  1,400

  4·0

  1,040

  5·7

  360

  2·1

  460

  3·6

  240

  6,800

  19·4

  5,670

  31·1

  1,130

  6·7

  1,660

  12·9

  Total

  34,980

  100·0

  18,220

  100·0

  16,760

  100·0

  12,840

  100·0

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list his estimates of the numbers and percentages of(a) all heads of household, (b) single heads of household who are over pensionable age, (c) married heads of household who are over pensionable age, (d) single heads of household who are below pensionable age and (e) married heads of household who are below pensionable age, who have gross weekly incomes, calculated to include the incomes of other members of the same tax unit, in the following ranges: £0 to £53·56, £53·56 to £65·38, £65·38 to £80, £80 to £100, £100 to £107·12, £107·12 to £120, £120 to £130·76, £130.76 to £140, £140 to £160, £160 to £180, £180 to £200, £200 to £220, £220 to £240 and over £240;

  (2) if he will list his estimates of the numbers and percentages of heads of households in the categories listed, who have gross weekly incomes calculated to include the incomes of other members of the same tax unit, in the

  Tax units1 by type and by range of income liable to tax 1989–90

  Range of weekly income (lower limit)

  All tax units1

  Single persons aged over 65

  Married couples aged2

  Single persons aged less than 65

  Married couples non·aged3

  £

  thousands

  percent.

  thousands

  percent.

  thousands

  percent.

  thousands

  percent.

  thousands

  percent.

  0

  7,810

  25·0

  2,310

  52·5

  110

  4·0

  4,410

  33·4

  980

  9·0

  53·36

  1,400

  4·5

  710

  16·1

  20

  0·7

  510

  3·9

  160

  1·5

  65·38

  1,440

  4·6

  410

  9·3

  480

  17·7

  470

  3·6

  100

  0·9

  80

  1,860

  6·0

  290

  6·6

  570

  21·0

  860

  6·5

  140

  1·3

  100

  630

  2·0

  50

  1·1

  110

  4·0

  390

  3·0

  80

  0·7

  107·12

  1,080

  3·5

  80

  1·8

  110

  6·6

  670

  5·1

  150

  1·4

  120

  930

  3·0

  100

  2·3

  140

  5·2

  530

  4·0

  160

  1·5

  130·76

  850

  2·7

  50

  1·1

  110

  4·0

  540

  4·1

  140

  1·3

  140

  1,380

  4·4

  90

  2·1

  160

  5·9

  840

  6·4

  300

  2·8

  160

  1,240

  4·0

  60

  1·4

  80

  2·9

  740

  5·6

  350

  3·2

  180

  1,230

  3·9

  60

  1·4

  140

  5·2

  530

  4·0

  500

  4·6

  200

  1,190

  3·8

  30

  0·7

  100

  3·7

  550

  4·2

  510

  4·7

  220

  1,130

  3·6

  10

  0·2

  80

  2·9

  460

  3·5

  570

  5·2

  240

  9,030

  28·9

  150

  3·4

  440

  16·2

  1,690

  12·8

  6,750

  62·0

  Total

  31,200

  100·0

  4,400

  100·0

  2,720

  100·0

  13,190

  100·0

  10,890

  100·0

  1 Single persons and married couples.

  2 At least one person aged 65 or over.

  3 Both spouses under 65.

  Manufacturing (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage rate of growth of capital investment in fixed assets in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom over the decade 1979 to 1989, on the assumption that all United Kingdom firms transferred from the public to the private sector during the decade were in the private sector from before 1979; and what is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average over the same period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: In classifying businesses to industries no distinction
  328
  following ranges: (a) all heads of households, (b) single heads of household who are over pensionable age, (c) married heads of household who are over pensionable age, (d) single heads of household who are below pensionable age and (e) married heads of household who are below pensionable age in income ranges up to £53·56, £53·56 to £65·38, £65·38 to £80, £80 to £100, £100 to £107·12, £107·12 to £120, £120 to £130·76, £130·76 to £140, £140 to £160, £160 to £180, £180 to £200, £200 to £220, £220 to £240 and over £240.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Estimates of tax units' incomes by category of the head of household are not readily available. Estimates for 1989–90 of numbers and percentages of tax units in the specified categories by income are given in the table. The estimates are based on projections of information from the 1986 family expenditure survey and are provisional.

  is made between the public and private sectors. Within industry groups sectorial estimates which allow for classification changes are not available, for reasons of confidentiality. The information which is available was included in my earlier reply of 13 November 1989, Official Report, column 7.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost in the present fiscal year of mortgage tax relief at the higher rate of income tax.
  329
  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The estimated cost in 1989–90 of mortgage tax relief at excess over the basic rate of income tax is £430. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional cost to the Exchequer, in a full year, assuming mortgage interest rates of 14·5 per cent. and at present tax rates, of increasing the mortgage interest income tax relief from a ceiling of £30,000 to a ceiling of £45,000.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1989–90 levels and assuming mortgage interest rates of 14·5 per cent. throughout the year, of increasing the ceiling for mortgage interest relief from £30,000 to £45,000 is estimated to be about £900 million. This estimate makes no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Banking and Insurance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what areas of trade in banking and insurance business will still be subject to national controls and restrictions after the 1992 plans have been implemented.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The single market directives affecting financial services aim to open up the market within a framework based on mutual recognition and the "single passport" which will allow firms authorised in one member state to then do business throughout the Community. Banking and insurance will remain subject to national legislation, which will be modified as necessary to provide for the implementation of these directives. The scope and effect of the relevant directives are explained in the booklet "The Single Market: financial services" published by the Department of Trade and Industry in September 1989, copies of which are in the Library.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend table 1 on page 52 of the 6th report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, HC 217 Session 1988–89, to cover public expenditure in the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 where possible, on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The information needed to extend this table to cover the years up to and including 1992–93 will be published at the time of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of raising the ceiling on mortgage interest relief from £30,000 to £45,000; and how many households he estimates would benefit from such a change.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: The direct revenue cost at 1989–90 levels of raising the ceiling on mortgage interest relief from £30,000 to £45,000 is estimated to be about £900 million. This estimate makes no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.
  330
  The number of households with existing mortgages in excess of £30,000 is estimated to be 2·5 million.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the amount of tax forgone by the Exchequer as a result of(a) the decision by Lloyds bank to make provision of £ 1·2 billion against Third world debt and (b) the decision by National Westminster bank to make similar provision in the sum of £575 million.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: Tax relief due to banks in respect of loans which cannot be recovered in full is governed by the ordinary tax rules which apply to any trader who gives credit in the course of his business. The tax test is whether the principal of the debt is shown to be irrecoverable. Because of the rules of confidentiality which govern taxpayers' affairs, I am not in a position to say how far commercial provisions made by an individual bank meet the tax test.

  Planning Total (DTI)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each of the years 1978–79 to 1984–85 the planning total for the Department of Trade and Industry on a basis consistent with table 2 on page 53 of appendix 8 of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's sixth report of Session 1988–89, HC 217.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: The information requested is not available. Figures for those elements of the new definition of the planning total for which estimates or proxies are required have not been produced for years prior to 1984–85. A departmental breakdown of central Government's own expenditure showing expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry for the years since 1978–79 was given in table 21.4.4 of chapter 21 of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper. These figures are on the definition used for the 1988 public expenditure survey, but this is broadly unchanged in the 1989 survey, since the introduction of the new planning total has only a minimal impact on the DTI. Corresponding figures on the new basis and a breakdown of finance for the main public corporations for the years 1978–79 to 1992–93 will be given in chapter 21 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis of the trade deficit for the most recent convenient period, identifying the imports, exports and net deficit or balance, respectively for(a) capital goods, (b) non-capital manufactured goods and (c) other elements.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the third quarter of 1989 the United Kingdom visible trade deficit is provisionally estimated to be £6·8 billion on a seasonally adjusted balance of payments basis. Information about trade in capital goods is available only on an overseas trade statistics basis, as shown in the table, which tends to understate surpluses and overstate deficits.
  331

  Table 1

  3rd Quarter 1989. OTS basis, seasonally adjusted

  £ billion

  Exports fob

  Imports cif

  Crude Balance1

  Capital Goods2

  5·4

  5·1

  +0·3

  Other Manufactures3

  14·2

  19·9

  -5·7

  Other Goods

  4·2

  6·7

  -2·5

  Total Trade

  23·8

  31·7

  -7·9

  1 Exports fob less Imports cif.

  2 Based on the United Nations broad economic categories analysis, and including ships. North Sea oil installations and aircraft.

  3 Manufactures are defined as SITC (Rev. 3) Sections 5 to 8.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many convictions have been recorded in each year since 1985 for breaches of the rules requiring all eggs sold in shops to have been through a packing station.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Isle of Man
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Government of the Isle of Man in connection with a proposed 12-mile fishing limit around that island; what percentage of the catch of the Northern Ireland fishing industry is caught within this 12-mile limit; what are the implications for the future of the Northern Ireland fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1987 Territorial Sea Act made provision for a 12-mile territorial sea for the Isle of Man. Fisheries and other Departments have been in discussion with the Isle of Man as to how this should be put into effect.

  About 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland fishing industry's take is caught within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.

  As well as ensuring the United Kingdom's responsibilities in relation to the implementation of the common fisheries policy were fully met, any arrangement made would clearly have to safeguard the interests and traditional rights of all fishermen within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.

  Hunting (Forestry Commission Land)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken following reports of an attack on a pet dog by hounds operating from Forestry Commission land on 31 October; and what precautions have been taken to prevent a further incident of this kind.

  Mr. Curry
  The alleged incident took place on private land adjacent to the New Forest. Investigations are being carried out by the local police, the outcome of which is awaited.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants and advice is available from his Department for those who were having to establish themselves as organic farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) on 9 November 1989 at column 775.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many miles of hedgerow have been planted within the Easington area in the last two years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, in the Newcastle division, which includes the Easington areas, during the last two financial years, grant aidable expenditure of some £30,600 was incurred on the provision of hedges and ancillary facilities. This sum represents the provision of almost 10 miles of new hedgerows.

  Forestry Commission (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the conservation bodies who have been consulted about the planting of Forestry Commission land on the Isle of Wight with sycamore.

  Mr. Curry
  Over the last 20 years, the Forestry Commission has planted about eight hectares of land on the Isle of Wight with sycamore, in mixture with other species. No conservation bodies were consulted about this planting as the land concerned was not of special conservation value.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 3 November,Official Report, column 396, which particular snares were used; how many badgers were caught using snares; how many were killed by the snares; how many were killed by his operatives; how many were released; and whether any were lactating sow badgers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Swivelled free running snares were used. Three badgers were caught and all three were killed by ministry operatives. None was a lactating sow.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 3 November,Official Report, column 396, if he will describe in more detail what circumstances required the use of snares in each of the eight badger investigations; and what guidelines he issues for the control and supervision of such investigations.

  Mr. Maclean
  In each case snares were used only when it became clear that badgers remained active on the premises following standard trapping operations. All fields men carrying out badger control operations are required to follow detailed standing instructions. When snaring fields men work in pairs and the whole operation is closely supervised by a senior officer.

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 1 November,Official Report, column 214, what certification accompanying meat and bone meal exported from the United Kingdom into (a) France, (b) West Germany, (c) Holland, (d) Belgium, (e) Italy, (f) Israel and (g) the United States of America is required by the importing country.

  Mr. Maclean
  The certification required is, as follows:Belgium—specified heat treatment, hygienic packing and freedom from salmonella;
  France—that the products are destined for use other than as feed for ruminants;
  West Germany—application must be made to the appropriate Land authority for an import permit. This will state the particular certification which is required in each case. The Ministry is unaware that any application has been made and is not aware of any conditions which individual Laender may stipulate;
  Israel—that the meal is derived from poultry.

  In the absence of any requests from the trade in recent years to export meat and bonemeal derived from ruminants to Italy, the Netherlands and the United States of America, the ministry has not sought information about the certification which might be required. There is a small trade into the Netherlands in meal derived from poultry and the certification required relates to heat treatment.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the loss to the United Kingdom livestock industry if EEC payments of hill livestock compensatory allowances were reduced to 25 per cent. in respect of the first 45 livestock units per holding, 12½ per cent. in respect of the next 45 livestock units and zero thereafter; and if he will make a statement on the current Commission proposals in these matters.

  Mr. Curry
  The present EC proposal is to pay the full EAGGF contribution towards hill livestock compensatory allowances, which is currently 25 per cent., on the first 45 livestock units per holding, to reduce that contribution by half over the next 45 livestock units, and to withdraw EAGGF funding altogether over 90 livestock units. We estimate that, if adopted, this proposal would reduce the United Kingdom's current receipts from the EC for HLCAs by about £10 million a year. The precise effects on the livestock industry in this country would depend on decisions still to be taken on the level of national funding. We are firmly opposed in principle to this proposal, which discriminates against farmers in our less favoured areas.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he now possesses concerning the possible vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 13 November 1989 at column 73.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the reasons for the delay between his announcement of a proposed ban on human consumption of bovine offal on 13 June and its implementation on 13 November.
  334
  Mr. Maclean
  The ban was introduced as soon as consultations with interested parties had been undertaken in accordance with the Food Act 1984, the results assessed, and the results of further necessary scientific studies obtained.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the sugar beet quota system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The sugar beet quota system, and certain other aspects of the EC sugar regime, are due for a quinquennial review by 30 June 1991. My officials are consulting interested parties.

  Organic Horticulture and Agriculture
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) of 9 November,Official Report, column 775, what consideration he is giving in the extensification scheme to the option for organic horticulture and agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  The Community rules for extensification require output on participating farms of a surplus product to be reduced by at least 20 per cent. over five years. Member states may apply this obligation by requiring participants to adopt a changed method of production, and for this purpose I am at present considering offering as an option within the future United Kingdom arrangements a switch to organic farming of some or all of the products covered by the scheme.

  Nutritional Labelling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on progress with nutritional labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply on 6 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) at column 467.

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the use of T and J nets for north-east England salmon fishing; and what corresponding restrictions he intends to place on the use of drift nets for such fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  We are currently in the process of considering the nature and extent of all salmon net fishing off the north-east coast of England and eastern Scotland as part of a statutory review, required under section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986.

  Work on the review is underway and Ministers will submit their report to Parliament in due course.

  Abattoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the last 10 years, the amount of European Community money which has been used to upgrade abattoirs; how many abattoirs have received this aid; and if he will make a statement.
  335
  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 October 1989, c. 442.]: The information is as follows:

  EC regulation 355/77

  Awards and payments concerning red meat abattoirs in the United Kingdom: 1978–88

  Awards made by commission

  of which those remaining eligible to claim grant

  for which actual payments made

  Year

  Number of projects

  (a) amounts £

  Number of projects

  (b) amounts £

  (c) £

  1978

  9

  1,262,943

  7

  687,462

  —

  1979

  7

  1,152,203

  6

  1,138,650

  49,178

  1980

  14

  2,791,853

  10

  1,790,723

  511,925

  1981

  9

  1,721,223

  8

  1,687,898

  710,710

  1982

  1,063,988

  3

  1,028,345

  1,407,203

  1983

  2

  175,350

  1

  142,551

  885,819

  1984

  2

  392,146

  2

  392,146

  717,845

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,107,935

  1986

  2

  679,232

  2

  679,232

  710,065

  1987

  1

  22,897

  1

  22,897

  94,127

  1988

  1

  750,000

  1

  750,000

  558,187

  Total

  51

  £10,011,835

  41

  £8,319,904

  £6,752,994

  Data are provided back to 1978, which was the first year of the awards under regulation EEC 355/77 (the regulation which provides for grants to help improve the marketing and processing structures of primary agricultural products).

  The first column of the table shows all awards announced by the Commission to those projects in the red meat sector in the United Kingdom which wholly or partly include slaughtering. Ten of these awards were subsequently renounced by the applicants or cancelled by the Commission, either because the projects did not start, or were not in the event undertaken in accordance with the conditions laid down. The awards for projects which remained eligible to claim grant are set out in the second column.

  The final column sets out the payments made by the end of 1988. Because there can be a time lag of up to four years from the date of the announcement of an award to the final payment (most beneficiaries would also claim an interim payment) there can rarely be an obvious year-by-year relationship between the amounts in the second and third columns. In addition some final claims are for sums which may be considerably less than the original award—for example, where actual costs turned out to be less than earlier forecasts.

  No awards have been made to the red-meat sector in England since 1983, when the first investment programme under the scheme for this sector expired and was not renewed due to lack of foreseeable funding from the Commission. The red-meat sector has remained eligible for awards in the rest of the United Kingdom throughout the whole period.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate discussions with the National Farmers Union on procedures to prevent farming land being let for acid house parties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  North Sea Haddock
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the North sea haddock quota; when he expects the quota to be exhausted; what are the tonnage allocations given to each of the organisations involved in the fishery; what are the catches for such vessels; and if he will indicate those groups whose catches have exceeded their allocations.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom quota for North sea haddock in 1989 is 55,271 tonnes, of which 891 tonnes was obtained in swaps with other member states during the course of the year. Allocations and latest catch information (to 4 November) are shown in the table. This shows that the following groups have fished in excess of their allocations: Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Ltd.; North East of Scotland Fishermen's Organisation Ltd.; and Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. When allowance is made for catches yet to be notified, it is clear that as a result of this overfishing the United Kingdom quota has been prematurely exhausted. Accordingly, I suspended licensed fishing on 11 November and laid an order yesterday to close the fishery to all United Kingdom vessels.

  Tonnes

  Group

  Allocation

  Catch

  Difference

  Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Ltd.

  18,252

  18,789

  +1537

  Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  7,303

  6,501

  -802

  North East of Scotland Fishermen's Organisation Ltd.

  13,090

  13,789

  +1699

  Shetland Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  2,662

  2,651

  -111

  Fife Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  1,140

  972

  -168

  Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  5,036

  4,349

  -687

  The Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  879

  954

  +175

  Non-sector

  6,858

  6,164

  -694

  10m and under boats

  50

  11

  -39

  Total United Kingdom Fleet

  55,271

  54,180

  -21,091

  337
  += Overfish.

  - = Underfish.

  1 In view of their catch levels, licences were withdrawn from Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. on 13 September, from Scottish Fishermen's Organisation and North East of Scotland Fishermen's Organisation Ltd. on 7 October, and from the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. on 4 November.

  2 Catches not yet recorded are expected to be at least equal to this figure.

  Cricket Bat Willow Research Group
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received from the cricket bat willow research group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The group has reported that a voluntary levy scheme, based on the numbers of cricket bat clefts produced, was introduced on 1 October 1989. The money raised from the levy will be used to fund research by the University of East Anglia, in close co-operation with Essex county council, into the causes and spread of watermark disease of willow.

  Surveys carried out this year by Essex county council in the main cricket bat willow area show that the disease is at the lowest level on record.

HEALTH

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of the findings of "We're Just in Time—AIDS, Brain Damage and Psychiatric Hospital Closures", by Charles Tannock and Caroline Collier, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will review the national strategy of closing long-stay mental hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The report "We're Just in Time—AIDS, Brain Damage and Psychiatric Hospital Closures" recommends that 2,500 beds will be required by 1995 to cater for patients with brain damage due to AIDS and that these should be provided in psychiatric hospitals formerly occupied by long-stay psychiatric patients.

  I shall consider the report carefully. However, my Department is not aware of any objective research to support this recommendation. People with AIDS-related brain damage generally have other physical conditions which require extensive physical care. Others with mild dementia or neurological disorders need a range of support services, not necessarily in an institutional service. The services needed by people with HIV and AIDS are kept constantly under review.

  The Government's longstanding policy is that people with mental illness should have access to all the services they need as locally as possible. Our policy relating to the development of mental health services is not aimed primarily at closing hospitals but at the provision of services to meet all the needs of mentally ill people. Health authorities closure plans concern mainly the "traditional" mental hospitals, including the Victorian asylums which, apart from their age, are generally too large or too remote to form part of a modern local service, providing treatment and care with the minimum of formality and delay. I do not consider that there is currently any reason to review this strategy.

  It is for health authorities to determine the pace of rundown of these old large hospitals, but the rundown and closure of any hospital should not proceed faster than the
  338
  build-up of alternative comprehensive locally based services. My Department's guidance to health authorities makes this clear.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made on the accuracy of the auto-refractor for eye tests for prescribing glasses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The Department does not rule out the possibility of a study in this area, although other eye testing techniques are available which are equally effective usually at a fraction of the cost.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a programme to provide social workers with more resources to treat victims of child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Taken across the country as a whole, expenditure on personal social services by local authorities has increased by 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. Local authority social services departments have an important part to play, alongside other agencies, in providing counselling and support services to victims of child abuse, and it is for them to decide what resources to devote to these services in the light of local circumstances and priorities. Through the training support programme (child care), the Department has this year made available an additional £7 million for training of social services staff working in child care, with an emphasis on child protection, including the treatment of child abuse; and that initiative is to continue next year. In addition, the Department is currently funding a project based at Great Ormand Street to provide in-depth training in the treatment of child sexual abuse.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to make it a statutory duty to report cases of suspected child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. As with all criminal offences there is a clear moral duty upon all citizens to report suspected child abuse. We have no evidence to suggest that, in general, people do not report child abuse when it comes to their attention.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide and make available to the public a register of voluntary groups who deal with child abuse sufferers and abusers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A comprehensive list of such organisations is not held centrally. However, we would expect such voluntary organisations to be members of the National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisations or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and to be known to local authority social services departments.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a programme to deal with the prevention of child abuse by training officials to recognise signs of abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is the responsibility of the relevant employing agencies to determine the needs of
  339
  their employees in relation to training. However, the Department has in hand a major programme of work which is designed to promote expertise and which stimulates and complements training by local authorities, the voluntary sector and other agencies. This programme includes the training support programme (child care) and the central child abuse training initiative, funded by the Department, which includes a range of projects. Recently completed projects include the Open university child abuse and neglect training pack and the Royal Society of Medicine video training pack for doctors about child sexual abuse.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate a research project to establish how many facilities to help child abusers overcome their problem are available, with their location.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 6 November at column 451.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a programme to target resources to social workers involved in child abuse cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for individual local authorities to determine what resources to allocate to a particular service in the light of local needs and priorities. However, through the training support programme (child care) the Department has this year made available £7 million in support of total expenditure of £10 million for the training of local authority child care staff, with a particular emphasis on training in child protection.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioners are required to report suspected child abuse cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The General Medical Council in November 1987 expressed the view that, if a doctor has reason for believing that a child is being physically or sexually abused, not only is it permissible for the doctor to disclose information to a third party but it is a duty for the doctor to do so. That view was published in the council's annual report for 1987 and reproduced in "Working Together" (1988) and in "Diagnosis of Child Sexual Abuse: Guidance for Doctors" (1988), both of which were published by the Department and are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a research project on the number of emotionally abused children that have been reported in the last two years; and what type of help is provided for them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics on the number of children placed on child protection registers by reason of emotional abuse are available in "Survey of Children Placed on Child Protection Registers Year Ending 31 March 1988 England", copies of which are available in the Library. The Department has identified the need for research into the relationship between emotional abuse and neglect; and has included this issue in its strategy for possible research in 1990–91. There are a range of assessment, treatment and support services provided by local authority social services departments, health authorities and voluntary child care organisations available for abused children, including those who have been emotionally abused.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the minimal gestation age at which an aborted baby can show one or more of the following signs of life(a) brain activity, (b) pulse rate, (c) heart beat, (d) breathing and (e) movement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Breathing and brain activity are functions associated with viability. Although we know of no formal research on these points some doctors have noted transient heartbeat and movement from about 12 weeks' gestation.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department now has a clearer idea regarding the proportion of people with haemophilia with HIV who are subsequently likely to contract full-blown AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The current assessment is that 75 per cent. or more of HIV-infected haemophiliacs are likely to develop AIDS.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to relocate his Department's offices to the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday that the work of the whole of the National Health Service management executive is to be relocated from London to Leeds. We decided on Leeds after the most careful consideration of its advantages and those of other potential locations.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of hospital beds in(a) Sunderland area health authority, (b) Durham area health authority, and (c) Hartlepool area health authority, for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Average daily available beds, Hartlepool, Durham and Sunderland district health authorities, 1979 to 1987–88

  District health authority

  Hartlepool

  Durham

  Sunderland

  1979

  592

  1,192

  2,426

  1980

  614

  1,188

  2,379

  1981

  600

  1,181

  2,356

  1982

  627

  1,156

  2,338

  1983

  636

  1,165

  2,351

  1984

  705

  1,107

  2,349

  1985

  607

  1,103

  2,312

  1986

  639

  1,107

  2,273

  1987–88

  642

  1,075

  2,315

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people on hospital waiting lists within the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authorities at the beginning of October.
  341
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting list1, Hartlepool, Durham and Sunderland district health authorities, as at 31 March 1989

  District health authority

  Number waiting

  Hartlepool

  1,167

  Durham

  1,425

  Sunderland

  4,609

  1 Less self deferred.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of patients on hospital waiting lists in the Durham, Sunderland and Hartlepool health authority areas, waiting for(a) varicose veins; (b) hip joint replacements; and (c) cataracts at the beginning of October.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting list information is held centrally only by clinical specialty of the consultant and not by operation or diagnosis. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the health authorities concerned for the information he seeks.

  Child Neglect
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate a report on the number of neglect cases and how these cases are being dealt with.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics on the number of children placed on child protection registers by reason of neglect are available in "Survey of Children Placed on Child Protection Registers Year Ending 31 March 1988 England", copies of which are available in the Library. We have no plans to instigate a report on how cases of child neglect are being dealt with. However, the social services inspectorate has a programme of inspections of child protection services within individual local authorities and these reports are published.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of reported cases of salmonella poisoning in England and Wales for 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisional number of reported cases of salmonella in humans reported in the period January to September 1989 is 21,843. This figure was published on 30 October in the "Update on salmonella infection" produced jointly by the public health laboratory service and the state veterinary service, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Attacks (Animals)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why his Department has decided not to collate the number of cases of outpatients and inpatients treated because of attacks from animals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information on inpatient and day cases treated as a result of attacks by animals should be available early next year when health authorities have overcome problems in introducing the additional codes on their patient records.

  The information is not collected on outpatients because there are too many outpatient attendances for such coding to be practical.

  NHS Spending
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the spending on the National Health Service in England and Wales in each year from 1959 until the present(a) in cash terms and (b) adjusted for retail price inflation;

  (2) what was the spending on the National Health Service in England and Wales each year from 1959 until the present, adjusted for inflation in the National Health Service costs in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested for the years from 1974–75 to 1989–90 is shown in the table. Comparable information for the period before 1974–75 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. The retail price index is a measure of increases in cost in a basket of consumer goods and as such has no particular relevance to NHS expenditure.

  NHS Gross expenditure—England and Wales

  £ million

  (a) Cash1

  (b) RPI2

  (c) Adjusted for NHS pay and price3

  1974–75

  3,636

  13,721

  16,846

  1975–76

  4,793

  14,518

  17,309

  1976–77

  5,466

  14,364

  17,484

  1977–78

  6,048

  13,950

  17,667

  1978–79

  6,936

  14,784

  18,253

  1979–80

  8,237

  15,145

  18,124

  1980–81

  10,723

  16,953

  18,578

  1981–82

  12,035

  17,059

  19,130

  1982–83

  13,131

  17,392

  19,416

  1983–84

  13,939

  18,650

  19,629

  1984–85

  14,965

  18,036

  19,881

  1985–86

  15,838

  18,013

  20,001

  1986–87

  17,043

  18,772

  20,247

  1987–88

  18,730

  19,851

  20,622

  1988–89

  20,833

  20,833

  20,833

  1989–905

  22,575

  —4

  —4

  1 The gross expenditure figures shown have been produced by adding Department of Health figures for NHS expenditure in England to figures for Wales produced by the Welsh Office.

  2 Figures have been adjusted to 1988–89 prices. The RPI is constructed on a United Kingdom basis, there is no specific England and Wales RPI.

  3 No specific deflator is produced for NHS pay and price inflation in England and Wales. The cash figures have therefore been adjusted by a deflator produced by the Department of Health for England only.

  4 Estimates of retail price inflation and pay and price rises in the NHS are not produced by the Department of Health until after the financial year has ended.

  5 Estimated.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of the blood transfusion service in England and Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following is information derived from the annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England.

  Information about expenditure in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  343

  Total revenue expenditure on blood transfusion services

  £ (cash)

  1986–87

  59,849,163

  1987–88

  63,787,839

  1 1988–89

  68,420,036

  1 Provisional figure (as yet subject to audit).

  Prescription Pricing Bureau
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of the Prescription Pricing Bureau in England and Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total cost of the prescription pricing authority, which covers England only, in each of the last three years was as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  20·7

  1987–88

  17·9

  1988–89

  19·3

  The information relating to the Welsh pricing committee is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Public Health Laboratory
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of the public health laboratory service in each of the last three years.

