Sitting of 30 November 1989

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)
  Motion made,
  That—the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule A to this Order, or which originated in the House of Lords in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule B to this Order may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  —every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
  —there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a Declaration signed by the Agent 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 last Session;
  —every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
  —every Bill listed in Part I of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first, second, and third time, and shall pass;
  —every Bill listed in Part II of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first and second time and reported from Committee and ordered to lie upon the Table;
  —when any Bill originating in the Lords, which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Session and to which this Order relates, is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session, and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a Declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed—

  (i) in the case of the Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords], the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] and the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

  820

  (ii) in the case of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed;

  (iii) in the case of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] and the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time;

  (iv) in the case of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

  —in respect of all the Bills listed in Schedules A and B to this Order, the various stages deemed to have been taken shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been taken;
  —only such Petitions as were presented against any Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill with the same title in the present Session;
  —in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  —in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates and upon which the Examiners have reported in the last Session that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto, the Examiners shall, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, be deemed to have made the same report in the present Session;
  —no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on any of the Bills to which this Order relates so far as Fees were incurred during the last Session;
  —this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution contained in their 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].
  Schedule A
  Part I

  1. City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill

  2. Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill

  3. Isle of Wight Bill

  4. New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill

  5. St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill

  6. Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill

  Part II

  1. British Film Institute Southbank Bill

  2. British Railways Bill

  3. City of London (Various Powers) Bill

  4. Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

  Schedule B

  1. Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords]

  2. London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

  3. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]

  4. United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords]

  5. Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords]

  6. Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords]

  7. Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords]

  8. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 7 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    EC Meetings
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what he expects to discuss.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): The next meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers will be held in Brussels on 18 December 1989. Its agenda has not yet been determined.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone in the House will wish to congratulate him on this, his first appearance at the Dispatch Box at Question Time? All Conservative Members wish him 100 per cent. success in what he sets out to achieve.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that within the Finance Ministries of the EEC countries different criteria are used to assess rail investment proposals in their state railway systems? Is he aware that our Treasury demands a higher rate of return yet pays lower regard to environmental and congestion factors than any other Finance Ministry in Europe? Is he aware, for example, that France spends twice as much as us on its railways and West Germany three times as much? Will he therefore, in concert with his colleagues, prepare a report so that we can factually assess railway investment decisions?
    Mr. Major: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks. Our rail investment programme is large, as he knows. The required rate of return is 8 per cent. in the United Kingdom, and it certainly varies in different parts of Europe, but the precise details of EEC countries' rates of requirement are unknown to me. I should need to check them and write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Allen: The Chancellor will be aware that Members on all sides of the House, and the public, are concerned about war widows' pensions. When he meets his counterparts in Europe, will he take time to discuss with them their arrangements for war widows' pensions? Without committing himself today, will he listen to them with an open mind and bring before this House proposals for fair pensions for all war widows?
    Mr. Major: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising that important matter on this question. I discuss a large number of matters with my Finance Minister colleagues in Europe, but the issue to which he referred is more a matter for discussion within the Government.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the CBI favours early membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system because it believes that that will lead to more stable exchange rates and lower interest rates? Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the two conditions that the Government have laid down—lower inflation and the abolition of exchange controls within the Community—will have been met in a year's time?
    Mr. Major: Quite apart from the two conditions that my hon. Friend mentioned, other important matters need
    822
    to be determined before we think it right for sterling to enter the exchange rate mechanism. I certainly hope to see lower inflation in this country and throughout Europe in a year's time.
    Mrs. Beckett: When the Chancellor next meets his counterparts in Europe I suppose that he may discuss with them what his exchange rate policy is. Will he therefore tell the House what it is today?
    Mr. Major: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her first Question Time in her new position.
    I shall continue to take account of the exchange rate, along with other monetary indicators, when setting interest rates. That has been and remains our policy.

    Imports
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage rise in imports of (a) manufactured consumer goods excluding passenger cars and (b) manufactured capital goods.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): In the six months to October, the volume of imports of consumer goods less cars was 3½ per cent. higher and the volume of imports of capital goods was 8 per cent. higher than in the previous six months.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the Chief Secretary for that answer and I was interested in the reference period. Can he confirm that in the years 1988 and 1989 imports of consumer goods have risen in value to a greater extent than those of capital goods? Does that not blow the Government myth that the trade deficit is due to an investment-led boom allegedly taking place in this country?
    Mr. Lamont: I will certainly have to check the hon. Gentleman's figures. If he tables a written question, I shall be happy to answer it. Looking at the issue over a long period, for the first 10 months of 1989 capital goods imports were up 19 per cent. and consumer imports up 15 per cent. There has been a trend for some time for the growth of capital goods imports to be higher, which is a reflection of the strong investment in this country. It cannot be denied that we have had an investment boom; investment as a proportion of GDP is at its highest level ever. It is not surprising that this also shows up in the import figures.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a balance of payments deficit of £15 billion or more matters to the long-term well-being of this country? Does he also agree that if tax concessions are available in the next Budget they should be to encourage manufacturing industry, not to lower the highest taxation rates, which would be inflationary?
    Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's early Budget representation and we shall take it into account. We have made it clear that it would be prudent for the current account deficit to be reduced, and the Government's policies are designed to do that. It is not right to say that a country cannot finance a current account deficit for some time. My hon. Friend will know that the United States has run a current account deficit for seven years, Australia has run one for 15 years and Sweden ran one for 10 years. It is prudent to get the deficit down, but in a world in which

    823
    there has been extensive capital liberalisation, there are bound to be imbalances between different countries. In itself, that is not wrong.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is not the truth of the matter that the Chief Secretary's reference to an investment boom conceals the fact that the Government are desperately looking for an intellectually respectable argument as to why the balance of payment deficit does not matter but have failed to find one? It is certainly implausible for the Chief Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and to present as good news the fact that our country now imports capital goods such as machine tools which we could make for ourselves if the Government had put their weight behind British domestic manufacturing.
    Mr. Lamont: The current account deficit is a reflection of the excess growth of demand in this country, not a reflection of a lack of competitiveness. If it were, there would not have been the strong growth in British exports and we should not have seen British industry holding on to its share of world trade in the way that it has.
    Mr. Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party tends to exaggerate this problem, partly because it is coming right as a result of Government policies and partly because in the modern world there is a trend towards international specialisation and we are bound to see greater dependence on external factors?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right and it is clear that Government policies are beginning to have an effect; export volumes are rising faster than imports. In the three months to October, export volumes were 3 per cent. higher than in the previous three months and 10 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The same figures for imports, less oil and erratics, were 1½ per cent. and 8 per cent., so exports are obviously doing well.

    VAT
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the average household expenditure is accounted for by value added tax; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the average household expenditure is accounted for by value added tax; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): A married man on average earnings with two children, who will have seen his real take-home pay increase by nearly 32 per cent. since 1978–79, would have paid approximately 2.7 per cent. of his earnings in VAT in 1978–79 and will pay about 5 per cent. in 1989–90.
    Mr. Michie: The Economic Secretary is apparently admitting that a married man with two children and average earnings will pay double the VAT that he paid 10 years ago. Does that not show that the Government give tax cuts with one hand but with their other, invisible hand take more away through VAT and mortgage rate hikes?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that when we came to office in 1979 we faced a large budget deficit, bequeathed to us by the Labour Government. As a result, we raised some taxes during the first two years to
    824
    get into surplus. We are now in surplus again. In recent years, the take has been diminishing. The crucial figure for the hon. Gentleman to recall is the 32 per cent. to which I referred in my main answer.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Value added tax is a regressive form of taxation as it takes more from the poor than from the wealthy. Will the Government ensure that they do not go further down that road by putting VAT on essentials, including medicines, newspapers, books and children's clothes? What will be the position if the Government go down that road given that the public will also face the extra burden of the poll tax?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman asked two supplementary questions. First, VAT is not regressive because VAT payments as a proportion of expenditure rise with income. Secondly, I do not wish to anticipate next year's Budget statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Burns: In the light of my hon. Friend's previous answer, does he agree that it is voodoo economics for the Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford to call for an increase in VAT to 18 per cent. to curb inflation when that would put 1½ per cent. on the rate of inflation, cost £75 billion to industry and commerce, and increase the expenditure of the average household through increased VAT payments?
    Mr. Ryder: It is never difficult to find a loony Liberal, but if there were to be any difficulty I know from my own experience that it is easy to find one in Chelmsford.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Are not the Government to be congratulated on resisting the European Commission's proposals to extend VAT to children's clothes and food? Will my hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the enormous changes in national insurance and taxation which have taken place in the past 10 years, the average household pays—on a tax basis alone—£10 less per week now than it would have paid in 1979, and that 2 million people have been taken out of tax altogether?
    Mr. Ryder: That is correct.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Minister consider commenting on the effect of VAT on unemployed households, and will the Treasury consider issuing a leaflet explaining the VAT implications for households in which the parents are unemployed so that they can identify the things that they cannot buy?
    Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will consider his suggestion. I remind him that the benefit system in this country already takes care of the sort of people to whom he has referred.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the corporation tax rate in the United Kingdom and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The United Kingdom corporation tax rate is one of the lowest in any major industrial country in the OECD. With permission, I will circulate the complete list of rates in the Official Report.
    Mr. Gill: I congratulate the Government on having one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the EEC. That could have been achieved only under a Conservative Government. I urge my hon. Friend to give further consideration to the impact of corporation tax on the many small and medium-sized companies which depend on ploughed-back profits for their investment and expansion.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He will know that we have a special low rate of tax for small companies. In his last Budget, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised the threshold above which the higher rates come in. We have taken account of that already, but I shall consider further what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the master cutlers told the Sheffield chamber of commerce at its annual dinner last week that despite the reduction in corporation tax, investment capital project decisions have become more difficult since 1983 because of the reduction in offset allowances, at a time when business men find themselves locked ever more severely into competition with European and other overseas competitors?
    Mr. Lilley: Since we introduced the reforms in corporation tax, the quantity of investment has reached record levels and the quality of investment has improved considerably. That is evidenced by the profitability of industry, which is at its highest level since the 1960s. Despite the fact that we have the lowest rate in the OECD, the revenues from corporation tax have doubled in cash terms.
    Mrs. Currie: Is it not true that our favourable corporation tax rates are a major factor in encouraging foreign investment in this country? Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday we heard that the compulsory purchase order had been granted for the land in my constituency required by Toyota, which will shortly be investing more than £700 million in our country? Is not the fact that that business is coming to Britain a tribute to our good work force and our favourable business environment? No other sweeteners are needed.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. Foreign businesses, like British businesses, prefer a low-tax low-subsidy regime rather than the high-tax and, inevitably, high-subsidy regime that Labour offered. The success of my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Derbyshire in attracting Toyota is a tribute to them, as is the success of the tax regime that we have provided in attracting it to Britain.
    Following is the information:

    Main national rate per cent.

    Total national and local tax

    Australia

    39·0

    —

    Austria

    30·0

    40·1

    Belgium

    43·0

    —

    Canada

    28·0

    143·5

    Denmark

    50·0

    —

    Finland

    33·0

    46·5–51·5

    France

    42·0

    —

    Germany

    56·0

    264·8

    Greece

    46·0

    —

    Iceland

    51·0

    —

    Ireland

    43·0

    —

    Main national rate per cent.

    Total national and local tax

    Italy

    36·0

    46·4

    Japan

    40·0

    356·0

    Luxembourg

    34·0

    41·2

    Netherlands

    35·0

    —

    New Zealand

    33·0

    —

    Norway

    50·8

    —

    Portugal

    36·5

    —

    Spain

    35·0

    35·7

    Sweden

    52·0

    —

    Switzerland

    9·8

    429·2

    Turkey

    46·0

    47·84

    United Kingdom

    35·0

    —

    United States of America

    34·0

    40·13

    1 Ontario.

    2 Average.

    3 Approximate average.

    4 Zurich.

    Notes:
    1. The rates of company tax shown are those at present in force.
    2. There are lower rates for smaller companies in Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, United Kingdom and United States of America.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from small businesses about the level of interest rates.
    Mr. Ryder: A small number each month.
    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Minister not aware that high interest rates are crippling small businesses? What assumption has he made for the level of interest rates in 1990, based on the very optimistic forecast in the Autumn Statement of 5·75 per cent. inflation?
    Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman looked a little more closely at the Autumn Statement, he would have his reply. Obviously he has not read it carefully enough.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that small business men in Calder Valley are worried about interest rates, concerned about inflation and absolutely terrified of any prospect of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend, as usual, is correct in most of his assumptions. I concede that high interest rates are causing a great deal of concern among small business men and mortgage payers. I am interested in my hon. Friend's question because a Gallup poll on Tuesday showed that the vast majority of people in this country.
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministers have discretion in what they read from the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Ryder: The poll showed that the vast majority of people in this country are content with the Government's economic policy and frightened of a Labour party coming to office with rising inflation, economic chaos, high taxation and undoing all that this Government have put right. That is what the people of this country said categorically in the poll published by The Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Boateng: We appreciate the Economic Secretary's difficulties, but why is he so singularly unforthcoming-even coy—about the assumptions as to interest rates which underlie the Autumn Statement? Does he agree with his

    827
    officials who, only this morning, are reported as saying that concern about the upward pressure on interest rates and concern about sterling was "so much political froth"? What comfort is that to the small business man suffering an investment nightmare or to the home owner suffering a mortgage hell? Is not the political froth that we should be concerned about the froth that has been washed up on the Treasure Bench? The Government should come clean or get out.
    Mr. Ryder: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Front Bench, but his three years of rehearsal have done him no good at all. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the Autumn Statement and previous Autumn Statements, as I advised his hon. Friend to do, he would find that interest rate figures are never given and were not given by the Labour Government either.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister show that he is aware how especially vulnerable small businesses are to high interest rates? What specific steps is he taking to help small businesses during what will obviously be a prolonged period of high interest rates?
    Mr. Ryder: I fully concede that many small business men and people paying mortgages are suffering from high rates, but a far worse enemy to small business men and to mortgage payers is high inflation. The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to help small business men and I will tell him. The loan guarantee scheme has helped more than 20,000 small businesses. Increased corporation tax bands have helped small businesses. The 150 deregulatory measures introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry and detailed in a White Paper are helping small businesses. Improved inheritance tax provisions have also helped small businesses, particularly small family businesses.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is not my hon. Friend astounded at the sheer cheek of the Opposition when, instead of a record number of small firms starting up, as has happened under this Government, in the days when the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was the Minister responsible for small firms a record number were closing every week?
    Mr. Ryder: Despite what the Labour party may wish in its heart of hearts, new small businesses are starting at the rate of 1,300 per week. In the last full year of the Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was a Minister, the number was diminishing at a rate of 100 per week.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness I should call the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your sense of fairness, Mr. Speaker.
    Is not the reality that this year bankruptcies among small firms have risen by 40 per cent.—a Tory Government record which was never equalled by the Labour Government, who gave a huge range of incentives to small firms, which appreciated and understood the concern that we felt for that sector?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the full facts. Each and every week 1,300 small businesses are starting up. They are being registered for
    828
    VAT, and that is a net figure, not a gross figure. When the hon. Gentleman was responsible for these matters in the 1970s the net figure was a loss of 100 per week.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate for the United Kingdom visible balance for 1989.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the current account of the balance of payments for 1989.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I refer the hon. Members to the Autumn Statement forecast, table 2.3.
    Mr. Hardy: Do not those figures illustrate our deplorable trading condition, and is not that condition the worst of all the world's industrial nations, at least those within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Does the Minister deny that that is an illustration of the most appalling economic mismanagement throughout the past, oil-rich decade?
    Mr. Lamont: It is not correct to say that our current account deficit is the largest as a proportion of GDP. There are countries with a larger deficit as a proportion of their GDP. I do not accept that the current account deficit is an accurate reflection of the competitiveness or health of a country's economy. The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that of the major industrial countries, only two are running a surplus. If he wishes to consider the health of Britain's balance sheet, let him look at our net overseas assets, which are the third largest of any country. That will be an enormous strength to us while we have a current account deficit.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Chief Secretary give his view on whether the devaluation of the pound that has taken place since the Chancellor took office will help or harm our balance of payments? Given the Chancellor's wholly inadequate reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will the Chief Secretary take this opportunity to make clear to the House precisely what is Government policy on exchange rates in relation to our balance of payments and inflation?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the Government's position in respect of exchange rates crystal clear. It is absurd and a little irresponsible of the hon. Member to press my right hon. Friend further on that subject. My right hon. Friend has gone as far as possible on a very sensitive subject, and the hon. Gentleman should not press him.
    As to the balance of trade deficit and the effect of the movement of the pound on the volume of our exports, I have already said that our exports will perform better than imports over the next year. Recent import and export patterns indicate that the trend is good.
    Mr. Higgins: In praising our balance of payments position, is it not important to note that last month imports fell, showing clearly that the measures by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to curtail demand and to beat inflation are not only working at a domestic level but are improving our balance of payments? As to Britain's assets, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will

    829
    commend an article by Samuel Brittan, in the Financial Times on 23 November, which brought out this country's very strong asset position—which compares favourably not only with the United States and Germany but with Japan.
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend's remarks in respect of the current account are absolutely correct, for exports are rising faster than imports. As to the asset position of our overseas investments, we are far ahead of the United States. The two countries ahead of us are Germany and Japan. As a proportion of gross domestic product, our net overseas assets are the largest in the world.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the Government's decision not to raise interest rates recently to counter the 4 per cent. devaluation that has occurred in the past month? Will he revert to the policy pursued during the Government's most successful economic period between 1979 and 1983, when they followed not an exchange rate target but a money supply target?
    Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's comments. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor favours a firm exchange rate, and he continues to take account of the exchange rate alongside other monetary indicators when setting interest rates.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Chief Secretary realise that these are the last Treasury questions of the decade? It has been an oil-rich decade during which the Government enjoyed the biggest oil revenues in history and took the credit for everything that has gone right. Now that Britain has the biggest balance of payments deficit in its history, can the Chief Secretary predict whether the Government will ever take the blame for anything that has gone wrong?
    Mr. Lamont: As to the past oil-rich decade, we have allowed this country to accrue overseas assets, whereas the Labour party want to see oil revenues invested in an industrial strategy—which would mean supporting a lot of lame ducks and unprofitable investments for the taxpayer. Our policy has resulted in a stream of income and a stream of dividends that will benefit this country for years to come.

    Employment
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth in employment over the last five years.
    Mr. Lilley: Total employment has increased by 2¾ million since 1983.
    Mr. Hayward: I welcome that excellent news. Does not my hon. Friend find it amazing that whereas the Labour party complains about small numbers of job losses, when it comes to the creation of 2,500 jobs at Grangemouth or the announcement of new research and development jobs with Nissan, it fails to welcome that news—especially when the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have previously complained that most of the jobs available in Japanese car manufacturing plants are screwdriver jobs?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the Opposition's most distasteful characteristics was the ghoulish pleasure that they used to derive from rising unemployment. Now that it is falling, they are totally silent. Of all the questions on the Order Paper put down by the Opposition, there is not one that deals with the excellent fall in unemployment in this country.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Financial Secretary confirm that—despite the sudden rise in employment that has occurred in the past couple of years—Wales, the west midlands, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the north and Northern Ireland still have fewer people in employment than they did in 1979, and that almost 1 million men are unemployed?
    Mr. Lilley: Unemployment is falling in almost every region, and last year it fell fastest in the north. That is good news, and it should be welcomed by every hon. Member.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of the Government's great success in guiding the British people back towards conditions approaching full employment over the past two years, may I express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will resist the continuing requests from teenage City scribblers for ever higher interest rates, which would provide the country with only a short-term currency advantage and would put the real economy and employment prospects at risk?
    Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend has made very clear which factors he will take into account in determining interest rates. I am happy to say that they do not include teenage scribblers—although I was once one myself.

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made as regards the conditions that must be met before the United Kingdom enters the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Major: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my speech to the House on 2 November.
    Mr. Howells: Does the Chancellor agree that British farmers have no opportunity to compete on equal terms with their European counterparts because we are not full members of the European monetary system? What plans has he to help small farmers to overcome the problem of the high interest rates that now prevail?
    Mr. Major: Small farmers face the same difficulties with interest rates as other business men. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am bound to say that I think that the principal competitive problem that affects small farmers is caused by the unfair subsidies often received by their counterparts elsewhere in the Community.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: May I support the plea by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North (Mr. Howells) for help for farmers, and draw my right hon. Friend's attention particularly to the extensification part of the common agricultural policy? The CAP is badly in need of modernisation, but surely extensification is the true new social way of helping farmers to retain their rural economy.
    Mr. Major: Whether or not that is correct—and I suspect that it is—it is probably only tangential to the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Chancellor said on 2 November, and has said subsequently, that inflation must come down before Britain can join the exchange rate mechanism. He has also forecast that, at the end of next year, inflation will be running at 5¾ per cent. Will that figure be low enough, or is the inflation criterion simply another way of saying that he has no intention of taking Britain into the ERM in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Major: As the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out in a recent debate, I indicated my support for the exchange rate mechanism as long ago as 1981. The Government have set out four conditions that must be met before we can join the ERM; they were made entirely clear at Madrid, and they remain the same today.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot make progress on an exchange rate mechanism while restrictions on capital movement between member countries remain? Those restrictions include not only exchange rate control, but restrictions on the activities of banks in various countries in raising foreign currency debt.
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He has touched on the other conditions that need to be met. We certainly need to see capital liberalisation, freedom of financial services and, of course, strengthened competition quality. Those matters are well understood by our European partners, who must deliver accordingly before we are in a position to join the ERM.

    Monetary Policy
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes of each of the monetary indicators in setting monetary policy.
    Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend sets a target for MO and also monitors broad money and other financial indicators, in particular the exchange rate.
    Mr. Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past 18 months the increase in the rate of inflation was due principally to the increase in broad money? Can he assure the House that in future the Chancellor will take more notice of broad money than his predecessor did?
    Mr. Lilley: It would probably be more accurate to retrace the resurgence of inflation to the relaxation of monetary policy at the time of the collapse of world stock markets in October 1987. It is significant that we rarely relax monetary policy in response to non-inflationary matters to keep growth going. That is always the intention of the Opposition. They would have continuously rising inflation but we are determined to get inflation down.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the Minister monitors exchange rates, will he tell us the exchange rate between the pound and the deutschmark on the day of the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) at the Conservative party conference when he said that his was not a party for devaluation, and what the figure is now?
    Mr. Lilley: The current exchange rate is much where it was at the beginning of 1987, let alone then. The policy consistently advocated by the Opposition would destroy the value of the pound internally and externally.

    Output
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in output over the last five years for which figures are available in the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The United Kingdom, together with Spain, has grown faster than any other EC country except Luxembourg.
    Mr. Marland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer, does he remember the late 1970s when Britain was branded the poor man of Europe? Does his answer not underline the vigour of our economy and give the lie to so much that Opposition Members say about the economy?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that during the 1960s and 1970s Britain was bottom of the growth league, but during the 1980s our growth rate has out-performed that of all other EC countries. That is certainly something of which we should be proud.
    Mr. Heifer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last Labour Government inherited the economy from the Conservative Government and that private industry was collapsing on a massive scale? The Tory Government had to take over Rolls-Royce and we had to take over British Leyland and British Steel because they had collapsed. In addition, we had to take over the shipbuilding industry because it had collapsed. There would have been no industry had it not been for the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Oh yes. We have now had a Tory Government for 10 years and industry is collapsing on a bigger scale than ever before.
    Mr. Lamont: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the failures of the Labour party in Government did not apply just to the last Labour Government but to the Labour Government before that, the one before that and to all Labour Governments.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the annual cost to British industry of (a) a rise of 1 per cent. in interest rates and (b) a rise of 1 per cent. in payroll costs.
    Mr. Lilley: A 1 per cent. rise in payroll costs would cost companies £1¾ billion, roughly three times as much as a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting answer. Since rising interest rates are a phenomenon of most industrialised countries, why does the CBI bleat about them? Higher wage rates are not a phenomenon of many industrialised countries, but the CBI leaves them entirely alone instead of concentrating on trying to keep wage costs under control.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Interest rates in Britain have gone up by the same amount as interest rates in Germany over the past 12

    833
    months. Obviously, it is in the power of industrialists to keep their total costs down if they keep firm control of their payroll costs.

