Sitting of 27 November 1989

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Lords Message (22nd November) relating 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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

    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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    UK OVERSEAS TRADE STATISTICS 1990
    Resolved,
    That there be laid before this House a return of statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1990 and for each month during 1990.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Benefits (Young People)
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18-year-olds.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): We are continuing to monitor the effects of the 1988 reforms. Our overall policy remains correct, but I am pleased to announce that we are making a number of administrative improvements to ensure that all claims from 16 and 17-year-olds are handled more effectively and sympathetically. I will. with permission, put details of these changes in the Library.
    Mr. Murphy: We are grateful to the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that 16 to 18-year-olds have been badly treated as a result of the social security changes? Does she accept that sometimes these young men and women are among the most vulnerable people in our society? When will she listen to the people who matter most in terms of advising her and the Government on these matters—people such as those in the National Association of Probation Officers, the Children's Society and the Salvation Army? All those bodies say that the policies have failed lamentably and need to be reviewed immediately.
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not agree that those young people have been badly treated. There is no need for any of them to be without an income because there is a YTS place for every 16 and 17-year-old in the country—at present there is a surplus of 110,000—together with the accompanying allowance. Our policy has operated without difficulty for the vast majority of young people, and 400,000 are benefiting from YTS. However, our monitoring arrangements, including our close liaison with voluntary groups —some of which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have recently produced reports—show that there have been some difficulties in a small number of cases. We are, therefore, taking steps to ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds are interviewed about their claims for income support unless there is no doubt about their entitlement. All claims will be automatically considered.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present arrangements are a great improvement on those that existed under the previous Labour Government whereby young people were paid welfare benefit and allowed to sit at home without making any attempt to find work or to go on a scheme? The present scheme helps young people to train for the future.
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree that it is in the interests of young people to take advantage of training if they do not wish to continue in education or to take a job. I should like to continue my announcement. All claims will automatically be considered for the severe hardship provision where young people are not otherwise entitled. The rest of the details in the announcement will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I welcome the Minister's announcement. One of the most disturbing conclusions reached by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in its important report produced in October was that the availability of crisis loans and the severe hardship provisions were not being revealed to young homeless people. If the announcement puts that right, I welcome it.
    Will the Minister review the level of benefits available to 16 and 17-year-olds? It seems iniquitous and wrong that somebody who is living independently should be penalised simply because he is young.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the information that is available to those young people. The details of the announcement will be placed in the Library, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are producing a leaflet aimed specifically at the group. It will be produced with the aid of the voluntary organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, which have expressed concern.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of benefit that is available. The Government have responded already to that concern by making the level of benefit available to these young people equal to that for 18 to 24-year-olds. This was announced in July.
    Mr. Barry Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that some parents are cynically pushing children out of their homes to rid themselves of a financial responsibility? It is no fault of the children. Has my hon. Friend any plans to recover some of the costs of the social security benefits from families who are taking this action deliberately so that claims can be made on the social security system?
    Mr. Shephard: We have no such plans, and the Department has no evidence that that is taking place. It is clear that parental action would not be in the interests of young people.
    Mr. Meacher: Instead of the Minister trying to make a statement at Question Time, it would be helpful if the Government came forward with a proper statement at 3.30 pm. How can young people get jobs unless they have somewhere to live? How can they get somewhere to live unless they have the money to pay landlords the large down-payment that they demand? The Government refuse to provide any benefit to young people to make that payment. Do not the Government care about the tens of thousands of young people who are sleeping rough in freezing weather in cardboard boxes?
    Mrs. Shephard: Despite the hon. Gentleman's tone, I welcome him to Opposition Dispatch Box. I say again that there is no need for any young person to be without income. If young people take up the offer and the opportunity of a youth training place, they will receive an allowance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that responsibilities in this area cut across many Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced recently the new measures that his Department is taking. The Government have not ignored young people's housing needs, and 21,000 places have been approved in hostels and shared housing since 1981. Many measures were announced by my right hon. Friend last week and I advise the hon. Gentleman to take careful note of them.

    Community Care
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications for social security benefits of the Government's plans for community care.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government's proposals which were published in the White Paper "Caring for People" on 16 November, will be a substantial improvement on current arrangements.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, the Government's announcement of an increase in income support for next year and the clear commitment in the recent White Paper for preserved income support for existing residents of care homes. Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, the need to uprate preserved income support in the future so as to avoid any erosion of the value of the benefit? Such an erosion would lead to a deterioration in the availability and standard of care home places in the private and voluntary sectors which are so crucial to the Government's plans for community care.
    Mr. Scott: Yes. We have no intention of altering our approach to the uprating statement once we change to the new system. We shall apply exactly the same criteria after 1991.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In considering the Government's response to community care in the White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the problems of many elderly people in private residential care who are forced to spend their weekly personal allowances on things which are necessary for their care because of the inadequacy of income support? Is he aware of the many people who do not have a penny to spend on new underwear, hairdos or even a packet of sweets, who in some instances have to be subsidised by relatives, some of whom are low paid and from low-income families?
    Mr. Scott: I find nothing offensive in relatives helping the elderly in residential or nursing homes with their fees. It was never the intention from the introduction of income support that it should meet the cost of all fees, however high they may be set. We are still confident that the system meets the majority of fees being charged, but other methods of topping up—by relatives, charities and other sources—are a central part of the system.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the community care proposal is really about improving the quality of care, and that the arrangements have enough sensibility to take account of the demographic changes in society in the next 20 years? When I reach the age of 70 in 27 years' time, there will be only two people in work compared with the three people currently in work for every person aged 70.
    Mr. Scott: I reinforce my hon. Friend's observation that the changes have nothing to do with saving money but are about improving the quality of care. The decision whether a person should enter residential care or be supported in his own home should be a financially neutral one for local authorities.

    Pensions
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review his decision not to uprate pensions in line with earnings.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to change the basis on which pensions are uprated.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the result of the Government breaking Labour's link between pensions and earnings is that the single pensioner is being robbed of £12·65 per week and a married couple of £20 per week? Instead of allowing pensioners to share in the nation's increasing wealth, and at a time when the national insurance fund is in surplus to the tune of £10 billion, the Government are cheating pensioners to pay for their tax handouts to the wealthy. Where is the fairness in that? Will the Government think again?
    Mr. Newton: I can confirm that pensioners' incomes as a whole have improved much faster under the present Government than they did under the Labour Government. That is because, above all, of the dramatic drop in inflation —which did so much to erode pensioners' other incomes when Labour was in office. Under this Government, pensioners' total net incomes have on average risen by one quarter, which is massively faster than under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Did not the previous Labour Government fail to honour their pledge on pensions, and did they not have a dismal record of increasing real earnings—by contrast with the record of the present Government? Given that 80 per cent. of pensioners have incomes from private sources—that figure is improving all the time—is it not better to concentrate help on poorer pensioners, as the Government are doing, than go for an across-the-board increase?
    Mr. Newton: Four out of five of the recently retired have an income from savings, and about three quarters of them enjoy substantial occupational pensions. In those circumstances, I agree with my hon. Friend that the right course for the Government is to concentrate additional state help on those who have not had the opportunity to build up savings and occupational pensions. That is what we did with the major increases in income support for many older and disabled pensioners last month.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that under the Labour Government, pensioners' incomes increased in real terms by more than 20 per cent. above the rate of inflation? If the Minister is not prepared to do anything about uprating, will he do something about the Christmas bonus and see to it that pensioners receive a real return in that way?
    Mr. Newton: That is a pretty major own goal from the Minister for Social Security in the Labour Government who failed to pay the Christmas bonus for two years.
    Mr. Knapman: If pensions are lower than they might reasonably be, is that not because people paid for their pensions with real money in the 1950s and 1960s and had it confiscated by a Labour Government in the 1970s? Will my right hon. Friend see to it that that never happens again?
    Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do my best, and we have succeeded so far. Under the present Government, the value of pensioners' incomes from savings has risen by 64p in the £1. Under the Labour Government it fell by 16p in the £1.
    Ms. Short: Have the Minister and his party lost contact completely with what is happening in Britain? Does not the Secretary of State know that millions of pensioners find it very difficult to manage every week—especially at this time of year, when high heating bills must be met? The reason for their difficulties is that the Government deliberately broke the link with earnings and deprived pensioners of a massive sum of money—£20 per week for couples and £12·65 for single people—to give tax cuts to the well-off. The British people do not support that action and are increasingly worried that the country is becoming too divided. We do not want pensioners to be left out of improvements in the nation's wealth. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the matter and re-establish the link between pensions and increases in earnings or prices— whichever is higher?
    Mr. Newton: I share the hon. Lady's entirely proper wish to do more for pensioners who have not benefited from occupational pensions and the other items that I mentioned. I hope that I carry her with me when I say that it was exactly that thought which led only last month to increases of up to £3·50 a week for about 2·5 million single pensioners and pensioner couples. Those are the people whom we need to do more to help, and the people whom we have done more to help.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I should like —in my capacity as joint chairman of the all-party pensioners group—to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Heating Bills
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help he intends to give to old people and families on low incomes to assist with heating bills this winter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: Income support is intended to meet all day-to-day needs, including heating. Groups with extra needs, such as the elderly, the disabled and families, receive additional help through the premiums. When the weather is very cold, those people receiving income support who are elderly, disabled or have a child under five are eligible for a cold weather payment from the social fund.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take it from me—if not, he can check with local offices in the Yorkshire region—that a tremendous number of widows, pensioners and families on low incomes will face a cold, bleak winter because they receive insufficient support to meet the costs of heating, hot water, cooking fuel and lighting? When will the Minister do something, instead of hiding behind certain categories of payment that are due?
    I have here a gas bill for £10·60 received by a pensioner. Of that amount, £1·66 is for energy consumption and £8·70 is the standing charge. When will the Minister act to ensure that pensioners do not pay £2·50 a therm for gas, given that everyone in this Chamber pays much less? Can we have some action to deal with energy poverty?
    Mr. Scott: It is precisely because we recognise the extra pressures on those with low incomes—whether they are in or out of work—and the poorer pensioners that we have singled out those groups for special help rather than spread resources thinly across the board.
    Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that anyone on a basic pension, with no other income such as an occupational pension, is entitled to a supplementary pension to help with exactly those costs?
    Mr. Scott: That is true. It is also worth reminding ourselves that an extra £2·50 for single pensioners and £3·50 for couples was introduced in the October package, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced enhanced upratings for those on the family premium, the disability premium and the disabled child premium, to be implemented next April.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that, even if the bitter weather of the past 48 hours continues for another five days, not a single person in England and Wales will qualify for this miserly scheme? Is he also aware that the life-saving scheme for loft insulation and draughtproofing is on the point of collapse in at least seven English counties? Does he realise that every winter 40,000 people die because they are either old as well as cold, or very young as well as cold? When will the Government give us a policy to deal with those unnecessary deaths?
    Mr. Scott: The incidence of excess winter mortality has been diminishing steadily, and we should all be glad about that. Last week I launched the latest "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, which not only provides advice for those who are at risk from cold weather but seeks to raise the awareness of their relatives and neighbours about the dangers that cold weather can pose to vulnerable groups.
    I believe that the £5 payment scheme will provide significant help for vulnerable groups when the weather becomes especially cold.

    Family Credit
    Mr Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest available figure for the number of households receiving family credit.
    Mr. Newton: More than 320,000 families received family credit for the last week in July. That is the latest date for which comprehensive information is available.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that family credit represents the best method of giving help to families on low incomes? Is not everyone who is concerned about the cost-effective use of resources now obliged to do their best to promote the take-up of family credit rather than to argue about child benefit?
    Mr. Newton: I should welcome any efforts to improve take-up still further, but I am very pleased with the results of the campaign that we waged last spring. It raised the number of those in receipt of family credit by about 40,000. I hope that the campaign that we are about to mount will increase still further the numbers receiving family credit.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Although I acknowledge the Department's efforts to increase the take-up of this benefit, will the Minister consider enlisting the aid of a range of voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Newton: I shall gladly enlist the help of anyone who would like to help, because it is an important objective.
    Mrs. Roe: Is family credit usually paid to the mother? Are there certain families on low incomes who benefit from family credit but who would not benefit from an increase in child benefit?
    Mr. Newton: It is difficult to conceive of a rate of child benefit that would give as much help to many families as family credit gives, which may range between £25 and £30 a week, or more. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, family credit is received by the mother in the overwhelming majority of cases.
    Mr. Rooker: Why does it take so long to get a new order book when the family credit order book is used up? Due to administrative bungling, families might have to live without any benefit whatsoever for five or six weeks. They also live in fear that their benefit may never be restored. Are those who qualified for family credit in July, but who did not get any money, included in the July figures?
    Mr. Newton: The July figures include those whom we know were entitled to family credit in July and who have received it in respect of July. I acknowledge that there have been some administrative difficulties. We are seeking to improve our performance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I shall gladly look into it.

    Mobile Claimants
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special arrangements are made to pay benefit to mobile claimants, including those who attend pop festivals.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: If there are large numbers of these claims, the Department of Social Security will bring together a mobile team of officers to handle them. This, as my hon. Friend knows, occurred twice in the west country in 1989.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend know that the cost of policing a recent pop festival in Cornwall was nearly £250,000? Is she aware of the anger felt by many people that taxpayers are financing this type of claimant? Is she able to explain how on earth these people can qualify for benefit, using the old qualification of availability for work, let alone the new one of actively seeking work, when they go from festival to festival during the summer months?
    Mrs. Shephard: I understand my hon. Friend's exasperation, and that of his constituents, about the cost of policing these festivals. As he knows, it is separate from the Department of Social Security cost, which is very modest-in the region of £6,700. I assure my hon. Friend that mobile claimants, like all other claimants, have to satisfy Department of Employment officials that they are available for work and, with effect from 9 October, that they are actively seeking work. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to satisfy those requirements.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not ironic that the Tory Member of Parliament who asks about the cost of policing these festivals failed to tell us how much much it cost to organise and control the recent Tory party conference?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Over £1 million.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for that.
    Mr. Skinner: The point that I am trying to make is that if it is right to complain about the heavy cost to the taxpayer of policing festivals, what about the Tory party conference, which cost £1 million?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with social security benefits.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his chances where he finds them.
    Mr. John Marshall: Are we really being told that all the individuals who attend pop festivals are potential pop stars and not layabouts?
    Mrs. Shephard: The issue is whether those who attend pop festivals—whether or not they aspire to be pop stars —can demonstrate effectively to Department officials that they are actively seeking work. That remains to be seen, as I have said.

    Arcola Street Office
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to visit Arcola street social security office in Hackney.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Arcola street social security office.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware of recent reports that the transfer of social security records from London offices to provincial centres and to Glasgow has resulted in an appalling error rate, possibly as high as 80 per cent., but certainly much higher than the national average? Does she agree that that error rate means that hundreds and thousands of the poorest people in London are being cheated of the money that they need to live on? When will the Minister make money available so that local offices such as my local office in Arcola street in Hackney can provide the professional service that the staff wish to provide but are prevented from providing because of the Government's meanness?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Lady that there are no plans at present to relocate work from her social security office in Arcola street. I shall refer briefly to the Ealing office, to which the hon. Lady alluded. I believe that the hon. Lady obtained her information from a report in The Guardian this morning. I can reassure her that the error rate cited in The Guardian was vastly overstated—the actual rate was about 34 per cent. when the scheme began in August. However, not all the errors concern payments. As cases are converted from clerical to computer records, points such as whether the correct postal codes or national insurance numbers are held will be picked up. If I may return to the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very good and sufficient answer.

    Carers' Premium
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers he expects will be helped by the proposed introduction of a carers' premium.
    Mr. Scott: We expect the new £10 premium, being introduced next October, to help 30,000 carers—one third through income support and the remainder through housing benefit or community charge benefit.
    Mr. Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very good news and congratulate him on being part of the first Government to give formal and financial recognition to the unsung band of heroes and heroines who look after the elderly and the sick. As my right hon. Friend's policy progresses, will he consider particularly the perhaps 20 per cent. of carers who are themselves elderly and may have a small second pension which precludes them from benefiting from the premium? Will he also consider the whole question of respite, because many more people could act as carers or remain as carers if they had a break from time to time? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will take that into account when working out the funding for community care.
    Mr. Scott: I should make it clear, of course, that a pensioner in receipt of invalid care allowance would be entitled to the premium. People cannot qualify for invalid care allowance after retirement age because the allowance is intended specifically for those who have given up work or refrained from work to look after someone. However, I will bear in mind both the points made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ashley: Instead of polite gestures to carers, is it not time to recognise that looking after severely disabled people is a full-time job which should bring a proper income? When can carers expect that?
    Mr. Scott: The Labour Government failed to proved any recognition for the role of carers. This measure is a modest but important recognition of their important role.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that in 1985 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys identified 6 million informal carers in Britain, 3·7 million of whom were bearing the main care burden? Does not the Minister's figure of 30,000 pale into significance compared with that need? Will he make resources available to meet the main need of the bulk of carers?
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman says, many carers are caring for people in their own homes in an informal manner. We should need vast resources to pay a significant premium to every one of them. Incidentally, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a very generous man, did not at least acknowledge that we have taken a step in the right direction.
    Mr. Favell: Is it not irresponsible for the Opposition to try to pretend that only they care for the carers?
    Mr. Scott: Indeed. I believe that by this significant move in introducing the premium we have shown that we recognise the role of carers.

    Child Benefit
    Mr Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the uprating of child benefit
    Mr. Newton: It remains the Government's policy to review the rate of child benefit each year in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
    Mr. Grant: What does the Minister have to say to the poor people in my constituency who, for more than two years, have had to live on a pittance of £7·25 a week from a miserable and miserly Government? Will he tell us what is the Government's estimate of the cost of bringing up a child in any part of today's Britain that he cares to consider?
    Mr. Newton: I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, so far as I am aware, under no Government has it been suggested that either child benefit or its predecessors would meet the full costs of bringing up children. The benefits make a contribution. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman really means the poor people in his constituency, the increases above the normal uprating, which I made in income support and in family credit, and which were of more benefit than a child benefit increase, would have benefited nearly a quarter of the nation's children.
    Mr. Dykes: Nonetheless, with the increase in the rate of inflation, which is at least 60 per cent. more than we expected by now, and the fact that high interest rates also add to the rate of inflation, could the Government look at this matter again?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what I said. I am well aware of his views on the matter. I ask him to take into account the fact that, at more or less the same time as the uprating statement, virtually every family in the land benefited by about £3 a week—if both partners were working, they benefited by about £6 a week—from reductions in national insurance contributions and consequent increases in take-home pay.
    Mr. Meacher: Why has the Secretary of State cynically abandoned the Government's clear election pledge in 1987 to continue to uprate child benefit as then? If his argument is targeting, why does he not regard child benefit with a 100 per cent. take-up as much better targeted than family credit, which has less than 60 per cent. take-up? If his argument is incentives, why does he not accept that child benefit, which is not means tested, offers a much bigger incentive to return to work than family credit does? Why should mothers with child benefit not get an increase just as much as mothers with family credit?
    Mr. Newton: First, the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what was in the Conservative manifesto. [Interruption.] He has quite straightforwardly misrepresented it. Secondly, as I said in response to an earlier question, there is no possibility, under any Government, of levels of child benefit that would do as much for the less well-off working families as is done by family credit. In the present circumstances, it is right to steer additional help in that direction.

    Computerisation Programme
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the social security computerisation programme.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Department's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of the payment of social security benefits is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the work is being carried out sufficiently quickly and can she give us any idea when the programme will be implemented?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend asks about the speed of completion. As one would expect with an operation of this scale, the Department has had some anxiety about teething problems with the introduction of the computerised programme. We are, in fact, proceeding according to programme but because of staff anxieties about some of the problems of introducing specific programmes we are extending the time scale for staff savings to July 1990. Within those limits, the programme is proceeding according to plan.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 11. Mr. Terry Fields—[Interruption.] Question No. 12. Mr. Michael Stern—
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why was no Opposition Member called to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 10?
    Mr. Speaker: Because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) was not present. I called Mr. Michael Stern for the next Question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Michael Stern. It is now 10 minutes past three.

    Boarding School Costs
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances costs incurred by the parent of a child at boarding school during term time are recognised for social security purposes.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There is no explicit provision in social security to meet such costs.
    Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain areas of social pressure, such as those that I represent in Southmead and Lockleaze, a child who is sent into boarding provision, with clear educational need for such provision, can often suffer because the parent is deprived of income support or child benefit? Will my hon. Friend look into any possible easement of the provisions?
    Mrs. Shephard: I understand that my hon. Friend has written to me about a particular case and as soon as I receive his letter, I shall, of course, look into the circumstances of it.

  THE ARTS

    Wilding Report
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from people in the east midlands on the Wilding report.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have received many representations from individuals and organisations in the east midlands about the Wilding report.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that we in the east midlands are not very happy about the Wilding report? If the Minister takes note of what we are saying, he will realise that the report suggests creating a massive region from Chesterfield all the way down to Worcester, so how remote will the east midlands be then? I am making representations to the Minister and I should like him to have a serious look at this and to leave the east midlands where it is. It should be considered a region in its own right, as it is now, so far as the arts are concerned so that a proper service can be provided to the east midlands.
    Mr. Luce: I am beginning to think that an Arts Council grant should be earmarked to preserve the excellent and colourful contributions that the hon. Gentleman always makes to this House.
    The purpose of the Wilding report is to bring coherence to the way in which funds for the arts are administered in order to serve the arts better and to enable the public to enjoy the best in the arts. That is the whole point of the Wilding report. Of course, I shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about boundaries. That matter can be looked at, but the report contains many recommendations that should be taken seriously.

    Arts Council
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts by what percentage the Arts Council's grant will rise over the three years to 1992–93.
    Mr. Luce: I am glad to have been able to announce recently an increase of 22 per cent. in the Arts Council's grant-in-aid over the next three years.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that significant increase. Will it facilitate an increase in incentive funding which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is important for the future of the arts?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The increase shows a renewed sense of strong commitment to the expansion of the arts in this country. My hon. Friend has put his finger on it because in the past few years there has been a dramatic increase in private sector funding for the arts. There have also been increased audiences and increased attendances at museums. There has been a dramatic expansion of the arts. In the 1987 manifesto, we committed ourselves to maintain taxpayers' support for the arts so as to underpin that expansion.
    Mr. Buchan: The Minister will be aware that I and many others congratulate him on the fight that he has put up for expenditure on the arts, but unfortunately he is up against a philistine Government. If one adds the percentage increase for last year to that for this year, it is
    432
    barely above the inflation rate and for the next two years, to 1992–93, it is massively below the inflation rate. 'We congratulate the Minister on his fight, but we deplore the behaviour of the philistine Government.
    Mr. Luce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous opening remarks, but if he regards the Government as philistine, when real resources for the arts overall have gone up in the past 10 years, what would he call the Labour Government of the 1970s? There has been a dramatic expansion in the arts—attendance at theatres, orchestras and cinemas has gone up, museums have expanded and galleries have been refurbished. Under this Government the arts have expanded dramatically.
    Mr. Jessel: Does not the splendid increase of £66 million prove once and for all that the Conservative Government are not philistines, but truly care about the arts? Is it not time that the Opposition stopped displaying their carping and miserable attitude?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a Government we have repeatedly committed ourselves to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts, and that is precisely what we have done. With that basic underpinning from the taxpayer, real resources have expanded as a result of fuelling from the private sector, which has provided extra money for the arts.
    Mr. Fisher: I warmly congratulate the Minister on his achievement, but before he collapses from shock I must point out to him that, even after this increase, Britain is still at the bottom of the European league for arts and cultural spending, spending just one third of 1 per cent. of central Government expenditure. I ask the Minister to join me in a public campaign with the slogan "I per cent. for the arts". If the Minister could achieve that, the arts would be truly valued in this country and artists and arts audiences given the status that they deserve.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous opening remarks about the expansion of funding available for the arts. The benchmark for the arts in this country is whether we have a higher standard of drama, music and higher standards in our museums than in any other European country. We can say with great pride that our standards are as good as—and, in some cases, better than—those in other countries. That is the litmus test and the benchmark—it is not how much taxpayers' money is spent overall, but whether we have succeeded in having the best quality arts. I believe that we have.

    Wilding Report
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will visit the northern region to receive representations on the Wilding report.
    Mr. Luce: I frequently visit the northern region and I have already received many representations from individuals and organisations there about the Wilding report.
    Mr. Devlin: When my right hon. Friend receives representations about the Wilding report, will he bear in mind that Yorkshire Arts has a good record for balancing the interests of different metropolitan areas, whereas Northern Arts has consistently followed a Newcastle-based bias in the allocation of funding in the northern

    433
    region? Many advantages would come from amalgamating the two regions—not least, Teesside would gain a proper level of resourcing and would also benefit from the streamlining of funding, and the recent increase which we welcome.
    Mr. Luce: I note the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. There are conflicting views about what the boundaries should be and I shall take them all seriously into account. I attach importance to the cohesion of regional arts associations and I pay tribute to the excellent work done by administrators all over the country. My concern, like theirs, must be to minimise bureaucracy and to streamline administration so that the arts benefit.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that the proposal to join Northern Arts and Yorkshire Arts can only be classed as an imaginative piece of science fiction? Nobody could reasonably attempt to plan local concerts, arts support and promotion in areas as far apart as Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnwick and Bradford.
    Mr. Luce: Again I note the hon. Gentleman's views. Consultation will continue until the end of December and I shall take all views into account. I remind the House that the Wilding report is about ensuring that when we distribute taxpayers' money to the arts those arts benefit, that the public's accessibility to the best in arts benefits, and that we have a good non-bureaucratic administration to distrubute that money.

    Arts Council
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I meet Mr. Palumbo regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Miss Nicholson: I understand that Mr. Peter Palumbo greeted my right hon. Friend's historic settlement by saying that it was a historic day for the arts. It was not a historic day for the disabled. I have totally failed in my capacity as chairman of ADAPT to get any of that money to help us identify and alter arts premises in public libraries to be disabled-friendly. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, is with us. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts join together to try to obtain some money from the Arts Council for that? Since we have turned the House of Commons into a place of entertainment, will the Minister with responsibility for the disabled join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that subtitling for the deaf is built into the televising of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Luce: I acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does as chairman of ADAPT, which is intended to improve accessibility for disabled people to arts organisations of all kinds. With that in mind, I recently agreed to earmark money from my own central budget to help this process along. The Arts Council has a disability officer, as does the Museums and Galleries Commission. I shall do whatever I can to ensure that ADAPT meets with great success.

    Wilding Report
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Yorkshire and Humberside area regarding the contents of the Wilding report.
    Mr. Luce: I have received many representations from individuals and organisations in Yorkshire and Humberside about the Wilding report.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the fundamental differences between the cultural identity of Yorkshire and the north-east—in particular, the fact that Yorkshire has a much closer cultural identity with the Humberside area, which the report includes in a different region? Is the Minister aware that there are fundamental differences between the Geordie and the Tyke?
    Mr. Luce: I note the hon. Gentleman's views. In my experience, both Northern Arts and Yorkshire Arts do an outstanding job, and I will certainly take that into account.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I meet representatives of the Civil Service unions from time to time. A wide range of subjects is discussed.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister meets the unions, will he give an undertaking that he will not seek to break the national agreement which exists? He knows that if he did so in relation to the south bank, there would be a domino effect on other arts centres around the country which would be disastrous and lead to chaos throughout the arts.
    Mr. Luce: Although that is principally a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I know of no policy to break national agreements in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is important for recruitment and retention that we develop policies of the greatest possible degree of pay flexibility. That is being developed in the Civil Service. It enables us to deal more effectively with the recruitment and retention problems which are our responsibility.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend meets the people with a vested interest in national negotiations, will he discuss with them the purchasing power of pay in different parts of the country? Will he bear in mind that areas such as Gravesham which are slightly beyond the limits of the Greater London and fringe allowance are being short-changed? Is it not time that we changed to a regional pay system?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right—there is increasing recognition of the need to allow variations and flexibility for skills and geographic areas if we are to recruit the right people and skills. That is already developing within the agency process of the Civil Service. For instance HMSO in Norwich has considerable freedom when negotiating pay agreements.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister confirm that since the Government took office more than 10 years ago and abolished pay comparability with the private sector, civil servants' pay has fallen behind by 20 per cent.? Is that not why the Government cannot find Civil Service staff in London, and why, on the Minister's own admission, more than a third—34 per cent.—of benefit claims at the Ealing social security office contain errors and why morale is at rock bottom?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions. To suggest, as he did, that morale is at rock bottom is far from the truth. I travel round the country and see the Civil Service in varying roles and showing standards of excellent and ever better service to the public. Broader questions about Civil Service pay are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Has my right hon. Friend had discussions on further management training with Civil Service trade unions? Surely we need better management training for civil servants in these difficult times.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The Civil Service spends about 6 per cent. of the total cost of salaries—that is £300 million—on training and improving standards in the Civil Service. I am pleased to be able to say that I have earmarked a further £1 million of challenge fund money to enhance training standards further in the Civil Service next year.

    Ethnic Monitoring
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of ethnic monitoring within the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: Departments are making good progress in developing monitoring systems in line with the code of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that there is not one black person in grade one, two or three of the Civil Service, only two in grade four and a handful in grades five, six and seven? In the interests of equality and fairness, which apparently some of his hon. Friends do not want, will he accept that those figures show gross discrimination? What steps is he taking to avoid that continuing in the future?
    Mr. Luce: Although black and Asian people are broadly fairly represented in proportion to the working population in the Civil Service—some 4·2 per cent.—it is true that in grades seven and above black and Asian people represent only about 1·5 per cent. Civil Service promotion is based on equality of opportunity and on merit. For that reason, we are devising a programme of action to ensure that equality of opportunity works effectively in all areas, including ethnic minorities.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend look very carefully at the implications of dividing people by race, as the one area in which that would get the overwhelming support of the population of Britain is in relation to the people who are allowed to immigrate into this country?
    Mr. Luce: My concern is employment in the Civil Service. l want the Civil Service to be open to all people
    436
    based on merit, if they can prove ability, whatever their background, sex or ethnic origin. We want the broadest-based service that we can achieve.

    Disciplinary Action
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will issue guidelines on appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against senior civil servants who authorise the disclosure of Law Officers' advice to the Government.
    Mr. Luce: General guidelines already exist.
    Mr. Dalyell: As we know from Sir Leon Brittan that they improperly approved the leaking of a letter from the Law Officers, may we assume that the Minister for the Civil Service will be giving a carpeting to Mr. Bernard Ingham and to Charles Powell? Is the reason that he did not give them a carpeting that the Prime Minister, on 26 January 1986, did something that, were I so indelicate as to mention it, would mean that Mr. Speaker would suspend me for five days?
    Mr. Luce: What we can assume from the experience of the past four years, is that the hon. Gentleman has an obsession with that issue. We have debated those matters time and again, and I am delighted to be able to defend both Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham, who are outstanding civil servants who are prepared to serve Governments of whatever complexion.
    Mr. Aitken: Would my right hon. Friend consider riot issuing disciplinary action against civil servants, but shutting up the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by encouraging civil servants not to have a protective attitude towards the Law Officers' advice? As my right hon. Friend is the Minister for open government, is it riot in the public interest for Law Officers' advice to be known? The Law Officers were not backward in publishing their advice on the "Spycatcher" affair. Why should it not be possible, for example for the Law Officers' advice in relation to the haemophiliacs' action to obtain compensation, to be published freely with encouragement from the Government?
    Mr. Luce: That is a matter of judgment for the Law Officers. The guidelines are quite clear. Further to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, if I succeed in shutting up the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I think that it will be my most outstanding achievement ever.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with trade unions representing the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
    Mr. Allen: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on their policy to redistribute Civil Service jobs to other regions away from the south-east. Will he consider a little more carefully the possibility of getting some balance in that redistribution? In the east midlands, and particularly in Nottingham, we have appropriate sites and skilled personnel who would be happy if jobs were

    437
    relocated in the region, yet we always seem to be bypassed. Will the Minister consider that and consult his colleagues so that some of the redistributed Civil Service jobs come to the east midlands?
    Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Civil Service as a whole. Questions about relocation are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I must stress the number of civil servants we are moving north and to the hon. Gentleman's area. For example, it has already been announced that a large number of Inland Revenue civil servants will move to Nottingham. Since 1987, various Departments have identified no fewer than 14,000 jobs to be moved out of the south-east to various parts of the country. I think that that is solid progress in the right direction.

    Agencies
    Mr. WattsTo ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress there has been in setting up Civil Service agencies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: Progress is good. There are now 10 agencies and a further 41 candidates under consideration, including three in Northern Ireland. Improvements in management fostered by Next Steps are already resulting in more efficient service to customers and better value for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the rate of progress with which agencies are being set up, particularly with the conversion of some of the larger Civil Service functions to agency status?
    Mr. Luce: Yes, I am. We are making remarkable progress. No fewer than 180,000 jobs on the list of candidates are now designed or planned to become agencies in due course.
    The most important point to stress is that, as part of the process of creating agencies, it is crucial to try to improve the quality of service to the public. That is already beginning to be achieved with new agencies such as the vehicle inspectorate and companies house. We can look forward to similar improvements on a much wider scale.

Ethiopia (Famine)
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand from the aid agencies that Ethiopia is threatened with a new famine even worse than that of 1984 in which 500,000 people starved to death. We were all moved at that time by pictures of dying children on television and the magnificent response to Bob Geldof's aid appeal.
The aid agencies are deeply worried—
Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must be a matter for me, not a general one.
Mrs. Clwyd: I understand that the Minister for Overseas Development has today made a statement outside the House. In view of the House's concern about this desperate situation, we think it important that the Government should make a statement and give the House an opportunity to discuss the volume, quantity and type of aid that Ethiopia should receive.
Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with one point of order at a time. I think that the whole House listened with concern when this matter was mentioned on the news at lunchtime today, but it is not for me to call a Minister to make a statement about it. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that what the hon. Lady has said has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Morris: You are right to say that a number of us heard that item on the news at 7 o'clock this morning. Is it not open to any Member of Parliament to ask for a private notice question before 12 noon?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter which we ever discuss in the Chamber.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 (Repeal of Section 31) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) (No. 3) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Enland) (No. 3) Amendment Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[Mr. Greg Knight.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions on European Community documents.
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8680/89 on pigmeat prices be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 7871/189 on protection of animals during transport be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents. -[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FIFTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 November].
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. Gow.].
    Question again proposed.

Health and Social Security
Mr. Speaker: I must announce that I have selected the first Opposition amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must tell the House that again many right hon. and hon. Members have written to me to say that they wish to participate. I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm. I ask those called before that time and afterwards to bear in mind that limit.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the first day of oral questions since we returned. Several Ministers have made it their practice to reply lengthily to questions. Will you consider this matter and perhaps, if necessary, make some recommendations? As today is the first day of questions, it is important to set the right precedent.
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that the Chair is not responsible for answers given to questionsx2014;or, indeed, for their length. Nor am I responsible for the length of supplementary questions. However, it is a fact that, the longer the answers and the questions, the fewer questions we deal with.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well—
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am sorry to upset you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I was unable to call the hon. Member earlier, so I will hear him now.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We all accept the view that speeches should be brief. Why is it, sir, that the 10-minute rule comes into force only at 6 pm? Why is it that senior Members—right hon. Members—can speak for longer? Why not make the rule from the word go?
Mr. Speaker: I sometimes wish that I had that authority, but I have not. It is written into Standing Orders that the Chair may designate a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm or between 7 pm and 9 pm. the hon. Member should go back to the Procedure Committee—he may be a member of it—to see whether he can have the time limit extended.
3.37 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But humbly regret the Government's failure to safeguard the National Health Service; are concerned at the evidence that members of the public cannot secure access to the treatment they need; regret Her Majesty's Government's intention to proceed with its legislation to undermine the National Health Service and to commercialise health care; believe that the pressure for competition on the basis of cost will be at the expense of quality of care and the necessary treatment required by patients with chronic and expensive conditions; are alarmed that the proposals for care in the community threaten the public provision of social services and fail to provide a designated central grant to fund local responsibilities; note that the Government has no mandate for these proposals which have never been put before the electorate at any election and have been consistently opposed by every measure of public opinion since they were first published; reject the decision of Her Majesty's Government to persist in ignoring democratic opinion; and commit ourselves to defending the National Health Service as a public service free at the time of need.
Before I turn to the gravamen of the amendment to the Gracious Speech, and as I have a rare opportunity to speak before the Secretary of State for Health, may I invite him to comment on a development last week in the ambulance dispute, which is now concluding its third month? Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State repeatedly attacked—first in his press conference on the proposed NHS Bill and subsequently on television—an ambulance crew for refusing to answer an emergency call to attend a new-born baby. The Secretary of State was wrong on two counts. The emergency call was not refused by the ambulance station but referred to a nearer station by the crew at the first; and the baby was not new-born. When the crew eventually arrived at the scene, it found a corpse which, understandably, the police refused to allow the ambulance crew to move, on the grounds that it would interfere with their inquiries.
Although the Secretary of State was anxious to hand round allegations when he was badly informed, by contrast he has been unusually quiet since the truth came out. Last Thursday, he put up a spokesman to field inquiries about the allegation, who said that the Secretary of State had acted in good faith and that he did not think that he would say sorry. I am happy to set the mind of that spokesman at ease. I do not imagine that the Secretary of State will ever say sorry.
The most pressing matter is not whether the Secretary of State will apologise. The really interesting question is whether he wants to resolve the ambulance dispute. What he said last Wednesday and every other recent intervention in the dispute might have been calculated to undermine opinion and prolong the dispute rather than to resolve it.
The Secretary of State has already lost the dispute. This Chamber is probably the only place in Britain where he would not lose a vote on the ambulance staff claim. Nor will he roll back the public tide of support for the ambulance staff by the advertising campaign which we read is about to start. He will not convince the public that he has a case by buying advertisements in the press. He will convince the public that he has a case only if he has sufficient faith in his own case to put it to arbitration. So long as he continues to refuse arbitration, he shows that he has no confidence in his case.
Having given the Secretary of State notice of what he may wish to tell the House and of what we expect him to

443
say about the ambulance dispute, I shall turn to the Government motion and the Opposition amendment before the House.
Today and tomorrow we conclude the debate that commenced last week on the Gracious Speech. The visit of the sovereign to read a speech written by Ministers elected by the people is an annual symbol in the British constitution of our claim to be a country free of arbitrary Government, and of Parliament's claim to represent the people who elect us. It is an offence against both those claims that this year the Queen's Speech contains the Government's intention to persist with the unloved, unworkable changes to the National Health Service, on which not one hon. Member was elected.
Last week I noticed something of an epidemic of Tory Back Benchers desperate to intervene before 5 pm. I propose, therefore, to make a public service announcement, which I hope will cure that fever: I shall happily give way to any Tory Member who can confirm that in his or her election address he or she warned the electorate that the Government whom they would support would encourage local hospitals to opt out, would limit general practitioners' spending on drugs—[Interruption.] If Tory Members object to my words, I am happy to accept the word of any hon. Member who can confirm that his or her election address included any form of words about self-governing hospitals opting out, how the Government would limit GPs' spending on drugs or how they would direct patients to a hospital, not of the patient's choice, but where the health authority got the cheapest bargain.
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose—
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman can confirm that he said any of those things in his election address, I am happy to give way to him.
Mr. Hamilton: In his election address in 1974, did the hon. Gentleman tell the British people that the Labour Government would reduce spending on the Health Service over the following five years by 30 per cent. in real terms?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has eloquently answered my question. He certainly did not include those matters in his election address. Not a single Tory Member was elected on those proposals.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Cook: No.
The Government do not have a mandate for these changes. Nor have they been able to obtain any support for the proposals since they were published.
In a press conference last week, the Secretary of State was pressed to name one health organisation which supported his Bill. I am told that he answered with the Institute of Health Services Management. The only support that he can claim from the IHSM is that it chose not to publish the survey of its members. I can tell the Secretary of State that that survey showed that 37 per cent. of its members were in favour of the hospitals in their districts becoming self-governing and 56 per cent. were opposed; and that 37 per cent. were in favour of GP's having practice budgets and 62 per cent. were opposed. It is a sign of desperation that that body is the nearest that. the Government can get to an organisation which supports their proposals.
444
The Secretary of State keeps advising us that what matter are not the views of the staff in the National Health Service but the views of the patients that the NHS exists to serve. He has gone out of his way to make it clear that he does not pay any attention to the views of the people who work in the Health Service. The problem of turning to the views of the patients is that every patients' organisation is overwhelmingly against the White Paper. I have now received 37 replies to the questionnaire that I circulated to associations representing patients in the NHS. They included the Spastics Society, the Asthma Society, the Haemophilia Society and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. I asked them whether hospitals should be encouraged to become independent and self-governing. I did not use the contentious term "opt out", which causes such pandemonium among Conservative Members. Out of the 37 who responded, 35 disagreed with that statement.
I cheerfully concede to Conservative Members that the people responding to that question do not represent the public as a whole. They differ from the public as a whole and from hon. Members in that, between them, they have more first-hand experience of the National Health Service. They use the service most regularly, they understand it best and they need it most. They refuse to swallow the Secretary of State's prescription.
At the end of the day, the importance of the National Health Service is that we are all potential patients. Its future is a central political issue because it is a public service that serves every member of the public. Therefore, major surgery to that service should not be attempted unless there is sufficient consensus among the public whose health is at stake. However, Parliament is about to be asked to pass changes which enjoy a degree of public support that is barely greater than the ratings of the Liberal Democrats in current opinion polls. Not one opinion poll since the White Paper was published has failed to produce a majority against the proposals of more than 3:1 or 4:1.
The Secretary of State has an answer to that too. He dismisses these measures of public opinion on the grounds that the public do not understand the proposals and therefore are not entitled to a view. The problem for the Government is that, the more the public know about the proposals, the less they like them. In the 10 months since the White Paper was published, there has been a vigorous debate on the proposals, and over that time opposition to all the key proposals has hardened.
What about Conservative voters? Surely Conservative Members will not tell us that Conservative voters are easily misled or that they misunderstand what Conservative Governments intend to do. We know what Conservative voters think about the proposals, because the MORI omnibus poll carried out in September asked them. On each of the key proposals, more Conservative voters oppose what the Conservative Government are doing than support them.
I have a warning for Conservative Members. They can ignore the views of the people who elected them and spend two busy years pushing through this uniquely despised measure and taking apart the NHS to make it fit the design that they have wished upon it. But they must not imagine that their voters will forgive them for being ignored. One in eight Conservative voters say that they are likely to switch their vote if the Bill goes ahead. Conservative

445
Members have six hours in which to ponder that statistic. In case they missed its significance, that shift alone is sufficient to wipe out the Government's majority of 100.
We can tell that the Government are embarrassed by the unpopularity of the proposals because of where we find the reference to the NHS in the Queen's Speech. Where does the Secretary of State's grand design for the Health Service rank in the order of the Queen's Speech? What prominence is given to his plans to reshape the Health Service as NHS plc? The proposals are 10th in the Queen's Speech, just above legislation for Scotland. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I understand just how marginal that is in the Government's priorities.
Since the Queen's Speech, we have had the Secretary of State's Bill. The evidence of the comments from outside Whitehall shows how unpopular the Bill will be, and the evidence of the Bill from inside Whitehall shows how unworkable it will be. We warned that the plans would represent a threat to the continuity of care. We warned that the White Paper had been written on the model of a patient who falls ill and who is then taken off to hospital for surgery and put back out repaired. It is the garage repair service model of health care. That is the model that has been adopted by the private sector, which picks on conditions which can be put right on the basis of a quick fix and fast profit. Unlike the public sector, it is a model which is designed for those of working age who are basically fit and who require health care only for episodes when they are ill.
The bulk of the activity of the National Health Service is related to chronic long-term conditions which cannot be treated by that quick fix. It is for the elderly, the chronically sick and the disabled, who require long-term care. That care is best provided by co-operation and teamwork between general practice, community nursing and hospital services. No one from the Government Benches has ever explained how that teamwork will be improved by breaking up the Health Service and the co-operation between the different parts and re-forming each of them as a separate business enterprise that is supposed to seek the cheapest contracts from the other enterprises.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: In giving this long catalogue of misrepresentation—that is what it is, to a considerable degree—will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that so many of those who use the NHS are concerned that those who are most successful at carrying out operations are the very people who are most likely under the present arrangements to be forced to close their wards? Will he explain how it is that, throughout the NHS, there are well-authenticated tales of extravagance? How does he suggest that he would achieve local management efficiency under any scheme that he is likely to propose?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Is he suggesting that the provisions in the Bill will increase local management discretion? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. If he has, he will have found in almost every page of it that a panoply of new powers will be given to the Secretary of State and not to local management.
We have warned the House that the Bill will not provide a model that will devolve local control. Instead, the Bill
446
will increase central control. That is clear in the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint every member of the regional health authorities. It is he and the regional health authorities that will appoint every member of the district health authorities. It is he who will then direct those authorities. He will tell them what to do.
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking local discretion, there is only one central power and control that I can find that will be relaxed as a result of the Bill's enactment. I refer to the Secretary of State's power to limit the number of pay beds in NHS hospitals. It is significant that that is the only issue on which the Secretary of state will give more discretion to local managers and therefore relinquish his own controls.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall not give way now. If the hon. Gentleman contains himself, I shall give way to him at an appropriate moment. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I wish to proceed with my speech. I do not like to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who I think has intervened in almost all my speeches. I would not wish to be churlish by making an exception in this instance.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have warned that the Bill will reduce patients' rights. Patients will lose the right to go to the hospital of their choice. They will be sent to the hospital where the health authority has a contract. Anyone who has any doubts about that should read clause 3, which wrestles with the problem of emergency patients. It offers an interesting solution to the emergency patient who is from a health area where the health authority has no contract with the hospital concerned. The clause states that the patient will be admitted if
"the condition of the individual is such that he needs those goods or services and, having regard to his condition, it is not practicable before providing them to enter into an NHS contract for their provision."
That text makes it clear that, with the single exception of the direst emergency, the Bill provides not for money to follow patients but for patients to follow money. It will not be doctors who decide which hospitals give their patients the best treatment, but accountants who will choose which hospitals are the best buy for those patients.
That brings us to the Bill's financial effects. We warned also that the proposals would result in wasted expenditure on paperwork. The scheme proposed by the Government is for an internal market that will run on paper. It will need more paperwork, administrators and overheads. It will result in a National Health Service that will be both less fair and less efficient. Anyone who doubts that has only to examine the explanatory memorandum to the Bill on the effects on public service manpower, which state that the Bill will result in a need in the Health Service for 4,000 extra staff. The memorandum describes them as "certain specialist staff". Will they be specialists in paediatrics, cardiology or ear, nose and throat? No, the specialties frankly spelt out in the financial memorandum are finance, personnel and information technology.
When the Secretary of State for Health addressed this year's Conservative party conference, he promised that the Bill would change the bureaucracy of the NHS. Certainly he is changing its bureaucracy, by offering it the longest gravy train ever seen in the history of the Health Service. Immediately before I entered the Chamber for this debate, I was given the front page from today's Glasgow Evening

447
Times, reporting that not one of 24 state registered nurses who have just graduated with a BA in nursing studies is able to find a vacancy in today's Health Service. Our advice to any young person watching this debate and thinking of looking for an opening in the NHS is that they should forget about studying medicine or nursing and instead obtain a degree in accountancy—[Hon Members: "Disgraceful".] That is the type of opportunity that is offered by the Government's scheme.
Mr. Hayes: Apart from that appalling slur on the nursing world, which recommended Project 2000, which my right hon. and learned Friend accepted, I refer to the hon. Gentleman's long catalogue of woe about the Bill. Does he not accept that the British Medical Association and the president of the Royal College of Nursing welcome medical audits, resource management, and money travelling with the patient? Those aspects account for 80 per cent. of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman have the honesty and grace to accept the truth of that?
Mr. Cook: As I pointed out earlier, the Bill is not about money following the patients but about patients following the money. It is a Bill about patients going where contracts are placed by the health authority. The 4,000 new jobs that the Bill creates will not include any openings for nurses or doctors of the kind that the Health Service desperately needs. The people who obtain employment under the Bill will be those responsible for controlling costs, not serving patients.
The Queen's Speech refers to the legislation as
"A Bill … to improve the National Health Service".
If the House and the country are to believe that, we must have regard to the Government's record on improving the NHS. Let us examine the recent evidence. Almost the first information that we received on our return was the waiting-list figures for March, which reveal that the number of patients who had been waiting for an operation for more than a year had risen by 17,000. I know that those cases have been classed as non-urgent, but they include cardiac patients who are breathless, distressed and unable to work, elderly people waiting for hip operations who are in pain, housebound or bedridden, and women waiting for hysterectomies who are in acute discomfort.
We need not look far for the reason for such a rapid increase in those figures. The same tables show that, in the same year, the number of operations fell—March being before the start of the new financial year. Announcing the spending plans for the current financial year, the Secretary of State promised a "spectacular boost" to health spending. We are now two thirds of the way through the financial year, and in the month since those waiting-list figures were presented to the House there have certainly been many spectacular cases; but none provides evidence of a boost in spending. Each demonstrates a spectacular cash squeeze in Britain's hospitals.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way, but this must be the last occasion if I am to finish in reasonable time.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with what he has said. The present Government's Health Service record has been immeasurably better than that of the last Labour Government: that is why the electorate
448
have voted again and again for a Conservative Government. The Government's plans for the Health Service were in the Conservative party manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the removal of discretion from the local health authorities. Why does the Labour party propose to remove discretion for competitive tendering, which has saved at least £40 million for patient care?
Mr. Cook: I am absolutely confident that the next Labour Government will return discretion for competitive tendering, and will take away the compulsion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to claim that the NHS is in a better state now than it was in 1979, he had better explain to the public outside why one in seven acute beds and one in five non-acute beds have been closed, and why 170,000 more people are on waiting lists for operations.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not.
My hon. Friends know how intense is the cash squeeze on the inner-city areas that they represent. I have no doubt that they will tell the House what Government under-funding means to their constituents. But the same applies to Conservative constituencies. Let me share with the House what that under-funding means to them. In a letter to his consultants, the general manager of Queen Mary's hospital, Bexley, explains that the hospital is under-funded for the current year. He writes that. with effect from 9 October, he has
"decided to increase the average monthly cancelled operating theatre lists fom 26 per month to 56 per month … Cancelled lists for the 5 week period … are attached."
There follows a four-page list of cancelled operating sessions. The Government will no doubt put that down as a saving, but it is not a saving; it is an expensive waste of resources and skilled personnel, which will result in a less efficient hospital and longer waiting lists.
I am pleased to see that the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) is in the Chamber. Colchester general hospital is under-funded by £2 million, and with effect from the week beginning 27 October it has closed 86 beds, including half its paediatric beds. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the hospital's consultants have written to all the Members of Parliament who serve the area, expressing the view that
"The effect on our services is going to be disastrous. It will mean that we can barely provide an emergency service."
Sir Antony Buck: Of course one is concerned about the under-utilisation of a magnificent facility that this Government have provided, in the form of a new general hospital. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it was a Conservative Government who provided that new general hospital, whereas the previous Labour Government promised it but never provided it?
Mr. Cook: I do not have the slightest difficulty in acknowledging that Colchester general hospital was built during the last five years. I have visited the hospital. However, I must invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to acknowledge that the result of the Conservative Government's under-funding is that 86 of the beds in that new hospital have just closed. There is not much point in taking credit for building a hospital if it cannot be kept open when it has been built.

449
The Royal United hospital, Bath, is equipped with 21 intensive care cots. It can currently afford to staff only seven of them. A fortnight ago, a mother in Somerset went into premature labour. The ambulance was turned away from the Royal United hospital in Bath because no intensive care cots were available. The ambulance took her to Bristol maternity hospital, where again she was turned away because no intensive care cots were available. She was then taken to Southmead hospital in Bristol, where she was again turned away because no intensive care cots were available. She was finally admitted to the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport.
If, after listening to this debate, hon. Members were to go to the television lounge and flick through the television channels, they would find on one channel pointed comment on the funding of maternity services. This year's Blue Peter appeal is for tin cans to sponsor an intensive care cot. I am aware that some Conservative Members regard that as an appropriate way to fund the National Health Service. Last week, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) tabled a parliamentary question to the Leader of the House inviting him to place receptacles in the cafeterias and bars of this place so that hon. Members might improve the NHS by contributing their tin cans to the Blue Peter appeal. That is the economics of the primary school. It is not the job of Tory Members of Parliament to fund intensive care cots by saving up their beer cans. Their job is to vote the funds so that women in labour can find intensive care cots without having to tour four alternative hospitals across two different countries in Britain.
I began by saying that these changes will be imposed on a public who do not want them, by a Government who do not have a mandate for them. I end with a warning to the House—that apparently our powers of scrutiny are to be curbed in the process. I have an extract from the minutes of a meeting of regional co-ordinators for self-governing units, held on 20 September 1989 at Richmond house. Paragraph 3·4 says that there will be
"inevitable Parliamentary interest in the next session". My hon. Friends and I can guarantee that.
"current intention to give low key answers to P. Qs as and when made."
What that sentence betrays is a Government who are too embarrassed by the unpopularity of their proposals to answer questions about them frankly, a Government who have given up on the hopeless task of convincing the public that a commercialised Health Service would be good for them, a Government who know that their only chance of foisting this idea on a rebellious people is to proceed by stealth under cover of low priority parliamentary answers.
I warn them now that breaking up the National Health Service will not be a low-key affair. We shall put it centre stage throughout the Session. We shall expose and challenge it at every stage. In every week of the Bill's passage, we shall appeal to the majority of people who are against it, either to join us in defeating it before it can be passed or to join us in defeating the Government before the legislation can be implemented.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am glad to say that the Gracious Speech reveals that the agenda for the new Session of Parliament will be very much dominated by social affairs and social issues of many
450
kinds. That is because we have now reached the stage where we are determining the nature of the modern welfare state and the nature of our great public services for the next decade. After 10 years of this Government, we have produced a position in which the country is much more able than ever before to create wealth and earn prosperity. I therefore believe that we have a greater duty than any previous generation to provide high quality public services and to care effectively for the vulnerable members of society. That should be the aim of all Members on all sides of the House.
That aim will not be contributed to by the kind of speech made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is the Opposition spokesman on National Health Service matters. Frankly, at times his debating points were childish in their inaccuracy and wide of the point of our proposals.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the Secretary of State make allegations about the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when those allegations were written down on a piece of paper which was handed to him prior to the debate commencing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate.
Mr. Clarke: The comments are written in my own fair hand because those thoughts occurred to me while listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for Livingston. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may not be so capable of spontaneous thought or writing that down as he thinks of it. However, some of us can do that.
Debate in this House has reached the stage where we should move beyond posters, postcards and slogans of the kind produced by the hon. Member for Livingston. During the winter, we will debate the most important piece of legislation to affect the NHS since its foundation in 1948. When the hon. Member for Livingston is forced to debate, clause by clause, proposal by proposal, he will find that the issues posed deserve far greater accuracy than he brought to them this afternoon. They deserve far more serious consideration. If he continues as he has done, the poverty of ideas about the modern welfare state in today's Labour party will rapidly be exposed.
The Health Service Bill will indeed be controversial. However, the outside world, which is seeing us to a greater extent than ever before, may be surprised to discover that the House is united on the principles that lie behind the NHS. I do not believe that any hon. Member from any political party will challenge the principle that medical treatment should be given free to NHS patients at the time of delivery. Everyone shares the objective of providing a comprehensive medical service accessible to all members of the population, regardless of their means. We are all contemplating a National Health Service to be financed out of general taxation.
Frankly, it is rather silly for the Opposition to try to invent a division on principle between us when they argue about commercialisation, privatisation and patients following money—whatever that is meant to mean—to create a political debate on a subject about which there is no division of intention between us.
It should be taken as axiomatic in all debates on this subject in the House that the basis of all judgments on

451
health care matters should be the aim of curing disease and caring for disability. The sensible debate between us should be about how best to deliver the high quality care and best treatment required in a great public service.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the questions requiring an answer is what resources must be applied to the reforms? As neutrally as I can, can I ask him whether the British public would be in favour of increasing expenditure substantially on the NHS if the matter was put to the public properly?
Mr. Clarke: I agree. Again, before we launch into the actual amounts, it is fair to say that all hon. Members have agreed that the National Health Service will cost the British taxpayer more. When we look ahead and see the demands that will come upon us in the next decade, it is quite obvious that it will cost the taxpayer much more.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I will gladly give way on resources, when I have finished dealing with how we should find the resources and the extent to which it is realistic to look for them. In health care debates it is too easy for our opponents, from whatever party, to listen to our description of the sums of money that we are putting in and then simply outbid us, as though, somehow, despite Labour's record, they would be capable of finding more than the present Government have found.
So far, I have been involved in two public spending rounds since I came back to this Department and came to my present office in July of 1988. When I took over my position as Secretary of State, gross expenditure in the National Health Service was estimated to be £23·49 billion per annum. After the two public spending rounds that I have been through, planned expenditure for 1990–91 is £28·71 billion.
That is a cash increase, in two public spending rounds, of £5·2 billion. That is an increase in two public spending rounds of 22 per cent. in cash. Spending on the Health Service has gone up. The average rate of spending has gone up by over one fifth in cash terms. The real-terms increase in spending that that represents over and above inflation —actual inflation last year and anticipated inflation now —is 8·8 per cent.
This Government, in two public spending rounds, plan to increase annual spending on the National Health Service by almost one tenth in real terms. That is a considerable achievement, first, for two Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, (Mr. Major) and the present Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), and secondly, for this Government. That enormous increase in resources represents a deliberate choice by this Government to give the very highest priority to spending on the National Health Service, among all the other demands on the public purse.
Therefore, if we are to be faced by people claiming that they can simply outbid us in public spending terms, they must reflect on the fact that, in 1990–91, the level of spending of taxpayers' money on the National Health Service will be 45 per cent. higher in real terms, over and above inflation, than when we took over from the Labour party in 1979.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Secretary of State please accept that people have the greatest difficulty in coming to terms with his credibility? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trotting out all those figures, but 127 beds have been closed in my area of Wolverhampton. We have a longer waiting list that will not be met, even with his last bonanza. We can do nothing about the fabric of our hospitals. People are dying. They cannot get into our hospitals. The Secretary of State tells us that everything is going well. The people know that they have a service that the Secretary of State set for them at 1986 standards. For our electors we want standards for the 1990s, not for the 1980s.
Mr. Clarke: The Wolverhampton district health authority is spending more money now than it did last year, over and above inflation, and it is treating more patients this year than it was last year. I will refer to Wolverhampton district health authority and others—
Mr. Turner: That is untrue.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that that is untrue, but he is not familiar with what is happening in his own hospitals. Wolverhampton is spending more money and treating more patients than last year. I shall turn to short-term promises—[Interruption.] I have just explained that we have increased spending now by 45 per cent. in real terms over and above the level of spending that we inherited from the Labour Government who, in 1979. were spending £8 billion in total on the National Health Service —[Interruption.]
Mr. Turner: People are dying.
Mr. Clarke: It is plain that the Labour party is claiming that it can somehow exceed the public spending rounds in which we have raised public spending now by over £5 billion in two spending rounds alone. However, no Opposition spokesman has ever given any substance to that claim. Against our record of increased spending, the nearest that the Labour party has ever got to explaining what it would do about National Health spending was earlier this year when the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) gave a press conference setting out what he expected would happen to NHS spending.
My source is the Evening Standard of Thursday 8 June 1989. Charles Reiss, the political editor, whose accuracy as a journalist is rarely if ever challenged in this House, quotes the Leader of the Opposition as follows:
"The Health Service cannot expect a blank cheque from next Labour Government, Neil Kinnock said today.
Although the aim would be 'only the best', he said that the NHS would have to live in the real world where resources were limited.
'We would not taunt the National Health Service with the implausible idea of a blank cheque. Indeed, that would be very inefficient in NHS terms."
Mr. Turner: We would spend more.
Mr. Clarke: The article continues:
"Mr. Kinnock said that 'over a period of Government"—
which I take to mean the lifetime of a Government—
"'Labour would make up the shortfall in health service funds, reckoned to be running at £3 bn a year. The extra money would have to be delivered over time, and based on 'properly calculated needs—
whatever that may mean. A Labour Government obviously would not employ any staff to discover what those needs would be.

453
Opposition Members who think that they can win the argument—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Before the Secretary of State leaves that point, I am sure that he will be well aware that the figures to which I and many others have referred arise from the calculations efficiently made by a Select Committee of this House, demonstrating the difference between the Government's expenditure, related to the general rate of inflation, and the actual rate of rising costs to the National Health Service to meet the needs of the elderly in our society and the development costs facing the Health Service. The difference between the two sums is calculated by experts outside this place and by the Select Committee to be around £3 billion.
That is the target at which we should be aiming, in addition to what the Government were committed to spending. If the Secretary of State does not understand that, he is not only deficient in his commitment to meet the realities facing the National Health Service, he is deficient in his arithmetic as well.
Mr. Clarke: The sums of money that I have just described and the most enormous increase in real terms expenditure have run ahead of the demands on the Health Service, as we inherited them, and have enabled us to expand the service as never before. I ask the public to make a comparison between the protestations of the Labour party to outbid us and our real record of putting money in. A proper comparison is between the over £5 billion that we have produced in the last two public spending rounds and the half-baked promise of £3 billion over a lifetime of a Government, which is all that the Opposition have put forward—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: Well, let me just turn to where the money actually goes as a measure of whether our increased expenditure has enabled the Health Service to expand and whether the public are getting the benefit of the extra expenditure I am talking about.
As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, the main effect of a 45 per cent. real terms increase in expenditure has been a great expansion in the number of patients treated and in the number of front-line staff-not accountants and so on—employed in the National Health Service.
In the past decade, the number of people treated each year in hospital has risen from 5·3 million to 6·6 million. For every five patients treated in 1979, six patients are now treated and they are receiving better and more sophisticated care as standards of medical treatment have advanced. There are 67,000 more nurses and 14,000 more doctors working in the Health Service now than there were in 1979, and they are better paid, as their pay had declined under the previous Labour Government. All that represents the best and most accurate reflection of the resources put in.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Secretary of State has referred to an expansion in services. Twelve months ago, the Pontefract health authority transferred money that had been made available by his Department to ease waiting lists to a private hospital, Methley Park hospital. The operations were
454
carried out by the same consultants who work for the NHS in Pontefract. The money covered 230 operations in the private sector, but it could have covered 500 at the Pontefract general infirmary. How can the right hon. Gentleman agree with a health authority passing over funds when 300 of my constituents are still on the waiting list because of that transfer of money to the private sector?
Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman puts that in a letter, I shall check out the accuracy of his claims. Contracts with private-sector hospitals of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman are made only when health authorities find that they can increase the level of service that they give to their patients in a cost-effective manner, which is acceptable to those patients. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to do so, I shall check out his allegations.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I must get on. In reality, there has been a huge expansion of resources, which has been matched by an expansion in the number of patients treated and the professional staff employed. How is it then that, each year, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, especially Opposition Members, leap to their feet at this stage of the financial year to talk about beds being closed? They always talk about the furniture rather than the patients. They talk about beds being closed and apparent cuts in the service provided in their locality. Each year, regardless of how much money is put into the Health Service to expand it, many district health authorities find that they are subject to end-of-year pressures and find that they must make sudden adjustments to their plans. That practice shows the need for reform in the way in which the large sums of money I have described are spent, which the Government are committed to put into the Health Service.
Mr. William O'Brien rose—
Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman gets in with his constituency example, I want to try to catch up with some of the examples already given.
I dare say—I challenge any hon. Member to prove me to the contrary—that every district health authority in this country, by which I mean England for which I am responsible for this purpose, is spending more money in real terms than it was last year. They have all received much larger sums of growth money than they have had before. All district health authorities are treating more patients than they were this time last year, they are expanding their services and carrying out service developments. The trouble is that, as things are presently organised in the NHS, they have no means of controlling the pace at which they expand their services or of matching the release of resources to the growth of patient services to avoid the chopping and changing and other short-term expedients.
The hon. Member for Livingston intervened with the example of St. Mary's, Sidcup. I have just written a letter in response to the rather startling assertions by a consultant at that hospital who said that services are being cut. That is total nonsense. The regional allocation to that district health authority is carried out by the regional health authority, not by me. I give money to the region, and it in turn decides how best to distribute that among its

455
individual districts, but within certain guidelines issued by us. I believe that that would be the case under any Government. My letter states:
"the Region and the District are spending their share of record-breaking levels of public spending on the NHS this year. I allocated £1,083 million to South East Thames for 1989/90, which is a 4·2 per cent increase on the previous year."
As for the supposed cuts at Queen Mary's hospital, as I say in my letter:
"The position is, in fact, that acute patient activity is presently expanding so quickly that it is running about 4 per cent ahead of the level planned for 1989/90. That clearly has financial consequences, so in order to comply with its original plans, Bexley Health Authority is controlling the level of patient activity by reducing the volume of facilities which are available for up to three months by a net reduction of 17 surgical beds. The important point is that the number of patients treated will be maintained at the levels planned for 1989/90. This will be nearly 500 more patients than were treated in 1988/89,".
That position could be repeated. My guess is that it is repeated in Colchester and Wolverhampton. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is trying to get in for Nottingham. He and I constantly talk about such matters in the Nottingham area. All these authorities are treating more patients than last year. At the moment, the way in which the system is run means that they have no means of knowing how to respond when their expansion runs ahead of their plans, and they often have to cut facilities to ensure that growth in their services does not outrun the extra money which they have received.
This does not mean that there is a lack of money going into the service. Instead of defending the way in which the NHS is currently run, protesting that it needs no reform and that it is sensible to have a row every winter in Wolverhampton about which beds should be closed when expansion occurs too quickly, hon. Members representing Wolverhampton should press for more common sense to be used in running the system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, the hospitals which expand their services most quickly tend to get into most trouble. The unreformed National Health Service, run as it has been for so many years, tends to lead to the best units getting into difficulty and the poorest and weakest units having a quiet life. It is that system which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North wishes to preserve.
Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. and learned Friend has described in great detail this afternoon the huge and increasing sums of taxpayers' money being put into the Health Service. Does he agree that, as it is likely that this will be a permanent, large part of the British budget, it is absolutely essential to give good value for money in the Health Service if we are to get the best pound for pound out of it? Therefore, is that not a good reason to support the Government's reforms, a large number of which are aimed at giving good value for money?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition seek to dismiss the vast sums of money coming in and respond with vague descriptions of how much extra they would put in. They are not remotely interested in the number of extra patients treated and dismiss the fact that the service is expanding in all their district health authorities, as it is in ours. They obstinately oppose any attempt to improve the way in which we spend the money
456
in order to maximise what we receive for it, avoid the frustrations faced by consultants year in and year out and maintain patient growth.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Clarke: I must get on.
My hon. Friend for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is right to say that we must pave the way in our legislation for reforms to obtain certain self-obvious goals which no future Government could go back on. We need to match the growth in money with the growth in services which we want. The National Health Service must have greater ability to decide where the public need for growth in services is currently greatest. It needs better management to target growing resources on the units best able to meet public need. Those are self-obvious observations. Future generations will wonder why the Labour party lined itself up with reactionary vested interests inside the service to try to oppose the reforms.
We shall tackle the problems I have just described by making it much clearer where responsibility lies for deciding which are the most urgent public needs in each locality. It will fall to the district health authority to decide what the public need for services will be, using judgments based on quality, convenience for patients and the need to raise the quality of care for their residents. It will not be based, as the hon. Member for Livingston casually claimed, on an appraisal of costs alone. The district authorities will also have a duty to base the contracts. which the hon. Gentleman so bitterly attacked, on the advice of GPs and, as far as is practicable, to reflect their wishes.
Certain general practitioners will, if they wish, take the responsibility for handling funds so that they can determine where those resources are best targeted for the benefit of their patients.
Rather than increasing central control, it is our desire to devolve more of the responsibility for management and decision making to the sharp end. Local managers, doctors and nurses, and others responsible in hospitals and in community units will have more freedom to determine how the units run and what their priorities are, under the proposals which I have made. In those places where we have put together self-governing National Health Service trusts, people will be free from the bureaucracy and many of the frustrations which come from the present inadequate way of doing things. They will be able to put their best efforts into forging closer links between local hospitals and local people and developing services in the best way.
Difficult problems have to be tackled to put this in place. We must measure the quality of care in the National Health Service and find out what the costs are and where the money is being spent.
As has been said, everyone in the service understands the need for a better system for measuring quality. The British Medical Association has joined me in saying that we must have better financial management and control. It has said that the NHS could benefit if it knew where the money went and what the costs were. That is why the clinical auditing proposals have received widespread(welcome throughout health care professions and among doctors and nurses, and why the development of resource

457
management systems in the Health Service has the full and active support of doctors and nurses throughout the country.
Our reforms will produce a system which can match the huge sums of money that we are putting in with better quality and work load.
Everyone in the service will be responsible and accountable. They will know exactly what their units are meant to deliver and what resources are available for them to deliver it with. The whole system will be made for the consumer.
I heard somebody ask why the public do not believe that. Right hon. and hon. Members are challenging the public's reaction. We must compare the two reactions that we have had to the present state of our NHS proposals. The hon. Member for Livingston rarely addressed the contents of the Bill which is to be introduced, but he referred again and again to opinion polls and the public reaction. Today, we have seen the products of Labour's post a protest campaign and, as a contrast, the launching of the Health Reform Group, which is made up of professionals who support our reform.
In my opinion, like the British Medical Association's opinion polls in the summer, the Labour party's postcard campaign is a measure of the number of people who they have succeeded in misleading and frightening the public about the contents of our reform.
I have in my hand a document issued by the Labour party as part of its postcard protest campaign. It does not contain a solitary true statement about the reforms in the Bill. It is clearly being used for two purposes—first, to get people to send in sackfuls of postcards and secondly, to get people to contribute to Labour party funds, which are obviously urgently in need of replenishment.
The headlines on the back of the document say:
"The Government wants to give your doctor a fixed budget."
That is not true. The fund-holding and practice budget proposals will be taken up by those doctors who wish to manage the funds and who find that it is to the advantage of their practice to do so. The document then says:
"If the money runs out you could pay with your health."
Most definitely not true. I cannot believe that hon. Members in this honourable House will nod, apparently in assent, at a statement which they know to be a lie. It has been explained to them repeatedly that, if a budget-holding doctor runs above his budget, the penalty will be his being deprived of the right to control the budget. No penalties fall on his patients.
The postcard highlights four issues and says:
"Doctors compete for extra patients—even though that means less time for each patient."
I believe that GPs will attract patients to their lists by responding to their greatest need, which is more time. As I explained when we debated this subject, it is plain what will happen as a result of GP contracts. The postcard continues:
"Local hospitals should opt our of local health authority control. Then they no longer have to offer a comprehensive range of services—which could mean fewer accident and emergency and maternity wards."
I shall save for another occasion the tortuous and fanciful argument which leads to the claim that there will be fewer accidents and emergency and maternity wards. The postcard repeats the allegation:
458
"No one knows what will happen 'when the money runs out—
a quotation which has no source.
"When you want an operation, your GP or your health authority arranges a contract so your operation could be in a hospital miles away, simply because that's cheaper."
That is simply not true either. There is no point in declaring to the House that one has postcard and opinion poll results showing that people oppose reforms when the postcards have been systematically collected by asserting untruths.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for flattering me by encouraging the view that I and my hon. Friends alone can influence so many people. While I entirely accept the flattering assertion that I have been able to get, allegedly through misrepresentation, such support among people who vote Labour against these proposals, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten us as to why more Conservative voters oppose the proposals than support them? Is he saying that that is entirely down to the influence of the hon. Member for Livingston and his right hon. and hon. Friends? Is there nowhere in the Secretary of State's mind lurking the possibility that the electorate have minds of their own, and intelligence, that they have applied their intelligence and have been unconvinced by his proposals, and that, for once in his life, he ought to listen to what people are trying to tell the Government?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that patients will steadily be reassured as they discover that nobody will privatise the National Health Service, that nobody will deprive their doctor of the ability to prescribe the drugs that they require and that nobody will stop a doctor giving treatment when he has taken a fund-holding budget. As time goes on, and as we debate these proposals more seriously, that type of attack will be exposed as fraudulent, and indeed scandalous, from a party which purports to support the NHS.
I contrast the complaining and the speech made by the hon. Member for Livingston with today's announcement of the formation of the Health Reform Group. I commend to Opposition Members the article that appeared today—[Interruption.] It is by Dr. Colin Leon—[Interruption.]—and appears in the Daily Mail [Interruption.] If it has not yet come to Opposition Members' notice, perhaps they will let me read it. Dr. Leon wrote:
"I have always voted Labour and have always believed socialism to be more attractive than capitalism, but I do not share Labour's belief that the Health Service is under threat from these reforms.
Labour's opposition has nothing to do with logic—it is mere party politics. The truth is that, whichever party were in power, only a fool would deny the need for thorough reform —
The Government has proposed that large hospitals will have the right to 'opt out', to become self-governing, with freedom to develop the services their patients need, and fix their own rates of pay, and staff numbers.
Opponents say this will produce hospitals run by accountants for the sole purpose of making profits. What nonsense. Hospitals which 'opt out' will not leave the NHS but will be given more responsibility for their activities and more opportunities to manage their own affairs. What doctor could oppose that?
Hospitals need less bureaucracy and stronger management.
It's about time the medical profession accepted the need for some kind of accountability. We spend public money so should be called upon to explain what we do with it." I commend that article to the House.