  Total expenditure (cash)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  11988–89

  Region

  Regional health authorities £000

  District health authorities £000

  Region total £000

  Regional health authorities £000

  District health authorities £000

  Region total £000

  Regional health authorities £000

  District health authorities £000

  Region total £000

  Northern

  49,249

  668,102

  717,351

  46,185

  732,671

  778,856

  55,691

  800,844

  856,535

  Yorkshire

  77,299

  740,791

  818,089

  70,463

  812,399

  882,862

  70,801

  905,679

  976,480

  Trent

  79,660

  912,306

  991,966

  73,401

  1,011,787

  1,085,188

  81,274

  1,133,256

  1,214,530

  East Anglian

  28,876

  393,076

  421,952

  27,606

  434,256

  461,862

  29,435

  491,172

  520,607

  North West Thames

  57,877

  786,447

  844,324

  50,360

  866,914

  917,274

  59,999

  1,003,195

  1,063,194

  North East Thames

  72,324

  979,681

  1,052,005

  55,687

  1,086,053

  1,141,740

  76,422

  1,223,109

  1,299,531

  South East Thames

  59,634

  873,972

  933,606

  63,769

  956,251

  1,020,020

  66,668

  1,064,886

  1,131,554

  South West Thames

  60,254

  643,969

  704,243

  103,166

  710,939

  814,105

  110,282

  800,097

  910,379

  Wessex

  62,790

  557,361

  620,151

  55,523

  609,274

  664,797

  56,683

  680,977

  737,660

  Oxford

  35,391

  431,957

  467,346

  33,377

  486,034

  519,411

  43,945

  545,075

  589,020

  South Western

  53,070

  665,359

  718,429

  41,357

  737,832

  779,189

  45,207

  818,652

  863,859

  West Midlands

  106,455

  1,058,538

  1,164,993

  106,307

  1,146,550

  1,252,857

  82,442

  1,266,708

  1,349,150

  Mersey

  49,370

  541,893

  591,264

  46,641

  593,950

  640,591

  26,245

  663,287

  689,532

  North Western

  84,994

  903,031

  988,025

  88,870

  989,569

  1,078,438

  88,340

  1,093,787

  1,182,127

  TOTAL

  877,243

  10,156,503

  11,033,746

  862,712

  11,174,480

  12,037,192

  893,435

  12,490,723

  13,384,158

  1 Provisional figures (as yet subject to audit).

  Notes:

  1. The figures cover total revenue and capital expenditure on all Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS)—including hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. Expenditure on family practitioner services (FPS) which is accounted for by family practitioner committees and cannot strictly be assigned to particular regions, is excluded.

  3. The figures for regional health authorities include expenditure on services within HCHS which are directly managed by those authorities and expenditure on major capital schemes at district levels within the respective regions.

  4. The annual accounts of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, which do not form part of the regional structure, record total expenditure on HCHS as follows:
  344
  Mr. Freeman
  The public health laboratory service board, which is the statutory body with responsibility for running the public health laboratory service in England and Wales has received grants from the Department of Health and the Welsh Office in respect of that responsibility as follows.

  £000s

  Financial year

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  1986–87

  31,083

  418

  31,501

  1987–88

  34,898

  2,976

  37,874

  1988–89

  37,629

  5,013

  42,642

  The public health laboratory service board also receives funds from the sale of its services.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending by each of the regional health authorities in England and Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures of total expenditure derived from the annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 are shown in the table.

  Information about expenditure in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  £000 (cash)

  1986–87

  219,711

  1987–88

  240,964

  1 1988–89

  258,823

  1 Provisional figure.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry about the advertising of tobacco products.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have told the Tobacco Advisory Council that they wish to renegotiate the current
  345
  agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion and health warnings. The Council has just responded on behalf of the industry that although it believes that meaningful discussions about a future voluntary agreement will be difficult until the outcome of discussions in Brussels on the draft EC directive on tobacco advertising is known, the industry is prepared to meet the Health Ministers to discuss possible renegotiations.

  Social Services Committee
  Mr. David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Social Services Committee report on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's response was published today. It notes the large degree of agreement between the Committee and the Government both on the need for reform of the NHS and on our specific proposals for change. The Committee's clear endorsement of the fundamental aims of the White Paper "Working for Patients", namely, that the NHS will continue to be a comprehensive service open to all regardless of means and financed largely out of taxation is welcomed. We also welcome the Committee's support for many of the key proposals in the White Paper. These include the proposals for devolving more management responsibilities to the local level, extending patient choice, resource management, medical audit of the quality of care, making more efficient use of capital, increasing the number of NHS consultants and removing the "efficiency trap" by ensuring that resources are linked to workload.

  The Government's response fully addresses the Committee's concerns about funding. First, it reaffirms the assurance that the necessary funding to introduce the NHS reforms will not be at the expense of patient care. We have made available an additional £82 million this year to assist with implementation. Secondly, the Committee has not recognised that spending on the NHS in the United Kingdom has increased massively—from £8 billion in 1978 to £26 billion in 1989. This represents an increase in real terms of 40 per cent. As announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, the Government's spending plans mean that gross expenditure on the NHS will increase to over £28 billion in 1990–91, an increase in resources over 1989–90 of £2·6 billion. The equivalent figure for England is £23·3 billion, an increase in resources of more than £2·2 billion or 5·5 per cent. in real terms. This increase is well in excess of the Committee's recommended increase of around 2 per cent. each year. The increase will also raise the overall increase since the Government came to power in 1979 to 45 per cent. in real terms.

  The Committee's other concerns are largely about the pace and process of implementation of the proposals in "Working for Patients", rather than the overall direction of change. We believe that the Committee's concerns about the availability of information systems to cost treatments and about the need for pilot projects are misplaced. Implementation of the proposals in "Working for Patients" will be an evolutionary process. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government intend to have in place the central elements of their reforms by April 1991. These include the reshaped health authorities and FPSAs. Their chairmen and members will need to lead the
  346
  implementation of the new arrangements for the NHS and their task will be very different from that of chairmen and members of the current authorities. The Government have decided therefore to follow the Committee's recommendation that non-executive members of health authorities and FPSAs should be remunerated. Other key elements will include, for example, the first NHS trusts, the first practice budgets for fund-holding GPs and the new system for contracting for services within the NHS. The subsequent development of these programmes will be informed by the experience gained from the first participating hospitals and practices.

  The Government are supporting a number of projects throughout the country with the aim of developing information, financial and management systems by April 1991. The system for contracting for services will initially operate largely on the basis of existing information. At first many services are likely to be provided under "block" contracts with hospitals agreeing to provide a defined level and range of services in return for an agreed level of resources. More sophisticated forms of contracting and the associated supporting information and costing systems will develop as the experience of the NHS with contract funding grows.

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to have completed his assessment of the likely need for erythropoietin and its expenditure implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 6 November at column 452.

  Community Care
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has considered whether the Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes, may be able to assist local authorities to set up appropriate assessment procedures as proposed in "Community Care: Agenda for Action".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our proposals for assessment will be set out in our White Paper on community care which is to be published on Thursday 16 November. We plan to issue further detailed guidance to local authorities and health authorities in due course, following discussions with professional and representative bodies, including voluntary sector organisations.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the preparation of the White Paper on community care, he has considered the need to increase section 64 funding to voluntary organisations providing community care services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The increased role of the voluntary sector envisaged in our White Paper proposals is likely to lead to increased funding, using the section 64 power, in coming years. Health authorities (using section 64) and local authorities (using section 65) will determine their arrangements for care provision involving voluntary organisations and hence the levels of funding.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes, in terms of rights, occur when a mentally handicapped person is transferred from a National Health Service hospital to a private home, supervised by a consortium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Patients treated under contractual arrangements retain the same rights as those treated in the National Health Service and the health authority has a continuing responsibility for their medical and nursing care. The position of patients admitted to the private sector following discharge from a National Health Service hospital depends on the terms of the admission. Such patients retain the right to National Health Service general medical and dental services.

  Transplant Organs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he is making to the report by Dr. Sheila Gore of the Medical Research Council biostatistics unit in Cambridge relating to the shortage of organs for transplant.

  Mr. Freeman
  This report, which was commissioned by the Department of Health, analyses the results of an audit of deaths in intensive care units which was organised by the Department. The audit includes an examination of the number of deaths, how many were potential donors, in how many cases relatives were asked to consent to donation and how many refused.

  Tomorrow I will be chairing a seminar to examine ways of improving the voluntary donation of organs to which I have invited a group of experts and interested parties. Our discussions will include the implications of the report to which the hon. Member refers.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give for each district health authority the percentage of cases on the gross demand waiting list at March waiting for 12 months or more, and the ranking for that percentage for(a) general surgery, (b) traumatic and orthopaedic, (c) ear or nose and throat, (d) cardiothoracic surgery, (e) paediatric surgery, (f) gynaecology and (g) the total waiting list;

  (2) if he will give for each district health authority the percentage change in the gross demand day-case total waiting list between March 1988 and March 1989 and the ranking of that percentage change;

  (3) if he will give for each district health authority the sum of the gross demand total waiting lists for in-patients and day cases in March 1988, the comparable figure for March 1989, the percentage change between the two dates and the ranking of that percentage change;

  (4) if he will give for each district health authority the percentage change in the in-patient waiting list between March 1988 and March 1989 and the ranking of that percentage change, using the gross demand figures for (a) general surgery, (b) traumatic and orthopaedic, (c) ear, nose and throat, (d) cardiothoracic surgery, (e) paediatric surgery, (f) gynaecology and (g) the total waiting list;

  (5) if he will give for March 1989 and for each district health authority the notional time to clear the waiting lists, and the ranking of that notional time to clear, for (a)
  348
  general surgery, (b) traumatic and orthopaedic, (c) ear, nose and throat, (d) cardiothoracic surgery, (e) paediatric surgery, (f) gynaecology and (g) the total waiting list;

  (6) if he will give for each district health authority the March gross demand day case waiting list, and the ranking of that waiting list for (a) general surgery, (b) traumatic and orthopaedic, (c) ear, nose and throat, (d) cardiothoracic surgery, (e) paediatric surgery, (f) gynaecology and (g) the total waiting list;

  (7) if he will give the March gross demand figures for the number of cases on the in-patient waiting lists for each district health authority for (a) general surgery, (b) traumatic and orthopaedic, (c) ear, nose and throat, (d) cardiothoracic surgery, (e) paediatric surgery, (f) gynaecology and (g) the total waiting list; and if he will give the ranking of each district health authority by each specialty.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. Reasons for the variations between districts in the number of cases on individual waiting lists include the size and age structure of the population and the extent of local development of specialised services. Not all health authorities provide each specialty.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Ancillary Staffs Council staffing level by district for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my hon. and learned Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 18 July at column 131 concerning district manpower information for 1988. Similar information covering the previous two years has already been placed in the Library.

  The present structure of NHS districts has existed only since 1982. Information to this level of detail from that time up to 1985 is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Serotonin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what trials are currently planned to test the drug Serotonin for the treatment of obesity, aggression, alcoholism and panic disorders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: Any company wishing to set up clinical trails under the Medicines Act 1968 would need to apply to the Medicines Control Agency before such trials could commence. Details of any such applications are confidential to the licensing authority.

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimate of the number of homeless people in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of households which applied to local authorities under the
  349
  homelessness provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 is estimated to have been 25,000 in 1988–89. Of these, about 9,500 were assessed by local authorities as homeless.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to combat homelessness in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have taken a number of measures to ensure that housing needs in Scotland are more closely matched by housing provision. It is for local authorities to deal with cases of homelessness.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next proposes to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss decommissioning of fishing vessels and future licensing arrangements of the industry.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My noble Friend the Minister of State and I meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on a regular basis. Our most recent meeting was on Monday 13 November when decommissioning and licensing were among the issues discussed.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the latest progress towards long-term restructuring of the Scottish fishing industry.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and my noble Friend the Minister of State are urgently considering proposals to help align fishing opportunity and catching capacity. These raise many difficult issues, but we hope to announce our decisions very soon.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the need for a decommissioning scheme in the Scottish fishing industry in the light of current total allowable catches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are fully aware of both the present scarcity of white fish and the excess capacity which exists in the United Kingdom fishing fleet and are considering how fishing opportunity can be better aligned to catching capacity. This consideration includes the option of a decommissioning scheme. Before introducing any such scheme we would need to be satisfied that it addressed the problem appropriately and that it represented good value for taxpayers' money.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Eyemouth to discuss the current state of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering a visit to Berwickshire when these matters might be discussed.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to amend the Scottish Licensing Act to alleviate the problem of alcohol abuse among young persons under the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement.
  350
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to introduce appropriate provisions amending the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 at the next suitable legislative opportunity.

  Housing Priorities
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss central and local government co-operation in tackling Scottish housing priorities.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss central and local government co-operation in tackling Scottish housing priorities.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss central and local government co-operation in tackling Scottish housing priorities.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss central and local government co-operation in tackling Scottish housing priorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I met representatives of the convention on 22 September. Various housing issues were discussed.

  Local Authorities (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average annual administrative cost per head of(a) regional councils, (b) district councils, and (c) island councils, in Scotland; and if he will publish in the Official Report the costs of running each individual council in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The average figures per head are:

  £

  Regional Councils

  859

  District Councils

  389

  Island Councils

  2,106

  Total figures for each authority are as follows:

  Administrative costs 1987–88

  £'000

  Borders

  61,381

  Central

  166,905

  Dumfries and Galloway

  93,158

  Fife

  229,340

  Grampian

  319,790

  Highland

  148,645

  Lothian

  470,412

  Strathclyde

  1,563,204

  Tayside

  255,846

  Total regions

  3,308,681

  Orkney

  34,072

  Shetland

  44,095

  Western Isles

  35,515

  Total islands

  113,683

  £'000

  Berwickshire

  3,029

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5,975

  Roxburgh

  8,295

  351

  £'000

  Tweeddale

  2,126

  Clackmannan

  14,917

  Falkirk

  36,940

  Stirling

  23,931

  Annandale and Eskdale

  6,213

  Nithsdale

  11,134

  Stewartry

  3,725

  Wigtown

  7,119

  Dunfermline

  28,459

  Kirkcaldy

  40,235

  North East Fife

  14,318

  Aberdeen City

  64,822

  Banff and Buchan

  15,922

  Gordon

  9,303

  Kincardine and Deeside

  5,675

  Moray

  17,413

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1,729

  Caithness

  4,392

  Inverness

  12,209

  Lochaber

  4,328

  Nairn

  1,546

  Ross and Cromarty

  10,489

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,824

  Sutherland

  2,562

  East Lothian

  20,393

  Edinburgh City

  139,436

  Midlothian

  16,470

  West Lothian

  36,791

  Argyll and Bute

  19,817

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  5,126

  Clydebank

  18,043

  Clydesdale

  12,766

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8,336

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  13,200

  Cunninghame

  34,172

  Dumbarton

  21,627

  East Kilbride

  10,356

  Eastwood

  6,181

  Glasgow City

  386,262

  Hamilton

  31,321

  Inverclyde

  34,927

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  24,204

  Kyle and Carrick

  28,673

  Monklands

  36,724

  Motherwell

  53,079

  Renfrew

  58,784

  Strathkelvin

  16,824

  Angus

  20,222

  Dundee City

  59,653

  Perth and Kinross

  24,519

  Total districts

  1,496,536

  Scotland

  4,918,900

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss its programme.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans for such a meeting, though he is in regular contact with the agency over its programmes.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency; and which subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the agency board, including the chief executive, on 22 May and discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made by the police with the murder inquiry following the Lockerbie air disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to whom Dumfries and Galloway constabulary report, is satisfied that encouraging progress has been made with the Lockerbie inquiry. This has been achieved by painstaking and meticulous detective work, remarkable forensic scientific examination and unprecedented international co-operation. While no sufficient evidence is at present available to justify the commencement of criminal proceedings in Scotland against any particular person or persons, my noble and learned Friend remains confident that further progress will be made towards the goal of bringing the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

  Kelvin Central plc
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for Kelvin Central plc.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be publishing a disposal programme which will set out the basis on which the subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group will be sold. The first companies are expected to be advertised for sale around the end of this year. It is not, however, possible at this stage to say when Kelvin Central Buses will be offered for sale.

  NHS Statistics
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements in nurse numbers, doctors' numbers and operations completed have been made in the National Health Service in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since this Government came to office the whole-time equivalent number of qualified nurses in the NHS in Scotland has increased by 7,000, from 26,930 to 33,932. The whole-time equivalent number of doctors has increased by 826, from 8,863 to 9,689, over the same period. The number of operations performed has increased by 177,400, from 315,500 to 492,900, an increase of 56 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Angus district council on the implementation of the community charge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations from Angus district council.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department intends to recalculate poll tax rebates, in the light of entitlement to relief under the transitional poll tax scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 November 1989]: Relief will be calculated on the basis of

  353
  peoples' liabilities before any reduction by community charge rebate. The administrative implications of this are under discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of people in Scotland who are in arrears with their poll tax payments.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how current payment levels under the community charge compare to payment levels under the old domestic rating system at a similar point in the last financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities have reported good progress in the collection of the community charge with up to 96 per cent. of payers having paid in some areas. This is encouraging given that the community charge is a new tax and the number of people liable to pay is much larger than for domestic rates. It is of course difficult to draw precise comparisons with the collection of domestic rates, but it does appear that the pace at which community charge income is coming through to local authorities is broadly similar to the pace at which domestic rate income came through last year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make moneys available to the appropriate authorities to research into the causes of the recent outbreak of mad cow disease.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are currently funding extensive programmes of research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including studies into the epidemiology of the disease; transmission to offspring of affected animals and to other species; molecular biological and genetic aspects; clinico-pathology and embryo transfer.

  The cost of the programme this year, which is being met by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is estimated to be over £2 million and some of this work is being carried out at the neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh in collaboration with the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory. There is no requirement for additional moneys to be provided by Scottish Office Departments.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met with representatives from the South of Scotland electricity board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards on 8 November when a number of issues relating to privatisation of the industry were discussed, including the matters referred to in his statement to the House the following day.

  Rents to Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people will be eligible for the new rents to mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Eligibility to purchase under the new rents to mortgages scheme is dependent upon a number of factors, specific to the individual concerned, details of which are not held centrally. However, from the information which is available, I estimate presently that up to 50,000 people could be eligible.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what future provision is planned for maternity services for people living in the east end of Glasgow for the 1990s; which hospital it is proposed that they attend; where the expert medical advisers recommended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has issued a consultation document following a review of its maternity services strategy. The review involved a range of professional staff and the board stated its preferred option for the future, taking account of a range of factors, including the views of the staff, as the provision of two new units at Yorkhill and Stobhill. The board will take a final decision following the consultation period and then submit its proposals to the Secretary of State for approval. In reaching a decision as to the best provision of maternity services for the women of Glasgow my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider all views, including medical ones.

  New Motherwell Hospital
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Lanarkshire health board for a new district general hospital in the Motherwell district.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 3 November Lanarkshire health board issued a consultative document on its acute services strategy. The options include establishing a new district general hospital in the Motherwell district. The board will not finally decide before the end of the consultation period on its preferred option, which will then be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for consideration.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on plans to form local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Groups of business people are coming forward in all parts of Scotland with the support of their local communities, and I am very encouraged by their enthusiasm. Six applications for funding to meet the costs of developing local enterprise companies have now been received, and more are in preparation.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the business community about the effects of a tax-raising Scottish assembly on Scottish industry.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the business community about the effects of a tax-raising assembly on Scottish industry.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No such representations have been received recently. I am aware, however, of the concern expressed by top companies in Scotland that the introduction of a Scottish Assembly would inevitably result in higher taxes, which would not be to Scotland's benefit.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of economic growth for Scotland for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest output—based estimates of Scotland's gross domestic product show that in 1987 the Scottish economy grew by 2·4 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those constituences in Scotland where unemployment is above the British national average.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available since unemployment rates are not calculated for parliamentary constituencies.

  Fishing and Agriculture (Employment)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide projections for employment prospects in the fishing and agriculture sectors of the Scottish economy from the present time until 1999.

  Mr. Lang
  Projections are not made for either the agriculture or fishing sectors. Continuing the contraction which has persisted throughout the post-war period, the number of workers, excluding occupiers and spouses, employed on agricultural holdings as recorded in the main June agricultural census has fallen by about 3 per cent. per year over the past 10 years to 28,000 in 1989. Employment in sea fishing has remained broadly steady at about 8,000 over the period.

  Laboratory Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on health boards that seek to privatise laboratory services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am not aware of any proposals to privatise laboratory services, but health boards are encouraged to strive to ensure the highest quality of services in the interests of patient care.

  Health Councils
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of health councils.
  356
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am currently considering this carefully and hope to make an announcement once I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with health board chairmen.

  NHS Competitive Tendering
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for competitive tendering in the Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards have made significant progress. By the end of October 140 contracts, largely for domestic and catering services, had been awarded and these are expected to release savings of more than £53 million over the periods of the contracts for reinvestment in direct patient care. Of the 140 contracts awarded, 110 (nearly 80 per cent.) have been won by the in-house teams. These account for more than £36 million (nearly 68 per cent.) of the savings released. The total savings released could buy over 8,400 kidney dialysis machines or pay for 18,000 hip replacement operations or about 4,750 heart by-pass operations.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources will be available as a result of competitive tendering in the Scottish Health Service over the next three to four years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The contracts awarded before the end of October are expected to release savings of more than £53 million over the periods of the contracts for reinvestment in direct patient care. These savings could buy over 8,400 kidney dialysis machines or pay for 18,000 hip replacement operations or about 4,750 heart by-pass operations.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the nursery and general child care facilities for under-fives in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Since 1979 the numbers of children under five attending local authority nursery schools or classes have increased by 28 per cent. to 41,000 and child care places have increased by 32 per cent. to 63,600.

  In addition to providing revenue support grant for local authority nursery education and child care facilities, the Government assist voluntary organisations and local groups concerned with child care through the urban programme and through grants provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Employers are showing increasing interest in providing child care facilities and the Government are strongly encouraging them to make use of available tax reliefs.

  GPs' Contracts
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will convene a meeting with health councils in Scotland and the British Medical Association to discuss the reasons which have led his Department to impose a contract on Scottish general practitioners.
  357
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Hospital Developments
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major hospital developments in Scotland have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1979, 63 major hospital developments costing over £1 million each have been completed providing 6,933 new hospital beds and 521 day places.

  Education (Parental Views)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent survey carried out by the Scottish Education Department into parental views on schools' education in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The survey was carried out by the MVA Consultancy and Jordanhill college of education. The main findings of the survey are summarised in the report "Talking about Schools" which was published on 16 October. A copy has been lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  The survey was commissioned to support policy-making, policy evaluation and development.

  The findings indicate that parents were supportive of schools; welcomed the opportunity to be involved; were in favour of testing in key subjects in primary schools; and that the vast majority of parents thought that it is a good thing to have a choice of school for their children.

  The summary report should be of particular interest to school boards.

  Investment
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on how much inward investment has been obtained for the years 1978 and 1988, or the latest available figures.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures prior to the establishment of Locate in Scotland in 1981, are not available.

  In the year 1981–82, companies committed to 32 inward investment projects associated with the expected safeguarding or creation of 7,000 jobs and involving planned capital expenditure of £234 million.

  During 1988–89, companies committed to 55 projects, associated with the expected creation and safeguarding of 7,089 jobs and involving planned capital expenditure of £437 million.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total number of properties in Glasgow owned by the local authority or by Scottish Homes have been bought by their tenants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between April 1979 and June 1989 approximately 8·5 per cent. of the stock owned by the local authority or by Scottish Homes in Glasgow has been sold.

  Tourism
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the Scottish Development Agency budget for tourist-associated development for 1990–91.
  358
  Mr. Lang
  This information will not be available until after my right hon. and learned Friend has announced the agency's budget for 1990–91. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Law Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to establish new law centres in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Proportional Representation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recent representations from the campaign for a Scottish Assembly on proportional representation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Ferry Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his officials have held any recent discussions with Mr. Colin Paterson, chief executive of Caledonian MacBrayne, concerning passenger ferry services; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regular and frequent discussions take place between officials of the Scottish Development Department and the chief executive of Caledonian MacBrayne reflecting the Government's commitment to the provision of the ferry services which are so vital to island communities.

  Forth Crossing
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposal made to him by the Forth bridge joint board regarding a second estuarial crossing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department has been aware for some time now of the increasing volume of traffic using the existing Forth bridge. Consequently the need for a second estuarial crossing of the River Forth will be addressed in the trunk and key principal road network review study.

  The commission for the study will be awarded this month and the final report will be required in 18 months time.

  Health Boards (Partnerships)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if health boards in Scotland have any plans to build developments in partnership with the private sector of the kind already established in certain English health authorities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has submitted proposals to provide health care for the elderly in partnership with the private sector and a number of other health boards are considering this type of partnership development.

  Lowland Airports
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Scottish lowland airports policy.
  359
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is now receiving copies of responses to the consultative document on Scottish lowland airports policy issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The consultation exercise ends on 29 November and submissions received will be taken fully into account in the review now in progress.

  Hospices
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision his Department is making for the hospice movement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 14 November 1989.

  School Boards
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet with the directors of education of local authorities in Scotland to discuss the progress of school boards.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend addressed the annual conference of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland on 27 October. He made it clear that we regard progress with the implementation of school boards as very satisfactory.

  Forestry Taxation
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a progress report on the forestry and farm woodland schemes since the changes to the forestry taxation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The forestry taxation changes were announced on 15 March 1988, the associated woodland grant scheme was opened to applications on 21 June 1988 and the farm woodland scheme was introduced on 1 October 1988.

  By 30 September 1989, the Forestry Commission had received applications for entry to the woodland grant scheme which covered nearly 50,000 hectares of prospective new planting. In the first full planting season after the 1988 Budget—that is, for the year to 30 September 1989—13,468 hectares of new planting were grant-aided by the Commission, including 6,984 hectares under the woodland grant scheme.

  During the year ended 30 September 1989, the farm woodland scheme attracted applications covering over 7,600 hectares of proposed planting, and grant had been paid on 1,825 hectares.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has received from the business community in Scotland to the establishment of Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Lang
  There has been an enthusiastic and broad-based response to our proposals, which aim to integrate economic development, training and environmental renewal to form a Scottish solution to Scottish needs. To date six groups, led by senior business people, have applied for funding to meet the costs of developing 360
  local enterprise companies. The actual establishment of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will require legislation, for which we shall seek an early opportunity.

  Scottish Farmers' Union
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the Scottish Farmers' Union; and what they discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 18 October at columns 129–30.

  Nurses
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses there were in Scotland in 1979; what was their average salary; and what were the comparable figures for the most recent period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At April 1979 there were 65,439 nursing staff in the National Health Service in Scotland and average earnings including allowances were £67·80 per week. At April 1989 staff numbered 74,829, an increase of 9,390, and average earnings were £220·00 per week. The increase in real terms in basic pay over the period was 43 per cent.

  Procurator Fiscal
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Lord Advocate last met the procurator fiscal; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate last met the procurator fiscal, Edinburgh along with other senior procurators fiscal on 1 November 1989.

  Enterprise Trusts
  Mr. Younger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress being made in setting up enterprise trusts.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government welcome the valuable contribution being made by the growing network of local enterprise trusts to the development of small businesses in Scotland. There are now 45 approved trusts operating under the aegis of Scottish Business in the Community (SCOTBIC). The "Annual Review 1988–89" recently published by SCOTBIC and the Scottish Development Agency shows that, during the period of the review, 44 trusts helped 3,900 start-up businesses and 5,700 existing businesses. The total number of jobs in the new businesses helped was 3,900 and the same number of existing jobs was supported or saved.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take any steps to encourage the breeding and production of varieties of oilseed rape which minimise the dispersal of pollen and other airborne material into the atmosphere.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  If it were shown conclusively that existing varieties of oilseed rape caused
  361
  serious problems for human health we would consider what measures were necessary to tackle the problem. The breeding of varieties with specific properties could be one such measure.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what conclusions his Department has reached on the results of the oilseed rape research project funded by Angus district council and Ninewells hospital on the relationship between oilseed rape crop and allergies, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what research or investigation his Department has made into the health problems connected with the oilseed rape crop; what finance has been allocated to such projects; and what plans he has to develop further the recent research financed by Angus district council and Ninewells hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I received on 25 October a copy of the report of a project undertaken by Mr. Cameron, Dr. Parratt and Dr. Macfarlane-Smith. I am arranging for the report to be evaluated.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department is currently considering an application for funding research relating to the alleged health problems connected with the oilseed rape crop.