    Social Charter
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect on the United Kingdom's long-term economic performance of the proposed European social charter.
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect on the United Kingdom's long-term economic performance of the proposed European social charter.
    Mr. Major: Implementation of the proposed social charter in its present form would have a harmful effect on economic performance. It would raise costs and cost jobs.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous for the EEC to try to introduce laws to govern a wide variety of our small business sector?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I suggest to our colleagues in Europe that the principle of subsidiarity would serve us much better than the proposed social charter.
    Mr. Gale: Further to that answer, what would be the effect on the United Kingdom's economy of a 35-hour working week?
    Mr. Major: I scarcely think that an immediate 35-hour week would be helpful for the economy.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I shall be attending a dinner given by the 4th Battalion of the Royal Green Jackets to mark the retirement of my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Holderness as its honorary colonel.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the weeks coming up to Christmas the ambulance service will be under increasing pressure, and that the walkout in London yesterday only underlines the seriousness of the situation? Will she now instruct the Secretary of State for Health to refer the matter immediately to arbitration?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the accident and emergency service is being provided by National Health Service ambulance crews over most of the country. They are answering 999 calls, and dealing with urgent admissions, transfers of very sick patients and journeys for patients who need various treatments. In London, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, the emergency service is being supplemented by vehicles and crews provided by the armed forces and the police. With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's
    834
    question, he is aware that these negotisations are conducted in the Whitley councils, which make no provision for arbitration.
    Sir William Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I just gave.
    Sir William Clark: Has my right hon. Friend noted that Toyota, Nissan and the German firm Reinshagen have announced substantial investment in the British car industry? Is this not proof positive that the overseas investor has complete confidence in the British economy? It is a far cry from the days when the British taxpayer had to pay £3,500 million of taxpayers' money to British Leyland.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome this manifestation of confidence in British industry today. It will enable us to bring the car industry back to its former glories. When all that investment is on stream, we shall be producing some 2 million cars a year in this country, whereas we were producing only 1·1 million in 1979. It is also a tribute to the change in trade union law in this country, which eliminated some of the previous difficulties, restrictive practices and continuous strikes that nearly destroyed the car industry 10 years ago.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister responded to my question on Tuesday, did she know that the sale of Rover had been assisted by £38 million worth of under-the-counter handouts, and that on the best estimates available Rover was looking forward to three years of significant profitability?
    The Prime Minister: I answered the right hon. Gentleman as I shall answer him again today—the Government struck the best deal that they believed they could in all the circumstances of the sale. The circumstances of the sale were that the extra cash injection at the time of final privatisation brought the total funds injected by the taxpayer into British Leyland up to £3,457 million since 1975. I understand that the forward forecasts of profits were before interest had been paid on capital. That is hardly a profit.
    Mr. Kinnock: I rather felt on Tuesday that we had not had the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I feel that now. Is it not clear from what we now know in detail, that the Government were less than honest with the European Community, deceived Parliament, and sold the British taxpayers short, and that the whole affair has been a rip-off? What will the Prime Minister do to get the British people's money back? Is not this the time for her to give the public apology for which I asked on Tuesday?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. If there was a rip-off, it was the almost £3 billion which the British taxpayer had paid since 1975 to keep British Leyland-Rover going. The amount was growing because of the Varley-Marshall assurances and already in March 1988 it had reached £1·6 billion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman remembers that when we attempted to sell British Leyland-Rover in 1986, our efforts were frustrated by the hysteria with which the sale was greeted by the Opposition. The right hon. and learned Member for

    835
    Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) called our efforts "anti-British in effect" and did infinite damage to the prospect of a successful sale to other buyers who may have been interested. He went on:
    "Can we now be assured … that there will be no question, during the lifetime of the Government, of Land Rover or any other part of the British Leyland Group passing out of British control?"—[Official Report, 25 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 787–88.]
    That prevented many other prospective buyers from coming forward, so much damage had been done by the Opposition's strictures on overseas car companies.
    Mr. Kinnock: Truly me thinks that the Lady doth protest too much. Did she or did she not know on Tuesday that the sale had been sweetened with £38 million worth of handouts from taxpayers' money?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a full statement later this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition should be perturbed that the car industry could not succeed without enormous cash injections from the British taxpayer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That company constantly put its hands into the taxpayers' pocket—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given the chance to reply.
    The Prime Minister: We had the irony that among companies producing cars in Britain some, such as Ford, paid money into the British Treasury while others, such as British Leyland, took rather larger sums out of it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Faulds: Come clean.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us calm down.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider her reply to the Leader of the Opposition? Does she agree that there has been a rip-off—the rip-off of the billions of pounds that were swallowed up by Leyland over many years?
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.
    Mr. Tebbit: I have no interest to declare. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the Leader of the Opposition would benefit from some instruction about the cost of a contingent liability of £1·6 billion and the value to the taxpayer of getting rid of it?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Had British Leyland-Rover not been privatised, it would have continued putting its hands in the pockets of the British taxpayer indefinitely. Then we should soon have been in difficulties with the Commission because of heavy subsidies to British industry.
    Mr. Mallon: I am sure that the Prime Minister and the House will join me in condemning the horrific, sectarian murders last night in Northern Ireland. In view of the continuing loss of life, hope and quality of life in the north of Ireland, will the Prime Minister please take the Northern Ireland problem off the backburner and, along with the Northern Irish political parties and the Irish Government, as specified in the Anglo-Irish Agreement
    836
    and again in the Queen's Speech, set about taking the problem by the scruff of the neck and solve it once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: First, I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our horror at the murders and our sympathy for the victims' relatives. Although the hon. Gentleman cannot respond immediately, I ask him to bear in mind that it is easier to say what he said towards the end of his question than to put it into practice. I pay tribute to the work of the security forces, whether the police or armed forces. We shall never be able to solve the problem entirely until we have the full co-operation of all people in providing evidence to bring the criminals to justice from whatever side of the sectarian boundary they come.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who favour the European social charter must also favour her Government's abolition of the closed shop? Is there not a lesson in that for the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the good aspects of the social charter—we disagree with many; most in fact—is that it would require the abolition of the closed shop—a measure which this Government will introduce in the trade union Bill which will be presented to the House later. If the Opposition are in favour of the social charter. I hope that they will support fully our trade union measures.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Prime Minister aware that in answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) everything she said showed how conscientious ambulance men and women were in answering emergency calls? Is she aware that at the end of her answer when she sought refuge by saying that the matter was for the Whitley councils, she showed that she was not prepared to treat the dispute as the emergency that it is? Is it not high time that she stepped in to ensure that the dispute goes to arbitration?
    The Prime Minister: I described where the ambulance service was honouring its undertaking as an accident and emergency service and carrying out its duties in that respect. As the hon. Gentleman knows, nine tenths of the work of the ambulance service in the miles of calls it answers do not involve accidents or emergencies, but bringing in-patients and out-patients to hospitals. Naturally, we wish that service to be restored. The hon. Gentleman already knows that a fresh offer which will last for 18 months has been made to ambulance crews. We hope that they will accept it.
    Mr. Bendall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bendall: In view of the historic events taking place in eastern Europe, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain will maintain her military commitment to NATO and encourage other member states to do likewise?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that the members of the European Community, and I am sure the Heads of Government when they meet at NATO next Monday, will reaffirm that it is vital to continue NATO which has given us peace for the past 40 years. Both the concept and practice are good. It is vital to retain NATO and the Warsaw pact which provide the machinery through which we are negotiating conventional and chemical arms reductions. We are fortunate to enjoy peace. We must always have the means to keep the peace and NATO is that means.
    Mr. Ashdown: How is it that the Prime Minister trusts the Vietnamese Government so little that she is prepared to risk aiding the Khmer Rouge in order to be able to kick that Government out of Cambodia, and yet trusts them so much that she is prepared to use force to repatriate the Vietnamese boat people into their hands? When will the Government get rid of one or other, but preferably both, of those shameful policies?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not support the Khmer Rouge. We have supported the non-Communist resistance. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the representation in the United Nations, he will know that that is determined by the United Nations credentials committee which presently supports the Democratic Alliance of which Khmer Rouge is a part. Is he suggesting as some people are that one should support the Hun Sen Government? Hun Sen and some of his people were members of Khmer Rouge and as a puppet Government were previously kept in power by the Vietnamese.
    838
    The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Vietnamese boat people. Those who are genuine refugees—and that again is determined by the United Nations—will not be returned. Those who are illegal immigrants will be returned and it is customary under international law for countries to receive their own immigrants back into their country. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should ever get to a position where we cannot return illegal immigrants to their country of origin, he is proposing international chaos.
    Dame Janet Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend take a little time today to reflect on two outstanding achievements? First, will she reflect on the 70th anniversary of Lady Astor the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, taking her seat in this place as the first woman Member of Parliament? Secondly, will she reflect on her own outstanding achievement as Britain's first woman Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would all do well to remember that this is the 70th anniversary of the day on which Lady Astor took her seat in the House. It was a momentous day for women and a great tribute to all the suffragettes who had worked so hard to see that day. We must also be grateful to Lady Astor for the magnificent way in which she discharged her duties so that many of us could follow after. I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning my "first" and hope that it will continue.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4. DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 4) Northern Ireland Order.
TUESDAY 5 DECEMBER—SeCOnd Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
Motion on the Teachers Pay and Conditions (Continuation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
Motion on the Local Government Act (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order.
THURSDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill (First Day).
FRIDAY 8 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on action to tackle the misuse of drugs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY II DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill (Second Day).
Debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to the 1990 EC budget. Details will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 11 December
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) COM(89)175

Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1990.

(b) 8271/89

The Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1990.

(c) 9704/89

The European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget.

(d) 8848/89

Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1990.

(e) 9627/189

Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1990.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxii (1988–89), para 3.

(b) HC 15-xxxvii (1988–89), para 3.

(c) No Report yet made.

(d) HC 15-xxxvi (1988–89), para 8.

(e) HC 15-xxxviii (1988–89), para 8].

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for responding so positively to our request for a two-day debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In view of the Government's difficulties and their well-known desire to have a break, has he been able to reach any decision about the dates of the Christmas recess? I suspect that it would also be convenient for the House if he could tell us something about the likely dates of the Easter recess as well.
840
Has the Leader of the House seen the graphic reports by Michael Buerk, the BBC correspondent, about the impending catastrophic famine in Ethiopia, a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has sought to raise in the House several times this week? Given the huge amount of public interest in Britain in that impending tragedy, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide time next week for either a statement by the Minister or, better still, a debate on that important issue and the British Government's response to it?
We look forward to receiving an apology from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in a few moments, to the House and to the British taxpayer, for the Government's appalling squandering of more than £200 million of taxpayers' money over the Rover fiasco. A brief statement is no substitute for proper public debate about the fiasco—in fact, a scandal. Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for such a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal first with the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman. When I became Chancellor of the Exchequer the most formidable burden that passed across my desk was the unending series of bills—billions of pounds, not hundreds of millions—for losses in nationalised industries. That included the continued outpouring of billions of pounds to the British motor industry. One of the Government's most formidable achievements has been to staunch that flow by the privatisation of about half of the nationalised industries. We have successfully achieved that result with the Rover Group and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will defend that later this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman talked about billions of pounds being lost to the British taxpayer, but he should remember that it was Opposition Members who squandered those resources without any limit. We have brought an end to that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the arrangements for the two-day debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. That was also arranged in response to a question from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party.
I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement about the proposed date for the Christmas recess in my business statement next week. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about the subsequent recess, and the fact that Easter is likely to be later than usual next year, I shall see whether it is possible to take account of that in the arrangements I make and I will tell the House as soon as possible.
As I have said before during business questions, the whole House is very concerned about the continuing threat of famine in Ethiopia. We have provided some 17,000 tonnes of food aid this year and, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a further £2 million of emergency aid on 27 November. The only long-term answer is to end the civil war as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, we have been trying to persuade all the parties to the conflict to permit free access across the lines for relief supplies.
I shall bear in mind the wish expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to be kept informed. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the

841
gravity of the situation there. I assure the House that the Government are mindful of it, and are responding on a continuous basis.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the way that the rules of the House which allow us to discharge our duties with regard to private Bills is conducted has become a total disgrace? Will he make a statement next week to demonstrate that the Government will use the first possible opportunity to change the rules so that those who wish to introduce such Bills will have them dealt with expeditiously?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend knows, in the first instance the supervision of private Bills is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He will have seen that a revival motion which includes all the Bills that the Chairman of Ways and Means had set down for debate on Thursday 9 November, is on the Order Paper. We hope that that will receive a favourable response in the House. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to ensure that the private Bill procedure is not used to obstruct the legitimate aspirations of those people who have taken a great deal of trouble to bring a Bill before the House. I am considering that, and I recognise the importance of the issue.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I note that there is no mention of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 in the business for next week. Can the Lord President give us an assurance that, when he brings it before the House, the time for it will be extensive to allow us to debate it adequately as it may be the last one to appear before the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already received notice of the importance attached to providing sufficient time for discussion of that subject. We shall see whether we can respond to that request.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, recognising that, with our adverse balance of payments, the future of the services provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department is of crucial rather than marginal importance, ensure that Her Majesty's Government issue a Green Paper which is debated in this House before they arrive at any decisions about the future of these functions and how they are carried out? Is he aware that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in their appreciation that this subject must be debated properly in the House before a decision is taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As someone who was at one time responsible as a Minister for those important provisions, I understand the significance of my hon. Friend's point. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I cannot give any undertaking about how the matter may be brought forward.
Mr. Jack Ashley: With regard to haemophiliacs infected by AIDS, does not the Leader of the House find it remarkable that, after many parliamentary questions, early-day motions and deputations to Ministers, including the Prime Minister, most
842
haemophiliacs and most hon. Members are distressed at the inadequacy of the money that is offered? May we please debate this matter urgently next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman returns to a matter to which he has drawn my attention previously. He knows that discussions are taking place with the Macfarlane Trust and the Charity Commissioners to determine the best way in which to meet the Government's objective of making lump sum payments of £20,000 and continuing help on a more generous scale to those in special need. I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 November.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the difficulties experienced by hon. Members when foreign affairs debates are held on successive Fridays? He will appreciate the problem of constituency work clashes. Can he assure the House that he will use his heart and head in an effort to provide a two-day debate on foreign affairs before the House rises —at least before Christmas?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that, even if I used my heart and head to their utmost, I could achieve that objective. Neither of those organs needs to be reminded of the legitimate importance of foreign affairs. That is why we have an additional debate tomorrow. I also understand the misgivings that arise from successive Fridays being devoted to the subject. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will be grateful for the modest advance that we have been able to make.
Mr. James Wallace: On a day when hon. Members will have noticed the flag of St. Andrew flying over Westminster abbey, may I ask the Leader of the House to direct his mind to Scottish affairs? does he think it satisfactory that, with our completely different Health Service structure, provisions to reform the Health Service in Scotland should be tacked on to the end of an English Bill?
With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement on Tuesday night about the future, or lack of one, of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, has he looked recently at Standing Order No. 130, which provides:
"Select committees shall be appointed to examine expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments",
including the Scottish Office? As a distinguished lawyer, the Leader of the House must know that the word "shall" is mandatory. What right does he have to abrogate the Standing Orders of the House? Does he intend to introduce an amendment to them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the latter matter was discussed fully in the debate on my birthday last year—20 December. I cannot add anything to the analysis then undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is at least a separate part of the Bill on the Health Service which deals with matters in this country, whereas those for the Principality of Wales are subsumed in the provisions for England. So he has some blessing.
Sir John Stokes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, since the televising of our proceedings, our conduct has become

843
worse and the noise much greater, especially in the past few days and when the cameras are still on? When the cameras are off, quiet descends almost at once. Are we to have this for a further five and a half months, or is there some means by which we can modify our original decision to have this experiment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my hon. Friend has been a consistent advocate of that point. Another equally consistent advocate is the hon. Gentleman who is sitting bearded on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am most obliged.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: He is not notorious for the quietude with which he conducts himself, so noise emanates from some quarters whether we are on television or not. It must be said that one of the more striking features is that much of the noise that blocks out discussion in this Chamber does not come through on the television screen outside. It may behove hon. Members who are disposed to be noisy to recollect that they are doing themselves no good by straining their lungs to such an extent.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful for that commercial from the Leader of the House. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Tuesday's debate on the economy the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke from 4·13 pm to 4·59 pm? Does he realise that that operation was carried out to prevent any other hon. Member getting in on television transmission time, which terminated at 5 pm on that day? Is he aware that that can only give substance to the suspicion that the Government have established a little, secret body to try to find ways of abusing television transmission time in the House? Will he accept from his nearest and dearest that, were he Prime Minister, we should not have to suffer such deceit and deviousness, and there would be a great deal—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced and responsible hon. Member, please withdraw that remark about the Prime Minister?
Mr. Faulds: Of course, Sir. To oblige you, Mr. Speaker, and because I should not have said them, I withdraw those two words. However, I maintain the principle that the Leader of the House would have been an admirable Prime Minister.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I am fully qualified to compete with the hon. Gentleman in offering commercials as it is a matter to which he has devoted his professional life. It is not right to conclude that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was directed to the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend was interrupted frequently and that he gave way frequently, thereby adding to the already interesting quality of his speech. One should not look for conspiracies among Conservative Members, but rather among Opposition Members.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that when I asked last Thursday whether we could have a debate on the plight of war widows he told me to await the Adjournment debate later that evening? As nothing of importance came out of that debate, and in view of the
844
strong feeling among hon. Members of all parties about the plight of war widows, will he tell us when we shall have a debate on that important issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot add further to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in response to the debate last week.
Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath): The right hon and learned Gentleman will be aware that the exciting events in eastern Europe are of great interest to hon. Members and to the public outside. In his previous incarnation, he will also have been aware of the considerable efforts made by the Council of Europe to bring about those changes. Does he think that it is now possible for the Government to consider giving a little more attention to the matters of the Council of Europe and to initiate a debate in the House on the work of the Council of Europe at regular intervals?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The range of matters relevant to eastern Europe can be discussed during tomorrow's debate. I do not think that many hon. Members would challenge the importance in that context of the work being done by the Council of Europe and others. The hon. Gentleman may remember that it has been one of the central places in which the agreement on transfrontier broadcasting has been hammered out to the benefit of countries beyond the Community and throughout those represented at the Council of Europe.
Mr. William Hague: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the future of rural England? Does he agree that the problems of particular parts of the country and of urban areas are often discussed but that the problems facing rural areas such as housing and health, shifting populations and farm incomes are interconnected and merit being debated as a whole?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend represents a substantial part of rural England and he is entitled to make that point. I shall try to bear it in mind.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Surely the price of having no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is that Parliament does not have an adequate means of scrutiny over the Scottish Office or of dealing with important Scottish matters, such as the National Health Service, the steel and fishing industries, nuclear dumping and other issues which would be sent to that Committee. Since the official Opposition have an automatic right to call a debate on that issue but are apparently scared to do so, would the Leader of the House consider providing Government time for a debate? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to columns 715–16 of Hansard for yesterday and seen Mr. Speaker's ruling that he is bound by the Standing Orders as they are and that he can
"rule only on the basis of the guidelines that have been laid down"?—[Official Report, 29 November 1989; Vol. 162, e715.]
The Leader of the House has duties with regard to that. Will he now implement Standing Order No. 130 which makes it mandatory to create a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Will he also obey the ruling by Mr. Speaker and create that Select Committee now?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have immense respect for any ruling by Mr. Speaker. The one referred to by the hon.

845
Member was given in a different context. That point was discussed in the debate on 20 December last year. I cannot add anything to the conclusions then arrived at.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), may I press my right hon. and learned Friend harder on the subject of the ECGD policy which the Government are to announce? Bearing in mind the correspondence that I have had with him and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will he give an assurance that, at the minimum, there will be a statement on the Floor of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The impression that I have already formed of the importance of that subject is fortified by my hon. Friend's support. I shall represent the importance of the point all the more vigorously to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside): The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 81 concerning the proposed closure of the British American Tobacco company factory in Liverpool with the loss of 500 jobs. It has been signed by 134 hon. Members.
[That this House deplores the announcement by the British American Tobacco Company of the closure of their Liverpool factory, four weeks before Christmas, with the loss of 500 jobs; notes that British American Tobacco company's latest annual report shows a projected profit of £2 billion; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to have urgent talks with the British American Tobacco Company in an attempt to put together a regional investment package which will avert the closure in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency which has the highest unemployment level in England, Scotland and Wales.]
Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to meet me and other Labour Members next week to discuss the matter, bearing in mind the horrendous economic effect that it will have on the community?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am familiar with the terms of the early-day motion. As the hon. Gentleman points out, it is certainly a matter for regret, but, at heart, it is a commercial decision by the company. I understand that officials from the Department of Trade and Industry have been in touch with the company about its plans for the future of the factory. The company intends to offer the factory free of charge to the Merseyside development corporation, which will arrange for counselling and other assistance to minimise the effects of the closure. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's intervention to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Steve Norris: As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, there have been disturbing reports recently about the failure of the licensing system established under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, particularly with regard to the Huntingdon research centre. In view of the considerable disquiet expressed on both sides of the House when the Bill was debated about the efficacy of the licensing system, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time in the near future for a debate on that urgent subject which concerns many people on an all-party basis?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that many hon. Members attach to this subject. I have to confess that my imputed omniscience does not extend to a detailed knowledge of the point that my hon. Friend raised, but I shall see that it is taken into account by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: May we have a debate next week on the poll tax in Scotland, particularly as it affects local authorities? The Leader of the House may not know that Strathclyde has been forced to send out 300,000 warnings to people in the region saying that if the poll tax is not paid sheriffs' officers could be calling at their doors. Surely we do not want that to happen at Christmas or thereafter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly local authorities in Scotland are proposing to make use of the available powers to collect arrears from those who persist in not paying the community charge, but the great majority of people are paying it, even in the areas that the hon. Gentleman talks about. The most effective answer would be for those affected to respond by paying promptly the tax for which they are liable. It is important not to get reports of supposedly high non-payment levels out of perspective.
Mr. Michael Latham: Regarding early-day motion 2 on war widows' pensions—
[That this House recognises the unfair treatment of the war widows of the servicemen who retired before 31st March 1973 and those widows who married their husbands after their retirement from the armed forces both prior and subsequent to the 6th April 1978; and urges Her Majesty's Government to remove these artificial time bars in order that all war widows and widows of servicemen may receive the current rate for those pensions irrespective of the date of their husbands' retirement or the date of their marriage.]
—will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the old saying that "If you are in a hole, you should stop digging"? Since the Government's position on this matter cannot be defended, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange to change it next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has repeated a well-known proposition that formed the text of a newspaper leading article earlier this week. I shall certainly —because I cannot do otherwise—remind my right hon. Friend of the importance that my hon. Friend and others attach to this subject. I cannot say more than that.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Is it not time we had a debate on British manufacturing industry? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has argued that the last Labour Government were responsible for job losses. He must have a short memory. Is he not aware that had the Labour Government at the time not taken over those industries there would have been no industries left in this country, because private enterprise was collapsing? Had that Government not underpinned those industries there would have been massive redundancies on a scale never seen before. Now that the Government—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must be about the business for next week.
Mr. Heffer: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued a case. I am just making the point—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot make points of that kind at business questions. He must ask a question about next week's business.
Mr. Heffer: I am getting to the point: if the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes out that case, we had better have a full-scale debate in the House so that we can discuss the matter seriously and clearly state that the Labour Government were responsible for saving industries but that this Government have been responsible for destroying them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the topic to which he refers was extensively debated on at least two days during the debate on the Loyal Address. It has been debated in the House with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.
There is a powerful case to be made to the contrary of that put by the hon. Gentleman, and the Government are only too willing to make it. It is the recovery of private enterprise, not dependent on state aid on the scale of that offered by the last Labour Government, that has been at the heart of the recovery taking place in our manufacturing capability.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange to have a debate soon, preferably next week, on the monstrous proposals by London Underground to create one of the largest underground stations in the world within yards of this Palace and to turn the whole of Parliament square into a building site for about four years? That would be wholly unacceptable to most hon. Members. May we have an early statement to the effect that the Government will not back the Bill in question?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is adopting an unusually straightforward and over-simplified approach to the issue. Important works related to the structure of the Palace of Westminister are taking place which, as he knows, have to be carried forward. There are also important projects for the improvement of transport in the city of London which must be seriously considered. We should not conclude too dismissively that it is impossible to reconcile those objectives in a sensible fashion. My hon. Friend is right to underline the hazards which must be addressed, but I hope that he will not conclude that nothing can be done to reconcile the two objectives.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The reason for business questions is to ask about the business next week, not to make general points. There are two statements and an important debate to follow business questions today.
Mr. Ron Brown: Since the Government claim to support human rights, does the Leader of the House agree that there should be a special debate next week about the case involving Tarek Sharief, a Libyan who is being held hostage in this country due to the misconduct of the Sussex police—a force which I do not particularly like, but that is another matter? Will that case be properly investigated in a debate and will the Leader of the House reply? The Libyan leadership have
848
made it clear that they are willing to intervene to help Terry Waite, John McCarthy, Roger Cooper and others, provided the Government allow Tarek Sharief to go free and obtain his passport as he has every right to do.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the particular case raised by the hon. Gentleman or his relative degrees of affection for different police forces. I leave that to him. I shall bring the case to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members are concerned about the events taking place in Romania? Will he arrange for an early debate on eastern Europe during prime time so that we can put forward our views?
Mr. Tony Banks: There is one tomorrow.
Mr. Dunn: I want one other than tomorrow's debate in prime time.
Mr. Banks: Why?
Mr. Dunn: Because I said so. Will the Leader of the House also consider making a strong recommendation to the Government that every honour and award given to the Romanian Government and the Ceausescu family—which is the same thing—should be immediately cancelled and withdrawn?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's latter point has been made before in the House and no doubt he can develop it during tomorrow's debate. To have a full day available for debate on eastern Europe tomorrow seems close to making time available in prime time.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House about why speech therapists have to subsist on such appallingly low pay? This group of professional people, who are highly qualified after four years studying for a degree at university, are expected to accept a pay rise well below the inflation rate caused by the Government's policies. May we have a statement so that we can question the Secretary of State on why justice cannot be obtained for these people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the importance of work done by speech therapists, but he should recollect that in the past 10 years, since 1979, speech therapists have benefited from a real terms pay increase of 19 per cent. and the number of speech therapists, including men, employed in the National Health Service has increased steadily and continues to do so. He knows as well as I that pay negotiations for 1989–90 are continuing.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Since the Select Committee's report on EC scrutiny procedures for the House and its recommendations have been published, will the Leader of the House reassure us that the usual fate of such reports will not befall this one, bearing in mind that even those Members who are enthusiastic about our membership of the Community, such as me, want to see effective scrutiny in this House? In view of the urgency of this matter and the need for proper EC scrutiny and