459
I remind Opposition Members of the welcome for our reforms, which I have mentioned in previous debates, that appear in the columns of Marxism Today and the New Statesman. People with a wide range of political opinions on other subjects are united in the desire to have a better National Health Service. They accept the case for better management. They accept that it is possible to improve the service by getting better value for all the extra money that we put into it.
I look forward to dealing with the Health Reform Group, as it is made up of people who want to support our reforms and to make a constructive contribution to their implementation. Of course the Government will listen, and of course we need a contribution from the medical and nursing professions. We also need a contribution from people of all political views if they are genuinely motivated by a desire to have the Health Service run more sensibly. That is why, when we talk about the possibilities of GPs fund-holding and holding practice budgets, we are asking GPs to volunteer to develop that idea with us. We are working with doctors who want to make a success of the reforms for the benefit of their patients. That is why, when we talk about self-governing NHS trusts, we are looking for local groups of doctors, nurses and leading business men to come together and make propositions explaining what they want to do with their local services and then work with us on the experiment to make it a success.
I believe that such an approach, and looking for people of good will in the service to work with us to preserve what is best in the NHS but to run it better in the 1990s, will in the end win more support for the Government than can possibly be swept away by the silly postcards, the silly posters and the foolish attacks of the Labour party.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked the Secretary of State for a clear answer in regard to an incident in London and the ambulance service. Can we have an answer? Secondly, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that he is not trying to press privatisation of the ambulance service during the ambulance dispute?
Mr. Clarke: I know when the Labour party has had enough of the Health Service—it gets back to the shop stewards hit, the strikes and the pay claims. That is when the Labour party comes to life when we are debating our great public services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Of course I shall answer.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to ask the Secretary of State whether he will give the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Mahon: I have been trying to ask, for the past 20 minutes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is an abuse of points of order.
Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Lady for the lack of time. We have moved off the NHS reforms now. We have moved to the point at which the hon. Member who aspires to be Secretary of State for Health acts as a shop steward for the National Union of Public Employees and presses
460
its current pay claim. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) also wishes to press a pay claim against the service.
The fact that there is a dispute with the ambulance men is obviously a source of regret to the whole House. It should be resolved as soon as possible. I never want management of the NHS to have a conflict with the ambulance men and I deeply regret that the trade unions who lead the ambulance men have brought us to the present position. The hon. Members for Livingston and for Workington pursue every claim the union makes and, as far as I can see, press resolutely on with their support for extreme industrial action in support of a very high claim.
I repeated last week the reports that have come to me from the management of the London ambulance service and that of the west midlands service, who have lost patience at the gap between the public assertions of the trade union leaders involved and what was happening in those great cities. I readily accept that, in the bulk of the country, ordinary ambulance men and women will not withdraw the accident and emergency service. Although I may disagree with their taking action against the non-emergency services, I am not aware of anybody in my county of Nottinghamshire failing to respond to an accident or emergency call, but in London they did.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is a lie.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: The London ambulance service referred 1.0 the difficulty of obtaining a response to a call—
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to mislead the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not wish to give way.
Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to restrain herself.
Mrs. Dunwoody: But the Secretary of State alleges—
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Crosby described two cases. In the first, a station refused to respond to a call to what turned out to be a stillborn baby found in a ditch somewhere in London. The hon. Member for Livingston used a report in the Daily Mirror about that incident as a source of attack upon me. I read the story in the Daily Mirror, which did not support its editorial. The newspaper had clipped extracts from a telephone conversation in which a London ambulance service controller plainly confronted the person in the station with refusing to accept a call, which was answered by another station.
In another case, a station refused to answer a call to a man who had been shot and the police were obliged to take the victim to hospital. As far as I am aware, that claim has never been challenged. A similar event took place in Birmingham. A man who had lost a foot was refused by one station and taken to hospital by a crew from another station. For 48 hours, Bristol road station did not accept 999 or emergency calls. I trust that, having reached that stage, common sense and civilised behaviour will prevail on both sides of the dispute.

461
If the national union leaders mean what they say and do not wish to threaten the accident and emergency service, they will ensure that their men follow the guidelines, answer 999 calls and take doctor emergency referrals to hospitals which are just as important. I hope that the unions will stop fooling about with 14-point work-to-rule plans and arguing about how one works a radio telephone. I hope that we can return to normal operation of the accident and emergency service. That is what ambulance men in most services are doing.
The extremists in the unions are represented by Opposition Members who, when I said that ambulance staff should resume their duties, replied, "Pay them." They support the extremist view that workers in the accident and emergency service have no obligation to respond to calls unless they get their money.
The management of the NHS has tried to resolve the dispute in every possible way. It proposed a greatly improved pay offer to the union leaders about a week ago, which was rejected angrily and aggressively by Mr. Roger Poole. An organisation called the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel is not represented on the staff side of the Whitley council.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a joke.
Mr. Clarke: It is regarded as a joke by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because it is not affiliated to the TUC or the Labour party. It represents many more ambulance men and women than most of the trade unions involved in organising the industrial action, which are on the staff side of the Whitley council. The association has produced convincing evidence that it represents more than 20 per cent. of ambulance men and women. However, it is excluded from all staff side participation because it is not politically acceptable to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
Therefore, I have proposed—it is only a proposal at this stage—that it should begin negotiations with management through a separate negotiating council. It must be a separate council, because the TUC unions bar it from the Whitley council. To make sure that we all know what is on offer, the management have made the sensible decision to embark on a limited period of advertising—just one day —to set out clearly the nature of Duncan Nichol's offers for ambulance men and women who do not know what their union refuses to discuss.
Mr. Allen: The Secretary of State knows, as everybody in the country knows, that there is a clear, easy and simple way to resolve the dispute, allow ambulance staff to return to full working and ensure that all calls are answered. He should allow the matter to go to arbitration. Will he now allow the dispute to be settled or explain why he insists that the dispute must persist?
Mr. Clarke: If a future Labour Government run the National Health Service on the basis that, every time a group of workers takes strike action, the claim is referred to arbitration to settle the difference between the claim and the offer, they will reduce it to the same shambles as when they were last in power. To be fair to the previous Labour Government, I do not recollect that they ever referred an industrial dispute in the Health Service to arbitration. Clearly, it is an absurd way to manage such a huge service.
462
It would result in group after group undermining the management's ability to control NHS funding by going to arbitration.
The claim must be resolved satisfactorily, but the nature of the claim supported by the unions' extreme action is clearly excessive. Many employers could not afford 11 per cent. pay settlements in last year's pay round, and NHS management are clear that they are one of them. Unlike other employers, they cannot put up prices. They cannot afford to increase fares like British Rail. They cannot afford to increase the community charge as local government can. They would have to cut services to accommodate the increased pay of ambulance staff.
The comparisons with the ambulance service are fanciful and optimistic. The public have suddenly begun to realise that only one mile in 10 covered by ambulances is for an accident or emergency and only one patient in 10 is an accident victim. The bulk of ambulance staff carry out the caring and responsible work of taking non-emergency patients to out-patient clinics. That work is not distinguishable from that of countless other groups of dedicated and caring Health Service staff. As an observer of the dispute, I cannot see why, if nine tenths of patients go to out-patient clinics, ambulance staff can be compared with fifth-year firemen or any other such group.
I was asked about the future of the service and I shall answer that before I finish my speech. The management have already said what they see as the future of the service. They have suggested a two-tier service with separation of accident and emergency from non-emergency services. We need more paramedical personnel in the accident and emergency service and more extended training of the type already provided. The status of men and women in that part of the service must be recognised, as the management acknowledge in their proposals. Duncan Nichol has offered to make available an extra £500 next year—new money in anyone's book—for all staff with a specified level of extended training.
The TUC unions dismiss that. They say that it is elitist and divisive. Many of their members do not have such training, so they do not want such an arrangement. But many people see it as a way forward. People may make comparisons with other groups, but the main determinant of pay must be not comparison but freedom to recruit and obtain the quality of staff needed to work in a dedicated paramedical accident and emergency service.
The second tier should be paid better, but in some cases it will be contracted out. That has happened in Wiltshire and Northumberland. I know that people are worried about that and that the unions are opposed to it, but the industrial action is hastening the day when managers move in that direction.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those are threats.
Mr. Clarke: They are not threats. The history of the past 10 or 15 years shows that irresponsible industrial action pressed too far has cost many groups of staff money and many jobs. I hope that that can be avoided in the NHS, particularly with the introduction of a more responsible trade union into the negotiating process, and that we can achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
Mr. Clarke: I have spoken for too long, yet not given way nearly enough to the many hon. Members who wish to intervene. Clearly, we have had a taste of the controversy and of the conclusions. The Labour party will not introduce an original, serious proposition on the reform of the NHS, or give any sign of how it would change the way in which the NHS is run. It is more anxious to preserve the 1948 system as a museum piece and to exploit the understandable uncertainties about change for party political reasons. Its real enthusiasm is reserved for strikes in the public sector. That has been its greatest contribution in the past as it will be in the future, until such time as we hear a Labour party spokesman condemn industrial action in the NHS.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not incumbent on the Secretary of State for Health to say something about embryo research?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the Secretary of State says is entirely a matter for him.
Mr. Clarke: I share the hon. Gentleman's predilection. I have here some pages on embryo research which I abandoned when I realised that the number of interventions and my responses to them would run me out of time. The public will draw our attention to embryo research more than to any other subject this winter, and we shall have opportunities to discuss the matter.
In all these subjects we are concerned about our quality of life, which depends on the quality of great public services such as the NHS. We have never spent so much money on them. We are spending as much as we can afford. We never employed so many doctors and nurses or treated so many patients. The service has never received so much attention from a Government determined to improve how it is run and to prepare it for greater things.
A healthy welfare state cannot simply be preserved. It needs to evolve to meet the changing needs of society. Under this Government, our welfare state will change for the better. Our programme for this Session set out in the Gracious Speech will help us to achieve the aim of making the NHS, which is already a great public service, a greater service still in the decade ahead.
5.1 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: The short but conclusive answer to the Secretary of State's speech is that he is still totally unable to persuade even a substantial minority of the British people to support him. Time is at a premium, of course, and I shall move quickly in my speech to address, for reasons the House will understand, some implications of the Government's health and community care proposals of special concern to people with disabilities, their families and others who care for them day by day.
First of all, however, I must challenge the Government on their contemptuous treatment of the House last Thursday, shown by the way in which they announced the woefully inadequate ex gratia award of £20,000 to people with haemophilia who, tragically, in the course of treatment under the National Health Service, were infected with the AIDS virus. It is utterly disgraceful and scandalous that an announcement of such importance was made in reply to a ministerially inspired question for
464
written answer, thus avoiding the detailed questioning of the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House that should have followed the announcement last Thursday.
The Prime Minister and her unelected news manager-in-chief in Downing street apparently now insist that, except for "Question Time" and "Any Questions?", most Ministers must not appear on television or radio with shadow Ministers. For the Government to have insisted in the crucially important case of last Thursday's announcement that such direct exchanges are impermissible even in this House must be the most damaging outcome to date of the Prime Minister's known opposition to the televising of our proceedings.
Nothing proves more conclusively than the handling of that announcement the Prime Minister's sense of shame about the sum offered to the 1,200 victims of a monumental catalogue of mistakes that has already killed more than 100 of them. Many more, young people as well as older victims, have scant hope of living to see a court settlement of their claims to just compensation. The judgment of The Sunday Times yesterday is irrefutable. In striking reproof of Ministers, the paper states:
"The quality of the Government's mercy is so strained as to be morally reprehensible. £20,000 is hopelessly out of proportion to the nature of the 'injury'. The latest criminal injuries compensation board awards show that £20,000 was the sum paid to a 60-year-old man with a crushed hand and to a 20-year-old woman psychologically damaged by facial scars."
How do the Government respond to the statement of John Williams, administrator of the Macfarlane Trust—the charity which has been told to handle the ex gratia payments? Mr. Williams says that the trust has been put in an "impossible situation". A spokesman for the Charity Commission has described as "outrageous" the Government's decision that the trust must "lend" £5 million of the cost of the ex gratia payments from its existing funds. Is that not a shocking indictment of the Government's handling of this deeply grievous affair? Can we at least have today a definite guarantee that the ex gratia payments will be made before Christmas?
Mr. Robert Key: I find it upsetting that the right hon. Gentleman takes this line. What impressed me last week was the speed with which the Government were not just prepared to provide the sum of money which, I agree, can never be sufficient, but decided to abandon the principle to which they had previously held, which was that the Government could not make ex gratia payments in a lump sum non-means-tested. That was an enormous move forward and the Haemophilia Society acknowledged it.
Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will have heard from both sides of the House concern about his odd use of the word "speed". I quoted only from The Sunday Times, but may other organs of opinion have expressed very strong reservations.
Voluntary organisations that work to help disabled people and their families are worried about the Government's NHS and community care proposals. The Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes, of which I am a patron, fears that inadequate funding will lead to
"crude and insensitive service provision",
even for people with the most severe disabilities, and that

465
"carers will remain a low priority for hard-pressed local authorities faced with a growing demand for services from the increasing numbers of elderly and highly dependent people living in the community."
The John Groom's Association for the Disabled speaks of
"The enormous reluctance of doctors to be involved with disabled people, who they regard as wanting more care."
The association quotes a letter from the Essex family practitioner committee to the effect that, if disabled people need extra services, the general practitioner is entitled to demand a fee.
Maggie Oxby of the Snowdon award scheme, of which I am a trustee, quotes the case of Colin Hughes, who has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair, to demonstrate how cruel is the lot already of young disabled people whose problems the community care proposals do nothing to address. She reports to me that Colin, a university graduate who worked for the BBC:
"… may now have to move back into care from his adapted flat because he just cannot afford to keep going."
In a letter to the trustees earlier this month Colin said:
"I now no longer work at the BBC in Cardiff. Extremely disappointingly for me, I was forced to give up the job because I was unable to secure suitable accommodation in the Cardiff area … I was also relying on the independent living fund granting me an allowance to fund the cost of the care I need.
However, despite the fact that I applied in early June, I still have not received confirmation that I will be receiving help from them. Thus sadly the combination of those two factors has made it impossible for me to continue working for the BBC in Cardiff. I am now unemployed."
That unemployment is not his fault and it is certainly not the fault of the BBC. Yet none of the Government's proposals gives any promise of immediate help to Colin Hughes, while some of the NHS proposals, as the John Groom's Association has said, could make his plight even worse.
Recent briefings for the all-party disablement group quote the fear of Arthritis Care that "budget holding" could bring actual disadvantages to patients with chronic diseases, while Mencap says:
"… A healthy emphasis on costs will become unhealthy if not accompanied by an equal emphasis on quality."
It strongly criticises the NHS review on the grounds that mental handicap and other community care issues are left almost entirely to the reader's imagination with no real indication that they will be considered.
Moreover, what do any of the Government's proposals do for people dying of AIDS whose principal financial need—I have written to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled about this and have not so far received a definitive reply—is for adequate nutrition and not attendance? In 1988, when prices were much lower than they are now, the Royal Victoria infirmary estimated that £32·75 was the cost of a diet for someone with AIDS/ARC. That compares with the current total basic income support of £27·40 for someone under the age of 25. That is a cruel anomaly and for many, in the view of experts, it can have fatal consequences.
The document "Caring for People" is really two documents that are interleaved. One displays the professional social work approach. The other has been written by the finance department of the Department of Health on instructions from the Treasury and is designed to ensure that the model of care never works in practice. The sole purpose of the authors of the second document is to stem the current outflow of public funds to residential
466
homes. Unfortunately for them, their contributions incorporate an approach that has been shown to be unlawful.
The Bill, on the other hand, pays little attention to the White Paper. It is significant that much of the philosophy, and even the language, of the White Paper echoes that of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 which was introduced and piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). But the Government are still dragging their feet over the full implementation of that important Act. The paragraphs on assessment, in paragraph 3.2, are very similar to section 3 of the 1986 Act, although they do not include an appeals procedure.
Only a few days before the White Paper on community care was published, the Under-Secretary of State for Health finally said that discussions would soon begin with local authority associations on implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act. Perhaps when he is replying the Minister will tell us how the discussions will mesh with those mentioned in paragraph 3.2.13 of the White Paper. I trust that the discussions on sections 1, 2 and 3 will not mirror the farce of those on section 7 where the Department has prevaricated for two years. Even now it is not clear whether the Government are refusing to implement section 7 because it goes too far or not far enough.
Over the past two years, Ministers have usually quoted the figure of £100 million as the cost of implementing the assessment procedures of the 1986 Act. I have failed to find any costings of the approach recommended in chapter 3. Will extra money be given to local authorities? Ministers have also recently received guidelines for assessment of people under section 7 from the organisation Act Now. The vital difference between those guidelines and drafts emanating from the Department of Health is that they tackle all of a person's needs in the community, including housing, education, employment and social security.
Ministers are fully aware of the existing requirements of section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended by section 9 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Will they insist in any guidance that assessments cover all of a person's social and health needs, such as those of Colin Hughes, and not just those for which the Department of Health is ultimately responsible?
I was pleased to receive a letter dated 14 November from the Minister of Health. It says:
"People's rights under existing disablement legislation will remain unaltered."
I must therefore tell the Minister that, in relation to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, paragraph 3.2.12 of the White Paper skates very close to recommending unlawful action. The key sentences state:
"Assessments will, therefore, have to be made against a background of stated objectives and priorities determined by the local authority. Decisions on service provision will have to take account of what is available and affordable.
In August 1970, the then Sir Keith Joseph, who was Secretary of State for Social Services, issued circular 12/70 on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The circular included the sentence:
"Criteria of need are matters for the authorities to determine in the light of resources."
It took five years and a change of Government before that sentence was officially admitted to be a grave misstatement of the law.

467
I draw the Minister's attention to the sixth report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 1975–76, case 12/k, House of Commons Paper 665. The Ombudsman reported that the Department of Health had admitted that mention of resources in the circular might have "muddied the waters" and that its legal advice now was that
"A local authority could not plead lack of money as a reason for not meeting need."
That was also my legal advice when I became Minister for the Disabled, and subsequent Ministers have told me in parliamentary replies that they have had exactly the same advice.
The Bill, by way of clauses 41 and 42, creates even more confusion, although the Government's lawyers may be attempting to evade the illegalities that I have just mentioned. Clause 41 lists the "community care services" and there is one blatant omission—section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. This creeps in at clause 42(2) through the references to section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act. However, as section 2 services of the 1970 Act are technically provided under section 29 of the 1948 Act, the loophole does not exist.
Section 2 of the 1970 Act is, of course, one of the welfare enactments covered by the provisions of the 1986 Act. If section 3 of that Act is implemented, two of the community care services will be covered by its procedures —part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 and schedule 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977—but not section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Clause 42(4) contains the magnificent statement:
"This section is without prejudice to section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986."
Ministers should recognise that the job of local authorities is to provide services and that it is quite impracticable for them to operate different procedures for different pieces of legislation when they often refer to the same services but for different people. The only sensible course is to extend section 3 of the 1986 Act to all community care services.
Paragraph 8.24—the Treasury paragraph par excellence—makes it clear that the good intentions of the Minister for Health may be hamstrung even before the new arrangements come into effect. However, I can assure the Government that any whiff of illegality will be relentlessly pursued by hon. Members in all parts of the House. In that context, I ask for an assurance now that the revised default powers of the Secretary of State in clause 44 will give people with disabilities equal rights of complaint to him as does the current section 36 of the 1948 Act. Will he have a duty to conduct a formal inquiry as at present?
Mr. Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend has outlined the various Acts which the Government are not prepared to implement urgently. Will he invite the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), or the Secretary of State, who presented two versions of section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—first, to the all-party group and, secondly, while that measure was passing through the House, both of them different from the White Paper—to explain what has influenced the Government to desert their clear commitments?
Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He does so authoritatively as the Member who piloted the 1986 measure through the House. I hope that there will he a positive response to him from Ministers in this debate. There is a most pressing need now to allay the fears of people with disabilities, their families and their carers on the issues to which I have referred. I urge Ministers to do so tonight.
5.21 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: Health is a subject of enormous importance to every family in the land, and on this occasion we are debating it in the context of the Gracious Speech. I shall make a brief reference therefore to a Bill that is concerned not merely with health but with life itself. I welcome the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill. We are told that it will deal with the issues raised in the Warnock report. It is not before time. Legislation to control experimentation on the human embryo is long overdue. More than five years have passed since the Warnock committee reported to Parliament, albeit with a divided voice. There was an immediate outcry against its recommendations. More than I million people signed a petition protesting against the recommendations. Both Houses of Parliament—I participated in the debate in this House—were highly critical of the recommendations.
The Warnock report was followed by the attempts of several Members to introduce legislation prohibiting the creation of human embryos purely for research. The House has demonstrated repeatedly its support for such measures and yet on every occasion has been frustrated by a few opponents, with the Government of the day standing on the sidelines and not prepared to lift a finger. The will of the majority in the House on this subject has never been allowed to prevail. In the meantime, experimentation with embryos has continued unregulated.
No one knows what has been done behind closed doors. There have been voluntary watchdogs, but who appointed them? What have they discovered about such research and the means by which it is carried out? It is a relief therefore to many of us that the Government have at long last honoured their commitment to introduce a Bill. We shall debate the Bill later, and this is not the time to talk in any detail about it. However, having read the Bill it is essential for me, as chairman of the Pro Life committee of both Houses, to sound a warning note now. In clause 11, which is crucial, there appear the alternative clauses that were promised by the Government. We are to be given a choice between provision for treatment, service, storage and research, or treatment and storage without research. That is not a clear choice, as I shall show, and it was not what we were promised.
Let us consider the activities that will be licensed, whichever way we vote. The treatment services outlined in schedule 2 include
"practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose".
What does that mean? It must involve research—which, incidentally, is not defined anywhere in the Bill. There then appears the following passage:
"Such other practices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations."
What does that mean? What shall we be voting for? This is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to introduce research on human embryos no matter what

469
Parliament decides. To borrow the words of Winston Churchill—my Pro Life Committee and I—"Up with that we will not put."
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of 2:1 is in favour of continued research into congenital diseases—research of a kind that would be banned if he had his way?
Sir Bernard Braine: I do not accept that for one moment. I have always respected the hon. Gentleman's position, and if he wishes to press me, I can go into considerable detail.
There is not an overwhelming majority for experimentation on human embryos. There is a deep sympathy and understanding, which we all share, for the plight of those who have handicapped children, but there are other ways of dealing with the problem. My committee is advised by some of the most prestigious names in science and medicine in the world. They tell us that it is not necessary to experiment on the human embryo, and certainly not up to the 14 days recommended in the Bill. Incidentally, I remember Baroness Warnock saying in an unguarded moment that 14 days would do for a start.
To cite just one example, fundamental research has been taking place into Down's syndrome. Some of the most important discoveries have been made by the eminent French scientist Professor Jerome Lejeune, who managed to achieve his results without any experimentation on the human embryo. I sympathise with the position of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but I think that we shall have to differ on the methods by which we arrive at the goal that he desires.
I wish also to make clear the Pro Life committee's position on the proposed statutory licensing authority. The committee has no faith in the sort of authority that is proposed in the Bill. That would involve an intricate system of an authority, licensing committees, subcommittees and the involvement in some of the committees of people who not members of the authority. That is the best recipe for a quango that I have seen in nearly 40 years in Parliament. I suspect that it is designed to ensure that no one can get at what is really going on.
Worse still, after its first year of operation the authority will have to report to the Secretary of State only biennially. That simply will not do. We in the Pro Life movement believe that it is essential that the issuing of licences for any lawful procedures for creating human embryos should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that any licensing authority should act only as a watchdog. Furthermore, an effort should be made to secure a balance between known differences of view within the authority. There is no provision for that in the Bill, but there is a precedent for such powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State.
Licences for animal experimentation are issued through the Home Office, making the Secretary of State for the Home Department directly responsible for deciding the purpose of each experiment and the methods by which it is to be undertaken. It is wholly reasonable to request that a similar system be enacted in respect of experimentation with human embryos. It would be wholly incongruous if we did not accord to human embryos at least the same
470
degree of protection that we give to animals—not that the protection that they receive in this respect is satisfactory. Indeed, recent revelations in respect of animal experiments have alarmed and sickened many right hon. and hon. Members and a large number of our constituents.
I turn now to the danger of a statutory licensing authority being dominated by those who, for whatever reason, support experimentation on human embryos. If that is allowed, effective control will be lost and might not be recovered for many years. If the composition of the Warnock committee is anything to go by, our fears are well founded, for it did not include one human embryologist, although I concede that it did include a zoologist. The two eminent gynaecologists who served on that committee are both well known pro-abortionists. It is hardly surprising that a minority report was presented by the distinguished professor of neurology, John Marshall, and there were other dissentients. As a result, the Warnock report, which appears to be the basis for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, received the support of only the smallest possible majority of the committee's members. The committee's report gave rise to expressions of dissent by seven of its 16 members.
I also note the shifting of the goal posts in the definition of the word "embryo". The Bill states:
"fertilisation is not complete until the appearance of a two-cell zygote."
That is a significant departure from the definition given in the Warnock report, which defines an embryo as beginning with the meeting of sperm and egg at fertilisation. That change of definition is important to note.
With regard to the upper time limit for abortion, we understand that that aspect can be decided at a later stage, although the Bill as drafted makes no reference to it. Happily, it is so drafted that an amendment or amendments can be tabled later. It would be not just morally repugnant but totally ludicrous if Parliament decided to give protection to the human embryo, or even the very limited protection of allowing experimentation only up to 14 days, yet denied any protection to a child in the womb, at a later stage of its journey into life when it is already a recognisable and sentient human being who recognises its mothers voice and can feel pain.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Polkinghorne report, which was implemented without any parliamentary debate, also deals with the use of foetal parts at a later stage of life, and that we are wrong to restrict ourselves to repealing the law only in respect of the earliest stage of pregnancy?
Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that there is no question of restricting ourselves. Parliament is the grand forum of the nation. The public expect us to focus attention on such issues, to confront them courageously, and to speak our minds. I feel certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree. This is not a party issue. Indeed, it is one that even unites all elements in Northern Ireland, where there is a remarkable degree of unanimity between Catholics and Protestants on the matter. I am glad to report that the pro-lifers' arguments have the support also of Christian leaders and the Jewish and Islamic communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is right, and I and many others will combine to ensure that these grave issues are faced properly for the first time.

471
For years, successive Governments fudged the issue and were frightened to face up to it. Whenever there has been a vote in the House, immense majorities have been in favour of reform. That was the case with Mr. Enoch Powell's Bill and other Bills which followed. Did the Government respond? No, they stood back—yet the Abortion Act 1967 itself could not have reached the statute book had not the Administration of the day given Government time to its completion. I have a long memory in this matter, and many of us are determined, for as long as we are in Parliament, to see things through. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone for her intervention.
I remind the House of the fundamental principles of medical ethics, which have stood the test of time and have guided medical practice for many years. First, there is the Geneva convention code of medical ethics, which was adopted by the World Medical Association in 1948. A modern restatement of the principles of Hippocratic medicine, it says simply;
"I will have the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception."
There is also the Helsinki declaration of the World Medical Federation, which was adopted in 1964 and amended in 1983. It states:
"In research on man the interests of science and society must never take precedence over the well-being of the subject."
Those restrictions apply to all areas of medical research, and they should apply also to research on the human embryo. There is no justification for rewriting them now.
I hasten to add that we in the pro-life movement do not oppose research into infertility—we do not even oppose the idea that some research should be undertaken on human subjects—but we are concerned that all research on human subjects should be governed by the accepted principles of medical ethics worldwide. The human embryo is, from conception, a living member of our species and must be treated as such.
5.36 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), whose views are well known. He stated his case with emotion and passion, and I feel sure that we shall return to the question of embryo research, which will be an important feature of our future debates on health and welfare.
Many other items should be on the Government's agenda but are not, and neither have they been mentioned today. They include provision for the homeless, social security measures, the problems that flow from AIDS, war widows' pensions and other important matters.
I want to refer specifically to the Secretary of State for Health's initial exchanges across the Dispatch Box with the official Opposition about resources, which are at the heart of the problems affecting the Health Service. I become profoundly frustrated and depressed when I hear Ministers trotting out statistics about the number of new doctors and nurses and about real increases in expenditure, while Opposition Members mouth statistics on the number of hospital and ward closures and the difficulties that they confront in their constituencies. It must be difficult for the general public to make any sense of arguments conducted in these terms. I often wonder
472
what the public, and patients in particular, make of our debates. They do not always help to inform or improve the situation.
Any Government would have difficulty in producing the sums of money that I would like to see spent on the Health Service, but of course Governments are constrained by having to husband the public purse. Although £29 billion is a good deal of money in absolute terms, it is not such a large sum in relative terms, when compared with the amount that our sister European democracies are devoting to finance their health services. It is worth remembering that the proportion of national wealth that we provide for the NHS is certainly not wildly in excess of the equivalent proportions provided by those countries.
Opposition Members, of course, make endless demands for more money for the NHS. The increases that the Government have secured over the past two public expenditure rounds were very welcome—£5·2 billion is a lot of money—but the professions and others who work within the NHS would like to know whether the increases announced so proudly by the Secretary of State this afternoon represent a regular level of increase that may be sustained in the future. They would be willing to learn to live with that, but the trouble is that this welcome expenditure has been wrung from the Government like blood from a stone.
I understand the Secretary of State's concern about those successful hospital units that develop new techniques and provide a high level of patient care which run out of funds early in the financial year. A way around that problem, however, would be to introduce a rolling programme of expenditure, which would give district and regional authorities some idea of the amounts available to them over the coming years. We need to agree on a funding formula. In my view, the best formula is that suggested by the Select Committee on Social Services, which recommended that base funding should consist of the real cost of inflation to the NHS, plus 2 per cent. That, I feel, would lead to better organisation in the long term.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way of improving expenditure on health care would be to reduce arms expenditure, at least to the same level as in other western European countries? That would lead to a saving of some £5 billion, which would provide at least some of the resources that are urgently needed to stop hospital closures and the loss of hospital beds in every district health authority.
Mr. Kirkwood: That conveniently illustrates a different point. It is, of course, difficult to assess precisely the amounts required by the NHS, but it does not take a genius to work out that the money spend in the NHS is dominated by staff costs—which are spiralling above the retail price index—and that NHS expenditure must increase by substantially more than inflation. It is no use the Government talking about real increases without taking that factor into account. Nor is there any point in the Secretary of State's beating his chest about the money that he has managed to squeeze out of the Treasury: that money should be seen against a 10-year-old background of under-funding. According to the Select Committee, £20 billion is needed just for capital investment in the fabric of our hospitals, wards and community health centres.

473
No doubt hon. Members on both sides of the House find that the current demographic changes are reflected in their constituency work. As a larger proportion of the population are now aged 75 or more, the demands on the Health Service must of course increase. It costs £3,500 to look after the average 85-year-old, while only one tenth of that is needed to look after the average Member of Parliament who is—as I am—rapidly approaching middle age. [Interruption.] I am older than I look, and this business does not make any of us look any younger.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is the triumph of hope over experience.
Mr. Kirkwood: It is indeed.
We all welcome the technological developments that are now benefiting our constituents, and those developments must continue apace; but there is no point in scientists and research technologists devising new methods of treatment if those methods are not made as widely available as possible. Let me make a plea for a measure of continuity and agreement in regard to the amount of money that we need to maintain standards—which is all that the Select Committee was trying to achieve—before considering what potential enhancements are possible. We are talking about big money.
If the Government take a Treasury view of life, the Health Service will never escape from the bind that it is in now. We must take a wider view. I am not arguing for profligate expenditure; I believe that the public would respond to a sensible, moderate approach. We must, of course, get the management structures right, but I think that the Government would be pleasantly surprised by public reaction to a sensible commitment to continuous increases in real-term expenditure on the NHS.
In many respects, the Government's approach has been irresponsible—and I say that as one who is not given to extreme language. The confidential basis on which the NHS review was conducted was scandalous: there was no participation by any of the professional bodies or pressure groups. The Secretary of State made matters worse by gratuitously alienating health professions—the GPs in particular—by accusing them of being interested only in their own incomes.
That is a scandalous calumny. I have talked to doctors throughout the country who are perfectly happy to accommodate the Government with peer group reviews, medical audits and many other positive aims which could have been pursued much more vigorously and successfully had the Government approached the professions with more humility and common sense.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was right to say that there was no mandate for this reform: certainly the last Conservative manifesto did not mention it. Now the Government are railroading it through in the teeth of opposition—and not only from the public. I sympathise with the Government's objection to some of the statements made by the more extreme pressure groups, which may indeed misrepresent the Government's position, but I do not believe that the public will support this measure when they come to understand it more fully.
It is a pernicious attempt to tinker with the administration and to put in place a system that will enable the Government to keep down costs. If that policy is
474
pursued religiously, as I am sure that it will be, and whipped through the House, there will be a massive drop in the morale of those who work in the National Health Service. If the Government think that they can survive such a drop in morale for a long time, especially with the manpower crisis, most of all in the nursing profession, they are very much mistaken. That would be bad news for the House of Commons, bad news for the Government and, worst of all, bad news for patients.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Last Thursday night there was a parish ballot in my constituency—the first of its kind in Britain—on the Government's proposals, particularly on the question of the local hospital opting out of the National Health Service. The result of the ballot was that 97 per cent. were against opting out.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am not surprised to hear that. It is the general outcome of such ballots.
As these measures are considered by the House of Commons, the amount of opposition will increase. At the next general election, the Government will find it very difficult to defend their legislation. I hope that they will get their comeuppance. If they do, they will deserve to lose all the seats that they then lose.
5.51 pm
Dame Jill Knight: In Health Service matters there is an unholy alliance between the press and the Opposition to make good seem bad, advance seem retreat and truth seem lies. Good news does not sell papers, and it does not win votes for the Opposition.
In another context, my hon. Friends will have noted that, whenever there is a reduction in unemployment, the Opposition are glum and miserable. Down, therefore, with any good news—do not print it, do not mention it, or better still, manipulate it in to seeming bad news. It is much more clever, they say, to trumpet from the housetops that such and such a hospital is closing. If it is old and has been open for a long time, they think that there must be many people who have received treatment there who will speak of it with gratitude and affection and will regret its closure. The Opposition try to get those aspects in front of the cameras, and they like to talk about them in the House. They never let on for a moment that a beautiful new hospital is opening instead. They keep quiet about that. They never let on that the new hospital will provide better treatment, new wards and better conditions.
There was a perfect example of that in Birmingham, when the old children's hospital was closed. Some of us had been trying to get a new children's hospital for years. Children had to be wheeled across an open yard to the operating theatre. We succeeded in getting a new children's hospital, but did the Opposition say one word about it? Dear me, no—all that we heard about from them was that the old hospital was being closed.
Under this Government, 270 major hospital schemes in England alone have been started and completed, and 530 more schemes are in hand.
Mr. Corbyn: What about the closures?
Dame Jill Knight: What a silly comment that was. It does not matter if a hospital closes, so long as a better and more modern hospital where patients can be treated is opened.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such silly remarks, he might as well tell us all.
Mr. Corbyn: A number of new hospitals have been built.
Dame Jill Knight: This is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has admitted that.
Mr. Corbyn: During the last 10 years, however, a very large number of hospital beds have been lost to the NHS on account of closures. When new hospitals have been opened, fewer beds have been made available in many of them—hence the very long waiting lists. The experience of most people is that they are getting a much worse service now from the NHS than they did 10 years ago.
Dame Jill Knight: That is what the hon. Gentleman wishes were the case, but it is not true. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to get up and talk about hospitals when not one new hospital was opened when a Labour Government were in office. There were plenty of ward closures at that time, too.
All that the Opposition want to do is to turn good news round and hide it. They say, "Let us find a tired nurse, play up how hard she works for her patients and say how dreadful it is that she cannot be paid more." They do not breathe a word to the effect that her pay has increased, on average, by 44 per cent. under this Government, and that is after taking inflation into account. There is no reason why the Opposition should not mention that nurses may be tired, but they never mention that they are now paid more than they were under Labour.
The Opposition also say: "Let us find a baby who is going to die on account of complications after a premature birth, but whatever we do, we must not let the news get out that many, many babies who certainly would have died 10 years ago are able to be saved today." Premature babies present very difficult problems, but about 35 per cent. of those who would certainly have died a few years ago are now being saved. Of course that is a tribute to the cleverness of the medical profession and the doctors, but let nobody think that it is done without money. That work is being funded.
The Opposition employ the same tactics in relation to Health Service review. It is portrayed as an attack on the NHS, but it is a vital life-saving measure. New treatments, new operations and new drugs are very expensive. We cannot continue to waste money in the way that it was wasted for so many years. Of course patients should be given a better service, and it should be universally good in the NHS. Why, I ask myself—I am sorry that Opposition Members do not ask themselves the same question—should patients in Merseyside have to wait three times longer for a hip operation than patients in London? Why do some doctors prescribe valium and mogadon for years on end instead of treating their patients? I know of one young woman who was prescribed valium for seven long years without one medical examination by her doctor. That is wrong for both the patient and the NHS.
Mr. Terry Fields: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: No, the hon. Lady wants to finish her speech because other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will, I am
476
sure, have an opportunity to make his speech. He has not been here throughout the debate, as I have, and I am determined to make my speech in my own way.
Why do some orthopaedic surgeons carry out more operations in one month than others do in six? Why are some hospitals user-friendly while others are a misery to enter? There is undoubtedly a need for big improvements in the NHS. That is what the review is about. The object of the review and of the Bill is to improve services for patients. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) was in danger of being struck down with apoplexy in the Chamber when he made a great hoo-hah about waiting lists. A lot of people who have been sent for hip operations could not have had them at all 15 or 20 years ago. We now are all aware of people who have had those operations.
There is no doubt that we must work harder to get rid of the waiting lists, and the Government have devoted a great deal of money to that end. I do not like the fact that my constituents waiting for kidney operations are told that only a certain number of operations can be carried out because of money constraints. When it is possible to alleviate a medical condition, it should be alleviated without delay. Those who imagine that we can continue to waste money without trying to improve the Health Service know nothing about the NHS.
Why has the British Medical Association conducted its campaign against the improvements? The answer is simple. The BMA reacts with vehement objections to any suggestion of change at any time to any part of the Health Service. Not one reform has been mooted for the Health Service in the past 40 years to which the BMA has not reacted in that way. If any action is contemplated, the BMA believes that it must be wrong. I have a twin brother who was a rather mischievous child, and I recall that when I was young my mother used to say, "Go and see what John is doing and tell him to stop it." The BMA is like that. Its response to the review is "There is a review, something is being done about the Health Service—we must stop it at once." The BMA has not bothered to find out what the review means.
The document which the BMA produced against the review was full of phrases like "might be", "possibly", "could" and "maybe". I remember speaking to representatives of the BMA in my constituency months ago. I pointed out that many of the BMA's objections were pure conjecture. The BMA's response was completely negative and I am pleased that a counterblast is under way.
One of the sillier objections to the review of the Health Service has been repeated today—that the review and the Bill have been sprung on the medical profession. That is nonsense. For months we have been debating the details and there has been no secrecy about the leaflets and documents explaining what was intended in the review. Those documents were available to anyone who wanted them. We have already had months of debate and we shall soon be debating the Bill. A great deal of debate will take place shortly during the Committee stage.
All Conservative Members recognise that there are faults in the Health Service. We are determined to put them right and we are not afraid to say what worries us. I am worried about community care for the mentally handicapped. One of my ministerial colleagues said recently that something is to be done about that problem.

477
Much concern has been occasioned by people who have been let out of mental hospitals who could not manage by themselves in the outside world. That must stop.
The Health Service Bill should also contain positive proposals to obtain more organs for transplants. The advance of our Health Service has been remarkable. However, with regard to transplants, the shortage of organs—not a shortage of money—is holding up operations. I have one or two ideas of my own on that subject which I may have the opportunity to put forward in Committee.
The terms of the amendment before us today are hypocritical. The object of the review is to safeguard the National Health Service. The Labour party is all about the failure to safeguard the Health Service. It could never produce enough money or care. Labour could not stop the waste or deal with the difficulties in order to safeguard the Health Service properly. Conservative Members are the most anxious Members in the House when the public cannot get access to treatment. The amendment is rubbishy and stupid and I hope that it will be defeated.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The House will recall that Mr. Speaker determined that speeches should be limited to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 8 pm.
6.4 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: The House always listens with respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). However, if she really believes that the crisis in the National Health Service has been got up by the press, by Labour Members and by the BMA, she is out of touch with reality. I do not want to pick up those points, because I want to deal with some problems affecting disabled people.
For the past 10 years, this Government have been expressing deep concern about the disabled, and we should expect a pretty picture. However, instead, the picture is very disturbing. That situation has not been got up by the press, by Labour Members or by the BMA.
Disabled people are disregarded people in Britain today. They are underprivileged and mainly very poor. Many of them are denied an adequate income for the additional costs of disability. They are also denied access to buildings and to public transport. Sometimes they are patronised, humiliated and neglected. Very often they suffer gross discrimination.
It is amazing that, while it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or race in Britain, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of disability. That is quite incomprehensible.
Last Friday the BBC television programme "Public Eye" showed a damning indictment of society and of the Government's attitude towards disabled people. A disabled child was bombarded with abuse:
"You are a spastic bastard. You are too thick to walk."
That is what people said to a severely disabled child. The programme showed how a local authority had no power to act against the ignorant thugs who used that language because the Government have failed to accede to or accept
478
legislation to outlaw discrimination. The people who harassed that child because he was disabled were perfectly entitled to do so.
That programme also referred to an intelligent, qualified, computer-trained young man who sent 400 applications for jobs. All were rejected because of his deafness. I cannot see how we can allow that kind of discrimination to continue. Parliament's existing laws, which should help that young man, are frustrated by the Department of Employment's negative attitude. One committed official at the Department who was anxious to prosecute a firm for refusing to comply with the statutory requirements was told by her seniors:
"We don't want to know. Prosecution is not our policy."
A categorical statement in an internal review document states:
"Work with disabled people is given little status and even less priority in the Employment Service."
I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for the disabled will be interested in that document, and I hope that he will read it after this debate.
What we have long suspected has now been officially stated—little status and even less priority. What an astonishing and despicable state of affairs in the department of Employment. With such attitudes, it is no wonder that the employment quota system, which was designed to provide jobs for disabled people, is being disregarded. The Department of Employment must answer some probing questions and revolutionise its attitude.
Other countries are leaving us far behind. West Germany has an effective quota and levy system to provide jobs for disabled people. The United States Senate has just passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a marvellous Act, which stops discrimination in jobs, housing, education, transport and access generally. We should have such an Act. We should be leading the world but we are not: the Germans and the Americans are leaving us far behind. Our record is deplorable. The Government have rejected three Bills to outlaw discrimination. It is wrong for the Government to oppose Bills of that kind, especially when the Germans are doing so well with their legislation, and especially when the United States is leading the world in fighting for and protecting disabled people. Why can Britain not lead for a change? Why must we lag behind? I hope that the Minister will tell hon. Members about some innovation and some new ideas, and inform us what the Government intend to do.
One of the most serious and striking manifestations of the Government's failure to protect vulnerable disabled people is the lack of community care. The system is not only inadequate but beginning to collapse. The slick and easy way of side-stepping the problem is to pass it to families. That is exploitation of loving family relationships, and the Government have given no commitment to extra help. They should have done so. The White Paper and Ministers state that we must have simple and cost-effective provisions. "Cost-effectiveness" is a reasonable concept to most people but not when it comes from Ministers' mouths. To some Ministers, cost-effectiveness means cutting and reducing.
I appeal to the Minister: we need not the patchy implementation of present community care nor inadequate implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, but full,

479
comprehensive implementation of community care for all disabled people who need it, and full implementation of the Act. That would go a long way towards helping the disabled people of Britain. I hope that the Minister will act.
6.13 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: I will not repeat the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), but I will refer to aspects of community care in a minute or two. I pick up the point by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats. It is a travesty to say that the Government are not spending substantially on the National Health Service. There have been enormous increases last year and this year. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on playing such a big part in bringing that about. It is unreasonable to expect that we can go much beyond that, as other matters are making great demands on the Government. Although I have withdrawn slightly and temporarily from education, the case for greater educational spending is particularly powerful. We must be realistic about the extent to which we can spend on the Health Service, important though it is.
Hon. Members will soon consider a Bill on embryo research. My right hon. Friend the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) spoke with absolute certainty about what is right, and we all respect that. I must confess that I am one of those who have not yet made up their minds about what is right. I want to listen to the debate. It would be of great help if hon. Members were able to pursue more fully the latest and most up-to-date scientific views on what research is necessary and whether it has real value.
I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that this is surely a case for bringing into action the pre-legislative Committee that was introduced a few years ago but which now seems to have been dropped. That Committee could be uniquely valuable in summoning scientists before it to probe what they understand about the subject.
Reference has been made to AIDS. Although I respect my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, I have some queries about her latest announcement. Is it wise to carry out substantial testing for AIDS on the basis that no practical use is to be made of the findings? I believe as strongly as most people in the importance of statistics. I believe in social science; it is an essential part of our apparatus. However, if we turn up information which discloses people suffering from that terrible disease, it seems perverse to make it impossible to make practical use of that information. By all means let people stipulate that, in their individual cases, no use must be made of the information, but it is wrong to reject the source of information. I hope that the Government will think again about that matter.
I now refer to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I am happy to stress the second part of the Bill as well as the first. A year ago, I had two fears about those topics. One was that the Government would opt for an insurance-based National Health Service, and the other was that the Government would reject the Griffiths report. I am delighted that the essence of the Bill
480
is to reject the insurance-based service and to accept the Griffiths report. It is important to state again and again that the National Health Service remains unchanged in its fundamental task of providing care for all who need it. I do not believe that the Opposition have begun to make a case against that.
I strongly welcome the self-governing hospital and the fund-holding GP practice. It must be repeated that they are options rather than compulsory ingredients in the Government's scheme. Hon. Members who say that 99 per cent. of their constituents, including doctors and everybody else, are against those options can presumably derive satisfaction from knowing that, in that case, they will not come about. They will not happen unless people want them. There is no need to worry.
Exactly the same applies to practice budgets. Again, they will be picked up only if doctors want them. I know NHS practitioners who consider the practice budget exciting rather than terrifying. They are right to do so. Like the self-governing hospital, the practice budget gives scope for the enterprising and decentralised leadership for which many people have been crying out over the years. Goodness knows how many times I have heard doctors in particular complain about centralised bureaucracy and the administrative burdens of the NHS. If something is done to try to relieve them, we should welcome it rather than collapse into a dismal gloom and say that nothing new can possibly work.
I have only one significant concern about the Bill as presented; it relates to the question of choice. I have always believed that it would be an asset if we could honestly say that, among other things, the NHS reforms will offer everybody a greater choice of hospital, consultant and specialist, following the advice of, and in partnership with, one's general practitioner. However, the Bill as it stands does not achieve that. If I understand the provisions correctly, it is true that, in emergencies, it will be possible to bypass the contracts, but otherwise it looks as though the contract system will still present rigidity, which is a pity. If the Minister for Health can assure me otherwise, and if I have misunderstood the provisions, I shall be delighted, but if my understanding is correct, the Government should think hard about whether they can inject into the Bill more choice than there appears to he at present.
As I have said, I support not only the health side of the Bill, but the community care side also. I understand—I think that we all understand—that this is perhaps the most difficult area facing the Department of Health in terms of implementing the legislation. It is astonishingly difficult. All of us have either seen harrowing programmes on television or come across harrowing cases in our constituencies of people being released from long-term care in a hospital or wherever, with unhappy results, sometimes leading to murders and suicides. We all know about that, and we must accept that the notion of community care embodies some degree of risk which is averted if people remain locked up or confined to institutions. Nevertheless, I am absolutely sure that the principle of community care is right.
I say that with perhaps greater certainty than some hon. Members could because in my part of the county of Buckinghamshire I have seen the promising start that has already been made in implementing a policy which, although it comes ahead of the Bill, is remarkably close to it in application. We have developed the sort of

481
partnerships that are needed, and the Bill will facilitate such provision across the country. Above all, its great merit is the clear allocation of the responsibility for coping with such individuals that is assigned to local government. I profoundly hope that there will be no attempt to whittle away the essence of the Bill, however deeply we should be concerned about ensuring that we pick up all those in greatest need.
Finally, the question of housing provision runs parallel to that of community care. Although this was not in the Gracious Speech, we know that the Government have just said that they are going to put more money into tackling homelessness. That will be welcomed on all sides. However, we know not only that the whole question of homelessness is bound up with that of community care, but that it is still one of the major social problems affecting us today. Since 1979, we have had enormous success with the triumph of the right-to-buy programme, which I believe will never be reversed. However, I am frankly concerned about low-cost provision and about cheap rented housing in areas such as my constituency and other parts of the country. We should remember that this problem does not relate only to homelessness—serious though it is in, happily, limited parts of the country—but also to low-cost housing in a wider sense.
The Government put great emphasis on housing associations, which I support because they have an extremely good record. The Government are also trying as hard as they can to develop the private rented sector, and I support that also. In the long term, it seems nonsense that so little has been done to bring forward private provision. However, I am bound to say that we also need old-fashioned local authority council house building. I am not saying that that applies everywhere—I am sure that hon. Members can tell me of parts of the country where it is not necessary, but in some parts of the country, such as my own, it is necessary. Neither the private rented sector nor housing association provision leads to the right to buy, whereas building council houses does, and I firmly believe that the Government should not neglect that important part of the package.
6.24 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: I shall examine some of the claims that the Secretary of State made in defence of the Government's performance in looking after the National Health Service. I shall try to explain why a great many people deem the White Paper to be wholly inadequate to meet the enormous challenges facing those who administer and deliver the Health Service in our hospitals.
The Health Service in Mid Glamorgan is particularly stretched. It is not a rich county; it is a county with high morbidity rates and prevalence of illnesses, especially respiratory illnesses. Two years ago the health authority called in a private management consultancy, which recommended that the Mid Glamorgan health authority should have a replacement hospital in east Glamorgan. The district general hospital is now dilapidated and serves a population of no fewer than 180,000 people in the Rhondda and Taff-Ely valleys. The construction of that replacement hospital should have begun by now, but it has not.
482
The private consultants who carried out the survey recommended a replacement hospital of 780 beds and considered that to be the absolute minimum for the existing and future needs of the district health authority. In turn, the health authority said that under no circumstances could it find the funding for more than 500 beds, which is even fewer than the 540 beds that we have at present. In the past few weeks, it has not been clear whether there will be sufficient funds to cover even that reduced number of beds.
Faced with that rapid deterioration in the hospital—there is talk of patients being turned away and of people dying because they cannot be treated—the consultants have gone public in demanding action. Things have come to a pretty pass. That militates against the views of the Secretary of State, who painted a picture suggesting that everything was all right and who said that the Government were doing very well in looking after constituencies such as mine.
I have therefore brought along a letter sent to me this week by Mrs. Olwen Williams, the consultant physician at East Glamorgan general hospital. She said:
"Because of cumulative under-funding and under-investment, nearly every part of the service provided at EGGH is under strain — There is … a growing sense of anger and frustration among the senior staff that successive generations of managers and administrators seem unable or unwilling to provide the resources the hospital needs.
Estimated costs of outstanding maintenance work … are £4·5 million … There is a global shortage of beds, as we currently run at only slightly over half the recommended number for the population and workload. This has led to the closure of the hospital as a whole on one occasion this year, to the reduction and cessation of cold surgical operating on two occasions, to the admission of patients inappropriately to non-acute beds, to inappropriate early discharge of patients, and to the transfer of medical patients to surgical wards, geriatric patients to medical wards, patients sent home from Casualty rather than admitted, and a number of other undesirable practices … Over the last 2 to 3 years, children have been nursed on the same ward as acutely ill adults, the Department of Gynaecology has been unable to use all its operating sessions, for lack of beds, even though they have long waiting lists".
Mrs. Williams also writes that the hospital is short of operating theatres, intensive care beds, coronary care beds and medical equipment. She states:
"Current requests for equipment exceed £400,000. This year's allocation was £42,000."
The hospital is 40 nurses short. Mrs. Williams continues:
"There is an urgent need for a third consultant in Trauma and Orphopaedics, a third Geriatrician, a second Rheumatologist, a second Histopathologist, a fifth General Physician, a fourth General Surgeon, at least one more Anaesthetist and another Radiologist. As a Consultant Physician with an interest in diabetes, I am responsible for the diabetic population of 180,000."
Those facts cannot be defined, by any stretch of the imagination, as the record of a Government who are doing their best for the Health Service. That record is an absolute shambles and a disgrace. Those figures relate to just one hospital in a deprived area, but I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members could quote similar figures.
If there is any proper measure of humanity and intelligence of a civilised community, it is the provision of care for those who do not enjoy good health and who have no other means of looking after themselves. In constituencies such as mine there is no excess income to spend on private medicine. It is impossible for those people to take short cuts; they need the Health Service. They look

483
at the White Paper in desperation because they see that it does not meet their needs. Nor is there any suggestion as to how the shortages will he rectified.
The general hospital has tried to save money in many ways. It has put out to competitive tender all kinds of services. I have with me the pay slip of a woman in her 50s, Miss P. M. Coles, who works as a domestic at East Glamorgan hospital, as an illustration of the sacrifices made by my constituents so that the hospital can cut costs. The week before last that woman worked 36 hours and her take-home pay—it is here for anyone to see—was £76·91. That is what competitive tendering is all about. Those are the sacrifices that are being made by real people at a real hospital. If we are prepared to accept that that is a proper way for a civilised society to treat not only its sick, but those who take care of them, future generations will look on us as uncivilised and will believe that we ignored our duty. We do so at our peril.
I am not calling for greater sympathy for people who have nowhere else to turn, but if we are to compete with other countries and other economies, as we are constantly exhorted so to do, one piece of our infrastructure that we must get right is the health of the nation. If areas are allowed to deteriorate to a state where high levels of chronic illness prevail, as is already happening in some constituencies of the coalfields, we cannot be confident about the future and our ability to compete.
The civilising influences of the late 19th century had to be dragged in. We had to drag the most deprived communities towards the 20th century by arguing that health had to be improved, that civic pride had to be engendered and that we should have pride in looking after each other. We are sacrificing that tradition of excellence on the altar of a dogma that, every day, is proving to be a false one. If we continue down that path we will be attempting to take a shortcut that leads us nowhere. That shortcut will not help us to compete
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It really hurts me to stop hon. Members when they are in full flow, but I must apply the Standing Order.
6.34 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I do not have the benefit of knowing the constituency of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), but I am certain that the Welsh health authority—in my experience an extremely good one —has shared in the increase in funding that all regional health authorities have enjoyed. That increase has led to more nurses and more doctors. If the picture that the hon. Gentleman painted of his constituency is the truth, he should go to the Welsh health authority to demand better treatment. I suspect that he will find that his constituency has also shared in the increase in funding, nurses and doctors. We all agree that we have not reached Utopia, and that is why we need to take a new look at the National Health Service.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, in common with the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), provided the same old litany and not a single new idea. Regrettably, that was the contribution, or should I say lack of contribution, from the spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). All we hear about is the need for more
484
funding. I should like to consider the question of resources and to go back to the situation that prevailed in the spring of 1979.
The House will recall that, in 1979, we were coming to the end of a period of Labour government. That period saw an actual cut of 20 per cent. in real terms in nurses' pay and a 30 per cent. cut in the hospital building programme. It was the time of the winter of discontent, and spending on the NHS stood at £8,000 million.
Imagine if my party, the Conservatives, had stood on a platform during the 1979 election campaign and promised that, within 11 years, spending on the Health Service would have increased by 45 per cent. Imagine if we had run on a campaign that claimed that, in the forthcoming decade, there would be 67,000 more nurses, whose pay would, on average, be 43 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. Imagine if we had told the electorate in 1979 that there would, in 10 years, be 14,000 more doctors and 20 per cent. more general practitioners, that the average list size of GPs would decline by 300 and that those doctors would be paid, on average, 37 per cent. more in real terms than they were in 1979. If we had said that spending on health would increase by 1 per cent. of gross domestic product—our GDP is much higher than it was under the Labour Government—what would have been the reaction of the Opposition parties? They would have scoffed and scorned as they are doing now.
What would have been the reaction of the media? We can imagine the editorials of the Daily Mirror and we might even imagine the editorials of some of the more moderate and balanced papers advising us not to be so ambitious or so boastful. What would have been the reaction of the British Medical Association or some of the royal colleges? They, too, would have scoffed, and they would not have believed our claim. If we had been able to convince the BMA that we were speaking the truth arid that we could make the economy so strong that we could deliver that increase in funding and staffing, what would the BMA then have said? It could have said nothing but that its troubles were, to a significant extent, over, and that we would have a Health Service that satisfied all our demands.
We all know the reality, and we know that demands are far from satisfied—no Conservative Member would dream of suggesting that those demands have been met. We should all understand the pressures that have caused that shortfall. We have the pressure of an aging population —I am happy that that is so—and the huge expense in medical care required as one moves into one's later years. There is also the pressure of medical advance, which we all welcome, which is tremendously expensive and demanding on resources. The Health Service also faces the pressure of rising aspirations. As a number of my hon. Friends have already said, Opposition Members mention the failures and the problems, but they never mention the great successes and advances that have taken place in prenatal care, old-age care and whatever else.
Great advances have been made, but great challenges still lie before us. If people were to look at this subject objectively, they would say that we have had 40 years of a basic structure, endless commissions and royal commissions, inquiries, surveys and reports, but that fundamentally the structure that was put in place in 1948, and opposed by the British Medical Association, is no longer able to stand up.

485
Opposition Members should remember that the Conservative party was fully behind the then Minister for Health who, in 1944, introduced the White Paper which first established the principle of a National Health Service in this country which was available for all and free at the point of delivery. That is the principle to which we have adhered and on which the present proposals are founded. With the experience of the past 10 years and with the huge —in 1979, literally unbelievable—increase in resources, we have reached a point where it must be clear to all but the most closed minds that simply providing more money is not the answer and will not possibly produce the answer.
We have come to expect closed minds among the Opposition and listen in vain for any new idea from the Labour party and what remains of the centre parties. However, we are deeply dismayed that the minds of those in the medical profession so often seem to be closed. Fortunately, there is now a sign that their minds are being opened. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Livingston said, there are signs that good sense is at last breaking out among a number of those in the medical profession. The 2,700-strong Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association rightly condemned the British Medical Association's appalling propaganda campaign and welcomed intelligent debate about the proposals which the Government have sensibly put forward.
People who are worried that so many doctors and the British Medical Association are against the proposals and believe that therefore those proposals must be wrong, must take account of the British Medical Association's record. In an otherwise excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was wrong about one point. She said that the BMA had opposed medical advance for 40 years. It has actually opposed it at least from 1911, from the time of Lloyd George's National Insurance Act 1911. Once the Act had been in operation for two years and was seen to work, the BMA supported it wholeheartedly. Once our proposals are in operation and seen to work, the BMA and the rest of the medical profession will support them.
I lament the fact that the Opposition have not proposed a single new idea. I applaud the deep commitment which the Government have shown to the National Health Service by the huge increase of resources that they have committed, and continue to commit, to it. I call upon the House to reject the amendment.
6.42 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I followed with interest the contribution of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), particularly the valid points he made. When the Select Committee on Social Services brought out its first report on the financing of the Health Service, the Government's response was that we were plucking figures from the air. At that time we said that it would take £2 billion to bring the service into line. I welcome the fact that since then about £5 billion has been added. Therefore, we were not plucking the figures from the air, but moving in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) talked about the problems in Wales. I realise that there is a disparity of practice throughout the country. For example, during last Thursday's lobby, I was informed that staff
486
midwives were graded in an interesting way. Of those midwives, 75 per cent. were graded F in Wales, 30 per cent. in Scotland, 12 per cent. in England and 1 per cent. in Northern Ireland. There is a place for a proper balance in the National Health Service, because such grading creates discontent among people doing the same job.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend understand that the midwives to whom he referred were graded on the basis not of skill but of the budget available for that particular discipline?
Rev. Martin Smyth: I realise that certain guidelines are given. Boards are concerned that when they carry out reviews and upgrade people to the proper grade, the Government should provide the necessary finance.
I and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party welcome the statement in the Queen's Speech that the Government will continue to encourage greater involvement of locally elected representatives in the affairs of Northern Ireland. If the Government are committed to that idea, perhaps they will allow local representation of political parties in Northern Ireland to have a debate about the measures proposed for the Health Service and community care, as well as social security.
Earlier this afternoon, in another context, the Secretary of State for Health said that there was no point in coming to this House. In a sense, that observation is applicable to the Members representing Northern Ireland, because the National Health Service and Community Care Bill published last week does not apply to Northern Ireland. Clause 60 provides that the Bill should be applied to Northern Ireland by order. It is appalling that such important measures as GPs' budgets, self-governing hospitals and community care—the subject of widespread public anxiety and national debate—should be applied to the Province as a postscript, or afterthought. That shows no sensitivity for the need for democratic debate on matters affecting Northern Ireland.
I know that I shall be told that there is a different legislative framework in Northern Ireland. There is a different legislative framework in Scotland, yet the Bill includes Scotland. There is no reason why Northern Ireland should not be included in the Bill. We are told that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland in relation to National Health Service trusts because people might go there for treatment. It also applies in relation to holders of offices of profit under the Crown, including health board officers and chairmen in Northern Ireland. But the real meat of the Bill will come in an Order in Council, so there will be no opportunity to probe the legislation.
I support the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that a Special Standing Committee should examine the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
I call upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to grant us a local forum such as a regional council or even directly elected local health and social services boards to ensure proper scrutiny and value for money of the work done in the Health Service in Northern Ireland. Before the Secretary of State dismisses such an idea, will he look into the cost of the continuing IRA campaign on Health Service resources? Genuine consultation and the proper involvement of local politicians would diminish the IRA campaign and save NHS costs.