  Pollen from many plants, grasses and trees are known to produce allergenic symptoms and the relative importance of oilseed rape pollen as an allergen has still to be determined.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department is undertaking or commissioning into developing less allergy-inducing strains of oilseed rape.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is not engaged in, and has not so far commissioned, such research. The priority to be given to any proposals for adding work in this area to the Department's programme of commissioned research and development would depend on a number of factors, including the extent to which the claimed adverse effects of oilseed rape on human health had been confirmed.

  Firework Display (Lennox Castle)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the cost of the firework extravaganza at Lennox castle on 5 November, sponsored by the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from Greater Glasgow health board that an allocation was made at the beginning of the year from the board's endowment funds to improve patients' amenities at Lennox Castle hospital. Part of this allocation, £880, was used to stage a fireworks display at the hospital on Sunday 5 November. In line with the board's policy of involving the local community in the life of the hospital, members of the public were invited to attend.

  Licensing Law
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received recent representations from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association about proposed changes in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The views expressed by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association during the consultative review of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 were taken into account in the proposed changes in Scottish liquor licensing law described in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 19 May at c.343–44.

  Housing
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total financial subsidy granted by the Scottish Development Agency to Barratt for its housing development at Dunedin way, West Pilton, Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The amount of Scottish Development Agency support for the Barratt project at Dunedin way, West Pilton, is a commercial matter between the agency and Barratt Homes Scotland and I am therefore unable to provide the hon. Member with this information.

  Poisoned Birds, Islay
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 1 November,Official Report, column 219, on which estates or properties on Islay the illegally poisoned birds were found; and whether any prosecutions resulted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information with regard to the location of the birds is given in the table. No prosecutions have resulted.

  Location

  1979

  Gyr Falcon

  Islay Estates

  1981

  Buzzard

  Ardmore Estate

  1982

  Golden Eagle

  Islay Estates Dunlossit

  1983

  Crow

  Estate

  1986

  Buzzard

  Islay Estates

  1987

  Buzzard

  Islay Estates

  Crows (5)

  Islay Estates

  1988

  Buzzard

  Foreland Estate

  Raven

  Islay Estates

  Golden Eagles (2)

  Islay Estates

  1989

  Raven

  Islay Estates

  Buzzard

  Islay Estates

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the Greater Glasgow health board to publish bacteria levels recorded from samples taken at Victoria infirmary, Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. This is an operational matter for Greater Glasgow health board. I understand that shortcomings in cleaning standards at the Victoria Infirmary, which were identified as a result of stringent monitoring of standards, have now been rectified.

  Heart Transplant Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for establishing a heart transplant service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am currently giving this matter consideration.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the actual amount of expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland each year from 1959 until the present(a) in cash and (b) adjusted for inflation;

  (2) what was the spending on the National Health Service in Scotland each year from 1959 until the present adjusted for inflation in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is readily available only from 1974–75 and this is set out in the following table:

  Total National Health Service expenditure

  (a) £ million cash

  (b) Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 1988–89 prices

  1974–75

  458

  1,802

  1975–76

  603

  1,890

  1976–77

  685

  1,895

  1977–78

  777

  1,890

  1978–79

  893

  1,959

  1979–80

  1,064

  2,001

  1980–81

  1,343

  2,130

  1981–82

  1,531

  2,213

  1982–83

  1,660

  2,241

  1983–84

  1,773

  2,288

  1984–85

  1,901

  2,337

  1985–86

  2,015

  2,348

  1986–87

  2,144

  2,421

  1987–88

  2,328

  2,498

  1988–89

  2,571

  2,571

  1989–901

  2,815

  2,668

  1 Projected outturn.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how long the derogations for aluminium granted under article 20 of the European Commission drinking water directive are; and in each case when they are due to expire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Applications for delay under article 20 of the directive were made in 1985. Those still remaining and which relate to aluminium are due to expire as follows:

  Number

  1990

  6

  1991

  5

  1992

  11

  1993

  8

  1994

  2

  1995–96

  12

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the water supply areas along with the 364
  size of population they serve, in Scotland, which failed, at any time in the last 12 months, to meet the European Commission standard of 200 microgrammes per litre for aluminium and whether they are covered by a derogation under article 20 of the European Commission drinking water directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Available details of water supplies which may currently fail to meet the EC standard for aluminium are given in the table, which shows populations served and identifies supplies which are the subject of application for delay under article 20 of the directive. Supplies not so identified exceed the standard only occasionally.

  Region and Supply

  Area served

  Population served

  Borders

  Wanton Walls1

  Parts of Central

  6,000

  Alemoor1

  Borders

  20,000

  Knowesdean

  15,000

  Central

  Longhill1

  Falkirk

  23,000

  Sauchie1

  Cowie, Plean, part Stirling

  20,000

  Woodburn1

  Kirkintilloch

  25,000

  Blaefaulds

  Falkirk, Larbert

  36,000

  Sunnylaw

  Bridge of Allan

  6,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Areeming1

  Springholm

  2,600

  New Abbey1

  South West Nithsdale

  1,600

  Killylour1

  Part Dumfries

  31,000

  Winterhope1

  South East Annandale, Eskdale

  6,500

  Penwhirn

  Wigtown District

  15,700

  Auchneel

  Stranraer

  10,000

  Carsphairn

  Carsphairn

  200

  Lochinvar

  Castle Douglas, Dalbeattie

  10,600

  Lochfoot

  ICI Drungans

  —

  Black Esk

  West Annandale, Eskdale

  25,600

  Euchan

  Kirkconnel, Kelloholm

  4,000

  Kettleton

  Central Nithsdale

  12,000

  Wanlockhead

  Wanlockhead

  100

  Grampian

  Herricks1

  Keith

  4,300

  Rochomie1

  Buckie

  5,500

  Glenlatterach

  Elgin area

  28,600

  Newbigging

  Inverurie

  15,000

  Turriff

  REgional supply

  25,000

  Bogensourie

  Fraserburgh

  6,500

  Craighead

  Huntly

  4,500

  Glendye

  North Kincardine

  —

  Black Hills

  Lossiemouth

  6,300

  Mannofield

  Aberdeen

  62,000

  Highland

  Wick1

  Wick

  8,000

  Bonar Bridge

  Bonar Bridge, Ardgay

  1,200

  Carrbridge

  Carrbridge

  450

  Corpach

  Corpach, Annat

  4,650

  Culrain

  Culrain

  90

  Garve

  Garve

  200

  Roskhill

  Roskhill, Dunvegan

  510

  Strathnairn

  Strathnairn

  180

  Lothian

  Fairmilehead

  Part Edinburgh

  225,000

  Hopes

  East Lothian

  11,500

  Pateshill

  West Lothian

  42,400

  Rosebery

  East Midlothian

  54,100

  Whittinghame

  East Lothian

  13,600

  365

  Region and Supply

  Area served

  Population served

  Strathclyde

  Afton1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  39,900

  Staneley1

  Paisley area

  37,000

  Whinhill1

  Greenock

  17,100

  Bradan1

  Ayr, Troon, Irvine

  94,300

  Greenhead1

  Irvine, Kilwinning

  18,800

  Muirdykes1

  Paisley, Johnstone

  60,000

  Overton1

  Gourock, Greenock

  11,400

  Daer

  Clydesdale and Motherwell Districts

  237,000

  Amlaird1

  Kilmarnock

  14,600

  Penwhapple1

  Girvan area

  1,100

  Picketlaw

  Eaglesham, Newton Mearns, etc.

  13,700

  Dougiehill1

  Port Glasgow

  8,300

  Prospecthill1

  Greenock

  7,400

  South Moorhouse1

  Caldcoats, Newton Mearns

  27,800

  Aucha Lochy

  Campbeltown

  7,300

  Crosbie1

  West Kilbride

  1,400

  Ardrishaig1

  Ardrishaig, Lochgilphead

  3,780

  Pundeavon1

  Dunlop, Lugton, etc.

  2,800

  Cochno

  Clydebank, Dalmuir

  16,500

  Larkfield1

  Gourock

  2,200

  Spallander1

  Kyle and Carrick

  13,000

  Tarbert1

  Tarbert

  1,340

  Kelly1

  Inverkip, Wemyss Bay

  1,390

  Torra1

  Bowmore, Port Ellen

  2,000

  Tighnabruaich1

  Tighnabruaich

  800

  Tobermory1

  Tobermory

  680

  Dhu Loch1

  Rothesay, Bannatyne

  3,000

  Inveraray1

  Inveraray

  450

  Furnace1

  Furnace

  380

  Port Charlotte1

  Port Charlotte

  210

  Carradale1

  Carradale

  480

  Muasdale1

  Muasdale

  150

  Garshake1

  Dumbarton

  25,000

  Clachan1

  Clachan

  150

  Kaim

  Bridge of Weir, Lochwinnoch

  12,900

  Strachur

  Strachur

  500

  Skelmorlie1

  Skelmorlie

  1,300

  Corsehouse; Camphill

  Stewarton; North Ayrshire

  32,000

  Neilston

  Neilston, Barrhead

  3,600

  Burncrooks

  Clydebank, Bearsden

  13,800

  Maukinhill1

  Greenock

  5,400

  Loch Eck

  Kilmun Inellan

  10,600

  Orkney

  Kirbister

  Orkney South Mainland

  5,000

  Wideford

  Kirkwall

  4,400

  Boardhouse

  Orkney North Mainland

  2,300

  Shetland

  Aith

  Aith, Clousta, Bixter

  550

  Burra

  Burra

  840

  Cullivoe

  North Yell

  350

  Quarff

  Gulberwick, Quarff

  360

  Sandness

  Sandness

  200

  Walls

  Walls

  600

  1 Supplies are the subject of applications under article 20.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the water supply areas along with the size of population they serve, in Scotland, which fail to meet the revised action limit for lead in drimking water of 50 microgrammes per litre, and those which do not appear on the Scottish Office lead identification survey which was presented to the European Commission in December 1987 366
  and the date by which all these areas will comply with 50 microgrammes per litre standard, based on a 100 per cent. compliance with the standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regulations on the quality of drinking water, to be made shortly under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 as amended by the Water Act 1989, will specify the new standard of 50 microgrammes per litre for lead in all samples of drinking water. Information on any water supply areas which fail to meet this new standard will not be available until water authorities have undertaken the monitoring which will also be required under the regulations.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the role of his Department in ensuring that the European Commission standards for drinking water quality in Scotland are established and maintained.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The role of the Scottish Office is to set up the appropriate regulatory framework to enable directives to be applied; to ensure that appropriate resources are available; to maintain contact with the European Commission; and to provide advice and guidance on the implementation of directives.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when each water supply area which fails to meet the European Commission limit for aluminium will comply with the maximum admissible concentration laid down in the drinking water directive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Programmes for full compliance with the aluminium standard are under discussion with water authorities. All supplies are expected to comply by early 1996.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the amount of staff time lost in the National Health Service in Scotland as a result of smoking-related diseases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No information is available centrally on which such an estimate could be based.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to take active steps to protect non-smoking employees of his Department against the effects of passive smoking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  The policy of my Department is currently under review. The review process has incorporated a comprehensive survey of smoking habits and attitudes of staff, conducted late in 1988.

  Housing Agencies
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what engagements the Minister responsible for housing has with housing agencies before Christmas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have frequent meetings and visits with housing agencies of various kinds, and since being appointed has visited 33 district councils to see and to discuss housing matters.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new housing associations and co-operatives are expected to be formed over the next two years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The registration of new housing associations and co-operatives is a matter for Scottish Homes. However, I understand that Scottish Homes expects that between 20 and 40 new associations and co-operatives will be formed over the next two years. The decision to apply for registration by Scottish Homes rests with the bodies themselves and therefore precise estimates of numbers and timing of registration are not possible.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the average level of housing association grant which is intended during the current year and for 1990–91 in Scotland; and what are the highest and lowest percentages of housing association grant agreed for any developments respectively, approved to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No average level of housing association grant is intended. Scottish Homes has been set an increased output target in terms of the number of houses supplied per £ million of public finance (after allowing for inflation), for the current year of 15 per cent. and for 1990–91, of 17½ per cent.

  The target was set in this way to allow Scottish Homes to operate the new financial regime flexibly. It can be achieved by a combination of factors including the introduction of private finance and increasing efficiency. Accordingly, I have no information of the percentages of housing association grant agreed to date.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of spending allocations to the various districts of Scottish Homes in the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In agreeing Scottish Homes' programme for any year, my right hon. and learned Friend considers the amount which Scottish Homes proposes be spent on particular functions, for example, in providing housing by housing associations. The allocation of funds to particular areas is then a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of capital receipts from sales he expects in 1990–91 from local authority, new towns and Scottish Homes stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Estimates of capital receipts from sales of local authority, new towns and Scottish Homes stock are taken into account in the public expenditure survey decisions which will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in early December.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has concerning the upgrading of transport links to Prestwick airport.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has already announced improvements in 368
  road links to Ayrshire and these will proceed. Appraisals are also under way of various options for providing direct rail services to and from Prestwick airport.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the action of district councils in restricting the statutory rights of council house tenants to buy their home.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department receives numerous representations about the right-to-buy provisions. Some of these contain allegations that some councils are in breach of statutory requirements, for example the duty to respond to an application to purchase within two months.

  I am also aware of the city of Glasgow district council's practice of requiring certain of its tenants, before their houses are improved, to sign an undertaking not to exercise their statutory right to buy, or if they do so, that they will repay to the council a proportion of the costs of the improvements. This matter was the subject of a local inquiry in June 1988 following which my right hon. and learned Friend made an order declaring the council to be in default of its statutory duties. Following an intimation by the council that it did not accept that it was in default, the Court of Session was petitioned for an order of specific performance by the council. The court's opinion was issued on 20 October, granting the petition and allowing Glasgow district council 12 weeks within which to complete the steps to remedy the default.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to place in the Library copies of the responses to his proposals relating to the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: As is standard practice with consultation exercises, a public file of responses is available for inspection. The public file on the SDD consultation paper, "Scotland's Natural Heritage", is available in St. Andrew's house library, Edinburgh. The file contains all responses except those submitted in confidence. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library and shall advise the hon. Member when it is available.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 8 November, what assessment he has made of(a) the time in man hours and (b) the cost of producing the breakdown of responses relating to those for and against Nature Conservancy Council proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: None. I must emphasise that the Scottish Development Department's consultation paper sought views only on the proposal to create a Scottish natural heritage agency. It is not possible, nor would it be meaningful, to attempt to identify respondents' views on the question posed by the hon. Member.

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider new measures to prevent continuing persecution of species of protected birds, with particular reference to the golden eagle.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides a comprehensive statutory framework for the protection of wild birds and their habitats, and contains additional provisions to safeguard rare and vulnerable species, including the golden eagle.

  The Nature Conservancy Council is presently reviewing the effectiveness of the legislation and expects to report next year. We shall consider its report and any recommendations for change most carefully.

  Building Safety
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps and what research his Department has taken to encourage safety in the Scottish building industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.
  370
  We will shortly be making the wearing of safety helmets on construction sites compulsory. The Health and Safety Commission has recently published a consultative document setting out proposals for new regulations to strengthen the management of health and safety on construction sites and the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors will be paying more attention to the quality of site management and levels of training and supervision. For the last two years we have met the HSC's requests for resources in full which has allowed real growth in their activities. For example, this includes increasing the number of HSE inspectors devoted to construction by 10 per cent. since 1988 and sponsoring research both within HSE and externally.

  Each year the HSE's research and laboratory services division (RLSD) devotes resources to research into safety topics of relevance to the building industry. Information on all such projects is included in the Health and Safety Executive's programme of research and related services, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. In addition to sponsoring research, the HSE also provides specialist input and advice to a number of construction-related research projects.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Education: National Curriculum
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the recommendation of the Audit Commission report Assuring Quality in Education that each local education authority should employ one adviser/inspector for every one of the 10 national curriculum subjects.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we endorse the recommendation that each authority should ensure specialist coverage of all 10 national curriculum subjects within its inspection and advisory service; but in smaller authorities, as the Audit Commission recognises, the workload may not justify employing an inspector or adviser for each subject. These authorities should consider other ways of ensuring subject coverage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his Answer to my Question. May I ask whether the Government broadly endorse this excellent report from the Audit Commission? May I also ask whether they accept one of the other main recommendations and observations of this report—namely, that the role of the local education authority changes substantially under the new Education Act—and will enhance that aspect in the future?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government support the Audit Commission's broad recommendation that inspection, based on systematic observation and recording of the quality of teaching in schools, should be given more emphasis in the work of inspectors and advisers.
Baroness David: My Lords, I understand what the Minister said regarding the possibility of smaller authorities sharing. But is the local education support grant to be increased so that some authorities which have difficulty in having enough inspectors/advisers will be able to employ them and have them trained?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are already making education support grant available to support an increase in LEA inspectors and advisers. Expenditure of £25 million will be supported over five years. This should lead to an increase of some 10 per cent. on current numbers of inspectors and advisers.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister convinced that strengthening the inspectorate is the best way to enhance quality in schools in the light of the
1310
inspectorate's own record? Would it not be far better if inspectors and advisers were made to teach in the schools where there is, I understand, an important shortage of teachers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Audit Commission suggests several options for authorities to consider: teams of inspectors and advisers could operate under the oversight of a joint committee of several authorities and an LEA could contract with a neighbouring authority for that authority's service to undertake inspection and advice on its behalf. To meet the point of my noble friend, a third way is that LEAs could co-ordinate appointments so as to maintain full specialist coverage for all subjects among them. They could then buy specialist expertise from one another.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report recommends not only one inspector or adviser for each of the 10 national curriculum subjects but in addition one for special educational needs, three for primary education, one for secondary education and one for further education? Does he accept that these are as important as the proposal to have 10 for the 10 national curriculum subjects? If so, while I cannot agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will the Government ensure that the people who are appointed are regarded as the leaders in organising best practices and not necessarily as the fount of all wisdom?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, We endorse the Audit Commission's recommendation that every LEA should ensure specialist coverage for special educational needs within its inspection and advisory service. Again it will be for each authority to consider whether its workload justifies employing an inspector or adviser or whether arrangements should be made with another authority to ensure that specialist cover.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that monitoring the national curriculum demands particular expert knowledge? The Education Reform Act itself speaks of 10 bald and basic subjects discreetly divided —with which most of us are familiar—whereas tile trend of all modern teaching is towards the breakdown of subject barriers and the integration of all learning. Therefore, the monitoring of the curriculum demands particular expertise.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point. LEAs need to ensure that their inspectors and advisers receive appropriate induction at the outset and suitable continuing professional development thereafter. The Government have made £40,000 grant available to the Centre for Adviser and Inspector Development to evaluate and develop a distance learning programme for inspectors and advisers. This should help to prepare them specifically for monitoring the introduction of our education reforms.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, with regard to achieving regular attendance at schools in order for children to take advantage of the quality of education, is my noble friend satisfied that there is an adequate number of school attendance officers to ensure regular attendance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not, but that is another Question. If my noble friend tables a Question I shall be happy to answer it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission has identified a shortfall of 1,100 advisers and inspectors which are needed in order to monitor the national curriculum adequately? Can he say how the Government intend to make up that shortfall?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the report recommends that LEAs should decide the workload and staffing of their inspectorate in the light of the tasks to be performed and the resources available. It gives illustrations of how many inspector-advisers a small, medium and large LEA might need depending on whether the planned workload is low or high. On this basis alone the low workload figures suggest that nationally there are 100 too many inspector-advisers. The high workload figure implies that there are 1,100 too few. The report clearly states that these calculations should not be taken to mean that net increases in LEA central staff are required.
Lord Peston: My Lords, contrary to what the noble friend of the Minister said, the Audit Commission actually says that monitoring educational quality and advice to improve it are crucial. In other words, the inspectors are crucial. May I further ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware of another figure in the report which is extremely worrying? I refer to the fact that as presently arranged the average teacher in our schools is observed by an inspector only once every seven years, which is about the same as never. The Audit Commission report suggests that the inspectorate and the education officers could be redeployed in order that the average teacher's work could be observed once every year. Is that an objective that the Government approve of and will they try to ensure that it happens?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said earlier, we endorse the report of the Audit Commission.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that for once I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Anyone who knows the schools is aware that for years members of the inspectorate have gone around the country peddling the most ludicrous ideas and that they are a considerable factor in the low standards that we have in our schools. If the noble Viscount really wants to raise standards then the inspectorate should be abolished and the teachers left to get on with the job.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty. I do not believe that we can start on a full-scale debate between the two noble Lords.

Coach Holidays: Insurance
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why companies that operate coach holidays abroad are not under any legal obligation to provide insurance to protect their clients.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, most EC member states require coach operators to insure passengers against accidental injury or damage to property while in transit. Holiday organisers who are members of the Bus and Coach Council or the Association of British Travel Agents are bonded against insolvency and ABTA members are required, from summer 1990, to assume a greater liability for the proper performance of their holidays. Consumers are therefore able to choose whether to protect themselves by placing business with members of these bodies or to opt for cheaper packages without this protection. Travel insurance is available for individuals who want further protection.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that operators who arrange holidays by air are required to licence-bond by guarantee to the civil aviation authorities? Will the Minister agree that self-regulation, as operated by coach operators, does not give a guarantee to holidaymakers and that many find themselves stranded abroad with no means for returning home?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that situation. I can tell the noble Baroness that from the summer of 1990 people who travel will be able to enjoy the benefits of the new ABTA code which requires organisers to be strictly liable for the provision of the package as promised. Her Majesty's Government welcome this initiative by tour operators to stand by their products and would support an EC directive to underpin this principle across the industry as a whole.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree —I hope so because I have given him prior notice of this question —that the proposed EC directive on package travel would meet my noble friend's perfectly valid point? Article 5 would impose strict liability for performance on the tour operators and that liability would be insurable. Can the Minister say whether the Government support that article or are we yet again out of step with the rest of Europe in opposing it? If we oppose it can the Minister say why?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for giving me prior notice of his question, however short. I hope that my answer will satisfy him to a certain extent. We believe that negligence is a key principle in UK law. We would have serious concerns about a proposal which makes organisers strictly liable, irrespective of proven negligence, for all elements of a package deal. But if a more balanced proposal were to emerege we would give it serious consideration.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say what the Government believe to be a more balanced proposal?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, not at this stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, since this is a very personal matter for coach passengers, can the Minister say whether we have to do everything via an EC directive? As the noble Baroness asked, cannot we deal with this matter in our own way and to our own requirements?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that that is a question for me. The House of Lords Select Committee has commented that strict liability is neither right in principle nor economically insurable. Her Majesty's Government doubt that strict liability is appropriate without limitation for death or injury however caused. However, we are pleased to note that from November 1990 ABTA member companies will be assuming liability for death or injury to clients caused by negligence on the part of themselves or their suppliers.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those very helpful replies. I agree that the majority of travel companies are reputable organisations. Does the Minister not agree that the travelling public have a right to be protected from the cowboys in the industry?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely.

Marine Nature Reserve: Designation Date
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the establishment of the second marine nature reserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I cannot give a date for the announcement of the second marine nature reserve. As the noble Baroness knows, of the sites under consideration, the proposals for a marine nature reserve around Skomer are the most advanced, and progress is being made in this respect.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he not aware that the proposals have been agreed by all parties and have gone to the Secretary of State for Wales? Will he therefore give us some idea of how long he expects it to take for the Secretary of State for Wales to make up his mind, bearing in mind that this site was first identified in 1981 in the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Is this not far too long a time for such a valuable reserve to remain unprotected?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is true to say that Rome was not built in a day. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are particular problems with
1314
marine nature reserves which are different from any other. Because of that it is important that we achieve consensus in arriving at a satisfactory outcome. I said earlier that we were unable to forecast a date for the publication of the draft order by the Secretary of State for Wales. But I understand that he expects it to be early in the New Year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as Rome was not built in a day, does the noble Lord not agree that a marine nature reserve could be designated in nine years? Is he aware that the active negotiations on Skomer have taken more than five years? Will there be a need to review the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to deal with the question of designation? What effect will the Government's plans for devolution have on the process of designation? Could this mean further delays, or will it accelerate designation? Lastly, is he aware that there is great concern in Wales about this delay, and that people there are looking to the noble Lord to do something about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, naturally we wish to avoid delays, and we shall, in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, be reviewing the consultation procedures. It will be important to ensure that the interested parties continue to have an adequate opportunity to put forward their point of view. The noble Lord was perhaps referring specifically to the Menai Straits. Great concern has been expressed by the yachting interests. The Nature Conservancy Council is this winter holding a series of meetings with them in order to allay their fears.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Will he ensure that the Druids in Anglesey are also consulted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Answer he gave just now to my noble friend Lady Nicol was in essence the same as the Answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in April of this year and those given by other Ministers on no fewer than six occasions over the past four years—answers to the effect that no progress has been made? If he can confirm that, why is the wording in his Answer slightly different? Will he not remind his officials of the strictures of Sir Ernest Gowers against elegant variation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened a little more closely to what I said, there was a mention of the New Year which I do not believe appeared in any previous Answers given from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I accept that the establishment of marine nature reserves is a tricky business, as I found out when I tried to support one on the Isle of Wight. But is it not also a fact, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the break-up of the NCC is bound to make matters that much more difficult? Will the noble Lord take that into account before a Bill is put before the House on green issues?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about future plans for the Nature Conservancy Council. That goes slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend with regard to the possibility of legislation that might be coming forward.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, how can the noble Lord maintain that the Government are serious in their commitment to conservation when in eight years they have been able to designate only one marine nature reserve? Are there not to be 10? How long will it take the Government to designate the extra marine nature reserves that are required and which it is agreed are required? If the Government are serious about conservation, how long will it take before they put their words into practice?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, to make these reserves a success and something of which this country can be proud, they must be considered properly and must be achieved through concensus. The noble Lord asked about the Government's commitment. The fact that since 1979 we have increased funding by 150 per cent. in real terms is essence enough of the proof that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister note that the so-called break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council may lead to more rapid decision making in these matters? Decisions relating to Scotland will be made in Scotland and will involve a greater degree of local knowledge on these matters. Will he therefore support the idea of the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I never knew that I had even questioned the idea of the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for making a point which is entirely valid for the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, moving from Wales to Scotland, may I ask about another suggested marine nature reserve off the Isles of Scilly? It was waiting for an environmental trust to be established. Has that happened, and will designation therefore come rather more quickly?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the organisation to which the noble Baroness refers has now been established and is considering a voluntary marine park which would include the area proposed for the statutory marine nature reserve. The Nature Conservancy Council is providing advice and support.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? If it has taken the Government eight years to establish one marine nature reserve, how long will it take them to establish the 10?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that I answered the noble Lord's question the first time. There is not a mathematical progression when establishing marine nature reserves.