849
surveillance, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the report's recommendations will not be put off for weeks, months or even years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I issued a statement today explaining that I cannot respond immediately to the individual recommendations of the report. I am pleased that the report has taken account of a number of recommendations put forward by my predecessor. I shall discuss the report with my colleagues because it involves a matter which touches on many Departments. I shall come to the House with the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations so that we can proceed with the implementation of such changes as the House regards as appropriate.
Mr. Tom Cox: Now that the proceedings of the House are televised, when will consideration be given to those of our constituents who, sadly, are confined to wheelchairs as a result of various disabilities so that they can benefit from having access to the House? Is the Leader of the House aware that if meetings are held in the Committee Rooms in Westminster hall, it is virtually impossible for such people to attend them? When are we to see the Government giving priority to disabled people who want to come to this place to see their Members of Parliament or to attend Committee meetings, which they are entitled to attend?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the issue that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman. I shall apply myself to consideration of it as I should.
Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider seriously the requests which have been made already by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) for an early statement and a debate on the future of the ECGD, especially against the background of the rumours that now abound that short-term cover and, perhaps more importantly, long-term project cover, will be withdrawn, with the adverse effect that this would have on the northern economy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is the third of my hon. Friends to draw attention to this important matter. There is a matching number of Ministers from the responsible Department sitting on the Government Front Bench. I have no doubt that they have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Allen Adams: As today is St. Andrew's day, it might be appropriate to ask the Leader of the House whether next week he will initiate a debate on the Scottish economy. It might be appropriate also to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, more specifically, to intervene in the debate on the future of Scotland's lowland airports, an issue which has been causing concern for the past four or five months without any resolution being achieved. Will he give the House the opportunity to discuss in detail and in depth the future of Glasgow airport?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise to respond promptly to the requirements of every saint's day in the House, especially as I think that I am right in saying that today is All Saints Day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, tomorrow.
850
I think that I shall be on rather more certain ground if I deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about Glasgow airport. As he knows, the time has expired for the completion of consideration of the representations that have been received on the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing his conclusions as soon as that announcement is compatible with the proper assessment of the arguments.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that tomorrow morning I shall have the honour of presenting a petition to the House on behalf of the constituents of Torbay and visitors to the constituency, which has been signed by about 10,500 people, on the subject of the outfall of raw, untreated sewage into the sea of south Devon? Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time during next week, or beyond, for an urgent debate on this appalling and continuing pollution?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand that my hon. Friend regards it is an honour to present a petition on that subject. I cannot guarantee a debate on it immediately, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I press the Leader of the House on the issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller)? Is he aware of the effect that the closure of the BAT factory will have on a community that has already suffered as a result of the decimation of community industries? One of our main concerns—this is why a debate should take place—is that many of the jobs will go to Brussels. Is this a foretaste of what will happen when the Single European Act 1992 takes effect? Instead of jobs being created in Britain, will we see an exodus of jobs to the rest of Europe in the interests of international cartels that hold monopoly power over our industries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the concern of hon. Members and the community about the factory. That is why we have taken the steps that I have already mentioned. It is wrong to conclude that the prospect of opening competition in the European Community will represent a threat to job opportunities in this country. Britain has been creating jobs at a faster rate than our Community partners and investment is being attracted to this country on a considerable scale, and there is no reason why that should not continue.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Given the problems facing the British shoe industry, will my right hon. and learned Friend provide time next week for an urgent debate? Is he aware that since 1987 in Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton in my constituency, the industry has been halved from 30 to 15 factories? Is he further aware that there is widespread disquiet about the enforcement of existing regulations for imported products? There is now the prospect of the whole of eastern Europe opening up to trade with Britain, which will create new problems, especially if Poland is included in any trading agreement. We must consider those problems urgently.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a number of factors affecting the outlook for

851
the boot and shoe industry. I cannot promise an early debate, but I am sure that it is a topic to which the House will wish to return.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why are the Government frightened of allowing the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement later today and why are they frightened of having a debate in Government time next week on the 11-week-old ambulance dispute? Could it be the 6 million-strong petition or the tens of thousands of pounds collected every day, which demonstrate universal public sympathy? Are the Government trying to sweep under the carpet individual incidents such as that of the Army sergeant in Hertfordshire who earlier this week was returned to his barracks at Chichester because of his sympathy with the ambulance crews and his recognition of the Army's inability to provide a 999 service? After 11 weeks of dispute, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to head into Christmas with the lockout of ambulance crews putting lives at risk? Where is the Secretary of State for Health?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No topic has been more regularly considered by this House, both before and after the recent parliamentary break, than the ambulance dispute. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health spoke to the House at length during a debate on the National Health Service only a few days ago. There will be a further opportunity to return to the issue when the House debates the National Health Service again next week. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to keep the House informed of developments, as he has done to date.
Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that last year there were some 8,000 serious accidents in schools, yet the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires first aid cover for companies and even for banks, does not require such cover in schools?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the last Session early-day motion No. 174 was signed by 336 hon. Members, which is more than 50 per cent. of the entire House of Commons?
[That this House applauds the Approved Code of Practice which followed the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) and which requires that, even in low hazard industries, every employer of more than 150 people should ensure the on site availability of a qualified first aider; believes the same requirement should apply to children in schools; further recognises the value of teaching first or emergency aid in schools; and applauds the initiative of the St. John Ambulance in issuing its publication Emergency Aid in Schools, which, accompanied by a video, shows how children can be taught a basic course between the ages of six and twelve years so that they are competent in assessing emergency situations, restarting breathing and circulation, dealing with bleeding, shock and unconsciousness especially resulting from drug or solvent abuse and burns and scalds and so qualifying for the St. John Ambulance Three Cross Emergency Aid Award.]
Will he please make time for a debate on that matter in this Session of Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that that topic was raised during the last Session, as well as in this Session. I shall
852
draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the points made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Leader of the House aware that since the suspension of the serious crime squad in the west midlands—a step almost unprecedented in such circumstances—there have come to light an increasing number of possible serious miscarriages of justice? Several of those arise in my constituency, and I know that there are others in constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. In those circumstances, does not the matter require urgent and serious debate by the House, and can the right hon. and learned Gentleman find time for a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I can provide time for such a debate in the near future, but if and in so far as those points fall within the terms of reference of the inquiry already taking place, I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Further to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House and his requests about business next week, will my right hon. and learned Friend take on board the fact that many Conservative Members would welcome a statement on Ethiopia because it would give us an opportunity to compliment the Government on their prompt action in these tragic circumstances by allocating £54 million in relief aid to Ethiopia this year and some 17,000 tonnes of food aid in response to the position as and when the need arises?
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the situation is not new; it has existed for some time. Conservative Members have been asking intelligent questions for some time and my right hon. and learned Friend gave a full answer to a question on 19 October. Is it not sickening that the only time that the Opposition take an interest in the issue is when they see television coverage of it, in the hope that they may pick up a little credit by international ambulance chasing?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had better not follow my hon . Friend too far down that path or I shall precipitate a debate myself. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that that topic has been constantly in the mind of, and has received effective action from, Her Majesty's Government during the many tragic years that it has persisted. It is right that it should be discussed by the House from time to time, and I shall bear that in mind.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House withdraw Tuesday's business, the Education (Student Loans) Bill, which many of us find extremely odious, and let us have a general debate on education so that we can describe how Tory-controlled Bradford Council is falling short on the repair and adequate maintenance of schools in a local authority which has 600 temporary classrooms and rising school rolls? We could then press the case for more expenditure on permanent extensions to schools to prevent, for example, the closure of three temporary classrooms and young children being bussed a round journey of eight miles at Buttershaw first school in my constituency.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not propose to withdraw the business that has already been announced for Tuesday,

853
but I am always ready to find an opportunity for the House to commend examples of Conservative success in Bradford.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week on the plans of several water companies, including Yorkshire Water, to introduce a flat-rate charge for water and sewerage—in effect, a water poll tax? How can it be right that a pensioner living in a small house with an outside toilet should pay the same for water and sewerage as a millionaire living in a mansion with 10 bathrooms and an indoor swimming pool? Will the Leader of the House force water companies to reveal to the public and to their consumers their plans in relation to the introduction of a water poll tax?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the objectives of the privatisation of the water industry is to diversify the methods by which charges are imposed for water consumption, including the possible use of meters as one method of apportioning charges fairly. I cannot respond more fully than that.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May we have a statement early next week on the issue of compensation for the Christmas Island veterans? I am sure that the Leader of the House will have had an opportunity to study early-day motion 37 which concerns my constituent Mr. John Hall, who is suffering from leukaemia.
[That this House condemns the Government's policy towards compensation for ex-servicemen, like Mr. John Hall of Belgrave, Leicester, who served on Christmas Island during the nuclear tests in the 1950s and who as a result of this are suffering from the effects of exposure to radiation,. and calls upon the Government to seize this opportunity to show compassion and justice by awarding substantial compensation to our Christmas Island veterans without further delay.]
The Leader of the House will also have heard the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement this week. There is confusion about the circumstances in which compensation will be payable. Therefore, will he arrange for a statement next week so that the relevant Minister can be questioned on that important issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the case raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are ready to pay appropriate compensation whenever the Crown's legal liability is established, but we see no reason to make special compensation arrangements for test veterans.
Mr. George Howarth: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read motion 12 on the Order Paper, which refers to the shipping of dangerous goods? Is he aware that in a recent Adjournment debate on that subject the Minister for Aviation and Shipping assured me that time would be given to debate that subject in the House. Will he find time as soon as possible for us to debate that serious subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer that question forthwith, but I shall study the implications of the undertaking that was given.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 98 on safety in the Channel tunnel?
[That this House notes with deep concern the professional anxieties of the Fire Brigades Union regarding safety in the Channel Tunnel and accepts that hundreds, if not thousands, of lives would be at risk in the event of a deliberate or accidental fire or explosion in the tunnel; therefore calls on the Eurotunnel Group to accept the principle of the segregation of vehicles and their passengers as a means of improving safety arrangements; and calls upon the Government to initiate an urgent inquiry into the whole issue of safety in the Channel Tunnel with a view to preventing a major catastrophe.]
It has been signed spontaneously by 14 Members and no doubt, when we get organised, it will be signed by many more hon. Members on both sides of the House. It asks that there should be a division in the Channel tunnel between vehicles and their passengers. The Fire Brigades Union and many others find the present arrangements dangerous and want the Government to take a strong line on the matter. May we have a debate on the subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that a debate would be a useful way of ventilating that topic, whether or not the signatures to the early-day motion were spontaneous or organised. The proposed designs for the Channel tunnel must be approved by the intergovernmental commission, which itself is advised by the safety authority, which is an independent body. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Banks: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 112.
[That this House notes with concern the growing levels of inefficiency, unreliability and unpleasantness experienced by travellers on the London Underground; agrees with the general condemnation of the Underground Service expressed by London honourable Members of all parties who responded in the recent opinion poll commissioned by London Transport; and calls upon the Government to halt the descent into transport chaos in London by producing an integrated public transport strategy backed up with the necessary capital investment which will provide Londoners with the service they deserve and require.]
It sets out the extreme concern felt by my hon. Friends about the state of London's Underground system today. May we have an early debate on that subject, which concerns Londoners both inside and outside the House? When did the Leader of the House last travel on the Underground during the rush hour? Will he use what good offices he has left to entice the Prime Minister out of her bunker so that she can travel on the Underground once during the rush hour? If she did so, something would then be done.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that I travel on the Underground during the rush hour or out of it less frequently than I used to do. I appreciate the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friends. The Government have taken a great deal of firm action to assist London Underground, and efforts are being made to improve its services. Investment is already at a record level. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently substantial increases in financial support for London]

855
Regional Transport. In addition, the Jubilee line is to be extended at a cost of about £1 billion, which will bring additional benefits to those using the Underground.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House explain in his own words why the matter of the Health Service in Wales has been subsumed in the main body of the National Health Serice and Community Care Bill? Are the Government trying to bury it, especially in the light of the admission by the Secretary of State for Wales that special considerations must be taken into account in respect of the Welsh Health Service?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the terms of early-day motion 95?
[That this House notes the considerable time that has elapsed since the Barlow Clowes collapse brought misery and worry for thousands of people, many of whom were elderly individuals who had placed their money in what they believed to be a safe Government-approved investment, and who were shocked to discover its true nature; hopes that early publication of the Ombudsman's report will clearly illuminate the events leading up to the collapse; but notes that apportionment of blame and eventual repayment will come too late for people who should have been able to enjoy security and freedom from worry in their twilight years—some of whom, sadly, have already died—unless the Government now belatedly adopts the pro-active role urged by the Opposition by launching a lifeboat scheme and drawing together all those with a legitimate interest in the compensation of investors to achieve an early payout without further delay or unproductive litigation.]
Will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement on the Barlow Clowes scandal, and may we have a positive, proactive stance by the Government, which would give some hope to the many elderly people who, through no fault of their own, are suffering the effects of that company's collapse long after it was first brought to the attention of this House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to respond to several substantive points together when dealing with the business of the House. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, all right hon. and hon. Members share his concern about the implications of the collapse of Barlow Clowes. The draft report of the Parliamentary Commissioner is now being considered and will receive a response as soon as possible. It would not be appropriate for the House to debate that matter until the report has been finalised. However, clearly it is an important matter.
As to the Health Service in Wales, neither I nor anyone else can alter the Principality's constitutional status as it was established by Henry VIII. However, we can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will continue to take the energetic care that he always does of the Welsh Health Service.
Mr. Richard Holt rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Member present in the Chamber when next week's business was announced?
Mr. Holt: I have been in my place since 2.30 pm, Mr. Speaker, but I have twice been unsuccessful in trying to catch your eye.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I call the hon. Member.
Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the request made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for an education debate so that the House may discuss the Cleveland city technology college, which has been a great success despite the pernicious and vicious attitude of the local education authority, which even seeks to ban other schools from playing soccer against l0-year-olds?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the House has another opportunity to debate education, my hon. Friend will be well placed to repeat the important point that he has just made.

Rover Group plc
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General into the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace is to be the subject of a hearing by the Public Accounts Committee on 4 December. It would not therefore be normal practice for a statement on the subject to be made in the House in advance of that hearing. However, in the light of today's regrettable disclosure of a confidential memorandum submitted to the Committee, I feel under no such constraint.
The report focuses on three broad aspects of the sale. The first is the exclusivity of negotiation granted to BAe. I need not remind the House of the public controversy and uncertainty created by the 1986 discussions with the Ford Motor Company about its interest in acquiring Austin Rover. It had a serious, detrimental effect on the business, and the Rover board and the Government were determined that the handling of any future privatisation talks should take full account of that experience. Both were convinced that a public auction for the company would be commercially very damaging, and for that reason, following the approach by BAe, it was decided to grant exclusivity for a limited period to see whether a satisfactory agreement could be reached.
Secondly, the report questions the adequacy of the £150 million consideration eventually agreed. I should remind hon. Members of the historical background of Rover Group prior to privatisation. It had already cost the taxpayer £2.9 billion of public funds; that money had been swallowed up in repeated losses while in public ownership. Moreover, the company was dependent on the assurances given by successive Governments in respect of its obligations to banks and trade creditors. That contingent liability on the taxpayer stood at £1.6 billion in March 1988 and was projected to rise over the corporate plan period, because the group's heavy capital expenditure programme outstripped cash generated by forecast trading profits.
Thirdly, the report examines the way in which the negotiations with BAe should have been conducted. Conventional techniques of valuation were clearly inappropriate; it was necessary to approach this as the sale of a going concern, and to strike a reasonable balance between the risks and opportunities confronting BAe as the potential new owners. In that context, I believe that the terms that were eventually agreed represented the best that could be achieved.
Having dealt with the main issues in the NAO's published report, I shall now turn to the confidential memorandum. It is necessary here to recall the fundamental terms of the deal, and the process of their approval. For the business to be privatised successfully, the inheritance of its dismal trading record under public ownership had to be eliminated. In accordance with the state-aid procedures of the European Community, that necessitated exhaustive negotiations with the Commission of an appropriate package.
In July 1988, the Commission agreed a cash injection comprising £469 million in recognition of RG's historic debt, and £78 million in support of its future investment programme in the assisted areas. The Commission was prepared to sanction that aid because Rover Group would
858
henceforth be exposed to the full financial discipline of the market, and because its plans envisaged the elimination of surplus capacity.
When my noble Friend Lord Young disclosed those terms to British Aerospace, the company made it clear that a deal could not be struck on that basis. Four further items were therefore agreed with BAe. First, as BAe wanted to acquire 100 per cent. of the company, the Government agreed a grant of up to £9.5 million towards BAe's costs in buying out the small private shareholding. BAe subsequently bought out those shareholders on terms agreed by itself, Rover Group and their respective advisers to be fair and reasonable.
The second item was a payment of £1.5 million for Rover's privatisation costs. As it was, in effect, Her Majesty's Government who were causing RG to incur those costs, it was only right that Her Majesty's Government should pay them. The third was the waiver of an earlier £5 million contribution that BAe had volunteered towards the Columbus polar platform programme. In the event, that programme is now undergoing thorough revision, so the whole issue of an industrial contribution is being re-examined.
Finally, the Government agreed with BAe that the precise timing of the payment of the £150 million consideration would follow the clarification of certain tax matters. This delay was time-limited to 31 March 1990.
Those items were addressed where relevant in estimates and reports to Parliament. The Government fully recognised that these additional arrangements were material to the Public Accounts Committee investigation, and from the outset full details were volunteered to the National Audit Office.
The Government took the view that these concessions were essentially separate matters consistent with the terms of the Commission's approval. If the EC Commission now wishes to examine them, the Government will be happy to co-operate.
I believe that these arrangements were the least that were necessary to secure the successful transfer of the Rover Group to the private sector, which was essential for the future welfare of the Rover Group and those who work in it, as well as being the best deal available for the taxpayer.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Why were we not told until now about the additional subsidies of £38 million that were given to British Aerospace? Why did the Secretary of State have to be dragged to the House to make those admissions? How does he justify concealing the subsidies on the ground of commercial confidence when the commercial arrangement was not between British Aerospace and a private company but between British Aerospace and the British taxpayer? As it was £38 million of our money, did we not have a right to know?
As for the additional concealed subsidies, will the Secretary of State now confirm that they include offering to buy up to £9 million worth of shares in Rover only to give them back to British Aerospace for nothing; £5 million for British Aerospace's subscription to the European Space Agency which has nothing to do with the Rover Group; potentially £250 million as a reduction in the compensation payable if Rover were sold on in five years and even deferring the final date for payment for up to 18 months, knowing that a deferred price is a lower price?

859
Is not the real reason why the Government asked for details of the sale to be kept confidential not a commercial one, because the Minister has not made a commercial case, but the party political embarrassment that would be caused by the revelation of those subsidies?
In those circumstances, given the additional level of subsidy—£38 million—how could his Department have thought that there was no necessity even to inform the European Commission that those subsidies were paid? How can the Prime Minister tell other countries in good faith that they should abolish hidden subsidies before she joins the exchange rate mechanism when she has allowed exactly those hidden subsidies?
Now that the Comptroller has named four other companies that were interested in the Rover Group, and, according to the lunchtime news, one has said that it put its interest in writing, how can the Secretary of State defend the statement of the former Minister, Lord Young, that
"British Aerospace was the only company to approach me to buy Rover".
especially when we now know that Ministers were advised by their own advisers, Baring Brothers, that they should create a competitive market?
As we now know that most of Rover's debts were written off by the Government, that assets in shares in other companies were known by the Government to be worth more than £100 million, that surplus sites that were thrown in are are now worth more than £33 million and that Rover's forecasts were not for losses but for profits totalling £400 million over the next five years—money that could have gone to the taxpayer—how can the Secretary of State now justify selling Rover for only £150 million?
I want a direct answer to this question: is it right that, so far, little or nothing has yet been paid by British Aerospace despite the fact that British Aerospace has made substantial profits from Rover and has already sold assets worth £126 million? Is the issue not the past investment to make Rover profitable, but what the taxpayer and the public could have gained in future as a result of that public investment?
Finally, in those circumstances, how can the Minister possibly deny the serious charges of mismanagement, incompetence and a serious waste of national resources by the Government? Is it not the case that they were interested in privatising Rover at any price and at any cost rather than securing what is in the national interest? Is it not time for open government in this matter and is it not the case that our only hope for open government is a Labour Government?
Mr. Ridley: The items that I mentioned in my statement today were addressed, wherever relevant, in the estimates and reports to Parliament. Full details were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General when he started his inquiries, as was completely correct. The House is not being told now; the Public Accounts Committee was told before. Nor have I been dragged to the House. I volunteered to make the statement for the convenience of the House. I have made an open statement, so I reject any suggestion that I have sought to conceal anything.
British Aerospace wished to acquire 100 per cent. of the company. We were not in a position to sell it 100 per cent. of the company because there were minority shareholders. It was prefectly right and proper that we should have
860
enabled it to buy out those minority shareholders, because it was much more simple procedurally for it to do so than for the Government to do so directly.
The £5 million for the space project was nothing to do with the motor industry and therefore, in our opinion, nothing to do with the deal reached with the Commission.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) seems to be unaware that the reduction in the writing-off of debt, which the Commission insisted be made during negotiations with it, reflected itself in a reduction of what the company would have had to pay back in the event of a sale within five years of the assets and trademarks of the Rover Group. It was right that that figure should have been reduced commensurate with the reduction in the injection of cash made by the Government.
As I have told the House, we had reached agreement with the Commission when these additional items became necessary. The late payment was mentioned in the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 14 July last year. We took the view that the other items to which I have referred were consistent with the Commission's terms, and that as they did not affect the competitiveness of the Rover Group's production disclosure was not necessary. Any question of reopening the procedure would have jeopardised the deal.
As to the last point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, far from being a rip-off, let me quote what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said when the deal was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend. He said:
"How is it that British Aerospace has now accepted £250 million less than Ministers initially offered?"
The hon. Gentleman continued:
"Is it true that institutional shareholders have already been telephoning to express their objections?"—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 613.]
The allegation then was that we had screwed British Aerospace too hard. Now the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is saying that the deal was far too soft. The only conclusion that we can draw from that is that it is easy to be wise after the event and that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from an overdose of hindsight.
I should add that no payment has been received. British Aerospace has until the end of March next year.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is obvious from the rather synthetic annoyance of the Opposition that they cannot bear the fact that, because of the Government's successful policies, Rover is now a successful company in the private sector? When they were in office, all they did was pour more and more taxpayers' money into it, and it lost more and more year after year. We have been successful with it.
Is it not true that the financial terms agreed between Rover and British Aerospace were hugely advantageous for the taxpayer, who has been relieved of an enormous contingent liability of £1·8 billion? That must be to the advantage of the taxpayer.
Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The deal was of great advantage to the taxpayer in staunching the losses that the Rover Group had incurred. The deal was struck in July 1988, but the only deal that could have been done was one agreed by the buyer and seller. In this case, the buyer had grave doubts about whether it wished

861
to proceed, and it almost aborted the sale at the last minute. It did not show any signs whatever that it was not taking great risks in taking on the Rover Group.
Mr. Peter Snape: Is there no limit to the Secretary of State's arrogance on these matters? Is he aware that the only reason why he is at the Dispatch Box is to pre-empt the inevitable row that would follow this morning's publication of the memorandum in The Guardian? His whole approach typifies the Government's unethical approach to the disposal of public assets. A more fitting place for his talents would be in a used car lot where, as the usual sweetener, he would throw in the whole car factory.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's style is not appropriate on this occasion. It was correct for the Public Accounts Committee to consider the memorandum confidentially. If the memorandum had not been leaked, the Committee could have considered the matter and concluded whether publication was in the national interest. That would have been far the better way to handle the matter. I regret that the PAC has been pre-empted because that has made the matter more difficult to handle. However, as soon as it happened I took the correct action of coming to the House to make a statement.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the openness of his declaration is welcome? Will he further accept that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which last year conducted extensive inquiries into the purchase of Rover by British Aerospace, I would have found it helpful if the memorandum had been submitted to the Committee in confidence. With regret, I find unacceptable his statement that the conventional valuations were not appropriate. When my right hon. and noble Friend was asked by the Select Committee whether he had put a valuation on the machinery and assets of Rover, it was to our surprise that he replied no. The negotiations could have been handled by the Department much more professionally and I hope that in future that will be the case.
Mr. Ridley: The Committee may wish to follow up the question of what memorandum was put before it, but I was not aware of the point that my hon. Friend raised. The sale was not and could not have been normal. The House will remember when the possibility arose that Rover would be sold to the Ford Motor Company. As a result, there was virtually a public auction. We debated the matter many times in the House but it was impossible to resolve it because of the political temperature. Rover informed everyone involved that the position was extremely damaging to its business and at the time it lost market share. My right hon. and noble Friend had no alternative but to conduct exclusive negotiations with an acceptable British company and only one had expressed interest at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] At that time. After it had been announced that the deal would be negotiated exclusively, other companies expressed interest. It would have been wrong for my right hon. and noble Friend to go back on the undertaking that the negotiations would be exclusive.
Mr. Terry Davis: If the financial arrangements were as straightforward as the Secretary of State suggests and were already available in the estimates presented to the House, why did his Department ask the National Audit Office to leave them out of the report published two days ago?
Mr. Ridley: As I said, we did not wish to draw attention to the arrangements in the July statement because it was important that the Commission should not reopen the whole matter. The matters that I reported were not relevant to the agreement that we made with the Commission. In view of the sensitivity of those facts, I thought it right that the PAC should decide for itself whether it was in the national interest to publish them. I regret that the PAC's right to decide has been pre-empted.
Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that about a month ago he was criticised for not keeping Jaguar British? Today he is criticised for keeping Rover British and for its success. Does he agree that the Opposition have no interest in the success of any British industrial company? Did we hear any request for a statement yesterday about the additional investment in the British motor industry? Will he reconsider his description of the Opposition as being wise after the event? It is clear that they are unable to appreciate the difficulty of valuing what was a bankrupt company trading insolvently under Government guarantees.
Mr. Ridley: The transformation in the health of the Rover Group after many years of decline and massive losses is justification for its sale to the private sector, if ever one were wanted. I agree that the Opposition are now to be described as unwise after the event.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that tonight in Coventry many thousands of Rover workers will wonder whether we are witnessing the Government's incompetence or their corruption? Is it not clear that, with £600 million of cancelled debt, £60 million of underselling and the £38 million of back-handers revealed today, the privatisation of Rover was legalised theft? Is he aware that British Aerospace knew in advance of the land values, the value of subsidiary companies such as the Spanish company and Daf and of stocks and shares and is laughing all the way to the bank? The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) stayed in the Chamber long enough to make sure that the Prime Minister held her line at Question Time. Why is he not here now to make a statement about his previous role as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which he went directly to be chief adviser to the board of directors of British Aerospace? More than any other privatisation deal, this deal stinks to high heaven.
Mr. Ridley: Thousands of Rover workers wandering about Coventry will be grateful that their company is beginning to move ahead, investment is being put into it and the days of its failures and loss-making under public ownership have come to an end. The fulfilment of that goal makes worthwhile the deal that was done to achieve it. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, to my knowledge no Land Rover assets have been sold.
Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with hindsight we are all millionaires? Does he further agree that any business man who was