487
In that context, the Secretary of State should remove the veto that the SDLP and Sinn Fein have had over political progress and announce a revamped local government social service health structure as soon as possible. To enable us to find out the problems, and for several other reasons, my colleagues have suggested that there should be a Northern Ireland Select Committee. One reason is the reform of the National Health Service, and particularly the issue of patient choice, which is a subject dear to the Prime Minister's heart.
I have received a letter from a consultant in Northern Ireland who is sympathetic to the review, but he says that, in the initial guide issued by the Department, outlining steps self-governing status for hospitals,
"boards would have the right to refuse to fund cases where the patient chooses to attend a hospital with which the board have no contract."
Last week the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised the same matter. He emphasised that patient choice Hill not work out as many patients fondly believe it will.
There are serious implications for patients. They should be able to go elsewhere in the United Kingdom for treatment if they so wish, and if they believe that a specialist at a particular hospital can provide the best treatment for them, on the advice of their general practitioner. What is more important is that, despite the concept of decentralisation, the Bill will allow bureaucracy to build up, as boards choose who they want to have contracts with. That will be under the supervision of the Department.
Another issue that concerns us in Northern Ireland is the operation of the social fund by the Department of Health and Social Services. I believe that the social fund does not meet certain genuine cases of need, and that the money is running out. The Government have said that allocations to the social fund do not need to be increased, as they will be able to meet demand with the existing fund. I question that.
A social security office in my constituency has been extremely helpful by providing me with social fund priorities. The picture is alarming. Social fund officers place need for community care into a low, medium or high category. According to figures that I have been given, 65 per cent. of applications for community care grants were turned down between April and August this year, in constrast to the period between April 1988 and March 1989, when only 25 per cent. of applications were refused. Many more people applied for community care grants because of publicity, but that did not result in a higher take-up, because local officers could not pay out.
Budgeting loans are being paid only to people who have high priority. Many people who approach the DHSS for help with the cost of washing, travel to hospital, household items and for payment of debts that they may have run up while looking after relatives, may not get anything because they are in a low or medium priority group. That is happening in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I urge the Minister to state the position. I understand that many local social security officers are unable to issue budgeting loans. Will the Minister provide figures which show the pattern, circumstances and priority of those people who have been refused help by DHSS officers? I emphasise that the staff who have to work the system are extremely unhappy with it.
488
I join the right hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in urging the Minister to implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
6.54 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I congratulate the Government on the Queen's Speech and the proposal for legislation on health and community care.
When the Health Service was constructed in the late 1940s it was relevant to the time. During the decades since, changes have been made to make it more relevant to the needs of modern society. If we do not continue to make progress in health and community care provision we must, of necessity, fall back.
During the debate, I have listened for new ideas other than the constant emphasis on extra resources. Many hon. Members accept, as I do, that there is a need for adequate and substantial resources to fund health care in Britain. However, there have been no new ideas from Opposition Members, nor did I expect them. I would not be so foolish as to believe in that fantasy.
We need new ideas to deal with the problems of health care—for example, operations which 10 years ago would have been considered impossible. We need new initiatives to care for the elderly, as no hon. Member can be unaware of the fact that there were 530,000 people over the age of 85 in Britain in 1980; by 1989 that number had risen to 750,000, and by the year 2000 there will be over I million people aged 85 and over. There will be a commensurate increase in the number of people aged 65 and over.
Accordingly, I welcome the Government's care proposals, and I endorse the two principles behind them. First, people should be enabled to live as normal a life as possible in their own homes, or in an environment similar to their homes in the local community. Secondly, people should be given the right amount of care and support to enable them, as individuals and as members of a family, to achieve maximum independence.
Thus, the proposal which gives me the greatest heart is the one to give practical support to carers and to give them a higher priority. The new carers' premium, introduced in income support, will direct an extra £15 million a year to those caring for the severely disabled—some 30,000 beneficiaries.
That is my message of congratulation, and now I have some problems for my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. First, will she undertake to re-examine the formula for the Resource Allocation Working Group? It seems that the formula militates against the south-east, to the benefit of other regions. Consequently, there is a need to reflect on the age of some of the hospitals in my constituency. In the health district which I represent, there were nine hospitals in 1979, and with rationalisation that number has fallen to six. However, those hospitals are old. They were built for a different purpose to that for which they are now being used—as fever or isolation hospitals, workhouses and asylums. That needs to be changed. The Resource Allocation Working Group formula needs reexamination.
I also urge my hon. Friend to use her considerable influence to bring unity of purpose between the Departments of Health and the Department of the Environment to deal with derelict and unneeded, unused

489
hospital land in the home counties and the south-east. Indeed, my first Adjournment debate in the House, more than 10 years ago, was about hospital structures in the Dartford and Gravesham health authority. During that debate, I said that there were hundreds of acres of unused and derelict hospital land which could be released to provide for housing, industry and roads, and which could make a major financial contribution to funding the Health Service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of those feelings and perhaps give me the answer that I deserve and which I hope to get tonight.
I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He was clearly a bit off colour. The Opposition are on trial tonight. We need to know what they intend to do when they have finished making their parrot-like call for more money, What are their plans? How much will they spend? More important, how much will they spend as a commitment, because they are likely to spend only as much as Mr. Mandelson lets them spend? We have had from Labour views, policy changes and policy initiatives, only to have them withdrawn again on the orders of Maison Mandelson. We know that the policy announcements made by Labour are as relevant as a stale pork pie in Hartlepool's Labour club, but we hope to get more information from the hon. Member who is to wind up for the Opposition at the end of the debate.
I also hope for some honesty. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was right to touch that chord. The Health Service has problems and needs major reform, but it is also doing sterling work in every area of human activity relating to health care. Constantly to denigrate the Health Service, as the Labour party likes to do, is continually to slur many thousands of people who work in it. I hope that the Labour party will step off the fence and start walking on terra firma. I know that is hard, in the light of the changes of style which are being recommended by Mr. Mandelson, but if we had some honesty, some beef on which to chew, all of us would be happy.
Finally, the high-speed rail link is a topic to which I intend to return time and again—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh at what I say. My constituents will be told that they laughed. Many hundreds of my constituents are suffering stress, anxiety and mental breakdown because of the high-speed link that is to come through north-west Kent. I pay tribute to the Health Service and counselling services in north-west Kent for the sterling work being done to help real people in real need.
7.2 pm
Mr. Terry Fields: It should, but it never ceases to amaze me what attitude Conservative Members take on issues that we discuss here. We know of the wave of opposition to the Government's policies on the NHS—the facts, figures, opinion poll results and statistics are clear—but Conservative Members persist in their old arguments, as did the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).
An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory, as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin once said. Conservative Members get their experience in the same way as that woman in
490
Downing street. She goes to hospital only for a photo-call after a tragedy. It is no wonder that Conservatives are ignorant about the Health Service.
Merseyside has been mentioned. In Liverpool, five hospitals are to close in the next round of cuts. Some 1,000 beds are going. In my constituency, the accident and emergency unit, which is half a mile from the M62 and covers that area, is to close. People for whom minutes and seconds are important will have to go all the way into town to the Liverpool teaching hospital, which is overstretched and has staff and bed shortages. The staff there are being run into the ground.
Members of the working class in Liverpool have always had community care. We have always looked after our own. There have always been people to act as carers for those who cannot look after themselves. We do not need any lessons about care in the community from Conservative Members.
In my constituency, the Park and Rathbone hospitals are being closed. In theory, people are being put back into the community, but there are no resources with which to tend them once they are there. The latest move is to put them into homely homes. Hundreds of people are going through the Park and Rathbone hospitals. Homes for about 20 people will be built at some time in the future, but we do not know when. Everyone else will be thrown out into the community. Old men and women, some of them mentally subnormal, will be left to wander around Liverpool. They may end up in cardboard boxes at night because they have nobody to look after them. The staff at the hospitals are devoted and commited to the people they work with. As part of a campaign throughout the Liverpool area, they are organising to defend their jobs and, more important, care and attention for people who are unable to look after themselves.
At our teaching hospital, between 400 and 500 nurses have been given notice that if they do not comply with new rotas to be imposed by management by 1 January, which means £70 or £80 being taken out of their pay packets each year, they will all be sacked as from 2 January. That is how the Government, and the management they put in, treat staff. The Government talk of the Health Service getting all this money. If people want to know where it has gone, I can tell them. It is being used to employ management whose sole job is to butcher the Health Service. They are people with no connection with the Health Service. They have established a record of sacking workers on the docks and that is the principal criterion for employing them.
Women will be most affected by the hospital closures. Maternity services will suffer. Gynaecology and family planning are not included in the Government's list of core services. It is proposed to open an old condemned Victorian building—the old Royal hospital. It is considered good enough for the women of Merseyside to close down good units and to reopen an old Victorian building which was condemned as unfit for habitation some time ago—and all this in an area with the highest incidence in the north-west of death from breast and cervical cancer. Services for women in Liverpool will be non-existent.
I am sickened, and workers I know have had it up to here with stupid statements from the Government claiming that they are spending more in real terms on the Health Service. In May I asked the House Library to find out what percentage of gross domestic product has been spent on the National Service. In 1949–50 we spent 3·6 per

491
cent., and in 1987–88 we spent 4·8 per cent. of GDP on the NHS. To use the Government's phrase, in real terms, spending has increased by only 1·2 per cent. in 40 years. Since the Government came to power, the increase has been less than 0·5 per cent. Those are the real figures.
The ambulance staff dispute is symptomatic of what is happening in the Health Service. I spent two years doing national service and worked in a field ambulance, so I know the level of training that ambulance personnel in the armed forces receive. I am not denigrating them, but young people in the armed forces are nothing but economic conscripts. They are not there to fight for the Union Jack. They are there because there is sod all else to do in places like Liverpool. They are in the front line of a life and death struggle provoked by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Health, who is playing Russian roulette with people's lives. I had first-hand contact with the troops called in during the 1977–78 fire service dispute. They were unable to man the green goddesses and to deal with emergencies just as the troops are incapable of dealing with emergencies in the present dispute. Yet the Government were still prepared to call in the troops in the ambulance dispute.
Whether the Government admit it or not, privatisation is on the agenda for the National Health Service. Movement towards the American method of health care is on their agenda.
Ms. Harriet Harman: That is absolutely true.
Mr. Fields: As my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely true.
I spoke earlier about experience. In May this year I went to New York at the invitation of the American health service workers who wanted to learn about the NHS in Britain. Workers in America have had a bellyful of private medicine. In the United States between 37 million and 40 million people have no health insurance. Millions of families have inadequate health cover or none at all, and their life savings are wiped out at a stroke if they are ill.
We are moving in the direction of the United States system of health care. In a Harris poll conducted in 1988, 89 per cent. of American people called for a fundamental change in the profit-based health care system and 61 per cent. pointed to the national health care service in Canada as a system that they would prefer. The polls show that 75 to 80 per cent. of people in the United States favour a national health system. Indeed, the president of the Lous Harris organisation said that the poll
"confirms all one's worst fears about the American system. We have the most expensive—least well-liked—least equitable and in many ways the most inefficient"
health service in the world.
An organisation called Physicians for a National Health Service was set up two years ago, made up of 1,200 doctors campaigning for a national health service. The New England Journal of Medicine, an authoritative medical journal, contained an editorial entitled "Universal health insurance—its time has come." Yet the Government continue to devastate the National Health Service in this country.
Conservative Members have said that the Opposition have no ideas on the NHS. We admit that it needs more funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the Labour party would provide
492
more funding by diverting into the NHS some of the finance devoted to weaponry and destruction. Another way would be to nationalise the drug companies—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.
7.12 pm
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), who was absent at Question Time and failed to—
Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise that matter in ignorance of the difficulties on the motorways which prevented me from being here earlier?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this. The hon. Lady knows that she should not raise that matter and that the Chair cannot resolve it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should have set off earlier.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems that I am being asked why it is not a matter for the Chair to resolve. The Chair is not responsible for an hon. Member arriving at a particular time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench know that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the principle of money following the patient, from which Lancaster health authority will benefit substantially. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State knows that in Lancaster health authority hospitals are well run and attract a large number of patients from outside our district. He has seen the excellent pie charts produced by the district health authority showing patient flow across the district border. It is a staggering fact that in one specialty 49 per cent. of patients come from outside the district. That is a great compliment to all who work in our local hospitals, but it puts a great strain on resources under the present method of funding.
In Lancaster we were delighted to hear that 100 new consultants and teams were to be appointed, but we were sad that we did not get one of the first 35 appointments. We desperately need another orthopaedic surgeon. Twenty-nine per cent. of orthopaedic beds are occupied by patients from outside the district and the strain on our staff is enormous. It is an astonishing and distressing fact that in Lancaster, no orthopaedic surgeon has ever lived to retire and the last one died in his forties. We did not get an extra appointment because, our bid was slightly above the £500,000 target. As I explained to the Minister for Health, that was partly because, until we get phase 3 of our hospital building programme, which the Secretary of State has confirmed, our costs are higher because we have a split site. Nevertheless we have managed to prune our costs and brought them below £500,000. That being so, we are very anxious for an early appointment. Now that we have hit the target, we should like an immediate go-ahead for an extra orthopaedic consultant immediately after Christmas. It would be a lovely Christmas present.
We also need an extra urologist, and have put in a good case for that. However, those reforms cannot help us next year. We are in an unique position in Lancaster. The

493
population in the north-west of the region is falling, but in Lancaster it is rising. My hon. Friend the Minister has seen the bar charts showing population rises in Lancaster and we need more funding to cope with such rises.
We have two Victorian hospitals in the district, one for the mentally abnormal and one for the mentally deficient. They are expensive to maintain because the buildings are old. We are delighted but not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State succeeded in obtaining an extra £2·6 billion for the Health Service in the autumn spending review. I have already put in a bid with my right hon. and learned Friend and with the North Western regional health authority for a substantial share of the increase. We know that his prudent planning assumptions of a reduction of 0·3 per cent. was to ensure that no district health authority exceeded its subsequent allocation in advance of the Autumn Statement. Now that the figures are known, I look for a proper increase to cover our local, legitimate health needs.
One point worries me. There is no mention of midwifery among the core services. We have an excellent maternity hospital in Lancaster, but my midwives are anxious for those who are less fortunate. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his team to look again at this point. Above all, please may we have an extra consultant at the earliest possible moment?
7.17 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I have listened carefully to the debate this evening. Some of the comments from Conservative Members appalled me. They do not live in the real world and I am sure that they do not see what is happening in their own constituencies. I also listened to the Queen's Speech with dismay. The measures proposed in it will only reduce the quality of life of most of my constituents. It is proposed to maintain a policy of high interest rates, which will mean high mortgage repayments.
The Queen's Speech included a Bill that will take the first steps to privatise the coal industry, a Bill to cripple the trade unions, a Bill to reduce the quality of our television, a Bill which will by no means adequately protect the environment, a Bill to introduce student loans which will further restrict working-class young people from entering higher education and, worse of all, a Bill on the National Health Service.
On 10 August, the Select Committee on Social Services, the majority of whose members are Tories, reported that the White Paper was ill-conceived, moved far too quickly and, if implemented, would not meet the needs of the NHS. Have the Government listened to that report? No, they have taken no notice whatever. The legislation will create a two-tier system. It will take us back to the 1940s, when private hospitals competed with the voluntary sector, and people were brought to the edge of bankruptcy. The Bill will create an internal market for health, with NHS hospitals and GPs competing with the private sector.
A vast new system will be needed for cross-charging patient treatment between hospitals and health authorities, between opting-out hospitals and between GPs and hospitals. Every injection, bandage and therapy, and every minute of staff time, will have to be accounted for, costed and allocated to the patient. Then the bill will be sent to the health authority. The debate started in the first place
494
because of the lack of funding for the Health Service, yet the White Paper never mentions funding. Tremendous additional administration will be required to carry out the system that it describes.
The key proposal in the legislation is opting out for hospitals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Tory Members like to talk about self-governing hospitals, but I prefer to speak about opting-out hospitals, as do my colleagues, because that is exactly what they will be. We are not told how the procedure will work. We are told that a hospital may show an interest in opting out and produce a prospectus. There will be limited discussion between managers and senior doctors and no staff involvement within the hospital. Cleaners, porters and nurses will not be allowed to express their opinion. Neither the staff nor those living in the area which the hospital covers will be balloted. The decision will be taken by the senior management of the hospital, and the Secretary of State will make the final decision. That is the democracy that we have come to expect from this Tory Government.
Some opting-out hospitals will be successful, but others will not. Those that cannot cope in the system will decline. Will they close or will they be accepted back into the Health Service? We do not know. Those that remain within the Health Service will become second-class and have limited functions. The logical progression from opting out is privatisation. The result will be a two-tier system of health care, with the less desirable cases—the chronically sick and elderly—having to go to health authority hospitals. Opting-out hospitals will specialise in profitable activities and drop all other functions. As a result, local communities will not receive the guaranteed comprehensive service that they are used to and deserve. Opting-out hospitals will have financial incentives to treat patients who will bring the hospital the most profit.
Opting-out hospitals will have the option of paying their own salary rates and operating their own conditions of work. They will be able to attract the so-called best members of staff, leaving the remainder to the health authority hospitals. I always thought that the NHS was established to stop such inequalities. The service will be returned to the days when inequalities were the norm. That is what the Government are encouraging in this legislation.
The Government are designing an NHS for acute services only. They are ignoring the rest of its functions. We hear about core services, yet within that term there is no mention of maternity, paediatric care or family planning. The people who will suffer most will be women. The core services guarantee accident and emergency services, immediate admission to surgery and so on, but not less urgent work. District health authorities will have to shop around and purchase that care from opting-out hospitals, health authority hospitals, other district hospitals or the private sector. That is not how the NHS should progress but, unfortunately, it is how it will progress under this Government.
The second major element is the change in GP services. GPs with large practices of 11,000-plus will become budget holders. They will have to buy all their patient care, including hospital treatment, from any of the options available. Budgets will be limited, so GPs will be discouraged from taking on heavy consumers of drugs and services. A pool of problem patients will find it difficult to get on doctors' lists. I am not an expert on this, but I am relating information that doctors have given me. Obviously, if a doctor has the choice of a healthy

495
30-year-old or a 60-year-old with arthritis, Parkinson's disease or diabetes, he or she will choose, not the 60-year-old, but the healthy 30-year-old.
Budgets will put doctors in an invidious position. They will always have to seek savings, for example by postponing referrals to hospitals. If the patient has severe or advanced symptoms, the doctor may wait to see how they develop. The patient may then become an emergency case and have to be rushed to hospital. If the doctor has not sent the patient to hospital, the cost will not be taken from his or her budget. As a result, patients will wonder whether that consideration has anything to do with the doctor's decision, and patients' trust in their doctor will be considerably undermined.
7.27 pm
Sir David Mitchell: I will not follow the flights of imagination of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) about the development of the National Health Service. I know that others want to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall make a brief speech about the ambulance dispute, the question of arbitration and other NHS matters.
The ambulance men's union has identified an emotive group for whom there is much public support and sympathy. All of us should recognise that fact. But much of that public support is misplaced. The NHS has some 1 million staff engaged in a whole range of different skills and activities. The ambulance men are part of that team and spend 70 per cent. of their time on routine, not emergency, work.
Within the National Health Service, there are carefully balanced relativities on wages and salaries that have been agreed through the Whitley negotiating machinery. NUPE wants 11·2 per cent. for the ambulance men. That would wreck those relativities and would immediately lead to leapfrogging claims by other groups of workers. That has not been sufficiently appreciated by some of the ambulance men, and certainly not by the general public.
About 300,000 National Health Service workers have already settled for 6·5 per cent. Nurses have settled for 6·8 per cent. If the ambulance men receive 11·2 per cent. that will cause disappointment, and other groups that have settled at lower rates will want to restore the relative pecking order. The Government have announced substantial additional funding for the Health Service and there is a battle over whether the money should go to the staff or the patients. I agree with most of my constituents who, I think, want the money to be spent on patient services.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) called for arbitration to settle the ambulance dispute. The problem with arbitration is that the arbitrators invariably split the difference, and in the case of an extravagant claim that means an extravagant settlement. However, it is not an arbitrator's money: it belongs to the management of the Health Service. An arbitrator can withdraw from the scene after delivering his judgment and it is left to the unhappy management of the Health Service to decide how many beds will be closed or how many operations will have to be delayed to find the money that the arbitrator gave to the staff instead of to improvements in the service. We should all bear that in mind.
The hon. Member for Livingston challenged us to say whether any Conservative candidate or manifesto at the
496
last general election had set out a programme for the reform of the National Health Service. He knows perfectly well that no such programme was set out because it was not until after the general election that we started to get a groundswell of complaints about the Health Service. Those complaints were hugely orchestrated by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. Time and again small cases were picked out, thrown into relief and made subjects for debate in the House. Of course the Government have reacted, and the hon. Gentleman now complains about that reaction.
The hon. Member for Livingston spoke about hospital waiting lists and growing problems. He told us about a patient taken from hospital to hospital without being admitted. Those matters show that there is something wrong with the Health Service, yet for some extraordinary reason the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues spend their time lambasting the Government for seeking to do something about it. The country should take note of that.
I want to turn from dealing with the ambulance men's militant trade union to deal with another militant trade union, the British Medical Association. It has sought to use patients, and I employ the word "use" in its worst sense.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman talks about militant trade unions. Is he aware that the Police Federation fully supports the ambulance workers? Would he say that the Police Federation is a militant trade union?
Sir David Mitchell: I was addressing the use by the BMA of patients as a means of extracting concessions for the doctors in negotiations with the Secretary of State. The BMA has gone over the top in a big way, and the public now recognise the fact. In terms of its advertising campaign, it has gone over the top in an expensive way as well.
My constituents have three worries about the National Health Service. Their first is that budgets will mean that, three quarters of the way through the year, practices may run out of money and be unable to prescribe the drugs that patients need. Some of my constituents have been frightened by that aspect of the BMA's campaign. It is disgraceful that the BMA has tried to put the frighteners on patients so that they will lobby Members of Parliament to persuade the Secretary of State to give doctors a limitless budget.
Some doctors spend 50 per cent. more on prescribing than other doctors with similar profile practices. It is right that such doctors should be asked to explain if they overshoot the notional budget. Let us be absolutely clear: the budget is notional and doctors who overrun it will be asked for an explanation. There may be a perfectly good explanation—perhaps a unique characteristic among patients in a certain area—in which case the doctors will be allowed the additional resources that they need. If there is not an adequate reason, it is right that the public purse should seek value for money. I understand from the Minister—I hope that it will be repeated—that in no case will patients go without drugs because a doctor has overshot his notional budget.
The second anxiety of my constituents relates to the capitation fee, which, it is alleged, will force doctors to take on many more patients and therefore have less time for each patient. Where will the extra patients come from? Will there be a sudden and huge increase in the

497
population? Of course not. Like Members of Parliament and people in other professions, doctors have different characteristics. Some of them are ambitious and want to build up a big list and do a great deal of work. Others want to take life more easily because they see life in a different hue. They are less ambitious and would rather enjoy life, so they have a smaller list.
There is nothing revolutionary in the concept that doctors with large lists should be paid more than doctors with smaller lists. I have discussed the matter with doctors in my constituency, and when I probed I was fascinated to discover that most of them have above-average lists and would gain from the capitation fee change. Certainly they will not need to take on more patients. Some of them could shed some patients and give a bit more time to those who remain. The fear about capitation is quite widespread and I hope that it can be laid to rest. The third worry of my constituents is that they will have to travel long distances to hospital. That will be entirely at the discretion of the patient and the doctor in consultation.
7.38 pm
Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is difficult to understand how Conservative Members can say that they care. They have spent most of their time in the debate criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The Minister attacked my hon. Friend and then went on to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. This is an important debate for the Opposition and we shall not stand for hypocrisy from the Minister. He may not understand what privatisation means, but we do.
I have just visited 15 hospitals in my city of Glasgow. The people there understand what privatisation means and every health worker is sweating in case he loses his job. I should be grateful to be presented with a clear definition of competitive tendering. Despite the explanations offered by some Conservative Members, I see it as privatisation. In this year alone, 17 per cent. of the domestic, catering, laundry and portering staff in Glasgow's hospitals have been the subject of privatisation. That is just the start. There remain for tendering transport, radiology, medical reports, payroll functions and pharmacy, laboratory and clinical support. What will be percentage of privatised sectors when those services have been subject to the tendering process? The Secretary of State said that he was angry at the suggestion that the Government are privatising the Health Service, and even the Prime Minister denies that it is being done. I cannot understand that reaction.
The Greater Glasgow health board seems to be the Government's politburo—hellbent on implementing everything that the Government have introduced. The board must surely be aware that the Government have an appalling record. The Secretary of State has told us that he is spending billions of pounds, but there has been neglect over the past 10 years. If so much money has been pumped into the Health Service, why is there a shortage of 87,000 beds? Why are operations being cancelled? Why is that happening when the Government claim to be spending more money?
The Greater Glasgow health board has produced a document which reflects its concern about health care in
498
the 1990s. I represent one of the most impoverished constituencies in Europe, with the worst health record and the worst infant mortality rate. It has the worst mortality rate for those aged between 40 and 65 years and the worst cervical cancer rates for females aged 16 to 25 years. There are appalling health conditions in the constituency. Why has there been no improvement in the past 10 years? It is because the money has been wasted. It has been paid to high fliers and bureaucrats who are interested only in making savings. The other month, the bureaucrats in one hospital said that savings could be made by cancelling six packets of Alpen and four pints of milk each day. That is the mentality of the managers.
The Queen Mother's hospital and the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital at Rottenrow—two strategic maternity hospitals in Glasgow—are being closed. If the Greater Glasgow health board believes in community health care, why is it ignoring the advice of all the obstetricians, paediatricians, and other clinicians? Having listened to all those who have been involved in the consultation exercise, the board still wishes to site its maternity units at Stobhill and Yorkhill. The response to that policy has been complete opposition. My constituency lies in the east of Glasgow, and my constituents and I want centralisation.
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) attacked the BMA. He described it as militant. If I were a member of the BMA, I would take a shotgun to the Government. In 1985, the then Minister for Health met the BMA and asked its members what their priorities were. They responded by participating in discussions and giving the matter careful consideration. They produced a list of 16 priorities, at the top of which was an extension of the cervical cancer cytology screening programme to include all women over 20 years at three-year intervals. The Government have failed to respond to that priority. They have introduced a five-year screening. The result is that every year 2,000 women die needlessly.
Another priority was a comprehensive scheme for paediatric surveillance at general practice level. It was wished to encourage general practitioners to carry out minor surgery. There were another 14 priorities. None of the priorities has yet been implemented. That shows the extent of the Government's concern about the health of the nation.
Who cares about your White Paper? Who cares about your "Working for Patients"? On 28 November 1987, the Government published a White Paper entitled "Promoting Better Health". During the discussions that ensued, the Government introduced "Working with Patients." That happened before the practitioners had had a chance to discuss the previous White Paper. The Government decided to open Pandora's box. Despite what we have been telling you today, you still do not understand. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), has told you. Nobody wants your Bill. Nobody wants your White Papers. Nobody wants changes. We do not want Americanisation of the NHS.
Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal practice in the House that hon. Members must not refer to you?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Absolutely pathetic.
Mr. Wray: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On 21 June, the Glasgow medical committee discussed your White Papers; they were rejected by 160 votes to 150. That, however, was not enough. It seemed that the Government wanted the opinion of all doctors throughout the country. A referendum shows that 82 per cent. of all doctors have rejected the Government's White Papers.
Unfortunately, I have only one minute left to me. I would have needed an hour and a half to explain the damage that that gang of crooks on the Government Benches have done to the NHS. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] They are playing with the NHS and with the lives of innocent men and women. Let them pay the ambulance men and women what they deserve. The Government should understand that they provide an essential service and treat them in the same way as the police and the firemen.
7.49 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). I understand many of the concerns that he has expressed, and I share the anxiety that has been voiced by many other hon. Members about the state of the National Health Service. It is no better in Northern Ireland than it appears to be in the rest of the United Kingdom. I must ask for your forgiveness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for attempting to drag the House away from the theme of the debate to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland.
I read the Gracious Speech with great interest, and especially the remarks about Northern Ireland. Perhaps I could be forgiven for being delighted initially to see that the Government were advocating the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I said that I could be forgiven for so thinking, because unfortunately the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made remarks that gave encouragement and succour to the men of violence, when he indicated that the IRA could not be defeated.
I cannot for the life of me believe that, in his senses, the right hon. Gentleman could really have meant the remarks that he made. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will take the opportunity to lay at rest the Secretary of State's remarks—not to replace them with the neutral comment that neither can the IRA win. The people of Northern Ireland want a clear and unambiguous statement that the Government are not only prepared to defeat terrorism but believe that they can do so and that their policies are aimed in that direction.
If the Government cannot give such an undertaking, they are saying to the widows of policemen, UDR men and soldiers that their loved ones died in vain, in a cause that is useless and cannot be won. They are saying to the men who put on a uniform and who comb the streets and patrol the roads of Northern Ireland, "You are putting your lives in jeopardy for nothing. You cannot win this war against terrorism." Is that the message that the Government want to give their forces in Northern Ireland? Is that the message the Government want to send to the long-tried and hard-pressed people of Ulster? The Government should take the opportunity to make it clear that the IRA can be defeated and that it is Government policy to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland.
If the Government will not make that declaration, then tonight I shall say that terrorism can be defeated. At
500
present, it is not the Government's policy to defeat terrorism but to react to it—to wait until the IRA strikes and then try to parry the blow. That is not the way to defeat terrorism. There must be a strong and resolute security initiative against the IRA. The Government must be prepared to corner and to catch the IRA, and when the terrorists are caught to ensure that they are given a sentence that fits the crime.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was acting in the best interests of the Province when he suggested that at some time in the future, there may be an opportunity for IRA representatives to sit down with the Government. Such a comment is an act of folly and encourages terrorism. Terrorists breed on hope—the hope that they can achieve by violence that which they could never achieve through reasoned debate, argument or the ballot box. The IRA believes that, if it can continue to press the Government to appease it, then the IRA is on the winning road. Comments such as those made by he Secretary of State give the succour that the IRA wants and the justification that it needs among its own people to continue its campaign of violence.
I do not deny that the task of defeating terrorism would be made easier even if Northern Ireland had a stable political structure, and neither do I believe that the search for one should be halted until the IRA is defeated. Nor do I believe that the battle against the IRA should wait until the Province has a stable political structure. The search must go on for a means whereby Northern Ireland can be governed in peace and enjoy reconciliation. However, the means by which Northern Ireland is presently governed will not produce peace, stability and reconciliation. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not working; it has failed. We must search for an alternative, and I urge the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Government to show some flexibility in relation to negotiating an alternative.
It is interesting that leading players in the Republic have shown greater flexibility than the British Government in a suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to allow new negotiations to begin. There has been a clear indication from the leader of the SDLP that he is prepared to negotiate an agreement that would transcend in importance the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The two Unionist party leaders have indicated that they are prepared to negotiate an alternative to and the replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I urge the Government to make that their second priority in Ulster. Their first priority should be the defeat of terrorism and their second the attainment of stable political structures in the Province so that our people can consider, as can the people of Britain, the social and economic matters that concern all of us in the Province but which must come behind the primary issues of the life and death of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
7.55 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) down the road to Northern Ireland, although I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House join him in hoping that there will be growing peace in the Province.
I shall first take up a point made by the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-East (Sir D. Mitchell) in respect of the possible conflict of interests that might arise in the allocation of National Health Service resources—whether

501
they would be better spent on patients or on people making wage claims. I suggest that such is an artificial divide. If patients are to receive the level of service that they need, they must enjoy back-up facilities such as the ambulance service. I place it on record that the ambulance workers of Wales and particularly of my own county of Gwynedd have my wholehearted support for the stand that they are making. I cannot fathom why the Government are not prepared to go to arbitration, other than to dictate that ambulance workers must be employed on the Government's terms alone and because the Government are not prepared to yield an inch even if independent arbitration attempts to move them in that direction.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, referred to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which I understand will go first to another place before coming to this Chamber. I hope that the House will give the utmost consideration and sympathy to those people who are experiencing difficulty in having children and who need to resort to in vitro fertilisation techniques—techniques that would not be available today had the restrictive clause that is now to be considered been on the statute book 30 years ago.
I ask the House to consider also the plight of those families with children suffering from genetic diseases. There is hope of progress being made in respect of conditions such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis, and it would be a tragedy and a crime if we were to close the door to the research that is now being undertaken. I regret that questions relating to abortion and to implementation of the Warnock report should be mixed together in one Bill. Both issues are important, but they should be treated on their own merits. I hope that that may yet be the case.
I want to set the question of the Health Service, social services and care in the community in Wales in the context of the politics of my country and of the Queen's Speech. The Gracious Speech had little relevance to Wales. We are governed by the Welsh Office, which has a budget of £3·5 billion per year. The Secretary of State for Wales has 2,500 staff, yet as a Department the Welsh Office has not brought forward any legislation in the past 10 years. There are different aspirations in Wales, as can be seen from the political pattern of election after election.
I do not mean to be unkind to Conservative Members, but never in 120 years have the people of Wales elected a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, we are governed by a Welsh Office that is headed by someone akin to a governor-general, who promotes policies that may suit the hopes and aspirations of south-east England but which certainly do not suit the hopes, aspirations and community values of the people of Wales.
We celebrated only last week the 25th anniversary of the Welsh Office, which has responsibility for health in Wales, and I hope that its Ministers will take heed of a comment made yesterday on radio by a former senior civil servant from their midst, Mr. Richard Hall-Williams, that the overriding question now is how democratic accountability can be achieved for the Welsh Office, which currently is not democratically answerable to the people of Wales.
502
We hope that, in the course of the parliamentary year, policies relevant to Wales will be developed. Regrettably, the priorities of the NHS Bill are not those that we seek. Only a handful of doctors' practices in Wales would cross the 11,000 threshold, and none of our hospitals has shown any interest in self-government. The first part of the Bill is irrelevant to Welsh circumstances, while the second part does not appear to have responded to the Welsh community care angle.
The Secretary of State for Health today said candidly that he spoke as Health Secretary for England, and that explains much of what we see, and do not see, in the Bill. A few weeks ago, at the Conservative party conference, he made considerable play of the importance of cottage hospitals, whose protection, he said, was part of the rationale for the legislation. It is ironic that the present incumbents in the Welsh Office are rapidly closing down community hospitals in Porthmadog, Caernarfon and Llangefni in my constituency—and, indeed, throughout Wales. Last week the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales responsible for health—said that the Welsh Office did not recognise the concept of the cottage hospital. There are times when I would take the word of the Secretary of State for Health in England before I would take that of the Welsh Office.
The White Paper on care in the community—published only a few hours before the Queen's Speech: this must be one of the most rapid metamorphoses from White Paper to legislation—contains a section relating to the needs of Wales. The latter section referred to those needs in detail, and said that a separate section to deal with them was necessary because of the different circumstances of Wales; the Bill, however, makes no independent provision for Wales.
Conservative Members have raised another matter that affects health care—that of housing standards. A housing crisis is developing in some areas, including mine. Housing waiting lists are shooting up: in the past two years they have risen from 800 to 1,400 in the Arfon borough, and from 350 to 550 in the Dwyfor district, both areas in my constituency. People who have bought their council houses have found themselves in difficulties, and have been forced to sell them and go back on to the council house waiting list; young people with no hope of being able to buy their houses are unable to rent in the private sector because rents are too high. Given the available resources, surely we can overcome our housing crisis.
We hoped that the Queen's Speech would deal with regional economic problems by attempting to redress the balance between the overheating of the economy in the south-east of England and the continuing high unemployment levels in many of the Welsh valley areas, as well as rural north-west and south-west Wales. Unfortunately, it made no reference to such problems. When unemployment is between 10 and 12 per cent. in some areas and down to 2 per cent. in others, something is clearly wrong. As we approach 1992, and as the forces of the European Community superimpose themselves on the centralising forces that already exist, we need a much more radical regional policy if we are to retain a semblance of balance between developments in the various countries and regions in these islands.
The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—of which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was the author—has still

503
not been fully implemented, although, as other hon. Members have pointed out, many parts of it are an essential feature to any provision for community care. That Act should be implemented in full. If the Government do not intend to give the starting orders for that to happen, they should spell out clearly what alternative provision is made in this or other legislation to meet the needs of disabled or mentally ill people who are transferred from hospitals into the community.
The Queen's Speech is largely irrelevant to Wales; the NHS Bill does not meet our needs. Until Wales has its own Parliament, which can make decisions in line with the needs and hopes of its people, we do not believe that we shall be given the justice that we deserve.
8.4 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I shall follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and community care in a moment. First, however, let me say that several items in the Queen's Speech are very good news. Any of us who have ever worked in that appalling building at Elephant and Castle will be delighted to learn that the demise of the Property Services Agency is on the cards; if ever there was a case for getting rid of direct labour and the old gang, this is it, and it should have been done years ago.
The news that there is to be a Bill on food safety is also immensely welcome. That will put us ahead of the rest of Europe. It will bring us into the age of the microwave and the blast chiller, intensive farming and irradiation. We do not yet know whether the general public will accept irradiated food; the point is, however, that consumers want to know that health and hygiene standards are strictly monitored and controlled, and they want more information. That will mean better labelling—not just little lions—to give them some choice.
The food safety legislation has been in preparation for a long time. Perhaps, if it had been in last year's Gracious Speech, we should all have been spared a good deal of trouble. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill and urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same.
We should reflect on the extra money for the NHS that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned so proudly: an extra £2·4 billion this year, or £2·6 billion when increased efficiency is taken into account —sales of surplus stock, for example. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, it means a total of £5·2 billion in cash over two years. That is the biggest increase that the NHS has ever seen, and compares with the total of just over £7 billion that the Opposition parties put into it 10 years ago. It will help to raise all activity to record levels, including staff, the capital programme and patient care. It gives the lie to Opposition claims that we intend to destroy the NHS. No wonder they sat there looking glum as the Chancellor announced the extra cash in his Autumn Statement.
The only solution offered by such people as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—who, having made his intervention, has now left—was the nationalisation of the pharmaceutical companies. Let me put on record that many of my constituents work at Boots in Nottingham; we shall remember the Labour party's
504
offer, and we shall make darned sure that the general public are reminded of it in Nottingham, in Derbyshire and everywhere else.
Here is the precious balm of more money: let me rub it in a little more. This is the first Government to spend more on health than on defence. Perhaps that means that the House should change some of its procedures. At present we have a two-day debate on the defence estimates, and other debates on the Army, the Air Force and the Navy; but we have no debate on NHS estimates. Yet we spend far more on the Health Service than on defence. Perhaps the time has come to have such a debate: certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench need no longer feel defensive about NHS funding.
It is also worth reflecting that the Labour party has voted against every one of the proposals that have brought about these developments. I have no doubt that they will fight to the last ditch the proposals in the Gracious Speech to help the NHS to use its money better. Left to their devices, we would never close a clinic or a hospital, even to replace it with a new one in a more convenient place. There are 10 hospitals in the centre of Liverpool, all within a mile of each other. It makes no sense to spend money on such property when it could go into patient services.
If matters have been left to the Labour party, we would never have made the progress on preventive medicine—;not in a million years. When Opposition Members talk about women's health and cervical cancer, I wonder what they are doing to encourage their women constituents to take advantage of the screening programmes that we have introduced and that are already in place. They could be used far more by their constituents. The Opposition have opposed every effort made by my right hon. and learned Friend to improve the dreadful old contract for doctors, which had not been changed for a quarter of a century. They should be ashamed of their opposition to change.
Left to the Opposition, a new telephone system would never be installed in a hospital, a filing cabinet would never be replaced by a desk-top computer, just because somebody in NUPE might be miffed about it. Left to the Opposition, we should not have the foggiest idea of how much anything in the NHS cost. That information is essential when trying to work out whether one form of treatment is more attractive than another. The Opposition would rather waste money and trust to luck.
Left to them, NHS employees and workers in many other essential services who take industrial action would be paid more than those who do not and who will not take industrial action. That cannot be countenanced by a fair and just society. Fortunately, it is not left to the Opposition. It is all right, left to us.
The National Health Service and Community Care Bill includes the Griffiths reforms of community care. It is in the nature of care in the community that patients become ex-patients. They disappear and lose contact with those who are employed to help them. I am therefore glad that the Department of Health has already announced that it is to tighten up its supervision of the hospital closure programme.
The large-scale transfer of funds to local authorities to enable them to purchase community care does not mean that the Government can wash their hands of it and feel satisfied. In a county such as Derbyshire, there is no guarantee that all the funds will be used for their intended purpose. The county's pension funds, for example, are not all used for their intended purpose. There is some

505
likelihood that the rather dotty version of the Labour party that is now in control in Derbyshire will deliberately discriminate against the excellent private sector in favour of its own council-run homes. I hope that the principles of strict standard setting and of monitoring, inspection and enforcement, which are so much a feature of other proposed legislation in the Gracious Speech, will also be part of the Griffiths reforms; otherwise, the Government will be spending money but leaving my constituents no better off.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the father of the House, referred to the Warnock reforms. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the reforms are long overdue. It is iniquitous that so many dreadful practices, such as cloning and the creation of hybrids, have been legal in this country for so long. Even if they have not been practised, they have not been banned by law. It is good that that legislation is to be introduced. However, much though I respect my right hon. Friend the father of the House and understand the sincerity and the passion with which he speaks, I believe that to legalise some research within very strict limits is sensible and desirable. I am happy to vote for it. When I look at my own two healthy children, I wish every family in the country to have the same opportunity. Therefore, I have to vote for any possibility of extending such an opportunity to others.
We should, however, put on record our thanks to Lady Mary Donaldson, whom I met last year. She has led the voluntary licensing authority with great skill and tact. She has taken up the cudgels against a few doctors and hospitals who seem to think that anything goes in this most difficult and emotive field. Of course it does not.
If it is the will of the House, I should like to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I hope that we shall also have an opportunity to debate changes to the Abortion Act 1967. That, too, is out of date, but most people do not want it to be drastically altered. It would be sufficient to bring down the 28-week limit to 24 weeks, or perhaps a little less, if the legislation is to hold good for more than just a year or two. I hope that there will be an opportunity in Government time during this Session to hold such a debate to settle the matter once and for all.
Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend also hope that, even if the limit were lower than that which she would welcome, the House should have an opportunity to vote freely and fairly and that this House should decide the matter?
Mrs. Currie: I understand that, if motions to that effect are tabled, the Government do not intend to force hon. Members to vote in a particular way. I hope that there will be an opportunity in this House this Session in Government time for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the matter. We cannot continue for very much longer with legislation that is so much out of kilter with scientific fact and that is clearly not what people want. However, I repeat that I believe that most people do not want a wholesale change in the legislation; they want it to be more closely in line with scientific developments.
The Gracious Speech has set out a programme of dramatic reforms in health and community care and many related issues. It will take us well and strongly into the
506
1990s. It will keep everyone, Front Benchers and Back Benchers, very busy indeed. I am glad to give it my support.
8.15 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am pleased to be following the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I remind the House that if it had been up to the hon. Lady, there would be no hens left in the country.
The Government intend to ensure that legislation is passed that will get the National Health Service ready for privatisation. Conservative Members are often dishonest about such matters. We have listened to some of their propaganda today. One would think that the National Health Service had not been reformed since 1948. The Secretary of State for Health referred to it as a museum piece. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said that it had not been reformed for 41 years. The National Health Service is very different from what it was then. This will be the fourth reorganisation since 1974.
Each reorganisation has taken place under a Conservative Government, and on each occasion they said that it was needed to improve efficiency. The 1974 White Paper said:
"We are issuing a White Paper, and promoting legislation about the administration of the National Health Service, solely in order to improve the health care of the public. Administrative reorganisation within a unified health service that is closely linked with parallel local government services will provide a sure foundation for better services for all."
It was signed by Keith Joseph, the former Secretary of State for Social Services, now Lord Joseph.
That reorganisation did not last very long. In 1979 there was another White Paper, which said:
"It is clear that the organisation of the NHS—the way it delivers health care to the individual patient—also needs to be reformed."
That was signed by Patrick Jenkin, now Lord Jenkin. In 1984, a report was prepared by Sir Roy Griffiths—soon, I am sure, to become Lord Griffiths. He said that we needed to reorganise the management of the NHS. That led to the appointment of regional and district general managers, the ayatollahs of the NHS, in 1984. Now, in 1989, we have "Working for Patients." That is signed by the Prime Minister. I have a feeling that she will soon be ennobled and in another place as well.
We do not need another reorganisation in the Health Service. We need organisational stability. There is nothing wrong with the Health Service that a good dose of money could not cure. Conservative Members said that last year the Government put £24 billion into the NHS. That is all very well, but it means nothing unless it can be compared with something else.
As time is pressing and other hon. Members want to speak, I shall be brief. Unfortunately, my figures are not up to date. They are in dollars and were calculated before the fall in the pound since the former Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned. In 1987–88, the United Kingdom spent $627 per head of population on health care. Germany spent $983, France spent $1,072 and the United States spent $1,776. That shows that our Health Service is grossly under-funded in comparison with our economic competitors and partners. It also shows that we get very good value for money and that our Health Service is very efficient. Therefore, why are we saying that it must become more efficient—
Mr. Stephen Day: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martlew: I will not give way. Some of the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues were very mean and did not give way earlier.
There have been four reorganisations of the NHS, but gross underfunding has taken its toll on the service and on the morale of its workers. Morale is probably lower than at any time since 1948. To prove this, I cite representations from speech therapists at my surgery on Friday. They complained rightly that they were being offered a 6·5 per cent. pay rise when inflation is nearly 8 per cent. They were as appalled as I was that speech therapists are being asked to take a cut in their standard of living. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
I also received representations from midwives, whom I will meet next Monday. They complained about the disgraceful regrading which is affecting them and the nurses. That is a totally inept piece of management by the Government.
I also received representations from the ambulance workers, to whom I was glad to give my total support. I was pleased to go into the beautiful centre of Carlisle on Saturday morning with the ambulance workers. We demonstrated and 6,000 people signed our petition. I have been involved in a great deal of political action over the years, but I have never before seen people queuing up to give money. In four hours we collected £1,800 for the ambulance workers.
My constituents are totally behind the ambulance workers and will not see them starved back to work. They will not see the ambulance workers' children going without a Christmas—if that is what the Government are planning. The Government should settle the ambulance dispute now because they cannot win it. They should also scrap the new reform of the NHS and give the Health Service more money. Through this reorganisation, the Government are helping to destroy the service and they will also destroy their chances in the next election.
8.24 pm
Mr. Stephen Day: I want to confine my comments to the health reforms. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that only the Tories have reformed the Health Service. That says something about the Labour party's attitude to the Health Service, of which the Labour party claims to be the friend. However, if it was wrong for us to reform the NHS on so many occasions, it would apparently be right that a system designed to meet the needs of the 1940s should be left to meet the needs of the 1980s and 1990s. That is plainly nonsense. Conservative Governments have reformed the NHS to ensure that it meets the needs of the people in any given decade of its history. That remains the case with the present proposals.
On occasions I have not supported the Government on health issues. If I believe that half the allegations made against the reforms were true, I would not support the Government. However, today I have heard only wild accusations, none of which has been substantiated and which have been repeated around the country in leaflets distributed by the BMA.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that Conservative Members should be aware of the dangers of not listening to our electorate. I am aware that many of my
508
constituents do not support the reforms. I am not surprised about that because if I had not taken pan in debates in the House or read the briefing notes or the BMA material properly, I would perhaps not be so infon-necl as I should be. If that was the case and I had read in a BMA leaflet or been told by Opposition Members that I would have to go without the drugs that I need and that my hospital would be made private and independent and leave the NHS, perhaps I might be concerned. Perhaps I would vote against the reforms in a poll in a Labour constituency. However, that is manifestly not the case. The charges have not been substantiated by the BMA or by the Opposition.
One of the main charges set out in letters that I have received from my constituents is the accusation that patients will not receive the drugs that they need. I have not heard one Opposition Member make it clear to the House or to his electorate that the BMA has withdrawn its opposition to the indicative drugs budget. The BMA has stated clearly that it firmly accepts the assurances of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health that no patient will go without the drugs that are required.
If that is the case, why has the BMA not withdrawn from surgeries around the country leaflets containing claims which the BMA now says are not true? I have seen those leaflets in many surgeries. Hon. Members must make that important matter clear. I welcome the National Health Service and Community Care Bill because we can begin to deal with the real issues and aims of the legislation. When the Bill becomes law, with my support and that of the vast majority of my colleagues, it will become clear that the charges against it were not true.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Livingston will consider his charge about the concern of Conservative Members. When it is clear that the charges are not true, the Opposition will pay the price at the hands of the public who have been worried and alarmed unnecessarily by those accusations. I have seen patients who attend doctors regularly enter my advice surgery almost in tears. They were worried sick that they would not get the drugs that they need. That shows that the Opposition's real purpose today is to disparage what the Government are trying to do.
Any responsible Government with the interests of the NHS at heart must ensure that we have an NHS to go to. The pressures on the National Health Service are enormous and they will increase. If the answer to the problems of the NHS was to throw money at it, the Government would have solved the problems years ago. Year after year they have put extra finance into the NHS. Of course that alone does not solve the problems. To tell patients that it does is to mislead them into thinking that matters are easily solved. That is no answer to the problems of the NHS. We must increase funds—the Government recognise that—but that is merely to keep pace with today's demands.
To ensure that the NHS exists for future patients, we must bring it into the 1990s. That is what the reforms are about. That is why I shall support the Government and why, when the proposals are in place, people will thank us for them.
8.30 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: There is consensus about what should be achieved within the National Health Service. There is a commitment to the best clinical practices and a growing acceptance of the best management practices and the best use of resources. Patients' rights and choices are coming to the forefront. Everyone wants quality assurance. However, we should also consider a degree of patient or consumer responsibility. People want the finest National Health Service. They want to know that whatever technical innovation is developed will be available for them and their families if they need it. They must be prepared to pay for it. Survey after survey has demonstrated that they are prepared to pay for their National Health Service out of their direct taxation.
I have looked carefully at the Government's proposals as they have evolved. I was not one of those who were against further reform of the National Health Service. I did not consider that a large dollop of money and a good stir would sort out the problem. I recognised the need for innovation and change and a more responsive and sensitive Health Service if it is to serve us as well in the next 40 years as it has in the past.
For several key reasons, I reject the proposals. The speed with which they will be introduced is a travesty. There have been management studies of what is proposed and how such plans would be affected if they were in the private sector. They would be given a decade to be implemented—slowly but surely, one stage at a time, and one bit built on the next, not thrown willy-nilly into a service which is totally ill-prepared, unsuited and ill-equipped to cope. The medical audits which are gaining acceptance are inadequate to cope with what is suggested. No account has been taken of the massive organisational changes involved. The fact that there is no pilot study for such a major change will haunt the Government in the long run.
The lack of proper consultation with the professionals is another matter of concern. My major objection to the proposals is that their oucome will be contrary to the Government's objectives. I will dwell on patients' rights and choice and whether they will be enhanced by the proposals.
When hon. Members were considering the Health and Medicines Act 1988, I tabled an amendment suggesting some form of patients' rights or an internal market for the Health Service. The term "internal market" has been hijacked and abused by the proposals. My party suggested that we should make the Health Service a National Health Service, rather than the series of local services that we have at present. As hon. Members know, if one needs a hip replacement, depending on where one lives, one may get one in three months, three years, or not at all. That is not right.
My amendment in Committee suggested that, for every specialty, we should take the current good practice, perhaps based on the top 20 per cent. of health authorities in the area, and the average delivery time of the service concerned, and make them the national benchmark. With hip replacements, if it turns out that the average for good health authorities is eight months—that is, not a pie in the sky figure but one based on current good practice—it should become the national benchmark for hip replacement availability. If a health authority is not able to
510
deliver a hip replacement within eight months, a patient should have the right to go to another health authority or to the private sector through their health authority if the price can be agreed and the money can follow the patient.
Many Conservative Members have said that the Bill will be about patients' choice and patients' rights. It will not. The proposals for which I strongly argued in Committee would provide patients' rights. It would give them some control over their share of National Health Service money. It would also give health authorities an incentive to be efficient and to deliver effective services. It would also make it sensible, where health authorities are close together, as in London, for there to be cross-fertilisation and specialisation. That constitutes patients' rights and giving patients more control over their money and destiny within the Health Service.
The Bill will be quite different. It will give doctors and health authorities more rights and it will make money a more determining factor than it has been to date, but patients will have fewer rights. For example, if a GP becomes part of a group practice, patients will have to go where the GP decides to contract his services. If one's GP is not contracted, one will have to go where the health authority says. As a patient, one will have no right to go to a certain hospital because it is nearer or its service is quicker. Although there is a case for saying that the money will follow the patient, it will not follow the patient at the instigation of the patient: it will follow the patient only if the doctor or the health authority says so.
We must also consider what is proposed for self-governing hospitals. Core services must be provided within a health authority, but not necessarily within each hospital. Certain basic services may be lacking in particular communities. I refer to geriatric services and psychiatric services. Even midwifery is not listed as a core service. Hospitals that choose to become self-governing first will be able to pick what services they can drop. The Cinderella services will be the first to go. Some patients may find that their health authority draws the line and says, "No, this must be included in your area." That may encourage a rush to become self-governing.
Practice budgets change the relationship between a doctor and a patient. As never before, when patients consult doctors, they will have in their minds the query that a financial consideration will determine what the doctor prescribes or where he sends them. I accept the Government's assurance that no one will go short of drugs at the end of a financial year. Nevertheless, there is a financial consideration in the doctor-patient relationship which has never existed before, and it is a distortion of what was once a much more professional and ethical relationship.
I should like to conclude now to enable those hon. Members who have waited so patiently to have a chance to speak. Perhaps the Government can get off the hook in their dilemma by looking more seriously at what some health authorities are interested in doing for themselves, which we in the SDP have certainly supported. This is the possibility of health authorities themselves becoming self-governing, as opposed to the hospitals within them. That would eliminate a major dilemma for self-governing hospitals, because it would enable the health authority to have a proper comprehensive strategy for its whole area and to take into account the needs of all its citizens, whenever and wherever they may require its services. In many ways, that proposal has some of the best features of

511
the idea of self-governing hospitals—I admit that there are some—while avoiding many of its major pitfalls. It should be looked at far more carefully.
8.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the chance to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and find encouraging the extent to which, from what she said, the Government can expect to receive support from the Social Democratic party when the health Bill which was published last week comes before the House.
Although we are primarily discussing health today, this is a debate on the Loyal Address and I should like to comment on one or two other matters in the Gracious Speech. I am one of those hon. Members who voted against televising the House, but I must admit that I have been pleasantly surprised by the effect of the first week. However, I hope that our approach to debates will not become too sanitised. Indeed, this afternoon's performance by the two Front-Bench spokesmen makes it reasonably clear that the effect of television on the House is already wearing off, which must be a good thing. I hope that we shall range widely in the next few months before the experiment draws to a close in July, because it is important that our constituents get the feel of this place. After all, it is the people's Parliament. At the moment, we are focusing too much on the man with the ball, and not enough on the whole football pitch, but I hope that that can be remedied in the period between now and the end of the experiment.
The Gracious Speech includes important measures that will be of great advantage to my constituents. I was especially pleased to see that there will be legislation on food safety and consumer protection, and a Bill designed to improve co-operation with other countries in the investigation of crime. Those Bills are extremely important and I hope that they will command widespread support in the House.
The third measure that I was delighted to see was the environment Bill. A co-ordinated approach to the environment at local, national and international level is extremely important. At the international level, it is vital that we achieve two things: first, a wide consensus, among as many countries as possible on the measures to which the international community agrees; and, secondly, as wide a scientific consensus on the major problems as possible. I refer especially to the problems of climate change.
In respect of our national policy on the environment, I was delighted to see that the principle of the "polluter pays" will be enshrined in the Bill and that industry will be seen not so much as the problem, but as the solution to many of the difficulties.
In my constituency, I have been pleased by the environmental sensitivity shown by Gedling borough council. It is justly known as a trail blazer in environmental matters in the east midlands. Litter irritates many of our constituents enormously. Indeed, no issue irritates my constituents more. The Government have listened and I was grateful to have been able to join my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in co-sponsoring his excellent Control of Litter (Fines) Bill, much of which has been taken on board by the Government.
512
If I might make one mild criticism, it is that I wish we could have gone a little further on graffiti. I understand the difficulties facing local authorities when given the power to deal with grafitti, such as the question of legal responsibility, but if the local authority is not responsible for removing grafitti from public buildings, who on earth is?
With the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who in this respect alone is perhaps my hon. Friend, I am hoping to bring before the House legislation to enable the courts to take more effective action against people convicted of badger-baiting. We are in an advanced state of agreement with the Home Office and I hope that the House will unanimously pass the Bill.
There are two measures in particular this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, upon which I hope to catch your eye from time to time. One is health, which I shall discuss in a moment, and the other is the Coal Industry Bill which I understand will come before the House next week. I have a particular constituency interest, as well as a personal interest, in that Bill. I look forward to the time when our coal industry has made as much progress as the steel industry. We should recognise the reconstruction that has already taken place in coal and the success that has already been achieved, in terms of competitiveness and productivity, especially in the Nottinghamshire coalfields. One can see that success from the figures. Manpower is now one third what it was before the strike. Although the number of pits has decreased from 190 to 74, production has decreased by only 15 per cent. At a time of a 70 per cent. increase in world coal prices, there has been a £1 billion reduction in the cost of British coal to its customers.
We must support new coal technologies and advanced coal technologies because they will increase efficiency, improve the economics of the industry and reduce greenhouse gases. That must be our goal if we are to make the industry truly march along with the tide of time. I look forward to the Second Reading of this very good Bill.
Health is a particular interest of mine, and I shall have a number of detailed points to make in support of the Bill, perhaps on Second Reading or in Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the remarkable fact that he has managed to keep the Bill to a reasonable size. Some of us feared that it might be a lot longer than it is, but given how much is in it, it seems manageable.
I am not prepared to take lessons from the Opposition on devotion to the National Health Service. I spent two happy years serving on a health authority and my wife is a doctor in the NHS and gives more hours to it than I care to mention. I am a passionate and devoted supporter of the Health Service. However, I share with Opposition Members a sense of frustration that, although we are putting so much money into the Health Service, the queues still seem to lengthen. There is nothing more frustrating than hearing from my constituents that they cannot receive the treatment which I believe that they should receive at once.
But we also hear that there are 20 per cent. more doctors and an unprecedented capital building programme. I believe that at the moment no fewer than 530 capital projects worth £1 million or more are in the pipeline. This year there has effectively been an 11·5 per cent. increase in resources. Therefore, the funding is there. We know that it is there and the record speaks for itself, yet we are not getting to grips with these difficult problems.

513
I was astonished to hear the Leader of the Opposition, when he replied to the Loyal Address, say that competition has no place in the National Health Service. I thought that Labour's policy review had established that competition works for the good of the customer, the client, and the patient. It may be controversial, but the process that district health authorities are undertaking to specify what they need and on what terms they are prepared to pay has been singularly lacking throughout the history of the National Health Service, which has been concerned almost entirely with what we put into the service, without looking at what we get out of that enormous investment.
I have come to the conclusion that the National Health Service is not primarily short of funds. Many Opposition Members have said that it needs a 3 per cent. real increase in funding, but it has had that. As far as I can see, this year the increase has been nearly 6 per cent. The critical area that the Health Service must now get right is effective management. Sir Roy made a great start on that earlier in the 1980s with his new system of management, and I believe that the bulk of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is proposing will build on the excellent reforms of the 1980s. Sir Roy has made a start and this excellent legislation must follow that.
I welcome the devolution enshrined in the health Bill. We have always encouraged such devolution in Nottingham, which has some excellent managers and a great pool of talent. It operates, however, with one hand tied firmly behind its back and I welcome the fact that, in future, we shall be able to determine locally the terms and conditions of those who work in the Health Service.
It is extremely important that we stop looking at the NHS as one big amorphous organisation. We know that there are huge differentials in the quality of service across the country. We know that some surgeons undertake only 20 per cent. of the work load of other colleagues in exactly the same discipline. In London the cost of a particular operation can be four times as much in one hospital as it is in a hospital a quarter of a mile away. The NHS is a vastly different organisation with varying levels of efficiency, medical standards and costs. The sooner we realise that the better.
The concept of money following the patient is excellent. My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) have already drawn attention to the absurdity of the present system under which highly efficient units spend their budgets and must then close. Under the new system, I hope that good management will be rewarded instead of being shot in the foot. The clarity offered by the separation of the provider from the purchaser is a major step forward. Even without competition, the district health authority will now be able to concentrate on its crucial area of responsibility—determining need and how best to meet it—without the confusion and conflict inherent in managing its services.
That means, however, that management must be able to manage its resources and assets, including its senior medical staff. We cannot have employees, no matter how senior, leapfrogging unit managers in a bid for support outside the unit. The need for a better and more efficient management of the service goes to the heart of the relationship between the management of that service and the clinicians who work in it.
514
Clause 19 ensures that the Audit Commission will be more involved with the NHS, which is an excellent step forward. The commission should do as much value-formoney work as possible. I am glad that the Secretary of State listened to what my hon. Friends and I have said about the commission.
Clause 18 deals with capital charging, which is an extremely complex area. It must not become an accountant's dream and no one else's. I hope that such charging will get us away from present practices when, all too often, NHS management reach for new projects and new build instead of maintenance. The NHS is not charged for the cost of the capital projects, but is charged in a different way for maintenance work. I hope that the clause will deal with that problem.
I welcome the great investment in new management systems for the NHS. Those systems were stimulated by the White Paper as well as by the review of the NHS. In the past the NHS has suffered greatly from the lack of accurate, rapid information to help managers to manage. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that Nottingham has been at the forefront in dealing with that problem and in recent years the district has spent more than £2 million a year on it. It is already seeing the benefit of that investment, but there is still a considerable way to go.
I welcome the Gracious Speech and I look forward to the measures enshrined in it passing into law. If I am successful in catching the eye of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I particularly look forward to serving on the Committee which will deal with these momentous and important health changes.
8.53 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: One area that has received scant attention in today's debate is community care. The people concerned about that issue have been treated shabbily by the Government in terms of the time scale allowed for consideration of community care. After the report published by Sir Roy Griffiths, we had to wait 18 months for the Government's response. After the publication of the White Paper last week, we effectively had three working days for consultation before publication of the National Health and Community Care Bill. Such consultation is inadequate, given the serious implications of the proposals for those concerned with community care.
As community care is included in the Bill, I am extremely worried that that aspect will be overlooked and forgotten because of the understandable concerns about the other radical proposals relating to the NHS. I note that part III of the Bill relates to community care. I suspect —I would place money on it if I were a betting man—that the guillotine will be operating by the time we come to discuss community care.
The Government have treated with contempt the many thousands of people who work in community care, the many people who are carers and who voluntarily look after those less fortunate. Above all, the Government have treated with contempt those people who depend upon that community care.
When the Secretary of State responded to a point of order raised shortly before Prorogation he said that the White Paper on community care was non-contentious. I take exception to that, because I take exception to the

515
Government's basic definition of community care as set out in that White Paper. By their definition, isolated private institutional settings are deemed to be part of community care. The process of discharging the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped from isolated, Victorian public institutions to isolated, Victorian private institutions is deemed to be community care. In my view, community care means that people are based in the community, whether that means residential care or not. Because of the Government's policy on community care, people are now moving miles from their homes and their communities into isolated institutions. In no way can those institutions be described as part of the community.
The White Paper is riddled with a number of fundamental contradictions. The central priority in the White Paper—I believe it is the right one—is to avoid unnecessary institutional care. That aim, however, is contradicted by the key objective of a flourishing independent sector. With the development of the independent sector, more and more people have been pushed into institutional care which, in many instances, they do not need. The independent sector has shown no interest in alternatives to the provision of institutional care, because the easiest way to make profits is to provide such care. That is not the answer to the needs expressed by vast numbers of people in the community who require some form of domiciliary, preventive support to remain in their homes.
The other fundamental contradiction is that the White Paper makes it virtually impossible financially for local authorities to continue directly to provide their own part III residential care for the elderly and handicapped. Given the financial arrangements introduced by the Bill, it will be virtually impossible for local authorities to provide such care. The White Paper, however, states:
"The Government will expect local authorities to retain the ability to act as direct service providers, if other forms of service provisions are unforthcoming or unsuitable."
In other words, the local authorities are expected to continue to provide residential care when the private sector says, as frequently happens, "I am sorry, my friend, you are unsuitable. You cannot pay the money we want from you." When that happens, those people are dumped into local authority part III accommodation. That is a fundamental contradiction which should be sorted out, because it will give local authorities an impossible task.
The White Paper is based on a series of myths; the central one is the idea of promoting choice. "Choice" is a nice word which the Government have brought in, but in reality choice is different. What choice do the majority of people have who enter residential care, and what choice will they have when the Bill is enacted? Experience has shown us that the only choice that they have will be determined by where there is a vacancy for them when they need residential care.
What choice will there be for people who want to enter local authority care—not private care—when local authorities can no longer offer that care? What will the choice be for many of the people of my constituency who do not want to go into private care? Such people will say, "I grew up under the welfare state. I fought for a welfare state and I want to go into my own local authority's accommodation in my home area on my estate." What choice will they have when the residential care they want is not available because of the new funding arrangements in the Bill?
516
What choice will the senile, confused wanderer—whom I and no doubt other hon. Members come across quite frequently—or other cases referred to us have when the private sector does not want to know? Those in the private sector will run a mile because they cannot manage such people and, in the end, those people are dumped in the hands of the caring local authorities. When those hands are tied and can no longer provide that accommodation, what will happen to those poor unfortunate individuals?
Another myth contained in the White Paper is that local authorities are monopolistic providers. Local authority social services have never been monopolistic providers, but always enablers. I worked for 12 or 13 years in social services in the Leeds area and much of my time as a social worker was spent referring people to other local agencies—voluntary, non-statutory and sometimes private agencies. That was part and parcel of the local authorities' role, which has been established since the welfare state began. The idea of a monopoly is utter nonsense.
The White Paper's aim is the introduction of competitive tendering disciplines to residential and nursing homes. Does competition have a place in caring? What will the implications and consequences be of competitive tendering disciplines in caring? I shall give one or two current examples: the bribery of social workers in Norfolk by proprietors to force admissions to their homes.
Care Weekly exposed an issue this week when it showed that Univent Ltd was letting people's rooms in private homes when people went to hospital or on holiday. It was clearing out people's personal prized possessions which may have been the only reminders they had of their husbands or wives who had since died. These possessions were cleared out without any consent or consultation. That is the reality of competition.
I know that my time is limited, and I shall sum up with one or two important points. The White Paper is a restatement of an extreme political ideology, not a genuine attempt at a coherent strategy on community care. There is a desperate need for planning, but there is not a whiff of it in the White Paper. There is also a desperate need for innovation and new ideas, but this is lacking and there is not a scrap of a new idea in the White Paper about preventive services or keeping people out of institutions. It reflects the same tired and rotten philosophy which underpins every other Government policy. Nowhere is this philosophy of profit and the market less appropriate than when talking about caring for the most dependent and needy people in our community.
9.2 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for delaying his wind-up speech for a few minutes to allow me to say a few words at the end of this long and interesting debate. I am particularly interested in two aspects of the Queen's Speech and current policy: the sovereignty of the individual as a citizen of the community of the state and the sovereignty of the state as a member of the community of nations. In the context of this health debate I can deal only with the first issue.
Over the years, we have seen three stages in the development of the welfare state. The first is the elimination of widespread poverty and disease. Both great parties of state have had an honourable record on that. The second is the creation of the welfare state, and again

517
both parties in the wartime coalition during the years of the Beveridge report have an honourable record. We are approaching the third stage—the key to the debate—in which the welfare state may become a victim of its own success, and health provision may become a victim of an aging population which rightly demands ever-increasing, more expensive and technologically based health care. How do we as a nation find the resources to meet those demands as we all want?
I do not want to make a party political point, but the Conservative party has increased spending so that we now spend £1·40 for every £1 which the Labour Government spent on the Health Service, which shows that we are committed to the National Health Service. A problem which either party would face and which is illustrated by 'the vagueness of the Labour party's spending proposals is how to increase resources from a tax base.
We can win the controversy over these reforms provided that we do not speak to the public in terms of millions and billions of pounds—unless one is of Italian descent, because the Italians, with their currency, understand billions. This is the way that we have to explain the reforms. We have to explain that every family is spending more than they have ever spent before on the National Health Service through their taxes. We employ more than 1 million people in the NHS. Ordinary people who pay taxes have a right to demand to expect some accountability from the I million people who work for them. If we explain the reforms in that way, I am sure that we can make them stick and make them successful.
There is a limit to how far we can go along that road. The controversy which has been stirred up by vested interests as we have attempted to bring in reasonable reforms, shows some of the difficulties that we face. We should consider what we can do, not now, but perhaps next year, or in the next Parliament.
The part of the Bill which states that pensioners will enjoy tax relief on private health insurance is important. Perhaps we should think in terms of becoming a savings and not a spending society, of being a planning rather than a spendthrift society. We must do that as individuals and not just as a nation.
There is nothing wrong with people planning for their old age and their health care through private health insurance. They would be saving resources which could be given to people in greater need.
Perhaps we should now consider reforming the tax system to encourage saving and planning on that basis. Then we will create a society which is planning for the future and which does not demand ever-greater spending. People think that by spending another £1 million or £1 billion they can solve the problem. We know that that is not right.
However, that is for the future. This Bill is a modest reform, which makes the Health Service more accountable. On that basis, I shall support it in the Lobby on Second Reading.
9.6 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: As is customary in winding up, I had intended to make commendatory references to those speakers who had made an important contribution during the second half of the debate—the
518
social security element of the old health and social security portfolio. However, in view of the balance of the debate, I shall confine myself to the Queen's Speech.
From the somewhat cursory reference in the Queen's Speech to a social security Bill involving the revaluation in occupational pension schemes, one would think that the broad structure of social security in Britain was working satisfactorily, and that it does not need much further attention. In fact, it is in a state of unprecedented turmoil. For groups such as the young homeless and the casualties of the social fund, the Department of Social Security has become a bitterly cynical misnomer. One would not guess that from the Prime Minister's opening speech, however. Last Tuesday she proclaimed:
"Not only have we had extensive growth and created extra wealth but we have shared the success."—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 26.]
That must come as a novel idea to the 150,000 homeless people sleeping rough in London, and to the beggars who have reappeared in the streets and tube stations of London for the first time since the war.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
"a family with two children, and the husband on average earnings, now gets an extra £55 a week in take-home pay, after allowing for the increase in prices."—[0fficia/ Report, 21 November 1989; Vol.162, c. 26.]
What she did not add was that the 2 million pensioners who depend wholly on the state pension, over the same period that she has been in office and after allowing for rises in prices, have had an increase of precisely 18p a week. That is the trickle-down theory of economic growth so beloved of the Government.
The other day, Lord King, whom the Prime Minister would no doubt describe as "one of us," paid himself a rise of £4,000—and that is not per year, but per week. The worker on average pay gets an extra £3 per week this year in real terms, but pensioners get a few paltry pence. One might call it the trickle-up theory.
By breaking the link with earnings, and by indexing pensions only with prices, the Government have saved themselves £4 billion at the expense of pensioners. I trust that when the Chancellor, no doubt proudly, proclaims in the Budget next March that he is running a £15 billion surplus, he will have the honesty to tell the country that the pensioners have paid for more than a quarter of it.
If the Prime Minister were true to her word about sharing national prosperity, why was one of her first acts on coming to office the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings? Had she not done that, the single pension would be £12·65 per week higher and the married couple's pension £20 per week higher than it will be next April. Far from sharing in national prosperity, pensions as a proportion of average earnings have fallen from 30 per cent. to about 23 per cent. Putting it straight, pensioners have lost about one quarter of their pension in the past decade.
Mr. Whitney: What was the impact on pensioners of the fall in value of their savings due to the inflation record of the Labour Government?
Mr. Meacher: Despite the high inflation of the 1970s —there was high inflation in the early 1980s too—the state pension increased by more than 20 per cent. under Labour, after taking account of prices, compared with a 0·5 per cent increase under this Government.
I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. She added last Tuesday:

519
"we gave extra help"–
I think that the Secretary of State referred to it again today—
"to the 2·5 million pensioners who need it most".—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 27.]
One has to admire the way in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health make a virtue of necessity. That is, of course, a reference to the Lawson gaffe. The former Chancellor dropped the bombshell that he was thinking of targeting—for which read "meanstesting"—pensions. His red-faced colleague, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, was forced to wheel out a new premium for the aged to explain away what he meant. I note that the Prime Minister is now quoting this embarrassment bonus, as I prefer to call it, as an achievement, but it was no great achievement—it was simply handing hack with one hand what had been taken away only 18 months before in the Fowler reviews.
The poorest pensioners are not the only ones for whom the Prime Minister's share of prosperity is not so much a mirage as a sick joke. There are today 250,000 people in receipt of transitional protection who had no rise in April 1988, no rise in April 1989 and who will get no rise in April 1990. By definition, people on transitional protection are among the poorest in society yet by next April their standard of living will have fallen by some 18 per cent. in the past three years.
The disabled, too, would be surprised to hear that they have shared in rising prosperity. In 1979, the Tory party manifesto said:
"Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and lead normal lives. We shall work towards this as swiftly as the strength of the economy allows."
Five years later, the Government smugly declared themselves satisfied with the level of economic growth, but declared that they needed more information about the number of disabled people and the services that they used. Another five years and six OPCS reports later, the Government's promised comprehensive review of benefits for the disabled still has not surfaced. It appears that in social security matters advisers may advise, but Ministers are incapable of deciding.
The Prime Minister was again misleading in the House last Tuesday when she said:
"Spending on people who are sick and disabled has nearly doubled under the Government, again after allowing for inflation."—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162; c. 27.]
That sounds very good, but she did not admit that almost all that increase was due to greater take-up of the benefits, not to an improvement in the level of benefit. In other words, the increase in Government expenditure has resulted in more people claiming inadequate benefits, not in disabled people being better off.
Ten years after the Government's original promise, the disabled are still waiting. I acknowledge that in the uprating statement the Secretary of State announced an extra £100 million for benefits for the disabled. That £100 million is welcome, but it does not come from outside the social security system—it is money saved through freezing child benefit for the third year running. The Government must understand that it is not acceptable to transfer money from one group of claimants to another.
The Opposition's main charge in this debate is not that the Government have failed to meet our objectives for social security—the jury needs no persuasion about that —but that they have failed to achieve their own objectives
520
after 10 years in power and all the upheavals of the Fowler reviews. The Government have always set themselves the task of ending the dependency culture and giving people incentives to work. Perversely, because of their drive to cut expenditure on every occasion they have repeatedly ended up doing exactly the opposite.
For example, under the old benefit system, help was given with work-related expenses to encourage more people into work. Now, under income support, that help is withdrawn. Another example is that unemployed people on income support receive help with their mortgage payments. If they go back to work and receive family credit instead, they do not get that help. That is a major disincentive to unemployed people returning to work.
The Government have recently increased from £12 to £15 per week the earnings that can be offset against income support so that some lone parents can be encouraged to go back to work. That is fine, but at the same time the Government stopped the cost of child care being offset against income support, with the result that more lone parents are forced out of work and back into dependency. To cap it all, the Government now propose to introduce a £43 per week means test on unemployment benefit. A part-time worker who works one day or more a week will lose a whole week's benefit. That is a major disincentive to people taking up part-time work.
Perhaps the worst example of the Government's failure to reduce dependency is the double bind in which they have put 16 to 17-year-olds seeking work, who cannot get a job until they have somewhere to live and cannot get somewhere to live unless they can put up a fairly substantial sum in advance. Yet the Government have cut off virtually all their benefit so that they cannot make that advance. That puts young people into an impossible catch-22 situation which is the opposite of what the social security system should do. Far from reducing the dependency culture, the Secretary of State and his collesgues have been intensifying it.
Another objective that the Government repeatedly talk about is concentrating resources on those in greatest need. Even the Tory-dominated Select Committee on Social Services in a recent report recognised the Government's failure to do that when it stated:
"help can be targeted more accurately or the benefit system can be made simpler to operate, but not both at the same time."
Simplification, which under this Government is a code word for cutting expenditure, has invariably taken precedence.
Child care is a classic example of how badly the Government have failed. They rejected child benefit, which has a 100 per cent. take-up, goes directly to the mother and provides no disincentive to return to work, and instead tried to target family credit on the poorest families. The Government missed their target because nearly half the families for whom it was intended did not take it up.
I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State talk of it with some pride. He should be ashamed. In desperation, the Government spent £8 million on an advertising and promotion campaign which increased the take-up by all of 8 per cent., so it cost £165 in advertising for each extra family claiming. That is about as effective targeting as using a double-barrelled shotgun to hit a fly. Rather than frittering away money on glitzy advertising which does not

521
work, the Minister would do far better to direct that money to increasing child benefit, which is a proven success.
We see the meaning of targeting in the social fund. It is not targeting the Government's limited resources on claimants in greatest need, but targeting claimants with least resources on the Government's need to save money for the next tax handout to those with ample resources. First, the social fund budget has been halved, compared with the single payments that preceded it. Now it has been frozen for the second year running, although the number in poverty needing it has risen at the same time as the real value of the money available to meet that need is falling.
Already, DSS offices in Manchester Cheatham, Birmingham Northfield, Mansfield, Blackburn, Burnley, Folkestone and Greenock, to mention but a few, will be out of social fund money by the end of January—three months before the end of the financial year. Refusal rates are already running at 40 to 60 per cent. and in Dewsbury they are 77 per cent. What is the use of a safety net system in the form of the social fund if claimants are told, "Yes, you are eligible but there is no money to pay you"?
I will give the House an illustration. Recently a person contacted me from outside my constituency. He is a 60-year-old man in Salford who is redundant and living on benefit, which has not increased since April 1987 because he is on transitional payment. He lives on his own and has no family or relatives to help. He had a burglary. The thieves broke into his gas and electricity meters and took the contents. They also took his savings, which were to pay his rent and rates, his only overcoat and his portable television. They used his only towels as toilet paper and stuffed them down the toilet. Because his meters were broken he did not have a hot meal for a week. He asked for help from the social fund and filled in 11 pages to make his claim. He waited three weeks and was told that he could be given no help. If that man cannot be given any help, what is the point of a social fund?
Ministers think that the social fund is a great success. In February 1989, the then Secretary of State said:
"The Social Fund is now working well. Interest-free loans are providing exactly the sort of additional help with unexpected expenses that was needed … people are getting a much quicker service. They know where they stand in a matter of days in most cases— … it is now proving a flexible and imaginative way to help people to meet unforeseen expenses and to live in the community".
The Secretary of State who said that certainly found out where he stood a few months later in the July reshuffle —and not a moment too soon, with views like that.
Does the present Secretary of State repudiate those views or is it his view that that is exactly what the social fund was set up to do—to target not poverty but the poor? Perhaps the Secretary of State could direct his answer to Cleveland welfare rights service, which recently encountered some people who are completely without money. No help is available from other sources and those people are clearly at risk, but they were refused crisis loans because they have no money with which to repay them. It is the ultimate absurdity to require loans to be repaid and then to refuse them to the poorest because they are too poor to repay.
The Tories are always talking about getting value for money. Our charge is that, after 10 years of Tory Government, the national insurance system represents
522
such exceedingly poor value for money that if the directors —that is, the Cabinet—had to subject themselves to a vote by the shareholders—that is, the claimants who use the system—they would all be promptly sacked. While earnings have risen net of inflation by 25 per cent., benefits for pensioners and others have risen net of inflation by a niggardly 0·5 per cent. under a national insurance fund which now has a cumulative surplus of about £10 billion.
Some insurance benefits for which people have contracted for years to pay contributions, such as earnings-related unemployment benefit and death benefit, have been unilaterally chopped. No private insurance company in the world would be allowed to get away with that. Unemployment benefit, which is a contractual insurance benefit, has been halved in value relative to earnings in the past 10 years. The Government are fleecing all national insurance contributors by using £3 billion of our money without our permission to bribe people to leave SERPS and take out private personal pensions. That is about as moral as giving someone a backhander to steal their own family silver.
Another Tory claim is that theirs is the party of the family. That is a bit rich from a party which has just frozen child benefit for the third year running. If all the cuts were made good, child benefit would stand next April at £9 per week. That means that the average two-child family has seen the purchasing power of child benefit drop in recent years by no less than £182 per year. So much for the cynical Tory election manifesto pledge of 1987 that child benefit
"will continue to be paid as now, and directly to the mother."
On top of that there is the poll tax, which might well be described as the Tory anti-family tax. Families will be penalised if they care for an elderly relative at home, although offloading such responsibilities on to the family is precisely what the Government's community care policy is all about.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not true. The hon. Gentleman should learn the facts.
Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady would care to listen, she might learn something herself. Families will also be penalised if they do not turf out their children as soon as they reach the age of 18 and become liable to the tax.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Meacher: I will give way in a moment.[Interruption.] The hon. Lady must learn to contain herself. I know that she finds that difficult.
The family will also be penalised—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady persists, I shall not give way.
Families will be penalised if they fail to turf out their children when they reach the age of 18 years and become liable to the tax. At the same time, other Government policies disqualify young people if they move away from their homes. Presumably those policies are designed to drive young people back to their homes. Either way, the family loses.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should know—if he does not, it is time that he checked the facts—that individuals are not assessed on the earnings of the head of the household. If people are caring for an

523
elderly relative, that relative will be assessed on his own income and not on that of the head of the household, and payment will be rebated accordingly. Moreover, pensions will increase by 20 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly learn the facts? He should not mislead the House.
Mr. Meacher: I should have used my better judgment and not allowed the hon. Lady to intervene to indulge in a silly rant of that sort.
Of course the poll tax will still be a disadvantage and a deterrent to the family. Of course the family will continue to be worse off. I do not know where the hon. Lady sees a 20 per cent. increase in pensions, unless she is foreseeing the advent of another Labour Government.
What we are seeing is all part and parcel of the Government's policy to drive women out of the Labour market and back into the home. As one of the Secretary of State's predecessors strikingly put it:
"Quite frankly, I do not think that mothers have the same right to work as fathers. If the good Lord had intended us to have equal rights to go out to work, he would not have created man and woman."
That was said by the then right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, Patrick Jenkin, who is in another place now. One might be excused for thinking that if the good Lord had intended women to have a fair deal, he would not have created the Prime Minister.
I conclude, as the Prime Minister would wish, with her favourite theme—how she is leading the way in Europe.
Her paranoid opposition to the European social charter has damaged workers' rights in Britain. At the same time, she is preventing pensioners from getting the fair deal that they receive in Europe. After 10 years of falling back, the single pension in Britain now represents an average of only 46 per cent. of previous net earnings. In France, it is double that representing 92 per cent. of previous earnings, and in Germany it is nearly double.
The Prime Minister has consistently set her face against the introduction of any EC proposal, however beneficial, if it impinges on her social policy. It is the British pensioners who have lost out. The latest example of that is the Government's rejection of Europe-wide concessionary bus and travel passes. It is a disreputable record to reject cut-price travel and at the same time to insist on cut-price pensions.
In yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times—not exactly a bastion of the Labour party—it was clear that the truth was beginning to seep out. There is a large and growing underclass. This is not an academic argument about the precise definition of poverty. There is evidence that cannot be ignored of raw hardship, bitter frustration, endless bureaucracy and growing despair. That is the daily experience of up to one fifth of the population, and nothing in the Queen's Speech will alleviate a fraction of it. Indeed, much of what is proposed will intensify it. That is why, in the name of the forgotten Britain, we shall reject the Queen's Speech today.
9.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), and perhaps slightly against the trend of much of the debate, I shall concentrate most of my remarks on social security. If there are issues to which I can helpfully respond on other aspects of the debate, I shall seek to do so as I go along.
524
In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and a number of his hon. Friends, I shall place on record the increasing size of the social security budget over the past decade. As the hon. Gentleman has obviously undertaken a great deal of research involving a wide variety of figures, he will know that over that time, social security spending has increased by no less than £13,000 million, or by 35 per cent. in real terms. Sizeable chunks of that huge increase on an already huge bill, which has risen as a proportion of Government expenditure and is far and away the largest of the Government's spending programes, have gone to two of the groups on which the hon. Gentleman reasonably focused many of his remarks: people over retirement age and the long-term sick and disabled. On the elderly, spending is up by more than one quarter, by something like £5 billion.
Ms. Clare Short: But is expenditure up per head?
Mr. Newton: I shall give figures per head in due course. The hon. Lady is welcome to encourage me, because I shall be able to respond to her blandishments.
Real spending on the elderly has been in the region of £5,000 million, and £3·5 billion has been spent on the long-term sick and disabled and their carers. Those figures have been increased again by my uprating statement of one month ago and by the Autumn Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a week or two ago. The increase announced by my right hon. Friend demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to a social security system that directs substantial and substantially increased help to those in need.
Mr. Allen McKay: Can the Secretary of State explain to my constituent, Mr. Hensall, why it is that under the transitional arrangements he has not received an increase in benefits for three years, and why under income support he has now lost his heating and diet allowance, as well as the special allowance that he received for his dialysis treatment?
Mr. Newton: I would say to the hon. Gentleman's constituent and to others that the change from the incredible complexities of the old supplementary benefit system to income support and its clear structure of premiums cannot be achieved without some difficulties. We have never attempted to disguise that. However, the new premiums are in general far higher than the additional requirements payments included in the previous system.
When I was at the Department of Health and Social Security in the job now being done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, it was clear that, under the old system, far too few people received the benefits to which they were entitled. Not only did the claimants barely understand the system: nor did many of the Department's staff. It was right to introduce the simplified structure, which in most cases has led to considerable improvements—especially for many long-term sick and disabled people—by comparison with the entitlements under the previous system.
Over the next three years, the real growth in social security expenditure is expected to reach an average of 4 per cent. a year. That is growth—not cuts or reductions, but an increase. That is why I have been able to pursue a policy of directing additional resources where they are most needed.