Freedom of Speech
2.56 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that, five days after the calls for the death of Mr. Salman Rushdie were publicly reiterated in Manchester, a meeting of Bradford Conservatives due to be addressed by Mr. Ray Honeyford had to be cancelled because of threats by Moslem fundamentalists; and whether they are satisfied that the right of free speech within the law is in practice still equally available to every individual in this country.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we understand that a meeting due to be addressed by Mr. Honeyford on 26th October 1989 was cancelled by the organisers because of possible demonstrations. The police were not consulted about this decision. There is no evidence of a direct link between these events and statements made in Manchester on 21st October which have been referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. We deplore any attempt to deny free speech within the law. The police and prosecutors are well aware of their responsibility to uphold this right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that very full Answer. Is he aware that I deliberately avoided questioning the legality of the calls for the death of Salman Rushdie on the assumption that, if they had been illegal, the police would have acted long before now? Obviously I was mistaken. Of course one accepts the noble Lord's reassurances. But in order to dispel the widespread impression that, in the matter of free speech, some are decidedly more equal than others, can the noble Lord assure the House that the police will be instructed automatically to protect meetings at which the right of free speech within the law is to be exercised from physical attacks by those whose aim is to extinguish such traditional rights?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the decision to call off this meeting was taken by the organisers. I understand that they did not seek the advice or assistance of the police before reaching that decision. But, before the decision to cancel the meeting was taken, I understand that the police in consultation with the organisers had made arrangements to police the meeting. The noble Lord is asking for this to happen automatically. That would be an operational matter for a chief constable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend draw to the attention of the responsible Moslem leaders in this country that if they care to refer to Chapter 50 of Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire they will find a very great deal more to complain of, if it is an unbowdlerised edition, than in Salman Rushdie's unreadable book?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have made it consistently clear to Moslems that, while they have a right to protest peacefully and legally, it is wholly

1317
unacceptable for any protests to be turned towards violence or the threat of violence. Any possible protest against that chapter in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would fall within the scope of that answer.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the matter had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, can he say what progress has been made? The Government have said that it is an offence under common law, as well as under the 1861 Act, to call for, or attempt to encourage, the murder of any other person. Will the Leader of the House tell us what is the present position? For example, when are the Crown prosecutors going to prosecute?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Greater Manchester police have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to see whether there is a case for prosecution on the grounds of Dr. Siddiqui's remarks to the Moslem Association meeting in Manchester on 21st October. However, I am afraid that I cannot take the noble Lord or the House any further in the matter today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people are extremely concerned about the length of time this matter is taking? They believe that there is one law for one section of the community and one law for another. Is it not a fact that book burning, threats to publishers, threats to organisers of proper and legal meetings and incitement of a mob to murder a fellow citizen is not Moslem fundamentalism; it is naked, brutal and primitive fascism? It is a system and a creed which we ought not to allow to rear its ugly head in this country. I hope therefore that the Government will stamp on the matter quickly and firmly.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that each case is looked at on its merits. There is no police policy of treating these threats any differently from any other threats. However, the fact of the matter is that allegations of unlawfulness are for the police to pursue. And, indeed, they are pursued. Many prosecutions are brought forward each year under the charge of conspiracy to commit murder or incitement to murder.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, are not the problems which face the population in this country usually dealt with in this House by moderate language? Moreover, do we not usually find that this is the better way to deal with such matters?
Is it not confusing to deal with freedom of speech —which is one subject we all value and know about —and another subject concerning breaches of our criminal law in regard to calls for murder, and so on? Would it not therefore serve a useful purpose if the noble Lord the Leader of the House uttered in clear terms —in what may be the last question on the subject —the fact that these threats constitute a serious breach of our criminal law and that this ought to be looked at and noted by all sections of our community?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have made it crystal clear that the police have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to see whether there is a case for prosecution on the grounds of the remarks which we have discussed. I must make it absolutely clear that incitement to murder is a criminal offence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House not agree that it was extreme moderation between the years 1930 and 1939 which allowed Hitler to gain ascendancy?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said that this may be the last time we shall be discussing the matter, presumably before a case is brought forward or not brought forward.
I should like to make two points. First, it would be quite wrong to castigate a particular community in this country on the basis of the actions of an extremist few, however much one might disapprove fundamentally of that view. However, if there is to be a case the law can take care of the matter. As I said, the papers are in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat the Autumn Statement which is to be made in another place.

Business: Monday 27th November
3.5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in response to a request from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition which was made on Monday I undertook to make a Statement on the debate on the humble Address in the new Session. Following consultation through the usual channels it has been agreed that there shall be an additional day of debate. This will take place, by agreement, on Monday 27th November when the subject will be the environment, agriculture and food. It flows from this that the subject of the last day of debate on Tuesday 28th November will be the economy. The subjects for the first two days of the debate will remain the same; that is, foreign affairs and defence on Wednesday 22nd November and home, health and social affairs on Thursday 23rd November.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, and also on behalf of noble Lords throughout the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for acceding so readily to our request.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps may join in those thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. On behalf of Leaders and Whips generally, I should like to express our sorrow to those people who have been inconvenienced by a decision which

1319
means that they are now likely to wish to speak on Monday rather than Tuesday. It is our belief that there are not many such people; however, some will probably be inconvenienced. Those involved in the usual channels, and others, are sorry that this has happened. Nevertheless, I am sure that the result we have achieved will suit the majority.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while warmly welcoming the Statement just made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and thanking him for his response, perhaps I may draw to his attention the fact that some Members on all sides of the House have been concerned for many years about the lumping together in the first debate on the humble Address of foreign affairs and defence. It is not simply a question of the mixing up of those two subjects; it is also a question of the length of the speakers' list. The proceedings have regularly continued until 10.30 to 11 p.m. The lateness of the hour has caused many noble Lords to withdraw their names from the list. In future years would the noble Lord be prepared to look at the possibility of separating the two subjects and perhaps adding a fifth day to the debate on the humble Address?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Statement I made today was the result of agreement between the usual channels, including all parties in the House as well as Members on the Cross Benches who were represented by the noble Baroness the Convener of the Cross Benches. There was no agreement that we should travel down the road to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is trying to direct my attention. As I said, it has been agreed that there shall be an additional day of debate. This was as far as we agreed to go.
Perhaps I may stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff: it is most important. When changes are made there are bound to be people who will be inconvenienced. Through the Government Whip's Office we have been getting in touch with people whom we thought might be inconvenienced to see whether we could sort matters out for them.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark Order 1989
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 be referred to a Select Committee, pursuant to the report of the Hybrid Instruments Committee agreed to on Thursday last. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These two Bills are currently under consideration in another place and have not yet reached this House. However, the Motion concurs with a Message from another place that they should be allowed to carry over into the new Session.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of yesterday. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion has the similar effect of allowing this Bill to carry over into the new Session. In this case the Bill has already completed its passage through this House and is now under consideration in another place.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I understand that the appropriate Message from another place has now been received. I am therefore able to move this Motion. The Message from another place confirms that they have passed the usual Motion to carry over proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill which is currently before them.
Since the Bill has already passed through its stages in this House, it is necessary for the House to agree a similar Motion to give effect to the carry-over.
Moved, That the Commons Message be now considered; and
That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

The EC and Japan: ECC Report
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kearton Lord Kearton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the Community and Japan (13th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 65).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the inquiry was carried out by Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee, which I had the honour to chair. My thanks go to members of the sub-committee who brought to their task hard work and a great experience of affairs. The sub-committee is greatly indebted to its distinguished specialist adviser, Sir Michael Wilford, a former ambassador to Japan who has a deep knowledge of that country.
The numerous witnesses, drawn from the academic, industrial, commercial, banking, scientific and political communities, gave oral and written evidence which covered a wide field, and all had taken great care in its preparation and presentation, as the minutes of evidence show. The sub-committee is most grateful to them. A special tribute is due to Sir John Whitehead, the present British Ambassador to Japan, and to his staff for their helpfulness in making the visit to Japan by members of the sub-committee so far-ranging and illuminating. Throughout the inquiry, the sub-committee clerk, Mr. William. Sleath, was indefatigable. His work was of the highest possible standard. The sub-committee is warm indeed in its thanks to him.
My acknowledgements reflect the fact that the report deals with an important subject. The starting point was a Commission communication last year on relations between the Community and Japan. That recognised that Japan was firmly established as a great economic power, with increasing political influence. The communication expressed a desire for closer ties to strengthen the third side of the triangle formed by the Community, the United States and Japan. It called for a strengthened dialogue and co-operation between member states and the Commission at all levels so as to ensure a unified and coherent approach.
The subjects of concern were: the continuing trade imbalance of the Community with Japan; access to the Japanese market by the firms of the Community; and the policy of member states to inward investment in all its forms from Japan. The communication concluded that the general relationship between the Community and Japan was moving in the right direction, but not fast enough significantly to reduce tensions.
The introduction to the committee's report brings out Japan's extraordinary post-war growth rate which has resulted in a GDP per capita at current exchange rates 50 per cent. higher than that of the United Kingdom, and 10 per cent. higher than that of the United States. Japan's current rate of growth is still higher than that of the USA and the Community. Trade surpluses have been established and increased to about 90 billion dollars per year. More than half of that surplus is in trade with the United States, with the figure for the Community some 20 billion dollars, and with the United Kingdom some 6 billion dollars, on the most recent information.
The major upward revaluation of the yen in recent years has not so far dented the dollar surplus, although as a percentage of Japanese GDP the surplus has almost halved. The Japanese expect the surplus to be maintained at about 2 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. of GDP. The surplus means that Japan has been building up large foreign assets, expected to reach about 400 billion dollars net by the end of the year, and perhaps reaching 1,000 billion dollars net by the mid-1990s. Simultaneously, the large net overseas balances of the United States have been eliminated, and the United States is on course to be by far the world's biggest debtor by the mid-1990s. That change already has altered and will continue to alter the political balance between those two

1323
powerful eonomies. It is now economic success or failure which gives power to and stabilises or destabilises countries, as recent events in Eastern Europe so dramatically show.
The report goes on to consider the reasons for Japanese trading achievements. Is it easier for the Japanese to export than for other countries to export to them? Undoubtedly, the Japanese economic growth began, and continued for many years, with the shelter of a highly protected market. Exports were aided by a low exchange rate for the yen. Moreover, exports had to be given a high priority as Japan had to import its fuel, its key raw materials and much of its food. Exports had to be concentrated upon manufactures.
With an economy in ruins in 1945, the Japanese turned to the best foreign examples that they could identify to rebuild their manufacturing base. They took licences widely, and Western firms gladly co-operated. The Japanese went on to improve in many cases the processes that they acquired, and in due course they became highly inventive and innovative as well. In several areas of high technology, the Japanese established a world lead. The tables have turned. In those vital areas, it is the West which has now to catch up and to keep pace to restore the balance.
Successive Japanese Governments have recognised that with success Japan must become an open market. Positive steps have been taken to reduce tariffs, to remove other barriers and to eliminate restrictions. The encouragement of imports has a high priority. While there is still some way to go to make Japan a completely open market, the committee concluded that deeply rooted perceptions of Japan as an almost closed market were out of date.
Failures to establish a higher level of imports into Japan were due to an incomplete knowledge of the Japanese market, and of Japanese business and commercial culture. Japan will never be an easy market, but the committee heard enough success stories by British and other European firms to encourage others to try harder. In that connection, the Department of Trade and Industry's "Opportunity Japan" campaign deserves high praise. The increasing interest in Japanese study centres and language training centres is also to be welcomed; but there is a long, long way to go before European knowledge of and enterprise in Japan match Japanese knowledge of and enterprise in the United Kingdom and Europe. A TUC delegation which recently visited Japan was surprised to find:
"The Japanese knew more about 1992 than we did".
Although Japan has a large surplus in its visible trade with the Community, the entrance of Japanese goods into the Community is not free and unfettered. There are many restrictions and quotas, some of them resting on informal agreements with Japanese exporters in particular industries.
The European Commission has competence (to use the legal term) in trade negotiations with Japan. The committee felt that that competence should be encouraged and developed. The committee would
1324
like to see a considerable reinforcement of the Community office in Tokyo, and closer co-operation between individual member states in all matters of inward and outward trade with Japan. The Commission already has some important successes to its credit. With full support, it could achieve more.
What are the factors which have led to the Japanese resurgence since 1945? There was a democratic constitution imposed by the Americans; there was an enormous determination to make good the ravages of war (as a society, the Japanese had a dedication to the work ethic); there was a powerful national consensus on the overall policies to be followed which, in turn, led to social harmony; there was the emergence of an exceptionally gifted group of manufacturing entrepreneurs whose drive and leadership built up great enterprises. Those entrepreneurs, moreover, believed in humanistic management methods and succeeded in convincing their employees that their own well being, and that of the firm, were synonymous. The committee talked to management and trade unions in Japan and found no evidence of the "us" and "them" polarisation that over the post-war years affected so many areas of British industry; fortunately, not all.
The committee noted too the great stress placed on education and the competitive nature of the educational system from primary schools through to university. It was struck by the emphasis given in the manufacturing industries to training, to product quality and to customer satisfaction. It noted that, while companies and government agencies worked together in the early stages of industrial and product development, there was intense competition between companies in the marketplace itself. The whole market for Japanese products was protected for many years, but it was never easy. It was the lessons learnt in the competitive home market that proved effective in overseas markets.
The capital requirements of industry and commerce were financed by a high level of domestic personal savings which were channelled at low interest rates into areas which government agencies, in deep consultation with a wide range of other groups, judged most likely to promote industrial and economic advance. Companies themselves gave a low priority to distributing profits as dividends but rather ploughed them back into development and investment. Over and over again it was emphasised to the committee that Japanese companies in all manifestations of enterprise and growth were committed to the long-term view.
The Japanese policy of taking the long-term view is reflected in the great importance their manufacturing companies place on investment in research and development and in the fact that gross fixed investment as a proportion of GDP has been far higher for decades than the average for the Community or the United Kingdom. It is significant that the long view and the re-investment of profits have been adopted by those European and UK companies successful in Japan.
The Japanese stock market has not played a key role in the economic rise of Japan. Many Japanese firms are linked together in conglomerates, with

1325
extensive cross-holdings. Customers, suppliers and banks also have holdings. Usually only 20 or 30 per cent. of group shares are able to be traded; takeovers are virtually unknown. The weight of savings has driven up equity prices to very high levels compared with Western markets. Price/earnings ratios are phenomenal! price/dividend ratios even more so.
The links within conglomerates make for labour stability when restructuring is necessary as market conditions change. Thus when shipbuilding operations had to be reduced following the rise of South Korea as a major competitor, the workers could be and were transferred and retrained within the conglomerates.
In passing, it may be noted that Japan has retained, after further modernisation, about half of its peak shipbuilding capacity. Though currently not fully utilised, the industry was confident that it would be needed in the 1990s. The committee was told that Japan was still training 500 marine engineers a year and that Britain had been the inspiration and source for much of the methods of training. The United Kingdom's output of marine engineers is now about one-twentieth of that of Japan.
The committee inquired into the structure of the financial community in Japan. Because it was restored under American influence, its post-war development was closely regulated and compartmentalised to a high degree. So although funds steadily accumulated and Japanese banks and financial houses became among the world's largest, the wide-ranging and innovative market skills of the City of London were not developed. But this is all changing. Deregulation and decompartmentalising of the Japanese financial markets proceed apace.
The major Japanese banks and security houses started many years ago to establish footholds overseas. Nomura, the giant security house, is this year celebrating the setting up of its London office 25 years ago. In recent years the Japanese have started to buy in the financial expertise and experience they lack. The committee learnt that of all the banks operating in London, British banks held about 40 per cent. of the assets, Japanese banks about 25 per cent. and United States banks about 10 per cent. At present 90 per cent. of Japanese business in London is with overseas customers, strengthening London's international standing.
The penetration of the British equity market and of retail banking is still relatively modest. But with the increasing weight of exportable Japanese capital and the sensitivity of the United States to the Japanese purchases of assets —some regarded as quintessentially American —becoming evident, it would be no surprise if the Japanese did not become much more active players in London, particularly as 1992 approaches. The year 1992 gives Europe-wide opportunities from a London base. The committee was told that the Japanese had been exemplary employers in the City and had acted with restraint and discretion —to which my comment would be, the long view again. First build your foundations.
The committee could not but notice that the financial service developments were largely one way. Financial institutions from the Community and the
1326
USA have made some inroads into the Japanese markets but these are modest. Few restrictions of entry still remain, the most publicised being foreign membership of the Tokyo stock exchange. The committee's view is that it will require a major effort by the City institutions in particular, very considerable commitment and investment by them and the long view as regards the remittance of profits to establish a meaningful presence. Past niggardliness in connection with Japan contrasts perhaps with the several billions lost in writing off low performance loans to third world countries.
Modern telecommunications have globalised the world's financial markets and the process is continuing. As the Japanese acquire the skills of London and other Western markets, just as they have acquired the skills of Western manufacturing know-how, it came as no surprise to t he committee that some of the bankers seen in Tokyo foresaw Tokyo becoming the financial capital of the world.
The committee looked at manufacturing investment by Japan into Britain and the Community. This has taken place alongside investment in bonds, financial houses and property. Some of the investment is financed by local loans, backed by the high standing of the parent companies in Japan. In fact the country's own savings have been used by the Japanese to buy up the country's interests.
The manufacturing investment has taken place over the last 15 years and is accelerating. The United Kingdom has attracted rather more 1.han one-third of the Community total; the TUC envisages a continued rapid rise. The Japanese have moved on from their earlier policy of plants assembling items made from imported components and are now sourcing more and more of their components inside the United Kingdom and the Community. Responding to government pressures, moves are afoot to increase local technical back-up by establishing some research and development.
The committee noted that the Community's share of Japan's overseas investment was still only 10 per cent. or so of the total. That is 10 per cent. of what Japan is spending overseas. The United States has the major slice at 50 per cent.; South-East Asia and South America both have rather more than Europe.
The committee concluded that Japanese inward investment into the Community was to be welcomed, provided that it was balanced and led to technology transfer. It was particularly welcome in the United Kingdom. The committee's visits confirmed that the methods of Japanese management were suitable for adoption in the United Kingdom. The Japanese investment would help to restore in many fields the overseas competitiveness of goods made here and would allow exports, as well as reducing imports.
The committee considered the Japanese progress in science and technology and the increasing emphasis being placed by Japan on basic research. That is notwithstanding that all their post-war success has been based on applied research leading to technological advances. But the Japanese have recognised that applied research usually rests on

1327
basic research done years earlier, often several decades earlier. Now that they are in the forefront of technology in so many areas, they have decided that they must contribute to basic research as a source for progress in the next century. Again the long view.
The committee received much evidence strenuously encouraging links between the West and Japan in matters of basic research so long as due care was taken that co-operation was reciprocally beneficial. In previous years it was plain that it had been largely one way, to Japan's advantage.
The committee heard evidence and also saw for itself that the Japanese success has its less impressive side. The distribution system, for instance, is archaic, cumbersome, overmanned and very expensive. The system makes the mark-up between producer and final consumer very high. Agriculture is also inefficient to a degree. Both are areas where Western practice is in a different league. Another feature of Japan is the fantastic price of land in urban areas and the consequent sky-high prices in Tokyo and elsewhere of flats and houses. The situation is currently causing social stress and, if unreformed, could act as a destabiliser of Japanese society.
There is a paradox in the Japanese internal situation. Income comparisons based on present exchange rates appear to indicate that the Japanese now have one of the largest GDPs per capita in the world. However, this is not reflected in living standards, particularly in the highly populated urban areas. The yen buys less at home than abroad. The committee was repeatedly told in Japan, 'You tell us that we are rich. We do not feel rich". It is clear that a Japanese expatriate in Europe usually has a much higher standard of living than he would have at home.
The committee received varied evidence on likely developments in Japan in the years ahead. These took into account demographic changes and possible changes in the work ethos. A few years ago Sir Roy Denman, when he was director-general for external affairs for the Community, said that the Japanese were workaholics living in rabbit hutches. That remark stung, perhaps because it was then near the truth. The Japanese Government are currently actively encouraging their own and other Japanese employees in general to take the holidays and time off to which they are entitled. The national housing programme, which builds some 1,500,000 houses a year, has, year by year, increased the average size of a house. Moreover, with increased travel overseas, more Japanese are better able to compare their standards of living at home with that of other countries. However, the weight of the evidence that the committee received and the committee's own assessment of what it heard and saw during the visit to Japan, indicated that changes in the ethos of Japanese society are more likely to evolve slowly than to be subject to any sudden change.
It was particularly noticeable that politicians in Japan are marginal in their influence on economic affairs. It is the consensus which is powerful in Japan. This consensus between senior civil servants,
1328
the great institutions of Japan and the leaders of manufacturing, banking and commerce has a cohesion and consistency which is independent of politicians. It is this complex, which apparently includes in the outer ring the national representatives of the myriad company trade unions, which is effectively the government of Japan.
That concludes my introduction to the debate. The committee's conclusions are set out on page 27 of its report. They make challenging reading. Paragraph 97 states that the Japanese economy,
"is growing ever more powerful, sustained by continuity in national policy. The Japanese purpose is to dominate in ever more sectors of business, finance and technology".
In the view of the committee there is no unique Japanese secret to their success. Paragraph 99 of the report states:
"It is based on high quality, painstaking service to customers, excellent management, thorough research and patient investment".
The report states that the management of Japanese industry is based on the best Western practices and that the success of the Japanese also reflects a thorough study of markets. Patient investment, the long view, has been a decisive element in Japan's success.
The conclusions outline the steps the Community should take. Later speakers will deal with them and expand in detail. In time, in the committee's opinion, those steps must be taken if Japan is not to establish an economic lead which will lead to world economic dominance. Japan, backed by and leading the Asian communities on the Pacific rim, could reduce Europe, and even America, to secondary status in the next century. This need not happen. Europe has the brains, the manpower and the resources, just as America has, to form a firm third side of the world triangle; that is, the triangle of Europe, the United States and Japan. These economies, both competitive and co-operative, with no single one dominating and with a commitment to free and expanding trade, could provide a great creation of wealth to benefit the whole world. The question is, can Europe, and especially the Community and the UK, muster the will and determination to be the third side?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the committee had suggested that British management should, to some extent, copy the Japanese. Did the committee look into the position relative to trade unions? In the shipbuilding industry for example, how far do the unions decide who will do what jobs as compared with this country? Did the committee — —
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord gave us a very clear indication of the recommendations of the committee after its deep research. I am asking him about the recommendations as regards the trade union element.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, the trade unions are organised essentially on a company basis.

1329
Companies can be very large, employing 200,000 or 300,000 people. We met the central representatives of the trade unions and found there was what one might call a loose co-operation between all the trade unions. The central body in Tokyo acted for the great mass of individual trade unions in negotiations with the major consensus that I have described. We found that the attitude of the unions and of all the people we met was extremely constructive. As I said, they identify their own welfare with the welfare of the firm. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was a member of the delegation to Japan. He will be speaking later in the debate and I am sure he will enlarge on that particular topic.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Relations between the Community and Japan (13th Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 65). —(Lord Kearton.)

Autumn Statement
3.35 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. Cabinet agreed the Government's expenditure plans this morning. I am now able to inform the House of the public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; proposals for national insurance contributions in 1990–91; and the forecast of economic prospects for 1990 required by the 1975 Industry Act.
"The main public expenditure figures, together with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed Autumn Statement will be published next Wednesday.
"Tight control of public expenditure remains a central element of the Government's economic strategy. Over the past seven years this has led to a sharp fall in the ratio of public spending, excluding privatisation proceeds, to national income. This fall has made it possible to dramatically improve the Government's finances while still making substantial reductions in tax rates.
"The ratio of public spending to GDP was nearly 47 per cent. in 1982–83. In the current year, it is likely to be 38¾ per cent., significantly below the level expected at the time of the last Autumn Statement.
"For the next two years the plans I am announcing today show ratios of 39 and 38i per cent. These are unchanged from the ratios published in last year's Autumn Statement, and permit a cash increase in general government expenditure in 1990–91 of around £5 billion. By 1992–93 the ratio is expected to fall further to its lowest level since the mid-1960s.
"For the current year, the outturn of expenditure is expected to be about £168 billion,
1330
£1 billion higher than the original planning total. This partly reflects a lower estimate of privatisation proceeds, but its principal cause is massive overspending by local authorities on both current and capital account. As the House knows, new arrangements for the finance and control of local authority expenditure in England and Wales are being introduced on 1st April 1990. This year's outturn shows how necessary these new measures are. Central government spending remains firmly under control.
"The plans for the next three years have been set on the new definition of the planning total which the Government announced in July last year and which was welcomed by the TCSC. This includes central government support for local authorities but excludes their self-financed expenditure. The composition of general government expenditure is unchanged.
"For 1990–91, the new planning total has been set at £179 billion and, in the following two years, at £192 billion and £203 billion respectively. Within this the estimates of privatisation proceeds are unchanged at £5 billion a year. There are also substantial reserves, rising from £3 billion in 1990–91 to £6 billion and £9 billion in the following two years.
"The new plans also show continued real growth in spending on the Government's priorities.
"Thus, between this year and next, spending on the NHS in the UK will rise by £2.400 millon. Taking account of income generation and cost savings, this is equivalent to a £2,600 million increase in resources, or 5½ per cent. in real terms. These plans will finance the improvements in the management of the service that are outlined in the NHS Review. They provide more than £200 million extra for hospital building and other capital expenditure next year. And they will finance a continuing growth in services for patients. They are the clearest possible evidence of the Government's practical commitment to improving the care available in the NHS.
"There will be substantial increases also for investment in transport. Spending on national roads is planned to double between 1988–89 and 1992–93. Extra financing of £400 million to £500 million a year is being made available for the railways and London Regional Transport, including upgrading the services on Network South-East and the London Underground, to relieve congestion and improve safety, and for rail services for the Channel Tunnel. In total we have added £1·8 billion to the planned spending on transport in the next two years.
"The plans provide an extra £250 million over the next two years for a new initiative to tackle homelessness, to be announced today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. And central government support for the provision of new homes by housing associations will more than double from £800 million in 1989–90 to £1,700 million in 1992–93.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already announced

1331
real increases in benefits which will help 1½ million families and half a million long-term sick and disabled people.
"There will be an increase of over £500 million in the total resources available for higher education in 1990–91 compared with this year. This will provide for the continuing growth in the number of students, which has risen by 30 per cent. since 1979, and is now at a record level, and cover the cost of the Government's proposals on top-up loans. There is provision for more environmental research, including the new climate change centre and the doubling of our contribution to the UN environmental programme.
"About £1½ billion has been added to planned capital spending by central government and public corporations in 1990–91. This represents a real increase of around 10 per cent. compared with 1989–90.
"The new plans include the money central government provide to support local authority spending. The Government's proposals for aggregate external finance in 1990–91 were announced to the House in July. Measures have also been announced which will ease the transition from rates to community charge. The cost to the taxpayer of these measures will be nearly £700 million in 1990–91, with further substantial sums in each of the following two years.
"Capital grants and credit approvals will provide central government support for local authority capital expenditure under the new arrangements. The new plans provide support for a sustained programme of school and college building and modernisation, for local authorities to contribute to the homelessness package, for transport projects, as well as capital spending on other local services, including local roads and environmental improvement.
"As in the past, these improvements have been possible only through a rigorous selection of priorities; substantial gains in value for money; and a very welcome reduction in the burden of debt interest. They have been found within an affordable level of total public spending. Overall public spending excluding privatisation proceeds is expected to grow on average by 1¾ per cent. a year in real terms throughout the period between 1988–89 and 1992–93. This was the rate of growth projected in last year's Autumn Statement and we have stuck to it. Over the 1970s, a decade of high borrowing and high inflation as well as high public spending, it grew by 3 per cent. a year.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government's new plans demonstrate their continuing commitment to two vital principles. First, to maintain firm control over total spending; and secondly, to increase efficiency, in order to provide more resources where they are most needed.
"I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary for his skilful and successful conduct of the public spending round.
"I turn next to national insurance contributions. As the House knows, we have now implemented the reform of employee contributions announced by my right honourable friend the member for Blaby in the Budget. From last month, two of the three step increases in contribution rates have been abolished. This means that employees who get pay increases taking them just above these steps can no longer lose more in higher contributions than they gain in extra pay. And the initial step at earnings of £43 a week, where people first enter the contribution system, has been more than halved. These measures have reduced contributions by up to £3 a week for nearly 19 million employees and are of particular help to many employees on modest incomes; they have also removed some important disincentives.
"The usual autumn review of contributions has been conducted in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospective income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and taking account of the statement on benefits made in October by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
"Next year, the initial Class 1 contribution rate payable on earnings up to the lower earnings limit will remain at only 2 per cent. This means that a payment of only 92p per week will buy entitlement to the basic pension and other contributory benefits for those who earn just enough to pay contributions. On additional earnings, up to the upper earnings limit, the rate will remain unchanged at 9 per cent. For employers, the main rate will also be unchanged at 10.45 per cent.
"The lower earnings limit will be increased to £46 a week in line with the single person's pension, and the upper earnings limit will be raised to £350 a week. For employers, the upper limits for the three reduced rate bands will be increased broadly in line with prices.
"I am also publishing today the economic forecast required by the 1975 Industry Act.
"It is clear beyond any doubt that the economy has greatly strengthened over the last decade. We have experienced eight years of strong and sustained growth with inflation at moderate levels. This has brought an increase in employment of about 2i million since March 1983 and a sustained rise in living standards.
"However it is clear that in the last two years, 1987 and 1988, demand, and with it output, rose at a rate which exceeded expectations and could not be sustained. That became apparent in increased inflationary pressures and the growth of the current account deficit.
"These pressures had to be reduced and monetary policy was tightened accordingly. The effects of this tightening are already apparent in recent retail sales figures, and the turnaround in the housing market.
"The Government's fiscal position is also very strong. I now expect this year's fiscal surplus to be about £12½ billion, equivalent to 2½ per cent. of GDP. That represents a very tight fiscal stance by any standards.
"Both tax yield and expenditure are higher than forecast at Budget time. But lower proceeds from privatisation and the high take up of personal pensions mean that the public sector debt repayment will be slightly below the Budget projections.
"Looking at the wider economy, as always a great deal depends on the actions of individuals and companies. So there is bound to be uncertainty about the speed with which the economy will adjust to the present tight stance of policy. Our forecast is that growth in domestic demand will be a little over 3½ per cent. in the current year, a sharp but inevitable slowdown from the 7 per cent. recorded in 1988.
"Non-oil GDP is expected to grow by 3 per cent. this year. GDP growth as a whole for the current year looks like turning out at 2 per cent., a little below the forecast published at Budget time. This results from lower than expected North Sea oil production which is taking longer than expected to recover from the serious accidents of the last two years.
"Business investment is likely to increase by 9¼ per cent. this year, giving a total of over 40 per cent. in the three years to 1989. This is the largest ever rise in business investment over a three year period and is two and a half times as fast as the growth of personal consumption over the same period. This has inevitably contributed to strong import growth and a higher current account deficit in the short run. Notwithstanding this unwelcome effect, the resulting increase in productive capacity will help to sustain the growth of output and in due course bring the deficit down.
"Looking ahead to 1990, our tight fiscal and monetary policy will have an increasing impact both on household spending and on company spending, which typically reacts later than the personal sector. Investment should continue to grow, but it will do so more slowly.
"The slow down in the economy means that GDP is forecast to increase by only 1¼per cent. in 1990. This will bring the average growth in the four years to 1990 to 3 per cent. a year.
"As domestic demand slows, import growth should moderate. At the same time, the strong rise in exports, which has been one of the most welcome developments in 1989, is forecast to continue. Non-oil visible exports are expected to rise by over 11 per cent. this year, the highest rate since 1973, and we expect a further substantial increase next year. As a result, we now forecast that the current account deficit will fall from some £20 billion in the current year to about £15 billion in 1990.
"We will also see a further reduction in inflation. The headline measure of retail price inflation has already peaked at over 8 per cent. in May and June this year and has since come down a little. Following the recent rise in mortgage rates it will remain high for some months. But our forecast is for it to fall to 5¾ per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1990; and I expect to see it fall still further after that.
Mr. Speaker, our main priority must be to bring inflation decisively down and keep it down. To achieve this the economy must slow down for a while. This does mean that 1990 may not be an easy year. But the economy enters the 1990s in incomparably better shape than it entered the 1980s. The supply side reforms of the past decade have left business and industry better able to handle both the short-term difficulties before us and the longer-term opportunities to come. I have no doubt that we must stick to the policies that have turned the British economy around, and that we are determined to do."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Earl for having made a long and detailed Statement. Obviously, we should like to have time to consider it in greater detail before passing judgment upon it. As I listened to the noble Earl's concluding remarks I very much doubted whether he was living in this world. So far as he is concerned, there has been an economic miracle which seems to have eluded the perception of the great bulk of the people in the United Kingdom.
I should like to turn first to that part of the Statement which deals with public expenditure. According to the Statement, cash expenditure, excluding any North Sea oil proceeds, is due to increase by 5½ billion in cash terms over the next three years. Those various increases in cash terms show an increase in real terms of about 3 to 3½ per cent., which is significantly below the current rate of inflation or any rate of inflation anticipated by the Government in their Statement. Clearly therefore the Government's expenditure in real terms will decrease, at any rate in total.
The whole question of government expenditure needs to be put in a slightly more historical perspective. In order to do that, one must turn to Table A I of the Government's press statement which shows that in real terms, excluding privatisation, government expenditure was as follows: in 1984–85 it was £187·7 billion; in 1985–86 it was £187·7 billion; in 1986–87 it was £190·8 billion; in 1987–88 it was £190·5 billion; and in the current year it was £185·7 billion. On the basis of the Government's own figures, far from having increased in real terms over the past five years, government expenditure has been completely stagnant. That is reflected, as it is bound to be, in the public sector services with which we have become familiar in the United Kingdom.
According to the Statement, expenditure in some areas will increase in real terms. The Minister exemplified, quite correctly, an increase in expenditure in real terms on, for example, the National Health Service. He also mentioned increased expenditure, or proposed increased expenditure, on the transport services. The recitation is impressive but there is still no firm indication from the Government —and one will not be given during the next year or two—because they are intellectually incapable of applying themselves to the whole question of a co-ordinated transport policy.