863
prepared to pay asset value for a company haemorrhaging hundreds of millions of pounds without the slightest realistic prospect of ceasing to do so would be considered insane? Is he aware that those of us who were anxious that the deal should go through were disturbed that at the last minute the board of British Aerospace was so unsure whether the sale should proceed that it delayed the final announcements to be made by the then Secretary of State? Is it not true that when the details of the events are examined it will be clear that according to commercial logic the Government did an exemplary deal in selling Rover to British Aerospace?
Mr. Ridley: I wish to disagree with my hon. Friend in one respect: many hon. Gentlemen, even with the advantage of hindsight, would succeed in losing millions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did the right hon. Gentleman do?"]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's other point, that British Aerospace hesitated on the eve of signing the deal, is absolutely true. I can confirm that it nearly decided to abort the takeover because it did not feel that it could live with the risks. It decided to go ahead, which is infinitely to the benefit of the workers and customers of the Rover Group.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State cannot begin to understand the anger and anxiety of Cowley workers and their families during the whole period of the shameful conduct of the sale? Is it not evident that Conservative party political determination to sell Rover at any price and in any way has counted for everything and that the interests of the country, taxpayers and the work force have counted for nothing? Is it not essential that, in addition to seeing proper accountability to the taxpayer for taxpayers' money, any surplus arising to British Aerospace in this sorry affair should be invested in production and jobs at Cowley, not asset stripped?
Mr. Ridley: The deal has been done and cannot be reopened. I understand that British Aerospace intends to make massive investments in the Rover Group—more than £1 billion—to develop its capacity and model range for the future. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman asks for.
Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of the west midlands will contrast this Government's support for the British motor industry and the glittering future that Rover Group now has in the private ownership of BAe with the glittering, wonderful future that the Labour Government gave the Meriden motor cycle co-operative?
Mr. Ridley: Yes. Because of the many changes that have taken place under this Government, the British motor industry is beginning to move ahead and to increase its market share in Britain and throughout the world. We shall see a large increase in motor car production in the years ahead.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State realise that only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), seems concerned about taxpayers having a fair
864
deal? [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all concerned about that."] Will the Secretary of State please answer his hon. Friend's questions? Why was the memorandum not put before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? Is he aware that it is inadequate to answer that the Committee can now inquire into the matter? Does he agree that the memorandum should have been made available at the time? Was the Commission aware that if Rover were resold in the following five years, the group would not have to repay the £650 million, but only £400 million? In view of the disclosures, will the Secretary of State tell BAe that it cannot have until March before paying the £150 million, but must pay without delay because it has benefited from the swindle?
Mr. Ridley: If hon. Gentlemen have taxpayers' interests at heart, they should recognise that the £3·5 billion which was expended on the Rover Group while it was in the public sector was the biggest drain that could ever been placed on taxpayers' shoulders and that from now on Rover Group is beginning to pay tax which is to the taxpayers' benefit. My right hon. and noble Friend who handled the matter appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and he must be allowed to give the evidence and produce the papers that he thought appropriate at the time. The hon. Gentleman is not right when he says that that £450 million will have to be repaid. The £650 million was the sum before the Commission reduced the amount which the British Government could give to assuage Rover's debts. As the Commission reduced the sum, it was right that the amount to be repaid should also be reduced.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree, as one who had a part to play in the developments at Rover at a certain time, that the problem with the company, apart from wholly inherited debt and the fact that it was trading insolvently in all but name, was the fact that the Varley-Marshall agreement entered into by the Labour Government provided never-ending commitment to the Government of the day to stand behind every bill that the company happened to offer? Will he further consider that, while enormous efforts were made to maintain productive investment, this incredibly bankrupt company would have been closed long ago had it not been for the arrangements with BAe? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was the real alternative offered?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He talks of what came to be known as the Varley-Marshall-Joseph undertakings and they totalled £1·6 billion by March last year. I am extremely glad that they will never be known as the Varley-Marshall-Joseph-Ridley undertakings.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State answer the questions that he has still not answered? How does he reconcile the uncorrected public announcement that if BAe sold Rover within five years the payback would be £650 million when it would be £400 million? How does he reconcile the Prime Minister's statement about the valuation in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 21 November 1988 that
"the value to be attached to assets … is at present purely speculative"
with his statement this afternoon that the price was reached by striking a reasonable balance between risks and objectives? How does he reconcile his declaration that he

865
is in favour of no support, a strong competition policy within the EC and upholding the law with his subsidisation without telling the EC, thereby breaking the law and his own declared policy?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The adjustment to the ceiling of any penalty for a sale within five years was indeed communicated to the Commission. It was twice reduced because the Commission reduced the original consideration. The conclusion of a valuation between a seller and a buyer must be the price at which the buyer is prepared to buy and the seller to sell. That is the price that was finally agreed last July.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Austin Rover was in the public sector the plant at Stratton near Swindon was a frequently mentioned candidate for closure and that since Rover has been in the private sector that plant has been the recipient of £ 17 million of new investment from BAe? Does my right hon. Friend draw any conclusion from that? Can he tell the Opposition how many new hospitals and schools could have been built with the money that for many years haemorrhaged into Austin Rover while it was in the public sector? Can he tell us what efforts he is making to find the person who leaked the document?
Mr. Ridley: On the latter point, it is not for me but for the PAC to re-establish its reputation for looking after the financial and confidentially financial interests of this House. I am glad to hear that the privatisation of the Rover Group has led to increased investment in my hon. Friend's constituency. It will lead to increased investment in many other constituencies as the momentum increases.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: In the light of the Secretary of State's answers this afternoon, the only thing for which the House can be grateful is that it was not he who negotiated the deal. If he had, it would have been an even bigger rip-off than it was. [Interruption.] We have yet to receive a successful answer to two shocking revelations, first, that not one penny has yet been paid by BAe and, secondly, that the British Government surreptitiously paid £38 million. [Interruption.] Finally—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must have a chance to put his questions.
Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of those revelations and the inadequacy of his answers about them, the Government have forfeited any remaining claim that they ever had to be from the party of financial responsibility and managerial competence?
Mr. Ridley: It is a rare and well deserved tribute to my noble Friend Lord Young that the hon. Gentleman believes that he negotiated an even better deal than I would have done. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have dealt with the rest of his questions because I gave full, open and satisfactory answers to all the points that were raised.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is another statement today and a debate on a Public
866
Accounts Committee report. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee is to discuss this matter tomorrow and no doubt we shall return to it later. I will allow three more questions from each side and then we must move on.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: As a west midlands Member and the proud owner of a British Rover car, I feel duty bound to pay tribute to the success of Rover in private hands. Thanks to the vision of the Government, Rover has gone from strength to strength and has secured the jobs of many midlands workers. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government dealt exclusively with British Aerospace because of pressure from the House not to sell to an overseas company?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I remember, although at the time I was not in the Department, the extraordinary political clamour surrounding the possibility of selling the company to Ford. Therefore, my noble Friend had no alternative, when he finally got a serious offer from British Aerospace, but to undertake to negotiate exclusively lest a situation such as that which had developed previously arose again.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not clear that the noble Lord Young must have set out deliberately to mislead the European Commission by failing to indicate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection on a Member of the Upper House. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If I have used a word that you wish me to withdraw, then I do so.
The Department misled the European Commission by failing to tell it that concessions were being made and that subsidies were being paid. What credibility do we now have with people in the European Community who have been complaining about the stiff position of the Government on the whole question of regional subsidies and sectoral support?
Mr. Ridley: That is not the case. My noble Friend considered that the agreements that he had made beyond the main deal in relation to the sale of the Rover Group did not come within the competence of the Commission in relation to state aid. I have explained why I think that that was right. If the Commission does not agree, it can comment in the future. We wait to see what it says.
Mr. James Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry the chairman of Rover, speaking on behalf of his whole board, gave absolute backing to the Government on their action? The board gave as the precise reason for that the fact that it did not want a public auction and the consequential adverse effects that that would have on the dealer network, the work force and the customer.
Mr. Ridley: So far I have not heard any hon. Member question the fact that it was correct to engage in exclusive negotiations, and that is because of the reason that my hon. Friend has given. If that be so, no one could question the deal that was finally agreed with British Aerospace, especially as it was regarded at the time as extremely risky and unfair to British Aerospace to undertake such large risks for the consideration that they offered.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether his permanent secretary as accounting officer for the Department has put in an accounting officer's minute complaining about what went on? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the directors of a public company acted in the way in which he has acted, the fraud squad would long since have had them in the dock at the Old Bailey for corruptly defrauding their shareholders?
Mr. Ridley: My permanent secretary as accounting officer has made a complete disclosure to the Comptroller and Auditor General on all these matters. That is the confidential memorandum that the Public Accounts Committee is receiving. He has made no comment other than to make sure, as I have said, that the PAC was aware of all these matters.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather quaint to hear Opposition Members complaining about an illusory loss of £38 million when we did not hear a peep from them about the loss of 100 times that amount—£3·5 billion—which can be laid at Rover's door over recent years? We wholly endorse the Government's position on the sale. The difference between my right hon. Friend and the Opposition is like the difference between a Rover Sterling and a Trabant.
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend whose comments are borne out by what I have said. I enjoyed his description of the Opposition as a Trabant.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Those of us who were in the Department of Trade and Industry when British Leyland and Rover were partners remember that the company had to be taken into public ownership because it was on the point of collapse. The Government of the day had no choice because they had to save the jobs of the people in the industry. If we had not taken the company into public ownership there would have been mass unemployment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have liked to see those workers being put out of work. Obviously, Conservative Members have a short memory about what actually happened. Because of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, money has been lost, although I am not saying that they had their fingers in the till. If they were councillors they would have been disqualified and surcharged. It is high time that the right hon. Gentleman resigned.
Mr. Ridley: If I were the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) I would sit this one out and not admit to having played such a prominent role in the waste of the £3·5 billion to which I have referred.

Straw and Stubble Burning
5.7 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Hon. Members will be well aware of the considerable problems this year on straw and stubble burning, and will recall a similar situation in 1983 when there were many complaints from the public. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who do not wish to remain for the statement should leave quietly.
Mr. Gummer: In 1984 the Royal Commission on environmental pollution recommended a ban on straw burning to come into force within five years. By then, the Government had already drawn up model byelaws providing for greatly enhanced controls, and the National Farmers Union had issued a toughened code of practice in 1986. A ban on burning was therefore not judged to be necessary.
However, in 1989 the problems have returned with a vengeance. There have been many cases of smoke drifting across roads, in some cases with disastrous results, smoke-filled homes, dirty smuts, and genuine fears for the safety of property. In addition, there have been considerable losses of hedges and trees and, of course, wildlife. I have received more than 600 letters, many of which have been from hon. Members in all parts of the House and my Department has received notification of more than 2,500 complaints.
I have, therefore, ordered a thorough review of the policy and the effectiveness of existing controls. I have considered the alternatives carefully so that I can respond first to the public's concern, secondly to farmers' concerns that prohibiting straw burning completely will add to their costs, and thirdly to the fact that the reputation of the farming community suffers inevitably from the consequences of this practice on others who live in the countryside.
I note that the NFU has not come out in favour of a ban, but has instead proposed a licensing scheme, charging for the issue of licences and withholding them from farmers with a poor track record. There are, of course, legal difficulties with the scheme, in terms of withholding of licences on a discretionary basis, but in my view the strongest argument against the licensing proposal is that it would be unlikely to result in any significant reduction in burning.
The Government have therefore decided that straw and stubble burning should be banned. If Parliament agrees to the ban, it will come into force in England and Wales in the late autumn of 1992. That will give farmers three seasons to adjust to the new situation and to develop alternative methods of cultivation. That seems to be a proper balance between the demands of people who live in the countryside and the consideration that we would give to any section of the community to enable them to meet the needs of the whole community.
Accordingly, during the passage of the Bill which will be introduced to give new powers to control pollution and waste, the Government will be seeking the necessary powers to ban straw and stubble burning. The powers will also enable me to grant exemptions, but I should like to make it clear that, although I intend to consult the industry on their scope, any exemptions will be limited

869
—for example, to a specific crop such as linseed. I do not propose to introduce a system of licences for farmers permitted to burn under those exemptions.
I shall also discuss with the NFU how the existing code of practice should be strengthened and applied during the period leading up to the proposed ban.
Dr. David Clark: I congratulate the Minister on his decision to ban the anti-social and anti-environmental practice of straw burning. This year straw burning has become an unacceptable public nuisance in many parts of Britain. The NFU code of practice and local authority byelaws plainly have not worked, and the Minister is right to announce his intentions today. It has long been the policy of the Labour party to ban straw burning. We therefore support the Minister and welcome his conversion.
The Minister referred in his statement to seeking powers in the course of the anti-pollution Bill. Will he give the House an assurance that there will be a representative of his Ministry on the Committee of that Bill to ensure that that aspect of agriculture and land use will be fully aired because it is an important matter and there are difficulties involved?
As the Minister knows, it is not enough simply to ban straw burning. We need to turn our attention to the problem of what to do with the surplus straw. Obviously, there are occasions when straw can be incorporated and it can be fed to animals, but there are times when those means are not appropriate. With a little ingenuity and innovation, surplus straw can be used to positive environmental effect.
Have the Government any plans to encourage that? Will the Government be providing financial assistance for research and development into other uses of straw? For example, it could be used in the construction industry, as a timber substitute—in contiboard and plywood panels. Are the Government prepared to assist companies such as British Sugar which, I understand, is contemplating a straw-powered paper-making plant in East Anglia? It is vital that those aspects of straw burning should be seriously considered. Otherwise the sound environmental benefits of banning straw burning may be lost.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I assure him that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has responsibility for farming, will sit on the Committee of the Bill to represent the interests that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and to ensure that the proposal is carried to fruition.
The Government are already spending some £700,000 on the research to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am interested in the use of straw to make boards. Stramit is a major organisation in Suffolk which has done a great deal of work to develop that, and I pay tribute to the important exports of machinery developed by that company.
There is a plan by British Sugar to develop a large factory, using straw not as a fuel but in the paper industry. That has a real chance of success, and I have no doubt that various plans will be announced as they come to fruition. I am sure that they will receive the support that they deserve.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is an important debate after this on the Public Accounts Committee report. I know that this subject is of great interest to right hon. and hon. Members but the proposal will come into effect in 1992 and there is to be a Bill, so there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter. I should like to get on to the debate on the PAC report by 5.30 pm, so I hope that hon. Members will keep their questions brief.
Sir Hector Monro: Although my right hon. Friend is right about what he is doing for the environment, has he given sufficient thought to the problems of farmers, bearing in mind that their incomes are substantially lower than they were some years ago, and how they can find ways to dispose of the straw within three years? From a husbandry point of view, it is difficult to find an alternative.
Will the Minister also give an assurance that muirburn in the hills will not be affected because it is an essential part of the regeneration of grass and heather in the uplands?
Mr. Gummer: I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend and I shall consider the effect of the ban on the farming industry. However, if we do not have such a ban, the price paid by farmers every year in terms of the effect upon public confidence and attitudes will be higher than any loss that may arise from the ban. Many farmers who used to think that straw burning was essential have already found alternatives. I believe that the industry will find ways of complying with the ban in the three years to come. I suspect that if the ban had not been announced now alternatives would be unlikely to be found within three years.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am delighted that the Minister has accepted the views of my colleagues on the Liberal Benches and those of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate him because on this occasion he has made the right decision. It is long overdue, but all hon. Members should co-operate and work with the Minister.
The Minister has given farmers two or three years to put their house in order. We have learnt from the mistakes of 1983–84 when milk quotas were delivered overnight. We should all back the Minister and the Government during the proceedings on the Bill.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. There is always a likelihood that a policy will be successful when it has many parents.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the planned British Sugar plant will consume some 750,000 tonnes of straw per year-10 per cent. of annual production—but that the innovative nature of the technology required and the high risks involved mean that it may need substantial contributions from the Government? Will the Minister make representation to the Department of Trade and Industry in favour of that excellent British enterprise?
Mr. Gummer: We are not at that stage yet, but the proposals, albeit in their early stages, certainly look attractive. There is also the European dimension, which I shall consider with care and thought.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said as both inevitable and necessary, but I have one reservation. Will a ban on burning involve greater use of incorporation, which in turn will involve greater use of nitrates? Is the Minister sure that we are not replacing one environmental problem with another?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend would no doubt subscribe to the concept that "You don't get owt for nowt". There is no way that we can make those changes without some deleterious effects. It is true that a small amount of extra diesel fuel will be used and that some farmers wil need to use or release more nitrates than they would otherwise have done. However, on balance the extra damage done is far outweighed by the advantages of banning the practice, and I am sure that many other countries in Europe will soon find it necessary to do the same.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend accept from a farmer who has burnt many thousands of acres of straw that I believe that the balance has shifted as he described and that it is right to bring forward the ban? There are acceptable alternatives and three years should allow plenty of time to introduce them.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We should recognise that there is an added difficulty for the farming community in this. None of us should think it wrong to give the farming community time to find answers to a problem which is not easy, especially in areas of heavy land. Nevertheless, I do not think that farming can continue to pay the price in terms of public esteem which straw burning such as we had this year was always bound to cost.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his decision will be welcomed by people in north-east Kent—urban dwellers in Margate and Herne Bay who have suffered from the practice every year, and responsible farmers whose reputations have been damaged year upon year. Nevertheless, his statement means that, for a time in the autumn, straw will lie in the fields before it is incorporated. Will the Ministry embark on some form of publicity campaign to ensure that the public are aware of their responsibility in this matter as well?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We shall have to divert the funds that we have until now used to encourage safer straw burning to remind the public of the need for them not to fire straw, although we hope that it will be incorporated as quickly as possible and will lie in the fields for only a short time. There is no point in ignoring the fact that there will still be dangers and difficulties. One does not solve any problem without running into others.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend rightly said that an exemption would be granted in some cases, but he linked it only to cost. Will he consider some types of land where the ban will be a major problem?
Mr. Gummer: I think that I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend on that score. I do not envisage there being exemptions in those circumstances. There may be a few circumstances in which it would not be proper or safe not to allow some kind of burning, but we would raise hopes that we could not meet if we suggested that certain types
872
of land were suitable for straw burning and others were not. One of the problems has been that some farmers, who have burnt straw precisely in line with the best practice and the NFU code, have found that a change in the wind has rendered their straw burning dangerous.
Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although many people will welcome his announcement, many responsible cereal farmers in East Anglia will be rather anxious about it. There is no doubt that, since 1983, there have been great improvements in agricultural practice such as incorporation and the alternative use of straw. We welcome those, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that there are circumstances in which the only answer for farmers who want to get on to the land to get the next crop in is to burn. They will be saddened to hear that no loophole is to be left which enables them to burn straw in those circumstances. As only a selfish minority brought all this about, will my right hon. Friend consider making some provision for unusual circumstances in which burning is the only option?
Mr. Gummer: I am tempted to take the route that my hon. Friend suggests as his constituency and mine are immediately adjacent and my constituents are among those who will be most hard hit by the ban, but although I recognise that fact, I have concluded that it is not possible to operate a licensing system in a narrow way. I do not see how it is possible to have a system in which bureaucrats say, "You can burn here, but not there" without their being responsible for the damage and danger that burning entails.
As a reasonable period of time has been allowed for our constituents to come to terms with the ban, I think that we should not have straw burning except in circumstances which will be very narrowly defined and which probably relate only to certain crops, of which I gave an example, for which alternative methods are simply not available.
Mr. James Paice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this action has been taken because a minority of farmers have flouted the regulations year after year? That is where the blame must be attached if people wish to attach blame.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that considerations with regard to nitrates are important, especially for farmers in areas which have been designated as potential nitrate-sensitive zones? When he draws up regulations for such zones, will he ensure that the fact that straw incorporation requires extra nitrogen is recognised so that farmers in my constituency and similar areas are riot jeopardised?
Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly consider carefully the effect of the ban on nitrate-sensitive areas. I assure my hon. Friend of that. He is right to say that the activities of a small minority have let down the vast majority, who have been very anxious to keep the practice within bounds.
Once again, we must observe that the trouble for farmers is often that they are judged not by the average, nor by the best, but by the few who get into the newspapers and are not fair examples. Nevertheless, this year, a number of the serious accidents which appear to have occurred were the result of perfectly proper straw burning which was affected by a change in the weather.
Mr. Andy Stewart: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed, but it will not be terribly popular down on the farm because bale carting is a lousy job. We recognise that 2 per cent. of the population cannot dictate to the majority and I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but there will be a danger from accidental, uncontrolled fires. Moreover, the accusation that his protection of the environment from straw burning is cosmetic may be levelled at my right hon. Friend because the use of nitrates and chemicals could be much worse.
Mr. Gummer: I might be accused of that, but it would not be true. One need not worry too much if one is accused only of things that are untrue. I am not too worried about such an accusation because it will not stick.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the farming community has a major role to play, looking after 80 per cent. of the land surface of Britain. We owe a great deal to farmers for what they have done. They have protected the countryside and continue to do so. One of the reasons why the ban is necessary is that straw burning sometimes makes the public so angry that what they owe to farmers is obscured.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement because the action of a minority of farmers is giving a bad name to all. My right hon. Friend mentioned British Sugar. Is he aware of a company in my constituency which is researching how to make board out of straw and has received considerable support from the Government? Can he confirm that Government research grants will continue to be made available to such companies?
Mr. Gummer: Most research grants are provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they will continue. My Ministry will continue to do what we have already done to make it possible to use straw more effectively in other ways.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I, too, welcome the ban. It will bring widespread relief to constituents in cereal-growing areas such as that which I represent and it will once and for all stop the atmosphere being used as an airborne dustbin for agricultural waste. As the ban will not come into effect for two or three years, will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the meantime every effort will be made to encourage local authorities to pass model byelaws and enforce them, and to ensure that the voluntary code of practice is strictly observed?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. I hope that the code of practice will be considerably tightened and widely implemented, and that prosecutions will continue to be brought where necessary.
874
Above all, I want the farming community to recognise that it can do a great deal for its image if only it is prepared to show the public how concerned it is about the problem.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on facing, with characteristic decisiveness, a problem which undoubtedly needed to be tackled, but may I ask him for a detailed economic assessment of the costs that the measure will impose on the British farming community? Even in Lincolnshire, part of which I represent, where we have highly efficient farming and some of the best land in the country, the farming community cannot bear increased economic burdens at present. May we have the benefit of such an economic assessment before the House considers the Bill?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his first comment. It may sound a little churlish to say that what he asks for is not possible. Over the next three years, alternatives will emerge, even in areas where alternatives are currently thought to be impossible. That has happened in my own constituency. Over the past two or three years, farmers who swore to me that it was impossible not to burn straw have found alternative methods which are less expensive than straw burning. If those cases are not atypical, I suspect that there will be many more in the next three years. Any economic assessment which did not take that into account would be unrealistic.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, the vast majority of parish councils in west Norfolk will welcome today's statement? I am sure that many insects and species of birds, especially the English partridge, will also welcome it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the vast majority of farmers will be able to alter their techniques, some small marshland farmers in the fenland area of my constituency will have problems? Will he consider their particular difficulties?
Mr. Gummer: Under the terms of what I have said, I am happy to look at any particular problems that my hon. Friend raises. I am also glad that he has taken it upon himself to become the spokesman for the insects and birds of his constituency and elsewhere. Among other problems, straw burning has deprived us of much wildlife which should be retained. Like my hon. Friend, I am especially pleased that this measure will help in the retention and expansion of the English partridge.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call the three hon. Members who are rising. I shall bear their claims in mind when we come to agriculture questions.