525
The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned national insurance contributions. All the achievements that I mentioned have been against a background of substantial reductions in national insurance contributions within the last month, bringing a benefit of at least £3 per week to most families and of £6 per week to many families. That has helped many people who do not have large incomes to improve their take-home pay and to benefit their standard of living.
The massive increase in social security expenditure has been made possible by the fact that our economy has been much more successful in generating economic growth in the past decade than in the one before. That is the context of today's debate, and the context in which Opposition Members are suggesting ways of building on improvements that we have already achieved.
Much of the debate, and a good part of what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, has concerned pensioners' interests; as I said earlier, I find that understandable and indeed welcome. Again, however, I believe that discussions of such matters should be based on at least an understanding of the considerable improvements in conditions for our growing retired population —although the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may not always like what they hear. Some of the figures involved came up during social security questions this afternoon, but I should like to put the facts clearly on the record now. According to the latest available information, pensioners' average total net income increased in real terms by 23 per cent. between 1979 and 1986.
Mr. Paul Flynn: That is the average.
Mr. Newton: I accept that, and I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. The 23 per cent. increase, however, compares with a real-terms increase of only 3 per cent. when Labour was in office.
Ms. Short Ms. Short: That is not true.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Lady can demonstrate to me that it is not true, I will gladly listen to her explanation —or her attempt at one. I did not invent those figures, however.
Ms. Short: We are all familiar with the way in which the Government manipulate, distort and fib with statistics. We also know that pensioners' income have risen more slowly than general well-being in society, and that they are relatively worse off than they were when the Government first came to power.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that that simply is not true. I have already given the figure for the real growth in pensioner's average total net incomes. They have risen by roughly a quarter—per cent., to be precise—increasing twice as fast as the income of the population as a whole.
Moreover, far fewer pensioners are on the lowest income than in 1979, when 38 per cent.—nearly two fifths —were in the bottom fifth of the scale of national income distribution. That figure has now fallen to slightly less than a quarter—24 per cent. I accept that there are variations within the group of pensioners, but as a whole that group has improved its position under the stewardship of the present Government.
Mr. William McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State accept that, had we retained the original formula whereby pensions increased in line with rises in either inflation or wages, pensioners today would be £18 a week better off? If he agreed with that, pensioners might start to understand the argument that he is trying to advance.
Mr. Newton: There are a number of levels on which one can respond to that question—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West laughs, but he did not laugh when he was Minister with responsibility for social security in the last Labour Government. The Government of which he was a member were unable to fulfil their undertaking to uprate pensions. They ran out of money and the International Monetary Fund would not allow them to go on spending. The Labour Government generated so much inflation that large parts of pensioners' incomes other than their pensions were decimated.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman accuses the previous Labour Government of being unable to fulfil their undertakings. Is not the crime infinitely worse when the Minister claims that the Government would have been able to uprate pensions but instead cut them?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who was also a Minister in the Labour Government, will recall that in the mid-1970s the Labour Government were confronted with a public expenditure overrun and an astonishing increase in inflation—well into double figures—that led to a change in the uprating basis and to the taking of probably over £1 billion from pensioners, at current prices, to rescue themselves from their inability to keep the promises that they had made.
I promised to return to the point about figures that was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) from a sedentary position. My figures go up to 1986, and I shall tell her what happened to the component parts of pensioners' incomes. They are relevant. They are weekly figures and the comparison is drawn between 1979 and 1986. During that period, pensioners' incomes from total social security benefits rose in real terms from £48·50 to £57·70—a very substantial increase. Their income from occupational pensions also rose very fast, from £12·70 to £19·80. Perhaps most striking of all in terms of the increases, their income from savings rose from £8·70 to £14·20.
It is in the last figure that the crucial clue emerges as to the difference between what has happened to pensioners under this Government and what happened under the previous Government. Whereas income from savings rose by about 64 per cent. under this Government, the weekly income that pensioners enjoyed from their savings during the period of the Labour Government fell by 16 per cent. The inflation that had been generated by the Labour Government had the effect of cutting pensioners' incomes from other sources.
Our first priority has been to protect the value of the state pension. That we have fully and faithfully done, and we shall continue to do it by means of the uprating that I announced a month or so ago—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Ladywood would not shout from a sedentary position that facts which can be established are lies. Even the hon. Member for Oldham, West acknowledged that there had been, at the very least, full

527
protection of the basic state retirement pension. During the last month we have enhanced its value for about 400,000 pensioners by abolishing the earnings rule, so that those who were unable previously to enjoy the full value of their state retirement pension can now do so.
Beyond the priority that we have given to protecting the value of the state retirement pension, we have set out to achieve two major aims. The first, as is clear from the statistics that I have just given, is to protect the value of pensioners' increasingly important other income—from occupational pensions and, above all, from savings, which were reduced by the inflation that was generated by the previous Labour Government. Our success on that front has contributed to a considerable degree to the general improvement for many pensioners.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that a parliamentary answer to me stated that 25 per cent. of all single pensioners had a total income of less than £60 a week? Why does not the Minister recognise that hundreds and thousands of pensioners face this winter with very small incomes and that they are desperately concerned about food and fuel? They do not know how they will make ends meet. The Minister's pious words are no consolation to my constituents who are poor pensioners.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman leads me naturally to my next point about our aims alongside the clear protection of the basic state pension. We have sought to ensure that pensioners enjoy the advantage of the growing amount of occupational pensions which are payable to an increasing number of pensioners. The great majority of newly retired pensioners receive occupational pensions and have savings. We are determined to ensure that we protect the income from those sources, because they are very important to pensioners' standards of living.
The next element in our strategy is that we recognise clearly that a significant number of pensioners retired before occupational pensions were widespread or retired without being able to build up the savings that more recent pensioners have accumulated. We have openly and directly said that it would be right for the Government, when we can make additional resources available, to steer them towards the pensioners who are least well off. We have
done precisely that within the past month with increases in the income support premiums for older pensioners and disabled pensioners on income support which has brought up to £3·50 a week of additional help to about 2·5 million pensioners.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is not the Minister clawing back some of that increase through the transitional allowances?
Mr. Newton: No. The increases in pensioner premiums paid at the beginning of October did not affect transitional protection. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would acknowledge that.
One key element in our approach which is reflected in the Gracious Speech is to seek to bring about and encourage still further the growth of personal and occupational pensions which has been such an important ingredient in the improvement of living standards for so many pensioners in recent years. Although the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may not like this, he knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
528
State for Employment in his previous position introduced measures to promote the growth of personal pensions in April 1988. Those have proved to be an outstanding success.
Since April 1988, about 3·5 million people have taken out personal pensions. That reflects the creation of about 13,000 money-purchase schemes and 3,000 salary-related schemes to enhance and encourage the growth of that additional pension provision which is so important to so many people.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West will be aware that the Gracious Speech refers to a range of new proposals which we expect to include in the new Social Security Bill. Those are intended to improve benefit security for many people in occupational and personal pension schemes, and not least to improve consumer protection and the range of consumer advice and help available either through an ombudsman, the occupational pensions advisory service or through a new tracing service which contributes to the security and self-confidence of people investing in those schemes. That will be a significant further contribution, as set out in the Gracious Speech, to the important development of higher standards of living for pensioners, based on the full protection of the state pension and help to less well-off pensioners in the way that I have described, and through the growing benefit of the advantage of investing in one's own pension scheme with the security and flexibility that that provides.
The second major thrust of the debate has been the interests and needs of the long-term sick and disabled, a matter on which many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken with some vigour. Again it is important that hon. Members should understand what has happened over the past 10 years. In that period, expenditure increased by about £4 billion in real terms. From time to time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West and others have made some play of the fact that a significant part of that increase is the result of improved take-up—of increased numbers of disabled people getting the benefits that we want them to get.
I make no apologies for that. One of my aims, as Minister for Social Security, Minister for the Disabled and now as Secretary of State for Social Security has been to do everything that I can to ensure that disabled people, among others, benefit from the structure that we create to bring them help. I regard that as a real improvement in our help to disabled people. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that mobility allowance, which was claimed by fewer than 100,000 people when the Government came to office, is now claimed by nearly 600,000 people. Whatever the academic niceties of the argument, for nearly half a million people that is a substantial real increase in benefit.
Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
Mr. Newton: I do not have time to give way now.
Much the same is true of attendance allowance. Numbers have roughly trebled in the same period, bringing up to £40, at next April's rates, to about half a million people who would not have been getting it about 10 years ago.
Mr. Morris rose—
Mr. Newton: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene now, given the short time left for my speech. I hope that he will understand. I will read carefully what he said.
There may be those who thought it remiss of me at the outset not to welcome the hon. Member for Oldham, West to his new position, or rather, his return to his old position. I hasten to assure the House that it was not through any desire to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman but only because I was saving my welcome, perhaps rather oddly, for the end of my speech.
It is singularly appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should be back in his position, because he and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) are the living embodiment of what happens to Labour promises to pensioners. Hon. Members will recall that earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Salford, East was unwise enough to ask me about the Christmas bonus. My answer was that at least we are paying it, whereas the Government in which he was Minister for Social Security failed to pay it two years running.
This evening, the hon. Member for Oldham, West regaled the House with promises of what he would do. I invite those who might be tempted to read an article in The Times of 11 March 1976, which states:
"Minister shouted down at pensions rally. Old-age pensioners shouted down Mr. Meacher, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security yesterday as he tried to explain his Government's record on pensions. More than 2,000 pensioners from all over the country gathered in central hall, Westminster, to hear a number of speakers and to lobby MPs. The meeting was organised by the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Committee."
This Government have kept and will continue to keep their promises. We have fully protected the national insurance pension. We have advanced the living standards of pensioners generally. Not least, we have steered additional help to those who are least well off and who most need the help of the rest of the community. Just as the pensioners shouted down the hon. Member for Oldham, West 13 years ago, so the House will vote him down tonight.
Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken once.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 339.

Division 1]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Allen, Graham

Bidwell, Sydney

Alton, David

Blair, Tony

Anderson, Donald

Blunkett, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Boateng, Paul

Armstrong, Hilary

Boyes, Roland

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Buchan, Norman

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Buckley, George J.

Barron, Kevin

Caborn, Richard

Battle, John

Callaghan, Jim

Beckett, Margaret

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Bell, Stuart

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

530

Cartwright, John

Janner, Greville

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Clay, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Clelland, David

Kennedy, Charles

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cohen, Harry

Kirkwood, Archy

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Leighton, Ron

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Litherland, Robert

Cousins, Jim

Livingstone, Ken,

Cox, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McCartney, Ian

Cunningham, Dr John

Macdonald, Calum A.

Dalyell, Tarn

McFall, John

Darling, Alistair

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McKelvey, William

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

McLeish, Henry

Dewar, Donald

Maclennan, Robert

Dixon, Don

McNamara, Kevin

Dobson, Frank

McWilliam, John

Doran, Frank

Madden, Max

Douglas, Dick

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marek, Dr John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Eadie, Alexander

Martlew, Eric

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Maxton, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Meacher, Michael

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Meale, Alan

Fatchett, Derek

Michael, Alun

Faulds, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)

Fearn, Ronald

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fisher, Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Morgan, Rhodri

Flynn, Paul

Morley, Elliot

Foster, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fraser, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Fyfe, Maria

Mullin, Chris

Galloway, George

Murphy, Paul

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

O'Brien, William

George, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Gordon, Mildred

Parry, Robert

Gould, Bryan

Patchett, Terry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Pendry, Tom

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pike, Peter L.

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Grocott, Bruce

Prescott, John

Hardy, Peter

Primarolo, Dawn

Harman, Ms Harriet

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Radice, Giles

Haynes, Frank

Randall, Stuart

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Redmond, Martin

Heffer, Eric S.

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Henderson, Doug

Reid, Dr John

Hinchliffe, David

Richardson, Jo

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Home Robertson, John

Rogers, Allan

Hood, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Geraint

Ruddock, Joan

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hoyle, Doug

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Short, Clare

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

531

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

Walley, Joan

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

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Wareing, Robert N.

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Soley, Clive

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Spearing, Nigel

Wigley, Dafydd

Steinberg, Gerry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Stott, Roger

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Strang, Gavin

Winnick, David

Straw, Jack

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wray, Jimmy

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dennis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vaz, Keith

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Wall, Pat

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Wallace, James

NOES

Adley, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Conway, Derek

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Allason, Rupert

Cope, Rt Hon John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cormack, Patrick

Amess, David

Couchman, James

Amos, Alan

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, James

Critchley, Julian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Aspinwall, Jack

Devlin, Tim

Atkins, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Atkinson, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dover, Den

Batiste, Spencer

Dunn, Bob

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Bellingham, Henry

Eggar, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Emery, Sir Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Benyon, W.

Evennett, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Favell, Tony

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Boswell, Tim

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Franks, Cecil

Brazier, Julian

Freeman, Roger

Bright, Graham

French, Douglas

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

Gale, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gardiner, George

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Buck, Sir Antony

Gill, Christopher

Budgen, Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Burns, Simon

Glyn, Dr Alan

Burt, Alistair

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Butler, Chris

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butterfill, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gorst, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gow, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Cash, William

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gregory, Conal

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Chope, Christopher

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Churchill, Mr

Grist, Ian

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

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Grylls, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

532

Hague, William

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Marlow, Tony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hanley, Jeremy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hannam, John

Mates, Michael

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

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Harris, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Mellor, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayes, Jerry

Miller, Sir Hal

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Mills, Iain

Hayward, Robert

Miscampbell, Norman

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Heddle, John

Moate, Roger

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hill, James

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hind, Kenneth

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Mudd, David

Holt, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Howard, Michael

Neubert, Michael

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Norris, Steve

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hunter, Andrew

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Page, Richard

Irvine, Michael

Paice, James

Irving, Charles

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jack, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Jackson, Robert

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Janman, Tim

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Pawsey, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Portillo, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Price, Sir David

Key, Robert

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kilfedder, James

Rathbone, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Redwood, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knapman, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knox, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lang, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Latham, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rowe, Andrew

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Ryder, Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lightbown, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lilley, Peter

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shersby, Michael

Maclean, David

Sims, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Madel, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Major, Rt Hon John

Speed, Keith

Malins, Humfrey

Speller, Tony

Mans, Keith

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Maples, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

533

Squire, Robin

viggers, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Stevens, Lewis

Walden, George

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W''cester)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Waller, Gary

Stokes, Sir John

Walters, Sir Dennis

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Summerson, Hugo

Warren, Kenneth

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Watts, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Widdecombe, Ann

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wiggin, Jerry

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wilshire, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Wolfson, Mark

Thornton, Malcolm

Wood, Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Yeo, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tracey, Richard

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Tony Durant.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Severn Bridge (Tolls)
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Order Paper states that the instrument has not been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Opposition want to debate the order before it comes into effect, but it is quite clear that the time between laying the instrument and its coming into force prevents the Joint Committee from examining it as we are required to do under the Standing Orders. I hope that the Government will take account of that if they wish their instruments to be subjected to scrutiny by a Committee of the House which has been appointed for that task.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House appreciates what the hon. Gentleman does as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, but he knows that that is a matter for the Government and not for me.
10.17 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Severn Bridge Tolls Order 1989 (S.I. 1989, No. 1922), dated 18th October 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
It is perhaps best to put the order—we shall vote against it—into context. Under the Conservatives, road congestion has reached crisis proportions and the national economic situation is grim. We have massive interest rates, high inflation and a record balance of payments deficit. In 10 years of Conservative rule Britain, and especially the Principality, has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. We are now attempting to reinvigorate our economy, to make new jobs and to create a balanced economy so as never again to experience what hit us in the early 1980s as a result of the Government's economic policies.
No Opposition Member believes that the Government are helping the south Wales economy by proposing an increase in tolls. The Severn bridge is arguably the most important item of infrastructure in south Wales. I can say without a shadow of contradiction that opinion in south Wales is implacably opposed to the rise in the toll charge. County councils, district councils and small businesses in south Wales, and major and heavy industries and small businesses throughout Wales, are against the toll increase. Commuters who drive to England by car each day will have to pay up to £5 per week extra if the order is passed. [Interruption.] We in the Labour party—
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why does the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) keep bawling at my hon. Friend? It is time he shut up and time you told him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should listen to each other without making interruptions from a sedentary position.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The only reason why I sought to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was because he was supposed to be addressing the House of Commons, not a television camera. He was staring at the camera all the time and not addressing his remarks to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The cameras are invisible.
Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The toll increase would be most untimely with inflation rising and mortgages reaching penal levels. Moreover, there is no support in south Wales for the increase.
I have with me a copy of the policy document of the Council of Welsh Districts entitled, "Land of opportunity". Welsh district councils have a plan for the reinvigoration of the Welsh economy. A series of headings relate directly to the tolls on the Severn bridge. For example:
"Maximising Common Market Support for the Economy, More Assistance for Rural Areas, Expanding Tourism, Forward Planning and Programming, Extending Coordination and Co-operation in Public Sector Incentives and Initiatives."
Welsh district councils are considering the renewal and development of regional policy and developing sub-regional policy. It is an effective document, but an increase in the tolls on the Severn bridge would go against the heart of those policies.
Mr. Paul Marland rose—
Mr. Jones: I would rather not give way—not from discourtesy but because many hon. Members wish to contribute to this brief debate.
It is no exaggeration to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has fought for many years to safeguard the interests of his constituents. Since the bridge has been in existence, he has defended the interests of industry and commuters against toll increases.
Mr. David Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, the debate is far too short.
There are many inconsistencies in the Government's proposals to increase the toll charge. In south Wales there is an attempt to reorder the economy. We are trying to encourage small businesses and to attract investment from countries such as West Germany, American and even Japan. Virtually all of south-east Wales has assisted area status.
The Secretary of State for Wales trumpets the advantages of the valleys programme, but it is clear to me and to the people of Wales—and specifically the people of south-east Wales—that if the tolls are increased the valleys programme will be dealt a severe blow. At the heart of the valleys programme is the attempt to encourage small businesses to locate in the valleys of south-east Wales. With high interest and mortgage rates, high inflation and a balance of payments problem, the Government's proposals for increased tolls will not be acceptable to those who wish the valleys programme every success. The inconsistencies in the proposal are an important reason for voting against the order.
County district and borough councils are heavily engaged in seeking to attract industry. The Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development are similarly engaged. Those bodies and the local authorities know that in order to attract industry the need to be able to show south-east Wales as an area with maximum advantages. The Government proposal goes against that objective. People in Wales of every political persuasion are against an increase in tolls.
There is still a large amount of unemployment in the Principality. The research unit in the county of mid-Glamorgan says that bigger tolls on the bridge will be
536
a considerable disincentive. I understand that a pharmaceutical firm is considering whether to locate a large warehouse for its finished products in Gwent. The company has said that increased tolls would be a factor in influencing its decision. Hon. Members will know that Hoover has talked about many redundancies in one of the valleys of south-east Wales.
Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, this is a short debate and my speech will be short.
I emphasise to the House the impact that increased charges will have on the car driver in south-east Wales who daily crosses the bridge to attend his place of work. It will mean a large increase in the amount that such a driver has to pay. Wales is seen to be on the periphery of Europe and will face a major challenge in the single market of 1992. We shall also face a major challenge when the Channel tunnel opens.
The Severn bridge and the M4 are part of a Euro-route and higher tolls would be a barrier. The Severn bridge provides an entry to Europe for the Welsh economy.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): If the hon. Gentleman is against the increase in tolls, is he saying that a Labour Government would reduce them, and if so, why did the last Labour Government not do so?
Mr. Jones: It is typical of a rattled Government to ask hypothetical questions late at night when there is no possibility of debating the future rather than the proposal before the House. On that I shall rest.
I was about to say—
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way.
There are considerable inconsistencies—
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jones: I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difference between the time of the Labour Government and now is that in the 1970s there was an advanced form of regional policy and regional structures, but those structures have been progressively dismantled in the past 10 years under a Conservative Government? My hon. Friend cited the example of Gwent. The further west one goes, the greater the disincentives resulting from the dismantling.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the issue. The Government are dismantling regional policies, and we know that that is injurious to the economy of south Wales. The Government's proposal will not help the economy of south-east Wales and elsewhere—
Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: Sit down$ I am not giving way. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss. Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is determined that he is not giving way now.
Mr. Jones: There are inconsistencies. For example, regional economic policies are operating across south Wales in a bid to regenerate the economy. Most of south Wales has assisted area status and qualifies for regional aid and other incentives. The Secretary of State for Wales has launched his so-called valleys programme as a recognition of the problems of south Wales.
The Government's proposal to double the tolls on the Severn bridge runs against their professed objective of a regional policy in south Wales. Increased tolls, on the quickest and most efficient route into south Wales are being proposed when local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies are trying to attract business to the region.
An increase in tolls will be a further burden on Welsh business. High interest rates are hitting businesses in south Wales. The region has suffered redundancies at the Hoover plant and the Freight Transport Association has expressed its astonishment and dismay at the proposed doubling of tolls. The FTA states:
"Contrary to the Government's claim that the present tolls are lower in real terms than they were 20 years ago, the present toll for lorries is 800 per cent. higher than it was in 1968, which is an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms."
If the toll were to be doubled, it would have risen by 1,600 per cent. over 20 years—an increase of 135 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Allason rose—
Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way.
There is also the interesting question of how valid Department of Transport traffic forecasts are. To be lawful, the Secretary of State must ensure that the income produced by the toll does not exceed the required purposes set out in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965. At the time when the Government's proposal to increase tolls was announced, the Secretary of State for Transport stated that he had used traffic forecasts not available at the time of the inquiry. One assumes that they were consistent with those presented at the inquiry, but how can the Government be certain that the inspector would have arrived at the same conclusion, had the new traffic forecast been before him? That seems a highly irregular and dubious way of arriving at such an important decision.
Mr Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will not give way.
Mr. Jones: I do not propose to give way. I note that the hon. Gentleman who seeks to intervene represents a Merseyside constituency. There seems to be only one Welsh Back Bencher present on the Conservative side of the House. One wonders what has become of the others.
Mr. Marland: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on that utter irrelevance. It is not only those right hon. and hon. Members who reside in Wales who have an interest in the subject. I represent the royal forest of Dean—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has a number of responsibilities, but fortunately that is not one of them.
Mr. Jones: It is interesting to note that there is only one Welsh Back Bencher present on the Conservative side. One wonders where the others are. We thought it important to pray against the order because we know of the significance of the increased tolls and how injurious they will be to the economy of south Wales. Where are Conservative Back Benchers from Wales when this important measure is being debated? They are not here.
Mr. Allason: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has not a bridge two ends? The hon. Gentleman seems unaware of that. Perhaps you will enlighten him.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) needs enlightening, but he needs to make progress.
Mr. Jones: Conservative Members do not properly comprehend that the order will cause a great deal of damage to the economy of south Wales. While Labour and other Opposition Members are present in the Chamber in force, Welsh Conservative Members are not. I am sure that the people of Wales will draw the correct conclusion from that.
It is highly insensitive of the Government to propose a major increase in Severn bridge tolls at this time. When the Prime Minister addressed the Conservative party conference in Wales in the early 1980s, she had the insensitivity to suggest that unemployed Welsh people should go to England to find jobs. A British Prime Minister said that in Swansea, at a Conservative party conference. Now we find that, as recently as two weeks ago, the same Prime Minister visited a Welsh valley and had the insensitivity to say in an area of high unemployment, "Cheer up—all will be well." Opposition Members will be cheered up when the Prime Minister loses the general election and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition enters No. 10 Downing street, as he will surely do.
Gwent county council is against the increase in tolls, as are the county councils in South Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan and West Glamorgan. The entire Opposition are against this unjustifiable increase, and I invite the House to vote against it.
10.40 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): One could reasonably be misled by the theatrical, synthetic and even—dare I say—televisual views of the Opposition Members into thinking that the recently announced Severn bridge tolls increase represents a device to tax the Welsh economy. The truth is that the increase to £1 for cars and £2 for lorries and coaches is very modest: it merely raises the car toll to a level that is, in real terms, virtually the same as that charged when the bridge opened in 1966. We have done no more and no less than the Labour party did when it was in government.
Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Atkins: I will give way as often as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did.
It was a Labour Government who decided that, to speed the provision of a Severn crossing and the benefits

539
that it would bring the Welsh economy, the crossing should be tolled. The bridge was first tolled under the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which was promoted by a Labour Government, and tolls have been charged ever since.
Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I see that, although only two Conservative Members from Wales are present for a debate that is crucial to the Welsh economy, one is present on the Front Bench. Why is a Welsh Minister not answering the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): No breach of our Standing Orders has been committed.
Mr. Atkins: There is a simple answer to that question: the bridge is in England.
In a brief intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office invited the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to tell us what a future Labour Government might do if presented with their own original legislation requiring an increase in tolls. I am more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to say what he would do if he became Welsh Secretary.
Mr. Barry Jones: There will be a Labour Government, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will head it. The aim of that Government will always be to ensure that tolls in Wales do not increase; nevertheless, over a period we shall wish to see a reassessment of tolls as they affect communities in particular estuarial roads. The Minister is asking a hypothetical question two and a half years before a Labour Government come to power. The certainty of that Government I concede to him; what they do must wait until they take office.
Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. His answer speaks volumes. It is Labour Government legislation that provides for tolls to be raised if there is a need to meet a debt. The hon. Gentleman cannot answer a direct question without flannelling.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Atkins: No. I have given way as often as I intend to do, which is just as often as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave way to my hon. Friends.
Dr. Thomas rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meirronnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) has just heard what the Minister said. He has no intention of giving way further.
Dr. Thomas rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist.
Mr. Atkins: I have no intention of giving way more often than the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside gave way. You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he spoke without once looking at this side of the House. He concentrated his attention on other things, not a million miles away from the television camera. I intend to answer the debate in the way that it should be answered by dealing with the facts.
540
Nobody disputes the importance of the bridge to south Wales. It is so important that in 1956—[Interruption.] The attitude of Opposition Members, who have raised the matter by means of a Prayer, is puzzling. Surely they want to hear the answer. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I listened to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. The least that the Opposition can do is to listen to the facts as presented. That would have demonstrated the sweet reasonableness of Opposition Members, which we are led to believe Mr. Mandelson is trying to inculcate in them. However, they are not prepared to listen.
I shall try to continue and to deal with the matters that relate to tolls.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Atkins: No.
In 1956, a local authority-led consortium submitted to the Minister of the day a scheme for a Severn crossing that included the proposal that it should be paid for over 30 years—not, as at present, over 40 years—by tolls. The proposed toll was 7s 6d., which is equivalent to about £3 today. Why all this synthetic nonsense over an increase to £1 for cars and £2 for lorries? The public ought to be made aware of the Opposition's synthetic, faked nonsense.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Atkins: I said that I would not give way to the Opposition, but the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside gave way once to his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), so I shall give way to one of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave way to his hon. Friend only because he hoped for a friendly intervention. He said that the Freight Transport Association had stated that, lorry for lorry, tolls had increased during the last 20 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it had quoted tonne for tonne, which is a much more important figure, a very different figure would have emerged?
Mr. Atkins: Need I say more? In a studied intervention, my hon. Friend has hit the nail absolutely on the head.
Any increase in tolls is likely to lead to objections. Under the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965—a Labour Government Act—there is provision for a public inquiry by an independent inspector to listen to objections.
Before the tolls order was made, the proposed increase was the subject of an exhaustive public inquiry in February and March this year in Avon and Gwent, at which representatives of the Welsh local authorities, some Opposition Members and several other objectors were given every opportunity to make their cases. All the evidence was carefully considered by the inspector when he made his report. He concluded that the proposed increases in tolls would not have a detrimental effect on Wales. I emphasise that that was the conclusion of an independent inspector. Above all, he concluded that the increases proposed by my Department were necessary and should be implemented. However, after weighing the costs and the benefits of the bridge to regular car commuters, the inspector recommended that the discount on books of toll tickets sold for that purpose should be increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.

541
In making the order, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport relied on the inspector's very thorough examination of the arguments for and against the toll increases. However, in his decision letter of 7 September, my right hon. Friend did not accept one of the inspector's recommendations. The inspector believed that the ratio of tolls currently charged between cars and heavy goods vehicles did not reflect the wear and tear caused by the heavier vehicles. He therefore recommended that the 10 per cent. discount on books of pre-paid vouchers for lorries and coaches should be ended. My right hon. Friend considered that recommendation carefully and concluded, having regard to his wish not to deter commerce between England and Wales, that he could not accept it. That was a very reasonable approach, and a sign that we listen to and sometimes overrule inspectors.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Atkins: I should say something about the background of the Government's policy on tolls, against which this increase should be seen. It is worth noting how little Government policy towards the tolling of estuarial crossings has changed over the years, including the years when the Labour party was in office. We must remember that the Act introducing tolls on the Severn bridge was passed in 1965 under a Labour Government.
This Government's policy towards the tolling of estuarial crossings was set out clearly in a memorandum submitted by my Department to the Select Committee on Transport in April 1985. That memorandum explained that, over the past 30 years, successive Governments have maintained the policy of charging tolls on major estuarial crossings. That reflected the high cost of provision and the exceptional benefits to users conferred by large reductions in journey lengths. In that memorandum in April 1985, my Department made the very valid point that tolls had enabled substantial and useful additions to be made to the transport infrastructure which otherwise might have been much delayed or not provided at all.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Atkins: The memorandum also noted the view of the inspector in the 1979 tolls inquiry.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister who is speaking for the Government on an issue as vital to the economy of Wales as the tolls on the Severn bridge not to give way to Opposition Members who want to question him about points that he has raised—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Wigley: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not unreasonable for a Minister, who should be answerable to the House, to address his remarks to Conservative Members from England while totally ignoring representations made by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and by other hon. Members of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a matter of courtesy that Front-Bench Members should address their remarks to the Chair and not to hon. Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I was aware that the Minister was addressing his remarks directly through me.
Mr. Atkins: You are very kind to support me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made a point of addressing my remarks through you, as opposed to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who addressed his remarks not to the House but to the height above me. I have been careful to address my remarks through the Chair.
I said that I would give way as often as the hon. Gentleman did. I know the hon. Gentleman to be a reasonable man. On many occasions we have agreed on other matters. He knows that as well as I do. It is most untypical of him that he should not feel able to give way. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a short debate and that he could not give way, so, in all reasonableness, I should not give way, so that all hon. Members can participate in the debate.
The memorandum to which I referred also noted that that the view of the inspector—
Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he is not about to give way.
Mr. Atkins: The memorandum also noted the view of the inspector in the 1979 tolls inquiry that the Welsh local authorities then opposed to tolls had not originally opposed them when—lo and behold—they had seen them as a way of getting the Severn bridge built. Does that not fly in the face of the theatrical activities of Opposition Members in representing those authorities to be as opposed as they are, when at that time they were not?
The inspector at the recent inquiry accepted that the present Government's policy on tolls was quite clear. He also said that, although he would report to the Secretary of State any views on that policy expressed at the inquiry, it would not be for him to make recommendations that related to the merits of the policy. That has set the policy background.
I now refer to the substance of the order. The order must, of course, have regard to the relevant legislation. My right hon. Friend's power to levy tolls is contained in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which was enacted under a Labour Government. Section 1 of the Act provides that my right hon. Friend may levy tolls. Sections 2 and 19 enable him to make orders setting out toll levels for classes of vehicles. Section 3 prescribes the procedure for making orders. Section 4 provides for a toll period of 40 years, with the possibility of extensions for five years. It also limits the tolls which may be levied.
I should explain that the bridge is financed from the Consolidated Fund. However, to set a limit to the power to levy tolls, the Act introduced the concept of users paying for it by means of a loan. The limitation in section 4(2) of the Act is framed to that effect. Schedule 2 to the Act specifies seven purposes to which—
Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Minister given you any idea of how long he will spin out his speech to prevent Welsh Members from speaking?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That question is usurping the time of the House.
Mr. Atkins: Schedule 2 to the Act specifies seven purposes to which revenue may be applied. Taken together, for present purposes, they amount to the whole cost of providing, maintaining, operating and improving the bridge.
My Department's statement to the public inquiry explained that a tolls increase was necessary to achieve the aim of paying the costs of the bridge by the end of the 40-year period specified in the Severn Bridges Tolls Act 1965. My right hon. Friend was satisfied that that, without an increase, that aim could not be achieved. In the years 1981–82 to 1984–85, the income from tolls did not even cover operating costs. The published accounts showed an overall annual deficit growing from £1·6 million in 1979–80 to £10·4 million in 1987–88. By 31 March 1989, the debt on the bridge had risen from £14·4 million on opening to £113·4 million. It is clear to any reasonable person that, without a tolls increase, the deficit would have grown indefinitely.
The Department's statement also explained that the increase proposed was intended to provide for an estimated £50 million spread over the years 1988–89 to 1990–91 for the balance of the costs of strengthening and repair work to the bridge which still remain to be done. [Interruption.] I should—if hon. Members want to hear the reason for the tolls increase as opposed to speaking—[Interruption.]
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Get on with it.
Mr. Atkins: Well, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who I see has vanished—[Interruption.] No, I beg his pardon. The hon. Gentleman who began the debate wanted me to answer this point, and I am endeavouring to explain for the benefit of all those in the House and outside—
Mr. Alun Michael: You are filibustering now.
Mr. Atkins: No, I am not.
Mr. Michael: Yes, you are.
Mr. Atkins: No, I am not.
We explained that there was a great need to carry out a degree of strengthening work and my right hon. Friend was satisfied that without the increase, the aim would not be achieved. The current programme of strengthening work is soon to be completed and a programme of resurfacing will be under way shortly. The total cost is likely to be £74 million.
The work is designed to upgrade the bridge for the future; it is not in any sense a reflection upon the quality of the original design of the bridge, which was built fully in accordance with the standards that then applied. The design was not in any way experimental. However, in 1966 when the bridge was opened—
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Atkins rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.
Mr. Flynn: There is discretion in the House to limit speeches during major debates to 10 minutes. Is it not right that, in a debate of limited duration, speeches should not go on for 20 minutes, as the Minister's has? Should we not exercise some discretion?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not within my authority in this debate.
Mr. Rowlands: It is disgraceful.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us what time the debate must conclude?
Madam Deputy Speaker: At 11.30 pm.
Mr. Atkins: I strongly resent the imputation from Opposition Members that, having sought to pray against an order that comes under the legislation that they passed when in Government, they should accuse me of delaying the debate when I seek to respond to the debate and to give the facts that they have demanded from me. I resent that suggestion, and I throw it back in their faces.
Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Atkins: Of course—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely disgraceful that the debate should be hogged by Welsh Members of Parliament, now known as the "Taffia", who totally disregard the interests of any English hon. Members such as myself, on whose constituencies th bridge has a great effect? I too am anxious to make a contribution to the debate.
Mr. Atkins: I have—
Dr. Thomas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you care to rule on whether "Taffia" is a parliamentary expression? [Interruption.]
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend the Member for—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been asked to rule, but I hesitate to do so. We should make progress over the bridge—rapidly.
Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has reminded me that I have not yet spoken for as long as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.
I have endeavoured to provide the House with a full account, albeit foreshortened, of our careful stewardship of the Severn bridge. That stewardship is consistent with the obligations of the legislation that was enacted when the Labour party was in power and is consistent with current Government policy on the tolling of roads and bridges. Opposition Members may regret the lack of consistency between their past actions and their present policies, but this Government have been consistent and will continue to be so. In the interests of the debate, I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion.
11.4 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: The order is crucial to the future economic well-being of Wales. It is intended to authorise the doubling of toll charges on the Severn bridge, which is the principal access point to Wales on what is merely a short stretch of the M4.
This morning when I passed over the bridge it was noticeable that the new prices were already in place before they had been discussed here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the charges are introduced, many of my constituents and many people in neighbouring constituencies will be badly affected financially.
In recent years there have been massive redundancies in the steel industry and one pit after another has closed. In Gwent, one of the most populated Welsh counties, not one coal mine is left. Many people, having been put out of work, took the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who told them to get on their bikes. They did not do that, but they got into their cars and sought employment on the other side of the estuary. As a reward for their initiative, they are to be asked to pay £10 a week in toll charges. They must earn £14 a week, before tax, to meet that toll commitment. Surely travel to work and travel connected with business should not be taxed.
The effect of the toll charges is not only localised; the entire economic life of Wales is being retarded by them. The proposal to double the tolls could be the straw that breaks the camel's back as the Severn bridge is the main point for getting in and out of Wales.
I appreciate that a good case can be made for the abolition of tolls on estuarial crossings. The Select Committee on Transport recognised that in its second report published on 19 February 1986 when it unanimously recommended their abolition. Unfortunately, the Government turned down that proposal. However, that is not the issue being debated tonight.
Most of the dozen or so tolled estuarial crossings are outside the south-east of England. Tolls on estuaries such as the Severn, the Humber, the Mersey, the Forth and the Tay restrict movement in many of the great old industrial centres of the north and west. Regional imbalance is as great as ever, with prosperity and wealth gravitating towards the south-east of England. At a stroke the abolition of toll charges would help to create more balanced economic development throughout the country. The House's rejection of the order would be a major step in the right direction.
Tolls are iniquitous. Responsible motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club have said that they are prefectly perpared to accept other forms of motoring taxation were toll charges abolished.
I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to reflect on the fact that toll charges are an inefficient means of raising revenue. For instance, the total cost of collection on the Severn bridge is £2·6 million per annum. That figure comprises an estimated £1·73 million in delays to motorists, £850,000 in the direct cost of collection, and £100,000 in the disbenefit to traffic dissuaded from using the bridge by tolls. The Severn bridge toll produces a revenue of about £10 million annually, 26 per cent. of which is consumed in its collection. Even the poll tax cannot match that inefficiency.
546
In a statement in January this year in support of the proposal to double toll charges, the Department of Transport said:
"The Government is willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases."
Surely with unemployment in Wales above the national average we are a special case. I have already referred to regional imbalance when comparing Wales with the south-east of England. With industrial rates at 15 per cent. and Britain teetering on the brink of an economic recession, this is the time for the special consideration to which the Department of Transport referred.
Why not make a start tonight by setting aside this order? We should also consider the fact that the bridge is in a bad state, and resurfacing work will not be completed until the end of next year. Lanes on the bridge are perilously thin. There are frequent hold-ups and journey times cannot be guaranteed. This is hardly the time for the Government to come forward with a proposal to double toll charges.
Finally, I turn to the Secretary of State for Wales. Where is this gladiator whom Welsh newspaper editors have been telling us for so long will cure unemployment in Wales, re-beautify our former mining valleys and so on? Honeyed words and gift-wrapped packaging are one thing, but on the issue of toll charges on the Severn bridge, which is of such prime importance to the economic well-being of Wales, the Secretary of State has not raised his head above the parapet. For all the effect that he has had on this issue, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) might have spent his time hop-picking.
The real champion of Wales has been the standing conference on regional policy, consisting of our four county councils: Gwent, mid, west and south Glamorgan. The councillors know and understand Wales and have recognised from the outset the significance of the toll issue. I am glad that tonight the Labour party opposes the order and I sincerely hope that it will be rejected.
11.13 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in this debate, for he has significantly raised the standard of debate among the Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman has long had a commendable interest in this subject, although there have been times when he should have been more cautious and not gone over to the top.
It is easy to say no to the toll order. It is easy to come out and say no when one is in opposition. It is equally fair to ask what the Opposition did when they were in Government. But it is irresponsible to say no to the toll order. Any realist knows full well that the cost of the bridge must still be met.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, this is a short debate, and in the interests of other Members wanting to speak I shall not give way.
We listened for 22 minutes to what I could most charitably describe as waffle from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). When the Minister sought to draw him out, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside refused point blank to say what he would do in the future. It was only when my hon. Friend the Minister invited the

547
hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box that the admission was at last dragged grudgingly from him that the Labour party would keep and reassess tolls. Are not those weasel words for saying that the Labour party would do exactly the same, if it were ever to form a Government again, as it did when it was previously in power?
All we are hearing is hypocrisy. I oppose that, just as I oppose the alternative Labour policy. When a certain Labour Member came to Cardiff to debate the issue, he advocated that the cost of the bridge be transferred from tolls to the four county councils in south Wales—Gwent and mid, west and south Glamorgan. I utterly oppose that idea. It would affect everyone in those counties, but not people at the other end of the bridge. The bridge still has to be paid for, and it is much better that those who use it should contribute. It is of considerable benefit, whatever the hon. Member for Newport, East says.
I can give an example of the bridge's benefits from personal experience. Returning to the House from my constituency to vote in a Division on which there was a three-line Whip, I discovered that the bridge was closed. The alternative route through Chepstow could not cope with the traffic, and it was impossible to get back to the House in time. I reflected, as I sat stuck in a traffic jam on the M4, that I would cheerfully have paid £1 and more to get over the bridge.
Mr. Marland: When my hon. Friend was unable to get over the Severn bridge, did he take a detour through the Forest of Dean? One of the issues that I hope to raise later in the debate is the fact that, if the bridge is closed, there are the most murderous traffic jams on the A48 through the Forest of Dean.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right. The bridge is of considerable benefit to the people of south Wales and everyone else who uses it.
I suggest that we make progress. We must have no more of Labour's campaign of denigration of the bridge. The Confederation of British Industry tells us that that campaign has already put off investors who might have come to south Wales to set up businesses and factories. It is a tremendous bridge and a gateway to south Wales.
11.17 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has been a doughty campaigner for the reduction of tolls on the Severn bridge, which is the umbilical cord to south Wales. We are discussing a principle. My party's view is that there should be no tolls on the bridge. We should have to discuss such a tax on the Welsh people. Increases of 100 per cent. are proposed for cars and lorries, but I have looked in vain for any proposed increase for stalking horses.
As a result of disruption on the bridge, due to poor planning and poor management, businesses in Wales and west Gloucestershire have suffered severe economic losses. It is not good enough to put tolls up with the bridge in its present state. It should be compared with the Victorian engineering of the Severn tunnel, which cannot be seen or heard and on which there are no tolls. If the principle of tolls was evoked there, every train would have to stop and someone would have to go around collecting tolls from passengers. There is only one problem with the Severn
548
tunnel—it will not get a direct link to the continent after 1993—but I suppose that we shall have to put up with that. That is also a slight to Wales, as are the toll increases.
There has been an appalling lack of infrastructure investment in Wales. I cannot understand why there has not been more planning for a second Severn crossing. There has been a lack of estimates of the volume of traffic crossing the bridge and on the M25, which is an essential link from Wales to the continent. Transport contractors in south Wales have told us that because of delays on the Severn bridge and the M25 on weekdays it takes lorries seven hours to travel from south Wales to the continent, whereas on Sundays it takes only four. That results in economic losses.
We do not know whether the order will set a precedent for increased tolls on the second Severn bridge when it comes. We have been assured that it will be built by the mid-1990s and I hope that the Minister will assure us of that. If it is delayed further, costs will escalate. In this debate we seek precise details about what will occur in relation to that second crossing—what levels of tolls will be imposed, how many lanes will there be on the bridge and what are the traffic forecasts for both crossings by the year 2000.
The proposal is undoubtedly being introduced as a tax on British Steel, Ford, British Coal, Hoover, Sony, Hitachi, the new Bosch developments in south Wales, arid Panasonic. It will also be a tax on the Irish transport system, which uses the M4, and on tourism in Wales.
This is a most inappropriate order and there is no justification for it. There should not be tolls on the Severn bridge. The Government should ensure a free flow of traffic and no losses caused by delays of the kind that occur at present.
11.22 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: Despite Labour protests, I should like to emphasise how important the Severn bridge is to constituents outside Wales and on the borders. It has a big impact on west Gloucestershire.
When the bridge is open and trouble-free, hundreds of people flood across from the Forest of Dean to their work on the other side of the river. Where there are difficulties the hold-ups are enormous. I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench recognise the significance of this project for—
Mr. Morgan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who his tailor is? We could advise him to ask for his money back.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is wasting time in a short debate.
Mr. Marland: That about sums up the irrelevance of many of the remarks from Opposition Members. I am sorry if my clothing does not measure up to their standards.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench recognise the significance of the Severn crossing for the infrastucture in the district. That is why plans are being laid for the construction of a second crossing. When from time to time the Severn bridge is closed, the impact on the A48 which runs through my constituency is murderous. It is impossible to cross the road because of the number of lorries driving nose to tail up the A48 to Gloucester.
I welcome the discounts, but doubling the toll is a significant increase. At the old rate, 50 crossings cost the

549
private motorist £25, but that will be increased to £40, taking the discounts into account. Is that enough? As some hon. Members have said, haulage operators face an even bigger increase and there is no doubt that many drivers will seek alternative routes. Closure of the Severn bridge has a massive impact on my constituency and on the people who live there.
In many respects the discounts that are offered seem stingy. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of increasing the discounts for regular users on whom the increase in toll charges will have the biggest impact. Hon. Members have spoken about developing businesses in south Wales, the Forest of Dean and elsewhere. Whether such businesses will regularly use the bridge remains to be seen, but those who use it regularly for business purposes should be offered more than a 20 per cent. discount.
I have emphasised several times and emphasise again the impact of the closure of the Severn bridge on the Forest of Dean. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was right to say that if the cost becomes too high drivers will look for alternatives. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), when the bridge is closed for repairs people look for alternative routes and too many of them use the A48 through the Forest of Dean. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to put in a plug for improvements to the A48. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). The A48 is a trunk road but the improvements have to be made by the county council. Gloucestershire county council is currently controlled by the Liberals.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Marland: I am doing that. When the Severn bridge is closed or when the price goes up, drivers look for alternative routes and they choose the A48. Sadly, Gloucestershire county council, which is controlled by the Liberals, is steadfastly refusing to improve the A48. Despite what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor said, I hope that he will encourage Gloucestershire county council to do something about that road and instigate some improvements.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put to the House propositions that are quite wrong? If the A48 is a trunk road the Department of Transport should pay the bill, not the county council.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are responsible for their comments in the Chamber and I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) will refer to the order.
Mr. Marland: I assure the House that I am 100 per cent. accurate. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has again demonstrated the lack of commitment of the Liberal party in Gloucestershire county council to the Forest of Dean. It is a tragedy for people who live there that Gloucestershire county council does so little to help those who have to take a detour when they cannot cross the Severn bridge. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give greater discounts to regular users of the bridge.
550
Sadly, while we are waiting for the second Severn crossing to be constructed, I cannot endorse the increase in the cost of crossing the Severn bridge.
11.29 pm
Mr. Atkins rose—
Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Orders, is it not possible for the debate to go on for an hour and a hall? Why is it not possible to call representatives of all the parties in Wales instead of continuously calling Conservative Members, as is happening?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does me a great injustice. The debate finishes at 11.30, and I have called the Minister for the last minute.
Mr. Atkins: With the leave of the House—
Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the Minister require the leave of the House to speak a second time? If so, should he be given leave to speak again in view of the disgraceful and supercilious speech he made earlier, especially as other hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister may speak again with the leave of the House.
Mr Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could the Minister also be given an opportunity to correct the misleading advice he gave earlier, when he said that the original toll set at 12½p was now worth £1, when it is clear from the inspector's advice—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a genuine point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).
The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 239.

Division No. 2]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Allen, Graham

Buchan, Norman

Anderson, Donald

Buckley, George J.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Caborn, Richard

Armstrong, Hilary

Callaghan, Jim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Battle, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Beckett, Margaret

Clay, Bob

Beith, A. J.

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cohen, Harry

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

Coleman, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bidwell, Sydney

Corbett, Robin

Blair, Tony

Cousins, Jim

Blunkett, David

Cox, Tom

Boateng, Paul

Cryer, Bob

Boyes, Roland

Cummings, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Cunningham, Dr John

551

Darling, Alistair

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martlew, Eric

Dewar, Donald

Maxton, John

Dixon, Don

Meacher, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Meale, Alan

Doran, Frank

Michael, Alun

Duffy, A. E. P.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eadie, Alexander

Morgan, Rhodri

Eastham, Ken

Morley, Elliot

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fatchett, Derek

Mowlam, Marjorie

Faulds, Andrew

Mullin, Chris

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Murphy, Paul

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

Nellist, Dave

Fisher, Mark

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Flannery, Martin

O'Brien, William

Flynn, Paul

O'Neill, Martin

Foster, Derek

Parry, Robert

Foulkes, George

Patchett, Terry

Fraser, John

Pendry, Tom

Fyfe, Maria

Pike, Peter L.

Galloway, George

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Prescott, John

George, Bruce

Primarolo, Dawn

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Randall, Stuart

Gordon, Mildred

Redmond, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Richardson, Jo

Hardy, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rogers, Allan

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Henderson, Doug

Rowlands, Ted

Hinchliffe, David

Ruddock, Joan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Sedgemore, Brian

Home Robertson, John

Sheerman, Barry

Hood, Jimmy

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Short, Clare

Howells, Geraint

Skinner, Dennis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hoyle, Doug

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

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Soley, Clive

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Steinberg, Gerry

Janner, Grevilie

Stott, Roger

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Strang, Gavin

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Straw, Jack

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Lamond, James

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Leighton, Ron

Vaz, Keith

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Wall, Pat

Lewis, Terry

Wallace, James

Litherland, Robert

Walley, Joan

Livsey, Richard

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wareing, Robert N.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McAvoy, Thomas

Wigley, Dafydd

McCartney, Ian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McFall, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Winnick, David

McKelvey, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McLeish, Henry

Wray, Jimmy

McNamara, Kevin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Marek, Dr John

Mr. Frank Haynes.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Amess, David

Alexander, Richard

Amos, Alan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Allason, Rupert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

552

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Ashby, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Atkins, Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Atkinson, David

Gregory, Conal

Baldry, Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Batiste, Spencer

Grist, Ian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hague, William

Bendall, Vivian

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Body, Sir Richard

Hannam, John

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Boswell, Tim

Harris, David

Bottomley, Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hill, James

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Brazier, Julian

Irvine, Michael

Bright, Graham

Jackson, Robert

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

Janman, Tim

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Buck, Sir Antony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Key, Robert

Burns, Simon

Kirkhope, Timothy

Burt, Alistair

Knapman, Roger

Butterfill, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Knowles, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Knox, David

Carrington, Matthew

Lang, Ian

Carttiss, Michael

Latham, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Lee, John (Pendle)

Chope, Christopher

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lightbown, David

Colvin, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Conway, Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Couchman, James

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Cran, James

Maclean, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

McLoughlin, Patrick

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

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Day, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Dicks, Terry

Malins, Humfrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Mans, Keith

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maples, John

Dover, Den

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Dunn, Bob

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Durant, Tony

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Eggar, Tim

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Emery, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Mellor, David

Evennett, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Miller, Sir Hal

Fallon, Michael

Mills, Iain

Favell, Tony

Miscampbell, Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, Sir David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Moate, Roger

Fishburn, John Dudley

Monro, Sir Hector

Fookes, Dame Janet

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Forman, Nigel

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Forth, Eric

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Neale, Gerrard

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nelson, Anthony

Franks, Cecil

Neubert, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

French, Douglas

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Gale, Roger

Norris, Steve

Gardiner, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Oppenheim, Phillip

Gill, Christopher

Page, Richard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Paice, James

Goodlad, Alastair

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Pawsey, James

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gorst, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Gow, Ian

Porter, David (Waveney)

553

Portillo, Michael

Stokes, Sir John

Price, Sir David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Sumberg, David

Redwood, John

Summerson, Hugo

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Rhodes James, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Riddick, Graham

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thurnham, Peter

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rowe, Andrew

Tracey, Richard

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Tredinnick, David

Ryder, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Sayeed, Jonathan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Walden, George

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shelton, Sir William

Waller, Gary

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Ward, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Warren, Kenneth

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Watts, John

Shersby, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Widdecombe, Ann

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas

Speed, Keith

Woltson, Mark

Speller, Tony

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Squire, Robin

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Noes:

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

ENERGY
Ordered,
That Mr. David Clelland be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. John McAllion be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SERVICES
Ordered,
That Mrs. Marion Roe be discharged from the Social Services Committee and Sir Geoffrey Pattie be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox. on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Timothy Raison be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Gerald Bowden be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Deaf People (Broadcasting)
  11.43 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I wish to present a petition which has been organised by two of my constituents, Miss Janet Pearson and Miss Mavis Lawson, who are both hearing impaired. The petition contains 600 signatures and it calls for improved provision for broadcasting cover for deaf people.
  The petitioners maintain that
  broadcasts are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example with subtitles.
  The number of viewers affected is at least 4 million.
  Deaf people, as equal members of the general public are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
  The petition calls upon the Government to bring forward legislation that places
  an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext, subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  It is obvious that the petitioners hope that the obligation will be included in the broadcasting Bill, and I am happy to support the action that they have taken in presenting the petition. I support their aims.
  To lie upon the Table.

Wild Animals (Farming)
11.44 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I present a petition organised by constituents of mine who are members of Lynx—a responsible organisation that believes in peaceful protests against the farming of wild animals for reasons of vanity. The petitioners feel that the cruelty inherent in the keeping and killing of wild animals for reasons of vanity and profit is unnecessary.
To lie upon the Table.

Deaf People (Broadcasting)
11.45 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: I have a petition from 500 of my constituents in Taunton and in the surrounding area on the subject of broadcasting for the deaf. The petition was organised by my constituent, Mrs. Rita DeGaetano, who writes that the petitioners received great help from
"the wonderful organization, the Deaf Broadcasting Council."
She adds:
"I have not participated in anything like this before and I can only say it has brought home to me what a great country we live in, with such decent and caring people."
The petition reads:
"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed to place an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
To lie upon the Table.
11.46 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This is an excellent time to present a petition signed by 280 of my constituents, who feel with no sense of mockery that the broadcasting media are deaf to their ears. If it is so that there are 4 million people with severely impaired hearing, all of whom pay equally for the services that we all enjoy, they have a right to be heard, so that they can see—and in that sense make their lives better and fuller. The response from the BBC and from the other television companies has been so depressing that this is the right time for such petitions to be presented. The petition prays that the House will see that they are heard, and that they will be able to hear by seeing.
To lie upon the Table.
11.47 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I present a petition on behalf of Frank and Pamela Sly of 61 Havencrest drive, Leicester and 700 of my other constituents. The petitioners asked me to supplement my speech with sign language.
Broadcasters are not providing access for deaf television viewers by means of subtitles and sign language. The number of viewers affected is 4 million. Deaf television viewers, as equal members of the general public, are entitled to equal access to television programmes. The petition reads:
"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed by placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using teletext subtitles, sign language or other means, and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date."
To lie upon the Table.

Medicine (Liverpool)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
11.48 pm
Mr. Robert Wareing: The subject of this debate—the future of medicine in Liverpool —comes from the title of a report commissioned by Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of the Mersey regional health authority, which was itself a response to a £3·4 million reduction in the authority's budget as a result of a Government diktat.
The document produced for the Mersey authority is, in effect, purely a cost-cutting exercise, and has nothing whatever to do with an improvement of conditions for Liverpool patients. One of the major anxieties of the people of Liverpool is the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen and Walton hospitals. At present, Broadgreen hospital caters for 45,000 attendances a year; under the proposals, those would be transferred to the Royal Liverpool hospital, whose own A and E unit has 80,000 attendances a year. That hospital — in the centre of the city—also expects to receive 30,000 eye patients who would normally have gone to St. Paul's eye hospital, which is also due for closure in the near future.
It is estimated that some 10,000 of the 80,000 attendances at the Walton unit are likely to be transferred to the Royal Liverpool. That will double the number of attendances there, and will, I believe, require the enlargement of the hospital, at who knows what cost. Patients who now attend the emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital are mostly from the suburban estate and residential areas of Liverpool—and, indeed, casualties on the M62, the end of which is just a few hundred yards from the hospital entrance. When I say that the hospital has been telephoned on standby six times in the past six months by Liverpool airport, hon. Members will realise the importance of the unit.
There is no doubt that Broadgreen is also of great benefit to many people who live on the perimeter of Liverpool, being situated in Queens drive, the main ring road linking the north and south of the city. Anyone who knows Liverpool and its traffic conditions will realise that there is considerable congestion in the rush hours between the Royal Liverpool—the city-centre hospital—and the outskirts of the city. Ten years ago, just before Christmas, I myself suffered a serious road accident in the Walton area, and was only too glad to be sent to such a handy hospital as Broadgreen.
A case has recently come to my notice. A 19-year-old girl living within the Broadgreen catchment area was received by the hospital and resuscitated. I am told by staff at the hospital that, had it been five minutes later, she might well have died. Certainly she would not have reached the Royal Liverpool in time to be rescued at that time of day.
Accidents and emergency patients now using Walton hospital, are to be transferred to Fazakerley hospital. Anyone with any notion of the traffic conditions between that hospital and Queens drive, at the north end of the city, will know the bottleneck at the end of Walton vale, by the Black Bull public house. It will be difficult for ambulance drivers to negotiate that stretch of territory. Many people

557
living in the north of the city would be almost unprotected if they had an accident without the option of Broadgreen and Walton.
The six clinicians who published the report either acted out of ignorance of traffic conditions in Liverpool or—perhaps even worse—if they acted in full knowledge of Liverpool's travel logistics, what they are recommending for the citizens of Liverpool is criminal. We can expect more avoidable deaths in the future. It is believed that 5,000 road accident deaths could have been avoided last year. We can expect many more. Unless the Minister is prepared to do something, he will have to shoulder some of the responsibility for deaths that could have been avoided. He ought to reconsider the proposed closure of the accident and emergency units at Broadgreen and Walton.
Coronary patients who are successfully resuscitated at the Royal Liverpool hospital are sent to the coronary unit at—guess where?—Broadgreen hospital. An elderly person who fractured a leg or hip and was taken first to the Royal Liverpool hospital would then have to be sent to the geriatric unit at Broadgreen for specialist care. It is essential that the Broadgreen and Walton accident and emergency units should remain open for the people of Liverpool.
The report also suggests that the number of beds in Liverpool should be reduced by 1,125, or 25 per cent. There are now 4,500 beds, 500 of them for paediatric patients. If the proposals are pushed through by the Mersey regional health authority, there will be only 3,000 beds for adult patients. That will have implications for the university's medical school. There will be a greater turnover of patients, many of whom will be sent out into a community ill fitted to look after them, as the amount of money provided for social services in the city has also been greatly reduced.
The Minister's stock answer may be that the reason for the cuts is a reduction of Liverpool's population. Between 1985 and 1994, it is estimated to fall by 10 per cent. As we have seen with the balance of payments, the Government cannot do their sums. This is another example. A 10 per cent. reduction in the city's population does not justify a 25 per cent. cut in the number of beds in its hospitals. The number of people in Liverpool over the ages of 80 and 85 is expected to increase. They, more than any other group, have contributed to the National Health Service and they deserve far more consideration than the Mersey regional health authority or the Government seem willing to give them.
Population statistics are not sufficient. The Liverpool hospitals are regional centres, providing services not just for the people of Liverpool and Merseyside, but for the people of north Wales, the Isle of Man, the north-west and even further away. According to a recent estimate by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, between 1984 and 1987 there was an increase of more than 4.8 per cent. in the birth rate, so there should be no reduction in the number of paediatric beds at the Alder Hey children's hospital or at the children's hospital in Myrtle street in the city centre.
The report accepts that there will be an increase in the number of people living into their 80s. yet it is
558
recommended that the Park, Rathbone, Garston and Sefton General hospitals should close, all of which have beds for elderly patients.
As I have said the report is the result of the work of six clinicians—a very narrow technical group. They ignored many interested people. Indeed, the people of Liverpool were ignored. The community health council is against the proposals, but it was not consulted. Even the district health authorities were not consulted. St. Helens and Knowsley health authority was not consulted despite the implications in the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen for the Whiston hospital in its area.
The nurses were not consulted in connection with the report and the district nurses were also ignored. The general practitioners received no consideration at all. Community workers and consultants who care for the elderly were not asked for their views. Liverpool is supposedly one of the healthy cities under the scheme sponsored by the World Health Organisation, which was not consulted about the proposals which apparently have been accepted by Mersey region and by the Government. The proposals are opposed by the community health council, the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the Manufacturing, Finance and Science union, the Royal College of Nursing and the medical board of the Broadgreen hospital. To my knowledge, 28 consultants have opposed the proposals in the report.
At the end, the report, states that 123 people responded to the survey which led to the final report. That does not mean that those people agreed with its conclusions. It would have been better if the report provided some tabulation to show the attitudes of the 123 people who were interviewed.
The people of Liverpool are virtually at one with the attitude that I have expressed today. They believe that it is an utter scandal that an accident and emergency unit just a few hundred yards from the end of a major motorway should face closure, but the people of Liverpool have not been consulted about that. I urge the Minister to intervene by listening to the people of Liverpool and consulting them and then, one hopes, setting the current proposal aside. Of course we want efficiency in our hospitals, but the report is not the right way to achieve it. It is an utter disgrace for the provision of accident and emergency services in our city.
12.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on making his points so clearly and forcefully. I share his interest in ensuring that there is a fair, decent and comprehensive health service for the people of Liverpool and that that service should be properly organised. Since joining the Department of Health a year ago, I have visited Liverpool four times, because I share the hon. Gentleman's great interest in ensuring that a proper National Health service is supplied not only to the hon. Gentleman's constituency but to the great city of Liverpool.
The report on the future of medicine in the city of Liverpool is a radical strategy for improving services, and it contains about 27 recommendations. It was commissioned by the Mersey regional health authority and the

559
university of Liverpool, and is the work of six eminent local clinicians. Their remit was to look critically at not only the immediate problems facing Liverpool hospitals but the pattern of services needed to meet the needs of the people of Liverpool and the surrounding area up to and into the next century. Any suggestion that that was purely a cost-cutting exercise is not true. There was no diktat from central Government, either to carry out the review or in directing its conclusions.
Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of the district health authority, attempted to prevail upon the Secretary of State last August to alter the situation so that there would not be a cut in expenditure and so that the proposals would not have had to be carried out?
Mr. Freeman: Following the successful settlement for the National Health Service announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health will shortly make announcements concerning regional allocations. They will be significantly better than the planning assumptions that were used by all the regions, including Mersey, in the summer. The allocations will be on the basis of weighted capitation—that is to say, on the resident populations of the regions, weighted for demography, morbidity and the relative costs of providing services. The allocations will be better than those assumed last July in the early planning for next year.
The review to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was not instituted or pressured for reasons of financial savings in either the region or his own district. It was a cool, rational and radical look at future provision for services.
In common with other large cities, Liverpool is having to face the fact that, under a fairer system of allocating resources to districts, it will be receiving less money than it has traditionally been used to. That is true. It is simply because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the population of Liverpool is declining.
In future, health districts will be funded on the basis of their resident populations and not on the services they provide. Revenue allocations based on resident populations will be weighted for demography, morbidity and the relative cost of providing services, as I have already said, and regional health authorities will also take into account other factors in allocating funds to districts. Liverpool has a falling population which it is predicted will continue falling into the late 1990s.
The hon. Gentleman said that the OPCS forecasts a fall of about 10 per cent. in the population over the next five years, and I agree with him. It will have implications for the recruitment of nurses and doctors. The report starts from that point and suggests how, within financial constraints, services can be better co-ordinated and improved. It sets out a vision for the future. The districts concerned have only just begun considering the suggestions and it will be some time before the report's proposals can be integrated into their overall planning.
Some of the service changes which the report recommends are already in train and form part of the plans that the Liverpool and South Sefton health authorities have been working on for the past two years. Liverpool health authority published its strategy for acute and community hospitals as long ago as 1987. This set out
560
its proposals to centralise children's services at Alder Hey, and women's services at a refurbished Royal Infirmary next door to the Royal Liverpool hospital. Ophthalmic services will be transferred from St. Paul's eye hospital into a district general hospital, possibly the Royal Liverpool. There has been substantial capital investment in these rationalisations. The aim is to improve the quality of service and in due course achieve revenue savings from the reduced overheads.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman referred to Walton, where the centralisation of acute services in south Sefton, on the site of the Fazakerley hospital, involves the closure of the much-loved, but old-fashioned, Walton hospital. This strategy has been approved after formal consultation and without formal objection by the community health council.
This package of developments has therefore been subject to proper public consultation or is still being considered, where that consultation has not commenced or been concluded.
Mr. Wareing: I am obliged again to the Minister. Is he taking on board the points that I have made about congestion at certain areas in the city? Unless he does that, he is ignoring completely what is troubling so many people, especially about the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen. The front gates of that hospital are only a few hundred yards from a major motorway, where there are accidents, and it is situated on a major arterial road around the city. What could be more ludicrous than closing that unit? How can the Minister justify it?
Mr. Freeman: I was going to deal with that point a little later, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with it now. The report suggests a number of radical solutions. However, it is a report only; it is for the districts themselves to decide what the future provision of services should be. This is only an element in their considerations. Any proposals that the district makes will be subject to the full consultation prodedure, involving the community health council, with which the hon. Gentleman must be familiar, and in the case of certain proposals, that is clearly some way off.
The report is merely a suggestion. It is not being forced on the districts either by the Department of Health or by the region. The districts will make up their minds about the future provision of services, and when they do, they will make firm proposals, which will be a matter for public consultation.
The factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, are valid and I am sure that they will be considered. If there is consistent objection by the community health council, the proposals will come to Ministers for final consideration, but we are still some considerable way from that position.
In the Government's judgment it makes no sense to perpetuate the existence of a large number of old-fashioned hospitals, which are uneconomic to run and would be prohibitively expensive to modernise, when a better and more cost-effective service can be provided at a smaller number of modern centres. That applies not only to Liverpool, but to any large city or district health authority.
The other development that is already under way in the city is at Fazakerley hospital, managed by the South

561
Sefton health authority. This is a major capital development which will take place over the next six or seven years, and involves the transfer of services from the old-fashioned Walton hospital to the modern Fazakerley site. This will produce a large modern hospital with integrated services providing a good working environment for staff and pleasant surroundings for patients and visitors. The decision to proceed was taken only after looking at other options and is supported by doctors and other clinical staff and, as I understand it, by the community health council.
The hon. Gentleman well knows of other recent significant capital developments in Liverpool. At the Broadgreen hospital, to which he has referred, £12 million has been spent on a nucleus development. That is a new extension to the hospital and was opened in April this year. I am informed that work on a £4·5 million psychiatric unit has commenced. At the Royal Liverpool children's hospital at Alder Hey, £4·6 million is being spent on cardiac theatres that are to come into use early next year.
Those are major developments with demonstrable advantages. Most of the report's other recommendations are concerned with the more efficient organisation of medical services and training, and better deployment of professional skills. In particular it is suggested that a wider teaching and clinical base will be needed if the university medical school is to maintain its high reputation and compete with Manchester and other cities in offering first-class referral services.
That will be especially important for Liverpool when our legislation on White Paper proposals comes into effect, creating a highly competitive marketplace for medical services. It will also enable the university to play a major role in research and development. Many of those ideas have been around for some time, but the lines of communication between some specialties, hospitals, health authorities and the university have not encouraged their spread or facilitated their implementation. It is salutary that they should now be spelled out in a bold way calling for action or at least open discussion.
I am aware that a proposal which is causing considerable concern locally and to the hon. Gentleman tonight, is the suggested closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen. That is related to an anticipated reduction in population and the consequent difficulty of maintaining three viable all-risk accident and
562
emergency departments in the city. I must make it absolutely clear that it is still only a suggestion. The implications are considerable, and the districts concerned will be looking at them closely. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to a number of factors that they should rightly take into account. Detailed consideration in the light of local circumstances is essential.
The proposal to close the unit at Broadgreen may or may not be feasible. The regional health authority has simply asked the districts to consider it. Any major service change will, of course, be subject to the normal consultative process. It is not for Ministers to speculate on the outcome of local planning or discussion which has not yet even begun, or to interfere in that process.
The report also refers to a reduction in the overall number of hospital beds in the city. Again I must emphasise that this is not a Government directive to cut services. It is the considered view of clinicians, whose interest is the improvement of medical services, not their curtailment. The report points out that bed provision is expensive and that, if beds are occupied by patients who do not need to be in hospital, that takes up resources that could be used for improving treatment. Any reduction must be phased and accompanied by increased emphasis on rehabilitation services and day care. Hospital beds will still be available for those who need them. Again it will be for the health authorities concerned to examine the suggestion, to work out details and to ensure that any firm proposals are in the interests of patients, and that there is proper consultation on their conclusions.
The proposals come from the report commissioned by the Mersey regional health authority with the co-operation of the university, which was prepared by some distinguished clinicians. The regional health authority has merely asked the districts to bear the report in mind. It is not a diktat or a blueprint for the future.
Normal consultation procedures will apply to any proposals that the districts care to introduce as a result of considering not only the report, but many other factors. Recently, the population of Liverpool has been falling, and it is forecast to fall further. The hon. Gentleman and I want a fair, decent system of health care in Liverpool appropriate to the population. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not ask for more than that, and I am confident that that will be ensured.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Curriculum
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will visit Ball Green county primary school, Stoke-on-Trent, to discuss resources in schools and funding for delivery of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. It is for Staffordshire education authority to determine, and discuss as appropriate with the schools it maintains, the resources allocated to each of them. We are giving specific grant support for the implementation of the national curriculum. This financial year these grants will support £2,344,700 expenditure in Staffordshire. That is in addition to the general rate support grant funding which local authorities receive in support of spending. It is for Staffordshire itself to decide how much in total to allocate to implementation of the national curriculum.

  Teachers' Pay
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will visit Hill Top county primary school, Stoke-on-Trent, to discuss teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what incentives he will arrange to enable teaching staff to attend training courses for the national curriculum and other essential out-of-school learning activities required under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The LEA training grants scheme will, in 1990–91, support local education authority expenditure of over £72 million with grant at a rate of 65 per cent. on training related to the implementation of the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. Of this £61 million specifically relates to training on the national curriculum. My right. hon. friend also expects local education authorites to make full use of the non-contact days for training. Expenditure eligible for grant includes the cost of supply cover and of other items associated with planning and running training activities. Much training takes place on school premises and out of normal school hours.

  Education Act 1988
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he intends to tackle the problem of the shortage of teachers and resources, particularly in certain areas and subjects, in order to implement the Education Act 1988.
  50
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has a vigorous action programme, costing £50 million so far, to improve teacher supply. The programme includes bursaries for trainee teachers in maths, physics, design and technology and chemistry; national advertising and publicity, spearheaded by the Teaching as a Career unit; taster courses to enable those seeking a career change to obtain some experience of teaching; new initial and in-service training courses; and support for local initiatives to attract mature new entrants and former serving teachers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6 November the proposed local authority grant settlement for 1990–91. That allows for £14,988 million to be spent on education next year, an increase of 9·6 per cent. over the comparable total for 1989–90. Given effective management, I am confident that this will be sufficient to allow good progress to be made in implementing the education reforms.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much his Department has paid, or plans to pay, to Price Waterhouse in consultancy, accountancy and research fees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has paid £451,223 to Price Waterhouse for preparatory work on the top-up loans scheme. Future expenditure will depend upon the extent to which the Student Loans Company Ltd. makes use of Price Waterhouse's services.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how students who do not hold a bank account with any of the participants in the Student Loans Company will apply for the proposed top-up loan facility.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students will be required to apply for a loan through a branch of one of the financial institutions participating in the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those banks and building societies and other financial institutions with which his Department has had discussions concerning participation in the formation of Student Loans Company Ltd.