1335
There are other areas in which the Government claim that they will increase expenditure in real terms, notably on housing. That is welcome, although we have not had time to examine the figures in detail. For all the vaunted prosperity and brilliance of their record and brilliance of the economy's record, it is a little surprising that they still do not permit local authorities to replace their capital stock from the proceeds of the sale of council houses, miserable as those proceeds might be. One would have thought that, with that brilliant record and all that burgeoning prosperity, some effort would surely have been made to release local authorities from that obligation to allow them to proceed, properly financed, to deal with the housing of the homeless and the replacement of obsolete stock, and generally to make some progress on the lines that existed prior to this wretched Government taking office towards solving the housing problem in this country.
There are other areas in which according to the Statement the Government have planned improvements in real terms. But on the assumption that they have planned real increases in respect of certain priorities and that expenditure will still be below the rate of inflation in total real terms, where have the cuts fallen? Where have the economies taken place? Where have the pinches taken place? If there are to be some increases in real terms and expenditure in total in real terms is below the rate of inflation, where will the cuts take place? The Government are silent on those points.
In their Statement the Government referred to the excessive expenditure of local authorities. Their own spokesmen in the press and media refer to profligate local authorities in the United Kingdom as though the burdens on local authorities in the richer regions of the country—particularly those in the South, but it is not confined to them —are anything like the burdens that are placed on local authorities in other more deprived areas. They refer to excessive expenditure and to the necessity for injecting further funds during the transition period mainly for electoral purposes in order that their voting hinterlands in the country may not be unduly disturbed, especially prior to the forthcoming general election. We shall pass further observations on the Government's expenditure plans as revealed in the Statement and its annexures when we have had time to study the detailed figures.
In the field of national insurance we welcome some of the changes made by the Government. They are overdue but nonetheless welcome, although we wish to examine them in greater detail. It is when we come to the economic forecast section of the Statement —
4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him for a moment. I rarely interrupt but we have to think of our procedures. Certainly the noble Lord has captured the interest of the House. However, he is only about halfway through his intervention. The House
1336
decided that it should have 20 minutes for discussion at the end of a Statement. There is no way that the noble Lord will take less than half that time. I wonder whether he could just give this point a little thought in concluding his remarks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have given the matter some thought. I have already used well over 90 per cent. of the time that I propose to take. I propose to treat with contempt the forecast section of the Government's Statement. It is just as unreliable as the previous one. It is just as full of vague premises as the one we had before which proved to be so wrong. We note that a somewhat chastened Chancellor has admitted that the current account deficit will be some £20 billion at the end of this year and that next year it may be of the order of £ 15 billion. That is roughly in line with the figures that we have given from these Benches, upon which the Government have hitherto cast doubt. However, we welcome the conversion.
However, what has gone out of the window is the whole question of automaticity, whereby the decline in the visible trade balance was supposed to be automatically corrected by services and so on. That has gone out of the window. The fact of the matter —this Statement proves it and a close reading of it will prove it in detail —is that the Government have no grip at all on economic policy; nor can they deal with the free market forces to which they have paid such tribute but which now lie like a millstone round their neck.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for giving the House the benefit of a repeat of the Statement. I must say that the Statement reveals a fairly sombre economic prospect, with growth falling for 1990 as a whole to 1.25 per cent. With the normal margin of error, that could put us right on the threshold of a technical recession. Inflation is to remain at nearly 6 per cent. even by the end of the next year. Interest rates remain cripplingly and isolatedly high to try to sustain an overvalued pound and bite the harder as profitability declines, which it is doing at present, and the companies sector deficit grows bigger.
The only ray of light is the prospect of the balance of payments deficit falling to £15 billion. However, it is a remarkable commentary on the general position that a deficit of £15 billion in conditions of nearly flat growth should be regarded as an achievement. Some of those who spent the past three weeks looking for an explanation of Mr. Lawson's departure, other than intolerable conditions of employment, might do worse than study the position revealed by his successor. However, I still think that conditions of employment hold the field because Mr. Lawson, whatever his other deficiencies, has never lacked courge.
We welcome the slight relaxation of restrictions on some public expenditure, although we are not in favour of a loose fiscal stance, with crippling interest rates being asked to carry the whole burden of stirring the economy. We think that the 1988 Budget still has a lot to answer for.

1337
I should like to ask some questions arising out of the ingenuously bland sleights of hand in the Statement. I begin with paragraph 12, which states that:
"Spending on national roads is planned to double between 1988–89 and 1992–93. Extra financing of £400 million to £500 million a year is being made available for the railways and London Regional Transport, including upgrading the services of Network South-East and the London Underground".
Why is there a totally different method of expression of those two figures? I take it that expenditure on the roads is being very substantially increased and expenditure on public transport is being increased to a very much lesser extent. But at least the Government should put them forward on equal terms and let us see what they are. Will the Paymaster General please tell the House what percentage increase, short of doubling, the £400 million to £500 million represents?
Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the report are a splendid combination. Paragraph 27 states,
"It is clear beyond any doubt that the economy has greatly strengthened over the past decade".
But paragraph 28 notes:
"However it is also clear that in the last two years, 1987 and 1988, demand, and with it output, rose at a rate which exceeded expectations and could not be sustained".
Does that not amount to saying that in the past two years most of the gains that the Government claim for the previous eight years have been thrown away?
At paragraph 32 one comes to the more classic example of the Government's phraseology:
"Looking at the wider economy, as always, a great deal depends on the actions of individuals and companies".
I take it that that is a clear signal that, looking at the general economy, the prospect is pretty awful and therefore the Government are washing their hands of it and putting it back on a series of individual decisions taken by people other than the Government.
Can the Paymaster General tell the House what changes in the fiscal stance interest rate policy the Government now propose in order to avoid the next two years being as unfortunate —I deliberately use a rather cautious word —for macro-economic policy as the past two years undoubtedly have been?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that both noble Lords gave to the Statement that I repeated. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, started to quote from Table A1, to which your Lordships in due course will refer in the greatest detail. It is unfortunate that he stopped when he did. If he had only continued down the line he would have produced some very different figures.
I am grateful that the noble Lord also welcomed the increased expenditure on the health service, transport and housing. I remember that in the debate on the gracious Speech last year the noble Lord took part in what I called the environment section. I said then that he was turning green. I believe that he has turned green not because of the environment but through envy.
If he will recall, under the last Labour Government that the noble Lord supported so well from overseas
1338
at the time, public spending on national roads fell by 40 per cent. in real terms. Between 1978–79 and 1990–91, it will have more than doubled. Railway spending was unchanged. Our spending over the period from 1978–79 to 1990–91 has more than doubled. Hospitals —another terrific success story for the Labour Party—had expenditure cut by 30 per cent. in real terms. We have increased it by over 50 per cent. In prisons, capital expenditure was down two-thirds; we have doubled it. I therefore think that the noble Lord has gone green but for a very different reason than I had once hoped.
The noble Lord waxed lyrical about housing. It is a pity that he did not take the opportunity to participate in the recent debates that we have had on housing. I do not wish to bore your Lordships by repeating the arguments that I used. The noble Lord asked where the cuts had been. As he is fully aware, it is a question of priorities. The priorities have had to be made. There has been some delay in some areas where there was going to be public expenditure. I can give him an example. There has been a delay on four new prisons which were in the programme in the light of the recent projections on prison population. However, I would hate the noble Lord to go away solely with that example. I am sure that he would also give the Government credit for the huge savings that we have been able to achieve in debt interest and the improvements i n efficiency that have made room for the increases in our priority areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, raised the question of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that it is an appropriate moment to discuss that story yet again. It has been done in other fora. But I very much take issue with him when he says that the 1988 tax cuts were a mistake. They were not. Those tax cuts were supply side measures to improve incentives. The fiscal stance in 1988–89 was tight, as is shown by the record of the PSBR.
The noble Lord asked about monetary policy. I shall have to keep him on tenterhooks about that because it is a matter that is obviously dealt with at Budget time.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may first join in thanking the Paymaster General for his admirable repetition of the Statement. I also thank him for his vigorous defence of last season's tax cuts. It is the habitual illusion of Left-wing economists and politicians that high levels of taxation help the working of the economy. My noble friend and the former Chancellor are both to be congratulated on their firm rebuttal of such nonsense.
However, I wish to ask my noble friend one question. He gave quite sound expenditure figures and quite hopeful figures regarding the tendency towards reversal of inflation. Are either of those sets of good factors likely to be adversely affected by a settlement both in the public and the private sectors of a very large number of wage claims at levels well above that of inflation? Is there a risk—and, if so, perhaps he should give a warning—that: the sound

1339
and sensible prospects that he has outlined might be undermined if that process of high wage demands, backed sometimes by threats of strike action, were to continue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend says, there could be some implication. But I would say that it would be a knock-on effect, because the main implication of high wage claims is to push up unit labour costs and to increase costs to industry. Unfortunately it is invariably the people ancillary to those who have put in the high wage claims who will suffer because it means that businesses have to become more efficient and that could mean a reduction in staff in order to compete. We want manufacturing and other industries to be able to compete. They cannot compete if they have to pay excessive wage costs.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches we also thank the noble Earl for the Statement that he repeated this afternoon. We appreciate, as the Leader of the House has reminded us, that there will be opportunity in debating the gracious Speech to discuss the economic policies of which this Statement is a reflection. Therefore I shall confine myself this afternoon to asking one or two questions regarding the assumptions behind the figures that are now before us.
In relation to paragraph 9 on privatisation proceeds, do the figures take account of the new arrangements in the electricity industry whereby the public sector will inherit substantial costs from taking over the nuclear industry thereby diminishing the anticipated returns from privatisation? Secondly, while I welcome, like other noble Lords, the substantial assistance to the National Health Service, does the £250 million take account of the increase in wage costs that have been agreed in this sector and the demographic pressures on the National Health Service? Will not the £250 million simply maintain the status quo rather than promise any real improvement in the service?
In paragraph 12, I very much welcome the increase in transport investment. However, will the figure that he has given us satisfy the demands of the CBI in its recent policy statement on investment on road and rail transport? Will the Minister take on board that there is no mention in the Statement of regional policy? Presumably any substantial contribution to positive regional policy would help to alleviate the pressures in the South East of England, in particular on transport, and relieve us from the pressure of some extra investment that is called for.
In the attached documents there is a very important figure. It is from the Ministry of Defence. It was not mentioned in the Statement; it appears in the attached information supplied to us. It indicates that for the next three years an additional £1 billion per annum will be spent on defence. I assume that this takes cognisance of the rapidly changing situation in Europe and the opportunities for the major powers to negotiate some substantial reduction in this field. I therefore hope that something might be done in this area.
1340
At the same time, in the attached document the increase for overseas development —the ODA financing —is simply £75 million per annum. The increase in defence is £1 billion per annum; the increase in ODA assistance is £75 million per annum. That brings us far below the anticipated UN target for overseas assistance. It is an area which reflects our moral stance in the world. I suggest that that point should be considered.
As has been stated, the tax reliefs of 1988 have a serious effect on the figures provided in paragraph 28 regarding the pressures of inflation.
In respect of paragraph 29 the Government anticipate that there will be a substantial reduction in retail sales. I hope that the Minister has read the tapes today which indicate that the impact of the policy has meant a substantial reduction in manufacturing industry. The heavy pressure of high interest rates is bound to have that effect. I hope that the optimism that has been expressed by the Minister in his final remarks in the Statement will be justified. However, I cannot agree that those in industry—the CBI —will share the optimistic view that has been declared in the Statement this afternoon.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. If I cannot answer them all, I shall try to do so in a letter to the noble Lord. The privatisation proceeds of £5 billion are based on the best available figures now available and therefore they take account of the current situation in the best way possible. I was grateful for the noble Lord's welcome of the increase of £2.6 billion in resources for health. That is a 5.5 per cent. increase in real terms. With moderate pay negotiations it should prove to be of considerable benefit not only to the health service but also to the patients who will receive better treatment as a result of our reforms.
From a vested interest point the noble Lord asked whether the CBI will be happy about transport. One must look at the situation in a slightly different light; our achievements amount to a considerable increase in the rail programme for both the Underground and British Rail. They may not meet exactly the wishes of the CBI, but it is the lot of any government to be unable to meet the full demands of every single group.
While I was looking at the earlier answers, I missed a couple of the noble Lord's final points. I shall write to him and try to answer those points.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be a warm welcome from these Benches for what appears to be a remarkable Statement —
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend also aware of the following? Although the Autumn Statement increases next year's spending on health by over £2.5 billion; doubles the expenditure on roads over the next three years; provides additional expenditure of £250 million for homelessness; provides extra expenditure for the

1341
housing associations, social security and higher education; and notwithstanding the impact of the necessary counter inflationary measures which the Government are pursuing the total proportion of public expenditure as a proportion of GDP will have risen by only one-quarter of 1 per cent. Is that not an achievement for the Treasury team?
I should like to ask a question related to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Is it not the case that at least in part that has been made possible because of substantial reductions in debt interest due to the fact that over the past two or three years the Government have been massive repayers of the debt run up by previous governments —notably the last Labour Government —and therefore the reduction in interest has made possible these major increases in desirable expenditure with an increase of only one-quarter of 1 per cent. in the portion represented by public expenditure? I hope that my noble friend will inform his right honourable friend that that is a remarkable achievement.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary.
My noble friend is right. We have completely destroyed the myth which pervaded the thoughts of many people during the 1960s and 1970s that public expenditure must continue to increase in every sector and also as a percentage of GDP. Clearly, we have turned that round and shown that one can concentrate on priorities in addition to reducing public expenditure in terms of GDP. As the forecast shows, that will continue to fall over the next three years so that in the third year of the programme it will be at its lowest level since the 1960s.
My noble friend was also right to pick up the point about debt interest. I mentioned it earlier although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not. However, it is worth recalling that between 1989–90 and 1990–91 debt interest will fall by 16 per cent. in real terms. That will be of great benefit to our children and grandchildren.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at the end of the Statement the noble Earl said that the Government must stick to the policies which had turned our economy round. Does that mean raising interest rates from 7 per cent. to 15 per cent., raising inflation to 8 per cent. and doubling the balance of payments deficit? Is that what the Government mean by turning the economy round? Frankly, some of us believe that that appears to be doing quite the reverse.
Secondly, is it still the Government's intention to rely entirely on interest rates to control credit expansion? Will the Government not consider feasible the argument that there are methods for controlling domestic credit expansion other than exorbitant interest rates? As other forecasts have been given, will the Minister forecast the rate of interest —that is Bank rate —in June and September 1990?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the last question is obviously no. Of course we aim to continue the policy of turning the economy round. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would be only too delighted to have our present inflation rate. I do not think the rate stood at that level for very long during the time of the Labour Government, that is if they ever reduced the underlying rate of inflation to the present level. Therefore, we are in an extremely advantageous position which the noble Lord would be happy to take over from us.
There has been a transformation in the economy of this country. We have moved from the heavy public sector debt to a position of debt repayment together and the major boost for industries, particularly manufacturing. That is of benefit to this country and I hope that the noble Lord is also reaping the benefits.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, would the Minister care to modify an earlier answer? With reference to the Treasury's circular, the general government expenditure during the 1960s was as follows: In 1963–64, 36 per cent; in 1964–65, 35 per cent. and continuing with 37 per cent., 38 per cent. and so on. The rise took place during the 1980s and was: 1979–80, 43 per cent; 1980–81, 45 per cent.; continuing with 46 per cent., 46 per cent., 45 per cent., 46 per cent. and 44 per cent. Is it not true that only within the past two years have the Government begun to be remotely within reach of the figures achieved during the 1960s?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that expenditure rose as a proportion of GDP. The point is that it has fallen significantly and will continue to fall to figures which have not been reached since the mid-1960s.
Lord Blease: My Lords, in a Treasury Statement of this kind I should have welcomed comments on two points. First, comments which will inspire or encourage the regions. There is no mention whatsoever of incentives to the regions. My other point is in connection with research and development. Wages have been mentioned in the Statement as one of the ways to overcome problems of our competitiveness internationally. My view is that the Government ought to have made some pronouncement concerning the low rate of research and development that our productive employment and manufacturing industries are faced with in this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the question of regional aid, there has been some alteration in that. That is because it would be wrong, as we have believed for very many years, to intervene too heavily in business. The Government seek to create the right climate for business in all the, regions and we have been extremely successful in doing just that.
On the question of research and development, I know that the noble Lord will be happy to congratulate the Government on the fact that spending on R&D in United Kingdom industry was up by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1987 and will go up further.

The EC and Japan: ECC Report
Debate resumed.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, returning to the Community and Japan, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on producing for us such an important and in many respects novel report. As a member of his committee I should like to thank him for the masterly way in which he revealed to us the excellent evidence in a series of really splendid and enjoyable meetings.
I should like to begin by a reference to the difficulties which have arisen between the United States and Japan because they in some sense anticipated some of the problems now arising in the relations between Japan and the Community. The United States Administration were restrained by the principles of free trade and could only intervene in matters of trade if either national security was threatened or the commercial activities of other countries were deemed to be "unfair". Yet the Japanese industrial and economic attack on the States could have been withstood only if the American Government had included trade as an integral part of economic and national security policy. Their failure to do so resulted in American industry being eroded by Japanese infiltration, industry by industry, to such an extent that commentators compared the United States to a developing country, importing high technology and capital from Japan and, apart from aeroplanes and certain parts of mainframe computers, exporting to Japan commodities such as soya beans and unfinished manufactured goods.
It was Clive Prestowitz, one of the chief American negotiators with Japan, who in his book asked a question which could become relevant here:
"If we become a kind of fourth world country with all our assets owned abroad, won't our political, economic and even leisure decisions tend to be made abroad? What are the hazards of our becoming a colonial territory? Or, are we entering a new era of economics which tends to break down natural barriers, customs and allegiances?".
The American negotiators fell into the trap of assuming that conditions in Japan could be altered by simple Western remedies. International economic health may require the opening of Japanese markets and finance to Western interests, but any request simply to open Japanese markets and accept the principles of free trade is not understood in an economy which is built not to consume. The plea, "You must behave like us", is to the Japanese a sign of weakness, for their whole system is an extremely complex structure with its keiretsu and jinmyaku and is incompatible with free trade.
As Van Wolferan has pointed out, the structure of the Japanese system is so complex that perhaps no one is in ultimate control —a melancholy, not to say a terrifying, possibility. But in any case Japanese administrators cannot afford to accept the principles of free trade, for to do so would be to override this complex scheme of interconnecting formal and informal relations.
1344
In 1981 the Japanese electronics industry declared victory over the American electronics industry, and in the same year the Nikko research centre report stated generally that Japanese industry had overwhelmed most of their United States counterparts. The report's comments on the United States make uneasy reading on both sides of the Atlantic:
"There are many unfavourable factors rooted deeply in American society, such as the declining work ethic, increases in crime, deterioration of education as well as of social discipline and order. It is wholly essential that this fact is well recognised and understood to its root".
The need for the West to make industrial and commercial health a more fundamental part of our national policy should in my view, be a central factor in this debate. We do not consider industry as a matter of national security —Japan does. Yet the continued existence of the United Kingdom as an industrial power is dependent upon our retaining a leading capability in a wide range of industries. Trade must become as fundamental in government as defence and security and I submit that our report is often too complacent.
May I give just one example? Even at the beginning in paragraph 3 we say:
"With Japan's increasing dominance in several areas of high technology, there is no state with whom good relations are more important".
The Japanese would laugh at a plea for good relations. It is not simply good relations that we need with Japan but a proper understanding of Japan if we are to succeed in the commercial and industrial struggle. Unaided, our industrial and financial operations cannot withstand the targeted onslaught of the Japanese with their cheaper capital and the long-term support of a complex national system. Any Western industrialist faced with such full-scale targeted Japanese competition can generally only advise his shareholders that the prudent course is to withdraw from the field.
It is true that our report gives a number of British successes in the Japanese market but for one reason or another they tend to be exceptional and do not, in my view, throw up a general precedent for our average exporter. The report's message on financial services is exceptionally sombre. Once Japanese banks have acquired in our markets the necessary expertise in financial services, they may well withdraw to create another world financial centre in Tokyo. The City, in its evidence, seemed unaware of or at any rate unconcerned about this danger. However, in my view our report does not go far enough. It only recommends, in the words of the report, that Community institutions must make a greater commitment to invest in Japan. If I am right they can never succeed alone against targeted Japanese competition backed by the power of the Japanese system.
Industry and commerce must become central elements in the national policy of European countries and in the policy of the EC. Clearly, in the short time at my disposal I could not begin to work out how this general principle could be applied within the United Kingdom, but I give three quick examples. First, changes in our industrial relations

1345
need to go much further. In Japan the bargain is job security for wage and works-rule flexibility. This has proved to be remarkably successful. Here strikes must become less frequent and instead of pricing ourselves out of international markets by irresponsible wage rises, emoluments must generally be tied to productivity and to industrial success. The adversarial nature of our industrial relations must be ended. Employers and employees must recognise their interdependent common interests.
Secondly, our research must be enormously increased, especially the research undertaken by British industry. In my view the Treasury should be instructed to produce a plan which, by tax rebates and other devices, would increase our research to the required levels within, say, the next three years. Instead of the Treasury explaining to us what cannot be done, the Treasury should be given research targets and instructed to achieve them.
Finally, I refer to education. We need much more training in the Japanese language. In universities, polytechnics and other educational institutions our collective effort in the Japanese language can only be described as pathetic. This may in part be due to the poor back-up which we receive from the schools. At Oxford anyone without Japanese wishing to include it in his degree is actually sent for an intensive first year to Sheffield University before embarking for the next three years on the course at Oxford. In short, even Oxford is not self-sufficient in the Japanese language. We therefore need much more teaching in the Japanese language.
More generally, our education must move into Japanese culture. What are the DES and funding councils doing about it? In fact, the most recent move has not come from them but from the DTI which has provided £1.6 million to establish the Japanese language with an emphasis on commercial usage at six universities. Again, heads of departments of Japanese studies find it extremely difficult to raise money to send their students to Japan. I repeat: our education must move into Japanese culture. We must understand the Japanese system as well as they understand ours.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, there is much to praise in this very balanced report and in the introduction of it today by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. I see two emphases in the report which I very much welcome. The first is that we must learn the real lessons of Japanese success as opposed to the imaginary reasons for Japanese success and we must understand Japan much better. Secondly, we must stop putting all the blame on the Japanese if our exports to Japan do not grow quickly enough. As the noble Lord said, it is now an out of date view to say that it is the fault of the Japanese.
My own experience for the last decade has been, in continuous visits to Japan, recruiting industry —sometimes by quite long visits —for the new town of Telford. It took —this is instructive in the light of what the report says —two or three years to gain the confidence of leaders of companies, not just in Telford but in the UK. It took a lot of
1346
persuading by me to make the companies realise the importance of their world role and how they fitted into it. They had very inadequate ideas about the United Kingdom, all of which had to be corrected in those first two or three years.
The breakthrough —I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is here —was when he was Minister for Industry and we managed to get on the hook the first of our big companies for Telford —Maxell, or Hitachi-Maxell as it is often called. That has been followed by equally big companies like Ricoh, Seiko-Epson and NEC, all of which have made Telford their European headquarters on quite vast sites in that town. We now have no fewer than 16 Japanese companies in Telford. Exactly as I forecast, great changes are taking place because it is now not the first wave of Japanese companies that are arriving —the big manufacturers —but the secondary suppliers who make up the 16 and beyond, as I expect the number will grow.
A lot of this, as the report indicates, is based on what the report calls personal relationships and confidence. Japan was new to its world role —vastly new, desperately new —and feeling it; way during this decade. Later I shall appeal for patience in understanding the processes that are needed. As an immediate indication of the way they feel on being established in Britain let me say how glad I am —and I know the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will also be glad —that I have today in front of me, to sign as chairman, the trust deed of a vast educational foundation which Maxell is setting up in Telford to thank the local community for the success of its first five years in this country. This will do a great deal of good for the young people of Telford.
I come to this debate, therefore, not having had the good fortune of being with the committee in Japan, but being on a separate circuit of my own for quite a long time with many visits. The report says that Japan's,
"rise in economic importance has been spectacular, but is still not adequately recognised".
I have made several speeches in your Lordships' House in trying to get this point across, perhaps without success, but the greater effort in the report we are now discussing will possibly have more success.
I made a forecast based on Japanese figures which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pooh-poohed about a year ago. I make it again today and I challenge the Minister to say whether he still disagrees with it. In 1960, as the report says, Japan's proportion of gross domestic product of the world was 2.8 per cent. Today it is well over 10 per cent. I forecast that by the year 2000 —on the basis of Japanese publications and based on a growth rate of only 4.4 per cent. per annum, which will easily be achieved —Japan's output will equal that of the UK, France and Germany put together. Our combined populations are 180 million; Japan's will be 120 million, but it will equal our gross domestic product in the year 2000. But more importantly, based on present figures, the prospect facing us is that by the year 2020 the output of Japan with its 120 million