Points of Order
5.32 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention questions for written answer Nos. 343 and 344 on today's Order Paper, which concern the important matter of the poll tax in Wales? They appear to be a device to bypass an accepted convention of the House—for a Cabinet Minister to explain his actions and to answer questions orally in the House. I seek your guidance. The people of Wales hate the poll tax, as the Secretary of State for Wales knows. That is why we think that he is running away and that his subterfuge is a disgrace. We seek your help and assistance.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Rowlands: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: As it is on the same matter, I shall take it, so that I can answer all the points raised at once. However, if it is an unrelated matter, I would rather not take it now.
Mr. Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This House is founded on the fundamental principle of the financial accountability of the Executive to the House, especially when there are new fiscal impositions on our communities and people. The poll tax is a new tax, which will be double the cost of the current rates for many in my constituency. Surely there must be some remedy through you, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps you have a remedy to ensure that the question of fiscal accountablility of Ministers is considered on such a fundamental issue. You should be able to help us to make the Minister give a statement.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made a protest when the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement on the poll tax for England and we were promised that there would be a statement by the Welsh Office on this matter. However, we are now being bypassed and experiencing government by press release. I hope that we have a positive—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with this, as there is pressure on the subsequent debate. The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that I am not responsible for whether statements are made. There has to be some balance in these matters. We have had two statements today and if we had more, very little time would be left for debate. I am not responsible; it is a matter for the Government.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that the Secretary of State for Wales asked whether he could make a statement and that you told him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if the Secretary of State for Wales asks to make a statement—and it is a courtesy for him to ask permission—he makes it. I cannot stop that.
Mr. Morgan rose——
Mr. Speaker: No, I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can help. The Secretary of State for Wales has many duties to perform. I do not know why he has not turned up to provide the necessary information on the poll tax, but I know that he spent a lot of time yesterday in the Tea Room with a lot of Tory wets organising voting—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this matter.
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that it may not be within your domain to decide on this matter because we are raising the question of the Secretary of State for Wales making a statement. However, you will recall the times that we have sat in this Chamber when the Scottish poll tax has been debated and the number of times that questions were asked of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Surely you should ensure that on the issue of the poll tax in Wales the Secretary of State enables Back Bench Members in particular to question him on his deliberations and decisions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must repeat to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members who may be thinking of questioning me on this that it is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Leader of the House and I am surprised that it was not raised with him earlier. There was plenty of opportunity then and he is the man responsible.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you invited the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who is a Whip, to stand near you during Prime Minister's Question Time? I noticed today that he seemed to be muttering names to you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the sort of question I expect and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even mention such a matter. I take no notice of anyone standing at my elbow, although it is true that my secretary stands here to note whether a member of the Front Bench gets up. But I take no notice of anyone else who may stand by the Chair and I certainly do not appreciate hon. Members whispering to me at Question Time, or at any other time.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I genuinely seek your guidance on a point of order regarding Standing Order No. 130 on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and a situation that I fear is heading towards plain unfairness. The Leader of the House said today that your ruling yesterday was in a different context from the matter that I raised regarding Standing Order No. 130. I presume that he meant the debate on 20 December 1988 in which the House decided that it
"recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee."—[Official Report, 20 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 393.]
The Committee is not unable to select hon. Members to serve; there are plenty who are willing to serve. It is, rather, unwilling to nominate hon. Members to serve, which is a very different matter. How can one be bound by Standing Orders and yet not have the power to implement them? Surely all Standing Orders have equal validity and are

877
equally binding. In that context, I ask for a further ruling not only on Standing Order No. 20, but on Standing Order No. 130.
Mr. Speaker: I was dealing with a different matter yesterday, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman. Standing Order No. 130 states that there shall be a Select Committee, but Standing Order No. 104 states how it should be set up. The House passed a resolution on 20 December 1988 saying that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should not be set up.
Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You chided us gently for not taking our other parliamentary opportunity with the Leader of the House. However, the answer about which we are complaining is a written answer this afternoon. As you know, no Back-Bench Member would know the reply to a parliamentary question until after 3.30 pm. We did not have the chance to take the opportunity you have mentioned.
Mr. Speaker: I received notice from a number of hon. Members before I came into the Chair at 2.30 pm that this point might be raised. The answer probably was available and should have been raised in the way I suggested.
Mr. Barry Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and, I hope, in assistance to you. What has been released this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Wales is a detailed statement involving several billion pounds as it affects every adult on the poll tax in Wales and every borough, district, and county authority in Wales. Can you help in any way, Mr. Speaker, by bringing to the House now a Minister from the Welsh Office so that that Minister can answer for the serious matters mentioned in the Secretary of State's statement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not within my power. However, he has virtually done it himself by making that request. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft National Savings Bank (Investment Deposits) (Limits) (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2061) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2122) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Public Accounts
5.40 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 37th to 40th and 42nd to 52nd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1987–88, of the 1st to 33rd Reports of Session 1988–89 and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memorandum on those Reports (Cm. 533, 563, 624, 648, 697, 717, 747, 831 and 850), with particular reference to the following Reports:—
1987–88:
Forty-fourth, Quality of service to the public at DHSS local offices;
Forty-eighth, Sale of Royal Ordnance plc.
1988–89:
First, Management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries;
Twenty-sixth, Coronary heart disease;
Twenty-eighth, Backlog of maintenance of motorways and trunk roads;
Thirty-first, Reliability and maintainability of defence equipment.
The last such debate was on 3 November 1988 when 38 reports were covered by the motion. Now we are dealing with 48 reports and nine Government replies. The motion is in my name and that of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is such an assiduous and valuable member of the Committee. As on recent occasions, we have chosen a few reports to highlight, although reference to many of the others will be acceptable in the debate.
I should like to thank the Committee, which is hard-working and meets twice a week. There are many papers to read. The civil servants involved naturally present their case with a great volume of paper. Consequently, the weekends of many of my colleagues on the Committee are taken up with reading them. There is no doubt that in the distant past the Chairman on many occasions did all the work. He read all the papers and the amount of work done by other Committee members varied greatly. However, now we have a hard-working Committee which has provided great advantages to the reports that we produce.
During the time covered by the reports, we have lost four Labour Members from the Committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who have all joined the Opposition Front Bench. It looks as if the Opposition Front Bench is looking to the Public Accounts Committee for recruits. It is a measure of the type of ability that we have been able to acquire that, although the Committee has lost the advantage of having those people and their experience on the Committee, the advantage which they bring to the Opposition Front Bench is an understanding of many economic and financial matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is like a Government training scheme.
Mr. Sheldon: It is a little more than a Government training scheme. It copies the way in which the Government use their Whips Office. The method that we use is preferable to that.
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a valuable experience. There is a vacancy on the Committee and if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to join us, he would be most welcome.
Mr. Sheldon: I shall deal with the issue raised during the statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I regret—as does the Committee—the leaking of confidential memoranda. The Committee receives many confidential memoranda dealing with sensitive matters concerning defence, security and others. If it were felt that those were now in jeopardy, the work of the Committee would be seriously affected. After it receives those confidential memoranda, the Committee decides which of them shall be published and what parts should be available to public scrutiny. With the exception of only a few—and only parts of those—all our investigative sessions are in public since we believe that there is great advantage in letting the public in on our work so as to give them knowledge and understanding of what we do.
The new Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now a member of the Committee. In line with tradition, he does not attend very often but when he does—whenever time and interest allow—we welcome him. We both proceed on similar lines as the Treasury wants to obtain value for money and so does the Committee. Naturally, there are differences between members of the Committee and the Financial Secretary, but on value for money we are at one and we hope that that will long remain. The previous Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), understood that well. We have an enormous advantage in that we have unanimity within the Committee. Without exception, all our reports are unanimous.
Mr. Skinner: That is the problem;.
Mr. Sheldon: It is not a problem; it is an advantage. If we were divided, the Government need not take any notice of our reports. Unlike any other Committee, we are there to provide value for money whether it concerns Royal Ordnance factories or the sale of Rover. Many other Committees can decide on questions of policy. We are concerned not with policy but with the taxpayers' interests.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend saying that we come to the House to take part in the sloppy consensus which he describes in producing unanimous reports? Is he saying that, after a decade of swindles both by the Government and by private entrepreneurs, Tory Members will connive with Labour Members searching for the truth in order to embarrass the Government? There was a £200 million swindle at Ferranti over defence contracts and now there is another swindle at Rover. Despite those giant swindles, this happy consensus never arrives at a conclusion—because of the lack of conflict—until it is all over.
Mr. Sheldon: I do not think that my hon. Friend has read the reports. If he had, he would see that we have made serious criticisms—
Mr. Skinner: It is too late.
Mr. Sheldon: Of course it is late but we operate only after the full investigation. We cannot proceed until we obtain full information as to what happened. We then produce the report. As I have said, we have made serious criticisms of the Administration. If my hon. Friend reads
880
the reports he will see those criticisms. Every one of my hon. Friend's points as to the failure to obtain value for money is dealt with in those reports.
Mr. Michael Shersby: In considering the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often the Committee's deliberations are extremely effective? Does he recall the investigation into corruption in the Property Services Agency and the results of that investigation which led to the virtual instant dismissal of the head of that agency? Surely that is action.
Mr. Sheldon: That is true and the same applies to defence contracts. When the chairmanship of the Committee was held by Harold Wilson, he understood the importance of the Public Accounts Committee in exposing some of the Ferranti and other defence matters of the time. I pay tribute to him. He was the Chairman who initiated those investigations. There are no fewer investigations today; if anything, there are rather more of them because the National Audit Office finds out about these matters more effectively.
The Committee has an important task in exposing occasions when there has been a failure to obtain value for money for the taxpayer. It is its dislike of the taxpayer being rooked that is the cause of the Committee's unanimity. When we leave the Committee we return to our usual political affiliations. Many of our members are vocal in this House on political matters, but when it comes to value for money we are united in our determination to achieve it.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made a strong and genuine argument about the role of this House and its Committees, but if this House and its Committees are to hold the Government to account, which is our role, almost by definition we can account only for what has already happened—and the Public Accounts Committee is foremost in that role. It is a retrospective role, but I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it is a valuable one.
Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for that remark. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would pay a visit to hear some of our deliberations—attendance at the Committee is certainly open to him. I should dearly Like him to see the questioning of those who are responsible for spending the money by members of the Committee. He would hear vigorous questioning by members on both sides of the Committee.
Mr. Skinner: I have to tell my right hon. Friend that there is a question of hypocrisy here. I did not agree with the setting up of Select Committees. I do not believe that the combination of Tories and Labour Members in this sort of consensus is valuable—
Mr. Allen: We do it every day.
Mr. Skinner: This is a place where conflict between arguments takes place. Having opposed the setting up of Select Committees, I have no intention of being hypocritical and joining them. If my right hon. Friend wants to continue the work that he says is so valuable, that is for him to decide, but I have no wish to be involved. If he wants to connive with the Tories and any other rag, tag

881
and bobtails that is his business. I have not come here to do that: I am here to attack the Tory Government and their supporters day in and day out.
Mr. Sheldon: I understand my hon. Friend's position on Select Committees—he does not like them. Most hon. Members disagree with him about that—
Mr. Skinner: That does not matter to me.
Mr. Sheldon: Select Committees have produced investigations of enormous value to everyone. Questions may be asked across the Floor of the House, and they are valuable, but they do not pursue the detail. Again and again the truth has been found by such pursuit, and only repeated questioning brings out what happened. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover doubts that, I suggest that he comes along on Monday, when we begin examining the sale of Rover and when we shall discover information which he, despite his great talents for parliamentary procedure, would be unable to obtain for himself.
I turn now to the work that the National Audit Office does. We work closely with it because it provides the information, and we deal with how that information came about. Why was the money spent? How could it have been spent better? How could it have been spent more efficiently and effectively? We and the NAO are a partnership. The Committee depends on the NAO's investigations, which are based on an examination of Government papers. We discuss with the NAO the lines of inquiry that it is pursuing.
I want first briefly to mention the fourth report of the Session 1988–89 which deals with the National Audit Office's estimates and corporate plan. The NAO, using fewer staff, is producing more reports and undertaking more investigations of value for money. That is a tribute to the efficiency with which the NAO, under John Bourn, is progressing. I am pleased that John Bourn's first full year as Comptroller and Auditor General has gone so well. He has complete discretion over which investigations to choose, but we also feed in our views.
John Bourn has slightly fewer than 1,000 staff, whom he needs to keep Government value for money under review. I want to mention David Wyland, who has retired as Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General after 40 years in the NAO. There is now a new head of the Northern Ireland Audit Office—Dr. Bill Jack—and he and his staff play an important role. They were rather poor relations of the NAO in Great Britain, but following Denis Calvert's work on the De Lorean affair the Northern Ireland Office became rather more important; we discovered it had a hidden strength that we had not appreciated and the work it has done has given it a higher profile among members of our Committee.
The accounting officers—the permanent secretaries who are responsible for spending public money and who appear before us—take their responsibility seriously and spend a great deal of time preparing for meetings with the Committee so that they can answer the questions that we put to them. In the previous Session about 220 recommendations were made by the Public Accounts Committee, about 200 of which the Government accepted. The numbers are about the same for this Session.
882
We have the great advantage of hindsight. It is up to the Committee to ensure that we are not overwhelmed by it so that we fail to take into account how the situation appeared at the time to the permanent secretary making his or her decision. Within the bounds of what is humanly possible, we do not do too badly.
Fraud and corruption are the most important matters that we examine. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to acknowledge that that was one of the main reasons why the Committee was set up in the last century. However important value for money is, it must always come second to ensuring that fraud and corruption are kept to a minimum. Our most important task is to come down strongly on cases of fraud and corruption. It is not enough to reflect what happens in the country at large; when dealing with public money we have a much greater responsibility than when dealing with private money. The Committee has always held that to be so and will continue so to do.
The first report with which I shall deal is about the health services. The great advantage now is that we are taking them more seriously than we used to. We used not to examine them in detail, but now we look into them closely and we have produced a number of reports on them. Generally, our task is not difficult—we look at what the Government intend to spend their money on and ask what their objective is. How do they come to decide that they will launch a certain programme? We ask that their objectives be closely defined—it is no good coming up with a general proposition. We want clear objectives, monitoring during the implementation of the programme and an assessment of the ultimate results. We want to be able to compare objective and achievement. That is not difficult, but in practice it fails miserably on a number of occasions.
One case involved administrators in the National Health Service. The laudable aim of reducing the number of top administrators was held to be a matter of Government policy. We do not question Government policy, which is up to the Government. We want to ensure that, once the Government have decided on a policy, they carry it out in the most effective, efficient and economical manner. We found that the Government had no clear plan about how many administrators expected to go or how much it would cost. At the end of the scheme, they did not seem to know how many had actually gone. We suspected that a number of them had been re-employed in other parts of the National Health Service. Those are important matters.
I shall briefly mention the third book of Sir Leo Pliatzky who was a distinguished civil servant, a second permanent secretary to the Treasury and the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade. In the third of his splendid books, which are well worth reading and deal with public expenditure, he mentioned that the National Audit Office advocated the spending of money. With a true Treasury background, he did not agree with that. However, the National Audit Office does not really advocate that.
In a number of our reports, we say that it is worth spending money if, as a result, much more money is saved. An obvious example is the repair of the fabric of buildings. Clearly, we could let a building deteriorate and save money or have a proper system of maintaining the building's fabric which would not be spending money, but

883
an economical use of the building and the way in which it is dealt with. It was that sort of spending that the National Audit Office had in mind.
The auditor's role today is not what it used to be; there has been a fundamental change. Years ago, auditors were civil servants who added up figures to ensure that the money went to the right people for the right purposes. That was splendid and crucial. However, in addition to that, the auditor's role today is to ask whether what is being done is sensible. When a company or finance director has a meeting with the auditors of the company, they tell him or her why they are proposing certain actions. They do not just add up and say that the director has to pay a certain amount of tax, but go into the matter with care. They say, "You can save money if you do it another way" or, "You can make much more effective use of your resources if you handle them in a different way." That is the role of today's auditors. The trouble is that a number of people do not realise the change that has taken place.
In the National Audit Office today, there are auditors with qualifications. One of our problems is that they are tempted away by a number of accountancy firms which want them because they have a level of expertise which will be valuable to them. With rates of pay as they are in Government or associated services, of which we are one, that is one of our problems. However, it shows that those people not only have the advantage of being auditors but, by seeing the other Government Departments, can spread information and understanding between one Department and another and between Government and the private sector about the best practices to be adopted. The relationship between the National Audit Office and the private sector is considerable, and the two are able to have a great deal of cross-fertilisation.
The first point I shall deal with in relation to the National Health Service is coronary heart disease. The twenty-sixth report of the Session 1988–89 showed that 180,000 people of working age died each year from coronary heart disease within their working lives—which is the important aspect. That cost the National Health Service £500 million a year. That is bad. What are the Government and the National Health Service doing about it? They are spending about £10 million. Therefore, the problem is costing £500 million and £10 million is being used to try to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease.
We could look at the figures and say that they are wrong because there may be other factors involved. There are, but they are all on the same side. Ten years ago, the incidence of coronary heart disease in this country was roughly the same as in many other comparable industrial countries. During those 10 years, a number of those countries have experienced rapidly declining levels of heart disease. Our level has come down a little, but hardly at all, and in Scotland the level is still high. We can forget the money, although that obviously concerns us. Apart from the money, such disease causes misery, anxiety, worry and other problems which arise when the breadwinner, or often another member of the family, fails to make a proper recovery in hospital.
Paragraph 42 of our report states:
"We acknowledge that the medical profession have a major role to play in the development and introduction of new treatments. However, we are surprised that the Department consider that they do not have a more positive contribution to make in this area. The wider use of cost-effective treatments has major value for money implications and we would expect
884
the Department to keep very closely in touch with possible developments and to take positive action to encourage the introduction of new treatments once these have been shown to be both medically acceptable and cost-effective."
We hope that the Department will take a different approach to those problems.
We go on to say that there is a serious mismatch between the resources and the demand for cardiac treatment. We deal with bypass graft operations and the fact that they are in short supply. In the Treasury minute, which is the response of the Government and the National Health Service, the Government accept that many deaths and disabilities caused by the disease can be prevented or reduced. With regard to the value of preventive campaigns, we understand from the minute that the Government accept that they will be given more impetus. The development of quantified targets is also being considered.
We like quantification. We know that there are limitations, and that in some cases quantification is difficult or almost impossible. However, we like the attempt to be made to quantify if only because we can check what is being done. We realise the reasons, difficulties and limitations. We understand the way that the Government are able to work. We strongly emphasise the quantification of achievements and, particularly, targets. The Government accept that there should be more emphasis on prevention rather than treatment, and we look forward to seeing that.
The fiftieth report of the Session 1987–88 deals with the issue of operating theatres and their use in the National Health Service. We looked at this because we knew, as does every hon. Member, that serious problems exist involving bottlenecks when certain surgery is undertaken. We asked where the bottlenecks mainly occurred. The National Audit Office found that they arose essentially in operating theatres in the National Health Service. To our surprise, we found that not much more than half of the operating theatres' available use was utilised. I am talking about not weekends or evenings, but the working day and week.
Some of the reasons why the operating theatres were not available were understandable and due to patients getting better or worse. However, we found that even when this led to cancellations, a system should have been devised so that those lower down the queue could be brought forward. The failure of consultants to turn up to carry out operations was a contributory factor in the failure to make the best possible use of operating theatres.
These were serious matters and accordingly the Committee produced a number of recommendations and submitted them in the report. One recommendation was that a record should be kept of areas in which there had been some improvement as a result of carrying out checks. I was pleased to receive this morning a copy of "Efficiency of Theatre Services", which has been published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland.
I should explain that after the Committee's report was published we ran into much opposition. It was alleged that we were criticising the consultants. I find the summary of their recommendations extremely valuable. They say that there should be close collaboration between surgical teams

885
and admitting officers and a regular revision of waiting lists. They support many recommendations which were opposed initially. I am grateful for their assistance.
We are always concerned about defence expenditure because it involves extremely large sums. I shall begin with the forty-eighth report on the royal ordnance factories. The turnover in 1986 was £550 million. We may differ on privatisations and the value of those operations, but the members of the Committee do not differ—I hope that there is not too much difference among hon. Members in the Chamber—on the need to get value for money for taxpayers.
The royal ordnance factories were sold off to British Aerospace for £190 million. That sum was effectively set off by various expenses amounting to about £50 million. We expressed concern that the Ministry did not explore possible redevelopment at Waltham Abbey or Enfield, and did not obtain a valuation based on redevelopment. The Committee noted that the taxpayer will not benefit from any redevelopment that is carried out by British Aerospace.
Valuation concerns us greatly. It can be taken for granted that it is important in any privatisation operation to obtain value for money. There must, however, be proper valuation. It is said that some privatisations can proceed on the basis that we look for the best price that we can get and accept that as the only price and the only way that the undertakings can be sold off. Another approach is to secure a proper and realistic valuation that is based upon all possible different uses of the undertaking that the Government wish to sell. That is the proper approach. I do not think that any individual would sell anything valuable without obtaining a proper valuation. That applies to a house or an object of great rarity, whatever it may be. Once a proper valuation has been secured, it is possible to compare that with what it is possible to obtain on a sale. If the sale price falls very much below the realistic valuation, it is open to the vendor to delay the sale.
I am worried that there have been few delays of sales while an examination is made of the way in which a sale will go ahead. The Committee has come down again and again in favour of tranches of sales. So often we sell a company or industry in one go, but gilts are sold in bits. They are sold over a period after a study of the market. Sales take place when it is assessed that the market is right, and it is a sophisticated exercise, but that has not been done in the privatisation of public undertakings. If an undertaking is sold in tranches and those who are concerned get it wrong in one instance, only a limited sum is involved. If that is done, it is possible to get a better price or a different price when a reassessment has taken place of the value of that which is being sold.
The Government acknowledged that those who were in control of the royal ordnance factories had been exploring the redevelopment of the Waltham Abbey and Enfield sites. They knew also that they had reached no definite conclusions. There was no proper alternative-use valuation because it was considered that that would produce a lesser figure than the existing use valuation. We have not completed our investigations into the royal ordnance factories, but the factories have been sold. We have had the benefit of an investigative session with the
886
consultants, who told us something about the methods of valuation that were available. It was a most valuable session, and it will form part of our subsequent report.
The forty-seventh report deals with major defence projects for the Session 1987–88. Each year we examine the major projects to ascertain whether we are getting value for money and to compare the actual expenditure with that which was anticipated. We studied a useful production of information entitled "Learning from Experience". We found that, within an equipment budget of £8·5 billion to £9 billion, £3 billion to £4 billion of expenditure was not foreseen when the projects were started. About half of the costs were incurred when the project entered full development, when we would have expected the sums involved to be more clearly understood and confirmed. This dismayed us greatly.
We look forward to considerable improvements in the Ministry of Defence. Sir Peter Levene has impressed the Committee in two respects in particular. The first involves competition. Sir Peter has stated again and again that he is trying to get more competition and that he has obtained it in several areas of production. There are, however, areas where it is not possible to obtain competition when dealing with large-scale projects, although it is possible to get it for some of the subcontracts. Sir Peter has asked for all subcontracts to be available for competition. We hope that in due course this will improve matters considerably. We look forward to evaluating the progress in due course.
A smaller but important matter is that we are paying rather more for some of the articles that are held in stores than we probably should. The Committee had much in mind the experience of the United States. Mr. Bowsher, who is the opposite number of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the United States, will be visiting us next week to give us the benefit of his advice, especially on defence projects and expenditure upon them.
It was found in the United States that they were paying about $1,300 for what appeared to be an ordinary ashtray that could be bought anywhere. The horrifying thought that occurred to me and many of my colleagues was, "How can we be sure that the same sort of thing is not happening here?"
Sir Peter said that the price of each article that is held in store should be made known so that when someone goes to the store and asks for an ashtray, or whatever, there will be an explosion when he finds that it will cost $1,300. That seems to be a simple and effective approach. The difficulty that Sir Peter experienced was in convincing those who supply articles to the Government that it would be in the interests of the Government, and possibly in their own interests, to adopt that approach. The suppliers said that they would not like others to know their prices.
It is easy to become a cynic. The Committee is not cynical—and I hope that it never will be—but it is somewhat sceptical about some of the claims. It is right to enter the discussions with that in mind. I understand that a number of companies have now accepted that idea, and we look forward to the results in due course.
The thirty-first report in the Session 1988–89 deals with the reliability and maintainability of defence equipment. Paragraph 3 states:
"The Department have for many years been concerned about the reliability and maintainability of equipment purchased from Defence contractors. The Royal Air Force have estimated that unreliability currently costs it £500

887
million, or 20 per cent. of its annual operating budget. Based on this, the Services have estimated that unrealiability adds over £1 billion a year to support costs."
I understand that the Department believes that half of that amount is available for saving. That is important because half of the RAF fast jet fleet is not available at any particular time because of maintainability and reliability problems. We must ensure that safeguards are built in when the equipment is ordered. There must be an agreement so that the problems are dealt with then. We were surprised to hear that only 30 specialists are dealing with that matter in a Department with a procurement budget of £9 billion. If reliability cannot be assured at a critical time, there could be serious consequences. We are concerned about the rundown of the planned reliability and maintainability activities by contractors, and we want that to be improved.
In the Government's response, the Department agreed that the annual costs of unreliability at more than £1 billion were too high. It accepted that a sustained programme was needed to produce savings. It undertook to take positive and effective action to implement the recommendations of its management consultants who had investigated the problem. We look forward to an improvement. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is not with us. One of the great advantages is that the Committee does not take anything for granted. It will return again and again to these and other problems, and the Department knows that. It is aware of our interest and that we shall continue to look for improvements and changes.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: When the Committee returns to an examination of the royal ordnance factories, will it examine the circumstances surrounding ROF Bishopton, in Renfrewshire?
Mr. Sheldon: We are examining the whole sale again, with the advantage of the further report from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The twentieth report of the Session 1988–89 deals with urban development corporations. A number of problems made the Committee feel rather uneasy. On the subject of controls over the disposals of land for development, paragraph 19 states:
"The Corporation had generally sold land for commercial development by private negotiation rather than by inviting tenders from prospective developers. In 15 of the 16 cases examined, the NAO found that valuers' certificates had been obtained after sale negotiations had been completed, and were therefore less useful and provided less assurance on bids than independent pre-tender valuations."
The House will note that the language used in the report was restrained, which is typical of the Public Accounts Committee. We do not like to shout too loudly because there are always some horrors lurking that might demand a louder voice.
The London Docklands development corporation told the Committee that it had revised its valuation procedures and that in future the valuation of its properties for annual accounting purposes would be supplemented by valuation of individual sites before negotiations began and again at their conclusion. One example cited was that of a leaseholder who had sold his lease for about 10 times the amount that he had paid to the corporation two years previously. Although the transaction entailed a greatly increased scale of development, the LDDC was unable to secure any additional premium.
888
We need to be very careful when dealing with public money because it is much more sacrosanct than private money. Inefficiencies are sometimes associated with that—not too many, I hope—but it is important to remember that when people pay their taxes they must feel that they are paying them to incorruptible, sensible people who will be accountable for that money. People can take a flier in private industry, but we cannot do that when we are safeguarding other people's money. It is important that we conduct our affairs accordingly.
Paragraph 28 states:
"We are concerned that the Department and the Corporation did not pursue the question of profit participation more forcefully with the original consortium; and we believe they should have taken much more positive steps to review the position as part of the negotiations in mid-1987."
Paragraph 29 states:
"we recommend that the Department should require all Urban Development Corporations to take a tough stance in land negotiations, and in particular to seek an equitable return to the taxpayer in any future schemes where developers have the prospects of exceptionally high profits."
It is one of the safeguards that, if there are to be some unforeseen advantages, the taxpayer should have the confidence that part of them will come back to him. It is an essential part of the process.
I wish now to deal with another report, in which our language becomes a little more extreme. It is the first report in the Session 1988–89 on the management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries. We are dealing with the nation's historical, cultural and artistic heritage. In the last century we were fortunate to have great wealth, much greater than any other country, with resources available throughout the world to acquire enormously important and valuable collections of works of art and of cultural interest. They were collected at a time when there were a number of wealthy collectors. As we shall never again achieve the sort of world dominance that we achieved in the last century, we must carry out the wishes of those who gave those collections to our national museums and art galleries. The problem is that we are selling them.
I wish to make a personal observation which has nothing to do with the Committee. I apologise for intruding into the debate personal observations. Italy does not allow the export of much of its works of art—and, heaven knows, it has by far the largest proportion of works of art. It does not allow export, but unfortunately we do. It is our duty and responsibility sensibly to look after and cherish our works of art.
Paragraph 4 says:
"The British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum, in common with other national museums, face major concerns in the management of their collections. Over significant areas of the collections the position is deteriorating steadily, and in others it is at best being contained or only very slowly improved."
We looked at three institutions, but there are many others where we do not know what is happening, although we have our suspicions. It behoves anyone who has any responsibility in this area to take note of what we say about the three collections that we examined and the importance that we attach to them.
In paragraph 18 on the British museum and the Victoria and Albert museum we said:

889
"The National Audit Office … examination identified many examples of objects stored in cramped, chaotic and overcrowded conditions, including a lack of temperature or humidity controls or air filtration systems."
Paragraph 20 goes on to say:
"The backlog of conservation work was a particularly disturbing part of the C&AG's Report. There were serious conservation problems in a number of areas and in some respects the position was worsening all the time."
It goes on to point out that
"for example, 128 years had elapsed before a comprehensive survey of the National Art Library was carried out in 1985 which revealed serious and extensive problems with damage and deterioration, with major and minor repairs needed to thousands of valuable books and manuscripts. The Victoria and Albert Museum accepted frankly that this 'was a national disaster' and agreed that it"—
these are damning words, some of the most serious in our report—
"'represented lasting and irreparable damage to some of the national heritage.'"—
In paragraph 21 on paper conservation at the Victoria and Albert museum we say:
"On present staffing levels backlog conservation in this area alone was estimated at 200 years."
That is unacceptable. We are talking about priceless objects. We shall never have the opportunity to have such objects again. I hear of water pouring through the roof, irreparably damaging part of our national heritage, and of someone knocking over an expensive vase. These things belong to all of us, and it is shameful that we allow them to deteriorate. I was pleased to see that the Minister for the Arts received a substantial increase in funding, but I will be surprised if it is enough.
It must be understood that the PAC is not a spending body. We are urging spending for the purpose of conservation and the conservation or maintenance of what we own as a sensible way to proceed. Anyone who does not look to the roof of his house because he is trying to save money would be rightly condemned, not least by the PAC. If we do not look after our heritage, it will deteriorate. That is a foolish way to proceed and we draw attention to that whenever we see it.
The maintenance of roads is another area where, by failing to carry out repairs, we shall incur more expenditure in the end. The Committee expressed concern about the backlog in 1985–86, and we understood then that the Department's intention was to clear the backlog of maintaining motorways and trunk roads as quickly as possible. The Committee looked at the position again in 1989 and was concerned to find that progress had not continued. In 1988 we found that substantial funds, earmarked for maintenance, had been diverted to sustain new construction. The Committee estimated that the decision to transfer money from maintenance to new construction would lead to extra costs over the next three to four years and we doubted whether the benefits of new construction would outweigh the disadvantages of lost maintenance, but the Government did not agree.
It is much more attractive to open a new road or motorway than it is to start coning off and spending money on repairing the surface of a road. The sad thing is that the original decisions were so awful. Everyone knows that the state of our motorways is a scandal. They have far too short a life, and when they were built we did not even know which was the best method of construction. There were gaps in our knowledge and the main objective seemed
890
to be to cut a new ribbon. However, the Department of Transport says that the elimination of backlogs remains a key objective. Of course it must remain so. But to what extent is the deterioration continuing, and how soon will it be before we have relatively cone-free roads able to take the traffic? That is the argument that we put forward to which we shall return on a number of other occasions.
Allied to that was the fifteenth report on road planning in the 1988–89 Session. That dealt with the way in which roads were being planned. The Department of Transport estimated the benefit to cost ratio as 1·9:1. Traffic flows are central to the appraisal, and the PAC examined those. We felt that back checking had been insufficient. Whenever estimates are made, they should be checked with the end result. That is the real source of knowledge. That is the way in which we can find out what went wrong so that we can learn for the future. We said that back checking is a vital ingredient of planning and control.
The National Audit Office looked at 41 schemes and found that 22 per cent. were within 20 per cent. of traffic forecasts. I will come in a moment to the way in which those figures were calculated. The rest, nearly half, varied from minus 50 per cent.—50 per cent. less traffic on the road than had been expected—to 105 per cent., and that was called reassuring.
In paragraph 14, the Committee did not accept
"that the Department's traffic flow forecasting is as reliable as it could and should be. We find their explanations of the variations that have occurred to be unconvincing; and we are concerned at the Department's reluctance to accept that there is a serious problem, which we feel verges on complacency."
We felt that to be a serious matter and regretted the method to calculate the figures. They were calculated on the increased level rather than the reduced one, so that the figures appeared to be almost double what they were. The figures were presented in far too favourable a light, and the Committee wanted to examine that further in due course.
Only one or two sessions a year of the PAC deal with Northern Ireland, but we cover a number of important matters each year. Let me take one to give the flavour of some of the criticisms that we have to make on the way in which public money is being applied. I refer to the twelfth report of the 1988–89 Session.
Up to 1980 the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had private insurance. It found that that was a relatively sensible way to proceed. Then it became a little worried at the size of the premiums, and it made changes. In the eight years from 1972–73 to 1979–80 it paid £1·69 million in insurance premiums. It then decided to terminate its insurance cover, and from April 1980 the executive carried its own risk for public liability claims. The claims increased from £1·6 million to 13·5 million over the next eight years, and there are claims for a further £19·8 million outstanding.
The Committee suspected that there were a number of fraudulent claims. The Department stated that
"although a number of fraudulent claims had been identified, it was impossible to quantify the size of the problem."
The Department also stated that it would contest more than one claim from a household, and that the computer enabled such occurrences to be identified. The Committee commented:
"We take a most serious view of fraud and we urge the Department and the Executive to do more to quantify the extent of this malpractice and to take all necessary steps to eradicate it."
In one instance, we found that claims for injury resulting from inadequate road repairs had been made by every

891
householder on the estate in question. Clearly that suggests the possibility of fraud, and similar examples should be closely examined. We look forward to that being done. The Committee also recommended
"a system of inspection … which enables defects to be identified and repaired"
so that the possibility of claims can be reduced. Certain legal requirements make it more difficult to pursue such claims in England and Wales, and we asked that that aspect be examined with a view to conforming with the practices observed in England and Wales.
The next report to which I refer concerns the quality of service given to the public by Department of Social Security local offices, which is a problem of which members of the Committee have personal knowledge. We know that the 500 local offices deal with about 23 million callers each year. The Committee was told that callers wait for a much shorter time than it found to be the case. I put to Mr. France, the then permanent secretary to the Department, this matter:
"We have your assessment that waiting times"—
that is, the time that elapses before a caller is seen by a counter clerk—
"averaged 24 minutes for supplementary benefit claimants and 7 minutes for contributory benefit claimants. We know from the Gallup survey"—
which the National Audit Office commissioned—
"that their average waiting time is 70 minutes."
Naturally, the Committee was rather more impressed by the Gallup figures than by those of the Department.
We were provided with a fascinating insight into what happens in social security offices. Right hon. and hon. Members will have visited such offices on many occasions and seen the queues there for themselves. So when the members of the Committee were told that the average waiting time is only seven minutes, they knew that the Department's figure could not be right. We know what goes on in this world, and we were subsequently able to give advice on desirable improvements to the system.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a disturbing consistency in the inaccuracy of the Department's statistics? I shall be alluding to that aspect in my contribution, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
Not only were the Department's statistics wrong, but problems arose in understanding the needs of claimants. There was wide variation between the requests made and the responses. A number of callers at DSS offices require only a little advice, but we found that some offices were very chary about divulging information on the benefits that are available, even though people have a right to ask Government Departments where they stand and how much they are entitled to receive.
Many offices provide a poor service. Piercy recommended four important improvements to help bring about an enhanced performance in offices whose standards fell below those required. It was found that claimants were not being provided with enough help and advice and that offices should play a more positive advisory role. When a person is in real trouble, that is the time when he needs the best possible advice. It is clearly wrong that people should be turned away with a curt dismissal.
892
The Committee suggested that surveys such as that which it had commissioned should be undertaken by all Departments having contact with the public to evaluate the effectiveness of their service. The Public Accounts Committee followed up the original Treasury minute with the third report of 1988–89. As a result of those two reports bearing on the same area of examination, the Department of Social Security implemented most of the recommendations. It accepts that desirable standards of service and delivery should be defined and monitored, is paying particular attention to offices performing below tolerable standards, and is promoting a more positive and consumer-friendly image. Customer opinion surveys will also be used to validate claimants' reactions to the service.
Dr. Godman: Did the then permanent secretary to the Department explain why results of test cases by social security commissioners are not conveyed to claimants who may be directly affected by them?
Mr. Sheldon: No, we did not examine that aspect—but my hon. Friend makes an important point. The result of test cases is the kind of information that is not being made available to claimants. Government Departments must realise that the people who come to them should be treated as customers. I tell any new agent that, whenever a person comes through the door of my constituency surgery, I am on that person's side—no matter what he says. That is an extreme example of a Member of Parliament having a rather different reaction from someone working in a social security office. Nevertheless, I want that approach to be adopted more widely. I want help to be given and surveys undertaken so that the right help is available to people at a time when they are often in great distress. I appreciate that it will take time for that to happen.
Many people compare the public service with the private sector, but that is not a fair comparison. In the private sector, anyone who comes through the door is treated as a customer from whom profit can be made, so he or she is usually very welcome. But anyone coming through the door of an office wanting help from a public service is viewed as someone who is bringing extra problems. Nevertheless, the approach should be brought more in line one with the other, despite the obvious problems that arise.
That is the final report to which I allude, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will deal with a number of others. I hope that I have illustrated the work of the Committee, which continues at the expense of its members' time and effort but to the advantage of both the House and the country.
6.48 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: My first duty—not for the first time, I am glad to say, but I regard it as by no means a routine privilege—is to thank the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He does a tremendous job, bringing a team together, cutting out partisanship and keeping us all to the point, and he does it in a way that allows us all to make a fair contribution. The right hon. Gentleman so organises affairs that the Committee's members take a real interest in their work, and that—as I shall demonstrate later in my speech—has not always been the case in Public Accounts Committees.

893
Not long ago we benefited from the attention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I must confess that that was the first occasion on which I have known the hon. Gentleman to adopt an entirely "establishment" attitude to Select Committees. Be that as it may, however, I found myself wondering what would happen to Parliament if we merely sat here in the Chamber, with no committees of any kind working outside it. In my view, the power of the Government and the Front Bench would become intolerable—cynics might say, "even more intolerable", but I would not go as far as that.
Dr. Godman: May I point out that not all Opposition Members agree with their hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? As a Scots Member of Parliament, I deeply deplore the continuing failure to appoint a Select Committee to monitor and oversee the Scottish Office in the way that the PAC performs its important role.
Sir Michael Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, but I will not pursue it now.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said about the Comptroller and Auditor General. His office has taken on great new responsibilities, and is, I think, performing its task very well, making important progress in relation to value for money and benefiting hon. Members generally and PAC members in particular.
Let me take up the right hon. Gentleman's comment about museums. The Committee discovered that a serious problem had arisen: incredibly valuable antiques and works of art, collected from all over the world, had been stored very inadequately here, there and everywhere. Moreover, no one seemed to know much about what was in stock, or—if that was known—where it was stored. That is a sad indictment.
I feel that two factors were responsible for much of the problem. The people who had to draw up demands for money each year, and explain why they wanted it, may have been punch-drunk; I certainly do not think that they spelt out a proper, hard-hitting, detailed demand every year. In a sense, I blame the Treasury: the habit had grown up—or perhaps had been there from the beginning—of simply allocating a bulk sum to the Department, and then leaving the Department to sort it out on the basis of a bit here and a bit there.
Our inquiry revealed a special need for conservation, stock-taking and general presentation of the tremendous fund of museum articles. Surely the needs of famous institutions such as the Victoria and Albert museum should be considered separately by the Treasury. I gained the impression from the Treasury representative, however, that it stuck pretty firmly to its original attitude: "We have heard these 'special case' arguments before; we will simply allocate a sum to the Department, and it can get on with sorting everything out". In such circumstances, the case for special need must be spelt out clearly—as I do not think that it has been in the past—and the Treasury must then respond.
So much for the particular; now let me deal with more general aspects. We have a mass of reports and Treasury replies to discuss. I feel that we must accept that the purpose of this debate should change, for how can we
894
examine so many reports in any worthwhile detail in such a short discussion? Furthermore—and this is the real question—do we need to? In general, I think not.
There have been changes at Westminster. The Select Committees have come into being, and, since the National Audit Act 1983, the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office have also changed and developed. The procedure of the PAC has changed, too. When I first joined the Committee—I hope that the House will forgive me for going back such a long time—we all sat around all afternoon and were lucky if we got a question in, as the Chairman seemed to do all the questioning. The reports were tiny, and very insignificant; they were not a patch on those of today.
Our hearings are now public, and both press and radio have access to them. Next will come the intrusion—if that is the right word—of television, which will allow the public to see something of our work. All that means that the effects of our deliberations are felt much earlier than they used to be.
Let us examine the history of a typical report. First, the Comptroller and Auditor General produces his report, along with a press statement. If the contents are newsworthy, they will receive considerable coverage—we need only observe the coverage currently given to the Rover report. Then the PAC meets—not secretly, as it used to, but publicly—and examines the witnesses. If that proves newsworthy there is more press coverage, as the press and the BBC attend if they wish. Then we produce our report. Again, there will probably be a press statement, and the Chairman may consider it appropriate to hold a press conference.
That is the time at which the effect of what we have been doing is felt. It is not felt a year later, when we meet here—and let us be blunt: only PAC members turn up on these occasions, apart from one honourable exception, who is a volunteer, and the Front Benchers, who are pressed men.
The old purpose of the debate is no longer relevant. Its objective was to create discussion. We are not creating discussion today, but I hope that we have shifted and influenced people's opinions because the press and other media have been watching us; therefore, we can have maximum effect. Of course we receive a reply from the Treasury, and if that is not satisfactory we can call back the witnesses and have another go, with the same press coverage. None the less, it is right that we should meet periodically here in the Chamber to discuss the way in which the Public Accounts Committee is working, the effect that it is having, and the various changes that it may seek.
We should also consider how our work affects other Select Committees. We are very careful to act only within our remit, as a form of audit but looking for value for money, without becoming involved in policies. If it is felt that wider discussion in the House is needed on any report, it can be achieved either by moving a motion or by using a supply day. The old title of the debate has gone and we must now look ahead and debate the Public Accounts Committee reports in a different way.
We might consider the conditions under which we work in Committee Room 16. As our proceedings attract greater public interest as television will be coming in from time to time, that room is quite inadequate for our purposes. I suggest, as I have suggested many times before, that the adequacy or otherwise of Select Committee rooms should be considered by the appropriate Committee of the House.

895
I turn to another general topic arising out of two of the reports—the public sector borrowing requirement. I shall refer first to the report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation and then to the report on British Nuclear Fuels.
I believe that the definition of the public sector borrowing requirement needs to be reviewed as it is sometimes a definition of convenience. That does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing, but it is certainly suspect. People may be using the terms of the PSBR to put something in balk that should not really be in balk. I draw two examples of that from two of the Committee's reports.
Pages 4 and 5 of the evidence in the twenty-ninth report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation refer to a subsidiary company in the Cayman Islands. Its purpose is to borrow and lend money abroad. I asked:
"Will any borrowings that are made under this system be backed by the Treasury?"
and I received the reply that effectively they would. I was told:
"They will effectively be under Government guarantee. That will of course ensure that they are obtained at the keenest interest rate. These borrowings have to be approved by us."
—that is the Government. So I asked;
"Are they included in the PSBR or anything of that nature?"
I was told:
"They are not included in the PSBR."
I said:
"Perhaps we might turn straightaway to Mr. Beastall"
—of the Treasury—
"and ask him why it should not come under the PSBR."
He said:
"The reason for the classification, as has already been implied, is in the case of money which is borrowed abroad for lending abroad. That transaction, unless the debt becomes bad—and I accept that is a different situation but in the normal situation—would have no impact on the United Kingdom economy",
to which I replied:
"That is very interesting."
On pages 4 and 5 of the thirty-third report on monitoring and control of British Nuclear Fuels my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who I am sorry cannot be with us this afternoon, asked:
"Since all the shares save one are owned by a Government Department, since the whole of the borrowing of the Company is guaranteed by the Government, why is it that it is treated as if it were not a nationalised industry so far as the treatment of being a public sector company is concerned?"
I shall skip the long answer and read out the short answer:
"There is a difference between guaranteeing the indebtedness and providing all the finance from Government departments."
Apparently, the difference is between guaranteeing indebtedness and providing the money.
Frankly, that shows that if the Government want a Government or local government institution to be outside the PSBR, they can arrange that, but if they do not want such an institution to be outside the PSBR they block it by saying, "I am sorry, but that is within the public sector borrowing requirement and therefore it cannot be done." That is basically wrong. Although it may be convenient, it may be helpful to allow Government bodies or local government bodies to be placed outside the PSBR. Where finance could be arranged by Government or local government bodies, making it clear that capital money is required on commercial grounds rather than on PSBR
896
grounds, that should be allowed. That may not always be the case, but if exceptions can be made in the cases that I have quoted, other exceptions should be made.
I am thinking particularly of housing. The alternative arrangements that we are making for new housing are being blocked by the PSBR. If capital expenditure is limited by the PSBR, it is impossible to achieve any continuity in capital expenditure as one year things may be looking good and the next year they may be looking bad. The PSBR is altered year by year by political needs which are often entirely different from commercial needs. For those reasons, the evidence in various reports shows that the PSBR is not always used in the best possible way.
I do not want to hog the whole evening, but I believe that it is a privilege, although sometimes an onerous privilege, to be on the Public Accounts Committee. We work as a team and, despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover says, manage to work without party strife. If we did not succeed in doing so, we should not be doing our duty by the House or by the country.
7.9 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I was interested by the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), which I discussed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) as he was making his points.
I wish to refer to the eighteenth report on financial reporting to Parliament, 1988–89, and the twenty-fourth report of the same year on the Department of Social Security's operational strategy.
The report on financial reporting to Parliament deals with the arrangements for the financial reporting to Parliament of public expenditure. The main financial documents are the supply estimates, which are derived from the public expenditure survey and the public expenditure White Paper. They represent the Government's formal request to Parliament for cash to finance the major part of Government expenditure.
The objectives of financial reporting were set out by a previous Public Accounts Committee. They were to provide Parliament systematically with information on performance which is reliable as an assurance of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which Departments are operating services, and as the basis for selective inquiries.
The supply estimates, which are published annually, cover almost all Government expenditure, such as on the Foreign Office, the Home Office and defence. They cover all the Departments, but they do not cover two other sectors, about which I should like to say a few words. The first is GCHQ, and the second is Government expenditure on the security services, which comes under the heading of the secret vote.
The supply estimates index lists all the expenditure headings of Departments, but there is no reference to GCHQ. Yet it consumes almost £1,000 million worth of public money, which is a substantial sum. Parliament cannot question the use of those moneys, and there is no reporting to Parliament of how they are used. The money that is needed by that Department is, in effect, laundered through a number of votes for various Departments in such a way that Members of Parliament cannot follow or question the allocation of resources.

897
The second sector is the secret vote. The public should be aware that in the current year the Government propose to spend £125 million on the security services under that classification. Under present arrangements, the service is required only to submit to the Cabinet Office what is in effect an invoice for its expenditure for the following year—the document that I have here and which is published in the supply estimates—and it is awarded that amount. Parliament cannot ask questions about the use of those moneys. It is not that hon. Members might want to interfere or even queston the operational use of those moneys but that they do not know how many people are employed, where they work, what generally they are responsible for doing or what their regional obligations might be. We are unable to question that considerable amount of expenditure, which represents £2·50p for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman say what advantage there would be to Parliament in having that information? By definition, all the operations and details of the secret services' activities must be secret. Can the hon. Gentleman cite any western country where such details are available?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the United States of America, such material is available to a Congressional committee, which meets in private and is staffed by senior members of Congress. It never leaks and it investigates the facts which are of interest to its members in establishling whether resources are being used effectively. That is all that we need in the United Kingdom. I have never suggested that the security services should report to the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that a Scrutiny Committee of the House should be set up to deal with the financial accountability of the security services. Such a development is inevitable—it is merely a question of when the necessary Government commitment will be made.
The problem is that when the Public Accounts Committee has raised these matters on previous occasions, Departments under successive Governments have felt loth or constrained about whether such information, if given to Parliament, would be properly used. They have questioned the ability of Select Committees to retain that information as private, which is why I wholeheartedly condemn the fact that a document given to the Public Accounts Committee under conditions of confidentiality has been leaked in the past few days to The Guardian. I understand that the press may have found it exciting copy, but in so far as newspapers know that it is inevitable that that information will surface in another form, probably as part of one of our reports at a later stage, they should be far more circumspect about the information that they provide. I am sure that newspapers will always find hon. Members willing to provide such information, but by publishing it they compromise our Committees and make it even more difficult for us to convince Departments that we are reliable and capable of maintaining the confidentiality of documents until there is a need to publish them, and they serve the arguments of those who argue against the accountability for which I am pressing, certainly in relation to GCHQ and the security services generally.
The second report is the twenty-fourth report on the Department of Social Security's operational strategy. The
898
background to the report is that since 1982 the Department has had under development a substantial 1·8 billion programme for the computerisation of the Department, replacing many of the current manual procedures. The aim of the strategy is to provide, through a series of interconnected projects, access to area computer centres by 450 local social security offices and 840 unemployment offices, which entails the use of 33,000 visual units.
The Public Accounts Committee has always been assured, certainly by the Department's accounting officer, that the system will work. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security about the progress of the computerisation programme. In reply, the Minister said:
"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."—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 430.]
That reply suggested that everything was going fairly well. When we were discussing such matters earlier this year, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), we were given an assurance by Mr. Partridge of the Department. Speaking about the programme of computerisation and the local office projects, he said:
"The LOP ones will be very fully tested indeed. They go through about six states of testing and they will be tested to death and will work, I am quite confident of that".
That was on 1 February this year. His reply was nonsense and I believe that the accounting officer knew that when he gave it.
Several statistics have been produced to substantiate claims about the operational efficiency of the system. I understand that the statistics are available nationwide, but I shall deal with the statistics from the Workington office in my constituency. To measure efficiency, one must take into account the availability of systems to departmental officials. The Department's statistics show that the system was working for 89 per cent. of the time in the week ending 5 November and 87 per cent. of the time in the week ending 12 November. Those are the Department's figures. I suggest that they alone indicate a loss of a great deal of time.
The statistics are also highly inaccurate, as they are based on averages. The programme and the local office projects cover three different areas of calculations—retirement pensions, departmental central index and income support. If we ignore the averages, and consider each area separately, we find different statistics. In the week ending 5 November, the system for retirement pensions in Workington was available for only 74·4 per cent. of the time, the departmental central index was operational 100 per cent. of the time, and the income support system for 91·6 per cent. of the time. In the week ending 12 November, the retirement pension system was available 89·7 per cent. of the time, the departmental central index 93·7 per cent. of the time and the crucial income support system, which represents the main body of the office's work, only 76·3 per cent. of the time. For nearly a quarter of the time in that week, the income support computerised programme was not operational in Workington.