  Mr. Jackson
  Discussions have been held with a range of financial institutions, representing principally the bank and building society sectors.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish the detailed cost-time estimates referred to in the initial Price Waterhouse feasibility study on the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Price Waterhouse stage II report, placed in the House of Commons Library on 16 November, contained a revised implementation timetable. Administration costs are still subject to contractual negotiations.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish all contracts between his Department and the Student Loans Company or its participants.

  Mr. Jackson
  The memorandum of understanding was published on 16 November. Other agreements must remain confidential at this stage for commercial reasons.
  51
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update and publish annex E of the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students", Cm. 520, taking into account(a) administration costs and (b) transaction fees of £12 per student loan application per year, on the assumptions of (x) 80 per cent., (y) 90 per cent. and (z) 100 per cent. take-up of the student loan

  Table i(x)

  United Kingdom—3 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  103

  1991

  -22

  -65

  193

  2

  105

  1992

  -42

  -64

  216

  9

  103

  1993

  -61

  -63

  236

  21

  93

  1994

  -78

  -61

  255

  39

  78

  1995

  -95

  -59

  275

  62

  59

  1996

  -112

  -59

  297

  83

  42

  1997

  -131

  -62

  324

  102

  30

  1998

  -152

  -63

  356

  119

  22

  1999

  -172

  -65

  385

  131

  17

  2000

  -190

  -65

  410

  142

  13

  2001

  -206

  -65

  429

  155

  2

  2002

  -222

  -65

  450

  176

  -14

  2003

  -236

  -65

  469

  192

  -25

  2004

  -251

  -65

  488

  203

  -31

  2005

  -266

  -65

  506

  211

  -37

  2006

  -280

  -65

  523

  217

  -39

  2007

  -293

  -65

  541

  220

  -39

  2008

  -293

  -65

  541

  231

  -49

  2009

  -293

  -65

  541

  251

  -69

  2010

  -293

  -65

  541

  275

  -94

  2011

  -293

  -65

  541

  296

  -113

  2012

  -293

  -65

  541

  313

  -130

  2013

  -293

  -65

  541

  329

  -147

  2014

  -293

  -65

  541

  345

  -162

  2015

  -293

  -65

  541

  357

  -174

  2016

  -293

  -65

  541

  367

  -184

  2017

  -293

  -65

  541

  375

  -193

  2018

  -293

  -65

  541

  383

  -200

  2019

  -293

  -65

  541

  388

  -206

  2020

  -293

  -65

  541

  393

  -210

  2021

  -293

  -65

  541

  399

  -216

  2022

  -293

  -65

  541

  404

  -222

  2023

  -293

  -65

  541

  407

  -225

  2024

  -293

  -65

  541

  410

  -227

  2025

  -293

  -65

  541

  411

  -228

  2026

  -293

  -65

  541

  411

  -228

  2027

  -293

  -65

  541

  412

  -230

  Table i(y)

  United Kingdom—3 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -22

  -64

  217

  2

  129

  1992

  -42

  -63

  242

  10

  128

  1993

  -60

  -62

  265

  23

  120

  1994

  -78

  -61

  288

  43

  106

  1995

  -95

  -60

  310

  68

  87

  1996

  -112

  -60

  334

  93

  68

  1997

  -131

  -61

  365

  115

  58

  1998

  -152

  -63

  400

  133

  52

  1999

  -173

  -64

  434

  147

  50

  2000

  -190

  -65

  461

  159

  46

  2001

  -206

  -65

  484

  176

  37

  2002

  -222

  -65

  506

  198

  21

  2003

  -237

  -65

  528

  216

  10

  2004

  -252

  -65

  549

  228

  4

  2005

  -266

  -65

  569

  238

  1

  2006

  -280

  -65

  589

  245

  0

  52
  scheme and on the assumption of annual inflation at (i)3 per cent., (ii)4 per cent., (iii)5 per cent., (iv)6 per cent., (v)7 per cent. and (vi)8 per cent. up to the year 2027.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following 18 tables set out, on the same basis as annex E of Cm. 520, the financial effects of the scheme on the assumptions specified. They make no allowance for administrative costs (of which the transaction fee forms a part) as these are subject to contractual negotiations.
  53

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2007

  -293

  -65

  608

  248

  2

  2008

  -293

  -65

  608

  260

  -10

  2009

  -293

  -65

  608

  283

  -33

  2010

  -293

  -65

  608

  310

  -60

  2011

  -293

  -65

  608

  333

  -83

  2012

  -293

  -65

  608

  351

  -101

  2013

  -293

  -65

  608

  371

  -121

  2014

  -293

  -65

  608

  387

  -137

  2015

  -293

  -65

  608

  401

  -151

  2016

  -293

  -65

  608

  412

  -163

  2017

  -293

  -65

  608

  423

  -173

  2018

  -293

  -65

  608

  430

  -180

  2019

  -293

  -65

  608

  436

  -186

  2020

  -293

  -65

  608

  442

  -192

  2021

  -293

  -65

  608

  448

  -198

  2022

  -293

  -65

  608

  455

  -205

  2023

  -293

  -65

  608

  458

  -209

  2024

  -293

  -65

  608

  460

  -210

  2025

  -293

  -65

  608

  462

  -212

  2026

  -293

  -65

  608

  463

  -213

  2027

  -293

  -65

  608

  464

  -214

  Table i(z)

  United Kingdom—3 per cent. inflation—100 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -22

  -64

  242

  3

  153

  1992

  -42

  -63

  269

  11

  153

  1993

  -60

  -62

  295

  26

  147

  1994

  -78

  -61

  320

  48

  133

  1995

  -95

  -60

  344

  76

  113

  1996

  -112

  -60

  371

  104

  95

  1997

  -131

  -61

  406

  128

  85

  1998

  -152

  -63

  444

  148

  82

  1999

  -173

  -64

  482

  164

  81

  2000

  -190

  -65

  512

  177

  80

  2001

  -206

  -65

  538

  195

  71

  2002

  -222

  -65

  562

  220

  55

  2003

  -237

  -65

  586

  240

  44

  2004

  -252

  -65

  610

  253

  40

  2005

  -266

  -65

  632

  264

  37

  2006

  -280

  -65

  654

  272

  38

  2007

  -293

  -65

  676

  276

  42

  2008

  -293

  -65

  676

  289

  29

  2009

  -293

  -65

  676

  314

  3

  2010

  -293

  -65

  676

  344

  -27

  2011

  -293

  -65

  676

  370

  -52

  2012

  -293

  -65

  676

  390

  -73

  2013

  -293

  -65

  676

  412

  -94

  2014

  -293

  -65

  676

  430

  -113

  2015

  -293

  -65

  676

  446

  -128

  2016

  -293

  -65

  676

  458

  -141

  2017

  -293

  -65

  676

  469

  -152

  2018

  -293

  -65

  676

  478

  -161

  2019

  -293

  -65

  676

  484

  -167

  2020

  -293

  -65

  676

  491

  -173

  2021

  -293

  -65

  676

  498

  -181

  2022

  -293

  -65

  676

  505

  -188

  2023

  -293

  -65

  676

  509

  -192

  2024

  -293

  -65

  676

  511

  -194

  2025

  -293

  -65

  676

  513

  -195

  2026

  -293

  -65

  676

  514

  -197

  2027

  -293

  -65

  676

  515

  -198

  Table ii(x)

  United Kingdom—4 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  102

  1991

  -28

  -64

  201

  2

  107

  1992

  -53

  -63

  230

  9

  105

  54 55

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1993

  -77

  -62

  257

  21

  97

  1994

  -99

  -61

  282

  40

  83

  1995

  -119

  -60

  307

  63

  64

  1996

  -140

  -60

  333

  88

  45

  1997

  -164

  -61

  366

  109

  32

  1998

  -189

  -63

  403

  127

  24

  1999

  -214

  -64

  438

  142

  18

  2000

  -235

  -65

  467

  155

  11

  2001

  -254

  -65

  491

  173

  -1

  2002

  -272

  -65

  514

  196

  -19

  2003

  -290

  -65

  536

  215

  -33

  2004

  -290

  -65

  536

  228

  -46

  2005

  -290

  -65

  536

  238

  -56

  2006

  -290

  -65

  536

  245

  -64

  2007

  -290

  -65

  536

  248

  -66

  2008

  -290

  -65

  536

  258

  -77

  2009

  -290

  -65

  536

  279

  -98

  2010

  -290

  -65

  536

  303

  -121

  2011

  -290

  -65

  536

  322

  -141

  2012

  -290

  -65

  536

  336

  -155

  2013

  -290

  -65

  536

  351

  -170

  2014

  -290

  -65

  536

  363

  -181

  2015

  -290

  -65

  536

  372

  -190

  2016

  -290

  -65

  536

  378

  -197

  2017

  -290

  -65

  536

  384

  -203

  2018

  -290

  -65

  536

  389

  -207

  2019

  -290

  -65

  536

  392

  -210

  2020

  -290

  -65

  536

  395

  -214

  2021

  -290

  -65

  536

  400

  -219

  2022

  -290

  -65

  536

  405

  -224

  2023

  -290

  -65

  536

  408

  -227

  2024

  -290

  -65

  536

  409

  -228

  2025

  -290

  -65

  536

  410

  -228

  2026

  -290

  -65

  536

  410

  -228

  2027

  -290

  -65

  536

  410

  -229

  Table ii(y)

  United Kingdom—4 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -28

  -64

  226

  2

  132

  1992

  -53

  -63

  259

  10

  133

  1993

  -77

  -62

  289

  24

  126

  1994

  -99

  -61

  317

  45

  113

  1995

  -119

  -60

  345

  71

  94

  1996

  -140

  -60

  375

  99

  76

  1997

  -164

  -61

  412

  123

  64

  1998

  -189

  -63

  453

  143

  58

  1999

  -214

  -64

  493

  160

  55

  2000

  -235

  -65

  525

  175

  50

  2001

  -254

  -65

  552

  194

  39

  2002

  -272

  -65

  578

  221

  20

  2003

  -290

  -65

  603

  241

  7

  2004

  -290

  -65

  603

  256

  -7

  2005

  -290

  -65

  603

  268

  -19

  2006

  -290

  -65

  603

  276

  -27

  2007

  -290

  -65

  603

  279

  -30

  2008

  -290

  -65

  603

  291

  -42

  2009

  -290

  -65

  603

  314

  -65

  2010

  -290

  -65

  603

  341

  -92

  2011

  -290

  -65

  603

  362

  -114

  2012

  -290

  -65

  603

  378

  -130

  2013

  -290

  -65

  603

  395

  -147

  2014

  -290

  -65

  603

  408

  -160

  2015

  -290

  -65

  603

  418

  -170

  2016

  -290

  -65

  603

  426

  -177

  2017

  -290

  -65

  603

  432

  -184

  2018

  -290

  -65

  603

  437

  -189

  2019

  -290

  -65

  603

  441

  -192

  2020

  -290

  -65

  603

  445

  -196

  2021

  -290

  -65

  603

  451

  -202

  2022

  -290

  -65

  603

  456

  -208

  2023

  -290

  -65

  603

  459

  -211

  56 57

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2024

  -290

  -65

  603

  460

  -212

  2025

  -290

  -65

  603

  461

  -212

  2026

  -290

  -65

  603

  461

  -213

  2027

  -290

  -65

  603

  461

  -213

  Table ii(z)

  United Kingdom—4 per cent. inflation—100 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -28

  -64

  251

  3

  156

  1992

  -53

  -63

  287

  11

  160

  1993

  -77

  -62

  321

  26

  156

  1994

  -99

  -61

  353

  49

  144

  1995

  -119

  -60

  383

  79

  125

  1996

  -140

  -60

  416

  109

  106

  1997

  -164

  -61

  458

  136

  96

  1998

  -189

  -63

  504

  159

  92

  1999

  -214

  -64

  548

  178

  92

  2000

  -235

  -65

  583

  194

  89

  2001

  -254

  -65

  613

  216

  79

  2002

  -272

  -65

  642

  245

  60

  2003

  -290

  -65

  670

  268

  47

  2004

  -290

  -65

  670

  284

  31

  2005

  -290

  -65

  670

  297

  18

  2006

  -290

  -65

  670

  306

  9

  2007

  -290

  -65

  670

  310

  6

  2008

  -290

  -65

  670

  323

  -7

  2009

  -290

  -65

  670

  349

  -33

  2010

  -290

  -65

  670

  379

  -63

  2011

  -290

  -65

  670

  403

  -87

  2012

  -290

  -65

  670

  420

  -105

  2013

  -290

  -65

  670

  439

  -123

  2014

  -290

  -65

  670

  453

  -138

  2015

  -290

  -65

  670

  465

  -149

  2016

  -290

  -65

  670

  473

  -158

  2017

  -290

  -65

  670

  480

  -165

  2018

  -290

  -65

  670

  486

  -170

  2019

  -290

  -65

  670

  490

  -174

  2020

  -290

  -65

  670

  494

  -179

  2021

  -290

  -65

  670

  501

  -185

  2022

  -290

  -65

  670

  507

  -191

  2023

  -290

  -65

  670

  510

  -195

  2024

  -290

  -65

  670

  511

  -196

  2025

  -290

  -65

  670

  512

  -196

  2026

  -290

  -65

  670

  512

  -197

  2027

  -290

  -65

  670

  512

  -197

  Table iii(x)

  United Kingdom—5 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  102

  1991

  -34

  -64

  209

  2

  109

  1992

  -65

  -63

  246

  9

  108

  1993

  -94

  -62

  279

  22

  101

  1994

  -120

  -61

  310

  41

  88

  1995

  -145

  -60

  340

  66

  68

  1996

  -170

  -60

  371

  92

  48

  1997

  -198

  -61

  409

  116

  34

  1998

  -227

  -63

  451

  137

  24

  1999

  -256

  -64

  492

  154

  17

  2000

  -280

  -65

  524

  169

  9

  2001

  -301

  -65

  551

  190

  -5

  2002

  -301

  -65

  551

  216

  -32

  2003

  -301

  -65

  551

  238

  -53

  2004

  -301

  -65

  551

  252

  -67

  2005

  -301

  -65

  551

  263

  -78

  2006

  -301

  -65

  551

  270

  -85

  2007

  -301

  -65

  551

  271

  -86

  2008

  -301

  -65

  551

  280

  -95

  2009

  -301

  -65

  551

  300

  -115

  58 59

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2010

  -301

  -65

  551

  324

  -139

  2011

  -301

  -65

  551

  342

  -138

  2012

  -301

  -65

  551

  355

  -170

  2013

  -301

  -65

  551

  369

  -184

  2014

  -301

  -65

  551

  379

  -194

  2015

  -301

  -65

  551

  387

  -202

  2016

  -301

  -65

  551

  393

  -208

  2017

  -301

  -65

  551

  398

  -213

  2018

  -301

  -65

  551

  402

  -217

  2019

  -301

  -65

  551

  404

  -220

  2020

  -301

  -65

  551

  408

  -223

  2021

  -301

  -65

  551

  413

  -228

  2022

  -301

  -65

  551

  418

  -233

  2023

  -301

  -65

  551

  421

  -236

  2024

  -301

  -65

  551

  421

  -236

  2025

  -301

  -65

  551

  421

  -237

  2026

  -301

  -65

  551

  421

  -237

  2027

  -301

  -65

  551

  421

  -237

  Table iii(y)

  United Kingdom—5 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -34

  -64

  236

  2

  134

  1992

  -65

  -63

  276

  10

  138

  1993

  -94

  -62

  314

  24

  133

  1994

  -120

  -61

  349

  46

  121

  1995

  -145

  -60

  382

  75

  102

  1996

  -170

  -60

  417

  104

  83

  1997

  -198

  -61

  460

  131

  71

  1998

  -227

  -63

  508

  154

  64

  1999

  -256

  -64

  553

  174

  59

  2000

  -280

  -65

  589

  191

  54

  2001

  -301

  -65

  620

  213

  40

  2002

  -301

  -65

  620

  244

  10

  2003

  -301

  -65

  620

  267

  -14

  2004

  -301

  -65

  620

  284

  -30

  2005

  -301

  -65

  620

  296

  -42

  2006

  -301

  -65

  620

  303

  -50

  2007

  -301

  -65

  620

  304

  -51

  2008

  -301

  -65

  620

  315

  -61

  2009

  -301

  -65

  620

  338

  -84

  2010

  -301

  -65

  620

  364

  -111

  2011

  -301

  -65

  620

  385

  -132

  2012

  -301

  -65

  620

  399

  -146

  2013

  -301

  -65

  620

  415

  -161

  2014

  -301

  -65

  620

  426

  -173

  2015

  -301

  -65

  620

  435

  -182

  2016

  -301

  -65

  620

  442

  -188

  2017

  -301

  -65

  620

  448

  -194

  2018

  -301

  -65

  620

  452

  -199

  2019

  -301

  -65

  620

  455

  -201

  2020

  -301

  -65

  620

  459

  -205

  2021

  -301

  -65

  620

  465

  -211

  2022

  -301

  -65

  620

  470

  -217

  2023

  -301

  -65

  620

  473

  -220

  2024

  -301

  -65

  620

  474

  -220

  2025

  -301

  -65

  620

  474

  -220

  2026

  -301

  -65

  620

  474

  -220

  2027

  -301

  -65

  620

  474

  -220

  Table iii(z)

  United Kingdom—5 per cent. inflation—100 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -34

  -64

  262

  3

  160

  1992

  -65

  -63

  307

  11

  167

  1993

  -94

  -62

  348

  27

  165

  1994

  -120

  -61

  387

  27

  155

  1995

  -145

  -60

  424

  83

  136

  60 61

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1996

  -170

  -60

  463

  116

  118

  1997

  -198

  -61

  512

  145

  108

  1998

  -227

  -63

  564

  171

  103

  1999

  -256

  -64

  614

  193

  101

  2000

  -280

  -65

  655

  212

  98

  2001

  -301

  -65

  688

  237

  85

  2002

  -301

  -65

  688

  271

  52

  2003

  -301

  -65

  688

  297

  25

  2004

  -301

  -65

  688

  315

  7

  2005

  -301

  -65

  688

  329

  -6

  2006

  -301

  -65

  688

  337

  -15

  2007

  -301

  -65

  688

  338

  -16

  2008

  -301

  -65

  688

  350

  -27

  2009

  -301

  -65

  688

  375

  -53

  2010

  -301

  -65

  688

  405

  -82

  2011

  -301

  -65

  688

  428

  -106

  2012

  -301

  -65

  688

  444

  -121

  2013

  -301

  -65

  688

  461

  -138

  2014

  -301

  -65

  688

  474

  -151

  2015

  -301

  -65

  688

  484

  -161

  2016

  -301

  -65

  688

  491

  -168

  2017

  -301

  -65

  688

  498

  -175

  2018

  -301

  -65

  688

  502

  -180

  2019

  -301

  -65

  688

  505

  -183

  2020

  -301

  -65

  688

  510

  -188

  2021

  -301

  -65

  688

  516

  -194

  2022

  -301

  -65

  688

  522

  -200

  2023

  -301

  -65

  688

  526

  -203

  2024

  -301

  -65

  688

  526

  -204

  2025

  -301

  -65

  688

  527

  -204

  2026

  -301

  -65

  688

  527

  -204

  2027

  -301

  -65

  688

  527

  -204

  Table iv(x)

  United Kingdom—6 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  102

  1991

  -41

  -64

  218

  2

  110

  1992

  -77

  -63

  261

  9

  111

  1993

  -111

  -62

  300

  22

  105

  1994

  -141

  -61

  336

  42

  92

  1995

  -170

  -60

  371

  69

  72

  1996

  -198

  -60

  406

  97

  51

  1997

  -229

  -61

  449

  123

  36

  1998

  -262

  -63

  496

  146

  25

  1999

  -294

  -64

  540

  166

  16

  2000

  -296

  -65

  544

  183

  0

  2001

  -296

  -65

  544

  205

  -22

  2002

  -296

  -65

  544

  235

  -51

  2003

  -296

  -65

  544

  257

  -73

  2004

  -296

  -65

  544

  271

  -87

  2005

  -296

  -65

  544

  280

  -97

  2006

  -296

  -65

  544

  284

  -101

  2007

  -296

  -65

  544

  282

  -99

  2008

  -296

  -65

  544

  288

  -105

  2009

  -296

  -65

  544

  307

  -124

  2010

  -296

  -65

  544

  329

  -146

  2011

  -296

  -65

  544

  345

  -162

  2012

  -296

  -65

  544

  356

  -173

  2013

  -296

  -65

  544

  369

  -185

  2014

  -296

  -65

  544

  378

  -195

  2015

  -296

  -65

  544

  385

  -202

  2016

  -296

  -65

  544

  390

  -207

  2017

  -296

  -65

  544

  395

  -212

  2018

  -296

  -65

  544

  399

  -215

  2019

  -296

  -65

  544

  400

  -217

  2020

  -296

  -65

  544

  404

  -221

  2021

  -296

  -65

  544

  409

  -225

  2022

  -296

  -65

  544

  414

  -230

  2023

  -296

  -65

  544

  416

  -233

  2024

  -296

  -65

  544

  416

  -233

  2025

  -296

  -65

  544

  416

  -233

  62 63

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2026

  -296

  -65

  544

  416

  -233

  2027

  -296

  -65

  544

  416

  -233

  Table iv(y)

  United Kingdom—6 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -41

  -64

  245

  2

  137

  1992

  -77

  -63

  293

  10

  143

  1993

  -111

  -62

  338

  25

  140

  1994

  -141

  -61

  378

  48

  129

  1995

  -170

  -60

  417

  78

  109

  1996

  -198

  -60

  457

  109

  90

  1997

  -229

  -61

  505

  138

  77

  1998

  -262

  -63

  558

  164

  68

  1999

  -294

  -64

  607

  186

  63

  2000

  -296

  -65

  612

  206

  45

  2001

  -296

  -65

  612

  231

  20

  2002

  -296

  -65

  612

  264

  -13

  2003

  -296

  -65

  612

  289

  -37

  2004

  -296

  -65

  612

  304

  -53

  2005

  -296

  -65

  612

  315

  -64

  2006

  -296

  -65

  612

  320

  -69

  2007

  -296

  -65

  612

  317

  -66

  2008

  -296

  -65

  612

  324

  -73

  2009

  -296

  -65

  612

  345

  -94

  2010

  -296

  -65

  612

  370

  -119

  2011

  -296

  -65

  612

  389

  -137

  2012

  -296

  -65

  612

  401

  -149

  2013

  -296

  -65

  612

  415

  -163

  2014

  -296

  -65

  612

  425

  -174

  2015

  -296

  -65

  612

  433

  -182

  2016

  -296

  -65

  612

  439

  -188

  2017

  -296

  -65

  612

  444

  -193

  2018

  -296

  -65

  612

  448

  -197

  2019

  -296

  -65

  612

  451

  -199

  2020

  -296

  65

  612

  454

  -203

  2021

  -296

  -65

  612

  460

  -209

  2022

  -296

  -65

  612

  465

  -214

  2023

  -296

  -65

  612

  468

  -217

  2024

  -296

  -65

  612

  468

  -217

  2025

  -296

  -65

  612

  468

  -217

  2026

  -296

  -65

  612

  468

  -217

  2027

  -296

  -65

  612

  468

  -217

  Table iv(z)

  United Kingdom—6 per cent. inflation—100 per cent. take-up

  (million. 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -41

  -64

  272

  3

  164

  1992

  -77

  -63

  326

  11

  174

  1993

  -111

  -62

  375

  28

  175

  1994

  -141

  -61

  420

  53

  165

  1995

  -170

  -60

  463

  86

  147

  1996

  -198

  -60

  507

  121

  128

  1997

  -229

  -61

  561

  154

  117

  1998

  -262

  -63

  619

  182

  112

  1999

  -294

  -64

  675

  207

  110

  2000

  -296

  -65

  680

  229

  91

  2001

  -296

  -65

  680

  257

  63

  2002

  -296

  -65

  680

  293

  26

  2003

  -296

  -65

  680

  321

  -1

  2004

  -296

  -65

  680

  338

  -19

  2005

  -296

  -65

  680

  350

  -31

  2006

  -296

  -65

  680

  355

  -36

  2007

  -296

  -65

  680

  352

  -33

  2008

  -296

  -65

  680

  360

  -41

  2009

  -296

  -65

  680

  383

  -64

  2010

  -296

  -65

  680

  411

  -92

  2011

  -296

  -65

  680

  432

  -113

  64 65

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2012

  -296

  -65

  680

  445

  -126

  2013

  -296

  -65

  680

  461

  -141

  2014

  -296

  -65

  680

  472

  -153

  2015

  -296

  -65

  680

  481

  -162

  2016

  -296

  -65

  680

  488

  -169

  2017

  -296

  -65

  680

  494

  -175

  2018

  -296

  -65

  680

  498

  -179

  2019

  -296

  -65

  680

  501

  -181

  2020

  -296

  -65

  680

  505

  -186

  2021

  -296

  -65

  680

  511

  -192

  2022

  -296

  -65

  680

  517

  -198

  2023

  -296

  -65

  680

  520

  -201

  2024

  -296

  -65

  680

  520

  -201

  2025

  -296

  -65

  680

  520

  -201

  2026

  -296

  -65

  680

  520

  -201

  2027

  -296

  -65

  680

  520

  -201

  Table v(x)

  United Kingdom—7 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  102

  1991

  -47

  -64

  226

  2

  112

  1992

  -89

  -63

  276

  9

  114

  1993

  -127

  -62

  321

  23

  109

  1994

  -161

  -61

  362

  44

  96

  1995

  -193

  -60

  400

  72

  75

  1996

  -223

  -60

  439

  102

  54

  1997

  -258

  -61

  486

  130

  37

  1998

  -294

  -63

  536

  155

  25

  1999

  -301

  -64

  549

  176

  7

  2000

  -303

  -65

  553

  195

  -10

  2001

  -303

  -65

  553

  219

  -34

  2002

  -303

  -65

  553

  250

  -65

  2003

  -303

  -65

  553

  273

  -87

  2004

  -303

  -65

  553

  286

  -101

  2005

  -303

  -65

  553

  294

  -109

  2006

  -303

  -65

  553

  297

  -112

  2007

  -303

  -65

  553

  293

  -107

  2008

  -303

  -65

  553

  297

  -112

  2009

  -303

  -65

  553

  315

  -130

  2010

  -303

  -65

  553

  337

  -152

  2011

  -303

  -65

  553

  353

  -168

  2012

  -303

  -65

  553

  364

  -179

  2013

  -303

  -65

  553

  376

  -191

  2014

  -303

  -65

  553

  385

  -200

  2015

  -303

  -65

  553

  392

  -207

  2016

  -303

  -65

  553

  398

  -212

  2017

  -303

  -65

  553

  402

  -217

  2018

  -303

  -65

  553

  406

  -220

  2019

  -303

  -65

  553

  407

  -222

  2020

  -303

  -65

  553

  411

  -226

  2021

  -303

  -65

  553

  416

  -321

  2022

  -303

  -65

  553

  421

  -235

  2023

  -303

  -65

  553

  423

  -238

  2024

  -303

  -65

  553

  423

  -238

  2025

  -303

  -65

  553

  423

  -238

  2026

  -303

  -65

  553

  423

  -238

  2027

  -303

  -65

  553

  423

  -238

  Table v(y)

  United Kingdom—7 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -47

  -64

  254

  2

  140

  1992

  -89

  -63

  310

  10

  148

  1993

  -127

  -62

  361

  26

  146

  1994

  -161

  -61

  407

  49

  136

  1995

  -193

  -60

  450

  81

  116

  1996

  -223

  -60

  494

  114

  96

  1997

  -258

  -61

  547

  146

  82

  66 67

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1998

  -294

  -63

  603

  174

  72

  1999

  -301

  -64

  618

  198

  54

  2000

  -303

  -65

  622

  220

  35

  2001

  -303

  -65

  622

  247

  8

  2002

  -303

  -65

  622

  281

  -27

  2003

  -303

  -65

  622

  307

  -52

  2004

  -303

  -65

  622

  322

  -68

  2005

  -303

  -65

  622

  331

  -77

  2006

  -303

  -65

  622

  334

  -80

  2007

  -303

  -65

  622

  329

  -75

  2008

  -303

  -65

  622

  335

  -80

  2009

  -303

  -65

  622

  355

  -101

  2010

  -303

  -65

  622

  379

  -125

  2011

  -303

  -65

  622

  398

  -143

  2012

  -303

  -65

  622

  409

  -155

  2013

  -303

  -65

  622

  423

  -169

  2014

  -303

  -65

  622

  433

  -179

  2015

  -303

  -65

  622

  442

  -187

  2016

  -303

  -65

  622

  447

  -193

  2017

  -303

  -65

  622

  453

  -198

  2018

  -303

  -65

  622

  456

  -202

  2019

  -303

  -65

  622

  458

  -204

  2020

  -303

  -65

  622

  462

  -208

  2021

  -303

  -65

  622

  468

  -213

  2022

  -303

  -65

  622

  473

  -219

  2023

  -303

  -65

  622

  476

  -222

  2024

  -303

  -65

  622

  476

  -222

  2025

  -303

  -65

  622

  476

  -222

  2026

  -303

  -65

  622

  476

  -222

  2027

  -303

  -65

  622

  476

  -222

  Table v(z)

  United Kingdom—7 per cent. inflation—100 per cent. take–up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -47

  -64

  282

  3

  168

  1992

  -89

  -63

  345

  11

  181

  1993

  -127

  -62

  401

  28

  184

  1994

  -161

  -61

  452

  55

  175

  1995

  -193

  -60

  500

  90

  157

  1996

  -223

  -60

  549

  127

  138

  1997

  -258

  -61

  607

  162

  126

  1998

  -294

  -63

  670

  193

  120

  1999

  -301

  -64

  686

  221

  100

  2000

  -303

  -65

  691

  244

  79

  2001

  -303

  -65

  691

  274

  49

  2002

  -303

  -65

  691

  313

  11

  2003

  -303

  -65

  691

  341

  -17

  2004

  -303

  -65

  691

  358

  -34

  2005

  -303

  -65

  691

  368

  -45

  2006

  -303

  -65

  691

  371

  -48

  2007

  -303

  -65

  691

  366

  -42

  2008

  -303

  -65

  691

  372

  -48

  2009

  -303

  -65

  691

  394

  -71

  2010

  -303

  -65

  691

  422

  -98

  2011

  -303

  -65

  691

  442

  -118

  2012

  -303

  -65

  691

  455

  -131

  2013

  -303

  -65

  691

  470

  -147

  2014

  -303

  -65

  691

  482

  -158

  2015

  -303

  -65

  691

  491

  -167

  2016

  -303

  -65

  691

  497

  -173

  2017

  -303

  -65

  691

  503

  -179

  2018

  -303

  -65

  691

  507

  -184

  2019

  -303

  -65

  691

  509

  -186

  2020

  -303

  -65

  691

  513

  -190

  2021

  -303

  -65

  691

  520

  -196

  2022

  -303

  -65

  691

  526

  -202

  2023

  -303

  -65

  691

  529

  -205

  2024

  -303

  -65

  691

  529

  -206

  2025

  -303

  -65

  691

  529

  -206

  2026

  -303

  -65

  691

  529

  -206

  2027

  -303

  -65

  691

  529

  -206

  68 69

  Table vi(x)

  United Kingdom—8 per cent. inflation—80 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  167

  0

  102

  1991

  -53

  -64

  234

  2

  114

  1992

  -100

  -63

  290

  9

  117

  1993

  -142

  -62

  340

  23

  113

  1994

  -180

  -61

  386

  45

  100

  1995

  -214

  -60

  428

  75

  79

  1996

  -248

  -60

  470

  106

  56

  1997

  -285

  -61

  520

  136

  38

  1998

  -293

  -63

  535

  163

  16

  1999

  -300

  -64

  548

  186

  -3

  2000

  -302

  -65

  552

  206

  -21

  2001

  -302

  -65

  552

  231

  -46

  2002

  -302

  -65

  552

  262

  -77

  2003

  -302

  -65

  552

  284

  -99

  2004

  -302

  -65

  552

  296

  -111

  2005

  -302

  -65

  552

  303

  -118

  2006

  -302

  -65

  552

  303

  -118

  2007

  -302

  -65

  552

  297

  -112

  2008

  -302

  -65

  552

  300

  -115

  2009

  -302

  -65

  552

  317

  -133

  2010

  -302

  -65

  552

  339

  -154

  2011

  -302

  -65

  552

  354

  -169

  2012

  -302

  -65

  552

  364

  -179

  2013

  -302

  -65

  552

  376

  -191

  2014

  -302

  -65

  552

  385

  -200

  2015

  -302

  -65

  552

  392

  -207

  2016

  -302

  -65

  552

  397

  -212

  2017

  -302

  -65

  552

  402

  -217

  2018

  -302

  -65

  552

  405

  -220

  2019

  -302

  -65

  552

  406

  -222

  2020

  -302

  -65

  552

  410

  -225

  2021

  -302

  -65

  552

  415

  -230

  2022

  -302

  -65

  552

  420

  -235

  2023

  -302

  -65

  552

  422

  -237

  2024

  -302

  -65

  552

  422

  -237

  2025

  -302

  -65

  552

  422

  -237

  2026

  -302

  -65

  552

  422

  -237

  2027

  -302

  -65

  552

  422

  -237

  Table vi(y)

  United Kingdom—8 per cent. inflation—90 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  188

  0

  123

  1991

  -53

  -64

  263

  2

  143

  1992

  -100

  -63

  326

  10

  153

  1993

  -142

  -62

  383

  26

  153

  1994

  -180

  -61

  434

  51

  142

  1995

  -214

  -60

  481

  84

  123

  1996

  -248

  -60

  528

  119

  101

  1997

  -285

  -61

  585

  153

  86

  1998

  -293

  -63

  602

  183

  63

  1999

  -300

  -64

  616

  210

  42

  2000

  -302

  -65

  621

  232

  22

  2001

  -302

  -65

  621

  259

  -6

  2002

  -302

  -65

  621

  294

  -41

  2003

  -302

  -65

  621

  319

  -66

  2004

  -302

  -65

  621

  333

  -79

  2005

  -302

  -65

  621

  340

  -87

  2006

  -302

  -65

  621

  341

  -87

  2007

  -302

  -65

  621

  334

  -80

  2008

  -302

  -65

  621

  338

  -84

  2009

  -302

  -65

  621

  357

  -103

  2010

  -302

  -65

  621

  381

  -127

  2011

  -302

  -65

  621

  398

  -145

  2012

  -302

  -65

  621

  410

  -156

  2013

  -302

  -65

  621

  423

  -169

  2014

  -302

  -65

  621

  433

  -180

  2015

  -302

  -65

  621

  441

  -187

  2016

  -302

  -65

  621

  447

  -193

  2017

  -302

  -65

  621

  452

  -198

  70 71

  Year

  Change in Grant

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  2018

  -302

  -65

  621

  455

  -202

  2019

  -302

  -65

  621

  457

  -203

  2020

  -302

  -65

  621

  461

  -207

  2021

  -302

  -65

  621

  467

  -213

  2022

  -302

  -65

  621

  472

  -218

  2023

  -302

  -65

  621

  475

  -221

  2024

  -302

  -65

  621

  475

  -221

  2025

  -302

  -65

  621

  475

  -221

  2026

  -302

  -65

  621

  475

  -221

  2027

  -302

  -65

  621

  475

  -221

  Table vi(z)

  United Kingdom—8 per cent inflation—100 per cent. take-up

  (million, 1990 prices)

  Year

  Change in Grants

  Change in Benefits

  Gross Loan Outlay

  Loan Repayments

  PSBR Effect

  1990

  0

  -65

  209

  0

  144

  1991

  -53

  -64

  292

  3

  172

  1992

  -100

  -63

  363

  11

  188

  1993

  -142

  -62

  425

  29

  192

  1994

  -180

  -61

  482

  56

  185

  1995

  -214

  -60

  534

  93

  167

  1996

  -248

  -60

  587

  133

  147

  1997

  -285

  -61

  650

  170

  134

  1998

  -293

  -63

  669

  204

  109

  1999

  -300

  -64

  684

  233

  87

  2000

  -302

  -65

  690

  258

  65

  2001

  -302

  -65

  690

  288

  35

  2002

  -302

  -65

  690

  327

  -4

  2003

  -302

  -65

  690

  355

  -32

  2004

  -302

  -65

  690

  370

  -47

  2005

  -302

  -65

  690

  378

  -55

  2006

  -302

  -65

  690

  379

  -56

  2007

  -302

  -65

  690

  371

  -48

  2008

  -302

  -65

  690

  375

  -52

  2009

  -302

  -65

  690

  397

  -74

  2010

  -302

  -65

  690

  423

  -100

  2011

  -302

  -65

  690

  443

  -120

  2012

  -302

  -65

  690

  455

  -132

  2013

  -302

  -65

  690

  470

  -147

  2014

  -302

  -65

  690

  482

  -159

  2015

  -302

  -65

  690

  490

  -167

  2016

  -302

  -65

  690

  496

  -174

  2017

  -302

  -65

  690

  502

  -179

  2018

  -302

  -65

  690

  506

  -183

  2019

  -302

  -65

  690

  508

  -185

  2020

  -302

  -65

  690

  512

  -189

  2021

  -302

  -65

  690

  518

  -196

  2022

  -302

  -65

  690

  525

  -202

  2023

  -302

  -65

  690

  528

  -205

  2024

  -302

  -65

  690

  528

  -205

  2025

  -302

  -65

  690

  528

  -205

  2026

  -302

  -65

  690

  528

  -205

  2027

  -302

  -65

  690

  528

  -205

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if premises have yet been secured by the Student Loans Company; and if the company's chief executive has yet been appointed.

  Mr. Jackson
  No.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to publish his revised start-up costs for the Student Loans Company; and if the running costs have been revised.

  Mr. Jackson
  These costs are the subject of contractual negotiations and must remain confidential at this stage for commercial reasons.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any of the participating 72
  financial institutions in the Student Loans Company has proposed the payment of an indemnity in the event of a change of policy or a change of Government.

  Mr. Jackson
  The terms on which financial institutions are to participate are subject to confidential contractual negotiations.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Student Loans Company will be wholly funded by his Department; whether he proposes that participating financial institutions can cease to participate at any time; and what financial penalties are proposed for such withdrawal.

  Mr. Jackson
  I expect the Student Loans Company to be funded by the Education departments for both the loan
  73
  principal and running costs. The terms on which financial institutions will participate in the company are subject to contractual negotiation.

  Malawi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what aid his Department supplied to the Government of Malawi either directly or through other agencies since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department of Education set up the overseas research students awards scheme (ORSAS) in December 1979 in recognition of the institutional and scholarly contribution made by overseas research students of outstanding merit. The first awards were made for the academic year 1980–81.

  The only criteria for the awards are outstanding merit and research potential; other factors, such as means, nationality, proposed field and institution of study, will not be taken into account.

  The scheme is administered by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom. The CVCP has appointed a special committee, composed of senior members of academic staff of academic institutions, to be responsible for the selection of awardholders and the detailed management of the scheme.

  1980 1 award was offered to Malawi but was not taken up.

  1981 2 awards were offered to Malawi but were not taken up.

  1982 2 applications were made by Malawi, both were rejected.

  1983 3 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £6,818.

  1984 4 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £7,420.

  1985 2 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £5,556.

  1986 2 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £4,908.

  1987 3 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £8,257.

  1988 2 awards made to Malawi at a total cost of £5,676.

  Summary

  1980–88 3 awards were not taken up by Malawi

  2 applications for awards were rejected

  16 awards were made to Malawi at a total cost of £38,635.

  Teaching Establishments
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will study the impact of removing head teachers from the establishment figures for teaching staffs in all schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Questions relating to the staffing of individual schools, and policies relating to such matters, are the responsibility of local education authorities and schools, and my right hon. Friend has no present plans to make such a study.

  Human Genomes
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline what progress has been made on developing a framework in which scientists from Europe and Japan can participate on the project to map the human genome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council, which funds the United Kingdom human genome mapping project, that all research on mapping the human genome is a collaborative venture on an international scale. The Council of the European Community is at present in the final stages of considering a proposal for a74
  programme of human genome analysis which includes among its objectives the organisation of networks and co-ordination, on a European and international scale, of researchers from all disciplines working in this field. These plans involve close association with Japanese and American groups. Furthermore the Human Genome Mapping Organisation (HUGO), an independent international body whose aim is to obtain a complete map of the human genome, includes leading scientists from Europe and Japan.

ENERGY

  North Sea Gas
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to set a limit on the amount of North sea gas which will be allocated for burning in existing or future electricity generating stations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We do not intend to limit the amount of gas from the UKCS for gas-fired electricity generation. The Government do not believe that we should discourage gas burn. It is one of our major objectives to encourage competition in generation and we welcome the growing interest in gas-fired capacity from the private sector.

  Sizewell B
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the capability of British Nuclear Fuels Limited to manufacture and supply uranium fuel for the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor at prices competitive with those of French and German manufacturers, in the light of the recent announcement postponing the construction of three other pressurised water reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has recently submitted a tender to supply fuel for Sizewell B. The details of this are a commercial matter for BNFL arid the new nuclear company.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future role of Sizewell B power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government attach the highest importance to the successful completion and operation of Sizewell B. This will maintain the PWR option in the United Kingdom, provide environmentally clean energy, and contribute to diversity.

  THORP
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of British Nuclear Fuels Limited's thermal oxide-reprocessing plant in the light of his recent decision to postpone construction of three pressurised water reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 November 1989 at column 103.

  Severn Barrage
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress towards the placing of firm contracts for the Severn electricity generating barrage.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Any substantial further developments of the Severn barrage, as with other renewable energy schemes, will depend on commercial decisions made by the private sector.

  Recent studies by the Severn tidal power group, partly funded by the Department, omitted consideration of organisation and financing problems. Work on these topics together with further work on environmental issues will be carried out over the next two years.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if the Government intend to continue to allocate funds for investment in British Nuclear Fuels Limited's enhanced actinide removal plant at the Sellafield installation;

  (2) if the Government intend to continue to allocate funds for investment in British Nuclear Fuels Limited's Line Four Hex plant at the Springfield installation;

  (3) if the Government intend to continue to allocate funds for investment in British Nuclear Fuels Limited's new oxide fuel complex at the Springfield installation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. The Government do not allocate funds to the company. Its business is financed by borrowing on the commercial market.

  Non-fossil Fuels
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what part of the 20 per cent. of total British electricity generation to be provided from non-fossil fuel generating systems after electricity privatisation is to be generated by(a) hydro stations, (b) combined-cycle gas-fired stations, (c) wave power systems and (d) wind power systems.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The non-fossil fuel obligation will provide a considerable encouragement to the development of the renewable sources of energy. Contracts to meet the obligation are a matter for the area electricity boards and their successors. It is too early to say how much each renewable source will contribute. Combined cycle gas turbines burn fossil fuel and are therefore not eligible for the obligation.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many apprentices were started by electricity boards in England and Wales in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the industry. I am asking the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Switchgear
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of 11KV switchgear owned by area electricity boards is affected by operational bans for safety reasons.
  76
  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is not available to my Department. However, I will ask the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department is taking to secure improved safety in 11KV switchgear operated by area electricity boards.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 require the area electricity boards to notify my Department of all disruptive failures of 11KV switchgear, as well as any incident which could have given rise to injury, death, fire or explosion. The engineering inspectorate within my Department monitors all such reportable incidents and may investigate as necessary on my behalf to ensure that the operation and maintenance of such equipment by area electricity boards is as safe as reasonably practicable.

  Coal Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to secure cuts in the price British Coal charges the new generating companies to offset the levy to be charged to cover the extra cost of electricity from nuclear stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those facilities which the new public utility for the nuclear power industry may take into ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB will be coming forward with a draft transfer scheme containing proposals for the division of its assets. There are no plans for non-CEGB facilities to be transferred to the nuclear company.

  Atomic Energy Commission
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is to be the future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will continue to carry out research and development into nuclear power and other technologies as required by its customers.

  Winfrith
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals exist to secure the development of the safe integral reactor at Winfrith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No application has been made for a SIR on the UKAEA's site at Winfrith. The SIR consortium's bid for funds from the United States Department of Energy as part of its small power advanced light water reactor programme was unsuccessful and I understand that the partners are actively seeking other sources of funding.

  Nuclear Plants (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now make public the plans proposed, during the chairmanship of the Atomic Energy Authority of Sir John Hill, for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations by removing most parts, other than the reactor concrete shields, and smothering the site with landscaped turf and earth; and what were the cost estimates at(a) plan prices and (b) current prices.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I regret that my Department is unaware of the particular plans referred to by the hon. Member, and that, on the basis of the information he has provided on the question, further research could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Joint European Torus, Abingdon
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response he is giving to the application by scientists working at the Joint European Torus at Abingdon for a £200 million four-year expansion of their programme, to investigate ways of reducing the intrusion of impurities into their machine's plasma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the JET Council has agreed to seek a further extension of the life of the joint undertaking from 1992 to 1996. The Commission of the European Communities is expected to forward the proposal to the Council of Ministers next year for decision in parallel with a new Community programme for research and development on fusion for the period 1990–1994. The United Kingdom will play a full part in these discussions.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Accidents
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many significant collisions occurred on British Rail each year from 1982 to 1988 inclusive(a) between passenger trains, (b) between passenger and other trains, (c) between non-passenger trains and (d) buffer stops.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not readily available for British Rail alone. The figures for all railways are as follows:

  Between passenger trains

  Between passenger trains and other trains

  Between non-passenger

  With Buffer Stops

  1982

  6

  9

  11

  28

  1983

  16

  8

  36

  1984

  5

  12

  10

  34

  1985

  6

  11

  7

  35

  1986

  6

  13

  12

  36

  1987

  6

  14

  11

  33

  11988

  8

  10

  16

  52

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many significant derailments occurred on British Rail each year from 1982 to 1988 inclusive involving(a) passenger trains and (b) non-passenger trains.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not readily available for British Rail alone. The figures for all railways are as follows:78

  Passenger trains

  Non-passenger trains

  1982

  23

  106

  1983

  25

  107

  1984

  33

  106

  1985

  30

  105

  1986

  34

  99

  1987

  20

  116

  11988

  28

  112

  1 Provisional figures.

  London Underground
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all those London underground stations that have been closed, either in part or completely, since 1 July, indicating for each occasion the period it was closed inside normal working hours, together with the reason.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is essentially a matter for London Underground Ltd. (LUL), though I understand there have been 551 occasions since 1 July when London Underground stations have been either wholly or partly closed, during the Underground's normal operational hours. The required information about these closures may be obtained from LUL.

  Private Bus Companies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new private bus firms have begun operations since deregulation was introduced.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is estimated that by 1 May 1988 there had been a net increase of 465 operators running local bus services since deregulation.

  London Bus Routes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus routes in London have been subject to competitive tendering; and what has been the saving to London Regional Transport from this process.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand from London Regional Transport that to date 176 routes have been put out to competitive tender. It estimates that this has achieved savings of broadly 15 per cent. of previous operating costs.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consideration he has given to according gateway status to Birmingham International airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin: I am examining this question at present.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss monitoring the number of scheduled flights between London Heathrow-Gatwick and Edinburgh-Glasgow that are either late or are cancelled with a view to publishing this information.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The authority already publishes monthly airline and route punctuality statistics covering
  79
  flights at six United Kingdom airports, including scheduled services between Heathrow-Gatwick and Edinburgh-Glasgow.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future plans to increase scheduled passenger services from East Midlands international airport in the run-up to 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Many routes from East Midlands international airport to European Community destinations are already open under existing Community arrangements. I am urging my European Community colleagues to take further steps towards the Single Market by giving airlines yet greater freedom to exercise their commercial judgment in offering the range of scheduled services which customers want at the keenest prices.

  At present five European Community destinations are served from east midlands though more routes are available for airlines to serve if they chose to do so.

  Motorways
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the precise location where the M4 motorway crosses the geographical boundary between England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the mid-point of the bridge over the River Wye.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the Ove Arup and Talis Channel tunnel rail link alternatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend made a full statement on Friday 3 November. The Government have welcomed the joint venture established between British Rail, which has the contractual rights to operate through the Channel tunnel, and its chosen partner, Eurorail. The BR/Eurorail joint venture is pursuing the route through Kent and up to King's Cross. Others are, of course, free to formulate and promote alternatives.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the joint venture agreement for Channel tunnel rail services between British Rail and Eurorail referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) of 3 November,Official Report, columns 346–67 is currently in the form of an exchange of letters, agreed heads of terms or an agreed joint venture agreement.

  Mr. Portillo
  BR and Eurorail have exchanged letters outlining the scope of a joint venture between them. They are now negotiating a detailed shareholders agreement for the joint venture which will require my approval.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the emergency calls made to Her Majesty's coastguards relating to the North Devon coast, or coastal waters, during daylight hours on 16 August; and what actions resulted in each case.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Emergency calls, by radio or the 999 telephone system were received as follows: (Times shown are as logged at each individual station.)
  80
  Swansea MRCC
  08.45—999 call reporting a coaster dumping cargo in Lynmouth bay. Subsequently confirmed as a dredger working in the area dumping surplus water.
  15.20—999 call from Mr. Kift, reporting one person cut off at Rapparee cove.
  15.22—VHF radio call from Milford Haven, reporting the same incident, but identifying two persons involved. The Ilfracombe auxiliary coastguard in charge, advised and instructed to proceed.
  15.35—999 call from Mr. Richards, reporting one child recovered, one child still in the water. Rescue helicopter from RAF Chivenor scrambled, and Ilfracombe lifeboat launched.
  15.51—999 call reporting windsurfer in difficulties on Bideford Bar. Appledore lifeboat launched, auxiliary coastguard tasked to attend on scene. The windsurfer reached shore unaided.
  16.51—Police report of small cabin cruiser adrift in River Taw. Appledore lifeboat launched and towed boat, unmanned, to moorings.

  Milford Haven
  15.25—999 call (mis-routed) reporting two boys swept on to rocks at Rapparee cove. Information passed by VHF radio to Swansea coastguard for action, and subsequently confirmed by Telex message.

  Noise Standards (Railways)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the terms of reference of his Department's study of noise standards for new railways.

  Mr. Portillo
  The objective will be to establish the standard at a level which equitably relates to the standard set by regulation for new highways. I hope to make an announcement shortly about the establishment of a departmental committee to carry out this task.

  Motorways
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the feasibility of converting Britain's motorways into toll roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rose and Globe Theatres
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the future of the Rose and Globe theatre sites in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  The remains of the Rose theatre are now fully protected to safeguard them while construction work takes place on the site. Discussions are taking place between various interested parties, including English Heritage, to determine the best methods for the future conservation and display of the remains.

  English Heritage has submitted advice to the Department on the future of the Globe theatre remains. This is being considered.

  Homelessness
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place between Government officials and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in respect of advice services dealing with housing and homelessness.
  81
  Mr. Chope
  Since our announcement on 15 November of the conclusions of the homelessness review, my officials have had one meeting with officers of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has had one meeting with the association's council. The discussions have concerned our proposal to base a national advice service for homeless people on citizens advice bureaux network.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to withdraw section 73 funding from any of the organisations which currently receive it.

  Mr. Chope
  Following our review of the homelessness legislation, we have decided to increase by almost threefold the funding of voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985. In the next financial year, £2 million will be available to support a national advice service and to enable voluntary bodies to mount a range of projects of direct and practical help to the homeless. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not yet taken any decisions about the organisations which will receive this much increased grant aid under section 73 next year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas with the highest contribution to the safety net if no maximum contribution were set and give the figures for each area.

  Mr. Chope
  The table shows the areas which would contribute more than £75 per adult to the area safety net in 1990–91 if there were no maximum contribution. The figures use the same data as the exemplifications in the consultation paper my right hon. Friend issued on 6 November.

  Areas making highest contributions to safety net if no maximum contribution using provisional 1990–91 figures

  Contribution (£ per adult)

  City of London

  228

  Westminster

  226

  South Bucks

  126

  Chiltern

  124

  Kensington and Chelsea

  120

  Oxford

  94

  Camden

  91

  Wycombe

  86

  Elmbridge

  84

  Epping Forest

  80

  Cambridge

  75

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are his latest estimates of the distributional impact of the community charge on household finance;

  (2) what information he has showing the relationship of domestic rates and the community charge to net household income on the equivalent net income basis following his statement of 6 November, Official Report, columns 685–7;

  (3) if he will construct a table in the same form as figure 4 of Cm. 9714, "Paying for Local Government", showing the first year with safety net and fully in place, the relationship between gross and net community charge to
  82
  net household income for (a) single pensioner households, (b) other single person households, (c) two adult households, and (d) three adult households;

  (4) if he will estimate the number of (a) single-pensioner households and (b) single pensioners who will (i) gain and (ii) lose upon introduction of the community charge;

  (5) if he will construct a table similar to table J7 in Cm. 9714 based upon the figures in his statement of 6 November, Official Report, columns 685–7, in respect of the community charge;

  (6) if he will produce an updated version of table J7 in Cm. 9714, "Paying for Local Government", showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge by (a) region, (b) local authority and (c) parliamentary constituency;

  (7) if he will set out in the Official Report his estimates for the main household types of the gains and losses upon the full introduction of the community charge, showing totals, figures net and gross and the effect of rebates.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest estimates of the distributional impact of the community charge on household finance, using illustrative community charges for 1988–89 were placed in the Library on 15 December 1988. An extension of the analysis to cover pensioner couples was placed in the Library on 28 February 1989.

  An analysis using the 1990–91 charges published by my right hon. Friend on 6 November is under preparation and will be published as soon as possible. Analyses by local authority or Parliamentary constituency will not be possible however due to limitations of the sample survey data. There are some limitations on the analyses which can be made by region.

  Indigenous Shrubs and Trees
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he offers any advice to local authorities or other public bodies concerning the use of indigenous shrubs and trees in landscaping or reclamation schemes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has not issued advice specifically on the use of indigenous shrubs and trees. The NCC has published a booklet "Natural Trees and Shrubs for Wildlife in the UK" which is available to local authorities and which MAFF has distributed to farmers in conjunction with the farm woodland scheme.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that all new Government buildings will be designed and built utilising the latest available technologies to ensure the maximum energy efficiency.

  Mr. Chope
  The Property Services Agency will continue to promote the use of the latest energy efficiency technology in the buildings it designs but it is the responsibility of each department sponsoring the construction of new accommodation, to decide on the standards which are to be applied.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will continue to make available to departments information on relevant technological and other developments.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what permission he has given to the London Docklands development corporation to raise capital for construction of the Beckton extension of the Docklands light railway; and what is the liability so incurred.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Beckton extension of the docklands light railway will be funded by the LDDC from the proceeds of land sales in the royal docks and Leamouth. Any in-year shortfalls between construction costs and land receipts will temporarily be met by grant in aid.

  Pewsey Partnership Development
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will exempt from the debt requirements of the Housing and Local Government Act the partnership deal between Lovells and Kennet district council for the partnership development at Pewsey.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Regional Fisheries Advisory Committees
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each regional fisheries advisory committee those members who are board members or senior employees of water holding companies, stating, where relevant, their position within the water holding company.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The only member of a regional fisheries advisory committee who is either a board member or senior employee of a water holding company is Dr. D. G. Jamieson, water resources manager of Thames Water Utilities Ltd, who is a member of the regional fisheries advisory committee for the Thames region.

  Rivers Advisory Committees
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each regional rivers advisory committee those members who are board members or senior employees of water holding companies, stating, where relevant, their position within the water holding company.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Anglian: Mr. D. Latham—Director of Water Services, Anglian Water Services Ltd.

  Northumbria: Mr. A. Foster—Director of Operations, Northumbrian Water Ltd.

  North West: Mr. E. Harper—Chief Scientist, North West Water Ltd.

  Severn Trent: Mr. W. Scott—Assistant Director, Severn Trent Water Ltd.

  Southern: Mr. B. Hewett—Managing Director, Southern Water Services Ltd.

  South West: Mr. W. J. Dickens—Director of Water Services, South West Water Ltd.

  Thames: Mr. P. T. McIntosh—Water and Environmental Science Director, Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  Welsh: Dr. M. P. Brooker—Quality and Planning Director, Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig.

  Wessex: Mr. C. F. Skellett—Managing Director, Wessex Water Services Ltd.

  Yorkshire: Dr. A. J. Shuttleworth—Director of Water Quality, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  Water Companies
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each water company, the names and status of the trustees nominated for the purpose of the water holding company trust schemes for employee share ownership.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The trustee of the trust scheme established by each of the water holding companies is a wholly owned subsidiary of the relevant water holding company. The names of the trustees are as follows:

  Anglian Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  Northumbrian Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  North West Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  Severn Trent Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  Southern Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  SWW Share Schemes Trustees Limited

  Thames Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  WW Share Scheme Trustees Limited

  Wessex Water Trustee Company Limited

  Yorkshire Water Share Scheme Trustees Limited.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of households circulated by Anglian Water plc in respect of their recent publicity campaign;

  (2) what was the number of households circulated by Severn Trent Water plc in respect of their recent publicity campaign;

  (3) what was the cost of the recent publicity campaign by Anglian Water plc;

  (4) what was the cost of the recent publicity campaign by Severn Trent Water plc;

  (5) what was the source of funding for the recent publicity campaign by Anglian Water plc;

  (6) what was the source of funding for the recent publicity campaign by Severn Trent Water plc.

  Mr. Howard
  In September, the chairmen of Anglian Water plc and Severn Trent plc wrote to some 2,247,000 and 3,360,000 customers respectively about the forthcoming water share offers. The cost of these mailings and those by the other eight water plcs will be borne jointly by the water plcs through their subscriptions to the Water Services Association and by the Government. The costs to the Government of marketing the water share offers will be reported to Parliament in due course.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the upper limit and lower limit, respectively, on the proportion of shares in each of the 10 water companies which are being made available to foreign investors;

  (2) what is the upper limit and the lower limit, respectively, on the proportion of shares in each of the water companies which will be sold only to British people.

  Mr. Howard
  Full details are set out in the prospectus for the water share offers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Out of the total number of shares on offer, 18·5 per cent. are initially being made available to overseas investors. If there is heavy demand for shares by members of the public in the United Kingdom offers for sale, a clawback provision allows for 25 per cent. of the shares available under the overseas offers to be made available to the public.

  Under the United Kingdom offer for sale 23·55 per cent. of the ordinary share capital is being made available

  85
  to the general public (including eligible customers, employees and pensioners of the companies). A further 3 per cent. is reserved for share bonus entitlements and applications from eligible employees under the free and matching offers. If both the overseas and the institutional clawbacks are triggered then 46·75 per cent. of the ordinary share capital is available to the general public.

  There are no nationality restrictions on the United Kingdom public offer, except that United States and Canadian persons as defined in the prospectus are not permitted to apply. Eligible customers, employees and pensioners of the companies will be given preference over the general public in the allocation of shares as described in the prospectus.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what protections are built into the flotation process for each of the 10 water companies currently subject to flotations to guard against foreign takeover; and what guarantees exist to ensure these protections have long-term effects.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hold a special share in each of the nine English water and sewage companies which will empower him to prevent anyone owning more than 15 per cent. of the shares in any of the companies in the period until 31 December 1994. There are also provisions in the Water Act 1989 relating to mergers in the water industry. Details of the special share arrangements and the merger provisions of the Water Act 1989 are set out in the prospectus for the water offers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Adjudications
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what administrative support will be made available to an adjudicator appointed to fulfil the functions described in part I of the Local Government and Housing Act.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The adjudicator is being given the administrative support reasonably necessary to enable him to fulfil his duties.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what remuneration will be made to an adjudicator appointed under part I of the Local Government and Housing Act.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The adjudicator is being paid on a fee basis at a rate equivalent to the salary of grade 3 in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what timetable an adjudicator appointed to fulfil the functions described in part I of the Local Government and Housing Act is required to work to when producing guidance for local authorities on part I of the Act and when setting up the appeals procedure referred to in section 3.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Section 3(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that the issue of general advice is at the discretion of the adjudicator; the timetable for this is therefore a matter for him. Section 3(7) of the Act requires him to give priority, according to the time available before the election, to applications from those 86
  who certify that they are candidates in a forthcoming election. Subject to that, the timetable for dealing with applications is a matter for the adjudicator.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the office of the adjudicator appointed to fulfil the functions described in part I of the Local Government and Housing Act will be situated; and how those wishing to appeal will contact him.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has written to all local authorities involved giving details of the adjudicator's address. This is room 246, Lambeth bridge house, London SE1 7SB. The telephone number for inquiries is 01–238 4316. I understand that the adjudicator will shortly be writing to local authorities and trade unions involved about the procedures he wishes to follow.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who an adjudicator appointed to fulfil the functions described in part I of the Local Government and Housing Act, will consult when drawing up the guidance on political restrictions to be issued to local authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Section 3(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides that the adjudicator is to consult such representatives of local government and such organisations appearing to him to represent employees in local government as he considers appropriate. The choice of persons and organisations to be consulted is therefore for the adjudicator.

  London Zoo
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in assessing his response to London zoo's request for more of Regent's park, he has considered the levels of salmonella at the zoo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Salmonella is endemic in a wide range of bird species and has been identified in some birds in London zoo. The zoo has taken proper health and hygiene precautions and there is absolutely no risk to any member of the public. The position would not be changed by the zoo's development proposals.

  Water Protection
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those orders he has made under section 111 of the Water Act relating to water protection measures.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has made no orders under section 111 of the Water Act.

  Forestry Unit Areas
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give encouragement in the form of Government advice to local authorities to permit the renovation of derelict properties or the building of at least one new dwelling in forestry unit areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend will shortly be issuing for consultation a draft of new planning guidance for the countryside. This will include advice on the re-use and restoration of rural buildings and on the provision of housing needed by farm and forestry workers.

  "Common Sense"
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to act upon the recommendations contained in the broadsheet "Common Sense" published by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, a copy of which has recently been sent to him.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government announced in 1987 that they accept the case for legislation based broadly on the Common Land Forum's report and intends to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits. The proposals in the broadsheet "Common Sense" are broadly in line with the forum's recommendations, and are being studied in conjunction with those recommendations, the earlier responses to the Government's consultation paper issued in 1987, and the subsequent representations received. My right hon. Friend expects to make a further statement within the next few months on the Government's intentions on common land legislation.

  HIP (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the housing investment programme allocation paid or payable to the London borough of Waltham Forest in 1979–80 and in each year since 1986–87 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms expressed in 1979–80 prices.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: Allocations since 1981–82 are not directly comparable with earlier years because since that date authorities have been able to augment their allocations with a proportion of their capital receipts. Nevertheless, the information requested is as follows:

  Urban regeneration (£ million)—expenditure at constant prices 1988–89

  Enterprise Zones

  Urban Development Corporations

  Urban Programme

  City Grant UDG/URG

  Derelict Land Grant

  Rates Relief

  Capital

  1979–80

  —

  348

  —

  40

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  321

  —

  48

  —

  —

  1981–82

  55

  312

  —

  44

  5

  20

  1982–83

  84

  399

  —

  82

  12

  20

  1983–84

  121

  391

  10

  87

  13

  20

  1984–85

  108

  376

  20

  84

  19

  30

  1985–86

  100

  344

  28

  84

  26

  70

  1986–87

  101

  325

  27

  90

  37

  90

  1987–88

  143

  319

  29

  84

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988–89

  234

  284

  34

  77

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1989–90

  411

  243

  33

  63

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Notes:

  1. Urban Programme includes contributions from DES, DH and DTp.

  2. Urban Development Grant and Urban Regeneration Grant were replaced by City Grant in May 1988.

  3. Enterprise Zone rates relief figures show revenue foregone.

  4. Enterprise Zone capital figures show an assessment of tax foregone to the nearest £10 million, including Scotland and Wales. Separate data for England is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of adult residents in each district council area of the west midlands likely to be entitled to the maximum rebate during the first
  88

  £ million

  HIP allocations

  1979–80 Prices

  1979–80

  17·046

  l7·046

  1986–87

  7·716

  4·626

  1987–88

  7·205

  4·113

  1988–89

  7·391

  3·934

  1989–90

  6·214

  3·135

  Waltham Forest's estimated capital expenditure on housing in 1989–90 is £29·5 million.

  Rifle Range (Palace of Westminster)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Palace of Westminster rifle range will be available for use.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: Safety requirements enlarged the scope of the work carried out by the Parliamentary Works Office to extend the use of the range to include pistol shooting, and it was not completed until 13 November 1989. I understand that a recent safety inspection proved satisfactory and that the range has now been approved for use.

  Urban Development
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline, in constant prices, the total annual Government spending on urban development policy in the period 1979 to 1989 inclusive, on an annual basis and broken down into its constituent sub-headings, so as to include amounts allocated to the urban development corporations, urban programmes, urban development grants, derelict land grants, enterprise zone allowances and similar.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: Expenditure by the Department of the Environment on Urban Regeneration programmes, over the period 1979–80 to 1989–90, is set out in the table.

  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.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.
  89
  The information requested is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the value of British aid to Malawi for each year since 1979;

  (2) what aid his Department supplied to the Government of Malawi either directly or through other agencies since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following is the information requested:

  United Kingdom Aid to Malawi 1979–1988

  Year

  Gross Bilateral Public Expenditure £ thousand1

  Estimated United Kingdom share of multilateral aid £ thousand

  1979

  15,937

  n/a

  1980

  11,531

  3,400

  1981

  14,263

  3,000

  1982

  13,615

  3,700

  1983

  11,544

  4,000

  1984

  12,211

  8,300

  1985

  21,081

  3,800

  1986

  13,370

  5,500

  1987

  19,587

  5,800

  1988

  30,761

  n/a

  1 Excludes Commonwealth Development Corporation and includes some aid granted via Non-Governmental Organisations.

  Source:British Aid Statistics.

PRIME MINISTER

  Haemophiliacs (AIDS)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister when she will be replying to the letter sent to her by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on 25 October about the urgent need for an out-of-court settlement of the compensation claims of people with haemophilia who, in the course of National Health Service treatment, were infected with the AIDS virus.

  The Prime Minister
  As court proceedings have now begun it would not be right for me to comment on the question of an out-of-court settlement.

  However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 23 November that we have offered an additional £19 million to the Macfarlane trust, again on an entirely ex-gratia basis. For the details I refer the right hon. Member to that reply.

  British Rail
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last travelled officially on a British Rail service train; and what conclusions she drew from the experience.

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that for reasons of practicality and security it is difficult for me to travel by rail on official business. I do so when a suitable opportunity arises. I last travelled by train to an official function on 31 August 1989.

  Stedeford Report
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has yet been able to find, at 10 Downing street, a copy of the Stedeford report on transport policy and the railways.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I understand that the Department of Transport has traced papers which indicate that there was no formal report and that this was made clear when Sir Ivan Stedeford's advisory group was set up. (Official Report, 13 April 1960 at column 1345.)

  Finchley Ambulance Station
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Finchley ambulance station.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: I have at present no plans to do so.

  Kincora Boys Home
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister why, in her answer,Official Report, 15 November, relating to representations received by the Cabinet Secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys home, she underlined the word "such".

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 15 November at column 269.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many accountancy firms criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry or sued by the Government since 1979 for negligence have advised on privatisations or authenticated privatisation prospectuses; how many have supplied inspectors for Department of Trade and Industry investigations; and how many have been permitted to make audit policy through their representations on the Auditing Practices Committee or its working parties.

  Mr. Redwood
  Eight inspectors have been appointed from four firms of accountants that were previously criticised in inspectors' reports published since 1979, and one of those firms has since been appointed by the Government for privatisation work. I am not aware that any inspector has been appointed from a firm after it was sued by the Government or that such a firm has been appointed by the Government for privatisation work.

  The voting members of the Auditing Practices Committee (APC) are nominated on a personal basis by their professional body and appointed by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, which has stipulated that they shall not regard themselves as delegates of sectional interests but shall be guided by the need to act in the general interests of the community and of the accountancy profession as a whole. Members of its working parties are appointed by the APC itself.

  Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of Department of Trade and Industry investigations approved under the
  91
  Companies Acts since June 1979 and the number of reports published in the same period, clearly distinguishing between those relating to investigations approved in the pre-June 1979 and the post-June 1979 periods.

  Mr. Redwood
  Inspections into 56 companies, some of which are linked, have begun since June 1979. During that same period, 32 reports have been published dealing with 46 different companies. Of the 32 published reports, 13 dealing with 16 different companies relate to inspections begun after 1 June 1979.

  EC Preferences (Poland and Hungary)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the proposal to extend the European Community's generalised system of preferences scheme to Poland and Hungary.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proposal to extend the EC's generalised scheme of references benefits to Hungary and Poland is part of a wider package of measures that has been under consideration in the Community as a contribution to a programme of western assistance to these two countries.

  The proposal was considered at the EC's Foreign Affairs Council on 6 November and approved in principle. This was on the understanding that textiles and some agricultural products were excluded from the package of benefits and would be considered further with a view to their inclusion of being approved at the FAC on 27 November.

  I regret that because of the late stage at which firm proposals were received, a decision had to be taken before the scrutiny process was complete. A refusal on our part to endorse the proposals on 6 November would not have been understood by our EC partners or by Hungary and Poland.

  Poland
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the adoption of the European Community trade, commercial and economic co-operation agreement with Poland.

  Mr. Redwood
  In order to encourage the reform process in Poland the Foreign Affairs Council on 3 October adopted a trade and economic co-operation agreement between the European Community and Poland.

  In the light of the current international focus of attention on Poland and the wish expressed at the Paris summit to find ways of encouraging the reform process in Poland it was clear that the agreement needed to be implemented as soon as possible. The Government therefore agreed to the adoption of the proposal even though our own parliamentary scrutiny procedures has not been completed. A delay on our part would have hindered the ratification process and would have been misunderstood by Poland and our EC partners.

  I regret that the normal parliamentary procedures were not followed on this occasion.

  Landlords and Tenants
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government intend to introduce legislation extending the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act to the licensed trade.
  92
  Mr. Redwood
  I hope to introduce a Bill to bring the tenants of licensed premises within the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 early in the Session.

  Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of reports made available to professional bodies, regulatory bodies and other non-governmental bodies since June 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The approximate number of non-HMSO publications published by the Department since June 1979 is 4,149.

  Delta Te Immune Support Therapy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on inquiries into whether the sale of Delta Te immune support therapy is in breach of the Trades Description Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  None, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking into this matter in connection with the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968.

  FIMBRA
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the workings of FIMBRA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board to ensure that self-regulating organisations, including FIMBRA, continue to comply with the requirements for recognition under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Girobank
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Girobank.

  Mr. Forth
  The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 20 April that the Post Office Board had accepted a conditional offer from the Alliance and Leicester Building Society for Girobank. The Post Office and the Alliance and Leicester are engaged in detailed negotiations with a view to completing the sale as soon as practicable.

  The regulatory authorities will need to be satisfied and my consent will be required before the sale can take place.

  Telephone Chat-lines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will meet the Director General of Telecommunications to discuss the priority to be given to the protection of the public and the consumer when controls are set for telephone chat-lines;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation to require that access to chat-lines and other premium charge telephone calls shall be subject to a fail-safe mechanism, such as connection via an operator, in order to ensure that accidental connection to high-cost calls is ruled out.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: On 17 November, the Director General of

  93
  Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, announced new controls on multiline and one-to-one services provided over British Telecom's network. From 8 December, when the controls come into effect, such services can be provided only in accordance with a code of practice acceptable to the Director General or if granted a specific exemption. No such codes have yet been recognised for these purposes.

  In the light of this announcement, I have no intention of meeting the Director General or of considering the introduction of legislation on this subject.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will(a) review the availability and allocation of the broadcasting spectrum for television and radio in the United Kingdom and (b) detail the European Community and other constraints upon such review.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: The Government have a series of rolling reviews of the radio spectrum in progress, which will facilitate decisions on allocation of spectrum to broadcasters (and other users) in the corning years. The most recent review was of the civil spectrum between 470 and 3400 MHz, which was carried out in 1988–89 in consultation with all interested parties. Consideration will be given to a similar review of higher frequencies.

  An essential part of the spectrum allocation process, if interference with other users is to be avoided, is international co-ordination. The United Kingdom is therefore an active participant in the International Telecommunication Union and the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations, which are the key international spectrum co-ordination bodies.

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the annual import and export statistics for trade between Britain and Iraq and break the figure down between visibles and invisibles for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: Information on the value of invisible trade between the United Kingdom and Iraq is not available. Figures for visible trade are as follows:

  £ million

  Imports

  Exports

  1979

  451

  201

  1980

  556

  322

  1981

  103

  624

  1982

  171

  874

  1983

  96

  400

  1984

  77

  343

  1985

  293

  445

  1986

  250

  444

  1987

  324

  272

  1988

  176

  412

  19891

  63

  343

  1 To 30 September 1989.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has responded to the European Economic Community consultative document on the imports of footwear from Korea and Taiwan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: No. We shall consider how to respond after the options put forward by the Commission have been discussed with the British Footwear Manufacturers' Federation early next week.