1347
people will equal the output of the whole of the EC countries with their 350 million people. That is the size of the colossus that is now growing and, as the report said, we should be taking a great deal more notice of it.
As the report indicates, there is no obvious single reason for this success and for what the report calls the emergence of an economic superpower. Thank goodness it is no longer said that this success is due to rice-standard wages, because Japanese wages are now higher than those in the United Kingdom. If some of your Lordships are still unconvinced on this matter, it is important to note the amount of spending that Japanese tourists —not the rich ones, but young working people from factories—undertake when they go on holiday to Hawaii. It has been calculated through the local economy, that the Japanese tourists, by their tens and hundreds of thousands, are spending somewhere between five and nine times per day more than American tourists. The Japanese are not people with rice-standard wages and nothing to spend and with a low standard of living.
I believe the report is slightly mistaken in stating that the Japanese success is due to overlong working hours. In recent years there have been significant reductions in those hours and in big companies they are very little different from our own. However, for the 30,000 or so in the small companies which are the suppliers to the huge motor car industry, there are longer hours and lower wages, which is part of the reason for the price advantage when dealing with motor car assembly. The Japanese are now taking holidays. It is not true to say that they are still workaholics. They are taking on very readily indeed some of the benefits of our Western way of thinking in these matters. They are Westernising very rapidly.
What should have been more clearly expressed in the report is the extent to which the principles behind their industrial system have wider application. After the Second World War the Zaibatsu, the big one-family owned companies that had been behind the fascist regime of the 'thirties, were forcibly split up by the occupying powers and made into smaller units. This enabled the new managers and employees to realise that they had much in common in the new industrial system. It has led to a sense of community in industry and even to a new concept of the private sector company. Mr. Morita, the head of Sony, has even gone so far as to talk of,
"the sense that a company is the property of the employees and not of a few top people".
There is a totally different non-confrontational approach to industrial relations behind that phrase. There is an egalitarianism inside the great factories between blue and white collar workers and management generally. People who work in big Japanese companies are partners or members and not workers. They have a sense of participation in management. You see factory floor management, and not management by people away somewhere else in an office and never seen. There is low labour turnover, low absenteeism and sick-outs.
When one speaks to the representatives of Japanese companies one hears that they have
1348
extraordinary figures as regards their allowances for such matters in this country when compared with their own. It is all based on the success of their partnership inside the industrial enterprise. It is also based more securely than that on Japanese philosophy; namely concentration on the family, harmony, hard work and loyalty. They are the four characteristics to which most Japanese people feel that they should offer obedience.
These are very important factors that have formed the basis of Japanese success, but they are not alone. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, mentioned a string of reasons for their success, including growth behind trade barriers, low defence spending, high savings, expanding world trade, a stable political system and the small firm sector. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, spoke of the education system.
There are still other points concerning their industry. There was a correct choice of investment. When we were investing in heavy industry in the `fifties and 'sixties, the Japanese took the high road to high technology; and how right they were. We still have not learnt that lesson, or perhaps we are learning it too late. There is a partnership between Japanese industry and government. It is not a private enterprise economy running itself, but a partnership between government and industry. Government winds down industries when necessary and helps to wind them up when others should take their place.
There is also emphasis on quality and investment for the long term. A Japanese slogan says: "The higher the quality the lower the price". In Japanese companies based at Telford they are working to, for example, reduce the expenditure on correcting defects after sale from 8 per cent. or 6 per cent. to a Japanese level of 2 per cent. That illustrates the slogan: "The higher the quality the lower the price". There are all those factors which add together to make the success of the Japanese system.
I am not uncritical; neither am I unaware of the way in which Japanese industry has penetrated other countries. But I have greater hopes for the future than the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. I believe that Japan is now going through a vast adaptation to its world role. We of all people should be patient about that. We had 200 to 300 years to adapt, but we are asking the Japanese to adapt to a world role in a couple of decades. We must understand the speed at which, in historical terms, we are asking them to move.
That is the first point. Secondly, we should look at the prospects for Japanese industry in helping us even further to compete with it. MITI, the Japanese Ministry for Trade and Industry, estimates that instead of investing overseas in order to produce 2 per cent. of their output, within 10 years the large Japanese manufacturers will be producing 20 per cent. of it offshore. That is a very important figure giving us room to recruit much more Japanese industry, for it to teach us some of its lessons and for their industry to learn from us as well, as part of the growth of the world economy.
Thirdly, we should have patience with Japan as regards trade barriers. It is not only a question of adapting to their world role. Who are we, in our

1349
glasshouse of the common agricultural policy, to throw stones at Japan, which does not want to import foreign beef? It has a vast problem in adapting a partly rural society to a more industrial one. One cannot expect the ruling party to throw away votes and perhaps power on a precipitate change in its agricultural import policy.
Again, it is wrong for the report to say too clearly, openly or directly that the Japanese want to dominate. The vast change that I see in Japan today is that Japanese industry is becoming international in thinking and in action. I know of one great Japanese company which is moving its headquarters to New York because it considers itself no longer Japanese but now a world company. That trend will grow as Japan realises its place.
In local terms this trend can be seen in the number of Japanese managers who come when an enterprise is set up overseas. If they have 50, 100, 150 or 200 employees, perhaps only six are Japanese and very rapidly English managers are trained to take their place. So in every way they become part of the local community. As I have said, they are now not only becoming good citizens in the wider sense but, in relation to the educational trust that I mentioned a moment ago, they are anxious to show their thanks for their reception in this country.
Lastly, we should be careful about a recommendation in the report that the Community should be tougher about local content. The quality of local content when Japanese manufacture over here is our responsibility. Very often they cannot find the quality in components. Telford Development Corporation employs a member of staff whose job it is to try to find quality components for Japanese companies. It is difficult finding British companies that have the same confidence to invest and to improve their working methods so as to give the quality of components that the Japanese want.
The EC, contrary to what the committee says, has it about right. The 1987 regulations, about which I negotiated in Brussels at the time because I objected to the early drafts on behalf of Japanese companies, mean that 40 per cent. is the approximate barrier. Every case is taken on its merits. Companies have to show their willingness to rise to 40 per cent. and above in local sourcing. The anti-dumping duties are not then imposed on them. A careful study case by case, rather than blanket decisions and phrases in the report about being tougher, is the right way to proceed. We have to understand the problem as well as being fairly tough about it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will my noble friend answer this question honestly? Would the Japanese be interested in bringing industry here if it were possible for them to enter the Common Market in any other way?
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the answer is that they would be interested for all kinds of reasons. Japan today does not produce only on its own land. It invests all over the world. Companies such as NEC have plants in dozens of countries. There is no reason to think that they would refuse to invest here if there were no EC. Of course they would. They see
1350
themselves as having a new world role. They realise that if they do not invest and produce overseas the barriers will one day go up anyway. They are sensible enough to realise that.
I welcome the report. I am a student of Japan. I like Japan. I have learnt a good deal from my close Japanese friends and from leaders, managers and young people throughout the industrial system there. I am not uncritical. I have not given vent to my criticisms today because I think too many people do that. I have tried to some extent to put the other side of the picture. That does not prevent my welcoming very much the positive and sensible tone of the report.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, this is indeed an important and somewhat disquieting report. It has already provoked an interesting debate. Before proceeding, I pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, whose remarkable physical and intellectual effort enabled us to cover a very wide field and to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said, in very agreeable meetings. The noble Lord has characteristically and effectively summarised the report. I do not want to go over it all again. But I should like quickly to make one or two points.
During the past spring and summer when, between 8 and 8.30 a.m. I have driven past the Albert Hall, the scene has always been exactly the same. Several coaches have been parked in the courtyard and a stream of excited Japanese tourists of both sexes has been hurrying across the road to view and photograph the Albert Memorial. No tourists of other nationalities were to be seen. I asked myself why the Japanese were so interested in the monument. I concluded that there were two reasons. First, it expresses Victorian confidence in the education of the mind and in the propagation of knowledge. Secondly, it is the symbol of British imperial dominance in the last century. For these reasons I imagine that it strikes a chord in modern Japanese whose purpose since the catastrophe and shame of the last war has been to dominate the world in ever more sectors of industry, finance and technology.
This Japanese ambition, not everywhere fully recognised, is perfectly legitimate. Their success has been well planned and well deserved. No one can talk down to them and they have no need to take the advice of itinerant statesmen; nor can they be expected to change their culture at the behest of others. They may change this culture slowly and move more closely to our type of life. But for the moment they seem destined to go on to further success unless they are met by better organised competition. Such competition need not destroy the possibility of friendly relations.
The economic rise of Japan has been accompanied wisely by a low political profile. It sheltered under an American defence umbrella while benefiting without risk from the dangers of the Korean war. How long will this continue? One cannot view without some anxiety the increasing American congressional

1351
hostility towards Japan and speculate whether the low Japanese profile will have to be abandoned and a more prominent international role justified by economic strength adopted. But that is for the future to reveal.
The report which we are discussing today has immediate messages for the Community and particularly for this country. They are set out clearly in the report and are based on evidence from carefully selected and qualified people with first hand experience of modern Japan and indeed from Japanese witnesses. First and foremost, the Community must place the formulation of policy towards Japan among its highest priorities. I mentioned this recently to a senior Brussels bureaucrat. He laughed and said, "In the present circumstances, and with the present events in Europe, it is impossible to get attention paid to these Japanese problems".
The threat of Japanese enterprise does not seem to be fully understood; it is pushed aside by other greater interests arising from the present situation. Nevertheless greater efforts must be made to identify how the combined strength and weight of the Community can be brought to bear in trade relations with the Japanese. No industrial country in the Community can afford to neglect the Japanese market or fail to defend itself against the overwhelming volume of Japanese products. The machinery exists in the Commission to co-ordinate Community action. The United Kingdom is well equipped to play a prominent part in that machinery and should indeed do so.
The report refers, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth said, to some of our failings, especially in the teaching of the Japanese language, in co-operative research and in other means of drawing closer together. The report goes so far as to say that limited protection for some of our infant or sensitive technological European industries is appropriate. The Community must remember that it may find that Japanese industry will quickly take advantage of developments in Eastern Europe if it provides an opportunity for the outlet of Japanese products and investment. The report is, of course, primarily addressed towards 61e Community, but I hope that it will be given special attention by our Government in the context of our domestic economic position and our industrial performance.
As the report points out:
"There is no secret to Japanese success. It is based on high quality, painstaking service … excellent management",
and corporate loyalty. It continues:
"The Japanese have rigorously applied the best western management precepts".
It is often remarked that such precepts are the same as those which were taught for many years at the Army staff college at Camberley. One of the best teachers in 1939 was Colonel Montgomery. The man management and communication between all ranks which he so successfully applied to his troops during the war is what our managers should long ago have copied with their workforces.
1352
The evidence, not least that given to the committee by trade union leaders like Mr. Jordan, showed that the best British firms are just as good as their Japanese competitors. But there are far too few of them. As a general rule, our standards of management are lower and must be raised. British personnel and British unions have shown themselves willing to accept Japanese methods and, sometimes, to improve upon them.
I asked a leading Japanese industrialist, whose products are used, I am sure, by the majority of people, which were his most productive factories worldwide. He replied, without hesitation, "Those with Japanese managers and American workers," I said that I could understand Japanese managers, but why American workers? It was he said, because their education was good and their initiative better.
The standard of education and training for the workforce and management here in the United Kingdom has been discussed many times in this House. I make no apology for returning to the subject again, as the problem was often mentioned in evidence given to the committee. I very much hope therefore that the committee's report will be studied not only by those who are interested in Community matters, or in Japan, but also by those who are worried by the decline of our manufacturing industry and our consequent lamentable balance of payments deficit.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall wish to comment later in my speech upon one or two points which have been made in the debate. However, I should like to begin by thanking the committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for producing a most interesting report. But what is perhaps as important as the report itself is the volume of evidence which is published with it. It takes a little time to read through this, but I must tell the House that my reaction on dipping into large amounts of the evidence —I do not confess to having read it all —was that I wished I had been a member of sub-committee A. Those concerned must have had a most interesting time. There was certainly a great deal of interesting discussion.
I was grateful to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. He referred to our joint success in attracting Hitachi-Maxell to Telford. He has played a most notable part in the attraction of Japanese industry to that new town in the Midlands.
I think that members of sub-committee A will probably agree —I do not mean this in any derogatory sense —that no startling revelations emerged from their lengthy discussions. The committee has provided an extremely effective restatement of some of the basic truths which those who have addressed these problems over the years have tried to get across to the country. Japan is itself a very competitive market. It competes fiercely within itself, quite apart from the question of imports. Therefore if a European firm wishes to penetrate the Japanese market, it is a long haul and requires a great deal of perseverance. As one witness said, "When you go for a customer in Japan you

1353
are not just getting a customer; you are building a relationship and it takes a long time".
My next point is most important. It is one which has been made in the Opportunity Japan campaign to which I shall refer presently. Japan is now a very much more open market than it was. The stereotype of high protective barriers and a closed system is simply no longer true. Of course there are certainly exceptions and I shall turn to these in a moment. The opportunities are there, but they must be worked for.
I have heard Mr. Anthony Sleight's account as regards the progress of his firm. His evidence greatly impressed the committee. I took the chair for him when he spoke at a conference organised by The Economist. The way his firm took the long view over the years and established itself in Japan is an example which needs to be imitated by many more companies.
People are inclined to hold up their hands in despair when they compare Japanese success with our own. I think it was the DTI witnesses who reminded the committee that we actually export twice as high a percentage of our GDP as do the Japanese. The Japanese figure is 13 per cent. of GDP against 26 per cent. for the UK. The difference is that we import a great deal more. That has been a very long habit in this country. It has been a matter of pride for a British shopkeeper to be able to say, "Goods from all over the world on sale here". The Japanese are only just beginning to learn to do so. The Japanese consumer will always take some persuasion in the matter: if there is a perfectly good Japanese product, why should he or she buy a foreign one?
EC exports to Japan are now rising strongly. Figures published yesterday about the declining trade surplus make encouraging reading, although one must not read too much into information about one month. However, what is clear is that if we are to achieve an overall better balance in the long term, this will require a much faster growth in European exports to Japan —that is, faster than we are at present achieving. That aim poses formidable problems.
My interest in the matter has increased more recently, for not only was I involved as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but I have also been chairman for four and a half to five years of the UK-Japan 2000 Group. This is a body which was set up in 1984 with the blessing of both Prime Ministers, Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Nakasone. The idea was to try to broaden understanding, to improve relations and to widen and deepen contacts between the two countries. The group sees itself as part of Europe in so doing. Therefore I warm to what the committee said about the US-EC-Japan triangle and the need to strengthen the European/Japanese arm of that triangle. Three years ago we used the phrase, "the skewed triangle". There is a great need to carry out this work.
It so happened that many of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee were prominent members of the 2000 Group. I refer to Sir Jeremy Morse, Sir Hugh Cortazzi, Professor
1354
Dore, Professor Epstein, Mr. Michael Perry, who has carried out a tremendous job as head of Japan Trade Advisory Group, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and Nicholas Wolfers. We are proud to count among our members the present Japanese Prime Minister Mr. Kaifu who has attended our conferences every year. We are also proud that the committee's special adviser Sir Michael Wilford is a distinguished member of our group. I was also a member of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent's Opportunity Japan campaign and I have chaired a number of its excellent seminars.
Perhaps through my noble friend or the Front Bench I could pay a warm tribute to the staff of the DTI for the amount of care and skill they put into that effective campaign. I single out David Cockerham, who appeared before the committee with the DTI team. His conduct of that exercise has been exemplary. I should perhaps also declare an interest. I am an adviser on 1992 to the Sumitomo Trust and Bank Limited, but that is a minor activity.
I should like to offer three comments. One of them was dealt with in the report and has been mentioned by other speakers, but two of them do not appear to have been explored and they constitute part of the picture.
Two years ago the 2000 Group had a fascinating discussion on our comparative education systems with especial reference of course to language. The Japanese side was led by Mr. Kaifu and our side by Mrs. Angela Rumbold. The discussion showed that the reforms taking place in both countries are converging. We have paid too little attention to standards and have had too much diversity and flexibility and altogether too much local option. They have had far too rigid and centralised a system which they now recognise has its disadvantages. They are now moving towards a more flexible system, just as we are seeking to impose national standards, a core curriculum and so on. That is a discussion of which one needs to take account.
One pays tribute to the Japanese education system, and many Japanese do not recognise its advantages. They say that it does not generate creativity and there is no education in human values and so forth. They admire much of what our education system has produced. However, overall, they achieve a higher standard of competence, literacy and numeracy. I agree with everything that has been said in the debate about that subject.
We also paid attention to language training. The noble Lords, Lord Butterworth and Lord Greenhill, mentioned that topic. There are faults on both sides. I said that I had heard that 10 per cent. only of Japanese teachers of English can carry on a conversation in English. I was immediately howled down by the Japanese who said that that figure was far too high. English is learnt in the schools as a dead language and so the Japanese are now concerned to improve spoken English. It is to be hoped that we shall have a growing stream of Japanese English teachers coming to this country for three or six months to improve their spoken English.
We have a scheme (the Japanese English Teachers' Scheme) whereby British graduates go to Japan for

1355
six months, a year or in some cases two years to teach English in Japanese schools. Since the inception of that scheme some years ago, the numbers going each year have doubled and now run into some hundreds of young people a year. It is regarded by the Japanese school system as a valuable experience for them, as it is for our people. It opens their eyes to Japan. That is the type of activity that we want to encourage.
Fewer than 100 people a year come out of our universities with a four-year degree in Japanese studies. Many of them have spent far too much time studying the history of Japanese art and literature and insufficient time becoming fluent Japanese speakers. The report is right when it says that it is far better to take scientists, engineers, managers and social scientists and teach them to speak Japanese in a crash course than to try to turn Japanese scholars into business men.
I therefore welcomed the announcement made by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry —the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred to this point —of the provision of 1.6 million to improve the teaching of Japanese, mainly for business men. The professors call it "operational Japanese". I welcome that phrase. The scheme is a valuable start. It is to be matched pound for pound by industrial contributions. My latest information is that the scheme has been oversubscribed, which is welcome because it means that business is at last recognising that one cannot buy Japanese speakers; one has to breed them by training them. The committee has asked for "a great expansion" in that area. I hope that industry, commerce, the financial world and the Government will all listen to that. The Japanese ask one another what is the most important commercial language in the world, which invites the immediate response, "Perhaps English", but that is not the Japanese answer. The Japanese say that the most important language is the language of one's customer. That is what we must understand.
I shall deal briefly with the two points that were not mentioned in the report. We want to broaden contacts. That means students, academics, scientists, business men and tourists travelling in far greater numbers than at present. The barrier to that is air fares. I have given my noble friend notice that I was going to raise that matter. If one compares the cost of an economy return flight from New York to Tokyo or London to Tokyo (it is the same for Paris, Frankfurt and Rome) one finds that the European fares are nearly twice as much per passenger mile. The reason for that is that on the American routes there is a great deal more competition and deregulation. We must have deregulation of our flights to and from Japan.
British Airways and Virgin, which has recently obtained a licence to fly direct with new Boeing 747–400s, are in favour of a deregulated system. The British Government are in favour of a deregulated system and have been negotiating hard. The obstacle is at the Japanese end. I am told that the latest ministerial round of talks made no progress. One needs what is called double disapproval: if an airline
1356
wishes to introduce a special fare or new route, the disapproval of both governments is required before that can be refused. At the moment the rule is that one government only need disapprove and that blocks the change. That is something to which we need to pay a great deal more attention. The 2000 Group will return to that subject, as it has each year, at our next conference in March. I have already warned our Japanese friends that we are looking for action. It does not help when we cannot achieve that deregulation within the Common Market. This country has been pegging away for years to try to achieve a deregulated air system in Europe and we should be pressing for it with Japan.
My final point is about construction. Whatever one may say about the Japanese market being open now to goods and services (including consultancy services, because a good delegation from the British Consultants' Bureau had a successful mission there last year), it is not true of construction. The Japanese market is virtually closed to foreign construction firms. The problem is primarily a cultural one. A delegation went to Japan from the Export Group for the Constructional Industries. It included some practical people who wanted to discover the opportunities. I shall read two or three paragraphs of its summary:
"1. The Japanese construction market offers few opportunities for foreign contractors to secure profitable contracts at the present time.
2. The complicated registration and classification procedures are not the main obstacle.
3. Japanese minds are on the whole closed to the idea of foreign participation by contractors or even by developers".
The report concludes:
"It would be in the interest of Japanese project sponsors to open up development possibilities to foreign developers/constructors. They are probably buying their development too expensively at the moment, and losing imaginative contributions to their developments".
That is well spelt out in the report and it seems to me that something needs to be done about it. Governments have been trying for a long time.
This morning I met a deputation from Osaka, where they are building a new offshore airport, the Kansai airport. Where the bridge comes ashore there is to be a new, what they call "Aeropolis", a city connected with the airport, to provide a whole range of services linked to the airport. This will be Rinku Town. I asked what "Rinku" meant and was told that it simply meant "view of the airport". It is to be built on reclaimed land on mainland Osaka, close to the airport. It has all the hallmarks of a tremendous Japanese project. It is huge, spectacular and comprehensive. It will be filled with state-of-the-art information technology, all in a `space city' style. It has the backing of the Osaka Prefecture and its finance appears to be assured by a large consortium of financial organisations led by Japan's largest insurance company, Nippon Life.
I put to the deputation the complaints that we have made about the exclusion of foreign contractors. "Oh, yes", they say, "we have some foreign consultants —architects, engineers and so on". However, I have to tell the House that in regard to construction there was blank incomprehension. It

1357
was nothing to do with them; they were not in the construction industry. When I pointed out that they were the developers who would hire the construction firms and asked whether there would not be an advantage in broadening competition and obtaining a wider range of skills, I received a completely blank response. They were very polite, friendly people and we had a good meeting, but there was no response at all.
I pointed out to them, "You drive around London and you see Kumagai Gumi, Obayashi and other Japanese firms involved in major developments. I am sure that that is true in cities outside London as well. Why are there no foreign construction firms in Japan?" They said, "You must talk to the Government about that". My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission have been talking to the Japanese Government about it for a very long time. The EGCI report suggested that we should abandon the fight, but I disagree. I think that we should take a leaf from the Japanese book, persevere and keep pegging away. We should not take no for an answer. Most of the major British and many of the Community contractors maintain offices in Japan at considerable expense. They deserve all the support from the Government and the Commission that they can get.
I shall make a positive suggestion because I tried this out on a group of very senior Japanese the weekend before last. We went to a conference at, of all places, Avignon, but it was well worth while. Here in Britain we have a very successful Invest in Britain Bureau. We suggested to our Japanese friends that it might be a good idea if the Japanese, who say they want to encourage foreign investment in Japan, set up an Invest in Japan Bureau as a tangible measure of their expressed desire to see more foreign investment. The flow of direct investment between countries is as much part of the open world trading system as the flow of goods and services. I think this is an argument which they would find difficult to rebut.
We need to press ahead with a number of these actions while taking note of what we have to do. The report has made many valuable points about that. I shall end with a short quotation. I was a member of a small seminar which took place at Chatham House a few months ago. It was about our images of each other and what we think of each other. We became very frank on this and one Japanese said, "We will tell you exactly. America is the place where you go to do business. Europe is the place where women come to shop and sight-see". They have their stereotypes. We must both increase our understanding so that these stereotypes give way to the reality.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Kearton for introducing this debate. The report was prepared by a sub-committee which he chaired and in which I had the privilege to participate. He has covered the ground of the report so well that I wish only to make some general comments on points,
1358
many of which have already been touched upon by previous speakers.
Before doing so I must declare an interest. The financial services group to which I belong has been doing business with Japan for over a quarter of a century. It now has a very important subsidiary company operating there which has a full securities licence and a seat on the Tokyo stock exchange.
I myself have been visiting Japan regularly, including in previous incarnations, for the past 30 years or more. I have had many opportunities to see the remarkable progress which that country has made since the war. The report which we are debating today deals with the relations between Japan and the European Community. Japan's position in the world is of course well known and well assured. It is the second leading economic power today.
The Community is at this moment engaged, at a pace far more accelerated than in the past 25 years of its existence, in creating a more integrated monetary and economic entity. If the process is successful many of us believe that that will give it the opportunity of ranking alongside the first two of the leading powers. It is quite clear therefore that the relations between the Community and Japan are of immense importance for the future of the world economy, including the position and 'welfare of the people of this country as a member of the European Community.
The report sets out very clearly the economic achievements of Japan which have secured its outstanding place in the world economy. The report examines the many reasons, which have also been touched upon in the debate tonight, for its success. These are of a very remarkable and almost bewildering variety. One Japanese friend of mine —a very distinguished economist —some years ago concluded that the single most important factor in securing the industrial, and particularly the exporting, supremacy of Japan was the original choice of the exchange rate some 40 years ago.
That may well be true, but we all know that in undervalued exchange rate brings benefits which are short lived, largely because of the inflationary tendencies which it tends to generate. It may well be that in the case of Japan this is not en1irely the case because that country has a very low propensity for inflation for a variety of cultural and economic reasons. Therefore the advantages of that original choice of the exchange rate and its management thereafter may be much more long-lasting than they would be in another case. It may well be that, once established, this superiority could continue, even though the original cause which gave rise to it has disappeared. Perhaps I may mention parenthetically that the effects of over valuation can also be long-lasting, as is the case I believe for some of the effects on our export markets created by the over valuation of sterling in the years 1979 to 1982.
All observers of the Japanese economic miracle agree on one thing; that is, the cultural factors deeply embedded in the way that Japanese society has developed have played a major part in the country's success. These include social cohesion and

1359
discipline, the universal acceptance of a high work ethic, a highly efficient education system, a high, and until recently very high, savings ratio, the shunning of ostentation and so on, and perhaps most important of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out, the strong and ubiquitous pressure to secure consensus. That is a word and perhaps a concept that is not always popular elsewhere.
On the last point, I shall never forget a conversation which I had some years ago with a friend of mine who has held very high ministerial office in Japan. I congratulated him on the successful outcome at that time of the "spring offensive", as it is called —the annual bout of wage bargaining. He said to me, "You know, I fear that we may have been too successful". His words were, "I fear that we may be accused of having pulled a fast one, as the inflation rate may turn out to be somewhat higher than we assumed in our negotiations". I must confess that I have never heard, and I never expect to hear, that kind of statement in Western countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made many valid points on this theme in his thoughtful remarks. I should like to add another point which again concerns a cultural factor. Japan has been notoriously free from the takeover fever which has been so marked on both sides of the Atlantic. There is little doubt in the minds of anyone who has studied this matter that that is due to the fact that a Japanese company is not regarded as a commodity which its owners, the shareholders, let alone the management, can sell freely as they wish. It is regarded as something which belongs to the combined management and workforce. Your Lordships may take a different view as regards whether that consideration is desirable, but at any rate it is a factor which explains the extraordinary solidity and cohesion of the Japanese industrial system.
It is, I think, idle to try to evaluate separately each one of all the factors that I and other noble Lords have mentioned in the debate, including a factor which has been mentioned once this evening, which is the beneficial effect of the lower impact on the economy of defence expenditure since the war. However, it is enough to accept that a very complex synthesis of all the factors has produced Japan's present economic superiority which is most strikingly demonstrated by a very large and continuing payments surplus. That is all the more striking in a country which is so heavily dependent on imports of raw materials and energy.
If, as is undoubtedly the case, cultural factors have played an important part, it is legitimate to ask whether, if these are eroded or were to disappear altogether, the economic balance, particularly between Japan and her trading partners, would change. It has been suggested in some quarters —some analysts have pointed this out —that recent tendencies could be significant in this regard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, also made reference to this factor. One observer has strongly argued that the low consumption, high saving economy is giving way to a high consumption, lower saving and less work-concentrated pattern of life. There is probably truth in that. Certainly I and,
1360
I am sure, many other observers have noticed a much greater emphasis on consumption, including that of luxury goods imported from abroad, and on a greater use of leisure as shown in the difficulty of securing accommodation in favourite weekend resort places. My colleagues who live in Tokyo assure me that that is the case.
In general there is a much more leisure-orientated economy based on higher consumption and a greater enjoyment of life. The Japanese Government have made efforts to transform economic patterns in this direction, including reports on restructuring the Japanese economy produced under the direction of that most distinguished central banker, Maekawa, who died recently. I think we should acknowledge the powerful import drive. Over time we may confidently expect that these tendencies will affect the economic balance. However, in my view, it would be highly unrealistic to expect the imbalances to continue and with them the sometimes difficult and bitter negotiations, multilateral within GATT and bilateral between Japan and the United States —the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred to that —between Japan and the United Kingdom, between Japan and the Community and others and the tensions to which these give rise.
It is a situation which could easily degenerate into a kind of generalised, undiscriminating hostility, where motes are constantly taken for beams and where those beams that exist are hailed as proof of a stubborn resistance to recognise the needs or rights of others. Japan-bashing becomes all too easily the consequence of either genuine grievance or of frustration at the inability to equal Japan's real achievements or simply a result of fear and envy. However, bashing is hardly the method for dealing with this major problem of a dynamic world economy. Americans who fear that Japan is buying up America should remember similar fears which American companies aroused in Europe and elsewhere in the earlier post-war period. In the light of our own very large overseas investment in recent years, we could hardly blame Japan for her efforts through foreign investment and aid to help to correct her surplus position.
All this is not to say that one's genuine interests should not be energetically defended and pursued in negotiation, especially in such matters as the continued liberalisation of the Japanese economic and trading system, including, for example, in financial services and reciprocity of treatment. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, would not deny that. However, I think it is absolutely essential that this must be accompanied by a much greater readiness to acknowledge those Japanese industrial, commercial and financial aspects and methods which have proved superior to our own, to learn from them and to adapt them, as the committee's report shows it is possible to do, to Europe's circumstances and problems.
I refer in this connection to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, about language. I entirely agree with him. I hope the House will allow me to mention in this connection the recent setting up of an Anglo-Japanese foundation, of which I have the honour to be chairman. It is based on the most