899
Such figures have major implications for the level of service. By averaging all the statistics, the departmental central index—which is the least used and to which there is least access—drags up the average level of availablity, particularly for income support, and completely distorts the statistics.
I understand that in October there were 14 interruptions to the Livingstone mainframe computer service to local offices. For income support, most of the errors in software arise in priority areas such as arrears payments—a highly sensitive area for customers. There are allegedly more than 80 errors in the current software and the mainframe computer on pensions is overloaded. Breakdowns in the system, which when complete will have cost the taxpayer in effect almost £2 billion, are leading to a great reduction in morale among staff in the Department. In Bolton, the position is very bad and morale has almost been destroyed.
It is intended that the programme will be fully operational by October next year on what I call big bang day but the Department refers to as national roll-out. From what I am told, the system will not be working by that date. The Department has many questions to answer on that.
What are the implications of the £1·8 billion investment programme for employment? The Department's figures are a complete fabrication. The Department says, and the National Audit Office report states, that by spending billion 20,186 jobs will be cut. The Department states that job reductions are crucial to the viability of operational strategy. When the Department's officials came before the Committee we were told that staff would indeed be lost. In my view, the projected savings will not arise. Managers in various parts of the country say that it is unlikely that any more than half the savings in staff will be made. However, senior managers say that if savings are not made on staff, cuts will have to he made in other areas of the service to ensure that the Government fulfil their expenditure commitments. That is unrealistic and impracticable because it will lead to a major reduction in service across the country, particularly in offices where there is a heavy workload.
I have looked at the figures for the office in Workington in detail. Like every hon. Member, I occasionally visit my local office and ask questions, but on the most recent occasion, as I asked questions I carefully noted what staff told me as I walked around the office. I was told that in Workington 84 jobs were cut in 1987–88, 79 in 1988–89 and 74 in 1989–90. There has been a steady reduction as computers have come on line and a further 11 are to be cut, leaving a complement of 62 by June next year. I put it to Ministers that that complement will not be sufficient in Workington. The reductions in staff will jeopardise the service and lead to a major reduction in the quality of service to the customer.
I do not question the need for computerisation. I am thoroughly in favour of it if it leads to the faster provision of service, if it works, if it means that people are in and out of the office more quickly, and if it makes access to material data on particular people easier. However, I object to misrepresentation of the facts to Parliament to substantiate the expenditure.
We are told that the computer system is to be fully operational by October 1990. Yet the staff cuts in Workington—I assume that it will be the same in every other part of the country—are to be made by July next
900
year before the computer is fully operational. The same will apply in every hon. Member's constituency. Every office will face the same difficulty. The cuts are based on what I can only describe as doctored statistics to substantiate the repeated claim of Ministers and civil servants that everything is on line.
The system is not working as it should. Departmental officials know the truth and they are telling Members of Parliament because many of us are talking about what is happening in that Department. Action needs to be taken now.
Why have all the problems arisen? My conclusion is that the computer was bought from the wrong firm. I understand that by waving the Union Jack one can invariably land major public-sector contracts. The contract was won by Imperial Chemicals, which I am told produced the equally disastrous Camelot computer 10 years ago. If we are to introduce computerisation affecting many Departments and tens of thousands of people across the country, Departments have a responsibility to buy what is right although it may not necessarily appear to be in the best interests of the country at the time. It has major implications for the operational effectiveness of a Department.
Departmental officials sometimes provide inaccurate information. In February, I questioned the answers given to me on the operations of the social fund microcomputer. I was told that my data from a research project carried out in several offices in the north of England were inaccurate. I checked with my sources, talked to departments and was told that the information was correct. Officials should not treat members of the PAC as though we were idiots. 'We know what is going on because we can ask questions. Responsibility for answers should be more direct, even if the Government find the answers uncomfortable. For example, Mr. Nichol recently gave evidence about the NHS. He is involved in a great deal of controversy about the ambulance dispute. He gave the Committee good, solid evidence based on what I believe to be the most objective assessment of what was happening. He did not hide the truth, but simply put it to the Committee. I pay tribute to him for that, and that is the approach that I shall expect from all departmental officials in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is unfortunately no longer present, but I am sure that he is busy elsewhere in the House. He must understand that the House has to have a mechanism which enables Members to probe deeply into a matter and test details, especially when the truth comes out. Hon. Members must have access to officials to question them in detail on matters of great interest. The Floor of the House does not offer us that opportunity. It is good for backchat across the Dispatch Box—once in a while a Minister slips up and we score a point but at the end of the day it is the Select Committees which offer us the only opportunity to inquire in depth into a particular matter.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a great pity that the invisible hon. Member for Bolsover is not in his place? If he were to participate in the debate, he would have before him more than 40 reports from the PAC going into great detail which our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), has described so vividly tonight. That would have provided the hon. Gentleman with an

901
admirable opportunity to question Government expenditure in many areas, basing his comments on facts, which would be a nice change for him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that my hon. Friend deals in facts and does his homework on the many issues in which he is involved.
I have had private discussions with my hon. Friend. He does not recognise Select Committees as a forum for such inquiries. He is inclined to go directly to organisations to secure the details which we can obtain in our proceedings. I do not condemn him for his strongly held view that a consensual relationship develops across such Committees, and it is true in this instance. I can defend that because by the nature of our reports inquiring minds are gathered together. We are all dedicated to securing value for money and the most cost-effective use of public resources.
Unfortunately, I shall not be present to hear the replies as I have to return to my constituency on the 8.45 plane from Heathrow. I apologise to the hon. Member who is to speak next. I shall read the hon. Member's speech and also the replies. I ask the House to forgive me for leaving early.
7.35 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I have had the privilege to serve on the Public Accounts Committee for two years. If ever I had any doubts about whether our work was worthwhile, they were dispelled by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). When in my political life I do anything diametrically opposed to what he recommends, it is a good weather vane, showing that I am making the correct political decisions.
I have a mild confession to make. In Committee yesterday I said that when I started to serve on it I worried about whether the flood of reports, with their varying degrees of horror, would continue indefinitely. There were wry smiles from my colleagues and stifled guffaws from one or two who are battle hardened. The flood of reports has continued unabated. That more than anything else justifies strengthening, supporting and providing more assets to the Committee in its work so that we can produce value for money for taxpayers.
I pay tribute to the National Audit Office for the high quality of its reports. In a debate such as this we are spoilt for choice. If, heaven forbid, I ever wanted to filibuster, PAC reports would give me ample ammunition and would ensure that I did not retrace covered ground.
This evening I have chosen to talk about road planning and coronary heart disease. I am well aware that in choosing coronary heart disease I am following in the footsteps of our worthy Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I join my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in expressing my appreciation of our Chairman's leadership and the way in which he keeps us away from the pitfalls of policy. I understand that at the weekend he will be given the freedom of Tameside, and I congratulate him on that worthwhile honour.
I have chosen those two subjects because the Treasury and departmental responses to them are different in nature from the response to my chosen subject last year—the Charity Commission. My hon. Friends on the Committee called it a disaster looking for an opportunity. The
902
Treasury response was immediate. It put extra officers on the job to ensure that the Charity Commission was not abused and that the millions of pounds a year given to charities were correctly applied. The responses this year have been described as less than urgent.
The twenty-sixth report reminds us that coronary heart disease kills 180,000 people a year. I am not happy with the speed of introducing and spreading best practice. The Department of Health's response to the number of lives lost is not co-ordinated as it is for the treatment of AIDS and alcohol abuse, for which ministerial committees have been established. An analysis of the 34 health districts in England has shown that a quarter of them did not even mention the prevention of heart disease in their programmes for 1988–89. In international terms, the United Kingdom has one of the highest death rates from this terrible disease. It is 298 per 100,000 in Northern Ireland and Scotland and 243 per 100,000 in England and Wales compared with 230 in the United States, 79 in Spain and 45 in Japan.
As a further example of our laid back approach, I should like to bring in the question of the targets for coronary artery bypass grafts as a case in point. The Welsh Office has decided to adopt a higher figure of 400 to 500 operations per million of population. The response from the Department of Health is that the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons are preparing a report on the topic. When that advice is available, the Department will no doubt leap into action and consider whether a new target should be set. I suggest that the colleges and the Department of Health should have a view in place at the moment. They have international comparisons to hand, and attention to the spread of best practice could be a little quicker.
Putting aside the present ambulance dispute, another worrying aspect is the wide range and variety of policies adopted by ambulance crews. We must remember that 30,000 people die of heart attacks within the first two hours. Scotland has a policy of fitting its ambulances with defibrillators and of training crews in their use. That is positive thinking. The British Heart Foundation is working to achieve that. It will cost about £2 million, and the foundation is working with the Heart Start Scotland campaign.
Seven of the nine districts in Wales are seeking to introduce extended training for ambulance crews in heart disease. What is the position in England? The accounting officer was not too certain about how many ambulances had defibrillating equipment or about the number of crews trained in its use. The National Audit Office said that it is about 30 per cent. However, we find that some districts ask their ambulance crews to use defibrillators while others positively discourage their use. One of our ex-colleagues died of a heart attack in his 40s. There is a strong view that if a defibrillator and a crew trained in heart resuscitation had been available, he could still be in the House representing his constituency.
I asked Sir Christopher France whether whether there were any regions or districts that did not train ambulance staff in the use of defibrillators, and his answer was yes. Like every other member of the Committee, sometimes when I left the Committee Room I said to myself, "I wish that I had asked another question. I wish that I had asked Sir Christopher whether, if he had a heart attack, he would like the ambulance staff who were picking him up to have

903
a defibrillator and a trained crew or whether he would have been prepared to hang on and wait until the door of the hospital appeared."
Dr. Godman: Or whether he would like to suffer the heart attack in Scotland.
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is right, because the programme in Scotland will provide a far better service. Scotland is to be congratulated on that.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most striking aspects of coronary heart disease is the vast imbalance between the amount that the Department spends on treatment, which is £500 million, and the amount that it spends on prevention, which is £10 million? Does he agree that prevention is better than cure and that there should be a reordering of priorities? Does he also agree that the most effective way to stop smoking is to increase the price of cigarettes? To put it mildly, it is unfortunate that in two of the last three Budgets the duty on cigarettes was not increased at all, which means that the real price has fallen. Would not that be the most effective way to discourage people from smoking?
Mr. Page: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I know that at least one of our hon. Friends will speak about that. I ought not to pick the bones completely clean but should leave one or two topics. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has swept up some of the other topics that should be acted upon.
As I have said, there is a laid-back approach to introducing the spread of best practice. Each year 180,000 people die from heart disease and, as my hon. Friend says, prevention is better than cure. The Department of Health and the Treasury should allocate funds to saving lives rather than trying to treat people after the disaster has occurred.
The fifteenth report deals with road planning. That is a euphemism for what sometimes happens because I freely admit to the House, as I admitted to the Committee, that I and my constituents are scarred by the experiences of the M25, part of which passes through my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield feels equal pain over the large number of holdups and congestion.
My first objection relates to the misleading way in which the figures about the relative success or failure of the forecasts are presented. We see from the report that about 18 of the 58 schemes are 20 to 40 per cent. above or below the forecast level and that in seven of the schemes the error exceeded 40 per cent. Anybody hearing that would say that, while it is not too good, it is not too bad either. The forecast is for 100 cars a day, and with an error of 40 per cent. there will be 140 cars.
Of course, that is not the way that the Department works. Its forecasting error is expressed as a percentage of the outturn. In my constituency it is not 50,000 cars that use the road but more than 100,000. That means that for every one car that was forecast to use the road there are more than two, and somehow the Department thinks that the increase represents 0·4 of a car. It is certainly more than double. The Department says that it will make clear the method that it uses. Its forecast should be used as the base line and not as a percentage of the outturn.
I hope that forecasting will be improved, as is suggested in the Treasury response. However, that response is an
904
amalgam of reasons and excuses about why the forecasts have turned out in the way that they have. They are a history of underestimates. It says that in future things will be better and that the sun will shine. I remember the M1 when it had just two lanes, but then it had to be extended. There is an explanation offered about the M25, especially where it passes through my constituency. The response says:
"For example, for the Micklefield Green-South Mimms section, objectors argued that traffic could be accommodated for some years ahead by minor improvements to the existing road network."
The response said that the forecasts had to be vigorously defended at the inquiry against the constant criticism that they were too high. Of course the objectors said, "Do we need the motorway? Do we need all this disruption?", and thought that the existing road network could possibly accommodate the traffic. They would say that, because they based their objections on Department of Transport figures that were at least 100 per cent. out. Of course there will be chaos and confusion. While reading the reasons, excuses and promises for the future, I wonder whether there has been any real change in the nature of the beast.
The other thing that riles me about that section of the M25 is that during the inquiry we had already had the experience of the Chertsey to Staines section, which was open, and within months was oversubscribed and had exceeded the forecast figures. Some 100,000 vehicles were travelling through that section per day, and as it is only 10 or 11 miles from my constituency, surely it would have been realised that those cars had to go somewhere. They would not all flood on to roads in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield or to Heathrow airport but would continue to the beginning of the M1. It is peculiar that no one recognised that.
I take some comfort from the remarks in the Treasury's response, particularly the comment that it is more optimistic about future economic growth. I also take comfort from the response in the White Paper entitled "Roads for Prosperity". I hope that those responses will allow for a more realistic roads provision for the future. Good communications, whether through information technology, or physically through roads or rail services, are necessary if Britain is to be a successful industrial country.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make sure that forecasts err on the side of growth and prosperity rather than on the negative side of reduction. I also hope that my constituents will have a better level of environmental protection, and that the traffic will keep moving when the motorway is widened.
7.52 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) described me as a volunteer attendant at this debate. I am pleased to take part in what has been, and hope will continue to be, a civilised debate. The only unfortunate thing about the debate has been its attendance, which is on a parallel with attendance levels late at night when we debate European Community affairs. That is a matter for regret.
The forty-fourth report from the PAC—an estimable Committee—is entitled "Quality of Service to the Public at

905
DHSS Local Offices". I wish to focus on the importance of test case decisions to the public, to the DSS and to the Treasury and the Government's response to the report.
Earlier today I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) whether the senior official from the DSS, during cross-examination by the Committee, had offered an explanation of why the DSS had failed to publicise decisions taken by social security commissioners, which might have profound consequences for the Department and their clients—or claimants as they are traditionally known—and for the Treasury. The Treasury may be delighted by the apparent failure or unwillingness to publicise test case decisions. However, I am concerned for the claimants.
In paragraph 3 of the report, the Committee talks about the poor standard of service obtaining in some local offices. I shall defend the two offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow, as the two managers there—Mr. Derek Andrews and Mr. Brian Bryceland—run tight ships. I have always told them that I will not tolerate any of my constituents being treated in a discourteous or ill-mannered way by officials, who are also my constituents. I am pleased to say that complaints about discourteous or ill-mannered behaviour can be counted on the fingers of one hand over a period of some six years. I am sure that hon. Members of the Committee were not criticising the officers in my constituency.
I disagree with the Committee when it states, in paragraph 3(e), that it accepts that the staff levels in local offices are at a level appropriate for the work that they have to undertake. I do not believe that that is so. In some local offices the problem is exacerbated by a high level of staff turnover. Some new companies are beginning to come to Greenock and Port Glasgow, and one of those new companies recruited nine members of staff from the local DSS office. They were among the first 14 people employed by that company.
I agree entirely with the Committee when the Chairman and his colleagues say in paragraph 3(i) of the report:
"We accept that in providing information and advice local offices must respond to the circumstances in which they operate. But we are not satisfied that all offices are adequately fulfilling the Department's role".
That is true of test case decisions.
I am pleased to see, in paragraph 28 on page ix, that the Committee members have taken note of the effects of the Department's efforts in Scotland to influence the content and timing of take-up campaigns. In the Strathclyde region there is a high level of co-operation between local DSS offices and the social work departments of the regional council. However, it is precisely at such moments that DSS officers do not have the facilities or staff to deal with the effects of take-up campaigns.
The Government seem to be somewhat complacent and I am less than satisfied with their response to a fine report.
Paragraph 14 on page 4 of the Government's response, entitled "Complementing Local Offices", claims that there is a new complementing system for local officers, based upon performance as well as work measurements, and it says:
"It will seek to deploy staff to meet agreed standards of service".
That is not always the case. There is much more to be done in regard to the quality of the service provided by officials.
906
The example that I want to pursue follows a test case in August this year involving a commissioner and a Mr. Potts from Sunderland, who suffers from a common industrial disease called vibration white finger which is well known to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is brought on by the constant use of vibratory percussive tools. In the shipyards, the man most susceptible to this peculiarly painful industrial disease would be the caulker burner, but it affects many thousands of former employees in shipbuilding, mining, forestry and construction.
On appeal, the commissioner decided that Mr. Potts was in a state of justifiable ignorance of his right to claim backdated disablement benefit in respect of his illness. If other claims based on that test case are made, payments may in some cases exceed £6,000. Hence, perhaps, the Treasury's response to the DSS's failure to publicise the test case, especially in shipbuilding constituencies. I believe that there are thousands of men who have suffered from this disabling industrial disease.
Following the test case, several take-up campaigns have been conducted—on Merseyside, the north-east, Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland. As I represent a shipbuilding constituency, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I am deeply involved in the latter.
In response to the campaign, the Government, advised by DSS officials, introduced a deadline of 1 November 1989 for claims. A group of Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, went to see the Minister of State at the DSS on 30 October and secured a significant concession from him and his officials. The Minister agreed to re-examine the decision to revoke regulation 13 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1986, which enables sufferers of industrial diseases to submit back-dated claims for benefit.
The Minister displayed his usual civility and courtesy. He also behaved with compassion. I just wish that his officials would show the same compassion when publicising the test case. We had to look for it ourselves. The Minister reinforced his decision by tabling a statutory instrument which enables late claims for industrial injuries and diseases to be determined in certain circumstances as though they had been made on 30 September 1986.
I am very happy to say that the Minister behaved with compassion. We offer our compliments to him. This is a victory for natural justice and common sense. The campaign is being conducted with expediency. The trade unions are playing an important role in it. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union was instrumental in taking the test case to appeal. I am delighted to work with Robert Thompson, the Scottish secretary of that union, Duncan McNeil and other trade unionists in the local campaign.
The two DSS offices in Sunderland—Phoenix house and Dunn house—have received more than 20,000 applications for back-dated disablement benefit. Not all of them will be successful, and for some of those that are payments will be quite small, but they still impose something of a financial burden on the DSS, which is recognised honourably by the Minister, and on the Treasury.
By and large, applications in Sunderland are for white finger, although I understand that they call it dead finger in the north-east. I am told that a fellow went to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)

907
claiming that he had vibration white bum because he had sat on machinery which vibrated. He claimed that that had given him the disease in his posterior.
The two DSS offices in Sunderland have co-operated with the local take-up campaign. I have been assured by my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and by David Towler, Brenda Fulton and Brian Chapman of the Sunderland Trades Union Congress unemployment centre, that local DSS officials have been extremely helpful and co-operative in the take-up campaign. They, and officials in Greenock and Port Glasgow, Belfast, Newcastle, Liverpool and elsewhere, confront considerable difficulties when dealing with such a torrent of claims. The two offices in my constituency have received more than 800 back-dated claims in the past three or four weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) talked about delays that people experience when they go to DSS offices. My worry, when there are take-up campaigns such as these that involve disablement claims, is that the procedure is so long-winded. A clerical assessment is made of the claim. That involves contacting the applicant's former employer, who may have disappeared or gone out of business, to assess the nature of the claimant's work. When a response is obtained, the adjudication officer makes a decision, yea or nay. If his decision goes against the claimant, the claimant has a right of appeal to a local appeals tribunal. That may lead to the claimant having to undergo a medical examination. A second adjudication officer assesses the medical opinion delivered by the medical practitioner. That may lead to the claimant having to appeal to a medical appeals tribunal, which may take several months. That appeals tribunal decision is given to the adjudication officer. That is a tiresome, cumbersome and time-consuming procedure.
There are few hon. Members here tonight, and few other than my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East represent shipbuilding constituencies. Many of the men with whom we are concerned are unemployed and some of them will never work again because of the extent of their disabilities. Some of them are pensioners who have been denied their legitimate rights as a result of the failure of the Department of Social Security to alert them to this test case.
The Government must seek to eliminate or at least to reduce those delays. Even at this late date, I want Ministers at the Department of Social Security to instruct local officers at Lady Lawson street in Edinburgh, on Tyneside, on Merseyside and in Ulster to initiate comprehensive local advertising campaigns which will reach out to such people.
I held a public meeting the other day. I paid for a fairly large advertisement in my local paper the Greenock Telegraph, and as it was a legitimate parliamentary expense, I shall ask the Fees Office to pay for the advertisement. Over 200 men turned up at the public meeting in Port Glasgow last Friday. My hon. Friends from the north-east of England and from Merseyside will confirm that in their areas too the advertising and publicity is being carried out by voluntary organisations such as unemployment centres which are, to put it bluntly, strapped for cash. It is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security to give some much needed assistance to men in those unpleasant circumstances.
908
In a constituency such as mine—and you have heard me say this before, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there has been a decline in the shipbuilding industry. Unemployment, according to the Government's statistics, is still at 14·8 per cent., which is way over the United Kingdom average. Thousands of my constituents are in receipt, directly or indirectly, of social welfare incomes, so they have a direct interest in the quality of service that is provided by the two local Department of Social Security offices. In the main, they receive a good service from hard-pressed officials. Senior officials at the Department of Social Security should not be cutting the number of employees at the Greenock and Port Glasgow local offices; they should be recruiting staff rather than running down staff numbers. Ministers and senior officials at the Department of Social Security must also treat claimants as clients.
I am deeply grateful to all the members of the Public Accounts Committee for examining the quality of performance of staff at local Department of Social Security offices and for enabling me to respond to their excellent forty-fourth report.
8.13 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It is a refreshing change for an hon. Member who is not also a member of the Public Accounts Committee to speak in this debate. I listened to him with great interest and I hope that he will contribute to future debates. It is also good to hear a Scottish voice in these debates.
Our debate this Session, like all previous debates, is concerned with the endless task of the Public Accounts Committee in searching for value for money, ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money and, if not, discovering the reasons why and reporting them to Parliament. On Monday morning, when I was considering how I might contribute to this debate, my eye lighted on an article in The Times. The headline read:
"Former Whitehall chief's criticism. Police `do not give value for money' ".
As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I put down my cup of tea to see who had written the article and who was being quoted. I was especially interested to see that the report concerned an article in the Municipal Journal of 24 November, commenting on the views of that endless searcher after value for money, Sir Brian Cubbon, the former permanent secretary at the Home Office, who before his recent retirement was a frequent witness at sessions of the Public. Accounts Committee.
I shall quote from this important article by Sir Brian. The headline read:
"Treat 'em mean: keep 'em keen!"
I thought that the article would be worth reading because I remembered so many occasions on which we had had such helpful discussions with Sir Brian on the importance of value for money at the Department of which he had the distinction of being the head for so many years. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote briefly one or two interesting passages in the article.
Sir Brian wrote:
"Lack of money is a powerful incentive for officials to prioritise and get the same results with less money. 'Treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen'. The Home Office's local services have been largely immune from this top-down pressure. Expenditure on law, order and protective services in the

909
United Kingdom has risen in real terms from £5 billion in 1978/79 to £8·4 billion in 1989–90… .A further factor has been the split in financial control, between the Home Office and local authorities. In the case of the police, probation and magistrates' court services, the specific grant from Central Government (51 per cent., 80 per cent., and 80 per cent., respectively) increased the onus on the Home Office to secure value for money in these services, but the main effort had still to come from local control and initiatives.… .In the case of the police, the Audit Commission paper Adminstrative Support to Operational Police Officers records the good progress made by the police, with Home Office and HM Inspectorate support, in streamlining procedures, reducing paperwork and using civilian support units. The scrutiny technique has been introduced. HM Inspectorate use statistical data, which records police activities in a uniform way, enabling trends to be monitored from year to year and amoung groups of forces. Financial information is being added.
It remains difficult to find measures, and recording systems, which reliably link increased police manpower with increased effectiveness and efficiency. It remains an open question whether we are getting value for money for all the extra inputs of recent years.… Police civilians have increased by 11 per cent. or more than 5,000 since 1985. Why is it that the number of police officers on patrol or operational duties has increased more slowly?"
That was an interesting question for Sir Brian to ask. The Times expressed some surprise in reporting the article. It said:
"The former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office has publicly criticized his former colleagues for failing to secure adequate value for the billions they spend on the police."
I thought that it was very interesting to have Sir Brian's views and we so much enjoyed listening to him when he came before the Public Accounts Committee that I thought that it might be helpful for the House tonight if I commented briefly on the forty-second report on financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan police and the courts and prison building programmes for which Sir Brian, while at the Home Office, was responsible.
I should first like to deal with the financial control and accountability of the Metropolitan police, that gallant body of men who keep our capital free of crime to such an extent and who serve us selflessly day and night. In our report we said:
"Following our Forty-fifth Report, the Government accepted that the arrangements for securing the accountability of the Metropolitan Police needed 'further development' and said that 'a substantial programme of work to that end is in train.' We have not received the outcome of the work, and would welcome details as soon as possible, so that we can consider the matter further as necessary.
Some time has elapsed since that was said.
Paragraph 62 of the Treasury minute to the 42nd report —Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and Property Services Agency—responds to the Committee's comments and observations on that topic. It was published one year ago and says:
"The Home Office will submit shortly to the Committee a memorandum giving a detailed report of the programme of work, mentioned in the Treasury Minute of October 1986 … which has been undertaken to improve the accountability and financial control of the Metropolitan Police and to review the information provided to Parliament."
We are still waiting. We are now in November 1989 and we still have not had from the Home Office the memorandum that we require on that important subject. I hope that Sir Brian's successor, Sir Clive Whitmore, will give some thought to that matter at an early date.
910
The court building programme is another splendid example of the need for value for money, efficiency and control of which Sir Brian Cubbon talks. The Committee said of the court building programme:
"At the end of 1986, there still remained a backlog of 21,600 cases awaiting trial in England and Wales with waits between committal and trial as high as 25 weeks. These are matters of considerable concern to us, demonstrating how much more the departments need to do."
That is not a good example of value for money, efficiency or economy, and those are the things about which we need to be concerned. It is unacceptable to me—and, I am sure, to all hon. Members—that there are such long waits between trial and committal.
The report also covered the prison building programme, a matter to which I attach considerable importance. I am sure that I speak for most hon. Members when I say that none of us is proud of our prisons. I pay tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Viscount Whitelaw who as Home Secretary took urgent steps to put that terrible problem right. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said, progress has been slow.
The report went on to say:
"We are surprised that the Home Office no longer have a target date for matching total available places with the average prison population and we consider it important that a new target is set.
We are concerned that the recurring and apparently unforeseen surges cast serious doubt on the Home Office's ability to project accurately future prison populations."
That is a pretty tough comment on the efficiency of the Home Office.
The report also said:
"By 1999 some 14,500 prison places, about one quarter of the total, will still be without access to night sanitation. We consider this to be unacceptable and urge the Home Office to find ways of bringing about a faster improvement in conditions."
In paragraph 26 of the report the Home Office makes the point that progress is being made towards dealing with the difficult problem of night sanitation. It is totally unacceptable in 1989 for men and women to be confined to prisons and for a large percentage of them still to be required to slop out, which means having no access to night sanitation and being obliged to use a bucket.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replies he will have something to say about what is being done to improve the efficiency of the prison service and to bring about the much-needed improvements in our Victorian prisons.
Another aspect of Home Office responsibility referred to in the report is a matter on which we had the privilege of listening to evidence from Sir Brian Cubbon while he was still in office. Paragraph 8 refers to
"serious over-loading of the courts, 'intolerable' delays in bringing cases to trial."
We went on to say that
"the Committee concluded that insufficient progress had been made towards meeting the objectives of the programme."
We also said:
"Measures taken by the Lord Chancellor's Department to reduce the backlog of cases and waiting times in the Crown Court—especially in London and the South East—had produced no more than a marginal … improvement…Bearing in mind also the consequent deleterious effects of the huge backlog on overcrowding in local prisons and remand centres … recommended that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Property Services Agency—bringing in the Home Office, as necessary—should take stock at the highest level of the programme's objectives, achievements and problems."