  Life Insurance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has made any assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom life insurance industry if the current bid for the Pearl Group by Australian Mutual Provident is allowed to proceed.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: On 13 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his decision not to refer the proposed acquisition of Pearl Group plc by AMP (UK) PLC to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation. Under the merger control provision of the Fair Trading Act 1973 each merger is considered on its own merits. My right hon. Friend's decision in this case was taken after full consideration of all relevant issues and was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider making illegal the conditional selling of some building societies who offer special deals only if the endowment or pension plan is written with them.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply. Since January 1988 building societies have followed a code of practice which precludes them from making it a condition of an offer of a first mortgage advance that the borrower uses other services, required by the borrower in connection with the making of the advance, provided by the society. The Government agreed with societies in July 1986 that section 35 of the Building Societies Act 1986, which makes such linking of services an offence, would not be implemented if such a code was adopted. Neither section 35 nor the code seek to prevent cross-subsidy because there can be legitimate commercial reasons for it, and it may be to the advantage of the borrower.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres in Northern Ireland currently under restriction owing to the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information at November 1989 is as follows:
  95

  Number

  Number of farms

  123

  Number of sheep

  19,570

  Area of land

  121,612

  1 acres.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure he has incurred in compensation for farmers in Northern Ireland as a result of the Chernobyl accident for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The amount of compensation paid to farmers in Northern Ireland resulting from the Chernobyl accident was as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  12,658

  1988–89

  29,084

  11989–90

  18,313

  1 (to date).

  Coats Viyella
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance the Northern Ireland Office is providing to Coats Viyella for its operations in Northern Ireland; and what assistance has been given specifically for the transfer of work from the Van Heusen production facilities in St. Austell to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: Coats Viyella has 10 manufacturing plants within the textiles and clothing sector in Northern Ireland employing 3,600 people. In the 1988–89 financial year financial assistance totalling £5,556,670 was paid to the CV group.

  No assistance has been either offered or given for the transfer of work from the Van Heusen production facilities in St. Austell to Northern Ireland.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will conduct a review of the possibilities of prejudice to a criminal trial of individuals named in a Companies Act investigation when those individuals are, in advance of their trial, publicly disciplined by a self-regulatory organisation established under the Financial Services Act.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I do not believe such a review to be necessary.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran-Iraq Conflict
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in negotiating the peace settlement to the Iran-Iraq conflict.

  Mr. Hurd
  We maintain our full support for the early implementation of Security Council resolution 598 in its entirety. We applaud the efforts of the Secretary-General and of his special representative, Mr. Jan Eliasson, to 96
  achieve progress in the negotiations. We are glad that the recent visit to the area by Mr. Eliasson has confirmed that the ceasefire is holding and that further talks may take place in New York in December. Movement is urgently needed. It is now over two years since the resolution was passed and 15 months since the ceasefire took effect. We urge the parties to work imaginatively and energetically to bring permanent peace to the region through early and successful negotiations under the Secretary-General's auspices. We will continue to do everything possible to help achieve this aim.

  West Bank and Gaza
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent protests have been conveyed by his Department to representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation regarding the Palestinian Arabs killed by other Palestinians since the disturbances began in the West Bank and Gaza two years ago; and what reply has been received.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have taken this up with several representatives of the PLO, including Mr. Arafat himself.

  British Diplomats (Israel)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the guidelines followed by(a) diplomatic staff of the consulate general in Jerusalem and (b) diplomatic staff of the Embassy in Tel Aviv regarding visits to areas under Israeli military administration since June 1967; what specific guidelines exist regarding visits to communities under curfew or declared to be closed by the Israeli military administration; and what guidelines exist regarding East Jerusalem, as annexed by Israel in 1967.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Diplomatic and consular staff in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are free to move throughout the occupied territories, including that part of Jerusalem which Israel illegally annexed de facto in 1967, while having regard to any restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities in accordance with Israel's responsibilities as a military occupier of these territories under international law, in particular the fourth Geneva convention of 1949.

  Beit Sahour
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent visit of Her Majesty's consul-general in Jerusalem to Beit Sahour; and what discussions have been held with the Government of Israel regarding the circumstances surrounding the visit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Her Majesty's consul-general visited Beit Sahour on 12 October in the light of reports that the Israeli authorities were conducting punitive tax-collecting raids on the inhabitants. We have assured the Israelis that there was no impropriety in his doing so. We await a reply to our representations to the Israeli authorities about their action in Beit Sahour.

  Short-range Nuclear Forces
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards negotiations on short-range nuclear forces after the conclusion of a global ban on chemical weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Although a global ban on chemical weapons is an arms control goal of the Alliance, NATO's policy on negotiations on short-range nuclear missiles, as expressed in the comprehensive concept, is not linked to the conclusion of such a ban.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards negotiations on short-range nuclear forces after a conventional forces in Europe agreement has been concluded and reductions are under way.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy is as set out in the comprehensive concept adopted by NATO Heads of State and Government at their summit in May, namely that, once the implementation of an agreement on conventional arms is under way,"the United States, in consultation with the Allies concerned, is prepared to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction of American and Soviet land-based nuclear missiles of shorter range to equal and verifiable levels."
  The comprehensive concept also makes it clear that negotiated reductions should not take place until a CFE agreement has been implemented.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's current proposed ceiling on combat aircraft in the region from the Atlantic to the Urals; and what is the present level of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation combat aircraft in this region.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At the NATO summit in May, the Allies decided to expand their proposal at the negotiations in Vienna on conventional forces in Europe, so as to include reductions by each side to equal ceilings in all land-based combat aircraft at the level 15 per cent. below current Alliance holdings. This has subsequently been amplified into a specific proposal for an equal ceiling of 5,700 such aircraft.

  Malawi
  Mr. Chris Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Government employees are currently based in Malawi; and what are their duties.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Thirty-one British Government employees are currently based in Malawi. Sixteen are employed at the British high commission in Lilongwe in normal diplomatic service duties. Fifteen are employed at the office of the British development division in southern Africa, also in Lilongwe, which manages our aid programmes in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  There are also 13 technical co-operation officers, employed by the British Government, who are on loan to the Government of Malawi.
  98
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the fund-raising activities of British diplomats in Malawi during the last two years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  British diplomats themselves are not involved in any fund-raising activities in Malawi. The Association of Diplomatic Women in Lilongwe, which represents all wives and women staff in the diplomatic community there, organises fund-raising events and gives the proceeds to private charities in Malawi. Members of British diplomatic families have taken part in these events, in particular an annual fair.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made since 1979 to the Government of Malawi regarding human rights in that country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government of Malawi are fully aware of our views on human rights, which have been made known on a number of occasions in various fora, including the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the issue in Malawi during her visit there in 1987. We are aware of recent developments and are monitoring them closely.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made concerning the violations of human rights by the Government and Indian forces in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made our concern about human rights abuses clearly known to the Sri Lankan Government. Most recently, our high commissioner in Colombo raised the subject on 27 October. We welcome President Premadasa's invitation to the International Committee of the Red Cross to monitor the situation and report their findings.

HEALTH

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the civil servants offered over £12,000 per family to move to Leeds have accepted this offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend made an announcement on relocation on 14 November and at this early stage we have no indication of how many staff are likely to wish to move to Leeds.

  Cruse
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in light of the increase in disasters, he will increase his Department's financial help to Cruse for bereavement care.

  Mr. Freeman
  The increased level of grant aid to Cruse, from 1 April 1990, will be determined in the light of the increase in the organisation's headquarters administrative costs arising from increased demand for its services.
  99
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he received an application from Cruse for a one-off grant of £150,000 in 1990 and for a total of £710,000 for the years 1990 to 1993; and when he expects to announce a decision upon it.

  Mr. Freeman
  The application was received in the Department on 10 November and is under consideration. Ministers expect to announce decisions on new and renewal grants to voluntary bodies in good time before the commencement date of 1 April 1990.

  Neuroblastoma
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why there is no national screening programme for babies with neuroblastoma; and what is his estimate of the average cost to the National Health Service of treating cases of neuroblastoma;

  (2) what study his Department has made of the routine screening of babies for neuroblastoma in other countries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It has yet to be demonstrated that a screening service reduces mortality from neuroblastoma. The Department keeps research and development in this field at home and abroad under regular review. Comprehensive information on the costs of treatment for this condition is not available, but it has been estimated that in one region these are about £45,000 per case.

  Ambulance Service (Dispute)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the length of time from call-out to arrival of substitute police and army vehicles used as ambulances in the London area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The London ambulance service with the help of the police control room at New Scotland Yard and army and police emergency crews has established a system which allows response times to be monitored.

  Broiler Sheds (Diseases)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government intend to take following the publication of the Wigtoft report on the emission of diseases through the extraction fans in broiler sheds which are used on chicken farms.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are not aware of this report and would be grateful for details. If there are health implications in circumstances described in the report these will be fully considered.

  Alternative Therapies
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken into alternative therapies as a means of reducing the cost of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Medical practitioners may offer complementary therapies within the NHS if they feel competent to do so. The Department of Health has commissioned no research into the cost effectiveness of complementary therapies. However, the Medical Research Council, in conjunction with the British Chiropractic 100
  Association, are funding a study, at Northwick Park hospital into the treatment of back pain using chiropractic and orthodox techniques.

  Young People
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's assessment of the decline in the number of 16 to 19-year-old males in the United Kingdom between 1989 and 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government Actuary's mid 1988-based population projections indicate that the number of males aged 16–19 in the United Kingdom is projected to fall from 1·718 million in mid 1989 to 1·413 million in mid 1993, a decrease of 18 per cent.

  Listeria
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the Public Health Laboratory survey into listeria contamination in milk.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for the Public Health Laboratory service to publish the results of its own survey. I understand that collation and publication are in hand.

  Herts and Essex Hospital
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision on proposed changes in hospital provision at Herts and Essex hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to enable a person born live but damaged during an abortion prior to 28 weeks' gestation to secure compensation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The hon. Member may wish to refer to section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance on(a) methods of abortion, (b) possible complications after an abortion, (c) causes of death in abortions to the unborn baby and (d) characteristics and development of the unborn baby, he makes available to mothers considering abortion after 18 weeks' gestation;

  (2) what guidelines he has issued to abortionists concerning the matters that should be mentioned to mothers considering abortion after 18 weeks' gestation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not give direct advice to women seeking abortion. Circular HC(77)26 issued to health authorities and all places in the private sector which carry out abortions, deals with the general arrangements for the provision of counselling services to these women. The circular endorses the Lane committee's view that as part of the counselling process a women seeking abortion should be told of the nature of the operation; and of the likelihood of complete recovery from it or possible resultant morbidity. A copy of the circular is in the Library.

  Medicines (Product Licences)
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all product licence applications for medicines distributed in the United Kingdom have included the submission of a full product specification.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All product licence applications for medicinal products used in the United Kingdom are submitted in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968 and the relevant EC directives. These currently include the requirement that licence application must be supported either with or by reference to full data on the product particulars.

  Orthopaedics (Waiting Times)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for an appointment in the Leicester area for a patient waiting to be seen by an orthopaedic specialist; and what was the waiting time one year ago and five years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect information on out-patient waiting times centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the chairman of Leicester district health authority who could supply the information he seeks.

  Haemophiliacs (AIDS)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to expedite the settlement of compensation claims for haemophiliacs who are HIV positive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 23 November at columns 11–12.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each week from March 1989 to date the number of salmonella food poisoning cases which have been reported.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. Figures are collated monthly, and are not available on a weekly basis.

  Human isolates of salmonella confirmed by the Department of Enteric Pathogens, PHLS

  1989

  Number

  March

  1,213

  April

  1,106

  May

  1,364

  June

  2,854

  July

  3,303

  August

  4,586

  September

  4,684

  October

  3,556

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding April 1991 as the implementation date of the recommendations of the Griffiths report as not being a sufficient period in which local authorities can prepare for their new responsibilities.
  102
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no representations to date which have suggested that local authorities will not be able to prepare to discharge their new responsibilities adequately by April 1991.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make local authorities statutorily responsible for the funding, registration and inspection of residential and nursing homes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our intention which we set out in the White Paper "Caring for People", is that from 1 April 1991 local authorities will become responsible for a single unified budget to cover the costs of social care in residential care and nursing homes. The new arrangements will not apply to people already resident in homes before April 1991. The Registered Homes Act 1984 places a duty on local authorities and district health authorities to register and inspect residential care homes and nursing homes respectively. We have no plans to alter these arrangements.

  Community Care
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make new funds available to finance the additional expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in implementing the new community care packages, whilst still retaining responsibility for funding those already within residential care as at April 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  As we have made clear in recent statements and in our White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" (published on 16 November) we recognise that local authorities will require adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. This will involve a switch of resources from social security and the aggregate amount of transferred resources will allow for the projected growth in the numbers of people needing support, taking account of demographic factors. Final decisions will be taken in the public expenditure survey in 1990, following discussions with the local authority associations which are currently underway.

  Patient Referrals
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from the Irish Republic have been referred to United Kingdom hospitals over the last full period for which figures exist.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, 83 patients were referred from the Irish Republic for treatment in NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom under the European Community regulations. Figures for referrals to private hospitals are not held centrally.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many United Kingdom patients have been referred to hospitals in the Irish Republic over the last full period for which figures exist.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, one NHS patient was referred from the United Kingdom for treatment in the Irish Republic under the European Community regulations. Figures for referrals between private hospitals are not held centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what aid his Department has supplied to the Government of Malawi since 1979.

  Mr. Waddington
  None.

  Rayner Review
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the interim report of the Rayner review on the funding of the voluntary sector.

  Mr. John Patten
  The efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector which was announced on 16 May has delivered its report. We are considering the report, and the question of publication, with colleagues in other Government Departments who have an interest in its findings.

  Fines
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to review the relative severity of fines for different categories of offence.

  Mr John Patten
  The Crown court has unlimited powers to impose fines. The maximum penalties for offences tried in magistrates courts are determined in legislation and are related to the seriousness of each offence. Maximum penalties are reviewed as necessary. Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts.

  IBA
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current levels of remuneration and allowances paid to each member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority by name, including 104
  the chairman and deputy chairman; what were the levels before they were last increased; and whether he proposes to increase them.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following levels of remuneration apply:

  Current Level £

  Previous Level £

  Chairman

  39,200

  37,335

  Deputy Chairman

  10,085

  9,605

  National Members

  7,545

  7,185

  Other Members

  5,030

  4,790

  The current levels incorporate this year's Top Salaries Review Body's recommended increase of 5 per cent.

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current levels of remuneration and allowances paid to each member of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, including the chairman and deputy chairman; what were the levels before they were last increased; and what proposals he has for increasing them.

  Mr. Waddington
  The following levels of remuneration apply in relation to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC):

  Chairman

  Member

  With effect from 1 October 1988

  £23,875 for 3 days per week

  £4,790 for 1 day per week

  With effect from 1 April 1989

  £25,070 for 3 days per week

  £7,545 for 1½ days per week

  There is no deputy chairman of the BCC. We have no plans at this stage to increase these salary levels. They are subject to review by the Top Salaries Review Body.

  UHF Channel
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received an assessment of the technical feasibility of a sixth ultra high frequency channel; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  As my noble Friend Lord Young of Graffham announced in another place on 27 April at c. 1403 in response to a question from Lord Mowbray and Stourton:"Paragraph 5.7 of the Government's White Paper Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality stated:
  'In the longer term, a sixth network at UHF covering up to 50 per cent. of the population might be feasible. But this has not yet been studied in detail, and the cost and interference implications could be significant. Further study is also needed of the implications for existing users of the spectrum involved. The Government has put these studies in hand.'
  After careful consideration of the results of the technical feasibility studies carried out so far, the Government have decided not to pursue the studies further for the foreseeable future.
  The studies show that the best prospects of achieving a sixth terrestrial UHF television network (Channel 6) lie in making a more intensive use of the 44 channels currently used to provide the four existing UHF services. However, if off-air reception of the four existing UHF services is to remain intact, Channel 6 would be unable to achieve more than about 17 per cent. coverage of United Kingdom households and there would, for example, be no coverage at all of the London area. The technical studies have shown that it might be possible to extend Channel 6 coverage to as much as 40 per cent. of United Kingdom households; but the price would be that perhaps 20,000 viewers in up to 10 areas (mainly in London and the North West) would lose the ability to receive off-air one of the four existing UHF services. The Channel 6 franchisee could of course be required to restore the lost service by cable or some other means to those viewers, who would also generally be unable to recive off-air either Channel 5 or Channel 6.
  There would however be other adverse consequences. These would include the virtual abandonment of the programme to instal some 200 further relay transmitters to bring the four existing UHF services to many of the 350,000 people who are still unable to receive them. Additionally, because the BBC and the independent television programme companies currently make as much use as they can of the remaining 'spare capacity' within the 44 channels to accommodate some of their programme-making requirements, the loss of this capacity to Channel 6 would create a major problem in finding suitable alternative spectrum for the programme-making activities (including outside broadcasts) of the broadcasters, at a time when spectrum for these purposes is at a premium to meet the needs of the new wave of satellite and other broadcasters. A further disadvantage is that most viewers would need to instal a third UHF aerial to receive Channel 6.
  Substantial further study would now be needed to take this work further forward. The Government have taken the view on a careful analysis of the studies so far that the very considerable costs and penalties attached to TV6 on this basis are simply not justified by such a limited result, especially at a time when there is the promise of a considerable proliferation of new television networks-satellite, local cable/MVDS, and Channel 5. If we wished to preserve the options on Channel 6 until the picture on other new services has become clearer, the present moratorium on the building of additional relay transmitters, which has now been in force for some 18 months, would need to be extended for perhaps several more years. This would almost certainly spell the end of the programme to extend progressively the UHF network to cover those who are at present unserved, or inadequately served, by it. We do not regard this as an acceptable consequence, and we have agreed that the moratorium should now be lifted.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the DNA testing scheme will become fully available to applicants wishing to join their families in the United Kingdom; what will be the cost of each test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The results of privately commissioned DNA tests have been accepted as proof of relationship in immigration cases for some time. The Government's intention to introduce DNA testing into the entry clearance process was announced earlier this year. It was made clear that the DNA scheme will not be centrally funded, but also that we will seek to avoid imposing too great a burden on individual applicants. We will make a further announcement about the implementation of the Government scheme when the necessary arrangements have been completed.

  Pornography
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require shops wishing to sell pornography to obtain a licence from a local authority in a process open to representations from the general public.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer the hon. Member to section 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which enables a local authority to adopt the provisions of schedule 3 to the Act for the control in its area of sex cinemas and sex shops.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department or any organisation responsible to him monitors the contents of pornographic material available in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Department keeps closely in touch with the Metropolitan police's obscene publications branch, the Crown prosecution service, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, all of which have information on pornographic material. The British Board of Film Classification, whose officers have responsibilities under the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Broadcasting Standards Council are other sources of information.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long the waiting list is of applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what has been the length of the waiting list in each of the past five years;

  (2) how many applications are currently before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what has been the figure over each of the past five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of applications awaiting resolution at 31 October 1989 was 95,294. The number of applications awaiting resolution at the end of each of the last five financial years is given in the table.

  Number

  1984–85

  41,800

  1985–86

  51,500

  1986–87

  64,000

  107

  Number

  1987–88

  78,000

  1988–89

  82,000

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been decided within 12 months by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years; and whether, in dealing with such cases any distinction is made between cases which are straightforward and cases which are not.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not keep information on the number of cases resolved within 12 months of receipt. The board's annual reports record the percentage of cases submitted to a single member of the board within time bands of registration. The percentage of cases dealt with in this way within 12 months of registration is given in the table for each of the last five years.

  Each application is dealt with on its own merits. The time taken to resolve a claim will normally depend on the seriousness of the injury, the prognosis and the number and nature of inquiries necessary to assess compensation. Priority is given to claims from the bereaved, the elderly, the young and cases of severe injury.

  Percentage of cases submitted to a single member within 12 months of registration

  Year

  Per cent.

  1984–85

  74·5

  1985–86

  69·6

  1986–87

  49·8

  1987–88

  30·8

  1988–89

  26·9

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total financial resource allocated to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years; what is the average expenditure on an inquiry; whether he has any plans to increase the funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The average cost of resolving a claim at single member stage on the papers is £152, and by oral hearing £537. Total expenditure on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last five years in given in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1984–85

  39·5

  1985–86

  45·8

  1986–87

  52·9

  1987–88

  58·9

  1988–89

  77·5

  The Government's expenditure plans for future years will be published in the next public expenditure White Paper.

  Litter
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of the cases brought under the Litter Act, during the most recent period for which statistics are available, the prosecution was successful;

  (2) what was the average fine imposed under the Litter Act during the most recent period for which statistics are available.
  108
  Mr. John Patten
  The latest figures are for 1988 which show that for England and Wales there were 1,762 prosecutions under the Litter Act 1983. Of those 1,607 (91 per cent.) were found guilty. The average fine imposed under this Act was £40.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether magistrates receive training on the details of the Act relating to littering and guidance as to the appropriate level of fines to be levied.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Magistrates receive advice from their clerk on the details of the Act, the range of penalties available for particular offences, and any guidance relevant to the choice of penalty provided by the law or by decisions of the superior courts.

  Broadcasting
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy for allowing freedom to programme makers who adhere to standards of decency.

  Mr. Waddington
  Programme makers have freedom to choose their material within the statutory framework for broadcasting, part of which makes it clear that broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that nothing is included in their programmes which offends against good taste and decency.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy for ensuring that there are proper controls over broadcasts.

  Mr. Waddington
  Controls are in place through the Broadcasting Act 1981 in the case of independent television and radio, through the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 in the case of cable and satellite broadcasting, and in the case of services provided by the BBC through its royal charter, licence and agreement. In addition, the Government propose in the Broadcasting Bill to put the Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory footing.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on access to broadcasting by Christian organisations.

  Mr. Waddington
  We are proposing that religious groups, including Christian groups, should be allowed to run independent radio stations provided that they observe the content requirements envisaged in paragraph 7.7 of the Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities" (February 1987, Cm. 92).

  Religious groups will continue to be disqualified from holding licences to run television services. But there is no reason why programmes dealing with religious matters should not continue to be broadcast and indeed proliferate on television, subject to their observing the content requirements set out in paragraph 6.10 of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" (November 1988, Cm. 517).

  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has reveived from organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland about the Government's proposed Broadcasting Bill.
  109
  Mr. Waddington
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) placed in the Library on 21 April a list of the main organisations which submitted comments on the White Paper (as indicated in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) at column 342). A number of these submissions were from organisations in Northern Ireland. In addition, a number of comments have been received from viewers and listeners in Northern Ireland.

  Immigration
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ease the travel restrictions on those resident in the United Kingdom with indefinite leave of stay here, who wish to travel within the EEC; and what representations he has made to fellow EEC members on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Assuming that the reference is to non-EC nationals, the position is that no steps have been taken or representations made with a view to easing travel restrictions because none of the relevant EC law is designed to benefit resident non-EC nationals per se. However, if it is intended to refer to particular cases of difficulty in which it is thought the Government have a locus, I would of course be glad to look into detailed circumstances further should the right hon. Member wish to write.

  Telephone Chat-lines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban telephone chat-lines.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  On 17 November, the Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, announced new controls on multiline and one-to-one services provided over British Telecom's network. From 8 December, when the controls come into effect, such services can be provided only in accordance with a code of practice acceptable to the Director General or if granted a specific exemption. No such codes have yet been recognised for these purposes.

  In the light of this announcement, I have no intention of meeting the Director General or of considering the introduction of legislation on this subject.

SCOTLAND

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres in Scotland currently under restriction owing to the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sixty-nine farms, approximately 66,000 sheep and about 66,000 acres are currently subject to restrictions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure he has incurred in compensation for farmers as a result of the Chernobyl accident for each year since 1986 in Scotland.
  110
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Payments in Scotland have been as follows:

  £

  1986

  1,132,901

  1987

  403,610

  1988

  143,718

  11989

  103,108

  1 To the end of October.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the draft scheme of members' allowances to be applied to local authority members in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations have been received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and several individuals. The main points raised related to the overall quantum and cash limit on local authorities, the abolition of financial loss allowance for councillors, the possible banding of the levels of allowance for Scottish local authorities by population and provision of special responsibility allowances for minority groups.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special provisions he is considering to take account of the special needs of councillors in rural areas in the scheme of members' allowances in local government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Councillors in rural areas who have to travel long distances in the course of their duties will be able to claim travel and subsistence allowances as before.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the detailed conclusions on the scheme of members' allowances to be applied to local authority members in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The details of the new scheme will be the subject of further consultation with the local authority associations and decisions will be announced as soon as possible. The intention is that the new scheme will come into effect on 1 April 1990.

  Access to Personal Files Act
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make regulations under the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 on access to(a) housing records and (b) school records and further education records.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are currently examining the points made in consultation and expect to make regulations as soon as possible with a view to their coming into force in spring 1990. Regulations covering school and further education records will be made under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Haddock Quota
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the 1989 haddock quota has been exceeded; what is the extent to which quotas have been exceeded at
  111
  each port; when it first became clear that the local quotas had been exceeded and why action was not taken immediately to prevent excess fishing continuing by those who had exceeded their quotas; and what steps he intends taking to prevent this situation recurring.

  Mr. Lang
  Final information is not yet available on the exact level of the United Kingdom's landings of North sea haddock. The table shows the estimated level of overfishing by those groups excluded from the fishery

  Organisations

  Allocation (tonnes)

  Catch known at 11 November(tonnes)

  Catch as a percentage of allocation

  Date of withdrawal of licences

  Scottish Fishermen's Organisation

  18,252

  18,791

  103

  7 October

  North East of Scotland Fishermen's Organisation

  13,090

  13,790

  105

  7 October

  Shetland Fish Producers Organisation

  2,602

  2,680

  101

  4 November

  Fish Producers Organisation

  879

  954

  109

  13 September

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the composition of the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited; what representations he has received regarding the delay in making the announcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 27 October 1989 (Hansard Vol. 158 Col. 456). No representations have been received suggesting that there has been unreasonable delay in making an announcement. It is important that the widest possible range of experience, expertise and local knowledge is reflected in the board's membership.

  Universities
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the extent of rate relief that each Scottish university can expect to receive in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From 1 April 1990 universities in Scotland, like those in England and Wales, will benefit from the same 80 per cent. relief from rates which is to be extended to other charitable organisations. The relevant rating authority in each case will have discretion to increase this relief to up to 100 per cent. The benefit in cash terms to each university will not be known until the valuation roll containing the rateable values to apply from 1 April 1990 is published on 15 February.

  Forestry
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will consider introducing a procedure of inquiry in principle, where appropriate, in relation to streamlining Forestry Commission activities;

  (2) if he will consider the introduction of a maintenance grant linked to five-year plans of operation for forestry management purposes;

  (3) if he will make arrangements so that grants in relation to the woodlands grant scheme are henceforth based on the total area of the approved unit of forest land applied for;
  112
  before the complete closure. In all cases the exclusions took effect before recorded landings had reached the level of the allocation made to each of the groups concerned. As part of the normal arrangements for distributing internally the United Kingdom's quotas those groups disadvantaged by this year's closure will be compensated next year with correspondingly increased quotas. It is estimated that 85 per cent. of the allocation untaken as a result of the total closure of the fishery is attributable to vessels based in Scotland.

  (4) if he will take immediate steps to introduce a grant towards forest road construction to enable better access to inaccessible areas;

  (5) if he will take steps to increase the better land supplement to £400 per hectare.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All these aspects of the Government's support arrangements for forestry were covered in the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain's paper "Options for British Forestry", a copy of which was sent recently to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government will consider the recommendations contained in that paper and will respond to the committee in due course.

  Nairn Bypass
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects a bypass to be constructed around the town of Nairn.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At present there are no immediate proposals for a Nairn bypass. Nairn is predominantly an end destination and the volume of through traffic on the A96 is insufficient to justify provision of a bypass.

  There are, however, plans for a major scheme to build a new Nairn railway bridge which will include improvements to the layout of the junction of the A96 and A939, provide a new alignment under the railway and considerably ease traffic flow at the east end of the town.

DEFENCE

  War Widows
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the net annual cost to the Exchequer if the war widows' pension for pre-1973 war widows were to be placed on the same level as applies to post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The standard rate of war widows pension paid by the Department of Social Security is the same regardless of when the husband served or died. Differences arise in the total benefits received by war widows for a number of reasons, such as their eligibility for awards under the provisions of the occupational scheme for the armed forces, the date of the award under the
  113
  scheme, and eligibility for other pensions or income-related benefits. It has been estimated that the cost of awarding an attributable family pension under the armed forces occupational pension scheme, at current rates, to all service widows who are ineligible for such an award but who receive a war widows pension under the DSS scheme, would be around £200 million a year. That is an approximate cost. Production of a refined net cost would require a detailed assessment of the personal circumstances of every war widow who would be affected.

  SS21 Missile
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the number of SS21 missile launchers that were deployed by the USSR when Mr. Gorbachev came to office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1985, the year in which Mr. Gorbachev took office, we currently estimate that the USSR deployed in the region of 90 SS21 missile launchers.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the range of the SS21 missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The range of the SS21 is estimated to be approximately 90 km.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the proportion of time during which at least one Trident submarine could not he guaranteed to be on station if only three Trident submarines were procured.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am unable for reasons of security to give details of my Department's assessment. However, I can say that a three-submarine force could not guarantee the presence of at least one submarine on station at all times. Continuity of operations is essential to the maintenance of a credible strategic deterrent, and has been our policy throughout the life of the Polaris force. It follows, therefore, that the planned Trident force must comprise four submarines if an effective deterrent is to be maintained.

  Soviet Short-Range Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basis upon which his Department has calculated that 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range systems have been modernised.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to give details of the sources and methods used to make such estimates.

  Destroyers and Frigates
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all the destroyers and frigates in table 1 are declared to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, pursuant to the information provided by his Department to the Defence Select Committee, 6th report, Session 1988–89, HC 419, page vii, table 1.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 November 1989, at column 482.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether figures for the United Kingdom's defence equipment holdings have been made publicly available prior to publication in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation publication, "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", dated November 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his Department's practice to publish the United Kingdom's equipment holdings, as set out in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation publication, "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", in subsequent editions of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no current plans to do so. The annual Statements on the Defence Estimates already contain extensive information on United Kingdom forces.

  BAOR
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has made any assessment as to the likely effects on the British Army of the Rhine of the use of nuclear artillery shells by United Kingdom forces against WTO forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 6 November at column 482.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the figures for combat aircraft in the statement on the defence estimates 1989 include air defence fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, training aircraft and electronic counter-measure aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As explained in footnotes, the figures for combat aircraft in figures 8 and 9 of chapter 6 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 include fighters, fighter-bombers, light and medium bombers, reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft, but exclude combat capable trainers. Figure 11 covers the same types of aircraft, except that the Warsaw pact calculation of the ratio of aircraft (shown in the right-hand column) also includes naval aircraft.

  Tornado
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Tornado aircraft is a longer-range intermediate nuclear force or shorter-range intermediate nuclear force capable aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to figure 12 in volume I of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm. 675—I).

  Malawi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aid his Department supplied to the Government of Malawi since 1979.
  115
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Minister of Defence does not provide aid as such. However, in recent years the British Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have given limited assistance to the Malawian army in the form of military training and gifts of non-lethal defence equipment. It is not our practice to disclose the cost of such assistance to individual countries.

WALES

  Housing (Disabled and Elderly)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has plans to encourage Welsh local authorities to build houses in their areas especially for single disabled and elderly people.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is for local authorities to determine how best to use the resources available to them, taking account of local needs and seeking to maximise value for money. Generally, local authorities should seek to achieve this by, for example, entering into partnership arrangements with the voluntary and private sectors to meet all aspects of their housing need.

  National Museum (Admission Charges)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the fall in attendance at the National Museum of Wales following the introduction of admission charges.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 6 November 1989, Vol. 159, c.444–45.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres in Wales currently under restriction owing to the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Approximately 416 holdings, 300,000 sheep and 210,000 acres.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure he has incurred in compensation for farmers as a result of the Chernobyl accident for each year since 1986 in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Payments have been as follows:

  £

  1986

  1,830,887

  1987

  1,416,812

  1988

  573,825

  11989

  349,960

  1 To the end October

  Sheep
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to assist the sheep industry within the hill areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The sheep industry in the hill areas of Wales benefits directly from a number of measures,116
  including the hill livestock compensatory allowances, the sheep annual premium and the sheep variable premium. In addition, the farm and conservation grant scheme provides assistance to improve the efficiency and structure of the industry.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have frequent meetings with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss matters relating to the whole range of the agency's activities.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to require that the sale of shares in Welsh Water is dealt with through an address in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has made any orders under section 111 of the Water Act relating to water protection measures;

  (2) if he will introduce measures under section 111 of the Water Act empowering the National Rivers Authority to issue consents in respect of potentially hazardous material stored alongside or in proximity to water courses in the valleys of the south Wales coalfield.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  No. It is for the National Rivers Authority or a water undertaker to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if they consider it necessary to restrict particular activities likely to result in the pollution of water.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many male(a) employees and (b) self-employed and female (i) full and (ii) part-time were in employment in Wales on the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In June 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the position is shown in the following table:

  '000s

  Males Employees in

  Females Employees in Employment1

  Employment1

  Self Employed2

  Full-time

  Part-time

  517

  111

  251

  197

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Quarterly estimate series.

  2 Based on Annual Labour Force Survey and decennial Census of Population.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will require the National Rivers Authority to review the effectiveness of its communications and emergency planning systems with the emergency services;
  117
  (2) if he will seek an urgent meeting with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss its response to the recent pollution incident in the Rhymney river;

  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that the National Rivers Authority implements a programme of re-stocking of the Rhymney river to replace fish stocks lost during the recent pollution incident;

  (4) what information he has about the extent of pollution of the Rhymney river following an incident on 17 November; what were the numbers and species of fish killed; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what information he has about the loss of or damage to the fauna and flora of the Rhymney river, other than fish life, following the recent pollution incident.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The pollution incident on 17 November affected approximately 20 km of the River Rhymney between New Tredegar and Machen. The National Rivers Authority estimates that some 20,000 fish were killed, the majority of which were brown and juvenile sea trout but some grayling and small numbers of juvenile salmon, roach, chub, rainbow trout, pike, adult salmon and sea trout were also affected. There is no discernable evidence of damage of the flora or other fauna of the river. The authority proposes to commence a restocking programme early in 1990.

  The NRA will be producing a full report on the incident which will be copied to me. The Welsh region of the Authority has a formal procedure for continually reviewing the effectiveness of its communications and emergency planning systems.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the upper limit and the lower limit, respectively, on the proportion of shares in Welsh Water which will be sold only to Welsh people in the current share flotation;

  (2) what is the upper limit and the lower limit, respectively, on the proportion of shares in Welsh Water which are being made available to foreign investors;

  (3) what is the upper limit and the lower limit, respectively, on the proportion of shares in Welsh Water which will be sold only to British people.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Initially 18·5 per cent. of the total offer is being made available to overseas investors. If there is a heavy demand for shares by members of the public a clawback provision allows for 25 per cent. of the shares available under the overseas offer to be made available to the public.

  Under the United Kingdom offer for sale 23·55 per cent. of the ordinary share capital is being made available to the general public (including eligible customers, employees and pensioners of the company). A further 3

  Number of dwellings with certain characteristics

  Wales

  Gwent

  Newport

  Characteristic

  1981

  1986

  1981

  1986

  1986

  Unfit

  90,900

  79,900

  17,000

  8,800

  1,300

  Threshold repair cost1

  243,900

  123,600

  30,700

  14,700

  1,700

  Lacking inside we

  55,000

  19,600

  6,100

  2,100

  400

  Lacking fixed bath or shower

  44,300

  14,900

  4,800

  2,000

  400

  1Threshold figures for repair costs are £2,500 and £.3,000 in 1981 and 1986 respectively.

  Since 1986, a substantial additional renovation has been carried out with grant assistance: the total numbers
  118
  per cent. is reserved to meet share bonus entitlements and applications from eligible employees under the free and matching offers. If both the overseas and the institutional clawbacks are triggered, 46·875 per cent. of the ordinary share capital is available to the general public.

  Eligible customers of Welsh Water who apply for shares in the company will be able to indicate whether they wish to receive customer bonus shares or a customer discount if their application is successful. It is for individuals, including those who are Welsh, to decide for themselves whether or not to buy shares.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the £62 million cost of the present water flotation will fall to met by Welsh Water plc.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The prospectus for the water share offers which has been placed in the Library discloses that Welsh Water estimates that the expenses attributable and incidental to the Welsh combined offer will amount to £5 million (exclusive of VAT).

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what protections are built into the flotation process for Welsh Water to guard against foreign takeover; and what guarantees exist to ensure these protections have long-term effect.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will hold a special share in Welsh Water which will empower me to prevent anyone from owning more than 15 per cent. of the shares in Welsh Water plc in the period up to 31 December 1994. Following the redemption of the special share the 15 per cent. limitation on shareholding will remain unless it is removed by a vote of 75 per cent. of shareholders in a special resolution.

  Housing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many houses in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport are classified as unfit to live in at the latest available date;

  (2) how many houses in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport are seriously in need of repair at the latest available date;

  (3) how many houses in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport lack (i) an inside toilet and (ii) a fixed bath at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Estimates from the 1986 Welsh house condition survey are given in the table together with the available comparative data on the significant improvement achieved since 1981. The data relate only to dwellings used as first homes.

  of dwellings renovated in Wales, Gwent and Newport since October 1986 are 53,900, 8,800 and 1,500 respectively.
  119
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many housing completions there were in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport in 1979; and what is the next recent figure;

  (2) how many housing starts there were in 1979 in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport; and what is the most recent figure.

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

  Housing Starts

  Housing Completions

  1979

  1988

  1979

  1988

  Newport

  432

  456

  594

  646

  Gwent

  1,485

  1,589

  1,575

  1,601

  WALES

  11,426

  13,037

  11,265

  11,037

CIVIL SERVICE

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet representatives of the Civil Service trade unions to discuss staffing levels.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to meet Civil Service trade unions to discuss conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

  Management Training
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to promote management training in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Management development programmes are available to all levels of managers in the Civil Service. The top management programme, a six-week course with equal numbers of civil servants and non-civil servants, caters for all those newly promoted to grade 3 (under-secretary). The senior management development programme, a scheme involving a wide range of developmental opportunities, provides a framework for the systematic development of managers at grades 4 to 7 (broadly, assistant secretary to principal). A wide range of other opportunities is available to more junior managers. The Civil Service College provides high quality management training for senior and developmental grades.

  In their response to the first report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on Next Steps, the Government announced an incentive funding scheme designed to encourage Departments to increase their investment in training and development carried out as part of the senior mangement development programme. I am pleased to say that Departments and agencies have risen to the challenge, and this scheme has been responsible for considerable additional investment in these key management grades. I am delighted to announce that £1 million has been made available for continuing the challenge funding scheme in 1990–91.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Civil Service jobs have been moved from London to other areas in each of the past three years; what steps have been taken to ensure that these operations have given satisfactory results to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Comprehensive data for the period in question is not held centrally. However, we can confirm that since April 1986 more than 4,000 Civil Service posts have been located or relocated away from London. The relocation guidelines (copy available in the Library of the House) require relocating departments to ensure that operational efficiency and overall cost effectiveness are taken into proper account in their decisions, which are announced by the relevant departmental Minister.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the total income from the selling into the private sector of state-owned industries and companies since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The net proceeds from privatisation since May 1979 to date amount to some .£27½ billion.

  Company Borrowing
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss company borrowing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the Governor from time to time to discuss matters of current interest.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects interest rates to fall.

  Mr. Ryder
  Interest rates will be kept as high as is needed for as long as is needed to bring down inflation.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of high interest rates on the number of unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The current level of interest rates is designed to bring down inflation. High inflation is the greatest threat to jobs.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many business start-ups there were during the latest quarter for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the calendar year 1988, the latest for which official figures have been published by the
  121
  Employment Department, the net increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT was 64,000, an average of over 1,200 a week, the highest recorded level. This compares with an average weekly increase of around 800 a week in 1987.

  Manufacturing, East Midlands
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing output in the east midlands has changed in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information is not available. Constant price estimates are not made because there are no regional price indices.

  Investment
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest available figures for inward investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest information on the level of direct investment in the United Kingdom by overseas residents was published in British Business of 29 September 1989. Table 9.1 of the 1989 United Kingdom balance of payments (Pink Book) contains the latest information on the level of portfolio investment in the United Kingdom by overseas residents.

  Banking and Currency
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to discuss with the European Community the development of a free market in banking and currency.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government are fully committed to the European single market after 1992. Financial services legislation will form a major part of the measures introduced to secure the single market and many of these have already been agreed or are under active consideration. In the banking field, the Council agreed a common position text for the second banking co-ordination directive and the associated solvency ratios directive in July. These directives, together with the own funds directive, which was formally adopted in April 1989, make up a package of measures which are intended to secure a single market in banking. Briefly, these measures will provide credit institutions (largely banks and building societies in the United Kingdom) which are authorised in one member state with a "passport" to offer banking services throughout the Community without the need of further authorisation. Further information can be obtained from the DTI booklet "The Single Market: Financial Services" published in September 1989, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The Council adopted the capital liberalisation directive on 24 June 1988 which provides for the free movement of capital across the Community. Remaining exchange controls in most member states are due to be abolished from 1 July 1990; but Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal have until the end of 1992 to comply with all its terms (with the possibility of a further extension for three years in Greece and Portugal). The Government strongly support the removal of exchange controls in the community: this is essential for the development of a single market. The United Kingdom abolished all exchange controls in 1979.
  122
  The United Kingdom's response to the Delors report "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union", also proposes lifting further restrictions on the use of Community currencies and removing barriers to the use of cheaper and more efficient means of payment.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out general Government expenditure by his Department for the years 1974–75 to 1983–84, in cash and real terms, consistent with the figures for 1984–85 to 1992–93 that are set out in tables 3 and 4 of the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  Figures for central Government's own expenditure by my Departments in the years 1978–79 o 1983–84 consistent with those given in tables 3 and 4 of the 1989 Autumn Statement public expenditure press notice are as follows:

  £ billion

  Cash figures

  Real terms figures (1988–89 prices)

  1978–79

  1·5

  3·2

  1979–80

  1·7

  3·3

  1980–81

  2·0

  3·2

  1981–82

  2·5

  3·6

  1982–83

  2·7

  3·6

  1983–84

  2·5

  3·3

  Corresponding figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual balance of trade deficit or surplus for each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in each year of the 1980s.

  Mr. Ryder
  A trade balance series for each OECD country is published by the IMF in "International Financial Statistics Yearbook".

  Inflation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of inflation at the end of March in each year of the 1980s in each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  Monthly figures for the 12-month growth in consumer price inflation for each OECD country have been published by the OECD throughout the 1980s in the monthly publication "Main Economic Indicators".

THE ARTS

  Funding
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what will be the rate of increase of Government support for the arts over the next three years.

  Mr. Luce
  The central Government programme of expenditure on the arts will increase by 24 per cent. over the next three years at an average rate of 7·5 per cent. per year.
  123
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by what percentage the funding of his Department will increase in 1990–91 over 1989–90.

  Mr. Luce
  By 12·5 per cent.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to what proportion of money for the arts announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement will be applied to(a) arts for the disabled, (b) arts for young people and (c) arts in the community.

  Mr. Luce
  The proportion of my Office's expenditure programme which are devoted to the causes described are not determined centrally. However, the institutions funded from the arts programme are aware of the needs of the disabled, etc and are free to give such support within their individual priorities. I was pleased to be able to announce a grant of £150,000 to the Carnegie trust ADAPT fund to improve the accessibility of arts venues to the disabled.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what are the increases for the next three years in the funding of the Arts Council.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a further statement on the increased budget for arts funding announced in the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement as to the allocation of funding to the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to say that I have received a number of letters of appreciation from chairmen and directors of institutions which have benefited from the revised allocations I was able to announce on 16 November.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following his statement of support for the Arts Council and other arts funding bodies for 1990–91 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received many representations thanking the Government for the substantial increase in arts funding which I announced on 16 November.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on three-year funding.

  Mr. Luce
  My aim in introducing three-year funding has been to give arts bodies a firm basis for their future planning and to encourage greater self-reliance and diversification of funding. This has involved the introduction of new measures, notably incentive funding for the performing arts and for libraries, and major increases in funding for the buildings and maintenance programme of the museums and galleries. I am very pleased at the success of the three-year strategy and congratulate arts and organisations on their achievements in diversifying and increasing their sources of funding from the private sector, and on becoming more professional in their management in recent years.

  On 16 November I announced that following a review of the provisions made in last year's three-year settlement for 1990–91 and 1991–92, in the light of price movements
  124
  and other developments. I was increasing those provisions by £33 million in each year. I was also pleased to announce an extension of the three-year funding programme to 1992–93, with an increase of 24 per cent. over that period.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, whether he will make a statement on the budget of the Office of Arts and Libraries for the next three years.

  Mr. Luce
  My Office's total central Government programme of expenditure on the arts, including provision for the heritage and for the British Library St. Pancras project, will rise from £439 million in the current year to £544 million in 1992–93, an increase of 24 per cent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the priority requests from the directors of the national museums and galleries have been met in his allocation of funds over the coming three years.

  Mr. Luce
  In the funding announcement that I made on 16 November I have taken account of the priorities detailed in the corporate plans of the national museums and galleries submitted to us earlier this year, especially on running costs, buildings, and maintenance and the conservation of collections. Over the period 1990–91 to 1992–93 expenditure on national museums and galleries will rise by 25 per cent. overall, and there will be an extra 34 per cent. for building and maintenance in the same period.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman and director of East Midlands Arts to discuss the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not yet done so.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what timetable he is envisaging for his response to the Wilding report on regional arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I hope to announce my decision on Mr. Wilding's recommendations as soon as possible in the new year.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman and director of North West Arts to discuss the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not done so, but I plan that such a meeting should take place in the near future.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to meet the chairman and director of the Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts Association to discuss the implications of the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I have asked for written representations but will, of course, be prepared to see the chairman and director if they wish.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the proposals in the Wilding report from arts organisations and local authorities in the east midlands.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations from such bodies.

  Inflation
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the effect of inflation on arts bodies over the past two years.

  Mr. Luce
  The settlement I announced recently for the next three years has taken into account levels of inflation in the last two years.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the increase over the next two years in the grant to the Arts Council.

  Mr. James Couchman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, what are the increases for the next three years in the funding of the Arts Council.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) earlier today.

  Museums and Galleries (Repairs)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to meet the need for the repair and refurbishment of museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced on 16 November that the provision for the building and maintenance programme at the national museums and galleries which I sponsor will increase by 34 per cent. to some £64 million in 1992–93. This will bring the total provision for building and maintenance over the next three years to over £180 million.

  Southern Arts
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what benefits there will he for Southern Arts as a result of the increased expenditure for the arts announced in the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the Arts Council to determine the level of its grant to the 12 regional arts associations. In 1990–91 these will increase by 10 per cent. in total. I am confident that this will enable all the RAAs to build on their excellent achievements of recent years.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implications for his Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to my announcement on 16 November about the new three-year arts programme, which followed directly on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement and the public expenditure programmes it contained. My new programme allows for growth on 24 per cent. over the years to 1992–93.

  "Supporting the Arts"
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the proposed national touring board referred to in "Supporting the Arts".

  Mr. Luce
  This is one of a large number of recommendations that Mr. Wilding makes in his report. I shall not be reaching decisions about any part of the report until after the end of the consultation period.

  Purchase Grants
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consideration he is giving to increasing the purchase grants of the national museums and galleries and the National Heritage memorial fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The increase in the grants for the national museums and galleries that I announced on 16 November were directed to the institutions' own priorities of running costs and building maintenance. Purchase grants were not increased but I shall be discussing with the institutions concerned whether there is now scope for adjusting the balance of their budgets to allow additional expenditure on purchases.

  The grant to the national heritage memorial fund is being maintained at £3 million a year for the time being, with equal shares being provided by my Department and by that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The requirements of the fund for 1991–92 onwards will be the subject of separate consideration.

  Achievements
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the Government's achievements in the arts since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government's achievements in the arts since 1979 have been both numerous and varied. Among the most important, I would list:The maintenance of central Government support for arts activities, and the introduction of measures to encourage greater self-reliance among arts institutions.
  The establishment of a three-year programme of funding for the arts.
  The introduction of corporate planning for the national museums and galleries and other non-departmental bodies, linked to the three-year funding programme.
  The national museums and galleries being given greater control over their affairs by the move to grant-in-aid funding, and by their being untied from the Property Services Agency.
  The major expansion schemes at some national museums and galleries, including the Clore gallery at the Tate, the new Tate gallery in Liverpool, and the re-development of the new Imperial War museum.
  The Government's support for the development strategies designed to give the regions a larger share of arts spending and facilities.
  The significant upsurge in, and continued success of, business sponsorship of the arts.
  The new marketing initiatives to encourage arts bodies to market themselves more professionally and to increase access to the arts.
  The creation of the national heritage memorial fund.
  The development of incentive funding schemes for the performing arts and for public libraries, designed to encourage subsidised bodies to become more self-reliant in their development and growth.
  The setting up and implementation of the pubic lending right scheme.
  The very substantial progress with the British Library's St. Pancras project which will bring together most of the library's London-based collections and reading rooms on a single site, and provide much-improved facilities.

  Towngate Theatre, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last visited the Towngate theatre in Basildon to discuss funding for the dramatic arts.

  Mr. Luce
  I last visited the Towngate theatre on 13 April 1988 just prior to its opening.

  Spending
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the current level of expenditure per capita on the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  The central Government programme of expenditure on the arts administered by my Office represents £9 per capita in England in the current financial year. This is of course a small fraction of the total spending on the arts throughout the country by local authorities, independent organisations and individuals themselves.

  Admissions
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the current level of admissions to national galleries and museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that in 1988 the total number of visitors to the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible, including their outstations, was 20,571,119.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has assessed the extent to which business sponsorship of the arts benefits innovative projects and small local arts bodies.

  Mr. Luce
  Under my incentive scheme business sponsors increasingly support innovative projects such as fringe theatre, local choirs and youth brass bands. Seventy per cent. of the awards go to groups based outside London. In addition, the business in the arts initiative, run by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, encourages local business communities to help with all manner of arts projects.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council, and what was discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon West, (Miss Nicholson).

  Grant Aid, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the value of grant aid for the arts provided for Devon in 1988; and which were the two organisations receiving the most funding.

  Mr. Luce
  South West Arts provided £386,000 for the arts in Devon in 1988–89 while the Arts Council directly funded organisations to the tune of £461.000. The Theatre Royal, Plymouth, and the Northcott theatre, Exeter, were the two organisations receiving the most funding.

  Royal Shakespeare Company
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he proposes to visit the Royal Shakespeare Company during its stay in Newcastle upon Tyne in February and March 1990.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so, but I welcome the company's regular visits to Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Rural Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage the development of museums and galleries in rural areas.

  Mr. Luce
  In my announcement of 16 November I increased the allocation to the Museums and Galleries Commission which supports the network of area museum councils. The area museum councils in turn assist with the development of local museums and galleries, including those in rural areas. The area museums service for south-eastern England, for example, is funding countywide consultancy groups, including one in Cambridgeshire, to improve local museum standards.

EMPLOYMENT

  Football Clubs (Safety Inspections)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many football clubs have been inspected by the Health and Safety Executive over the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the issue in May 1986 and July 1989 of the booklet "Payment on Time" to indicate the success or otherwise of a voluntary code of practice to tackle the problem of the late payment of bills.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received representations from a number of individuals and organisations following the publication of "Payment on Time" in 1986 and of "Prompt Payment Please" in 1988. These have been largely favourable and support the principle of voluntary arrangements to improve payment practice. I was very pleased that the top 100 companies were able to endorse the publication.

  Young People (Protection)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to protect young people while at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The health and safety of virtually all employees, regardless of age, is fully protected by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and its relevant statutory provisions. This includes young people on training courses designated under the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1989.

  YTS (Accidents)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatal, major and minor reportable accidents occurred on YTS for each quarter since I October 1988, and what these figures were by region and as a percentage of total YTS trainees in each region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The tables give the numbers of fatal, major and minor reportable accidents which occurred in

  Quarter 1 April 1989—30 June 1989

  Accidents1

  Region

  Numbers in training3

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  All accident rate/100,0003

  Scotland

  47,021

  1

  20

  97

  1,003

  Northern

  29,339

  1

  12

  89

  1,390

  North West

  58,260

  —

  30

  115

  995

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  44,209

  —

  12

  102

  1,031

  West Midlands

  42,309

  —

  16

  55

  671

  East Midlands and Eastern

  44,755

  —

  8

  34

  375

  Wales

  23,509

  —

  6

  55

  1,037

  South West

  28,785

  —

  9

  16

  347

  South East

  38,536

  —

  10

  30

  415

  London

  20,543

  —

  3

  6

  175

  Quarter 1 July 1989—30 September 1989

  Accidents1

  Region

  Numbers in training3

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  All accident rate/100,0003

  Scotland

  49,494

  —

  30

  89

  961

  Northern

  31,640

  —

  11

  99

  1,390

  North West

  62,904

  —

  22

  142

  1,042

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  48,035

  —

  21

  85

  882

  West Midlands

  45,629

  —

  13

  70

  727

  East Midlands and Eastern

  48,358

  —

  15

  55

  579

  Wales

  24,514

  —

  9

  47

  913

  South West

  30,966

  —

  4

  30

  439

  South East

  40,021

  —

  10

  29

  389

  London

  20,887

  —

  4

  8

  229

  Quarter: 1 October 1988 to 31 December 1988

  Numbers in training3

  Accidents: 1

  All accident rate/100,000

  Region

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  Scotland

  48,679

  1

  22

  97

  986

  Northern

  32,587

  —

  14

  130

  1,767

  North West

  65,836

  1

  33

  116

  911

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  49,011

  1

  28

  101

  1,060

  West Midlands

  48,578

  —

  8

  73

  666

  East Midlands and Eastern

  50,346

  —

  24

  84

  858

  Wales

  25,297

  —

  8

  87

  1,502

  South West

  33,026

  —

  12

  44

  678

  South East

  44,151

  —

  14

  58

  652

  London

  22,571

  —

  1

  13

  248

  Quarter: 1 January 1989 to 30 March 1989

  Numbers in training3

  Accidents: 1

  All accident rate/100,000

  Region

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  Scotland

  49,454

  —

  15

  95

  889

  Northern

  30,633

  —

  17

  94

  1,449

  North West

  60,920

  —

  34

  123

  1,030

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  45,461

  —

  28

  123

  1,328

  West Midlands

  43,937

  1

  19

  103

  1,119

  East Midlands and Eastern

  46,888

  —

  16

  51

  571

  Wales

  23,880

  —

  8

  51

  988

  South West

  30,587

  —

  5

  30

  457

  South East

  40,278

  —

  6

  35

  407

  London

  21,242

  —

  2

  11

  244

  1 Training Agency figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to HSE had the individuals been employed. HSE information is also collected on

  130
  YTS for each quarter since 1 October 1988 by region. Accident rates are expressed as an annual rate per 100,000 trainees.

  Quarterly regional accident statistics vary markedly between regions and over time and should be interpreted with caution. The figures are subject to statistically random fluctuations, but are also heavily influenced by differences and changes in the occupational mix of training, in the administrative process of collecting the statistics, and other factors.
  131

  a different geographical basis.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR). These regulations which came into force on 1 April 1986 reclassified fractured wrists and ankles as major injuries which were not considered to be major under the previous regulations, the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR).

  3 These figures are provisional.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce further incentives in the near future to encourage firms to employ an increased percentage of disabled workers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Measures to encourage the employment of people with disabilities are among the matters being considered in the internal review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. A consultative document covering the conclusions reached in the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Retail Prices
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to develop indicators for retail prices, which take account of regional variations, including variations in housing costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The RPI already takes account of regional variations in housing costs and other prices since it is based on expenditure information and price quotations from every region, weighted together so as to give an appropriately balanced indicator for the United Kingdom as a whole. It has never been the practice to compile separate indicators for the different regions and I have no plans to do so.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Limit (Isle of Man)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place between his Department and the European Commission about the implications for European Community fisheries policy of a 12-mile fishing limit around the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  None. Common fisheries policy provisions already apply to the area which would be covered by an extended 12-mile limit and will continue to do so given our obligations under community treaties.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place between his Department and representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about a proposed 12-mile fishing limit around the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Curry
  None. The NFFO is, however, aware that given the provision in the Territorial Sea Act 1987 for a 12-mile territorial sea for the Isle of Man, Fisheries and other Departments are considering how this should be put into effect. The NFFO has been assured that any arrangement made would clearly have to safeguard the interests of all fishermen, and our Community obligations.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place 132
  between his Ministry and the Isle of Man authorities about a proposed 12-mile fishing limit around the Isle of Man; and what is the position of the Government.

  Mr. Curry
  Fisheries Departments have discussed with the Home Office and the Isle of Man authorities how the provision for a 12-mile territorial sea round the Isle of Man contained in the Territorial Sea Act 1987 might be implemented in relation to fishing. We are clear that it is necessary to safeguard the rights of all fishermen and our Community obligations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings he has had with the Isle if Man authorities over their proposals to impose a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are no proposals for a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing. What is being explored are arrangements for implementing the provision in the 1987 Territorial Sea Act for a 12-mile territorial sea for the Isle of Man. For fishing, these would have to safeguard the interests and traditional rights of all fishermen within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with fishermen's repesentatives over the proposals by the Isle of Man to impose a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing.

  Mr. Gummer
  None. There are no proposals for a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the proposals of the Isle of Man authorities to impose a 12-mile exclusion zone for United Kingdom fishermen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Isle of Man have made no proposals for a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing. Nor would the Government entertain any proposals which did not accommodate the traditional rights of all fishermen.

  Haddock Quota
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent English fishermen have been denied part of the 1989 haddock quota as a result of overfishing in Scotland; what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence; and what proposals he has to compensate the fishermen concerned by increasing their future quotas at the expense of those who overfished or otherwise.

  Mr. Curry
  Catches to 11 November (latest available) show that three Scottish groups and one English group exceeded their allocations by 1,257 tonnes and 75 tonnes respectively. As a result the following groups (which contain both English and Scottish members) were prevented from taking 1,172 tonnes of their allocations: Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd., the non-sectoral group, and the group comprising vessels of 10
  133
  metres and under. In addition two Scottish groups were unable to take their full allocations. Fisheries Departments have recently consulted the industry about arrangements for the 1990 fishery, and it was agreed that compensation should be available to groups disadvantaged by the overfishing of others. Fisheries Departments will continue to monitor uptake in 1990 and will withdraw licences from any group which they estimate has taken its allocation.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the pesticides/active ingredients for which he has withdrawn approval for each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Approvals for pesticide products containing the following active ingredients were revoked:

  1985

  bitertanol

  1988

  binapacryl

  chlordane (one remaining use which expires December 1992)

  cyhexatin

  dinoseb

  dinoseb-acetate

  dinoseb-amine

  dinoterb

  DNOC

  1989

  aldrin

  captafol

  dieldrin

  Milk
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contaminants for which milk is tested prior to sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Production and processing conditions are strictly regulated with a view to ensuring that contamination does not occur. In addition, the Milk Marketing Board tests raw milk to assess its bacterial quality and to detect antibiotic residues and similar tests are carried out by processing dairies. The Ministry prescribes bacteriological standards for the finished product and monitors milk for contaminants under its food surveillance programme.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres currently under restriction due to the radioactive contamination in England following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr Gummer
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  (a) 150 Cumbrian holdings.

  (b) With some 170,000 sheep (maximum post-lambing figure).

  (c) In a restricted area comprising some 116,000 acres.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure he has incurred in compensation for farmers as a result of the Chernobyl accident for each year since 1986 in England.
  134
  Mr. Gummer
  Payments in England have been as follows:

  £

  1986

  189,749

  1987

  212,402

  1988

  128,545

  11989

  53,842

  1 To end of October.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cattle found to have bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the age ranges (i) 0 to six months, (ii) seven to 12 months, (iii) 13 to 18 months, (iv) 19 months to two years, and (v) two years and over.

  Mr. Gummer
  The answer is as follows:

  (i) None.

  (ii) None.

  (iii) None.

  (iv) None.

  (v) All the 7,925 confirmed cases so far have been two years of age.

  State Veterinary Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reviews of the state veterinary service he has undertaken over the last 10 years, giving the year in which each review was carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Apart from the routine programme of staff inspections throughout the Department, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) has been the subject of two reviews since 1979. An efficiency study of the veterinary investigation service was carried out in 1984, followed by a review of the divisional organisation of the SVS in 1985. As an arm of the agricultural development and advisory service, the service was also considered in the review of ADAS organisation and management in June 1986.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what temperature requirements he imposes on rendering plants for the heating of animal material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Animal protein processors are subject to the requirements of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989. This does not contain specific temperature requirements but lays down controls which are designed to prevent the removal from processing plants of animal protein, for use as feedingstuffs, which is contaminated with salmonella.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are carried out for salmonella in chickens imported into the United Kingdom for breeding purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Chickens imported into Great Britain for breeding purposes undergo a serological test for salmonellosis when they reach 16 to 18 weeks of age, which is towards the end of the required post-import isolation
  135
  period. Imported chickens are also subject to the detailed bacteriological testing regime laid down by the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries (Registration and Testing) Order 1989.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European Community measures he is proposing to adopt to tackle the problem of salmonella in poultry foods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The European Commission is drafting proposed measures on salmonella which are expected to include controls on feedingstuffs. If agreed by the Council these would apply throughout the Community.

  Listeria (Milk)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will conduct an inquiry into the listeria contamination of milk.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials have been in touch with the industry about the Public Health Laboratory Service findings, which are provisional, and individual firms have taken action to deal with the very low levels of contamination detected.

  Malawi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what aid his Department supplies to the Government of Malawi either directly or through other agencies since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  Aid for Malawi is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. However, my Department plays an active role in the development of United Kingdom and EC measures, including in particular, those affecting trade in agricultural products, which are intended to provide benefits for developing countries, including Malawi.

  Lead-contaminated Feed
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of his Ministry's laboratories in England and Wales are currently involved in the food monitoring programme arising from the import of lead-contaminated animal feed; and if he will estimate by percentage of the total the amount of work carried out in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  Between 7 and 23 November inclusive, the following laboratories were engaged in the analysis of samples in connection with the food monitoring programme:

  Percentage allocation of work

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Aberdeen

  4

  Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton

  80

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional office, Leeds

  1

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food food science laboratory, Norwich

  11

  Plymouth polytechnic

  1

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell

  3

  Farmers' Retirement
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to stimulate a farmers' retirement scheme for introduction in appropriate areas, to encourage farmers to sell their land or part of it for forestry purposes.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans at present to introduce such a scheme.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress with nutritional labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 November 1989]: My reply of 24 November contained a typing error. I apologise to the hon. Member. The reply should have read:
  We are taking an active part in negotiation of the European Commission's nutrition labelling proposals and hope that a common position will be reached soon. The proposals are similar to the Ministry's nutrition labelling guidelines and provide for a voluntary system of nutrition labelling with a mandatory format so that consumers can compare products more easily. Nutrition labelling would be compulsory only when a nutrition claim was made. There is provision for a three-year lead-in period to allow labels to be changed and, given the close resemblance of the guidelines to the Commission proposals, I hope that manufacturers and retailers will be encouraged to provide as much nutrition information as possible within their resources according to the guidelines until Community legislation is in place.
  I also refer the hon. Member to the debate on nutritional labelling in Standing Committee on 1 November 1989 (ISBN 0 10 999789 1)

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women covered by Liverpool social security offices are receiving the pre-1973 rate for war widows' pensions.

  Mr. Newton
  Under the war pensions scheme administered by my Department, the basic pension paid to a war widow is the same regardless of when she was widowed. There are, however, extra payments to older widows, which will be further improved in real terms next April. It is estimated that about 2,000 war widows live in the Liverpool area.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about war widows' pensions.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received recently concerning the payment of pensions and other benefits to war widows.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a number of representations, mainly about the position of war widows who do not receive a pension under the armed forces pension scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Security what provision his Department makes for the support of war widows.
  137
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The standard war widows pension is £56·65 a week. In addition age allowances of £6·10 at 65, £12·20 at 70 and £13·50 at 80 are paid. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced, these amounts will be increased next April to £60·95, £7, £13·50 and £20 respectively. All war pensions and allowances are tax free. A widow receiving a war widows' pension may also receive any national insurance benefit earned by her own contributions. When claiming income-related benefits £5 of a war widows pension is disregarded. This statutory disregard will be doubled to £10 from next April.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the rate of refusal for(a) grants and (b) loans under the social fund for each month since April 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Refusals as a percentage of applications processed

  CCGs

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  April 1988

  54·5

  65·9

  17·1

  May 1988

  55·8

  41·1

  13·1

  June 1988

  55·7

  42·0

  11·8

  July 1988

  54·7

  42·1

  10·2

  August 1988

  54·6

  39·6

  10·3

  September 1988

  53·0

  40·0

  10·1

  October 1988

  52·1

  36·4

  10·0

  November 1988

  50·5

  35·1

  9·7

  December 1988

  48·0

  34·0

  10·2

  January 1989

  44·8

  44·0

  9·1

  February 1989

  44·5

  37·0

  9·2

  March 1989

  43·4

  37·0

  8·7

  April 1989

  52·6

  41·3

  9·2

  May 1989

  55·3

  42·2

  9·5

  June 1989

  56·6

  48·4

  9·2

  July 1989

  56·6

  42·0

  9·5

  August 1989

  55·7

  45·9

  9·3

  September 1989

  56·5

  46·7

  9·1

  October 1989 (provisional)

  56·7

  45·3

  9·1

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there were for grants and loans from the social fund in the last month for which figures are available; what was the monthly average for the last financial year; and whether he has any plans to increase the size of the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  With regard to the size of the budget, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 November 1989 at column 812. The average number of applications received in 1988–89 can be derived from information in the Secretary of State's annual report published in July 1989. Figures for the period April to October 1989 can be derived from the information placed monthly in the Library.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his allocation of resources to the social fund.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his allocation of resources to the social fund.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his allocation of resources to the social fund.
  138
  Mr. Scott
  We are continuing to monitor closely the situation in the current year. We shall announce the individual social fund allocations to local offices for 1990–91 in due course.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the availability of social fund loans.

  Mr. Scott
  Between 1 April 1989 and 13 November 1989 we received 129 letters from hon. and right hon. Members and 120 letters from members of the public specifically concerning social fund loans.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  We are continuing to monitor closely the operation of the social fund. Nearly 1½ million interest-free loans have been made since the scheme began averaging £211 for budgeting loans and £46 for crisis loans. Over a quarter of a million community care grants have been awarded averaging £266. The number of awards of community care grants awarded in the period April to October 1989 was 128 per cent. higher than in the same period last year, and the numbers of budgeting loans increased by 36 per cent. over the same period.

  The flexible way in which the scheme operates has enabled social fund officers to provide help which would not have been available under the rigid regulations of the old single payments scheme.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures he has available on the growth of pensioners' incomes since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available figures show that pensioners' average total net income increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the growth in pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that pensioners' average income from savings grew by 64 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986.

  Spending
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount social security spending has increased in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  On current plans social security spending will be £52·6 billion in 1989–90, an increase in real terms of 35 per cent. over the figure in 1978–79, which, at today's prices, was £39 billion.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social! Security how many disabled people have been assisted by the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  More than 2,500 disabled people are currently being helped by the independent living fund.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conclusions he is able to draw from his monitoring of the Social Security Act 1988 changes to the benefit entitlements of young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider the entitlement of young people to benefit.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the benefit entitlements of 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider the entitlement of young people to benefit.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider the entitlement of young people to benefit.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will restore benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider the entitlement of young people to benefit.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) earlier today.

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the total budget of his Department is used to provide for the needs of one-parent families; and what was the corresponding percentage for 10 and 20 years ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Data on a consistent basis are available only for the years from 1981–82. In that year spending on lone-parent families accounted for 4·8 per cent. of total benefit expenditure compared with 7·5 per cent. for 1988–89. For the purposes of this comparison the benefits paid to lone-parents have been counted as one-parent benefit, supplementary benefit income support, housing benefit, child benefit, maternity benefit and family income supplement family credit. The comparison excludes benefit paid to widows with children because insufficient information is available.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends publishing the results of his Department's internal review of benefits for single parents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Social security benefits, including those for lone-parent families, are kept 140
  constantly under review to ensure that they respond to need while encouraging independence. So, for example, my right hon. Friend's recent uprating statement recognised the special needs of lone-parent families by increasing the lone-parent premium in housing benefit from next April from £8·60 to £9·70 a week and raising the amount lone parents can earn before housing benefit is affected from £15 to £25 a week from October 1990. These changes will give further help to working lone parents with high housing costs.

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he intends doing to reduce any disincentive to work effect of the April 1988 benefit changes.

  Mr. Scott
  We have improved incentives by bringing about significant increases in the real value of take-home pay through reductions in income tax, increased tax allowances, the restructuring of national insurance contributions last month and improvements to in-work benefits. The replacement of family income supplement by family credit in April 1988 ended the absurd situation where an increase in pay could make people worse off. We recognise the importance of improving work incentives and shall continue to pursue policies in the future which make it worthwhile for people to take and keep employment.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates to be the maximum weekly addition to benefit payable as a result of his proposals announced on 25 October.

  Mr. Scott
  From next April, the parents of a severely disabled child under two could receive up to £65·75 in additional financial help through attendance allowance and invalid care allowance.

  Family (Policy)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he gives to policy on the family in his conduct of social security policy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We attach great importance to the role of the family, and have pursued policies which improve their living standards. Working families have seen significant increases in their take home pay and we have concentrated extra resources in social security on those families who most need them.

  Pensioner Premiums
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he estimates will benefit from the increases in pensioner premiums which took effect in October.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  More than 2½ million pensioners will benefit from these changes. Couples will be up to £3·50 a week better off and single people will get up to £2·50 a week extra.

  Pensions
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is considering restoring the index link between pensions and earnings.
  141
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his decision not to uprate pensions in line with earnings.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his decision not to uprate pensions in line with earnings.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review his decision not to uprate pensions in line with earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to restore the link between pensions and earnings. The Government do not accept that uprating state retirement pension in line with earnings is the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. Between 1979 and 1986 pensioners' average total net incomes increased by 23 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will meet pensioners' representatives to discuss linking pensions to wages and prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of pensioners' organisations; and what matters where discussed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State regularly meets representatives of pensioners' organisations. The last meeting he attended was shortly before the summer recess when he met a delegation from the joint committee of pensioner organisations. Amongst the topics of discussion were the reform changes, pensioners' incomes, the uprating of retirement pension, the poorer pensioners' package and National Health Service changes.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out recent measures to benefit pensioners; and what steps are being taken to inform those eligible of new entitlement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In addition to the annual uprating of benefits we have introduced two wholly beneficial changes for pensioners with effect from October 1989—the abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule and the extra help for less well off elderly and disabled pensioners. Pensioners benefiting from the latter change who received income support or housing benefit had their benefit automatically increased. Separate national publicity campaigns were mounted to announce both these changes. We also identified and contacted nearly 3½ million individuals who were likely to be affected.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average per capita cost of implementing an increase in pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit Take-up
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up of family credit; and what was his original target.

  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up of family credit; and what was his original target.
  142
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up of family credit; and what was his original target.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up of family credit; and what was his original target.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information about the level of take-up relates to 1988 when a special examination of family expenditure survey returns indicated that, amongst employees, take-up was 65 per cent. in expenditure terms and 50 per cent. by caseload. The original estimates for family credit were based on an assumption that take-up would be one fifth higher than for family income supplement, the benefit it replaced.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest reported percentage take-up among those who should receive family credit or income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest take-up estimates, (published in March 1989), based on FES data for April to December 1988 show that take-up for family credit over that period was 65 per cent. in expenditure terms and 50 per cent. by caseload.

  The latest take-up estimates for income support. (supplementary benefit) are for 1985. On a caseload basis, take-up is 84 per cent. overall. Both the caseload and the expenditure take-up of supplementary benefit is higher than for previous years. Full technical notes on these take-up estimates are available in the Library. Overall, almost £9 out of every £10 of available income-related benefit expenditure is claimed and almost four out of every five eligible people claim what they are entitled to.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are being helped by family credit; and what was the figure for family income supplement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest comprehensive information about family credit is for July 1989 when over 320,000 families received the benefit. Around 213,000 families received family income supplement at the time that scheme came to an end in April 1988.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the number of recipients of family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), earlier today.