1361
generous gift of£15 million by one of the leading Japanese security houses and its extremely farsighted, internationally minded chairman, Mr. Chino. The foundation is particularly designed to help improve Anglo-Japanese relations. The emphasis in its earlier programmes will almost certainly be placed on removing the language barrier by increasing interchange and provision of language teaching not only in universities but also in schools. I believe some beginning has already been made in that respect in a number of schools.
The report has much to say about recognising, accepting and adapting certain Japanese methods. That is of great importance. The report also draws attention, although perhaps not quite as much as it might have done, to the special co-operation in Japan between the public and private sectors and the relative freedom from ideological constraints in that regard as they are subsumed under a general imperative of national success which is identified particularly with the success of the economy. That makes the latter factor very important.
Much that is so striking in the industrial and financial success of Japan seems to be due to a totally pragmatic view of where and how collective action —that is to say, state or public sector action —can be of help, and indeed sometimes of decisive importance, in assuring the success of private enterprise working through the market. There is perhaps no highly industrialised country, with the possible exception of France, which has even begun to manage this fusion without what I might call ideological hang-ups.
The report before us strikes the right balance. Above all, it should leave no one in any doubt as to the present and possibly even greater future strength of Japan, particularly if she were to abandon the self-restraint that she seems to have shown in a number of areas, particularly the financial. The report rightly stresses the lack of a clear trade policy towards Japan on the part of the Community, despite the imminence of the completion of the single market and the steps, which I hope are being taken energetically by all concerned, towards further monetary and economic integration. To use the report's words:
"it is essential that the Community pursue common policies and present a common front to Japanese competition".
That, the report argues, is essential, not only because of the present confusion but also, and worse, because of a certain complacency on the part of those sectors of the European (including the UK) economy which are most vulnerable.
The report is thus a warning, not, it is important to stress, out of any basic hostility to Japan, but out of a recognition of the challenge which her success presents and which only those who are unwilling to meet it could regard as a threat.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with other noble Lords I very much welcome the report. Today's debate is also very welcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, reminded us, the common external policy of the European Community is in the hands of the
1362
Commission and the Council of Ministers. So far as is ascertainable, no study or debate has taken place in any other Parliament, including the European Parliament, on the very important document which is now before your Lordships. Therefore, with the expert guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, we in this House have been able to perform a democratic role which I hope will be appreciated by the European Commission and others interested in what is a most important subject for the prosperity not only of the United Kingdom but also of the European Community.
Among other points, I should like to draw attention to the recommendation in paragraph 98 in the summary of conclusions, which are strongly to be recommended. It is stated that the export promotion programme of the Commission should be extended. That programme is, however, under threat.
Many noble Lords have spoken of the necessity of learning the Japanese language. I go much further, and I shall mention specific details, of which I have given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench. In its preliminary draft budget the Commission requested a miserly sum of 7·2 million ecus, increasing by a minimal 1·3 million ecus last year's figure of 5·9 million ecus, for the export promotion programme run by the European Community. Seventy per cent. of that money is spent on the executive training programme, which sends young Europeans to Japan not only to learn the language but to work in Japanese firms for a period of 18 months.
Over the past nine years 315 young people have been sent from the European Community, including 49 British young people who received sponsorship of up to 50 per cent. from the private sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, adumbrated in his opening speech, compared with the number of young Japanese who come to this country and other parts of the European Community to study our system, language and culture, that is a pitifully small number.
I took a cutting from one of those magazines which we all receive, about relations between Japan and the Community. Clearly, the industrial and business ethos of Japan is very different from our own and has to be learnt and understood by our people who go to Japan. The article states that one should,
"Study the market intensively. What was successful at home is no guarantee. Business relationships are nurtured over a long growing period, and patience allied to confidence usually wins in Japan. Perseverence, too".
It also advises:
"Wearing down resistance with repeated calls or new proposals produces results in Japan".
That is something that our people doing business in Japan have to learn. They only learn by practical experience.
Therefore, I hope very much that your Lordship's will support unanimously the proposal that the British Government should support strongly the very modest increase of 1.3 million ecus in the programme which has been proposed by the Commission. It has been supported by the European Parliament and will be raised at the Second Reading of the Budget shortly. I mention that point

1363
specifically because only yesterday the Council turned down the proposal for the additional 1.3 million ecus and agreed only to maintain the figure of 5.9 milliion ecus.
That seems a very small point to raise in this major debate on policy. However, if one does not pay attention to detail one may as well not have a policy. Too much has been said about learning to speak Japanese and Japanese customs. When a simple sum of about £500,000 would create a programme which would increase the number of executive trainees from 50 to 60 a year, surely we could give it our support. I hope that the Government will take note of that urgent request.
Within the same context, there are many business opportunities that have been missed. Two or three years ago when I happened to be in Japan I visited the Tsukuba exhibition on high technology for the year 2000. Anyone who had been into the great pavilions of Marsushita, Sony or other big Japanese firms would no doubt have been appalled when they went into the miserable pavilions of the United Kingdom and the European Community. If one is ever subject to a feeling of shame, which fortunately one is not often, shame would have overcome one. It was a very poor performance. I do not attach blame to any one in particular, but there we had the opportunity to show our best goods for the future interests of Britain in Japan. We should not have refused to spend a little more money to make that exhibition worth while. We had the opportunity and we failed to use it. As we all know, penny-pinching does not get us anywhere.
I turn now to paragraph 105 in the excellent summary. Recent studies have shown that measures designed to protect industrial sectors from effective competition from foreign sources, including Japan, may reduce the ability of those sectors to innovate and grow in the domestic economy and to compete internationally. The memorandum which was submitted by the International Motor Company confirms that view. On page 225 it reads:
"In some areas, protective measures would be advisable during a limited period. Indeed, let us keep in mind the unfortunate example of the European Motor Industry, which after decades of protection is less competitive now than it was 20 years ago".
Of course there are other reasons besides the protective measures that were taken. Nevertheless, that is an indication that the kind of protective measures that are sometimes advocated by this country and by the Community have not achieved the results they set out to achieve. I refer specifically to the anti-dumping measures which have led not only to increasing costs to consumers but in many cases have not achieved their industrial objective.
The situation has been particularly aggravated in the sphere of business equipment. The first thing that every small company starting up in this country will do is to buy a personal computer. Most are of Japanese origin. Most electronic typewriters are of Japanese origin. They all bear very high tariffs in order to protect European industry. But where are those European goods which compete in excellence and standing with those Japanese goods? All that happens is that the small businesses have to put in
1364
capital far in excess of that of their competitors elsewhere outside the Community.
It may be that there should be grounds for having a fall-back position. Nevertheless, I believe that that is a matter which should be taken into account in GATT when revising the anti-dumping rules. I should add that the methodology being used to define dumping and the price mechanism certainly needs to be reviewed in the light of some of the cases that have come before the European Court of Justice. Again, I plead with the Government to give strong consideration to putting a fair and objective case in the GATT negotiations to strengthen the hand of the Commission representatives in arguing for better methods. If one is to have some form of protectionism let it be effective and not to the detriment of the European consumer.
I should like to add that it has been the success of the Japanese economy —together with that of the USA —which has led the European Community to hasten the completion of the single European market, which had originally been evisaged in the Treaty of Rome. In order for the Community to become more competitive in the world market —let us remember that 34 of the top 50 companies in the world are either Japanese or American —the programme must be completed regardless of external political events. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned that point. Whatever happens —and there are major political considerations in Eastern Europe and in regard to the situation in the USSR and our relations with EFTA —I do not believe that the European Community can afford to delay the completion of its 1992 programme and opening up the single European market.
That is in the interests not only of the European Community but of all those countries which trade with us, including Japan. The concept of a "Fortress Europe" is certainly not in the interests of the European Community itself when the volume of our exports represents 20 per cent. of our GDP within the Community. If one includes the EFTA countries, the figure rises to 38 per cent., far exceeding those of the United States or Japan. So clearly we must carry on with that programme in order to create that one market and unite 320 million consumers.
It is perhaps worth mentioning also that the reciprocity clause which caused so much concern both to the United States and to Japan has been considerably amended in the Council's common position on the draft second banking directive. The directive has not yet been adopted but it is clear that the Commission and, I believe, the Council will stand by that much modified reciprocity clause. It does not impose considerable obligations on the Commission when dealing with other countries wishing to set up subsidiaries of banks within the European Community, which so far as I can see is not to the benefit of either the Community or third countries.
While putting our own house in order, there is much that we can learn from the Japanese, including, for example, the commitment of all in a firm —employers and employed —to the success of their company. Many noble Lords have mentioned education and training standards as well as

1365
opportunities for continued training throughout the life of the workers. We have slowly learnt about that and are beginning to put those ideas into practice. They should automatically be part of the best practice of British industry.
When I visited the Marsushita training company in Osaka, one of the most impressive things I was told was that, after a new entrant had spent four or five weeks learning how the company worked, he was sent for three months to a retail outlet to learn what it means to be in contact with a customer, that it was the customer who was right and that customer demand led to the success of the company. Those of us who shop in the United Kingdom would be thankful if trainees here had had such experience.
In conclusion, I should like to think that Europe is beginning to take up the challenge that we are being set by the United States and Japan in order to be more competitive on the world market in international trade. But member states will need to co-operate more closely and must give the Commission the necessary support for it to be able to negotiate trade procedures which will work to the benefit of both competitive suppliers and satisfied consumers, be they European or Japanese.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, there is always a danger in a debate of this character that many of us repeat the same points in different language. I am bound to transgress to some degree in that respect. However, I should prefer to speak not so much about Japan, but about what we in the United Kingdom can learn from Japan.
Forty-five years ago, Japan and Germany were defeated nations ravaged by war and merciless bombing. Both nations are now economically and politically a great deal stronger than we are. The report explains to some degree why that is so in Japan. I am sure that, if there were a similar report on Germany, it would say much the same in different language.
In 1988, the gross domestic product expressed per capita in thousands of dollars was 23·3 in Japan, 19·6 in the United States and 14·1 in Britain. Between 1980 and 1986, the increase in the GDP on average each year in Japan was 6·6; in the United States it was 3·2; and in Britain it was 2·3. A short time ago the Office of Fair Trading reported that in many sectors of our industry import penetration, despite the enormous increased costs of transport and handling, was as high as 50 per cent. Total import penetration, it said, amounted to 17 per cent. of our manufacturing capacity. The report added that no less than 20 per cent. of our total manufacturing capacity was represented by overseas operators carrying on business in this country. All those figures may become more adverse to the United Kingdom in 1992.
We have watched the pound steadily weaken. I do not believe that the pound can be held steady by keeping interest rates high and drawing on the reserves of the Bank of England. We shall maintain a firm pound only by reducing the heavily adverse balance of payments. That can be done only by
1366
increasing the volume of our industrial output and its quality. In the last 25 years there have been 23 different Secretaries of State looking after industry in this country. It is not surprising that we cannot hold a consistent or dynamic industrial policy.
Perhaps we may now consider why Japan has been forging ahead. Its economic machine has grown steadily year after year and is sustained by continuity in national policy. In industry the creed in Japan is quality of product, quality of presentation of goods and punctuality of delivery. In every project and enterprise in which Japan engages, its penetrating analysis is extremely thorough and well done. Japan's expenditure on research and development is very large and relatively much stronger than it is in this country. In every enterprise in industry, Japan is prepared to take a long-term view. In this country, partly due to the attitude of fund managers, we require industry to show a much shorter period of pay-off.
Japan's personnel management is extremely good. The Japanese take immense pains over the selection of the workforce and over their training. They have the capacity to motivate staff. Their labour relations are good. To that extent, the traditional functions of the trade unions as they operate in this country are much less significant. When we went to see the Nissan factory in Sunderland, we: were told that membership of the unions is entirely optional and that only 18 per cent. of the total workforce there belonged to a trade union.
The education policy in Japan breeds production line workers of high quality. The House will have noticed in The Times yesterday that 6 million of our workforce are either innumerate or illiterate. By reason of the country's economic strength, Japanese banks are immensely wealthy. We were put on notice by witnesses who came before the Select Committee that by the end of the century Japan intends to overtake London as a financial centre.
I have admiration for the Government's achievements in the last 10 years in giving this country a sense of purpose but it is nowhere near sufficient to overtake our once vanquished enemies. There is one bright note of encouragement in the report; namely, that the best in Britain is as good as anything in Japan. Where we fail is that, in the great mass of our activities, the quality below the best is nowhere near adequate. Until that is raised we shall continue to lag behind the nations which are competitors in the way that I mentioned.
In the light of that dismal recital, I wonder whether I can ask the noble Lord, when he replies to the debate, to address himself to two questions. Are the Government willing to put before the nation the reasons why this country is unable to match the achievements of Japan and indeed of Germany —not only to do so once but again and again until it is borne in on the public exactly what we must do to keep our end up and to keep the word "Great" in Great Britain?
Secondly, do the Government have policies, in which case I should like to know what they are, to enable us to overcome this difficulty? It would take at least a generation to achieve even were policies

1367
to be set in hand tomorrow. For that reason it would be interesting to hear from the Opposition Benches what they have in mind for this long period when we have to revive our fortunes. In their turn, how would they do it?
6.11 p.m.
Lady Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about a very much more limited aspect of the matters under discussion than those addressed by the noble Lord. I want to talk about part of what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to as "the long haul", and the efforts of one sector of the European Community's industry working hard to penetrate the Japanese market. I refer to the European whisky industry and in particular the Scotch whisky industry, which makes a most important contribution to the United Kingdom economy and the UK balance of payments.
In their evidence to the committee (at question 94, on page 19 of the report) the Department of Trade and Industry underlined the importance of the Community speaking with one voice in making representations to Japan on commercial matters. That point was picked up in the debate. To illustrate its point the department gave an example of the recent success of the concerted effort by the Community and Her Majesty's Government in persuading Japan that imported whisky should carry the same level of tax as Japanese-produced whisky. As your Lordships will remember, imported whisky had been taxed at two to seven times the level of the home product in Japan.
That change, which took effect from 1st April this year, has been important to all whisky producers in the UK and the Community. Indeed doubtless it is a major factor in the increase in the exports of Scotch whisky to Japan this year. I am advised that to the end of September this year, compared with the same period last year, total exports of Scotch whisky to Japan increased 40 per cent. in volume and 89 per cent. in value and "bottled in Scotland" exports have increased 45 per cent. in volume and 73 per cent. in value.
The success of that concerted effort by the Community and Her Majesty's Government followed years of external pressure, including a GATT judgment against Japan. It has to be said that if the GATT judgment is to be fully implemented and the taxation of whisky is to be fair, a number of important steps still have to be taken. In Japan whisky, whether imported or Japanese, is still taxed at a rate some three times as high as other spirits such as gin, vodka, rum and shochu. The effect of that, as well as inhibiting the sale of whisky, has probably been noticed by those of your Lordships who have lately been in Japan.
Appearing on the Japanese market are what are known as whisky-like products —drinks which are like whisky but which are not in fact whisky. Those drinks are taxed at the lower rate for spirits other than whisky and people in Japan are being misled into drinking what they think is whisky at a bargain price when in fact they are not drinking whisky at
1368
all. Representations about this matter and the weak Japanese government guidelines which allow it have been made at the highest level by our Government in co-operation with the rest of the Community. We have all read in the press of the efforts made personally by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland on their respective visits to Japan. It seems however that so far no changes in the guidelines about whisky-like drinks have been made and Japan, as yet, has given no indication of when it plans to honour the GATT judgment in full and reduce the tax difference between competing spirits to de minimis levels.
Therefore I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench two questions. Are the Government satisfied that the Japanese Government have taken the necessary steps to deal with the misleading sale of whisky-like products which are taxed at a lower rate than genuine whiskies? When do the Government, in conjunction with the Community, plan to insist that Japan honours the GATT obligations in full?
My third question relates very briefly to the fairness of import duty. Import duty on bottled Scotch whisky entering Japan is six times as high as the duty on Japanese whisky entering the Community. Moreover, Scotch whisky is subject to higher rates of import duty than other whiskies imported into Japan. So finally I ask my noble friend what steps the Government and the Community are taking to bring about a reduction in these unfair rates of duty levied on imported whisky and, above all, on imported Scotch whisky entering Japan.
We all appreciate the careful and skilled work that has gone into this report. If one of its effects will be to speed up progress in further improving the conditions for fair competition for European whisky exported to Japan, it will be a most valuable result for the Community, for Britain and above all for Scotland.
6.17 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, as a Scot it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, in her plea for Scottish whisky, which certainly has been grossly badly done by in Japan. As a member of the Select Committee I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on his chairmanship of that committee and on his splendid introductory speech, which did not leave very much more for the rest of us to say. At this stage in the debate I find that fellow members of the committee have covered all the points and I shall confine myself to a slight emphasis or enlargement of just one or two matters.
In seeking reasons for Japan's success, I noticed that all speakers tonight referred to some non-economic reason such as consensus or harmony and those sorts of things. I should like to put it in my own way. While Japanese success has been in Western business and Western technology, in fact it is deeply rooted in a society that is totally different from that of the West. The Japanese cult of harmony has served it very well and, as several noble Lords have said, has encouraged a single mindedness of

1369
purpose and harmony of industrial, commercial, bureaucratic and political relationships which are enviable to those in the West. It has greatly assisted continuity and predictability in the political, industrial, commercial and educational policies on which success has been based. Our committee concluded that Japan thus represented not just competition but a philosophical and stimulating challenge to some Western practices.
We set out our suggestions for responses in a wide number of fields. I should like to touch upon two. The first is the need for an improvement in our knowledge of Japan. This has been most eloquently referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Butterworth, and others. However, the fact is that for over a century Japan has invested heavily in the study of the languages, laws, technology and business methods of the West. In due course this has led to successful operation in Western countries and investment in them.
However, no comparable effort has yet been made by the West, although I realise that some beginnings are now being made. I would therefore draw your Lordships' attention to our committee's proposal that it is in businesses' own interests to help fund a great expansion in the teaching of the Japanese language and Japanese business methods. Perhaps I should declare an interest as the chairman of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
As have other speakers, I welcome the Government's excellent Opportunity Japan campaign and the similar smaller campaigns organised by the Commission to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred. But these require expansion and much greater complementary action by the private sector.
I should like to emphasise one other point that I do not think has been made. In promoting their interests in Japan, members of the EC appear to be in danger of falling between two stools. As national units, they lack the clout that the European Community might have, but as a Community it has as yet scarcely developed a habit of action or a sufficient Commission representation in Japan. As many witnesses pointed out, Japan is not a country in which occasional national high level missions can achieve much in themselves, welcome though they can be. Results have to be negotiated patiently and at many political, bureacratic and commercial levels. There is no short cut. At present embassies of member states are equipped to do that. But obviously they can speak only for themselves. The Commission's representation is small in comparison and, according to witnesses, inadequately supported by Brussels.
It was against that background that the committee concluded:
"Formation of a trade policy towards Japan and assertion of the Community's effectiveness in pursuing it, should be one of the Community's highest priorities".
I hope that in reply the Minister will have something to say about the Committee's suggestion that in this aspect the United Kingdom should take a lead.
The United Kingdom's relationship with Japan has been one of political and cultural friendship. This
1370
bilateral relationship is of great value and certainly should continue. However, in the economic field we have to accept that Japan has now become one of the great and most powerful rapidly growing economies of the world. In our own interests it is time so to organise the Community that where and when necessary it can assert its position as also one of the three great economies of the world and deal with Japan as it should, on a basis of equality and strength as well as one of respect and co-operation.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I intervene briefly. I am sure that it is some dreadful error on my part that has led to my name being inadvertently omitted from the list. If it is any consolation to noble Lords, as it is to me, many of the points that I would have made have been made —and much more effectively —by previous speakers.
I shall repeat one point. It is the debt which both the committee and the House owe to the fine leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, as chairman of the sub-committee, r ot only for the report but for the entire period of his service as chairman.
I wish to concentrate in particular on Japanese investment overseas and on some of the implications that exist for the United Kingdom. However, first, we must keep this in proportion. Between 1985 and 1988 Japan invested overseas less than 3 per cent. of its gross fixed capital formation. West Germany and the US each invested a little over 4 per cent. of their gross fixed capital formation, In those same years Britain invested over 18 per cent. of its gross fixed capital formation. Whether that is a mark of lack of confidence, or more of a lack of confidence in our economy than the Japanese have in theirs, is not a matter for debate on this occasion.
I wish to examine Japanese investment in Europe. The principal reason given by my noble friend Lord Northfield is that it is seen by Japan as a means of getting past European tariff walls. I do not complain about that; it is perfectly reasonable. It is also perfectly reasonable that in Europe we should establish minimum reasonable conditions to access in this way, for example, with regard to the participation of European firms in construction in this country. We have heard about some of the problems concerning participation by European firms in Japanese construction. There is also a propensity by some Japanese firms establishing themselves in this country, to use Japanese rather than British construction firms. I heartily endorse the need to attract not only the main manufacturers and assemblers, but also Japanese manufacturers of components. We also need to develop R&D capacity.
We can expect Japanese firms to engage in good industrial relation practices. On that score I have no complaint. I do not talk about setting down conditions as a covert means of excluding Japanese investment; quite the contrary. I value the contribution of Japanese firms to the UK's industrial performance and, to a growing extent, to UK industrial relations also.

1371
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked about restrictive practices in shipbuilding. I shall come to that. However, perhaps I may emphasise that industrial relations in Japanese firms, as in British firms, have to be seen in the total context in which they operate. The context in which Japanese industrial relations have developed has been described. I need not expand on it.
The Civil Service —not so much the politicians, but the civil servants —the financial institutions, the unions and the press have got together, and continue to do so, to reflect on their common future, to promote detailed and comprehensive market research, to finance collectively industrial research and to identify products and processes that will be needed. They bring all these considerations to the point where they become a commercially practicable activity. At that point they leave the firms to compete tooth and claw for market share.
I emphasise the fact that through their unions Japanese workers have invariably been involved in this process at national level and, more importantly, in their firms. Japanese industrial relations are based on consensus and the principle of neutrality. That is in sharp contrast with many firms in the UK, although not all, and in marked contrast with the attitude of the present Government towards workpeople and their unions.
The noble Lord, Lord Roll, reminded us that the Japanese company is seen as a family and, to a large extent, as the property of its employees. For better or for worse the central purpose of the Japanese company is seen by its management as the provider and protector of employment. Hence, there are no predatory takeovers. The Japanese say that you do not sell your kith and kin; you do not sell your family into servitude. Employees are treated as responsible people and therefore they act in a responsible way.
There are exceptions. Often, in firms manufacturing components —those who must produce their goods just in time at the door of the assembly unit —there are deplorable conditions and a lack of continuity and security of employment. However, one is talking in this debate about the larger firms; those which are household names in this country, which invest here and which can set a pattern for us.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about restrictive practices in shipbuilding. I do not pretend to try to explain those away; they happened. The TUC spent a great deal of time trying to abolish them, often with success. However, they must be seen in the context in which they happened. The Japanese do not need to impose such restrictions.
I should like to give an illustration by describing an incident which happened during my first visit to Japan in the early 1980s. I visited a Nissan plant and spoke to a number of the shop stewards following a most impressive tour. I asked what redundancy agreements they had. Although he spoke English extraordinarily well one of the stewards looked blank. I said, "What arrangements do you have if people are being laid off or sacked because there
1372
are problems in production or because there is no work?" He said, "We do not have any such agreements. We do not need them. If there is going to be a problem our management expect to be able to identify it some time ahead, come to us and tell us that we shall have problems in the sale of this article or the manufacture of another. We must think about what we are going to do two, three or four years ahead in order to meet this. We sit down together, discuss and argue. We give our opinions and views and through that process we find ways of solving the issue before it becomes a problem. So there is no question of people being laid off. The managers know that they are stuck with us and that they are expected to find employment for us. They and we together will make it possible to maintain that situation."
Any talk of restrictions and restrictive practices becomes nonsensical. That is the great secret of the Japanese success in industrial relations. It is interesting to see how British workpeople have responded and how they have produced results which evoke praise from Japanese management. We hear of no-strike and pension agreements—the outward visible signs of an inner state of industrial grace. These are the consequences and not the causes of good industrial relations. The causes lie much deeper in the attitude of Japanese management and its willingness to treat its employees as responsible people.
I do not suggest for one instance that we should slavishly copy Japanese methods and practices. In British factories —in Telford, Sunderland and elsewhere —they adapt to the local situation. However, I suggest that we can reflect and learn from experience. The Government should not dismiss as co-operatives or as creeping socialism the suggestions that UK industry, industrial performance and industrial relations might benefit from mutuality and consensus.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, first, I apologise to your Lordships and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for being absent during his opening speech. That was due to my having to examine the Chancellor's Autumn Statement before venturing to make my observations upon it to the Government.
In our view, the report is a good example of the excellent and thorough work carried out by Select Commitees of your Lordships' House. We should bear in mind that it is the result of the dedicated work of noble Lords who sat on the committee for long hours and after considerable research into the documents which they received. In our view, it reflects most creditably upon them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, appears to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of trade and industry. It is clear that he was able to subject witnesses to a pretty severe cross-examination based on a detailed knowledge of the subjects upon which they gave evidence. Before the committee's deliberations began there had for some time been grave misgivings

1373
within the European Community —and to some extent within the United Kingdom —about two aspects of Japanese trade with the EC. The first was the apparent difficulty of EC countries to gain access to the Japanese market. The second was the dangers, as they were then apprehended, of Japanese penetration into EC markets. The report states at page 5 that in its report the European Commission spoke of tensions between the Community and Japan.
Therefore, it is worthy of note that after hearing all the evidence which initially bore upon those points the net result is a brief mention in the report to those two aspects. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has already said, the really important mention is in the words at paragraph 105 on page 27:
"In certain circumstances, limited protection for threatened or infant high technology industries is approporiate. The Community should seek to pursue such remedies in GATT".
That is the only substantial comment in the committee's report on the matters that were originally the course of tension, or thought to be the source of tension, between Japan and the Community, although I was very happy to note as an expatriate Scot the battle fought by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on behalf of Scotch whisky, which has a few friends in this House.
The real problem to which the committee ultimately had to address itself was to ask, perhaps sometimes unconsciously, how it was that Japan had managed to get to her existing position of pre-eminence. As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, pointed out to us, in a speech which fortunately reproduced a number of statistics which I was going to inflict upon your Lordships, here we have a country, an offshore island in very much the same way that Britain has by some faint hearts here at home been regarded as offshore the Continent of Europe. Although its population is double ours, Japan stands in the same offshore position to large continents, and yet it somehow has not found it necessary to take shelter in a larger organisation.
We have been discussing today how the great Continent of Europe, with 320 million population occupying a vast area, is to bring itself into a position where it can match Japan. There must be some reason for this. Here we have a country defeated in war, some of its territories devastated —and devastated in a manner that none of us at the time really apprehended —which has little or no oil resources, very little indigenous fuel, and certainly has not had the benefit of £73 billion which Britain has derived from its North Sea oil resources. How is it, therefore, that these people and this nation of Japan have attained a position of such great eminence?
I shall offer a view which I think will find echoes in, and indeed may itself echo, the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Butterworth and Lord Roll, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Northfield and others. There is such a thing as Japanese society. Would some members of the Government, whose Prime Minister has said that there is no such thing as society, ponder the truth in that statement?
1374
The fact of the matter is that the real reason Japan and the Japanese people have made such progress is that they have not been subjected to the harsh, divisive and often cruel treatment of part of their population at the hands of a government who should know better, who do not believe in consensus and in fact despise consensus as wet and sloppy; who believe in competition in its rawest form and who are prepared to leave the entire fate of a country and all its people, the wealthy and the very poor, to plain, impersonal market forces.
Japan is the precise opposite of that, because it has a mixed economy. Japan has substantially the same political parties as the United Kingdom, and there are conflicts between them as to the rights, duties and benefits of various types of its citizens. There is the normal democratic party conflict in Japan. Indeed, just as in this country of ours, there are the occasional financial scandals that hit the headlines. We in this country are not entirely exempt from them. But above all Japan has a consensus and is able to plan forward over a period of as long as five or 10 years. They believe in long-termism as distinct from short-termism. They believe in long-term and sustained prosperity in preference to the quick buck.
The way that it is done, which is brought out admirably in the report, is through MITI, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which does forward planning in conjunction with leading firms, in conjunction with trade unions, in conjunction with banks and in conjunction with government itself. It prepares a plan of general trend —not in detail, but the broad targets that are required and the conditions that are needed to meet them.
It is not done by diktat or by regulation. From what I have been able to read of the evidence and from the information I have gathered by listening to some of it, it is done by a process of leaning. If MITI wants something done, it leans on the people to get its own way. Ultimately a consensus emerges, and ultimately also the will to carry it out emerges, because one thing the Japanese people have which is abundantly clear —the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and other noble Lords who have participated in this debate made reference to this —is a sense of purpose. That sense of purpose reflects itself not in holding back assistance, such as the assistance of taxpayers where industry and the implementation of a plan requires assistance. It is a forthcoming co-operation, particularly, for example, in the field of research and development to which many noble Lords have referred.
There are lessons in this for Britain. The lessons surely are there. We are a sophisticated nation from the point of view of having a long history and culture. Surely by this time we ought to be able to establish in peacetime the same kind of consensus that appears naturally to us in time of war. We ought to be able to establish a national purpose equivalent to that which has been the mainspring of Japanese success. We can learn from their example and many instances have been given today showing that workers in Japan are not regarded as digits or statistics, or collected together in one impersonal title under the heading