  Low-income Families
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional support his Department will be providing next year to low-income families with children.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We will be providing additional support in 1990–91 of around £70 million for less well-off families with children over and above the normal uprating of benefits.

  OPCS Survey (Disability)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may disability organisations have commented on the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received comments on the findings of the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from over 40 national and local disability organisations including the Disability Benefits Consortium which represents over 250 disability organisations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what opportunity he has given disability organisations to comment on the implications of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey on disability.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what opportunity he has given disability organisations to comment on the implications for policy which arise from the data published in the Office of Population Censuses and Survey survey on disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The reports by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on disabled people were published between September 1988 and July 1989. Copies of the reports dealing with prevalence of disability and the financial circumstances of disabled people were sent to organisations of and for disabled people, together with the successive press notices emphasising our wish to receive comments on the reports and their implications. Many people and organisations have sent us their comments.

  Travel Facilities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he takes of concessionary travel facilities in his calculation of levels of retirement pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Retirement pension is increased each year by the annual rate of the retail prices index. The RPI includes the cost of bus, coach and rail travel but does not take account of concessions in fares.

  Young People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to so amend benefit regulations affecting young people as to encourage them to gain appropriate education and qualifications without providing discouragement to individuals wishing to take up either part-time or full-time courses.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to amend regulations in the manner proposed.

  It is the prime responsibility of unemployed people claiming benefit to make every effort to secure paid employment. Nonetheless the benefits system is already sufficiently flexible to allow those who remain available for and are actively seeking employment to spend their spare time usefully by pursuing a course of part-time study or training. They must, though, organise their studies so that they can make adequate arrangements to seek work and must be prepared to break off their studies if a job opportunity arises. It is not the purpose of the benefits
  144
  system to provide support for those who choose to study full-time. Such provision is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to prevent people receiving pensions and benefits from dying from cold this winter.

  Mr. Scott
  On 22 November I was pleased to announce, with my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the third year of the "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign, a unique co-operative venture between statutory and voluntary organisations, which provides up-to-date advice about beating the cold. The campaign's leaflet contains essential information on health, food, draughtproofing, advice from the fuel industry and about cash help and cold weather payments. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  I hope that this third annual campaign will also increase awareness of the dangers of cold weather among those at risk, their friends, relatives and neighbours and those agencies who care for them.

  Earnings Rule
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to the number of economically active pensioners in the north-west as a result of the abolition of the earnings rule.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people in receipt of housing benefit in London.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the end of February 1989 the estimated number of recipients in inner and outer London boroughs was 655,000.

  Nursing Home Fees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of income support claimants in private residential or nursing homes whose personal allowances are spent on meeting the fees for their care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information necessary to make such an estimate is not available.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the uprating of child benefit.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the uprating of child benefit.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the uprating of child benefit.
  145
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) earlier today.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's recent decision not to uprate child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 25 October at columns 841–69.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mothers serving prison sentences receive child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the freezing of child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a number of representations from organisations and individuals expressing a variety of views.

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he now proposes to give any additional benefit to those receiving transitional protection arising from the changes to income support from supplementary benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The normal arrangement is that transitional protection is eroded when benefits are uprated or a claimant's circumstances change. An exception was made in October 1989 when the poorer pensioner package was introduced.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the changes in the benefit system and computerisation have had on the speed of service provided by his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The speed of service has improved since the introduction of the 1988 social security reforms and the first stages of computerisation. The reforms have made the scheme easier for the public to understand and, combined with computerisation, easier for the staff to operate. As a result, so far in 1989–90, there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in the average time taken to process income support claims compared with 1987–88 and a 24 per cent. reduction in the average time income support and social fund callers spend in our offices.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in his Department's computerisation programme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), earlier today.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the full results of the pilot 146
  exercise on computerisation; what problems the exercise revealed; what steps he is taking to solve the problems; and what plans he has for the exercise to go nationwide.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A report of the pilot exercise on computerisation was produced in September 1989. it concluded that despite teething difficulties the systems were operating satisfactorily and problems identified in piloting had either been resolved or were being tackled as a matter of priority.

  The main difficulties encountered related to some of the more complex computer screens; the need to modify training courses and the need to redesign organisation and jobs.

  The recommendations of the pilot exercise are being implemented. Extension of computerisation to other offices began on 23 October in line with the agreed timetable.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his original estimate of the savings to be gained from computerisation; and what is his revised estimate following evaluation of the pilot exercise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The original estimate of savings from the computerisation programme was £150 million per year by 1995. Savings estimates are regularly updated; not only as a result of pilot office evaluation but, also as a result of model office testing, changing workload forecasts and any revised development or implementation plans. We do not keep a record of the changes that are specifically attributable to pilot office evaluation.

  Food Vouchers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and value of food vouchers issued(a) by the Newcastle St. James' office of his Department and (b) in the United Kingdom in the period April to October 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of food vouchers issued by the Newcastle St. James office between 1 April and 31 October 1989 is 203 at a total value of £4,707·42. Information for the United Kingdom is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will qualify for community charge rebates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of the number of people who will receive community charge benefit are being recalculated to take account of the effects of the transitional relief scheme. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the numbers are known. The Department does not produce projections of the number of people who might be entitled to social security benefits.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to amend the benefit regulations with a view to reducing homelessness amongst those under 25 years.
  147
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Homelessness has many complex causes and it would be wrong to relate it directly to the benefit system which still enables those who are homeless to secure and retain accommodation.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to increase financial support for young single homeless people.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A wide range of benefits continues to be available to young single homeless people. These benefits are to be increased from April 1990 under the usual uprating arrangements. In addition, I announced today measures which will ensure that special arrangements are made in local social security offices for dealing with income support claims from 16 to 17-year-olds. In particular, all 16 to 17-year-olds will be automatically considered for special hardship payments if they are not otherwise entitled. Details have been placed in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will benefit from the changes in the 1990 uprating of social security benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that over 500,000 disabled people and their carers will benefit from the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 October.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he has any plans to invite evidence from interested parties and independent experts when drawing up his proposals on social security benefits for the disabled;

  (2) whether he has any plans to review the eligibility criteria of mobility allowance so that people with a visual handicap qualify.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 13 November at columns 51–52.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to increase the level of benefits paid to disabled persons to a level that will allow them to meet the full costs incurred to them by their disability outwith the spending of the non-disabled benefits allowance;

  (2) what plans he has to increase the level of benefits paid to disabled persons in employment so that their income can equate to that of the national average.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend has already announced on 25 October at columns 841–54 a range of improvements in benefits for disabled people and their families. Some of these assist people who, because of their disability, incur additional expenditure or have only limited earning capacity. We intend to bring forward within the next few months more far-reaching proposals, to improve the balance and structure of social security provision for disabled people.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the Christmas bonus to pensioners.
  148
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the size of the Christmas bonus payable to pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the present level of the pensioners' Christmas bonus if it had been raised since it was first introduced by(a) the rise in prices and (b) the rise in average earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The level of Christmas bonus for 1989 had it been raised, since introduction, by the rise in prices or the rise in average earnings would have been £48 or £62 respectively.

  Source: DSS Extract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions.

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest pound.

  Income Support (Manchester)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of income support claimants in Greater Manchester.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Greater Manchester is served by the local offices of Ashton, Bolton, Bury, Central Manchester, Cheetham, Chorlton, Failsworth, Farnworth, Hyde, Leigh, Longsight, Middleton, Oldham, Openshaw, Rochdale, Rusholme, Sale, Salford North, Salford South, Stockport North, Stockport South, Wigan and Wythenshawe, though the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The number of people claiming income support is 270,216.

  Source: August 1989. 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figure includes a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit.

  NACAB
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, met representatives of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux on Wednesday 27 September. The discussion covered a wide range of issues.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy, in the light of evidence received, to review the income support levels payable to residents of private and voluntary nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The level of income support payable to a resident of a private or voluntary nursing home depends on the actual fee charged by the home, subject to national limits depending on the type of home. It is already our policy to review these limits each year, taking account of a variety of evidence, including detailed and differing representations received from various sources. We announced our proposed increases for next year on 25 October.
  149
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that social security benefits paid to people already in private residential and nursing homes in April 1991 will be uprated each year in line with rises in charges.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The income support limits will continue to be reviewed every year taking account, as now, of all the available evidence.

  Community Care
  Mr Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to increase the local office community care grant budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 November 1989 at column 812. We shall announce individual local office allocations for 1990–91 in due course.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures on the number of people opting to take out personal pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just over 3·5 million people have so far applied for an appropriate personal pension.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for men and women aged 16, 20, 30 and 40 years in April 1988, the ages at which it would pay the person concerned to cease contributing to a personal pension or other money purchase scheme, assuming rates of return of 0·5 per cent. and 2·5 per cent. above the annual increase in average earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not possible to give such a table because of the wide range of other factors, in addition to the rate of return, which would affect the amount of the personal pension.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the purchasing power of the state pension in the United Kingdom and in each of the European Community countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  State pensions in most countries of the European Community are related to individual earnings before pension age and so no standard figure for a state pension is possible.

  Details of the pension systems of the member states of the European Community are contained in the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities" the 1989 issue of which is available in the Library.

  Payments
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average level of social security payments per capita of the total population paid in May 1979 and in May 1989 adjusted for inflation.
  150
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Dividing the total amount of Social security benefit expenditure paid in 1979–80 by estimated population produces an average annual figure of £680 at today's prices, while the corresponding figure for 1989–90 is £870.

  Reforms
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what indicators he has used to measure the quality of service offered by his Department as a result of the 1988 social security reforms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The quality of service offered by the Department is measured in a variety of ways. Data are collected on the speed with which business is cleared, the accuracy of benefit payments and the length of time callers spend in our offices. In addition, in local offices an annual quality assessment package measures the quality of correspondence, and face-to-face and telephone contact with the public. There is a customer opinion survey element within the package.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the current operation of the system of cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We have looked again at the cold weather payments scheme and we are satisfied that it concentrates the help available on those vulnerable groups most at risk from the cold.

  National Insurance (Evasion)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officers were involved in detecting evasion of payment of national insurance contributions by employers at the latest date for which figures are available; what the total estimated cost of such work amounts to; and what total actual savings resulted from such work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are approximately 2,000 staff in the Department's local offices who work on a full-time or part-time basis as national insurance inspectors. A major, but unquantifiable proportion of their work is concerned with ensuring that employers meet their obligations for paying national insurance contributions. Within that staff allocation 200 man years are directed solely to this work and during the year ended 31 March 1989 generated income of £34·4 million at an estimated staff cost of £2·3 million. However the main responsibility for the collection of contributions from employers rests with the Inland Revenue which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  21-Hour Rule
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the actively seeking work clauses of the Social Security Act 1989 will affect people studying under the 21-hour rule provision.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I expect the actively seeking employment condition to have similar effects on all unemployed claimants. In reinforcing the principle that it
  151
  is a claimant's personal responsibility to look for work it will make a significant contribution to returning unemployed people to jobs. Unemployed claimants studying under the 21-hour rule must, as before, be prepared to leave their studies immediately should a job opportunity arise. They must also make efforts to seek employment. In determining whether a claimant has taken reasonable steps to seek employment, regard is had to time spent on vocational training or study, but no claimant, no matter how usefully he occupies his time out of work, should ignore job opportunities.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to accelerate the attendance allowance assessment process.

  Mr. Scott
  We have already been successful in reducing the average time taken to decide attendance allowance claims from 12·5 weeks in 1983 to 7·5 weeks currently. Finding ways to further accelerate the process is not a simple or quick task; but it is one of the aspects of the attendance allowance scheme which we are considering in the light of the information from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions since 1983 the general practitioner of an applicant for attendance allowance was present when their medical assessment for eligibility for the allowance was carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of money has been spent on community care grants in those offices covering Nottingham, North constituency; and what instructions have been issued by his Department to reduce the categories of people eligible for these grants.

  Mr. Scott
  The local offices of the Department covering the Nottingham, North constituency are Nottingham Castle gate, Nottingham David lane and Nottingham Shakespeare street.

  Information on the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure for 1988–89 and 1989–90 to date, may be obtained from the details held in the Library.

  There have been no departmental instructions issued to reduce the categories of people eligible for community care grants. Local office managers are required to provide guidance to social fund officers on the level of priorities which should generally be met. Awards of community care grants from the social fund are decided by independent social fund officers based upon the individual circumstances of the applicant and the priority of their needs.

  National Insurance Regulations
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the regulations governing the payment of national insurance benefits.
  152
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  These regulations are contained within the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and are as a matter of course kept under constant and ongoing review.

  Local Offices (Illness)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what attempts have been made to identify stress-related illnesses suffered by staff in social security offices; and what is being done to alleviate the problem.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have recently changed the system of collecting information on sick absences to provide more detailed analysis of illnesses which could be stress-related. The first analysis will be available in about 12 months time and will give a clearer basis for identifying any problem in this area and for exploring what needs to be done. This Department is also taking part in a long-term study on health and stress being conducted by University college, London, in conjunction with the Civil Service occupational health service.

  Carers' Premium
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers on income support he estimates will benefit as a result of the new carers' premium announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), earlier today.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase financial provisions for pensioners on income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 25 October, at columns 841–54.

  Turkish Kurds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the arrangements which local offices of his Department have for notifying officials of the Home Department of the addresses at which Turkish Kurds entering the United Kingdom may reside.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Local office staff notify the Home Department of all cases where income support is paid to people from abroad. Full instructions are contained in the income support manual, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disability Benefits Consortium
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security expects to meet representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium shortly.

  "Delivery of Service in the 90s"
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the purpose of his Department's study "Delivery of Service in the 90s"; who is involved in the exercise; what consultation will be carried out with staffs and clients; and when the study will be completed and published.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  "Delivery of Service in the 90s" is the title of a proposed initiative to examine how we might maximise the improvements in service to the public, efficiency and job satisfaction for our staff which will be derived from our computerisation programme—the operational strategy. The initiative comprises a linked set of proposals for action in eight local offices. Staff are being encouraged to contribute ideas towards the proposals.

  Consultation with the staff in the offices involved and the trade unions is taking place. It is envisaged that this examination will be completed in the first half of next year. No decision on publication has been taken.

  Local Office Network
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what decisions he has made regarding changes to the current local office network.
  154
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The local office network is currently being reviewed with the aim of providing a better service to the public. The review will take into account changes arising from the setting up of the benefit agency. Preliminary proposals are unlikely to be available before next spring.

  Social Security Costs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates will be the increase in social security costs in the next year; and what is the breakdown of those costs between increases due to costs related to(a) unemployment and (b) other factors.

  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure on social security will be £55·6 billion in 1990–91, an increase of £3 billion on the estimated outturn for 1989–90, as shown in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. However, the figure for 1990–91 excludes rent rebates in England and Wales, and the increase on a directly comparable basis is £5·6 billion. Of this increase, £0·2 billion is the result of a small change in the assumed level of unemployment, and £5·4 billion is due to other factors.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Nicaragua: Government Policy
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the Government of Nicaragua and why the Prime Minister met Senora Violeta Barrios de Chamorro.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we maintain normal relations with the Nicaraguan Government. Senora Violeta Barrios de Chamorro visited the United Kingdom from 10th to 14th November in the course of a tour of the United States and Europe. Her meeting with the Prime Minister demonstrated our support for the Central American peace process and for moves to create a genuine pluralist democracy in Nicaragua.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the policy of the Government to refuse to receive any representative of groups wedded to violence, or does this only apply to those who have been practising violence against state violence in countries such as South Africa? If that is the case, how is it that the Prime Minister can meet the leader of a group which is not only wedded to violence but which is also practising violence against the Government of Nicaragua which was elected, according to our Government, by free and fair elections?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Senora Chamorro is the presidential candidate of the Nicaraguan Union of National Opposition in the elections due to be held in Nicaragua on 25th February. She is the widow of Pedro Chamorro, who was a leading opponent of former President Somoza and who was assassinated in 1978. She enjoys very considerable popularity. Both she and her newspaper La Prensa have been symbols of hope through both the Somoza and the Sandinista periods.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister saw Senora Chamorro to demonstrate our support for the democratic process in Nicaragua.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the question of our policy towards Nicaragua, and given that Nicaragua is the poorest in terms of output in the whole American continent, can the Minister say what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to that country? I understand that War on Want, Christian Aid and other organisations are pressing the Government to increase such aid. We are in fact giving 40 times as much to Costa Rica, a much more wealthy country.
Lord Reay: My Lords, through the European Community the United Kingdom is a substantial aid donor to Nicaragua. In 1988 the United Kingdom share of funds committed to Nicaragua was £3·3 million. In addition, we gave generously in response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Joan.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not time for both sides of the argument in this country and, indeed, in the United States, to try to put an end to the polarisation of opinion over Nicaragua? Is the noble Lord aware, and does he know whether the Prime Minister is aware, that in the coalition led by Senora Chamorro there are many parties one of which, the Communist Party of Nicaragua, is in opposition to the Sandinista Government and although losing at the last election fought a very good campaign against them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy is to support the introduction of genuine pluralistic democracy in Nicaragua. Accordingly, along with others in the international community, we are concerned to see that the elections due to be held in February are freely and fairly conducted.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he not aware that the aid given through the EC is food aid and not development aid? In view of the enormous devastation which has been caused by the unnecessary war in Nicaragua, the country needs development aid. Will Her Majesty's Government not consider increasing such aid?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is my understanding that the food aid is sold on the market and the counterpart aid is then available for development purposes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my original question. Is it the case that Senora Chamorro represents a group which includes those who are wedded to violence and are practising it against the duly elected Sandinista Government? If that is the case, how does it come about that the Prime Minister is prepared to meet Senora Chamorro whereas she is not prepared to meet those like the leaders of the ANC in South Africa?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Senora Chamorro is supported by 14 political parties which represent a very broad spectrum of opinion. It is normal for Ministers to receive leaders of democratic opposition parties. The Prime Minister also received President Ortega when he visited London in May. Senora Chamorro visited other European capitals after London where I understand that she was also received at an appropriately high level.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has still not answered my question. Is it the case that Senora Chamorro is supported by at least one group that is wedded to and practising violence against the duly elected Government of Nicaragua?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Senora Chamorro is a figure of considerable political stature and national appeal and a leading presidential candidate. As I have said, my right honourable friend saw Senora Chamorro in order to demonstrate our support for the democratic process in Nicaragua.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the main importance of Nicaragua is as a channel for Soviet arms into Latin America? Is it not time that Mr. Gorbachev liquidated his empire in the new world as well as in the old?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do the Government then agree that the Sandinista Government are agents of the Soviet Union?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I repeat that our intention is to do all that we can to see that the process of introducing pluralistic democracy in Nicaragua takes place.

Single European Market: Progress
2.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the programme to complete the Single European Market by the end of 1992 is proceeding.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, good progress is being made on the Single Market programme. The Council of Ministers has now adopted 147 of the measures in the Commission's White Paper, including major proposals such as the liberalisation of capital movements, the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas and the liberalisation of international road haulage. Overall, about half of the programme has been completed.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Is he aware that the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, which was included in Lord Kearton's report on the EC and Japan, stated that the Japanese knew more about 1992 than we did? Can my noble friend confirm that his department is continuing with its energetic promotion programme among the management of this country to overcome any further problems in this direction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, judging from my own recent visit to Japan I would not agree because while I was there I was constantly asked about the implications of the Single Market for Japanese companies. However my noble friend is quite right to point to the need for British companies to place themselves in the best possible position to take advantage of the opportunities that will be provided by the Single Market. We are doing everything we can to achieve that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the liberalisation of capital is due for implementation in 1990?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is correct in that regard. Certainly it is an important aspect in moving towards the Single European Market in 1992.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if companies are making this progress can my noble friend say whether our nationalised industries are also making progress? Shall we see our train service run on a seven-day basis rather than a five-day basis? Will our postal service match those in the main competitor countries of Western Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Single European Market will of course offer enormous opportunities to British firms and organisations like the nationalised industries because of the greater size of the market available to them. But it will also expose them to a much greater degree of competition, and those who do not compete effectively—for example, by not providing the kind of services that their customers require on the days of the week on which they are required—will lose out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Single European Act which set up the process for the Single European Market goes rather wider than simply the market? Would he still describe the Government as being —and I quote from the Preamble to the Act:
"Moved by the will to continue the work undertaken on the basis of the Treaties establishing European Communities and to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union"?
If the Government are so committed, what do they mean by "European Union"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it would take me a long time to describe in detail exactly what is meant by that term. However, no timetable is laid down in the Single European Act.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that ordinary people are apprehensive about the Government's position? For example, very senior ex-Ministers like the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ex-Minister of Defence now find themselves to be severe critics of the Prime Minister. Does the noble Lord agree that the British public have some right to know what really is the policy and whether it is supported by the Conservative Party itself?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the policy in this matter —as in all others —is collectively agreed by the Ministers of the Government. All the Ministers of the present Government support the present policy, as has been said on a number of occasions.

AIDS: Compensation for Haemophiliacs
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review their decision concerning immediate compensation or support to haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS through National Health Service treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced last week that in addition to the £10 million made available to respond to this tragic situation in 1987 a further £19 million ex gratia allocation to the Macfarlane Trust would be available this year. This is not compensation; compensation is a matter for the courts.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the details of the Written Parliamentary Answer last week and I pay tribute to the Government for responding positively to this awful human tragedy and giving further financial support to individuals and their families. But for reasons of clarity may I ask whether the Government are satisfied that the trustees of the Macfarlane Trust are legally capable under the terms of the trust of distributing across-the-board payments? If there is any doubt, can this be settled by granting them an indemnity? Secondly, are the Government aware that the mathematical formula of the registered sufferers and the sum promised in the Statement of £20,000 per case exceeds the £19 million? Is the £20,000 per individual a positive commitment? Thirdly —
Noble Lords: Order! Two questions only.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Very well, I shall come back to that later.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is a matter for the trustees of the Macfarlane Trust to allocate funds in the way that they consider best meets the needs of those eligible for help. There should therefore be no need for or question of an indemnity from the Government in this respect.
The additional contribution of £19 million will enable the trust, if it sees fit, to make lump sum payments of £20,000 available to each haemophiliac infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment with blood products in the UK or indeed to the family of such a person who may have died. Nevertheless, we are discussing with the trustees the methods of implementation and we certainly hope the payments will be made as soon as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm in regard to Factor 8 that tests have shown it to be 80 per cent. HIV positive and that it is an American product imported into this country because the Government stopped the production of our own, which was quite safe? Is there not, therefore, a clear case for the Government paying
242
full compensation to the victims that they with their policies have created?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the position under successive governments has been that there is no system of no fault compensation for medical accidents. The Pearson Commission considered the arguments but did not recommend such a system. The Government's ex gratia payments to the Macfarlane Trust recognise the unique circumstances of haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus and their special needs. The question of Factor 8 and the history in that connection is a matter on which I should not comment in more detail at this point since these matters are before the courts.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I asked an extremely vital question? It is a question all haemophiliac families are asking. Was a British product in the course of production which was stopped by government action? Did the Government then order the importation of Factor 8, which has caused all the trouble as in the first place they stopped the production of the British product?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord is endeavouring to make me admit fault on behalf of the Government. Since this matter is currently before the courts it is not appropriate for me to comment further.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although I very much welcome the additional payment that has now been offered, I am concerned that the Macfarlane Trust said over the weekend that the Government had put it in an impossible position? I am very glad that talks are to take place. Can the Minister give an assurance that the full amount of £24 million, which is what is required, will be made available? Secondly, can the money be made available before Christmas? That is the least that the trust would want.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the announcement made last week the Government committed themselves to making a further £19 million available. This is in addition to the £10 million previously made available, which has certainly not all been spent by the Macfarlane Trust.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before Christmas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the answer is as soon as possible.

Street Works: The Horne Report
2.54 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their intention with regard to legislation arising from the Home Report on public utilities street works.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is still the Government's intention to introduce legislation to implement the Horne Report. A Bill along the lines of the consultation paper issued in May will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found. The Government very much hope that the valuable co-operation of local authorities and utilities in developing detailed arrangements in support of the new street works measures will continue.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is it fully appreciated that the Home Report was published as far back as November 1985 and in their response in July 1986 the Government accepted most of the 73 recommendations? As the Minister rightly says, a working party has been carrying out detailed discussions among the Department of Transport, the local authority associations and the public utilities group. Can he give some definite statement that there will be legislation this year? Not only do street works cause congestion, but if there is no action, all the work of the working party will be wasted. In the past Minister after Minister —not the noble Lord —has told me in this Chamber exactly the same as he has now said, that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, yet the impression has been given by the Minister for Roads and Traffic that there will be no legislation this year. Can the noble Lord give me a definite answer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in my main Answer, legislation will be introduced as soon as an opportunity can be found. I recall not so long ago hearing noble Lords opposite complaining about the volume of legislation which your Lordships are having to consider. I am sure the noble Lord would not want to increase those burdens except in the context of an appropriate legislative opportunity. Furthermore, it is important that this legislation, which will be of a highly technical nature, is properly thought through before it is introduced into the House, and that is what we intend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has been plenty of time for this legislation to be thought through in as much as to my knowledge it was first considered in 1955?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am interested to hear from my noble friend. In fact legislation is already on the statute book dealing with this matter, passed as far back as 1950, but the passage of time has shown that it needs to be updated and improved. That is why Professor Home was asked to make a study and why we are now considering the matter carefully in order to bring through considered proposals for your Lordships' attention.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the delay in this matter is causing chaos on our urban roads? The number of roadworks which spring up overnight and hang around for weeks is causing considerable damage to the workings of our cities. May I ask him to consider that there are certain matters in the legislative programme which could be
244
removed in order to fit in this important matter? If not, could he not fit it in with those matters which are to be laid before your Lordships?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that the law in this matter needs to be updated. Professor Home, as I said, has brought forward a number of proposals which are largely acceptable to the Government. We are therefore very reassured to hear that in the short period between now and when the legislation can come into force local authorities and the utilities concerned are increasing their co-operation to endeavour to get as many of Professor Home's recommendations as possible into place on a voluntary basis before they become statutory.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is an element of urgency in reducing the amount of obstruction to traffic, especially in towns, that these street works cause? Is he aware in particular that one of the proposals which has been considered for inclusion in the legislation is a lane charge to contractors in order to encourage them to use the new trenchless technology and thus avoid obstructing traffic? Is he aware that it really is most urgent to bring this into action as soon as possible?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly share my noble friend's view that we need to bring forward this legislation as soon as an opportunity can be found and as soon as it has been properly drafted, and that is what we shall do. I certainly also agree with him that some of the proposals which were not included in Professor Home's report but which have emerged more recently for financial constraints upon contractors in connection with the obstruction they cause and the time over which they cause them ought usefully to be included in the Bill. That too will have to be drafted before it can be presented.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I regard it as a little unfair to throw back at this side of the House, and indeed at his own noble friends, the fact that we do not want to be overloaded with legislation and that therefore this item can wait and wait? It is five years since the report was published; it is four years since the Government accepted its recommendations. The working party has been dealing successfully with the problems. As noble Lords on the Minister's side of the House have said, the matter requires urgent attention in view of the problems of congestion that arise when street works recur in the same area time and time again. Will the Minister take up the matter with his right honourable friend?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the position is quite as dark as the noble Lord painted it. While I agree that it would be appropriate to bring forward legislation as soon as may be, the fact is that voluntary agreements are now coming into place between highway authorities and the utility companies concerned. I believe that those will go some way to meeting the concerns understandably expressed by noble friends on this side of the House as well as by the noble Lord. I agree that legislation

245
is appropriate; we shall bring it forward as soon as an opportunity can be found.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.1 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Holderness —namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, this most welcome debate gives your Lordships, and incidentally me, the opportunity to examine the present situation and to look into the future of the environment, agriculture and food in this country. The fact that my noble friend Lord Layton has chosen this debate in which to make his maiden speech is an added bonus. I am greatly looking forward to listening to him. Your Lordships will be aware that the Second Reading of the Food Safety Bill will take place a week tomorrow, on 5th December. Rather than use today as a curtain raiser for that debate, your Lordships will understand if I merely touch on the food aspects of today's deliberations.
Having said that, I make no apology for inverting the order of topics listed for this debate. Food has always been a major part of my department's responsibilities. In particular, we take very seriously indeed our responsiblity for food safety and the integrity of the food chain. We are determined to discharge it not only as effectively but also as openly as possible.
To be really effective we need to take full account of changes in scientific and medical knowledge and in food processing technology. That is the background to our new Bill, on which we have worked very closely with the Department of Health. It will create a framework which will take us into the 1990s and beyond; a framework within which all those involved in the food chain, including the many small businesses throughout Great Britain, can continue to innovate and compete successfully. It will ensure that enforcement authorities have the resources and mechanisms they need to enforce the law effectively. Above all, the Bill will enhance protection for the consumer.
At the same time, we have taken other steps to ensure the effectiveness and openness of the new system. We are setting up a new consumer panel under the food Minister, the honourable Member for Penrith and the Border. It will keep under review, from the viewpoint of the consumer, the implementation of policies on food safety and consumer protection. For the first time, representatives of consumer organisations will have
246
a regular and effective forum for putting their views direct to the food Minister.
We have also created a food safety directorate within the Ministry. It will draw together all the many strands of work on food safety, giving a new sharper focus to everything we do in that area. It will have access to the best scientific advice and will have as a priority the need to keep the public informed on food safety matters.
The Government remain determined to carry forward the reform of the common agricultural policy. Considerable progress has already been made. There are now legal limits on the Community's expenditure on agriculture. Stabilisers designed to control costs and production have been introduced in all sectors, and prices have been held down for a number of years. But more needs to be done. In the current round of GATT negotiations, the Community, along with the major trading countries such as the United States, has accepted a commitment to reduce the level of agricultural support and protection.
The future for farmers may be a challenging one, but it is also full of opportunities. It is the Government's task to maximise those opportunities. As in other parts of the economy, we want to remove political interference from the market leaving farmers free to decide what to produce in order to fulfil the wishes of the consumer. The customer is always right and it is not the job of governments to restrict consumer choice. The job of government must be to do their best to ensure that what the consumer chooses is wholesome and safe —which is why we have introduced the Food Safety Bill.
What we are trying to encourage is already being done in some parts of the industry. Horticulture has only limited support under the CAP, and growers have to survive in a highly competitive market. Their success demonstrates that British farmers and growers do have the entrepreneurial skills needed to flourish in such an environment.
We should also look for a moment at organic farming in which a number of farmers are already responding to the demands of a rapidly growing market; indeed, demand is outstripping home production. It is clear that much of the organic foods now being sold by retailers could be produced in this country. The Government are doing their part. We have sponsored the United Kingdom. Register of Organic Food Standards and we are undertaking research into organic methods of production. But it is for farmers themselves to assess the opportunities provided by the demand for organic produce and to provide what some consumers clearly want.
The very need to restrain production of many agricultural commodities has itself created opportunities as well as problems for farmers. It was in recognition of that, and to help farmers adjust to the changing situation, that we decided in 1987 that there was a need for a new balance of government policies. In particular, we wanted to encourage farmers to develop alternative uses for their land and to respond to the needs of the environment.
Why did we believe that there was need to encourage alternative uses of land? We could see that

247
cutting back on production would make available for new uses some land which would no longer be needed for producing products such as cereals and milk. Your Lordships will have noticed that I did not say that we would have a surplus of land. I believe that that is not the right way of looking at the matter. Some land does of course go out of agriculture each year. On average 20,000 to 30,000 hectares a year are lost (if that is the right expression) to roads, houses, recreation and forestry. Our new policies are designed to help farmers put, as it were, new ingredients in their mix of enterprises.
As well as providing alternative land uses, these policies also offer new earnings and employment opportunities. That is an important point because it means that our policies will help people in the countryside. Your Lordships will be well aware of the kind of schemes I am talking about: the farm woodland scheme and farm diversification grant scheme, set-aside and environmentally sensitive areas provide examples.
The other objective of the new policies was to respond to the needs of the environment. In 1986, Parliament placed on agriculture Ministers the statutory obligation to seek a fair and workable balance between the needs of agriculture and the environment. I refer to Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. We embraced that responsibility with enthusiasm and it plays a key part in our new policies. As Minister for the countryside, I attach great importance to this. None of us, not even farmers, are lords of the countryside. We are its stewards and we must make sure that this most valuable of national assets is handed on to the next generation in an even better state than it is now.
That said, it remains true that modern farming can cause environmental problems. The Government are determined to deal with those. Nitrates in our water supplies provide one example. Most recently we announced plans to reduce nitrate leaching into our water supplies. In the pilot areas farmers will be compensated for restrictions on their farming activities. If our voluntary approach does not work, then compulsion without compensation may become the only alternative.
However, if our efforts are to be understood and appreciated and if farmers are to get the credit they deserve, we cannot tolerate the irresponsible action of those producers who fail to show sufficient concern for their livestock or the countryside. Whether it is destroying wildlife habitats, killing badgers or butterflies, polluting our waterways, applying pesticides in windy conditions or careless burning of straw, it must stop. Not only do those actions give decent farmers a bad name; they also damage their image among the vast majority of the population.
Of course, farmers are not responsible for all, or even most, cases of pollution. When I recently pointed out to a farming audience that farmers caused 20 per cent. of pollution cases, the point was made in reply that that meant that farmers did not cause 80 per cent. of them. That, of course, does not excuse farmers; there is far too much farm pollution.
248
But it demonstrates the importance of tackling all sources of environmental pollution.
The Water Act has created a strong and independent National Rivers Authority as a watchdog for the water environment. It has also paved the way for privatising the 10 former water authorities of England and Wales so that they can have access to the private capital needed to do their job. They now plan to spend nearly £25 billion over the next 10 years cleaning up our rivers and beaches and purifying our drinking water.
Now our Environment Bill takes another major step forward. It will concentrate in particular on controlling damage to the environment from industry and from wastes. There will be three main flagships in the Bill. First, we are introducing in England and Wales a new system of integrated pollution control which will be as advanced as any in the world. For the first time, pollution from all major industrial and commercial processes will be controlled, taking account of the effect on the environment as a whole, so problems will not simply be moved from one area only to cause more damage somewhere else. There will be tough penalties if people break the terms of their authorisation.
The second flagship is a tough and comprehensive new system of waste regulation. There will be a new duty of care on the producer of waste all the way through from its production to its final disposal. Local waste authorities will have much greater powers of enforcement and will have to ensure that their own waste facilities are set at arm's length so that conflicts of interest are avoided. We are taking steps to ensure that local authorities recycle much more waste than they do at present. The Bill also provides sweeping powers to stop the import of waste where that is necessary to protect our environment.
The third flagship is a brand new system of controls over genetically modified organisms. GMOs are an emerging technology. They offer enormous potential for advance, but we must ensure that we have proper controls over any releases into the environment. The Bill will provide those controls and put us ahead of just about every other country in so doing.
The Bill will also include provisions for setting up strong, separate nature conservation bodies in England, Scotland and Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last week that those provisions will include proper arrangements for full co-operation on matters of concern common to all three country bodies. There will be a statutory joint committee, serviced by the three bodies, specifically to deal with GB-wide and international issues, and common scientific interest.
It was noticeable that, when the environment was debated in another place last week during the debate on the gracious Speech, hardly anyone commented on the many welcome proposals in the Bill. Silence, in that case, certainly meant approval. Much of what comment there was was directed at attacking our plans to restructure the conservation agencies. I wonder whether the critics can really have studied the arguments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. She criticises my colleagues in another place for not having commented in detail on the Bill. Neither they nor we have seen the Bill. It is not too surprising if we are silent about something that we have not seen.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the other hand comment was made on one of our plans. That is what I am talking about at the moment. We believe that our plans will genuinely benefit conservation. It is no coincidence that they were welcomed in Scotland and Wales, where for the first time we are creating independent national bodies to take a national view of national issues.
Before I turn from the Bill, I should mention a subject near and dear to my heart. I refer to the provisions on litter. The state of some of our city streets is a disgrace. There are two main reasons for that. The first is that a selfish minority of people persist in dropping litter. The Bill provides for a huge increase to £1,000 in the maximum fine for litter dropping. I hope that magistrates will use that new power widely. It also enables local authorities to introduce fixed penalty schemes for littering along the lines of the successful experiment in Westminster. That will be an important step in an area where some other countries have already met with great success in the fight against litter.
The second reason is that some local authorities simply do not put street cleaning high enough up their list of priorities. We do not have to suffer from the litter disease. I was for instance greatly struck by how clean and tidy the organisers of this summer's celebration of British Food and Farming Year kept Hyde Park during the great exhibition. But the Bill will give all local authorities the duty to keep their streets clean. A statutory code of conduct will set out what the public can reasonably expect from them. Individuals will be able to take their council to court if it falls down on the job. The duty will also apply to certain statutory undertakers and other owners of open space to which the public have access. In the long term a change in attitudes is essential, but the Bill will do a great deal to improve the present unsatisfactory situation.
The Bill is an important earnest of the Government's determination to protect the environment. It deserves—and I am sure that it will receive —a warm welcome in your Lordships' House, and then I shall have a chance to see it too.
Our record stands with the best. We are spending £2 billion on cleaning up pollution from our power stations. We have taken a lead in the Community in pressing for faster action on CFCs. We are making a major contribution to international efforts to improve our understanding of climate change. The coming Bill will make further substantial progress.
These actions are not sops to the wilder fringes of the environmental movement. They are proof that we take our responsibilities with great seriousness. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, addressing the United Nations General Assembly earlier this month, rightly spoke of the threat to the global environment as the challenge to the world
250
community which has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance. She pointed out that the scale of the problems facing us has no precedent. It calls for action both nationally and in co-operation with our international partners. It calls for proper scientific understanding and economic development which is both strong enough and wise enough to sustain us. The Government are meeting those calls. We are committed to ensuring that the environment we hold in trust for the future is handed on in good shape.
I am only too aware that I have barely touched on the fringes of a vast subject today. But I cannot end my part in these proceedings without paying my small tribute to all those whose efforts really do add up to our living in a green and pleasant land. I do not just mean the farmer whose work lies at the beginning of the chain; I mean the scientists, the voluntary and statutory bodies, ADAS. the doctors and the vets—so many people whose dedication and hard work add up to the whole. I look forward to listening to your Lordships.
3.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I mean no disrespect to the noble Baroness or to the importance of the subjects with which she has dealt in her speech when I say straightaway that I shall be dealing with the matters of debate in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper; in other words, I shall concentrate on the environment rather than food and agriculture, which will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Gallacher.
We are grateful to the noble Baroness for finding time in her speech for an exposition—a trailer so to speak—of the environment protection Bill which we have not seen and which she candidly admits she herself has not seen. It was valuable to have that little exposition. We shall be very interested to see how it appears in practice. We also look forward very much to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. We are glad that he has chosen this important debate in which to make his maiden speech.
I should like to spend as much time as possible in paying tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment. In particular, I should like to commend the interview that he gave yesterday on BBC television. Unfortunately I did not learn about it in time to view it, but I read extensive press reports of it. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for the Environment—I presume on behalf of the Government—is now saying many of the things which we in the Opposition have been saying for a number of years. I am afraid that they have not always found a reflection in previous Government Statements or indeed in current statements of members of the Government other than the Secretary of State for the Environment.
He hit the headlines by speaking about the need for higher taxes on petrol in order to reduce the use of the internal combustion engine. That is a very significant move by government towards a better view of the balance between public and private transport. He said that he found the prediction made by the Department of Transport for 140 per cent. growth in vehicle numbers over the next 35 years to

251
be wholly unacceptable. He implies that that means a greater emphasis on public transport and, incidentally, a less favourable reception for the kind of out-of-town shopping malls which require all the shoppers who use them to travel there by private car.
We shall be very interested to see how those new policy statements are received by the Department of Transport. We shall also be interested in the next speech of the Secretary of State for Transport in which he will endorse those new policy statements. They are certainly policy statements which are new to this Conservative Government; they mark a very considerable advance and will have to be carried out in practice not only by the Department of the Environment but by other major departments of state.
The Secretary of State also made considerable advances in the Government's view of energy policy. In his television interview he said that the price of energy must rise to take account of its long-term environmental effect. Those who have paid any attention to the passage through your Lordships' House of the Electricity Bill will know that the price of electricity will rise very steeply not because of the environmental effect of energy but because of the dogmatic and blind privatisation proposals of this Government. Like the price of water, the price of electricity will rise in order to yield private profits and not because of any energy implications or environmental implications of energy policy.
However, the Secretary of State went on saying good things, all of which are very much to be welcomed. He described the environment as being a moral issue as well as an issue of economics. I believe that it was the first time that it had been said so clearly by a Secretary of State for the Environment. He went on to say something which this Government certainly never recognised before; namely, that being keen on the environment is not a cost-free option. We shall be very interested to see in the next Budget and the next Autumn Statement how the costs will be identified and where the money will be found for the new environment policy.
The difficulty is that the Secretary of State's conversion to green policy is not reflected by either the Prime Minister's statements or the statements or policies of any of his Cabinet colleagues. Not only in her statements last year but also in her speech to the United Nations earlier this month, to which the Minister referred, the Prime Minister continues to place reliance on market standards and indeed to make the most extraordinary claim that we can rely on the multinationals to protect our environment. Our experience of multinationals protecting the environment is somewhat thin on the ground. Indeed, as recently as last month the right honourable lady was at Kuala Lumpur for the Commonwealth Conference. So far from protecting the environment it was she and she alone who opposed the Commonwealth environmental fund.
The Prime Minister is very strong on litter. I know that that matter is very close to the right honourable lady's heart. Every year or so, in what I believe is
252
called a photo opportunity, she is photographed dealing with litter and by implication criticising local authorities for their failure to deal with it. But that is a long way from the real environmental issues that face this country which will cost money to deal with and require a very different attitude from that of reliance on market forces, which is the hallmark of the Prime Minister's approach to these problems.
Let me give some examples of the way in which the Government are now in total confusion about their environmental policy. The Secretary of State for the Environment suggests that higher prices for energy will force people to use electricity more efficiently. But the history of this Government's attitude toward energy efficiency has a long and sordid past. The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office is now being cut and has been cut for a number of years. I recall that when there was a Commission on Energy and the Environment set up by the last Labour Government it reported to the first Conservative Government in 1982. The response of the Government was very carefully held back until Parliament had been dissolved prior to the 1983 election.
What did the Government say in their response? They said that the Government had no intention of drawing up an energy blueprint. I suppose that "blueprint" is a dirty word for an energy policy. That is what they really mean. They said that the Government see the most important contribution as removing obstacles to the free operation of market forces. That is not the way in which we shall achieve conservation. It is not the way in which to pursue a rational energy policy. It is not the way in which our energy policies will contribute to the well being of our people or the protection of the environment.
In his television interview yesterday the Secretary of State said that we can and must use the benefit system to shield the poor from the effects of more expensive energy. That may well be so, but if we do not have a policy to start with, we shall find the benefit system quite inadequate for the protection of our environment and the needs of our people.
Let us consider the issue of nuclear power where the Government's policies have collapsed more spectacularly perhaps than on any other single issue. Mr. Patten now admits that past enthusiasm for nuclear power as a green salvation is waning. However, speaking in New York at the United Nations the Prime Minister still promotes nuclear power as the green alternative and still contradicts the views of all those who have studied the environmental risks of nuclear power, drawn the lessons from Chernobyl and looked at the risks involved in particular in the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. That is why, after all, nuclear power has been taken out of the electricity privatisation programme.
Let me turn to the issue of global warming. Like so many threats to the environment, it is not only becoming worse but every single forecast that is made, every single piece of research that is done, forces the rate of anticipated deterioration upwards. There have been no cheerful pieces of research about global warming or any of the other issues with which

253
we are concerned since the matter first attracted public attention. Indeed, it is very clear not only that the damage is increasing but that the damage is irreversible.
The Secretary of State for the Environment says that the Government are committed to stabilising emissions. But when Mr. Trippier went to Noordwijk, he did not do any such thing. He claims to have acted as an honest broker dealing with the problem of carbon dioxide emissions but it was Britain which was dragging its heels in this matter. That was the widespread conclusion drawn after the Noordwijk Conference. Indeed, the Department of Energy forecasts that there will be a 73 per cent. increase in the emissions from the internal combustion engine of CO2 by the year 2020. Which represents Government policy? Is it the Department of Energy or the Department of the Environment? Which part of Department of the Environment shall we believe? While the Government still retain subsidisation of company cars at the highest level in the world, it is difficult to believe that we take the control of CO2 emissions very seriously.
Let us turn to water privatisation. It is very much a matter for the Department of the Environment. Let us leave on one side the economic absurdity that we have to write off £6·5 billion to obtain £5·2 billion in return. In other words, far from water privatisation producing money for the taxpayer in relief of taxes, we are giving the water industry away and giving £1·3 billion with it. However, quite apart from its economic absurdity, the process of water privatisation has been directly to the damage of the environment. It is now revealed that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has carried out no prosecutions of water authorities for the past two-and-a-half years. Why is that? It is because it was afraid that to carry out prosecutions to enforce the law as it stands, however inadequate that may be, would damage the privatisation programme: the inspectorate was therefore instructed not to pursue its prosecutions.
At the same time, at the last minute —as the Bill went through your Lordships' House last summer —we discovered that the Department of the Environment was sneaking into the Bill a measure which provides that there will be no effective prosecution of the new plcs on water quality because there will have to be 12 months' readings of water quality and those readings cannot start until privatisation has taken place. We therefore have a two-and-a-half year moratorium before privatisation and a 12-month moratorium after privatisation against the protection of the environment and the protection of water quality.
I hardly dare mention in your Lordships' House the sad and disgraceful story of the way in which we behave towards the European Community standards: the way in which, first, we deny that the standards exist; secondly, having recognised that they exist, we ignore the deadline for legislation; next, having met the deadline for legislation, we refuse to allow any deadline for compliance; and, when that is not acceptable to the European Commission, we fly across to Brussels and seek
254
hopelessly and vainly to escape the inevitable prosecutions.
The history of this Government in protecting water quality is not good and certainly does not deserve the very worthy sentiments of the Secretary of State in his television interview yesterday. In her introduction of the new Bill, the noble Baroness referred to the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council, although she did not quite describe it in those terms. Noble Lords who were present a couple of weeks ago at the debate on the European Community's report on habitat and species will know that it is universally accepted that many of the pollution problems that face our country are on a European, if not a global, scale. Yet what is now being proposed is that the responsibility in the principal statutory body concerned is to be broken up between England, Scotland and Wales.
I appreciate the strong feelings that there may be in Scotland and Wales about that. I appreciate that there may be some in the Labour Party who support it. But I put it to the Government that to turn over the responsibility for our protection to seven statutory bodies responsible to no fewer than four Secretaries of State as part of an environmental protection Bill is not a rational way to proceed.
Let us look at local authorities' responsibilities for the environment. For the past 150 years local authorities have been the country's environmental protection agencies. They have had the inspectorate. They have had responsibility for monitoring and controlling the quality of our air, water, food, health and safety, street cleaning, refuse collection, for the operation of our sewerage system, for open space and leisure and for operating the planning controls which protect the natural environment against the built environment. They deal with such matters as derelict land.
When the noble Baroness summarised the Bill that we have not seen, she did not refer to the fact that one of the principal proposals in the control of waste disposal is that there will be, in effect, privatisation of the waste disposal operations. She described the operators as arm's length companies. That is a euphemism for privatisation, as we know. Given the history of privatisation and dealing with pollution, is there much doubt that the measure will also be deeply damaging to the quality of our environment and to our ability to deal with environmental pollution as it arises from waste? Certainly, if that is what the Bill states, we on these Benches will be fiercely opposing any further privatisation provisions.
The Secretary of State ended his speech in another place on 22nd November with what I can only describe as a rousing call to arms in dealing with environmental pollution. He stated:
"We want to put down guidelines for the development of an environmental policy for the decade ahead. I hope that we shall be able to discuss that approach when we hold our debate on the loyal Address next year". [Official Report, Commons; 22/11/89, col. 217.]
There is a call to arms! There is a call for action. We can now see how much will be done and how concerned the Government are with environmental policy. I suggest to your Lordships' House that we

255
have not even started. The conversion of the Secretary of State before the television cameras is a long way from a coherent and effective environmental policy.
Oddly enough, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, from the Government Back Benches, has produced a Bill which goes some way towards answering the deficiencies of the Government's environmental policy. It is a fascinating Bill. It is concerned more with framework than with policies as legislation so often is. We shall be interested to see what response it has from the Government. The noble Earl is proposing an environmental protection commission to be controlled by the Secretary of State. He is proposing that there should be criminal penalties for pollution, with the onus on the defendant to prove that he was not polluting. He proposes quite interesting duties on employers to be enforced by regulation prepared by the Secretary of State. But, in addition to a framework which has clearly some advantages and some major disadvantages, the noble Earl is proposing two of the principles which are enshrined in the Labour Party policy document on the quality of life to which I shall turn next.
The first is that there shall be a presumption against pollution. The second is that we should look for a precautionary approach for prevention of pollution rather than waiting for pollution to take place and penalising it afterwards. I do not know what you do with a stalking horse —you cannot launch it —but the noble Earl has certainly begun the debate in a most constructive way. We look forward to seeing the progress that his Bill makes in your Lordships' House.
During the remainder of the time available to me I shall talk not about frameworks for environmental control but about the principles behind them. It is the principles behind environmental improvement and the quality of life which are at the heart of the Labour Party's policy approved by our conference in October.
As I said when referring to the Bill brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, the first is a presumption against pollution. In other words, our whole emphasis should be on pre-empting pollution rather than attempting to scatter it by the use of higher and higher chimneys and longer and longer sea outlets for refuse and sewage disposal or by using cleaning-up methods.
The second is the well-established but widely ignored principle that the polluter pays. Not only should we fix limits for acceptable pollution but we should enforce them. As I made clear when talking about the water industry, we are simply not doing so.
The third is the precautionary principle. An important element is that there should be effective scientific research which is not starved of funds, particularly that directed to the reduction of energy consumption. At present such research is being starved of funds by the Government.
The fourth principle is that there should be freedom of environmental information. I recall our debates on the Water Bill and the way in which we
256
had to squeeze out of the Government every piece of information about water quality. We did so comma by comma, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, yet still we did not achieve on the face of the Bill a simple explanation of water quality. I then realised how far we are from having freedom of environmental information in our society.
The quality of life is about the environment—our sea, air, water and land. It is also about many other aspects and it would be wrong not to refer to them at least in outline. It is about housing. Our housing policy is an essential part of our lives. Indeed, for many people it is the most essential part. Under this Government housing finance is a shambles. We are spending more on subsidising taxpayers who are also owner-occupiers—in particular they are the tenants' private landlords—in contrast to those most in need and council tenants whose rents are being forced to rise. I know that my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick will refer to that matter and so I shall say no more about it. However, it is clear that cuts have been forced on public housing by the Government, and for many years they have departed from the principle that decent housing should be available at an affordable price to those who need it. The situation is becoming worse rather than better.
I have referred to the subject of transport in outline only. However, the policy of a government whose Prime Minister never travels by train and whose attitude towards the funding of public transport is that roads shall receive 100 per cent. but railways nil per cent. is clearly not acceptable in the 1990s and beyond. The Government have been shown up by Mr. Karel van Miert, the Transport Commissioner in Brussels—incidentally, he is a Socialist —because he has rightly called for a network of high speed trains throughout the European Community servicing all industrial regions which need access to their markets. The Labour Party proposes that the high speed traffic from the Channel Tunnel shall be the start of a necessary network of national high speed railways for goods and passengers.
There are many other aspects of our policies to which other of my noble friends will wish to refer. However, I conclude by reminding the House of the Reith lectures given in 1969 by Sir Frank Fraser Darling, as he became, who was a most distinguished biologist. At the beginning of his lectures he referred to the necessary connection between ecology and economics. Indeed, they derive from the same Greek word. Only last year the Prime Minister paid lip service to that connection in saying that we were inhabiting this planet not on a freehold but on a full repairing lease. Indeed, that is the origin of the connection between economics and the environment.
Sir Frank Fraser Darling went on to talk about environmental socialism. He talked about the impossibility of market forces on their own dealing with the environmental problems which face this country, this continent and the world. He said that, unless the polluters are prepared to forgo a portion of their profits and devote them to the rebuilding of landscape, our environmental conditions will

257
continue to become worse. All the experience of the past 20 years has shown that market forces have not been enough to deal with environmental problems.
The policy which the Government propose to take them—and, as it will be, us—into the 1990s is hopelessly flawed from the outset. I need remind the House only about the position of the third world, responsibility for which the present Secretary of State for the Environment once held. At present the third world is subsidising us rather than the other was round. In 1988 its members paid £43 billion in interest on debt. That is more than is now being spent on new aid to all third world countries.
If we believe that we can cut ourselves off from the less-developed world and, by exhortation, discourage its members from cutting down rain forests and causing other damage to the environment we have another think coming. We are more fortunate members of the world's society and as such we must take responsibility for all the ecological damage being caused by modern industry and agriculture. That will never be done by a government headed by someone who says, "There is no such thing as society".
3.48 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall concentrate mainly on agriculture because, after hearing the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I feel deeply depressed about the environment. However, I agree with practically everything that he said.
I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I hope that he will have something fresh to say to us. I shall not say anything particularly new but I wish to bring agriculture back into its proper place. It is an important and great industry in this country.
At the present, most people talk about agriculture as though it no longer matters and as though the farmers should become park keepers for visitors to the countryside instead of carrying out an important part of the economic structure of our country. It will do no harm to repeat the figures. There are almost 600,000 people working in agriculture on farms. There are 250,000 farm workers. When we talk about directing subsidies to the small farmer there is a strong case for realising that many people depend for their living on large farms as well as on small farms in the countryside.
The latest figure for total production which I have is nearly £12 billion worth of food—and that is farm gate and not to the customer. That is obviously of enormous importance in a country which this year will be £20 billion in the red on foreign trade.
I believe that we must look at this matter in a serious manner with regard to the actual industry and the farmers therein because one would think that there were no more problems. However, there are extraordinary problems in farming. People are going bust. Bank interest rates are higher and more people are going out of the industry gently, having lost money. To take 1977 as a starting date, farm income is less than 40 per cent. of what it was 12
258
years ago. That cannot indicate a very prosperous industry.
Because of farming efficiency, the rise in prices is lower than in any other sphere. Farm growing prices are again at about 150 per cent.—and this is in money and not real terms—food prices are at about 180 per cent. and retail prices are well over 200 per cent. of what they were in 1978. That appears to me to indicate a reasonably efficient industry. When the Minister spoke about the reform of the CAP—and the gracious Speech said that the Government would pursue the reform of the CAP—her main concern was to get the costs down. I wholly agree with her that the CAP is far too expensive but the bulk of the money does not go to the farming population. The bulk of the money goes on subsidies for exports, storage and administration costs. It does not go the farmer. The Minister did not say anything about reforming the CAP so that more money goes to the farmer, but I believe that that is something upon which she should concentrate.
It is all very well to advise farmers to look around, take in lodgers and go to town on other enterprises. However, all the farmers in Britain cannot diversify in any major part of their work and industry. They must rely on producing the very valuable amount of food that they produce and which saves a lot of imports. They must do that and need protection to do so. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the third world. The biggest damage is caused not by us charging interest which, happily, they often do not pay but by the drop in their prices occasioned by a free market. Millions and millions of primary producers cannot possibly protect their own market and that does infinitely more harm to the third world than any other single factor.
The reason that commodity agreements do not work and in many cases have not worked is that they do not pay any attention to market trends or try to control surpluses. The tin agreement broke up for that reason and many others have done so. However, that is no reason to abandon the idea, because without the commodity agreements the primary producer will inevitably be in real trouble. That has been the history of farming for a great many years—long before the present CAP—and especially between the wars when there was hunger, deprivation and misery right across this country and elsewhere.
We must look at what is happening in this country. We must see which portions are doing reasonably well. It is true that milk producers are getting a reasonable return and have reduced the surpluses. They have done that by means of quotas. That appears to me to be a system which is fair to the community and to the countryside. It is true that it is not possible to do that in every case. However, simply to reduce the price does not appear to me to fulfil the objective of giving agriculture a fair crack of the whip.
As regards the hills, the countryside and the environment which is enormously important to city dwellers—and I do not believe that farmers cause 20 per cent. of pollution; in fact, I am certain that they do not—we need people to live in the country. When we speak of the hills of Scotland (which are

259
particularly important to me), the hills of Wales, and the high country of England and protecting the small farmer there, we in this country must be certain that the industry as a whole can continue—the largest sheep farmers as well as the small farmer. Certainly on the Continent there is a different structure. However, the hills of Scotland would suffer severely if the hill land compensatory amount were reduced to the level spoken of and agreed at the latest round of talks in Brussels. That would do great harm because, for example a farmer in Sutherland with five hirsels of sheep employing five shepherds would suffer a drop in his income which would drive him out of sheep farming and drive the people off the land. Therefore, I hope that the Government are prepared to stand by the farmers in the hills and to take up the slack; that is, to keep up the present hill land compensatory payments to the farmers of Wales and Scotland. I believe that it is very important to do so.
As regards farming on the low ground, there are surpluses which of course we must deal with. However, I do not believe that set aside in its present form is the way to do that. Certainly it is a start, but to pay a farmer £80 per acre to take his land out of production without any rules as to how well it is to be kept and, in effect, to give him permission to grow weeds is not the best way to deal with the matter.
We need to do something about extensification or organic farming. There is a programme of research under way in Scotland with funding of about £0.5 million or something of that nature; that is a start. However, organic or extensive farming—call them what you will or ally the two together—is a very complex process which needs much research and help. It can work but our most distinguished farming economist, Mr. Murphy of Cambridge, said:
"Green farming at 1989 rent levels would be economic suicide".
In other words, the cost has risen so much that in the present climate organic or extensive farming may or may not be profitable and according to Mr. Murphy's thesis, it will be a loss leader.
However, we can make nothing of extensive or organic farming without research. It is true that in farming as a whole the search for higher yields together with the application of foods and chemicals to stop diseases have led to an extraordinary rise in costs. That has been a negative factor in that people are producing far more than they were 10 years ago but are making smaller profits because of the savage rise in costs. One problem at which the Minister and the Government must look, although according to their theory they cannot do anything about it, is the enormous rise in interest rates which hits the industry very hard. With an income of less than half, borrowing in Scotland is four times the level it was when the income was double. This cannot make for efficient or profitable agriculture.
What do the Government intend to do about land use? Instead of setting land aside or suggesting the growing of more and more, using chemicals which cost more and more, they should be using the land correctly. There should be proper research into
260
varieties which will grow under organic conditions and there should be breeding for that purpose. We should look to get rid of pests biologically.
There was an interesting article in the Economist this week about muscovy ducks being infinitely more effective at getting rid of flies in dairies than chemicals. Using them is also very much cheaper. Their diet of flies produces excellent duck flesh and they get rid of more flies than do the chemicals. The smell of duck is also very much nicer than the smell of chemicals. That is the kind of research which needs to be done before what I would regard as more sensible farming can be profitable in this country.
The Government intend well—at least I hope they intend well—but they are being pulled along. They should recognise that agriculture is a great industry. They should also recognise that the farming population is valuable for more than simply keeping the countryside in order. Farmers contribute more in that respect than anyone else. However, they cannot keep the countryside in order and make it look well unless they make a profit. When I was making profit from farming I would plant daffodils along the roadside. In bad years no daffodils were planted. If we carry on as we are now, with high interest rates and a steady drop in prices, the environment in the countryside will suffer as well as the farmer.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, apart from a deep personal and political concern, I must also declare a commercial interest in the subject of the environment, or rather in waste management and pollution control. I beg your Lordships' indulgence for changing the direction of the debate again. I am a director of a small company currently involved in the research and development of a safe container for the transport and storage of hazardous products, but most particularly of all types of non-nuclear toxic waste. I make this declaration not so much as evidence of self-interest but as evidence of credentials.
It has often been said that the answer to those environmental problems of which we are all too well aware is simply a matter of increased financial resources. We have some very expensive problems; so there is a great deal of truth in this. But it is not a simple truth. The complexity in spending arises when one analyses how the financial resources should be applied, why they will be of any use and from where those resources are to come. This is of course true of everything, not just the environment. Every area has its experts but we seem to have a good deal of difficulty sorting out the appropriate candidates to make, or advise on, the decisions that are fundamental to a concerted effort to save the planet from decline.
There is much talk about the short term and the long term in environmental policy. In reality there is only the long term. Short-term problems can be suitably dealt with only in the context of sustainable long-term solutions, or at the least with the concept of sustainable long-term solutions in mind. I apply this both to current practice and to remedial problem

261
solving. Environmental policy must direct itself to the preservation and improvement of the quality of life that we have, or hope to have, and will pass on to future generations. We all know that our environment has suffered not from our complacency but from the sheer incomprehension of the consequences of the type of civilisation we have created. We must not add insult to injury by allowing ourselves to be either complacent or over-cautious in reacting to our new-found awareness. We no longer have the excuse of ignorance.
The public are certainly not complacent in their attitudes to environmental problems. As a consequence there is a massive swell of grassroots opinion that governments everywhere must address. Public awareness is now at such a pitch that there are dire political implications for those failing to implement a strong environmental policy that not only lies within, but is part of, the framework of economic reality. In the preface of what is often referred to as the Pearce Report, but is actually called Blueprint for a Green Economy, the authors quote a survey carried out for Eurobarometer in December 1988 on the political importance within the European Community of various current problems. The environment, with 93 per cent., ranks second in importance only to unemployment, with 98 per cent., and is way above the much publicised single European market, with 67 per cent. Governments and their expert advisers of the highest calibre must not shy away from positive and, where necessary, stringent measures to fight what is not a battle but a global war against a common enemy. As Briand said to Lloyd George:
"War is far too serious to be left to the military".
I want now to be more specific about one problem area which we share to a greater or lesser extent with all other industrialised nations. I want to deal with standards and their implementation within the particular area of pollution control known as hazardous waste management. I make it quite clear that what I am going to say about this subject applies in a general way across the board in all areas of pollution control.
There have been several highly commendable if little publicised reports produced by committees of both Houses. There were two reports on hazardous waste in 1981 and 1989 from the Science and Technology Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and one this year on toxic waste from the Environment Committee of another place chaired by Sir Hugh Rossi. The reports have two factors in common. The first is the recommendation that the import of waste to direct landfill should be discontinued. This initiative has been taken up by the Government and has been an important influence on international negotiations, although direct landfill is still permitted if there has been prior treatment.
Secondly, all the reports indicated most strongly the immediate necessity for an increase in the technical and overseeing standards of operation of hazardous waste management in the United Kingdom, the first and most obvious reason being that we need to ensure that environmental quality is as high as can possibly, or perhaps I should say
262
reasonably, be attained, given current knowledge. The second reason is more complicated. It is so that we can develop an indigenous pollution control equipment industry alongside recycling and minimisation rather than having to rely on the import of expensive technology to meet those higher performance standards of pollution control that we aspire to. In order to encourage investment in this industry—the environment is the growth industry of the 1990s —we must ensure that the technical standards required in waste management and the technical options chosen are on a par with the highest standards of those of our European neighbours.
In the Environment Protection Bill to be put before Parliament during the course of this Session, the Government intend to strengthen regulation of pollution control. The traditional piecemeal control of pollution in all its many forms will be abandoned. In future pollution will be controlled in relation to the environment as a whole under a new system called integrated pollution control. Streamlining is an obvious and important first step. An increase in inspectorate personnel with statutory powers to implement this integrated pollution control is also part of the Bill. But if we do not tighten regulation with enough severity and also give those who implement it enough power, we will continue to store up a legacy of pollution and contaminated land and water for future generations. Furthermore, we will miss out on a major current and future export market for more advanced and more complete and environmentally sound treatment of hazardous waste.
A country's environmental policy must also be such that it can be integrated at an international level. The only way in which this worldwide problem can be dealt with is to have compatibility of policies that enable international agreements to go forward. Controls are being tightened at the international level in the movements of hazardous waste products but international agreements are only the enabling mechanism which facilitates certain actions to be taken if the member countries so wish. A particular instance of this is the Basle Convention, worked on so assiduously and well by my noble friend Lord Caithness and his staff. This has been signed by 36 countries and the EC as a whole, but as yet only one has ratified, namely Jordan. Until enacted within 20 signatory countries it is only a notice of intent. I assume that the Bill will cover the matter; I hope that it will bring forward total ratification of the Basle Convention.
However, it should be noted that there are significant absences from the list of countries that have so far signed the convention, including the USA, the USSR and Japan. I am sure that constant pressure is being brought on them to join with the rest of us in regulating this very emotive business. At the end of the day, those international standards that are wanted by all can only be the result of the strong environmental policies of individual states.
Alongside the Basle Convention the Department of the Environment also wants to introduce the concept of self-sufficiency of individual states, only allowing them to export when they do not have either the capacity or the capability of disposing of

263
their own waste. The potential stumbling block of this policy is that those countries with the most stringent regulations are those that would prefer to export their hazardous waste rather than increase their capacity even though they have the capability. And where will the frontiers be in 1992? The European Community regulations can deal with this in respect of imports from, for example, the United States. But what of movements of hazardous waste from West Germany to the United Kingdom? The answer is surely that we must have equally stringent regulations to be operated within our newly-integrated pollution control framework.
If these problems can be dealt with, measures such as the ones I have mentioned will place a burden of responsibility on all sides of the trade in hazardous waste. With higher standards imposed in this way within membership countries we will see tremendous improvements in technological capability when market forces come into operation. In the United Kingdom, with our investment potential and research and development capability, we should be the front runners in the pollution control industries. We must not let the opportunity slip as we did with the servicing of the North Sea oil industry.
However, it is not only in terms of technological standards that the United Kingdom has to raise its sights. In a modern society the quality of any environmental policy will be measured largely in terms of the resources and, in particular, the personnel dedicated to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the policies which are extant. Notwithstanding the creation of some 35 new posts the current haemorrhage—I do not believe that to be too strong a word—of senior personnel from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the almost total reluctance of new recruits to enter this service at a senior level indicate a disparity of salaries in the public and private sectors for this highly technical and demanding work and in most instances a disillusionment that the nature of the policies and the resources available do not match what these highly qualified and competent staff realise is necessary to operate the standard of policy which is expected in Great Britain today.
What I know of the Environment Protection Bill seems to indicate that the Government are prepared to confront these problems. Let us hope that we in this country end up with an anti-pollution inspectorate that is not only satisfying to its employees but fulfils the task that the public demands; an inspectorate that can implement adherence to the highest possible standards and punish anyone that seeks to circumvent those standards.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord on a first-class maiden speech. It is customary for whoever follows to say something about the speaker but I had difficulty in finding out about him. I asked the Government Whips and, helpful as ever, they gave me a brief which unfortunately related to his
264
father. I have suffered—I shall not say with being identified with my father—but we are individuals and not our fathers. Luckily we have been told by the noble Lord a great deal about himself in a splendid speech and one which is entirely relevant to the subject we are discussing today. He gave some very good advice to the Government and we are grateful to him.
I know that the noble Lord's particular business involves some fairly advanced technology and we need all the technical skills that we can bring to bear on this complex issue. I was grateful that he referred to my noble friend Lord Gregson, who has been ill. I believe that he is recovering well. The noble Lord developed a theme that I was going to take up in my speech but he has covered the issue so fully. In particular he has dealt with a problem which I hope the noble Baroness will note; namely, the shortage of resources on the inspection side. What is happening is a tragedy.
Unless the Government provide the resources, all their fine words and proposals which seem admirable will not produce the results. I particularly have in mind the problem of the various local authorities, some of which are simply not strong enough to sustain the role that is rightly given them. I hope that this is a matter that will be taken into account. The Select Committee has put strong emphasis on this issue and it welcomes the action that the Government have taken by way of the new Bill. The Government must provide the sinews to make it possible.
I am speaking still as chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is a post that I shall hold for another couple of days. Therefore this is not my maiden speech but my last speech as chairman. I wish to speak about some of the issues that we have raised in the past and on which we hope for further action. One concerns a problem that was not dealt with by the committee and that is the commons. There was an omission in the gracious Speech; there was no reference to commons. It is three years since the Government promised legislation on this subject. The role of the commons is vital and they are a major contribution to the environment. I happen to live in the New Forest and we fight battles there.
There are several hundred thousand acres of commonland and we need the Bill. All the people concerned are in general agreement and the Government should have no difficulty in getting a Bill through. I ask the noble Baroness to take note of that.
We are very interested in the Government's proposals for the Nature Conservancy Council. As the noble Baroness will know, the Select Committee is anxious to look at the scientific provisions for that council's work. This matter is quite fundamental. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the history of the Nature Conservancy Council. Noble Lords will recall that when the Trend proposals for the research councils were put into effect there was a split in the Nature Conservancy, as it was then known, and institutes like Monks Wood were transferred into the new Natural Environment

265
Research Council. That seemed a perfectly logical and sensible arrangement.
We soon found that it was extremely damaging to the rump, which consisted of the Nature Conservancy Council, because very able scientists had no opportunity to do research. It was very largely as the result of debates in your Lordships' House that the government of the day amended the arrangements to make provision for some of that research to be done by the Nature Conservancy Council and its staff. I do not know how this will work in the future.
There are no fewer than seven new institutions being created. There is considerable anxiety about how the individual members, whether in Scotland or in Wales, will have access and the ability to take part in their own research. However, I do not intend to pass judgment because this is a matter that the Select Committee would wish to look at. I hope that we will have evidence on this subject.
That is a very important area and one that I do not think that they have thought out. I wish that they would look at the history behind nature conservancy. It is a difficult area in which to find the right kind of institutions. It looks as though it could be a bureaucratic mess. Much as one admires the keenness of the Scots to have their own activity, nonetheless it needs very careful working out.
Another area with which the Select Committee is concerned, and in respect of which we welcome action by the Government, is food and protection of the consumer of food. That action will not be effective without a strong research base. I am not sure whether that exists in this country to the extent that is necessary. Furthermore, there is the problem of near market research, from which the Government have withdrawn funds. It sounds a very sensible move, but there are certain things which still need to be backed up by government finance. I urge the Government to look at that matter. The noble Baroness understands these issues very well and I ask her to say that this is something that is very important. It is no good having fine words unless the money and resources are there. They need to be directed very skilfully.
My noble friend in his opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench referred to the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations. I do not disagree with some of the aspects of the noble Lord's speech, but I believe that the Prime Minister's speech was an outstanding speech. It was a very good speech indeed. We would all do well, whatever our party, to read it. It covered a very wide range of subjects, to some of which I shall refer. It was a very impressive speech. Unfortunately, some of the Ministers do not seem able to carry out some of the things that the Prime Minister would like carried out, and I should like to refer to some of those. Indeed it is as good a speech as one can find on the subject of the environment.
The Prime Minister is relying a great deal on industry to do the job. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said, there is also a need for government finance. That is one of the areas of difficulty.
266
I have covered most of the topics, including hazardous waste disposal, within the British scene. I should like to turn to the overseas world. It is quite true that the British, like those in other countries, must play their part in the developing world. I should like to draw attention to one area of great success. The world leaders on rain forest research are British. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, were here. He is a great biologist, like his father, and is one of the leaders in this field. The recent Royal Geographical Society expedition to the Maraca area of Brazil was led by John Hemming, the Director of the Royal Geographical Society. It was one of the biggest and most successful projects of its kind in history. For example, they discovered 200 new species. It was a useful lead-up to the visit by the Secretary of State for the Environment who seized the initiative and has now signed an agreement with the Brazilian Government.
Some of our skills, confined in this small island, were learnt in the early days of the Empire, to places like Borneo. I was surveyor to an expedition nearly 60 years ago to an area where the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook is now working. There is an interest and an ability in this country, which I hope that the Government will encourage. I hope that Ministers are aware of what is going on and that the initiatives of the Royal Geographical Society and the Natural Environment Research Council are taken into account in Government thinking.
I should like to refer to another area in the global field. There are noble Lords in this House who know that the Government's record on space has been quite deplorable. One Minister—I shall not mention his name, although noble Lords will know to whom I refer—did a great job for the European Space Agency. I was told by a very senior man in the European Space Agency that he was so rude to his fellow Europeans that they all united and came to an agreement. That is not the kind of thing that one likes to hear.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's speech which promised to provide extra funds, particularly in the remote sensing area. Without more money for remote sensing and without the British playing their part, we shall not be able to cope with some of the issues of global warming. There will be a report from the Select Committee published tomorrow or the next day concerning the need for more scientific support, particularly the support of the European Research Satellite No. 2 and the polar platforms. We very nearly missed out on those and lost a lot of business. I am surprised that the French relented after we insulted them and let us in again, but we are in. I hope that there will be some real interest in this matter. I am encouraged by the attitude of Ministers, which I think has changed. This is an area of the greatest importance. It is fundamental to the whole question of global warming and what will happen.
With regard to oceanography, the Prime Minister referred to the significance of plankton and the need for oceanographers to do a great deal of work. However, the new oceanographic centre at Southampton in which the university has to participate, will have great difficulty in getting the