1375
"labour market". They are treated as human individuals with human problems rather than being of little or no account.
Such indeed is the case in many of the larger firms in this country which also follow those precepts, but unfortunately it is not the same for the bulk of those great conglomerates over which people preside and give themselves increases in salaries of around 20 per cent. to 60 per cent. and yet insist on everybody else tightening their belts at or below the inflation rate.
There is the individual concern which is not artificial —the concern by Japanese managers. We have had it in this country —the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has already referred to it —where there is a genuine regard for the people who work there. There is a genuine feeling that they are part of the same enterprise and the same family; a genuine appreciation of the fact that some security is of necessity required by those who work there.
These are matters to which we in this country must address our attention after all our history and all the work that has been done by Britons overseas in establishing a great empire, and later in the Commonwealth. We must consider the whole momentum of British culture and its effect upon the world, not only linguistically but in terms of legal systems and other works. We should never become Weary Willies and Tired Tims regarding ourselves as a mere appendage to the Continent of Europe. We have to establish a sense of national purpose. We have to establish a sense of consensus and we have to carry it into effect.
I do not know about the European Community, but I know that, as regards my own country, we in Britain will ignore the example of Japan at our peril.
6.54 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on bringing this Motion before your Lordships, and the other members of the sub-committee for their thorough and, if I may say so, perceptive report on relations between the Community and Japan. That report and the debate we have had this afternoon demonstrate the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to close and positive relations between the Community and Japan, to an informed understanding of Japan as a political and economic partner and to the lessons for the Community in the commercial and technological successes of the Japanese people.
Your Lordships would not expect me to agree with every detail of such a wide-ranging document. However, its general thrust accords with the Government's views and policies, and those policies have won wide support within the Community. That is reflected in the Commission paper which was the starting point of the committee's work.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose of Beoch and Lord Greenhill of Harrow, I confirm that the Government will continue to work to ensure a co-ordinated, vigorous and effective Community
1376
trade policy towards Japan and the effective representation of that policy in Japan.
I should add that the Government have consistently and successfully advocated to our Community partners a vigorous policy towards Japan, pressing the Japanese to remove obstacles to our business men encouraging our exporters to take advantage of the enormous opportunities in the Japanese market and resisting the short-term appeal of protectionism. This policy is firmly based on the principles of that open and multilateral world trading system which has been the essential foundation for the tenfold growth of world trade since 1950.
If I may draw out some of the key propositions in the Report, they seem to me to be: first, that Japan is an enormous and still vigorously growing economic and technological force in the world; secondly, that there is no secret to this Japanese success. As the report says:
"It is based on high quality, painstaking service to customers, excellent management, thorough research and patient investment".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, emphasised this in his interesting speech. The report goes on to say:
"the methods of Japanese business are the methods of successful business worldwide".
Indeed, if that were not the case and if many British firms did not show similar qualities, it would not be possible for the United Kingdom itself to export the 24 per cent. of output of goods and services which we now achieve. The comparable figure for Japan is 11 per cent.
Thirdly, the overall competitive advantage in many sectors is with Japan at present. That is why a number of companies rightly told your Lordships' committee that any firm which aimed to be globally competitive should have a close awareness of circumstances in Japan, preferably through a permanent presence there. As one witness put it, ignoring Japan is "not an option" for a successful business.
Finally, both the United Kingdom and the Community as a whole need clear and informed policies to provide the best possible environment for our companies to match and strive to surpass their Japanese competitors worldwide as well as in Japan itself.
There have been two important developments within Japan itself. The first is the progressive removal of trade barriers to the point at which there are now very few of any significance to British business. Much of that progress has been achieved as a result of concerted Community action over a number of years, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow. The second is the strong expansion of domestic demand in Japan in recent years which has been accompanied by some movement from exports to domestic-led growth. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, was even concerned about a possible upset in the cultural balance.
Taken together, these two developments have substantially increased the opportunities for foreign exporters to Japan; and my noble friend Lord Jenkin

1377
of Roding has told us about the opening up of the market. Japan's imports of manufactured goods increased by over 90 per cent. in dollar terms between 1986 and 1988. Japan's current account surplus fell by 7 billion dollars to 89 billion dollars in 1988 and by a further 6 billion dollars during the first half of this year.
Community and UK exports have benefited from this; in the case of the UK, growing by 45 per cent. between 1986 and 1988 and by a further 28 per cent. in the first nine months of this year. As recently as 1986 Japan was only our fifteenth largest export market. In the first nine months of this year it stands in tenth place.
An important example of a belated but nonethless welcome dismantling of a significant obstacle to trade is the recent reform of the Japanese liquor tax. As the direct result of a GATT investigation Japan now taxes imported whisky on the same basis as domestically produced whisky whereas previously the tax on the imported product was several times greater.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised some important questions on that issue. In reply I should say that we have welcomed the action taken by the Japanese authorities on the liquor tax while making it clear that we would keep its impact under close review. We have reserved the possibility of further recourse to the GATT since the recommendation of the GATT panel has not been implemented to the extent of removing the differential between the tax charged on whisky and on other spirits. In addition we will press for reductions in the rates of import duty through the current GATT negotiation which is due to be completed in December next year.
We are very conscious of the importance of Scotch whisky exports and the potential problem they face in Japan from new products which qualify for the lower rate of tax but look like whisky.
During her recent visit to Japan my right honourable friend the Prime Minister received assurances from the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kaifu, that his Government appreciated the need to ensure that genuine whisky and these new products were perceived by the consumer as different. He assured my right honourable friend that action would continue to be taken to prevent any deception of the consumer. In the first three months since April this year when the new liquor tax arrangements were implemented the sterling value of our exports of whisky to Japan has more than doubled compared with the same period a year before, as my noble friend told us.
Similar if less spectacular improvements in trading conditions have been made as the result of long-running negotiations between the Commission and the Japanese authorities on safety standards and testing requirements for a wide range of products. For example, in the case of pharmaceuticals, a sector of particular importance to the UK, the Japanese authorities have given undertakings on the acceptance of foreign clinical test data which when implemented should significantly ease the difficulties which our business men have faced so far.
1378
There is still room for improvement in access in certain sectors. The tariff quotas en leather and leather footwear and, the high tariffs on certain confectionery products and certain testing rquirements for medical equipment are still unacceptable obstacles to certain British products. On the services side there has been a long drawn-out negotiation to secure membership of the Tokyo stock exchange for all the British firms which seek it. Access is limited in certain other areas of Japan's investment and insurance markets, and foreign lawyers are, as in some other countries, subject to restrictive conditions of work.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to press for a satisfactory resolution to all these remaining difficulties. The Community also continues to encourage Japan to undertake structural reform of its domestic economy: such action could contribute to a further reduction in Japan's global current account surplus by stimulating domestic consumption. Points for action were agreed by OECD Ministers in June this year and at the summit meeting of the major industrialised countries in Paris in July.
During her visit to Japan in September my right honourable friend the Prime Minister emphasised that it was in the interests of Japan it self as well as of the international community as a whole for Japan to undertake such structural reforms. This is increasingly recognised in Japan where I understand that there is a growing debate on what measures of deregulation could contribute to reducing land prices and improving the system for the distribution of goods. A reform of Japan's extremely high levels of agricultural support and protection would also reduce a substantial distortion of Japan's domestic economy to the benefit of consumer and importer alike. We are seeking this on a multilateral basis in the current GATT Uruguay round negotiations.
Nevertheless the need to maintain this pressure should not obscure the fact that for the vast majority of manufactured goods Japan is already an open market and potentially an extremely profitable one.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the Government agree that the air services and fares area is a very important one where there is a need for significant further liberalisation. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised this matter during her recent visit to Japan. The Secretary of State for Transport and other members of the Government will continue to press the Japanese Government on the need for more liberal arrangements with respect to capacity, the routing of air services and more flexible arrangements for approving air fares to allow the airlines to become more market responsive.
As regards construction, it has to be recognised that construction business is unlikely to be won in Japan by foreign firms except as a result of a lengthy period of local commitment. Only then can Japanese assertions that its construction market is open be fully tested. The Department of Trade and Industry strongly advises leading British construction companies with trans-national operations to consider seriously the case for a permanent presence

1379
in Japan both as a source of intelligence and as a means of developing business with Japanese companies in the longer term in third markets as well as in Japan itself. As my noble friend said, we must persevere and not take no for an answer.
Our responsibility to maximise the opportunities in Japan for our business men is matched by our determination to ensure that those business men are aware of the opportunities which already exist and to assist them in responding to the challenge of this important and demanding market. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, welcomed the Department of Trade and Industry's initiative in launching the Opportunity Japan campaign early in 1988 to alert British industry and commerce to the greatly improved conditions for trading in Japan and to encourage more effective long-term engagement in the market. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding also paid due tribute to the DTI in setting up this campaign. In 1988 some 750 business leaders attended campaign meetings throughout the country at which they were briefed on the broader strategic issues. By the end of this year, a similar number will have attended a series of sectoral seminars at which they are being briefed in greater depth on current opportunities in their own fields. Feedback from campaign events indicates that the campaign is succeeding in having a positive influence on firms' export strategies for Japan as well as providing useful market intelligence.
The report rightly drew attention to the paramount need for British business to have at its disposal staff who not only have a solid commercial and technical background but also a good knowledge of the language and culture of the market in which they operate. I am not speaking about the provision of academic specialists in the Japanese language or culture, important though those are, but of business people who have a capability in Japanese in addition to their other professional skills.
In order to help fill this gap the DTI has offered to share with the private sector the cost of increasing the number of Japanese language speakers with commercially relevant skills. My noble friends Lord Butterworth and Lord Jenkin of Roding welcomed that in their concern for training in the Japanese language.
The DTI is making available over £1.6 million to British educational institutions over a period of four years for this purpose. I am pleased to report that their response has shown an encouraging degree of interest in developing suitable commercially-oriented courses. To assess the many proposals received the DTI is assisted by an expert and senior advisory committee of linguists and business men chaired by Sir Peter Parker.
The committee invited interested institutions to propose courses which would, without compromising very high language standards, present those language studies either alongside other subjects in an undergraduate course, or as an intensive postgraduate course for graduates of other disciplines. Five institutions have now been selected to provide such courses, subject to the satisfactory
1380
outcome of detailed negotiation—the Universities of Essex, Sheffield, Stirling and Warwick and London University's School of Oriental and African Studies, of which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, is the chairman of the governors.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, did the Minister give a figure of £1.6 million over four years? If he did, is that not a grossly inadequate figure, given the challenge?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can confirm that the figure I gave was the correct figure. I do not think I should comment on whether or not it is adequate. When fully operational this scheme will double the output of Japanese speaking graduates from about 70 to 140 a year.
The Government also support similar efforts at Community level, such as the excellent Community Executive Training Programme, for executives nominated by Community firms, which offers one year of intensive language training in Japan followed by a secondment of six months to a Japanese company.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for raising the subject of the Community's budget for trade promotion in Japan. The figure of 5.9 million ecu which she quoted is for a wide range of trade promotional activities. There is no reason why the executive training programme should not be maintained, or indeed increased, within that amount of money, if necessary at the expense of other, less well focused and useful, activities. In our view, the executive training programme is the most valuable of the Commission's promotional activities of which we are aware and we are pressing the Commission to maintain expenditure on it, and to increase that expenditure if there is sufficient demand from business.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will be prepared to press for the increase to 7.2 million ecu, which was what the Commission demanded in order to have a slightly more realistic programme? With the present sum there are only 50 executive trainees per year. The Commission wants to increase that number to at least 60. Even 60 is a minimal number when one considers the overall problem which faces the United Kingdom and the Community vis à vis Japan. Will the Government support this demand for the increase? It is demanded both by the Commission and by the European Parliament. About 70 per cent. of the sum goes entirely on the executive training programme. Only 30 per cent. is used for other promotional assistance, coming out of the export promotion programme. The majority of the money goes to trainees and sends them to Japan. So far as I can make out, it is the only relevant programme to send trainees to Japan to work in Japanese firms, over and above just learning the language.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have said that we will press the Commission to maintain expenditure and to increase this expenditure if there is sufficient demand from business. I shall certainly bring the

1381
remarks of my noble friend to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
An important part of the evidence taken by the committee related to the question of "matching Japan"; that is, what we can learn from Japan's successes and the appropriate policy response to them, a point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his remarks. The report rightly observes that one important foundation of Japanese success has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, a willingness to adapt and learn from other countries, identifying the best and then seeking to improve on it. That is a sensible approach for us to adopt in relation to Japan. As one British exporter has put it:
"the important issue is to recognise that Japan will play an increasingly important role in the development and application of new technologies and, therefore, is of fundamental strategic importance in the formulation of future objectives".
The fact is that, if one is not closely monitoring commercial and technological developments in Japan—and competing in the Japanese market itself—one is very likely before very long to be at a serious disadvantage against Japanese competition in markets in the rest of the world.
Science and technology co-operation between the Community and Japan is already quite extensive. Although there is room for further improvement, the United Kingdom is second only to the United States among the developed economies in the number of its researchers now working in Japan. This enables them to build up their contacts within, and understanding of, the Japanese system, and keeps them abreast of Japanese scientific and technological ideas.
The report rightly emphasises the importance of industry's own funding of R&D, which is an important foundation of Japan's success. In the United Kingdom this has grown rapidly over the four years to 1987, increasing by about 30 per cent. in real terms. As a percentage of GDP, the position in the United Kingdom is now comparable to the United States, and better than in France or Italy. Since our company sector is now in a very strong position—profitability is at record levels, as is industrial investment—the Government look forward to further real increases in industry funding of R&D.
We are also strongly committed to the European Community's current framework programme for the promotion of science and technology. United Kingdom organisations obtain between 18 and 20 per cent. of the funding available from this —3.7 billion programme.
No discussion of "learning from Japan" would be complete without mentioning the increase of Japanese direct investment in the Community. The United Kingdom continues to be the preferred location for Japanese investment, with well over 30 per cent. of the European total. We have been particularly encouraged by a number of substantial investment decisions announced during the past year, including the Fujitsu and Toyota projects, and, most recently, the decision by the Murata company. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, told us about
1382
the success of Telford in attracting 16 Japanese companies.
Investment from Japan represents only a small proportion of all foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. I know that my noble friend Lord Butterworth has indicated clearly his concern about the level of investment. Up to the end of 1987, only 3.5 per cent. of our stock of foreign direct investment had come from Japan, compared with 50 per cent. from the United States. We would welcome more.
The sub-committee has recommended that more should be done to ensure that Japanese companies site high-technology and research and development operations within the Community. It has also advocated the imposition by the Community of minimum local content requirements for inward investment. The Government agree wholeheartedly about the importance of attracting high-tech and R&D projects—the benefits of technology transfer can be considerable. We particularly encourage this type of investment. But we are firmly opposed to the idea that local content requirements should be made a condition of inward investment. Such an arrangement would be incompatible with the GATT, as I think my noble friend Lady Elles would agree, which, greatly to our advantage, prohibits this kind of discrimination.
It would also be contrary to the Government's objective of encouraging freer flows of international investment from which we benefit as both a major exporter and importer of investment. Moreover to impose restrictions on inward investment would be inconsistent with the objective, alike of the Community and the United Kingdom, of securing a more liberal investment regime worldwide. We see this as an important corollary to the open-world trading system to which all GATT signatories are already committed.
Nevertheless, while the Government give a warm welcome to all inward investment from Japan, we naturally wish to maximise the benefits to the economy. In a number of cases inward investors have recognised this and have volunteered to source at least a substantial percentage of their components from within the Community. Such undertakings are welcome. They are not legally enforceable. However, for any product to enjoy the benefits of Community origin, the basic rule is that "the last substantial manufacturing process" must have been carried out in the Community. This means that inward investors already have a strong incentive to carry out a significant local manufacturing process.
So far as concerns trade measures, the sub-committee has recommended that in certain circumstances protection for threatened or infant industries is appropriate, and that the Community should seek to pursue remedies in GATT. The Government welcome the emphasis which the sub-committee has placed upon the need for trade policy measures to be consistent with the GATT. It also takes the view that any resort to protective measures under the GATT must be fully justified in economic terms, including the consumer interest to which my noble friend Lady Elles drew our attention.

1383
The report also drew attention to the importance of fostering the global competitiveness of our economy. The evidence taken by the committee included a variety of opinions about the role of so-called "industrial policy" in Japan.
In learning from abroad the Japanese have had the wisdom to look at the basic principles and, in applying those principles, to do so through their own institutions and in the light of local circumstances. Perhaps nothing is so futile as transplanting the empty shell of a policy or an institution rather than the underlying principle which gave it vigour in its original home.
The sub-committee's report clearly indentifies the basic ingredients of Japanese success as diligence, a willingness and capacity to learn and to improve, close attention to quality and the desires of the consumer, and, I would emphasise, a strong competitive spirit and will to succeed. The key question posed by that success is not which "magic formula" we can adopt but which policies, adapted to our own circumstances, will foster those same basic qualities.
The Government agree that commercial success depends on the ability to identify and to satisfy consumer tastes. In the UK, at any rate, this has to be the responsibility of individual firms: they know their products and their markets and their survival and growth depends on getting these decisions right. The involvement of government in a more collective approach to commercial decisions has been tried in the past. I understand from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that he would like to see a return to that situation. However, it was not a success; it merely demonstrated the limitations of Ministers and civil servants as commercial decision-takers and the dangers of fudged responsibility.
The approach of this Government has been to leave to individual businessmen the specific decisions which they are uniquely qualified to take and to concentrate on fostering an environment in which businesses can most easily prosper. The Government are happy for the merits of their approach, and of the corporatist alternative, to be judged on the facts. Manufacturing output and investment now stand at record levels; growth in manufacturing productivity was higher in the UK than in any other major industrial country in the 1980s and profitability in manufacturing is now at its highest level for 20 years.
The Japanese themselves are in no doubt about the business climate in Britain. We regularly win a higher proportion of Japanese investment in the Community than any other member state.
We are grateful to the sub-committee for its excellent report and to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate today. As the committee's report acknowledges:
"There is no secret to Japanese success".
However, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, wanted to unlock that secret. There are lessons for the Community, and not least for Community
1384
companies as well as for Community governments. I would suggest that the first is the benefit which Japanese companies have derived from taking the long-term view. The second lesson is that many Japanese companies are conscious of a need to plan their development in terms of the global market. They also take care to study and learn from the best of international practice.
The third lesson is that the best Japanese companies are driven by the desire to excel at a global level and to out-compete both their Japanese and international competitors on the basis of thorough preparation and assiduous research. Finally, it must be noted that their efforts are directed towards achieving the highest quality and the greatest level of consumer satisfaction.
The best of our companies already apply those principles successfully. The Government are determined to continue to foster an environment in which even more of them will be encouraged to do so in the future.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, in winding up the debate I should like first to thank all noble Lords who took part. I think it has been a most interesting debate. All of the speeches were profound. They were illuminated by great wisdom and in many cases by great personal experience of Japanese as well as of world affairs. I should also like to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply to the points made in the report. Perhaps I may also respectfully congratulate him on the way in which he delivered his speech.
On the other hand, I did not feel that the Minister's speech dealt with some of the overarching worries which came through from so many of your Lordships' contributions. I do not always share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but one senses that the Government look into a mirror of their own devising and are absolutely dazzled by their reflection.
I thought that the Minister dismissed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, as "interesting". In my view it was far more than interesting; it was a warning to this country in the most sombre terms imaginable. When I was drafting the notes for my speech I thought of concluding by saying that the situation was sombre but I crossed that word out and put "challenging" in its place. However, after hearing the speeches from all sides of the House today I wish that I had stuck to "sombre".
Moreover, much as I respect the way in which the noble Viscount replied to the debate, and although his remarks were very constructive as regards some of the detailed points set out in the report, I do not think for one moment that either he or the Government have fully taken on board the fact that in the next century Britain may be a major has-been. Unless there is a vital change in the way we run our affairs, that will be an inevitable outcome.
In asking the House to take note of this report I can only say that I am extremely pleased and gratified by the attention which it has received. Finally, I should like to express my thanks to everyone concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Hotel and Catering) Order 1989
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order was made under Section 11 of the Industrial Training Act 1982 and is presented for debate as it involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the hotel and catering industry to this country. It provides employment for some 1.5 million people in over 215,000 establishments, large and small, and makes a major contribution to incoming tourism. The Hotel and Catering Board has a number of significant achievements to its credit. Those achievements provide a firm foundation for the new voluntary arrangements that were announced in the other place on 8th November.
The levy is the last to be raised by the board in its statutory capacity. It represents a single 1.9 per cent. in place of two separate 1 per cent. levies for 1989–90 and 1990–91 and a delayed changeover. That alternative has the highly desirable effect of reducing the burden on industry and making significant savings on the overheads by removing the cost of administering a second levy.
Companies with payrolls of £75,000 or less will not be required to pay levy. That should exclude from levy about 70 per cent. of all employers within the board's scope. The board forecasts that the levy proposals will raise about —2.5 million. That will effectively maximise the contribution to the ongoing asset base for the benefit of the industry. The asset base will be fully protected by the charitable status attached to it.
The levy proposals were approved unanimously by the board and are strongly supported by the employers' associations in the industry.
The proposals have been approved by the board and by the Training Commission. They will assist the board to continue its work within the industry and sustain its ongoing activities while it moves from statutory to independent training organisation status. I commend them to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee.].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the order, which, as the Minister said, was unanimously approved by the board and the Training Commission. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. He is of course right to say that the hotel and catering industry in this country is immensely important and that training in it is also of maximum importance.
However, I cannot help but say that this side of the House regrets the fact that this will be the last
1386
occasion upon which there will be such an order and levy. The House will be aware, because of discussions on the Employment Bill which was recently before it, that this side of the House regrets the passing of boards with a statutory role and an ability to raise a levy. We hope that the new voluntary arrangements will have the desired effect and that the voluntary system will produce the kind of training we consider necessary in this and other industries. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some concern to us that yet again we are hoping to achieve effective training through employer-led arrangements only, as it is our view that in the past such arrangements have not delivered the goods so far as training is concerned. It merely remains for me to thank the Minister again and say that we welcome the order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the order. I may have missed something in another place because from what the noble Earl said I am not sure of the significance of the date of 31st March 1990. Will he confirm that that means that the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board is to be wound up on or before that date? I am not altogether clear why the amount of the levy is as much as 1.9 per cent. I would be grateful if the noble Earl would elaborate on that point.
I share some of the more general feelings expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. The House will recall that on Third Reading of the Employment Bill recently, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that an announcement about the changing statutory role of industry training boards generally was to be made shortly. Is the Minister now in a position to give us a clear indication of when that may be? I am thinking particularly, but not exclusively, of the construction industry for which, because of the high degree of labour mobility, a strong case can be made for the continuation of statutory training and the retention of a levy system of funding.
It is important that all those employed by the various boards should know as soon as possible what their position is. That applies also to all those affected by the boards' operations. Subject to those comments and questions, I am happy, on behalf of my noble friends, to accept the order.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their contributions. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the HCTB is due for reconstitution on 29th March 1990 and is likely to be reconstituted for 12 months to permit an orderly transition to the new voluntary arrangements. I hope that goes some way towards answering that question. With regard to the levy, the proposal is in effect a final levy prior to wind up represented as a single 1.9 per cent. exemptable levy in lieu of two separate levies of 1 per cent. for 1989–90 and 1990–91. The proposals are in essence in line with those already in force. They continue to make provision for exemption and include an

1387
exclusion level for small firms. The proposals were agreed by the board without dissent at its meeting in July 1989 and have the full support of the employers' associations in the industry.
With regard to the noble Lord's final question on industrial training boards, the Government announced on 8th November that the proposals from the six industrial training boards to move to voluntary and independent arrangements had been accepted. At the same time the Government agreed to continuing statutory arrangements for the construction industry and the engineering construction sector. Further to that I can give the noble Lord no accurate date.
When I opened the debate I made it clear that the proposals represented a last levy on the hotel and catering industry. They are required to fund the administration of the HCTB's statutory role and to protect a sound financial base for the future voluntary and independent arrangements. The industry has approved the proposals and the Government accept that they are necessary. They also take account of the Government's policy for the future of industrial training. I commend the order for your Lordships' approval so that the board's work can continue and a smooth transition to voluntary arrangements can be achieved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons earlier this day that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the 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 of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every
1388
respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
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.

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.

Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  VAT TRIBUNAL CHAIRMEN: SALARY
  VAT TRIBUNAL CHAIRMEN: SALARY
  EDUCATION: LOCAL MANAGEMENT SCHEME APPROVALS
  EDUCATION: LOCAL MANAGEMENT SCHEME APPROVALS
  AIDS: HETEROSEXUAL CASES
  AIDS: HETEROSEXUAL CASES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LEGISLATION BY ORDER IN COUNCIL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LEGISLATION BY ORDER IN COUNCIL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LEGISLATION BY PUBLIC BILL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: LEGISLATION BY PUBLIC BILL
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: UK PRODUCTION
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: UK PRODUCTION
  PRISON DESIGN: ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED
  PRISON DESIGN: ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED
  EC CHAMBER ORCHESTRA GRANT APPLICATION
  EC CHAMBER ORCHESTRA GRANT APPLICATION
  FARMERS' AND GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVES
  FARMERS' AND GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVES
  AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES: PROMOTION
  AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES: PROMOTION
  FOOD FROM BRITAIN: SUPPORT FOR PRIMARY PRODUCERS
  FOOD FROM BRITAIN: SUPPORT FOR PRIMARY PRODUCERS
  ECOFIN COUNCIL MEETING, 13th NOVEMBER 1989
  ECOFIN COUNCIL MEETING, 13th NOVEMBER 1989
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: RELOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS WORK
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: RELOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS WORK
  POLAND: DEBT REPAYMENT
  POLAND: DEBT REPAYMENT
  SENEGAL/MAURITANIA DISPUTE
  SENEGAL/MAURITANIA DISPUTE
  POPULATION: IPU CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
  POPULATION: IPU CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
  DR. JAN CARNOGORSKY
  DR. JAN CARNOGORSKY
  FYLINGDALES RADAR STATION: MODERNISATION
  FYLINGDALES RADAR STATION: MODERNISATION
  TERRORISTS: "KIDNAPPING"
  TERRORISTS: "KIDNAPPING"
  HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION: REVIEW
  HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION: REVIEW
  FOOTBALL CLUB SEATING: FUNDING
  FOOTBALL CLUB SEATING: FUNDING
  KENSINGTON GARDENS: GATE REPAIRS
  KENSINGTON GARDENS: GATE REPAIRS
  RURAL ROADS: RECLASSIFICATION
  RURAL ROADS: RECLASSIFICATION
  MR. SALMAN RUSHDIE
  MR. SALMAN RUSHDIE
  SEVERN TIDAL BARRAGE
  SEVERN TIDAL BARRAGE
  EC GRANTS: ADVICE ON APPLICATIONS
  EC GRANTS: ADVICE ON APPLICATIONS
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND: PRIVATE SECTOR ELIGIBILITY
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND: PRIVATE SECTOR ELIGIBILITY