267
necessary funding to do the job. I hope that Mr. Patten will be able to look outside the immediate responsibility of his own department at the wider aspects of government and co-ordinate those matters. It is a difficult area. Other countries have stronger institutions. However, I am encouraged by what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, did a good job while he was there. I spoke to him some while after I complained bitterly of what had happened. He said to me: "It is a pity I have left the Government just when you have converted me." I hope that that conversion is continuing.
I should like to conclude by quoting something that was said to me the other day. I thought that it was a valid point and I wrote it down. It concerned global warming and the environment.
"The one cardinal point is to monitor carefully and over a long term the temperature and other characteristics of the atmosphere and the oceans. There are large random fluctuations, but we know that there are within these fluctuations some made-made effects. They can only be detected and understood by long-term measurements, using remote sensing."
That was said by the Astronomer Royal who is the physical secretary of the Royal Society. I think that that was the theme of the Prime Minister's speech. We should like to see actions to give effect to what the right honourable lady said.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for his maiden speech. I had the privilege to know his very distinguished father and I am delighted that he is with us now. I hope that he takes the opportunity to address us on many occasions.
I should like to congratulate the Government on a number of proposals in the Queen's Speech with which I entirely agree. Today we are concerned with agriculture, food safety and the environment.
With regard to agriculture, I should like to make an appeal to the Government which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will pass on to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, since it is almost intrinsically about Scottish agriculture. However, first, I should like to say how much I welcome the proposals for food safety. I have been amazed by the amount of problems which have arisen in recent years and which must obviously be dealt with. I think that the Government's proposals are extremely good, although I do not think that they will be very easy to administer.
Firstly, I think that the registration of food premises and their need for improvement are of great importance. If necessary improvements are not carried out, there will be an order to close the premises. It is an exceedingly strong proposal and one which I entirely support. Secondly, there is a proposal to give local authorities more power to see that food safety laws are truly carried out. I worked for many years in local government and I cannot remember ever being asked whether or knowing whether anyone was doing anything about food
268
safety. Therefore I very much hope that this proposal will be carried out.
Thirdly, there is the proposal to increase the control of food contaminants and dangerous residues which will allow the Minister and local authorities to make inquiries and impose control orders, if necessary. I think that that proposal is most valuable and also a very good one. Fourthly, with the change in food technology there is the proposal to bring up to date the legislation needed when conditions change.
All those factors are of interest to the consumer and to the producer. I hope enormously that this will help to prevent illness. It will also be very valuable for the public. The guidelines which are to be issued to help members of local authorities, who will be the principal people to carry out the instructions, are also excellent, and local authorities will be compensated for the work that they have to do, which will of course be very expensive. However, it is vital, and I congratulate the Government on putting all those aspects into their programmes.
Perhaps I may now say a word about Scottish agriculture. In doing so I speak as one who has been a farmer for something like 50 years in Scotland and in the area where the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, lives. Therefore he knows all about this subject. The phrase "less favoured areas" is a technical description of hill land. However, to me the land is not less favoured: I love it and I live there; but it is a vast area which is technically designated as being less favoured.
In Scotland 90 per cent. of the total land is within this less favoured area; 85 per cent. is designated in that way. Moreover, 84 per cent. of beef cow herds and 92 per cent. of the sheep breeding flocks are located in such areas. That is an enormous amount of agricultural production. It shows that livestock production is by far the biggest economic activity and one of the biggest sources of employment. It is also a stabiliser for the population in those vast areas.
I agree very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about the importance of keeping people in the countryside. If you have beautiful countryside and tidy areas which people love to visit, you must have people living in them. In my view if we do not encourage people to stay in such areas we shall see very devastating results.
No other industry compares with this one. The beef sector is worth £366 million a year and sheep production amounts to £159 million. All this produce is needed: it is sold, it is exported and it is consumed. It is estimated that the export of beef and lamb outside the United Kingdom is now running at a level of £100 million annually. That figure shows how vital this industry is to Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hill livestock compensatory allowance, known by the initials HLCA, has made this possible. I should like to suggest that a reduction in the HLCA grants would have a desperate effect. The suggestion which comes from Brussels of a limitation in the numbers of sheep and cattle would leave many farmers reduced to a very small income. In fact a

269
great many of them, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has already said, would probably give up.
Hill land is ideal for producing store lambs and store cattle. It also helps the farmers on the better land, as very often they buy our store lambs and our store cattle. They fatten them up on their good land and then sell them direct to the abattoirs for human consumption. That process has been going on for years and it is highly successful.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture has fought a strong battle in Brussels for the agriculture of the United Kingdom. There has been an increase in the numbers which were first proposed by the EC for the less favoured areas. If these restrictions and reductions are not altered the effect on the Highlands and on the hill land —and this is not only in Scotland; areas in the North of England and in the greater part of Wales are in the same category—would be devastating. The reduction in income if sheep farmers in the less favoured areas were to suffer a fall in their income would be at least £3,000 a year for a normal farmer and of course much more for a large farmer.
There is one other aspect which should be considered. We are being urged every day to conserve the beauties of our countryside. Indeed, this was spoken about in today's debate by many noble Lords. If the hills are left derelict, the effect would be a wilderness of weeds, scrub and useless areas which were previously kept down by live animals. This hill farming enables holidaymakers, hikers and so on to walk over the hills in many areas. Farmers would again be attacked by the "green" enthusiasts, when we are the last people to want to spoil the hill land. Indeed, we wish to keep it. We want it to be fertile, we want to do all we can with it and we want to use it in the proper way. The last thing we want is to see it going derelict.
It seems to me that one of the difficulties connected with the EC is that many proposals are directed to small farms and intensive production. Of course such farms exist, but often the owners earn their living from other work and farming is only a secondary occupation to them, rather like the crofting industry in the Highlands of Scotland where fishing and farming go together. One cannot make one's income entirely out of crofting, but one can survive if one adds on something else. I think that such a system is tremendously successful in Europe, but in the area about which I am speaking it is not possible. In the vast areas of England, Scotland and Wales, hill farming is the sole occupation and therefore must be looked upon with great concern. Up until now—and this is another advantage—there has been no overproduction. We have been able to supply that which has been demanded of us and the grants have made it possible to sell at ordinary prices.
I trust that the agricultural Ministers will do all they can to help in the matter. This is one of the most important industries in the United Kingdom. I also hope that they will continue to fight against such restrictions. That is vital. I know the industry; I live among it and I see the people. It is essential that we should be able to continue. The Government have admirable policies in many ways. However, in
270
this particular way they will still have to fight for the interests of the farming community.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in rising to speak, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his maiden speech. He was obviously master of his brief and understood very well the particular facet of the subject to which he spoke. I look forward to hearing from him on future occasions, as the subject of the environment has started to take pride of place in our national discussions right across the political spectrum.
It is perhaps difficult to rise and speak on a subject such as housing when we have just put to bed the Local Government and Housing Act. However, I think I have spent almost every Session of Parliament since I have been a Member of another place and of your Lordships' House on a housing Bill in one form or another. Without being accused of sour grapes, I have to say that the housing situation has become progressively worse overall. The only success that the Government can claim, in my opinion, is the forced sale of council houses. That has been debated, it is a fact and it is the only success story that the Government have. It has been mainly achieved because, every time sales have petered out, discounts have been raised to an extent where the Government are now almost giving away much needed public property.
During the debate on amendments to the housing Bill some facts were given which indicate the scale on which the Government have played down the housing position in terms of priorities. The problem began back in 1979 when a man sat on a white charger waiting in the wings —the right honourable Michael Heseltine was the Secretary of State for the Environment. He introduced massive cuts in the public housing sector which have been repeated annually ever since.
During the passage of the Housing Bill I quoted figures which showed that had the level of spending which the Government inherited in 1979—upgraded for the inflation factor—merely continued the public sector alone would have had an extra half million houses under its control to let to people who needed them. Nevertheless, I received no answer when I asked about this. I do not believe an answer exists. It is an undeniable fact.
In addition, the Government behaved in a most disreputable way. I am not talking about this present Government, but when in another place they were dealing with the sale of council houses, successive Secretaries of State underlined clearly that the main reason for the policy was to fund another building programme of local authority houses. The funds that were gathered by the local authorities in capital receipts would be made available and possibly the sale of two houses would produce sufficient to build one new council house. The cost of building houses has now escalated so much that I calculate that it would take the sale of two or three houses had the Government continued that policy.
The Government have behaved disgracefully in the matter. They allowed the local authorities to use

271
only a minor part of the funds over that period. I think that I am right in saying that the legislation which has just gone on to the statute book further restricts the availability of those funds for repairs.
Let us examine briefly what would have happened if the money which the local authorities were allowed in 1979 could have been used as well as their own capital receipts. I shall not deal with London because it is a special case, but I know the big five cities outside London like the back of my hand—Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and Newcastle. Most of those local authorities have a waiting list of approximately 20,000 to 30,000. Had they been allowed access to finance—they would not have been given the money, they would have had to ask to be allowed to use it—they would have expected to fund building over a 60-year low rate repayment period. Had they been allowed finance, I predict, and I think I am not far short of being right, that each of those authorities would have had between 10,000 and 15,000 extra local authority properties in their stock available to let in order to rehouse people.
We wonder why we have a situation of mounting homelessness. It is not unknown to link the words of a popular song to a political thought. About three weeks ago, I went with some friends from your Lordships' House to a dinner in the Aldwych area. Taxis were pretty infrequent so we decided to walk back. We thought, "Let's all go down the Strand", and we did. I saw a new phenomenon in the Strand which was not there when I used to stay in the area. In almost every doorway in the Strand there was somebody living in a cardboard box. What an advertisement for a government who have helped—I am not saying that they are solely responsible—by their housing policy to bring about such a situation! Quite recently I myself wondered, when I spoke in your Lordships' House, what that would be like with the onset of winter. We all know that for the last couple of nights we have had the first signs of a severe winter. I wonder what those people felt like, lying in boxes in the Strand. They go right across the age spectrum, they are not just old drop-outs, some are younger people. I think it is a national scandal that such a thing should take place.
There have been debates in your Lordships' House—sponsored not by one political party alone but supported across the political spectrum—involving non-political bodies. There was Faith in the City, a report produced by the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission. There was the Duke of Edinburgh's commission; the Audit Commission. There is now a body called the National Housing Forum, membership of which includes the RIBA, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the AMA, Shelter, the Association of District Councils —which of course is Conservative controlled —and the Institute of Housing. Those bodies reveal in their latest report that a housing crisis has been caused by the lack of affordable housing. The report—not the Government nor political parties—states that the Government have underestimated by 1 million units the number of extra homes that will be needed by the end of the
272
century. That is the conclusion of the alliance of local authorities and other bodies which I have mentioned.
It all comes in the wake of the Autumn Statement and the Government's promise of extra funds with which to tackle homelessness. The expected allocation by the Chancellor of £100 million for the renovation of run down council house properties will not be enough to prevent a housing catastrophe. Those bodies say that the total money to go to the public sector housing that was announced in the Autumn Statement would build 1,500 council houses.
The Government themselves have forecast the need for 2 million more homes by the year 2000. But the forum argues that under-investment in the 1980s means that 1 million more has to be added to the figure. That means that it believes the situation is twice as bad as I suggested. So I cannot be accused of making an overstatement of the position.
If we are to deal with homelessness, poor housing, bad housing, one of the worst aspects of the deterioration of the present stock is that elderly people who are owner-occupiers can no longer afford to keep their houses in good condition. That may be something which is covered by the Act which has just been passed. However, unless the Government are prepared to deal with the housing programme on the basis of what organisations like the National Housing Forum say, we are totally wasting our time.
The figures I have quoted from charitable housing associations and religious groups which deal with this show that if things do not alter London will have a homeless situation of New York dimensions. There will be 30,000 people sleeping in the streets—not in hostels—like the people in boxes in the Strand. I do not know whether there is a registration system for the Strand, but it looks so unbelievably organised that they appear to do it that way.
Unless the Government are prepared to dig their hands down and deal with this situation, that is what we can look forward to. The sooner they stop having a go at local authorities on every issue and allow them resources to start a building programme—there is not one in existence now of any dimension—the sooner we will start to eat into the dreadful figures that are being quoted. It is no good the Government saying, as has recently been said by the Minister in your Lordships' House, that they no longer see local authorities building houses in large numbers and that it must be done by other agencies. There is no other agency in the land which can do it. The housing association movement would help and would act as a supplementary bonus towards it; but it cannot be the private sector. There is no way that the private sector developers will be able to build low-cost housing, which is so desirable, because they are not charitable institutions.
On that basis I end by saying that I want the Government to take this issue seriously. If they are serious about dealing with the housing problem they will have to talk in terms of multiples of billions of pounds and stop trying to kid us that giving £250 million will solve the housing problem. That will only slightly scratch the surface.

273
Reference has been made in the debate to nuclear energy. This must be put into its proper perspective and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a couple of minutes, speaking as an engineer. I do not demur one iota from the fact that the financial returns in this country would almost prohibit us from continuing with nuclear energy as a marketable source, but there are as yet no statistics which show that it is the threat to the environment that people such as Mr. Arthur Scargill were making it out to be at the Labour Party conference a few weeks ago. I have the statistics and the figures that he quoted are over 1,000 per cent. out, upwards.
We have a bonus in this country. We can be self-sufficient in coal and the use of oil, but there are huge areas in the third world which have no recourse to any such resources. If those countries are to emerge, the only way it will be achieved is by nuclear energy. It has been said in the past, and it will be said again, that no man is an island and no country is an island. What worries me, on the basis of what has been taking place at the CEGB regarding nuclear energy, is that if we say that we are finished completely, for time immemorial, with nuclear power—the rest of the world will not stop and certainly France will not stop—then some of the very successful markets in which we have been able to operate will go with the wind.
I also have this to say. While we are self-sufficient at present in coal and in oil to a great degree, there may come a time in the future when those resources prove finite. Nobody who has proposed alternatives has yet produced one that will in any way create anything like even a reasonable percentage to replace that which would be eventually lost or would be necessary if those resources proved finite.
I have spent two or three minutes on this argument only because if nuclear energy is to go, based on the financial argument, I accept that; but I do not accept at present—nor do many people inside and outside that industry—that any case has been made on the basis of contamination or damage to the environment. That case has yet to be proved. When it is I will accept it, but it has not yet been proved.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he agree with me that the great advantage of nuclear energy is that you can get more energy per pound out of uranium than you can get out of any other available fuel? However desirable the alternatives such as wind and wave energy—and they are desirable—they are not immediately available in a way which he and I would desire.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend makes the case on that point far more eloquently than I could. However, I do not wish to turn this into a debate on nuclear energy because I have no doubt that your Lordships will come back to a debate on energy in the near future. That will be the time to expand on the case and go into detail on the views that I believe we all hold quite sincerely.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on transport and its effect on the environment in this country. On 15th November last the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that the Government,
"are intellectually incapable of applying themselves to the whole question of a co-ordinated transport policy"—[Official Report, 15/11/89; col. 1334.]
—strong meat, but at present seemingly true though Mr. Patten of the Department of the Environment looks like bringing good influence to bear on Mr. Parkinson at the Department of Transport.
What is the problem regarding roads? It is that by the Government's own forecast there will be—note the certainty; no suggestion of might be—between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. more traffic than today in the foreseeable future; they suggest by about the year 2025. It is estimated by an independent source that just parking all the new cars that are forecast would need an area larger than Berkshire, and if they all moved at once they would fill a road from London to Edinburgh 257 lanes wide.
In preparing a speech on Saturday I wrote: "I should have thought that such a forecast would have made the Government realise that our whole way of life could be at risk". Today I am a little relieved to read in The Times that at least Mr. Patten considers this increase in cars an unacceptable option. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to this and I agree with him, but I was a little sad that the noble Baroness put environment well after food in the order of her speech.
Ten years ago I watched a TV programme on Japan. Pictures were shown of traffic jams and fumes which it was said often led to illness. Also shown were scenes of the Tokyo Underground where passengers were packed in as no self-respecting sardine would tolerate. In the same programme we were told that the Japanese had the highest standard of living in the world. I would argue that quality of life is quite a different matter and much more important.
In a letter to The Times of 12th September this year Mr. Peter Talbot Wilcox said:
"Ultimately a choice has to be made by each voter between ever higher incomes and material consumption in a deteriorating environment (both in the workplace and at home) and lower income in a less pressurised one. At present neither of the main political parties has shown the courage to present this choice to the electorate".
He spoke well, and it is relevant to the search for a realistic transport policy to tackle problems that may face us in the decades to come.
Let us look at what is proposed at present. The illustration on the Government's White Paper Roads for Prosperity for me graphically demonstrates the dangers. It shows the Lofthouse interchange in Yorkshire between the M.1 and M.62. It is an impressive engineering feat, a massive road structure, designed, as the picture suggests, very adequately to cope with the flow of traffic. But it is clearly imposed on the surrounding countryside and not part of it. Significantly, in the top left-hand corner of the illustration are the only signs of local life, tolerated but not encouraged, and not even with easy access to the motorway itself.

275
I understand that the Government have announced a major new road-building programme of £12 billion to be spent over the next 10 years in widening many existing motorways and trunk roads and building new ones. I am not convinced that that will improve our quality of life. The M.25 orbital road round London seems to have created as many problems as it has solved.
In a thought-provoking speech in the debate on transport investment in London on 3rd May 1989 my noble friend Lord McNair said (at col. 228 of Hansard)—and I cannot resist quoting him:
"One feels that poor George Orwell might just as well not have bothered writing 1984 if bureaucrats can still coin such egregious euphemisms as 'western environmental improvement route'. If it is ever built, which God forbid, what will it actually do? For a short time it will enable motorists to drive flat out from a traffic jam near Olympia to another one on the Embankment. After a short time, of course, like the M25, it will become a traffic jam in its own right".
Tragically, John McNair, who believed that we were under threat from too many cars, was killed in a car crash in early August.
Roads for Prosperity proudly declares in another euphemism that:
"Protecting and enhancing the environment will continue to be a major feature of the Government's road building plans".
I submit that while by-passes keep traffic out of towns and villages, neither they nor any road widening projects protect or enhance their environment.
Likewise, I fear that I have no great confidence in the proud statement in the Queen's Speech that the Government:
"will continue to attach very great importance to protecting the national and international environment".
Roads to Ruin, a response to the White Paper by nine organisations concerned with protecting our environment, comes nearer to the truth. It states that:
"These new roads—and the extra traffic they are supposed to cater for—will cause serious environmental damage … New approaches are needed to Britain's transport problems".
It has been said that some necessary action could be politically highly inexpedient. Perhaps I may put forward some possibilities, some more questioning that determinant. The first concerns public transport—and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also touched on this matter. Most of our European partners spend much more in this field than we do in Britain. Surely it makes sense, in order to protect our environment and to conserve our resources, to encourage the greater use of buses and trains. With park-and-ride schemes into towns and cities parking problems could be much relieved. Some loss of convenience would have to be accepted but less fraught travel should result. The arguments are well known and I shall not repeat them here beyond saying that 50 drivers in one bus rather than 50 cars makes sense to me.
The second possibility concerns phasing out company car subsidies. I am told that 80 per cent. of traffic coming into London constitutes company cars. Following up what I have just said, surely that is a mistaken tax concession.
276
The third possibility involves introducing a differential road fund licence according to the size of car. That could help, not least from the parking point of view. The fourth concerns paying a substantial tax credit to the no-car family and introducing a progressively higher rate of road fund tax for a family's second, third and subsequent cars. Lastly here, and somewhat drastically, it was suggested to me only the other day that if prosperity is not, in time, to lead to chaos we may have to put some restrictions on private travel by road and also by air.
We can leave the situation to deteriorate so far that many people will just opt out of travelling, or we can accept that a better solution may be to exercise some personal restraint for the common good. I note that Mr. Patten has suggested putting up petrol tax. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, again referred to that point, but too simple a policy of pricing people off the road might be highly unpopular.
Perhaps I may draw to a close on an emotive note. I have long been a supporter of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (the CPRE). It hurts me that every mile of motorway absorbs 25 acres of land and that every year up to 4,000 acres of rural land is lost to roads. The noble Baroness mentioned a rather higher figure but I believe that she included forestry. Otherwise I am not certain how she reached the higher figure. The Government's proposed road-building programme will have a devastating effect on the countryside. In towns and cities it is widely accepted that car parks are often the ugliest buildings. The CPRE used regularly to use those magnificent words from Shakespeare's King Richard the Second when old John of Gaunt speaks of:
"This other Eden, demi-paradise",
and:
"This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England".
Today, alas, the CPRE uses those words much less frequently, I suppose because it is difficult to accept the spreading of a concrete jungle as enhancing a demi-paradise. I may be accused of cowardice, but I am not sorry that I shall not be alive halfway through the next century. We need to consider carefully what sort of land we shall be leaving to future generations.
I noted that the noble Baroness ended with words about a green and pleasant land. I was rather shaken the other day when I drove for the first time on the M.42 south of Birmingham to be told that it went right through a green belt and that that was the obvious place to site it.
I shall say no more here except to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on a very impressive maiden speech.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in September I was in the Caribbean—in Jamaica—looking at the tragic results of Hurricane Gilbert last year. Hurricane Gilbert reached a speed of 200 miles an hour, which was believed to be the optimum speed for a hurricane. While I was in the Caribbean we

277
were dodging Hurricane Hugo, which travelled all the way down the Carolina coast. I do not know what speed that hurricane reached but I know that it is virtually certain that in the future hurricanes will reach much greater speeds and cause much greater devastation.
I say that because hurricanes are caused by the warming of the sea, both on the surface and in the depths, and we now know that the sea is becoming warmer. We know also that during the 1980s we have had seven of the hottest summers on record. They have brought droughts not just to Ethiopia but also, last year, to the grain belt of the United States so that stocks of grain fell to only 15 per cent. above the basic level. In the same decade we have seen a vast increase in the frequency of floods. In the 1960s the number of floods was under 15; in the 1970s it was just under 25; in the 1980s it has risen above 28. In other words, floods are increasing.
There is a long history of warnings about the natural phenomena of which I am speaking. It goes back to the early 19th century, to a Frenchman in 1827. Again, in 1884 at Uppsala in Sweden, there was a specific warning of the warming of the earth. More recently, in the 1950s, the Scripps Institute set up a special monitoring service because of the evidence that it had collected of the danger of global warming. Today all reputable scientists agree that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. Those of us who warned about that —and some of us have been doing so for 20 years now —have been treated with scorn. Today it is received scientific opinion, even by the scientist who is the Prime Minister.
The process has taken a long time and has consequences. The university with which I am proud to be associated—the University of East Anglia—has been studying climatology as far back as the 1880s. It has found that, since the 1880s, the deviation in temperature has been three times the normal and that over the century the average global temperature has risen by one degree Fahrenheit. Giving evidence to a congressional hearing last year, James Hansen from NASA said:
"It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here".
When talking in scientific terms, one never talks in absolutes or in absolute truth. We can talk only in probabilities. When a scientist of that distinction uses the term,
"the evidence is pretty strong",
it is time to act, not to say that we shall wait for further scientific evidence.
It is now widely known that the warming of the earth is caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from cars and from the burning of fossil fuels and forests, deforestation and the expanding deserts. But it is also caused by the emission of methane, which is 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide, of nitrous oxide and of the CFCs of which we have spoken here many times before. In fact, 50 per cent. of the greenhouse effect results from those gases. If one adds those gases to the carbon dioxide, one can see what in our society causes the pollution of the atmosphere and the warming of the globe.
278
It is estimated that, if the intensity of carbon dioxide and the other gases doubles from the era before the industrial revolution, the average temperature of the globe will increase by between 1·5 to 4·5 degrees Celsius or by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Is that happening? When the Scripps Institute set up its monitoring service in 1958, it found that carbon dioxide was increasing by one seventh part per million. That seems very little. In the early 1980s it found that that increase had risen from one seventh to 1½ parts. More recently it has been estimated that it is now 2½ parts. That is the speed of the increase in the emission of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Of course, industrial production has grown 50-fold during the last 100 years. Four fifths of that growth has been since 1950, mostly as a result of the use of fossil fuels. The world's population has trebled during this century, but it will double again in the next 30 years with all the consequences for energy use and all the dangers from the use and the burning of fossil fuels. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey pointed out, the Department of Energy itself has estimated that, if present trends continue, unless something is done, the emission of carbon dioxide in this country alone will increase by 73 per cent. in the next 30 years.
We should consider adding to that the tremendous growth of population in the third world and the growth in its use of energy. Those people need it a great deal more than we do in the Western world. They need fridges and heating. We should add all that to what is happening at present, and has been happening over the past hundred years in the developed world, and then imagine the prospect for the next 20 to 30 years. In China alone the aim is to double coal consumption by the year 2000. We are talking about a very small period; it is only ten years ahead.
It is more than time, in our own interests as well as those of the third world, that we devised policies for exporting benign technologies from this country and from the developed countries as a whole. They are perhaps more expensive but they will help the development of the third world and will increase its desperately low standard of living without imitating what we have done and polluting the atmosphere at the same time.
As a result of that heating, the rising of the seas, the increasing storms, the extra floods and droughts and the effect on crops and animals, this planet will be drastically changed over the next 10 to 20 years. There is no way that we can stop it. The most that we can do is retard its development. We cannot stop it because what has been done over the past 100 years and what is being done now cannot be reversed. We know what will happen to the climate. We do not know all the effects. We are aware however that they will be drastic and that life will be changed drastically.
In those circumstances, what is the Government's reaction to what in fact is a global crisis? First they say, "We cannot do anything. Only international action can be taken". That is an alibi. It is the job, the task and the responsibility of our Government

279
so to frame their policies that they play a leading role. International action is essential, but if international action is not being taken it is no excuse for us to do nothing.
The Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations has been quoted. Her remedy was to go for the nuclear option. Unlike some of my noble friends on these Benches I do not believe that the nuclear option is an option at all. In the first place it is impossibly expensive and will divert resources from realistic remedies. It will also leave mountains of toxic waste. In any case, it would only affect 1 per cent. of today's carbon emissions and would require a constant—indeed a daily—building of nuclear reactors.
The second response from the Government has been that market forces will be the solution. Market forces? Market forces have produced this crisis. The Government have only to look at the mess they made over electricity privatisation to see what market forces will do. Market forces reject the nuclear cost when it comes to spending money and investment—no, that must be done by the Government. In fact it is the consumerism, the greed and the Mammon of materialism preached throughout this decade that have brought about the crisis that we now face. Of course it goes back beyond this decade but it has the same roots: consumerism, greed and materialism.
As mentioned by several speakers, we have seen the Government put massive amounts of investment into roads. Roads for what? Roads to produce more emission of carbon dioxide—is that the aim? How can the Government claim to be concerned about the environment when they are building roads that will be occupied by more and more vehicles emitting carbon dioxide?
Again, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out and as has been mentioned several times from this side of the House—and I do not wish to embarrass the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who sits opposite and answers on these questions but he has never answered this one—the budget of the Government's Energy Efficiency Office was cut last year from £24·5 million to £15 million this year. There will be no increase in it during the lifetime of this Parliament, which means that from now on there will be a cut in real terms. The noble Viscount could tell me only that this shows that the programme has been successful. Does he mean successful in promoting energy efficiency? Where is the energy efficiency to be seen in this country when in every electricity generator 65 per cent. of the heat is lost.
The Prime Minister went to Kuala Lumpur and vetoed the proposed environmental fund. She sent her Minister to Narvik where the British Government vetoed the targets to be aimed at for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Is that the concern felt by the Government for what is now universally known to be a global crisis?
I said that what has been done is irrevocable. The most that we can do is look for amelioration and retardation of the processes that are now in train. It
280
has been suggested by the honourable Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, Sir Hugh Rossi, the chairman of the Environmental Committee in another place that an environmental commission should be set up. That suggestion was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in the Private Member's Bill introduced in this House which I very much welcome. I welcome an environmental commission provided that that commission has the power to go through the budgets and actions of every department of state and examine them for their environmental impact.
What are the Government doing to alert local authorities and provide resources particularly in those areas along the coastlines which will suffer from the rise in the sea level? What are they doing to alert them to the dangers what will come within the next 10 years? What preparations are they making to provide them with the resources to build up their defences? What are the Government doing so far as concerns the conservation of energy?
According to the Government's own figures an investment of £3.8 billion could cut primary energy use in this country by nearly 20 per cent. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. and would save consumers 12 billion a year. That should be compared with the cost of a nuclear power station—£2 billion—reflecting less than 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy use.
What are the Government doing about the renewable sources of energy: wind, water, sun and thermal energy? How does it happen that the Government will not provide the same degree of resources for research and building up renewable sources of energy that they have done for nuclear energy?
In the last resort we come down to ourselves. Eighty-five per cent. of all carbon dioxide emissions come from the industrialised world; that is, from us. Unless the way of life of the people in the industrialised countries over the past half century—which has been altering every inch of the planet every hour —are changed, it may well be that the human race itself is doomed on this planet. Unless we change our attitude to the use of cars, the building and operation of factories, forest clearing (done so much by the multinationals), air conditioners, the herding of cattle that give off methane, central heating, fridges and washing-machines and unless we radically and traumatically alter our ways of using these things, we face global disaster.
These are dramatic and traumatic changes in lifestyle which are imperative if life is to survive. It has been said that man's tenure of the planet is as a minute to the earth's day. Fifty-nine seconds of that minute have now passed. It is our repsonsibility in public life to warn all citizens of the real crisis facing them, their children and their grandchildren. It is our task to propose and to implement those actions which may retard, though they will not stop, the processes which now inevitably are leading to disaster for the whole human race.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, my first pleasant task is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Layton on his memorable maiden speech. Like others, I look forward to hearing him again in the future. Perhaps I may also congratulate my noble friends Lord Holderness and Lady Blatch on the two extremely good speeches that we heard almost a week ago.
It is nearly a week since Her Majesty outlined the Government's programme for this Session. The underlying theme is one of quality of life. It is very appropriate that the subjects today are food, agriculture, and —the subject on which I shall concentrate in the few words I wish to say this evening —the environment.
I believe that the environment is all about the quality of life in the air that we breathe, the cleanliness of our streets and our rivers and the method of travel that we choose to take whether it be public transport or a car. I welcome the inclusion in the gracious Speech of the proposed new green Bill and in particular the litter section of that Bill. Over the past few years our air has become cleaner, as have our buildings and our rivers, but our streets, parks and countryside are a disgrace. As a Londoner I am appalled at what I see in my capital city. People drop litter where they stand when just a few feet away is a receptacle for them to use. A few months ago I had some friends staying from America. They said how clean London was. I looked at them in wonder. I suppose that London may be cleaner than some American cities but not many.
I welcome all that is in the gracious Speech, including the announcement of what will be spent on our roads and transport over the next few years. There are of course those people who argue that improvements in roads will lead only to a further deterioration of the environment. They might well have argued the same way before we had any motorways, in which case the country would long since have come to a complete stop. There really can be no argument about the fact that reducing traffic delays and reducing journey time, with engines running less, will have a most positive and beneficial effect on the quality of the atmosphere. It must also be obvious to everyone who drives on our road network that to wait 10 or 12 years for a major project to be completed is far too long. Already some of our motorways such as the M.1 and M.25 are becoming the biggest parking lots in Europe, if not the world, if they are not so already.
The subject of roads leads me to talk of safety, not only on our roads but also our streets and pavements. I listened with great care to the Queen's Speech for any hint that the Government intended to introduce proposals put before them in the Home Report and by Dr. North and his colleagues in their review of the road traffic law. Sadly, apart from the phrase, "Other measures will be laid before you", I did not hear anything which gives me any confidence that we shall see such Bills in this Session.
The North Report has been welcomed on all sides and by everyone working in the field of traffic safety. I have not yet heard any serious criticisms of its
282
proposals. Indeed, most commentators see it as a major step forward in the war against crimes on our roads which we glibly call accidents. We cannot much longer continue to condone the death of 14 people every day on our roads. I acknowledge the considerable amount of good work that is already taking place. It is quite clear to me that it is possible significantly to reduce the annual number of road casualties but it requires the will and a commitment on the part of central government, of Parliament, of local government, of British management, of drivers and of all of us who use the roads.
I am sure that there are many Members of your Lordships' House who share with me the frustration and disappointment that we shall not see a road traffic Bill this Session or a public utilities street works Bill. I remember sitting next to Desmond Fennell, QC, at a RoSPA presentation at the Guildhall not long ago when he said that these investigations and reports were all well and good provided that they were acted on and were not put on the shelf to collect dust. I urge Her Majesty's Government to act swiftly on both the reports that I have mentioned before the dust becomes too thick.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, my warm congratulations go to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who in his hirsute glory and confident speech looked less like a maiden than anyone I have ever seen. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House.
Under the Addison Rules it is necessary for me to declare an interest. I am President of the British Institute of Cleaning Science, was the charter Chairman of the British Cleaning Council, and for seven years was Chairman of the Council for Wales of the Keep Britain Tidy organisation. Currently I am pleased to be national chairman of the now re-organised Tidy Britain Group which used to be the Keep Britain Tidy organisation. These are all honorary positions but, since I am non-executive chairman of a cleaning and catering company from which I do profit, I draw the attention of the House to the fact. What I say in the debate, however, will reflect my views and not necessarily those of the organisations listed.
The whole House will have been pleased that the gracious Speech committed Her Majesty's Government to introducing a Bill "to provide new powers to control pollution and waste". The assurances also given on the very great importance attaching to "protecting the national and international environment" have been equally welcome, as has the reassurance that the Government,
"will work with business, local government, the voluntary sector and local people to regenerate our cities".
I was as pleased as other noble Lords to hear from the Minister the stern words warning all those responsible for generation of waste and litter that they would be held responsible; and her very personalised rebuff for litterers with her promise of effective and properly enforced legislation to bring them to book.
For a moment I should like to focus on the final sentence of the paragraph on the environment in the

283
Speech from the Throne. Inner city regeneration is vital. The need to co-operate in renewal programmes with business, local government, the voluntary sector and local people in regeneration programmes is clear. In the course of the next few minutes I hope to say something about the help that some of these sectors are already giving and plan to give in the next decade to such programmes.
Perhaps I may register a specific disappointment. It is not only in the inner cities that such programmes of community co-operation in reviving and restructuring social living and working conditions are necessary. The Speech from the Throne should have said that also. Over the past 50 years, and for a syndrome of reasons, almost every town and village in Britain has suffered from its local and small-scale form of the debilitation that in metropolitan areas is diagnosed as being inner city blight. Rural, urban and suburban communities have endured a form of creeping paralysis in social services, social institutions and supportive functions from once powerful and inspiring voluntary organisations.
The result has been a nation-wide degradation of the quality of life in the towns, villages and inner cities of this land. Because great cities are what they are, their problems are more immediately obvious and most loudly protested. Because society is as it is, the effect of the decay at the heart of our smaller communities is not uniformly experienced by the British population. It is perfectly possible to live a full and contented life within the freedoms afforded by our democratic constitutional monarchy. I suspect that that is what most people of my generation have done throughout most of our lives. We have not noticed the community blight and the deterioration of the services and institutions which 50 or 60 years ago played a part in shaping us for the comfortable standards of our present living.
I have tabled a request for a discussion on the subject and I hope that in time it will arise in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I shall detain you no longer today on the issue. However, later the Minister may wish to tell the House whether the Government have plans to extend the benefits of inner city resuscitation programmes to the rural, urban and suburban communities.
The Tidy Britain Group is one of the basically voluntary organisations with which the Government will be working throughout Britain in order to protect the national environment and to control pollution and the fouling and littering of the communal nest. Like previous Labour and Conservative administrations, the Government have worked closely with Keep Britain Tidy, and during the last decade with the renamed and reconstituted Tidy Britain Group and its associated Beautiful Britain in Bloom Campaign. They have nominated the reformed Tidy Britain Group as the principal agency on which to focus national attention for cleaning, tidying and beautifying Britain and the setting up of programmes for doing so.
For its part, the group has been happy to accept greater responsibility in all those directions. It has already undertaken research projects that have been
284
welcomed by the Department of the Environment as being basic in the evolution and evaluation of the policies that one hopes will emerge in the Bill shortly to come before Parliament.
The House will know that the Keep Britain Tidy organisation was created 35 years ago in 1954 as a result of a resolution of the annual conference of the Women's Institute. In those not very green years—that is, politically speaking—the ladies were appalled by the increasing levels of litter, rubbish dumping and bad community hygiene in England's green and pleasant land. They demanded that something should be done about it on a national scale. I ask the House to read "Britain" into the hymn, the quotation and the policy.
Relying on the goodwill of the Women's Institute, related national organisations and eventually local government, well-disposed companies, business organisations, the voluntary sector generally and local people, an organisation began its work. Education was seen to be fundamental to that work. Securing legislation to effect an improvement was a longer-term aim. There was existing legislation and I underline the fact that too often it was ignored. Bad habits in the management of collection, transportation, disposal and treatment of waste materials appeared to go unnoticed, unreported and inevitably unpunished and unresolved. In the communal scale, corporate bad habits reflected as well as encouraged individual bad habits in the disposal of family waste and personal litter. Private space—that is, the home and the car—was usually clean and tidy. However, corporate space—that is, the street and the car park—was fouled.
The slightly post-imperial organisation which was structured on the Women's Institute resolution was initially effective in focusing nation-wide attention on the problems. Its education programmes, particularly at junior school level, and its increasing involvement in bigger cleaning schemes with local authorities can be counted as successful. Under the patronage of Her Majesty the Queen Mother it co-ordinated award encouragement schemes which gave an impetus to communities and companies to become involved in anti-litter campaigns. Indeed, perhaps it helped to generate some of the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House today.
Yet despite the successes and all the effort, Britain became more and more untidy and scruffy, and often filthy and offensive to residents and visitors. As chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board from 1976 onwards, I was glad to accept simultaneous chairmanships of the Council for Wales and the Keep Britain Tidy organisation. Wales was anything but tidy, so even the organisation's title was a misnomer and a euphemism that disguised the huge problems which the group sought and worked to solve.
As our nation realigned its economy to a shrinking heavy industrial base, the attraction of new industry and more visitors became more vital. Neither industry nor tourists are attracted by bad communal housekeeping. Tidying Britain was no longer a matter of responding to the altruism of the Women's Institute and others. It was essential to put our house in order. Tidying, beautifying and cleansing Britain had become an economic imperative for the nation.

285
As the problems were itemised and analysed it became clear that the resources traditionally available for cleansing Britain were extremely limited. For far too long and under successive governments Britain had expected far too much for far too little expenditure on its cleaning services. While you do not clear problems by throwing money at them, you aggravate them by underfunding the systems and agencies, whether public or private, which are competent and equipped to ameliorate them.
Cleaning Britain depends on the funding of effective services, on monitoring the work contracted on behalf of the community and on enforcing with strong and effective legislation compliance with the terms of appointment and with the law. That must apply whether the contractors are from the private or the public sector.
In the decaying national sewerage system, along national transport routes, in mining operations and in the general maintenance of the fabric of our community resources, for far too long we have expected too much, spent too little and been reluctant to give real power to enforcing legislation. The anti-grime squads have little cash and enforcement law has no teeth. While there is a general welcome for the principles of the Government's proposed environmental protection Bill, including the provisions for cleansing standards within a set code of practice, there are serious questions yet to be asked about the funding.
However, the Tidy Britain Group has nominated 1990 as its year of special national effort. It is an apt timing for a number of reasons. The year happens to be the 90th year in the life of the group's patron, Her Majesty the Queen Mother. It begins the last decade of this century and ends with the beginning of the next century. For those reasons the Tidy Britain Group is mounting a "Clean Nineties" programme designed to bring about marked and measured improvements in the standards of cleanliness in our nation as we move towards the year 2000. It coincides with the national year of emphasis on tourism, from which Britain now earns more of its income than it does from its offshore oil fields.
The Tidy Britain Group is now far better structured than it has ever been to take on the additional challenges of such a series of concentrated problems. The nation is alert to the need for it. Having recruited as its director-general one of Europe's leading authorities on the environment, Professor Graham Ashworth, who was until 1987 Professor of Environmental Studies at Salford University, and having charged him with the task of completely reorganising the structure, constitution, research facilities, funding and programmes of the group, we have evidence that it is more competent than ever before to cope with the problems and to recruit general support.
Part of the evidence for that contention is found in the increasing enthusiasm of major companies to associate with the group and to contribute major sponsorship in support of its activities. I am sure that the group would wish to draw attention to its debt to those who created and sustained the Keep
286
Britain Tidy organisation from its inception, as well as to acknowledge the great and continuing support of the department and its officers and the various, and sometimes bewilderingly various, Secretaries of State and Ministers who have held responsibility for environmental matters.
In all of its activities the group aims to stimulate the creation or recreation of a beautiful Britain in both urban and rural situations. In order even to begin to do so, it knows that it must change public attitudes in association with government and other bodies towards litter, untidiness and ugliness and then maintain those attitudes, using them to will, fund and pressure change so that Britain again becomes a green and pleasant land.
The redefined strategy for achieving that involves campaigning, education and action programmes which are already well under way in England, Wales and Scotland and could shortly be incorporated also in Northern Ireland. The House will not wish me to detail any of those areas of operation here and now but any of your Lordships or members of the public can be given full information on application to the group's national headquarters at Wigan Pier.
Before I return to funding perhaps I may say a few words about enforcement. The Tidy Britain Group believes that perhaps the most vexed question in the business of litter management is in what is perceived to be a failure to use the law. It is committed to encouraging an enforcement policy for existing and new litter legislation and calls for a review of local by-laws to secure more efficient anti-litter enforcement.
The group is in discussion with the Home Office, the Magistrates Association and the associations of local authorities and police forces to produce more consistency of action on prosecutions. The House will recognise a dilemma there. On a crowded court list, where major and even lifetaking crimes are listed for trial, offences of littering and untidying the community might seem trivial in association. There are those who suggest the setting up of special community offence courts to deal specifically with offences of the littering kind. The House, with its ranks of learned lawyers, might enjoy debating that proposition.
My view is that unless existing and new legislation against litter louts is enforced, it is useless. Even the proposed increase in the maximum fine is irrelevant if the courts continue to impose the minimum. The group believes, as I do, that in our democracy we must educate, educate, educate even if and while we legislate, legislate, legislate.
I return to a contention which I made at the beginning of my remarks and to one or two inescapable issues relating to the funding of the cleansing and tidying up of this nation. I have here the basic proposals of the White Paper. I have no intention of reading them but I draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that there are some nine, mostly new, responsibilities imposed on local authorities. While we have been carrying out our talks with the local authorities to find out how we can best work together on this business of cleaning Britain, one of the biggest criticisms which they have

287
levelled at the Government when asked for their comments on the proposals is the lack of resources given to them to carry out the necessary improvements in street cleansing.
The Sunday Times recently hinted that the Government may be prepared to increase the revenue support grant to prevent local authorities having to increase the poll tax in their areas. At present we are waiting to hear from the DoE to confirm whether that is the case. If the Government are willing to increase grants in some cases, that is obviously of great importance to local authorities. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say today whether additional funding might be forthcoming for cleansing schemes from the revenue support grant.
While welcoming many of the proposals, councils and councillors warn against hasty legislation which would leave systems underfunded for their increased responsibilities in the future. My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick was also concerned about local authorities. Having served for some years in local government remote from Westminster, I believe that the essential issue is the rebuilding of contact and respect between Whitehall and town hall. The cold war of attrition between them is an astonishing feature of this decade. They should respond to peace elsewhere. A little local glasnost would be welcome from the centre. We all need to be seen to be working together in our concern for this lovely land of ours and preventing the unconcerned from fouling it.
5.56 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, throughout this debate we have quite rightly been reminded time and time again of man's great ability to pollute his environment and to pollute his world. Again we are correctly told that much of the global pollution is irreversible.
We need to identify new technologies which will if not reverse then at least ameliorate those inexorable tendencies. I believe that within the Environment Protection Bill, as we heard from my noble friend the Minister, there is one measure which needs to be looked at very carefully and which may make a very significant contribution in global terms; I refer to the Bill which will control the use of genetically manipulated organisms. That will clearly be an issue of great controversy.
Naturally, there is much public concern when we talk about genetically manipulated organisms and people wonder what on earth that entails. Equally one can quickly see that provided there are controls—which I am sure will be provided in the Bill—the opportunity to contribute both to pollution control and food safety could be very wide reaching.
For example, let us take pest control. The use of pesticides, herbicides and growth regulators of one kind or another on our crops is a matter of considerable concern. For many years it has been promised, although admittedly not yet achieved in many crops, that with genetically manipulated crops there would be a resistance bred into the plant by that means which would reduce the need for agrochemicals or even remove the need on some
288
crops. It is therefore no wonder that the agrochemical companies are buying into the genetically based sciences. Resistance to weeds could be very important in reducing those herbicides.
More importantly on the global scene, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and other noble Lords how the deforestation and encroachment of desert is making an enormous contribution to the greenhouse effect. If we can breed and produce novel crops which will grow in saline or drought conditions to a great extent, that will do much to stabilise desert and help reafforest.
That is not quite so far reaching as it may sound. For example, resistance to salt is a perfectly common characteristic of a number of organisms. It is not so common to have resistance to salt in crops of commercial significance. Therefore, I recommend that aspect of the Bill to your Lordships. I know that in this forum of all forums it will receive a particularly fair hearing and careful consideration where others may not be quite so dispassionate.
The gracious Speech refers also to the Food Safety Bill. Although this point may alarm some noble Lords, it may be that genetically engineered bacteria could be used to control the bacteria which we recognise as pollutants. New technologies must be seen to make a contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred to the enormously greater effect of methane over carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. Any new technologies which can help to reduce the impact of methane—for example, methane digesters on a world scale—will be technologies well worth looking at.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the successful event in Hyde Park in May. It was an enormous agricultural show held in the middle of London over three days. She referred to it in the context of litter. Those were three extremely hot days in May. From the middle of Hyde Park one could have imagined that one was anywhere in the countryside until one looked across to Park Lane and saw in the hazy atmospheric conditions the astonishing pollution from the interminable traffic jam of cars. If it did nothing else it demonstrated the contrast between the relatively free atmospheric conditions in which many farmers live and those that Londoners have to put up with. It is clearly unacceptable that such conditions should obtain. I am sure that measures to increase the use of catalytic converters would produce an improvement. The Government deserve credit for the relatively quick uptake of lead free petrol. That was induced by tax incentives. I have no doubt that tax incentives could be equally effective with regard to catalytic converters. That is by no means the whole solution. Many more drastic measures will no doubt be required in the long run.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was absolutely right to remind us that if agriculture is depressed we are unlikely to see much conservation in the countryside. It is inevitable that farmers will spend money on conservation when they have some to spend. The noble Lord spent it on daffodils. I though that he came from Scotland, not from Wales. Nevertheless we spend a little extra only when we have it.

289
Neither set aside nor the drive for increased yields on arable land have much to offer in terms of conservation. They usually lead to larger fields and higher inputs. Agriculture is tending to polarise. As prices go down, two measures can be taken. One can either go for diversification, extensification and set aside or one can try ever harder to increase yields. That is still going on. Cereal yields are increasing with possibly little benefit to conservation. Diversification and organic farming has no more than limited value. I suspect that the Minister would agree with me. It has already been pointed out that diversification has a fairly limited application on many farms. By whatever projection one uses—even the most optimistic—organic farming has only a minor role to play. There can be extremely undesirable side effects, especially in regard to the use of organic fertilisers.
As I move on to the next part of my remarks I declare an interest as chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. If it follows that we have to try to retain against pressures which will not go away—no one expects further support through the CAP—a viable agricultural industry, there must be agricultural systems which are seen to be effective and which will keep farming viable. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, the near market cuts, which many of us understand, are damaging to agricultural systems research.
As my noble friend the Minister has explained many times in the House, it has been the Government's intention to pass the burden of near market research on to industry while the Government pick up the bill for basic and strategic research, a concept with which I have every sympathy. However, farmers and others in agriculture now recognise that they depend on grassland and arable research if they are to compete over the next 10 or 20 years.
The cuts were made on an unrealistic timescale. The first announcements on near market cuts were made only two years ago. It was only a year or so ago that individual projects were identified. Now farmers are saying that they need a little more time. The Government are likely to be cynical. They will say that as farmers, the agrochemical industry and others did not pick up the bill before, what reason do they have to suppose that they will in the future. It is too late now because the die is cast, but I suspect that in 10 years' time we shall deeply regret the loss of the infrastructure as a result of the closure of a number of sites both at the AFRC and at the ministry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned two of the three parts of research and development for which the Government are not only continuing to pay but paying for with larger amounts. He omitted the public good side of the research, which includes animal health and the environment. It would be wrong to leave that side out.
The Earl of Selbourne: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that I referred specifically to grassland and arable research. That research is clearly production oriented. Some of it, but not all, will
290
come into the category to which my noble friend refers. It is the work in the infrastructure, for which farmers and industry should be paying to a much greater extent, that is to be lost. That will be needed if farming systems which must compete in the next 10 or 20 years are to be viable. When farmers come to try to fund research and development for themselves there simply will not be the infrastructure that has been there in the past.
We shall have an opportunity next week to talk about the Food Safety Bill. I welcome enormously the assurance the customer will now be afforded that throughout the food chain proper checks and proper information will be available so that he can determine what is safe. The problem at the moment, as is so often the case in these public and rather spirited debates, is that the main issue of microbiological contamination is overlooked for the more fashionable concerns of pesticide residues, preservatives and the like. The advice which the Ministry of Agriculture has been given and has accepted time and again has been that, while there are such problems, by far the largest is microbiological contamination. It is to that problem particularly that we should be addressing ourselves.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we have had a useful coverage of the subject. Quite remarkably having regard to the number of speakers, few aspects of the environment, agriculture and food have not at least been mentioned during the course of the debate. I propose not to say very much about the proposal in the gracious Speech to strengthen the law on food safety. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already pointed out, the Second Reading of that Bill takes place in this House on 5th December. The gracious Speech also said that the Government will carry forward reform of the common agricultural policy. That is a subject which I know has been discussed many times in your Lordships' House; it is one of very considerable importance. Introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, had a great deal to say about the common agricultural policy. I wish to say something about it but in a context that has not been discussed so far this afternoon.
Reforming the CAP is basically about money. But it is also about the mechanics of reform with the completion of the internal market by 1992, the Single European Act and framework directives all playing a considerable part. The effect has been to speed up decision-making in Brussels as regards reforming the common agricultural policy and Community legislation in general. One consequence is that member states wishing to influence common agricultural policy affairs must be able to comment before Council of Ministers' meetings.
Your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community has a reputation for investigation and reporting on Community proposals. But the pace of events in Brussels is tending to reduce the influence of such reports. For example, one recalls the proposed directive on the irradiation of foodstuffs. The European Parliament has already turned down the Commission's

291
proposals in this regard except for the irradiation of herbs and spices. The Commission must now consider its proposals in the light of the Parliament's decision. The report by your Lordships' Select Committee on this question has been overtaken by events. By the time the committee reports other documents will have been prepared as regards the draft it is now considering. I suggest that this is an indication of the fact that there is now a great necessity for more speed in the way in which both Houses of Parliament are able to examine Community proposals.
The other place is well aware of this problem and has already called for more parliamentary prime time for the consideration of European Community affairs. A call for more prime time in this Chamber brings up the question which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn raised concerning the whole volume of legislation in the Queen's Speech. But if we are to have any significant influence as regards the common agricultural policy in the next few years we need to find time in your Lordships' House to discuss matters of significance so that Ministers going to Brussels are well aware of the feelings of Parliament and do not, as at present, simply come back and report what has been decided; what has been agreed; what they have succeeded in doing and where they have not so succeeded but how they fought and lost the occasion.
Concerning food safety, on the basis of the half-loaf philosophy we are grateful for the establishment of the new food safety directorate which I understand has been operational since 20th November. The first query is: why is there no Department of Health representation on the food safety directorate? I am aware that the directorate will be advised on questions of public health by the chief medical officer. But during the many difficult days that we have had concerning public health problems in recent years, I have repeatedly asked for a sharing of responsibility in fact as well as in theory between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Those of us who have personal experience of this problem are well aware that in a crisis the major responsibility tends to become that of the Department of Health because in such situations the medical view prevails. I believe that an opportunity has been lost here by the Ministry of Agriculture keeping it so heavily in the family and not bringing in responsible civil servants from the Department of Health to become in their own right full members of the food safety directorate. I do not believe that the appointment of a junior Minister from the department as chairman of this body is necessarily the right appointment. Junior Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, as in other ministries, tend to come and go. I believe that an independent and highly qualified scientist would have made a better permanent chairman for a body of this importance.
We welcome the consumer panel so far as it goes. In recent years there has been much prodding for this body and at last we can report a measure of success. However, I understand that nominations
292
are to be invited from three organisations only; namely, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association and the Consumers in the European Community group. Two of these bodies are wholly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. I believe that to limit consultation regarding appointments to three organisations is unduly restrictive. I hope that the Minister will feel it possible to widen the scope and, if not, at least to ask the three bodies to suggest names outside their own immediate circle so that the consumer panel is as broadly representative of all consumer interests as is humanly possible.
In that regard, will the consumer panel be allowed to report to Parliament on its work and will other organisations be invited to submit items for consideration by the consumer panel?
I now turn to the subject of food which has not been touched on to any great degree in this debate. I noted from the Food Facts brochure published by the Ministry of Agriculture that in the second quarter of 1989 there was an increase in food prices of 7·2 per cent. The document also states the average family expenditure on food was higher in real terms than in 1988 and now amounts to £11·86 per person. Milk and bread are staple items in the diet. Yet prices for these two commodities are rising and consumption is decreasing. For example, the price of bread has been increased by two pence on the standard loaf, the farmers blaming the millers, and the millers, who are also the bakers, blaming the farmers. But, as consumers have noted, this year has seen a relatively good harvest for cereals.
The effect of increases in basic food prices on pensioners and low-income groups and on collective bargaining generally is much more significant than most people realise. One is entitled to ask the Ministry of Agriculture, in its new consumer guise, whether it concerns itself about prices beyond the mere recording of them in documents such as Food Facts. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in a report published some years ago on quantity discounts to retailers unrelated to volume, found no detriment at that time to either consumers or processors in the growing concentration of retail power as a result of the development of large stores by a few groups and their success in gaining planning consent for these large stores. The situation has changed markedly since the MMC reported and with the continued decline of the small food shops there is now in this country a very serious situation of market dominance.
What consultations take place between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry regarding possible reference of the takeovers of food trades to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Recent major takeovers have not resulted in any reference at all. In the most recent case the battle was fought on the basis that the successful bidder would sell to existing retailers large shops in the chain he was seeking to acquire to finance his purchase price, thus adding to the dominance by back-door methods of food retailing in this country. There is not a hypermarket on every street corner; so there is potential for undue dominance without the normal forces of

293
competition. Has the Ministry of Agriculture considered the effect of this on producers, processors and consumers?
Fish is a commodity of considerable importance under the common fisheries policy. As a result of the reductions in total allowable catches on scientific advice, we are now finding a situation in which in certain parts of the country, particularly Scotland, fishers, processors and services are seriously affected. We have all seen the effect of this in the price of haddock, for example. Reference by the EC to the European Court of Justice of sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1987 designed to frustrate quota-hopping is unhelpful to Britain. Even if the status quo ante is allowed until the court rules on the matter uncertainty prevails in an area where decisive action was needed anyhow. I believe it is essential that the European Court should make its decision known on this at the earliest possible opportunity. If it finds against the United Kingdom, then it will be necessary to renegotiate the common fisheries policy to establish national quotas. What measures are contemplated by the European Commission and Her Majesty's Government to alleviate present and pending distress among fishers and communities in Britain which are wholly or mainly dependent on fishing?
I should like to say a word about the environment. Here I join in the hymn of praise to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his maiden speech. He raised two very important questions. I repeat them in the hope that an answer may be given by the Minister this evening. He raised the important question of whether the environment protection Bill now promised will include ratification of the Basle Convention on Hazardous Wastes. Can the Government give an undertaking along those lines? The noble Lord also asked whether the Government will protect and improve Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
Turning to the outlook for agriculture, I should like to echo a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; a 15 per cent. minimum lending rate is impossible from the point of view of the farming community. Farmers are necessarily substantial borrowers of money and a minimum lending rate at that level would undoubtedly have a devastating effect on their ability not merely to borrow money but, more importantly, to service the interest charges arising on the borrowing. This arises at a time when, flowing from changes in the common agricultural policy, we can see that the farming community is not in the healthy state that it was a few years ago. For bad measure, changes in the beef and sheepmeat regimes in the Community are potentially serious for the United Kingdom because they tend to take away the privileges. The design of the existing regimes were especially suitable for British conditions and placed us on a common level with other member states whose farming in so far as beef and sheepmeat are concerned is in no way comparable with that in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, spoke seriously on the question of sheepmeat.
The laying flock of hens has decreased and consumption has been seriously reduced by the
294
recent egg scare. We learn with regret that a new disease, gumboro disease, threatens other poultry. I wonder whether this situation is as serious as was made out the other day on a farming programme on television. We have seen a raft of orders entitled "Animal Feed (Lead Contamination)" affecting milk and meat in certain parts of England, which are still indicative of the risks attaching to imports in this country. Despite the decisive action by the Ministry of Agriculture when the damage was discovered, the fact is that it happened. Consequently we are still vulnerable and will be even more vulnerable from 1992 onwards when the internal market is completed and when the process of checking food at ports is necessarily speeded up because of the reduction in documentation and the like.
I should like to mention the effect of the present decline in agriculture on the labour force. The decline is running at 2 per cent. annually and it is likely to fall further. Set aside will be taken up more heavily and dairy herds will be reduced as a result of the introduction of milk quotas. The sale of dairy quotas can mean job losses, although they are welcome, I admit, in other ways. Milk quotas are due to end in March 1992. The Commission is due to report by March 1991. In view of the success which has attended the introduction of quotas throughout the Community, I think that this matter should be given attention by the Ministry. In particular the views of farmers and dairy farmers should be canvassed so that we know exactly where we stand with regard to the future of dairy quotas throughout the Community.
There is an urgent need for alternative employment in rural areas as a result of the decreasing agricultural employment to which I have referred. The Development Commission is doing good work in this regard, but I think that more is needed to help ease the problems which arise from a declining agricultural industry.
Planning decisions for change of use in the country, particularly buildings, are of considerable importance to farmers. One hopes that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment will adopt a jointly sympathetic approach to this important aspect.
The Ministry of Agriculture and other agricultural departments in the United Kingdom are still doing useful work. It would be unfair not to pay tribute to that fact. However, there is a need for them to expand and diversify their roles with a greater regard to the social consequences of the current economic policies of Her Majesty's Government.
6.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I felt rather embarrassed when I thought back to my own maiden speech while listening to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Layton this afternoon. It was excellent. Indeed it was more than excellent: it was in the great traditions of maiden speeches in your Lordships' House. I can only say that of the points that I have to answer later, many of them have his name attached to them. That is as

295
good an indication as I can imagine of why it was such a good speech.
Today's proceedings are further proof of the continuing great interest shown by this House in the subject of the debate. Speeches from all sides of the Chamber have covered everything from the M.25 to outer space. This traditional interest of the House is echoed in many other quarters: the land we till, the food we eat, the water we drink and the air that we breathe. All are subjects of huge popular interest. I welcome the sea change in public perception of these matters over the past months. The call for action thus becomes clearer. At the same time our scientific understanding improves.
This Government are taking that action. I should like to make plain that we are also helping to create the prosperity that allows us to take it. We cannot turn our backs on the plain fact that environmental protection does not come cost free. Higher standards cost money. We are all more aware than ever before that there is only one environment, the global environment. Global issues have figured clearly in the debate. The World Commission of Environment and Development clearly showed interrelations between the twin essentials of environmental protection and economic development. We have warmly welcomed the commission's findings. The solutions are as complex as the problems and they do not lie in the gift of any single country. This country is playing its part fully and energetically.
At the beginning of the debate my noble friend the Minister of State referred to the notable speech of the Prime Minister to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this month. I quote her words:
"We know more clearly than ever before that we carry common burdens, face common problems and must respond with common action".
At the same time action continues to be needed by national governments to deal with national issues. The environmental protection Bill announced in the gracious Speech last week is evidence that Britain is also taking this action. My noble friend has mentioned the main provisions of the Bill. We are introducing a brand new integrated system of controls over industrial pollution which is as up to date as any in the world.
We are radically overhauling our system of dealing with land wastes, introducing tough new duties and controls and making sure that those responsible do the job that the public has the right to expect of them. We are ensuring that at last local authorities take their role in recycling waste more seriously than they have done in the past. We want this country to be recycling half of its domestic waste by the end of the next decade.
We are taking tough new steps against litter louts and against those who fail in the task of keeping our public places clean. We are bringing in innovatory new powers to control the release of genetically modified organisms. We are creating separate major conservation agencies for England, Scotland and Wales to make sure that national conservation issues are dealt with, as they should be, by national bodies. As my right honourable friend announced last week,
296
we are ensuring suitable arrangements for co-operation among the three agencies on science and on Great Britain-wide and international issues. I am confident that these measures will be warmly welcomed when we come to debate them in detail.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the Minister, unlike his noble friend who opened the debate, seen this Bill? None of the rest of us has. Where is it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am giving the noble Lord a flavour which I hope that he will find useful. Until the Bill is printed and presented it would be very incautious of me to say that I had seen it in its complete and final form.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, given a previous example of a Bill that has been produced at the same time as the Queen's Speech announcements?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Last week, my Lords.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not aware of one. However, many noble Lords have today mentioned the Food and Safety Bill. As my noble friend stressed in her opening speech, this Bill should not be seen as an isolated measure; it is introduced against the background of sustained and vigorous activity to maintain the safety of our food supply, despite what the scaremongers would have us believe.
This Government have a track record of which they can be proud. However, I have time this evening to cite just one or two examples of the action which we have taken. On salmonella we have introduced a whole range of measures, 19 to be precise, designed to tackle the problem at all the important points in the chain, from the poultry feed manufacturer to the breeding flock and hatcher, to the laying flock and on into the home. We now have in place a comprehensive package unsurpassed by any country in the world and we are pressing for similar standards throughout the Community.
Similarly, as regards BSE, we acted swiftly and decisively to ensure that there could be no danger to public health. Again, we have a wide range of measures in place, implementing without delay every single recommendation of the independent expert committee. Indeed, on one point we have taken steps in addition to those recommended by the committee.
Finally, the recent incident of lead contamination of feeding stuffs provides another example of the lengths to which we will go to protect the consumer. As soon as we were alerted to the problem we took steps to tackle it on every front. No effort was spared, no unpalatable measure was avoided and as a result there was no hazard whatever to the consumer. The new Bill is not the action of a Government ashamed of their past; it is a further significant contribution to the cause to which we have always been firmly committed.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I start by dealing with agriculture, as did my noble friend the Minister of State. I feel that as an Under-Secretary it would be impolite of me to follow any other order than the one established by her.

297
Therefore I shall commence with agriculture not for any reason of primacy but purely for reasons of keeping all the matters in order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lady Elliott of Harwood drew your Lordships' attention to the difficulties with regard to the hill farms in this country. I entirely agree that there are vast differences between farms in our upland areas and those elsewhere in the Community. In our uplands the poor soil, a short growing season and difficult weather conditions limit the carrying capacity of the land. Moreover, as was pointed out, lambs and cattle cannot be fattened and therefore have to be sold as stores, thus limiting the margins per animal. In such conditions farms have to be large in area and to carry relatively large flocks in order to be economic.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood can rest assured that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture went to great lengths to draw the attention of other EC agriculture Ministers to those facts. He also pointed out that a reduction in the profitability of hill farming would affect rural employment, contrary to the Commission's objectives as set out in its recent document on the rural world. I am sure that it was my right honourable friend's arguments that convinced the Council that the limits on HLCAs proposed by the Commission should be substantially improved, even if he was not able to secure their complete rejection.
The noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Gallacher, drew attention to the matter of interest rates.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether the Government will consider sympathetically making up the shortfall caused by the decision of the EC on HLCAs.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I cannot make a commitment on such a financial matter at present. However, I can assure the noble Lord that I will inquire into the matter to ascertain what the position is.
As regards interest rates and agriculture, we fully recognise that increases in interest rates are unwelcome to the farming community. The Government's primary objective remains to reduce inflation. The only effective way of achieving this is through interest rates. Farmers cannot be immune from the action needed for the benefit of the economy as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also drew your Lordships' attention to set aside. Set aside is not intended as a primary means of reform of surpluses. However, I should remind the noble Lord that, although 2·3 per cent. of the eligible area in the United Kingdom is not a very large percentage in itself, it becomes a rather larger percentage when put against the actual problem, which is the surplus production, which as he rightly pointed out is part of the reason for the money going through a level of great expenditure but not finding its way into the sporrans of the farmers.
298
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also referred to quotas. Quotas have control over production in the milk and in the sugar sectors. However, they are not our preferred approach, which is to reduce price levels. We do not believe that there is a justification for extending quotas or other supply side controls to other sectors in agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, drew your Lordships' attention to prices and takeovers. As we have repeatedly made clear, we want farming to be more market oriented. We do not think that this fits in with control over prices. We believe that takeovers in the food industry, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, should be a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, rather than for me to answer from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord also felt that there was a need for a close involvement of Department of Health officials with regard to the food safety directorate. As he pointed out, the directorate will have access to the advice of the chief medical officer. However, it is not the intention to include Department of Health officials within the food safety directorate. To do so would risk unnecessary duplication. It must be remembered that Ministry of Agriculture and Department of Health officials co-operate very closely at a working level all the time.
My noble friend Lord Selborne drew your Lordships' attention to genetically modified organisms. The provisions on genetically modified organisms in the proposed environment protection Bill will mesh fully with existing GMO legislation on human safety and on product control to provide a single framework control. This will meet the requirements so far as concerns industry and the scientific community without compromising in any way the overriding need for environmental and public safety. My noble friend also clearly pointed out the enormous potential that the science has as well as the hope it holds for the future. Moreover, if I may say so, he gave the opposite to the rather Malthusian predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. Finally, he pointed out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that like a free lunch there is no such thing as a free daffodil.
The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords drew attention to the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government are not breaking up the council in the negative way; we are building on its strength gathered over some 40 years to modernise the conservation machinery for the 1990s. Country-based agencies will ensure that Ministers are kept clearly in touch with local conditions and problems and thus avoid the dangers of adopting blanket solutions. However, the Government fully recognise that the new machinery must be able to deliver the advice based on sound scientific research on issues which cover the entire country or which have an international dimension. That is why our proposals will include a joint statutory committee for the three agencies to deal with such important issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Layton, asked when the United Kingdom would ratify the Basle Convention, pointing out that only Jordan had so far done so.

299
We cannot predict when the Community is likely to be ready, because it is a complex issue and it is dependent upon changing the EC directive. However, I can state here that the United Kingdom is trying very hard to ensure rapid progress in the matter.
My noble friend Lord Layton and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, drew your Lordships' attention to the shortage of staff at the HMIP. I am pleased to be able to inform them that the HMIP is undertaking a recruitment drive at present where exceptional salary increases of some 28·5 per cent. are being offered as against the last recruitment round in June.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, again attacked the Government on the issue of water. I felt that I was on familiar ground; in fact, being here was rather like being back in the family after the length of the summer which has just passed. It is important to remember that because of the privatisation of water we now have the only fully funded programme in Europe to ensure that our bathing waters, our drinking water and our sewage will be properly and correctly dealt with and also improved. Further, we are now to have a regulatory body in the form of the National Rivers Authority to ensure that there is a gamekeeper to look after the poachers, if poachers there be.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the privatisation of local authority waste disposal. We do not propose to privatise it. In a way what we propose is very similar to the NRA. We wish to have regulators and operators. We are not in any way attached to some form of dogma.
The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Layton, referred to the local authority resources with regard to the local authority air pollution controls. We proposed the sum of £0·5 million a year for all local authorities. That is the sum suggested by the department. A consultation paper published in April 1989 proposed a system of cost recovery, or charging for local authority costs in implementing the new controls. Local authorities have been reacting to the proposed new system in a positive way, through their contribution to the committee already set up to co-ordinate the enforcement of the new controls.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the television interview in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State took part yesterday. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied that there had been a conversion on the road to Damascus. The fact of the matter is that we as a government are united on this issue. I have to remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of two facts which I think may have passed him by. The first is that I remember well in the summer my right honourable friend's predecessor referring to and causing somewhat of a stir by discussing the possibility of a tax on carbon. I would also point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy recently addressed the World Energy Conference in Montreal. He said there that we should price fuels to reflect their full costs, including their environmental costs. We are not talking here about divisions, more of a seamless robe.
300
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Kuala Lumpur. The Government did not obstruct the creation of a new planet protection fund. What we did—rightly—was to argue strongly that to create such a new institution would be costly, bureaucratic and time-consuming, with no guarantee of better results than the existing bilateral and multilateral institutions can already guarantee. The final communiqué agreed by all the countries there reflects that.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, drew your Lordships' attention to urban regeneration and urban blight as well as what he described as rural blight. In the Autumn Statement a substantial increase in expenditure is planned for the Department of the Environment's urban regeneration programmes of some £420 million over the next two years. That is an increase of 37 per cent. on the previous plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, again—and this was no surprise, knowing his long connection with the industry and his great interest in litter—drew your Lordships' attention to this important matter. We are determined to act vigorously and unrelentingly to arrest and reverse the rising tide of litter which is threatening to engulf our streets and public places. I can assure noble Lords—and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me—that the only long term solution to the problem of litter lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, pointed out, in educating people not to drop it in the first place. To that end, we are continuing to make substantial grants to the Tidy Britain Group, to enable it to carry out its most important work in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew our attention to public transport. We are investing in roads, but our investment in public transport is also running at record levels. British Rail is planning to invest some £3·7 billion over the next three years, which is the biggest investment programme since the conversion from steam to diesel and electric. London Regional Transport is to invest £1·7 billion over the next three years and two weeks ago the Secretary of State for Transport announced the first major extension of London Underground for 25 years, to extend the Jubilee Line from Green Park to the Docklands.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made much of what he believes to be the Prime Minister's lack of interest in travelling on a train. The important fact to remember is that under this Government—apparently so opposed to public transport—at this moment, after nearly centuries of indecision, a great tunnel is being dug under the Channel itself. That will operate with railway trains which are public transport, and not with cars. This came about under a Conservative Government whom the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tends to feel are not interested, when at the same time some of the great undertakings of this century in the public transport infrastructure are taking place.
Do we need more roads? This is a question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I will answer with a reply to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux. The fact of the matter is that

301
it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that the Department of Transport is clearly not keen on the environment because it says that there may be a 142 per cent. increase in traffic by the year 2025. It would be remiss for any department of any government to pretend that a problem will go away if the department does not say that it is there in the first place. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux is well aware that further congestion must raise the risk of accidents. We cannot just dis-invent the car.
It should be remembered that car ownership is higher in France, Germany and Italy than in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that he believes that a greater sum of money was spent on public transport infrastructure in those countries. The disappointing fact that I have to give to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and I draw it not from any of the government departments but from the Guardian newspaper last Friday—is that the use of those facilities is dropping.
The matter of company cars was drawn to your Lordships' attention by many speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I remind him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the past two years increased the tax rate benefit scales by 160 per cent.
Perhaps I may say in closing that, as with many other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said that the motor car was in some ways an object of hate and derision today. He referred to the unattractive sight of multi-storey car parks. The car is guilty of many things, but one thing I can assure the noble Lord of is that if he goes to Chesterfield he will see two multi-storey car parks. One is an example of a true eyesore and the other is, I think, a fine building. It is interesting that they both do the same job and store roughly the same number of cars.
The last example I will give to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is that as I went into Milton Keynes this morning to catch a train, as the modern British man does coming from Milton Keynes, I saw there also a very fine contemporary multi-storey car park that fits in with the buildings.
I very much hope that, directly or indirectly, I have been able to answer the wide range of important points that have been raised by your Lordships this afternoon. I shall read the debate in the Official
302
Report very carefully and if I have omitted to respond to any point today I shall certainly put that right by writing to the noble Lord concerned.
My aim has been to demonstrate to your Lordships that, complicated and wide-ranging as the subjects of today's debate are, the Government are taking whatever action is needed to answer the questions that are raised. The programme of legislation announced in the gracious Speech, with major Bills on both food and the environment, is one further instance of that. Contrary to what it is so convenient for some critics to have us believe, the Government's commitment is absolute. Their record, both at home and abroad, is one of which this country can be proud. The progress over the past years has been dramatic and heartening. This Government are pledged to ensure that it will continue at a fast pace.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry to interrupt his speech, but he referred directly to me and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur. At that meeting the British Prime Minister vetoed the setting up of an environmental fund in order to assist the third world countries to develop without creating the kind of pollution that we have seen in the West. Now he says that she was right to do so because this would have been a bureaucratic body. Is the noble Lord happy to repeat the Prime Minister's words that if she is the only one of the 49 who believes this, then she is sorry for the 48? Is he happy that she was right and the 48 who believed in setting up the fund were wrong?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel I have fairly comprehensively answered the noble Lord, but I am always happy to repeat what the Prime Minister says.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.