911
I am sure that when Sir Brian wrote the splendid article under the heading
"Treat 'em mean: keep 'em keen"
he was not referring to people slopping out in prisons or to those who have to wait for an intolerable time before their cases are heard. He may, however, have been referring to something that was mentioned in The Times the efficiency of his colleagues in the Home Office in dealing with those important matters which have caused us such great concern. We know that a crash programme has been initiated to provide a minimum of 12 temporary court rooms in London, but they will have a limited life expectancy and there is still a serious backlog.
I hope that when Home Office officials look at the report of today's debate and think about what we have said in the light of the comments of that distinguished public servant, Sir Brian Cubbon, there will be rapid progress towards dealing with those serious problems. They are not problems that can be left. They need to be dealt with now. It is unsatisfactory to have the system operating as it is with so many delays and so many people confined in appalling conditions.
In the article in the Municipal Journal Sir Brian was quoted as saying:
"Police civilians have increased by 11 per cent. or more than 5,000 since 1985. Why is it that the number of police officers on patrol or operational duties has increased more slowly?"
One of the reasons is that many police officers are today employed in investigating each other. One force is investigating another to find out what went wrong in a particular set of circumstances. As we all know, the West Midlands police force is being investigated by west Yorkshire and the Surrey force is being investigated by Somerset and Avon. I could go on but hon. Members on both sides of the House know about the problem. Many officers are deployed in dealing with investigations into complaints, some of which will turn out to be trivial. A great deal of public money is being spent. Some of these cases, of course, will turn out to be serious—I am not trying to cover that up—but it is important, when considering Sir Brian's strictures, to consider the alternative.
The Police Federation of England and Wales takes the view that there should be an independent police complaints authority with its own investigative branch, which could spend its time carrying out necessary investigations and leaving police officers in forces throughout the country to get on with the important job of policing. I hope that the PAC will turn to that matter when the time is right.
The forty-fourth report is on the quality of service to the public at DSS local offices. It is a particularly good report and it was welcomed by staff at social security offices throughout the country, who felt that a Committee of Parliament was at last taking an interest in the appalling conditions in which many of them have to work. Those conditions are especially acute not just in inner London but in parts of outer London.
I have discussed these matters with the staff at my local DSS office in Uxbridge and I know of their anxiety. Happily, the increased expenditure on improving offices in London and other parts of the country has greatly improved them and working conditions in them—but there is another problem.
912
In the borough of Hillingdon, in which my constituency lies, there is great competition for competent staff to do the jobs that officers in the DSS offices have to do. During the course of the evidence that the Committee took from the permanent secretary, Mr. France, I asked what consideration the Department was giving to the introduction of geographically related pay, and whether consideration had been given to the precedent set by the nurses' pay award, under which a supplement is payable over and above London weighting. Mr. France told the Committee that his Department, in common with other Departments, was introducing local pay additions for areas around London, amounting to £600. That is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is not a very large sum.
I asked Mr. France whether consideration could be given to geographically related pay throughout the country. He replied:
"Geographical pay is gradually beginning to appear."
That is welcome and I hope that further progress will be made.
There is another problem. There is great competition in Uxbridge between the Department of Social Security and the London borough of Hillingdon for exactly the same sort of staff. Local authorities such as Hillingdon borough council can pay whatever they judge the appropriate rate for the job. Consequently, the DSS is battling to retain staff who are frequently siphoned off by local authorities. That also applies in many other parts of London and, for all I know, in other parts of the country.
Thus there are differing rates of pay in the DSS, which is an agency of national Government, and a London borough council, which is an agency of local government. That is making it difficult for DSS offices to retain local staff who have worked there for many years and who are experts in their field. They are tempted to go and work for the borough council. As £600 per year, welcome though it is, is not much these days, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some thought to this.
Before I took part in this session of the PAC I made a number of inquiries among my friends in the Department of the Environment to discover whether overall strategic consideration was being given to the problem of the pull by local government away from the offices of a Department of State. No such consideration is being given, so the problem will persist unless something is done about it. I mention this matter on the Floor of the House because I hope that some thought will be given to it. It is not an easy matter to solve, but perhaps the PAC could deal with it at an appropriate time.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate and to have served on the PAC under our distinguished Chairman. I look forward to many more good reports. Like the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), no doubt, I firmly believe that they are one of our best protections for ensuring value for money for the taxpayer.
8.34 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: I start by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr, Shersby) has just said. I, too, regard it as a privilege to serve as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. It is one of the most effective Select Committees because it can draw on the services of 900 staff. Most Select Committees have perhaps two or three special advisers. We are fortunate because we rely so heavily on the staff of the

913
National Audit Office, who produce the reports on which our inquiries are based. Of course, those reports are not being investigated today, but they form the basis of our inquiries.
We are also fortunate to have the calibre of staff that the NAO employs. I know that it has plans not only to maintain but to improve the quality of its staff and to increase the number of value-for-money reports that it makes.
Although I have said that we are effective, perhaps we should have some independent assessment of our effectiveness; perhaps we could do a little more to blow our own trumpet. The Audit Commission is good at making regular pronouncements about the total value of the savings that it has recommended could be made if local government adopted its proposals. We could do more to quantify the savings that have been recommended by the PAC.
In this respect the Treasury should regard the Committee as an ally. We have a common objective; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would agree that it is to improve value for money. I should like to make a proposal: my hon. Friend should try to see what can be done to improve the quality of Treasury minutes. Although I am sure that there is no deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues, the way in which Treasury minutes are set out could be greatly improved. If the PAC first clearly tabulated what its recommendations were, the Treasury could then follow the practice of other Departments when replying to Select Committee reports. For instance, I have just read the Trade and Industry Select Committee report on financial services in the European market. Each recommendation is set out, followed by the Government response to it. That would be a useful way of proceeding. Will my hon. Friend consider that proposal?
I want to refer to four reports which form a representative sample that well illustrates the value of the different aspects of the Committee's work. The first is one to which hon. Members have already referred—the twenty-sixth report on coronary disease. It was an interesting report because it was the first time that the NAO had examined the output of the National Health Service, rather than the input. It had previously examined estate management and the way in which operating theatres are used, for example, but this report inquires into the objectives of the NHS. What is it in business for? The obvious answer is: to ensure that we all enjoy better health. What is one of the main killers in Britain? The answer is: coronary disease. How effective is Government policy in tackling it? Compared with some other countries it is not very good, and there is much room for improvement.
I referred earlier to the strikingly disproportionate amount spent on treating the problem as opposed to trying to prevent it. I shall not repeat the figures that I gave, but this needs examination. Curing heart disease is an expensive business, so we should devote more resources to trying to prevent it in the first place.
There is also a case for better ministerial co-ordination. When we asked questions about it in the Committee we were told that it was a matter for Ministers, so it seems right to mention it to my hon. Friend now. There are ministerial committees that deal with drugs and AIDS, so
914
there seems to be a strong case for a ministerial committee to deal with coronary disease, because trying to prevent it is clearly the responsibility of more than one Department—although the Department of Health has a major responsibility.
The example of tobacco taxation immediately demonstrates that the Treasury has a major responsibility. I know that when Treasury Ministers consider the Budget, many other considerations are regarded as more important than the nation's health. However, Treasury Ministers would surely agree that the price mechanism is the most efficient way of influencing people's behaviour. All the evidence shows that if we increase the price of cigarettes, we curb demand.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that, as the price of tobacco products has increased in the past, we have disadvantaged our own people because jobs have been lost in production in the United Kingdom and laid open the opportunity for cheap imports to this country without achieving a reduction in the use of tobacco products?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman puts the argument which has been put to me many times by the tobacco industry and of which I am well aware. There are always different considerations, but I have no doubt that price is an extremely effective way of influencing people's behaviour. The report shows that three principal factors determine whether people suffer coronary heart disease, and smoking is one of them. That is an important consideration.
The thirty-second report on the financial management of the Welsh Office is interesting. It is the first time that the National Audit Office has examined a whole Department. It looked at the financial management of the entire Department. The Welsh Office is a relatively small Department and spends only—perhaps I should not say only—£3,500 million and therefore it was possible to subject it to such scrutiny.
When the permanent secretary attended, I asked him whether he had a job description. He told me that he had not. I asked him how much of his time he spent on policy advice rather than managing the Department. He estimated that he spent more time managing the Department than on policy advice, which I thought was interesting. I asked him whether he regarded senior officials in the Department as a management board. There has been a change in Civil Service culture during the past few years as a result of financial management initiatives and other initiatives taken by the Government. There are more officials in Government who see themselves as managers. I am still clear that giving good quality advice to Ministers is probably seen as the priority.
Another factor in this context is the lack of accountants working in line management positions in Government. One might think that financial controllers in Government would be accountants; they are not. Such is the generalist philosophy and culture of the Civil Service that accountants are thought of as people to be put at the end of the corridor and consulted on financial matters. They are not placed in positions with a degree of financial responsibility. There are very few accountants working in line management positions. The other day I was talking to an internal auditor from the DTI who told me that there were as few as 300 throughout central Government.
Dr. Godman: Given the Committee's practice of comparing different Departments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the absence of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, this Committee could perform a useful, nay, a valuable, function in examining some aspects of the financial management of the Scottish Office?
Mr. Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we regularly look at matters relating to Scotland. We recently looked at the operation of the procurators fiscal and aspects of the Health Service in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should look at the overall financial management of the Scottish Office, that is an interesting idea that we might well put to the National Audit Office.
The third report to which I shall refer is the ninth report on the Overseas Development Administration and multilateral aid. I do so because the Committee has not always criticised every Government Department. In this case, we gave the ODA good marks for what it was doing. Our general conclusion in paragraph 18 was:
"we saw the C & AG's Report as providing Parliament with assurance that the Overseas Development Administration have adopted a generally sound approach to monitoring and controlling the Multilateral Aid Programme."
We had some reservations, as we always have. It is our job to criticise and we always look for the weak points. But when a Department is well run, and managing itself in a satisfactory way, it is important to say so and in that case we did.
The forty-sixth report in the last Session, 1987–88, on the management of the family practitioner services is one of many reports on the National Health Service produced by the Committee. Obviously, we made detailed proposals for improving the management of family practitioner committees and have made many other detailed proposals in other reports on the NHS. Many of our recommendations have found their way into the Government's White Paper, the NHS review. That may come as a surprise to some people who apparently think that the White Paper is designed to undermine the National Health Service. However, its simple objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which the taxpayer's money is spent in the Health Service.
In the Public Accounts Committee, we see examples almost every month of where savings could be made and more money devoted to improved patient care. I am pleased that many of the Committee's proposals have found their way into the White Paper and are being, or will be, implemented when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is enacted. That is an important point.
I congratulate the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), on his work. His is a most onerous task which he has carried out with great distinction.
8.47 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I identify myself and the Opposition with the remarks of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the way in which he chaired the Public Accounts Committee during the past year. My right hon. Friend does an enormous amount of hard work, and I know that he commands the respect of the rest of the Committee and the House. I thank him and
916
the other members of the Public Accounts Committee for the work that they do and for the bipartisan spirit in which they do it. It is important to the authority which the reports carry when they come before the House that they are produced in a bipartisan spirit and reflect a consensus among the Committee members. That unanimity gives them enormous authority. The House takes the Committee's views seriously.
Therefore, it is all the more damning that the substantial losses to the Exchequer which have been identified in some of the reports relate not to failures in public administration, but to losses sustained as a direct result of the Government's ideological commitment. The bill for dogma is now being presented to the nation. In some of the reports the Public Accounts Committee has identified a separate matter: where public expenditure has been foolishly forgone, resulting in long-term inefficiencies and losses to the Exchequer. I shall deal first with this issue before referring to the reports which identify losses to the Exchequer due to political decision making rather than administrative inefficiencies.
When the House debated public expenditure in February, we found a new word for public expenditure foolishly forgone. We introduced to the English language "Lamontable" and the concept of Lamontable spending decisions. Of the Lamontables now under consideration, the twenty-sixth PAC report on coronary heart disease makes important reading, and it has been referred to by several hon. Members. It is not the first time that the PAC has considered the issue, but it still feels that it is necessary to express its concern at the failure of the Department of Health to evaluate the full potential of spending on prevention to save on treatment costs.
As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said" factors such as heredity and age are unavoidable. None the less, the Committee draws attention to the three principal risk factors, which are smoking, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. These factors are all avoidable, and the Department must do more than admit that more needs to be done in heart disease prevention. The Committee highlights the obvious point that more resources devoted to prevention would result in long-term savings for the Department and to better lifestyles for many of our citizens.
Several hon. Members have referred to the administration of national museums, galleries and collections. The Committee noted that the Treasury expressed the view that there was scope within the arts budget to meet urgent priorities, but the museum service claims that it is seriously under-funded to meet its needs. The result is an inability of the service properly to account for the care and maintenance of, in some instances, priceless collections that are in its charge. The Committee noted the lack of reliable quantified information on the extent of the problems faced by the service and the resource consequences of that. It is an issue to which the Committee will no doubt have to return when better information is available.
It is right that the House should assert now that it is in the national interest that these matters are brought to a satisfactory conclusion before the poor storage conditions and the backlog of conservation to which the Committee refers in the case of some national collections reach their logical conclusion and important collections are irretrievably damaged or lost to the nation for ever. I was as horrified as the Chairman of the PAC, my right hon.

917
Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, when the Victoria and Albert museum stated that it was running the risk of irreparable damage to some parts of the national heritage. I am sure that the House considers that to be unacceptable. If it is the consequence of public expenditure foolishly forgone, it is Lamontable that we must pay the price for it.
Exactly the same point is made by the PAC, although in a different context, in its twenty-eighth report on road maintenance. Several hon. Members, especially those with constituency interests, spoke on the issue with considerable feeling. The Department of Transport is criticised for continuing uncertainty, for failing to budget, for having an irregular maintenance programme and for taking money from that programme to be used in the new-build programme instead. The report highlights the long-term public expenditure consequences of neglecting maintenance and refers to the Department's estimates of the long-term cost of a decision to defer the spending of about £28 million in 1988–89. It is estimated that this decision could lead to on-costs of about £60 million to £120 million over the next three to four years.
The Committee rightly doubts whether the benefits lost by postponing part of the maintenance programme will ever be recovered by spending the money on new build instead. It considers this to be a striking example of short-sightedness in saving now but spending later. This is an example of public expenditure foolishly forgone, and the decision will cost the taxpayer more in the long run. It is another Lamontable decision. The report was published at the end of June and the Committee was able to take note of the new spending commitments which were announced in April-May for the Department of Transport.
The announcement was heralded by a speech delivered by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There were those who suggested cynically that that was because the Chief Secretary expected to be moved to the Department of Transport in the forthcoming Government reshuffle. I consider that to be an unworthy and cynical view. It was always my opinion that the then Chief Secretary was destined for higher things. Now that he has moved up a rung, as it were, the previous Financial Secretary has moved to fill his job and the previous Economic Secretary is now the Financial Secretary. It is surely an appropriate moment for me to welcome the Financial Secretary to his new job and to say that I look forward to winding up these debates with him for the rest of the Parliament, and in the same spirit that I did with his Lamontable predecessor.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Gentleman will have to find a new pun now.
Mr. Brown: My other pun, as fans of our consideration of Finance Bills will know, is to refer to brief gaps in our consideration of them as lacunas. He who was the Economic Secretary is now the Lilley of lacuna. Perhaps that will not fit into the spirit of the debate, and that may explain why the Opposition seem unable to retain Members to serve on Finance Bill Committees.
It would not be a PAC debate without mention of the Ministry of Defence. The three recurring themes in these debates are the misdeeds of the Northern Ireland Office, the misdeeds of the Ministry of Defence, and the
918
Government's lack of enthusiasm to clamp down on a wide range of serious fraud. This year the Ministry of Defence, even by its own standards, has managed to secure a substantial amount of the Committee's fully justified attention. No fewer than 10 of its reports refer to matters that concern the Ministry.
The thirty-first report deals with the reliability and maintenance of defence equipment. It builds on the consideration that the Committee gave to the issue way back in 1979. In that year, it was noted that an improvement in the reliability and maintenance of defence equipment was potentially the most cost-effective measure directly open to the Ministry in that sector. The PAC was therefore right—it was a reasonable thing for it to do—to return to the matter about 10 years on to ascertain what progress had been made. According to the Committee, there had not been very much progress.
The Ministry accepts that unreliability probably costs as much as £1 billion a year. It considers 50 per cent. to be a fair goal for justifiable savings. As Sir Peter Levene rightly said, reliability costs money but that the more we spend on it the more we shall save. It is fair to observe, as the Committee does, that not much of a start seems to have been made 10 years on. The PAC drily observes that it looks to the Ministry to make early progress. This is another example of public expenditure forgone leading to greater cost to the taxpayer in the long term.
If the Ministry ever begins to take notice of the PAC's reports or of these debates, I hope that it will consider these matters and make a start to improve the quality of the type 23 frigate programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has said that there are only 30 reliability and maintenance specialists in the Ministry. As the report states, however, the Ministry has a procurement budget of about £9 billion.
The Ministry of Defence provides a good example of the Committee's work in the second of the two areas to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, and that is the loss of moneys to the Exchequer as a result of Government dogma, not maladministration.
It would be amazing if this debate were to reach a conclusion without reference to the Committee's forty-eighth report on the sale of Royal Ordnance plc. The Committee rightly makes the point that, prior to the sale of Royal Ordnance, the MOD did not explore the possibility of redevelopment at Waltham Abbey or Enfield and nor did it obtain alternative valuations of those sites on the assumption that redevelopment might be approved in future. The Government sold Royal Ordnance, including all its sites, in April 1987. It was bought by British Aerospace for £190 million. The Waltham Abbey and Enfield sites were bought for £3·5 million, but a subsequent valuation by the City firm of Warburg suggested that the sites could be worth up to £462 million when they had been redeveloped for industry and housing.
The PAC said:
"We note that BAe could make a substantial gain on their sale or development without benefits accruing to the taxpayer beyond the sale price paid by BAe."
Of course, British Aerospace has also purchased the Rover Group. It is not the first PAC report to bring privatisation issues to our attention. Hon. Members who recall last year's debate will remember the unhappy report on the Rolls-Royce privatisation. They will also remember the last-minute debt write-offs and the pressure from the management of Rolls-Royce just before it was due to go

919
into the private sector. There is no doubt that next year we shall again consider a PAC report on the Rover Group, which will inevitably make similar points.
Substantial sums of public money have been unnecessarily given away to pursue the Government's ideological commitment to privatisation and with no consideration of the public purse or even of issues of common sense. If it had happened just once, it could be understood, but to have a debate on this matter last year, this year and probably again next year shows substantial Government contempt for the public purse.
Mr. Shersby: I do not wish to be controversial, but surely it is necessary to balance the decision on the Rover Group with the substantial sums of taxpayers' money that have been used to shore up the Rover Group for many years. I think that the figure is about £3·5 billion. Without being controversial, I wish to point out that that is also a substantial sum of money and that many taxpayers were heartily sick of it.
Mr. Brown: I am content to await the eventual PAC report on these matters. No doubt we will return to them next year. My understanding is that those taxpayers were about to realise a return on their investment in Rover. Perhaps the PAC will say that, perhaps it will not, but one thing is certain—that the PAC cannot avoid the issue of the potential speculative gain on the land owned by Rover and by Royal Ordnance. That point was emphasised in the report on Royal Ordnance, and I expect that it will be emphasised again in the report on Rover. I may be wrong, and I do not wish to prejudge the issue, but that is what I expect. Whatever one's political view of privatisation, and I am opposed to it, it is possible to carry out a privatisation programme and preserve the legitimate interests of the taxpayer on land sales—land set at a certain value, but which also has a substantially increased and enhanced speculative value. I wish that the Government had taken that point on board before transferring substantial assets to the private sector.
Again, it would not be a PAC debate without some mention of unacceptable levels of fraud and the Government's failure to deal with them. Their reluctance to take firm action across a whole range of areas was a major feature of last year's debate. This year, the Committee is concerned at the level of fraud on the second regional development grants scheme. It regards it as a unacceptable that the majority of cases to date have not been detected by officers of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Committee makes the important recommendation that there should be independent accountants' reports on the number of jobs created as a simple, effective and straightforward safeguard against fraud.
It seems appropriate to move on from independent accountants' reports and independent monitoring to the report on the urban development corporations. Systematic monitoring of performance is recommended for the urban development corporations, and the implementation of that recommendation is long overdue. The Committee has so far looked only at the London Docklands and the Merseyside development corporations, but it will at some stage have to turn its attention to other more recent urban development corporations. There is no evidence that the Department of the Environment is making any serious
920
effort to control or restrain those undemocratic and unaccountable institutions which are spending significant sums of public money.
In its twentieth report on the London Docklands and Merseyside development corporations the Committee identified four issues—first, again, the lack of control over land valuations and sales; secondly, the misuse of consultants, a matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised in last year's debate; thirdly, the failure to protect the public purse in profit-sharing arrangements; and, fourthly, and most significantly, poor management. I strongly suspect that variations on those four items would be discovered if scrutiny were extended to the other urban development corporations. I hope that at an appropriate time the Public Accounts Committee will undertake that task.
In trying to do justice to the Committee's reports I have drawn two themes from them—public expenditure foolishly forgone, the failure to spend 1p now costing £1 later; and the losses that have been suffered by the Exchequer as a result of political decision making rather than maladministration, most noticeably through the Government's privatisation programme. I hope that at some stage the Public Accounts Committee will be able to take an overview of the cost-effectiveness of the Government's privatisation programme. Then the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) could be weighed against the fears, some of them confirmed, some yet to be confirmed, of Opposition Members.
The Public Accounts Committee published two reports on the services offered by the Department of Social Security. In its forty-fourth report the Committee considers the quality of service to the public in what were then local Department of Health and Social Security offices. After making a number of points about the organisation of local offices, manpower levels, high staff turnover and the direct relationship between dissatisfaction with facilities and expenditure on local offices, the Committee expressed its concern about the image of the social security system and the narrow interpretation of the DSS of its responsibility for advising and encouraging claimants. The Committee returned to some of those matters in its thirtieth report, noting an estimated level of incorrect payments of between £34 million and £89 million, stating that that was clearly unacceptable. The Committee expressed concern at the number of errors in the social fund account and the frank admission that what was disclosed was unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was right to raise the question of claimants suffering from the industrial disease vibration white finger. That does not affect all areas equally; it is confined to constituencies where heavy industry dominates, particularly heavy engineering and shipbuilding, but that industrial illness and the way in which the Department of Social Security is dealing with it deeply concern those communities that are affected.
My hon. Friend referred to a figure of 20,000 claims submitted in Sunderland alone. They will not all be substantial but a great number of them will be. I am reminded of the deluge of industrial deafness claims that occurred when I was an official of the General Municipal Boilmakers and Allied Trades Union before I was elected to this House. At the peak of those submissions, the union's solicitors had an office with filing cabinets all

921
around the walls labelled from A to Z, and each file was visited once every three months. Ultimately there were about 4,000 successful claims in the Newcastle area alone. That is a prime example of people suffering industrial injury as a consequence of the community in which they live and of a traditional form of employment in that community. Vibration white finger is a similar issue, and my hon. Friend was right to raise it in the context of the report.
The Public Accounts Committee made the point that the Department is taking steps to improve the service provided by local offices and intends to increase its targets year by year. However, the PAC comments also that the Department's services are provided to 23 million callers each year and that, in the main, they are citizens who are least able to turn to any other form of advice and who rely on the state to treat them fairly. It is important that the state treats those citizens fairly and does not send them somewhere else for the information that should be provided by a Government Department. The reports also present some stark contrasts in providing an overview of what is happening in this country. They tell of the transfer of public assets from public control to wealthy, private companies and of the generous arrangements made to facilitate such transfers. Other PAC reports tell of the neglect of public services, inadequate funding of the arts, lack of road maintenance, and failure to spend money also on preventive medicine. Two of the reports reveal the mean and squalid treatment received by the least well off in our society in respect of services delivered by the DSS. The Public Accounts Committee presents a snapshot and an indictment of Tory Britain.
9.12 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): This is the first occasion that I have had the privilege to reply to a debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. In preparing for it, I came to realise what a daunting responsibility it is—not only because of the enormous volume of reports involved but because of their scope, range, quality and value. I join with other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who brings to it both his personal authority and considerable experience, which enhances the work of what probably has always been the most powerful and important Committee in this House.
It is not just officers in the public service but Ministers who take seriously the views of the Committee and of its Chairman—and not just what it says but what it might say. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a valid point when he remarked that the Committee could refer only to things that had happened, but it also casts its shadow ahead of it and makes everyone very aware of, and more cautious about, their own actions. I pay tribute also to the Comptroller and Auditor General, as well as to the staff of the National Audit Office, for their excellent work in preparing the reports.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with whom I am often in agreement on constitutional matters, was wrong to suggest that the Committee's practice of reaching unanimous agreement is detrimental and open to criticism. Whatever our views on the precise role and scope
922
of the public sector, we can surely all agree that it should carry out that role by providing value for money and maintaining the highest standards of integrity in the way in which that money is spent. Through its reports, the Committee does a great deal to achieve that aim.
Inevitably, I cannot respond to all the many points that have been made—which themselves are but the tip of an iceberg whose bulk, in the form of the reports themselves, lies below the Dispatch Box. Let me deal first with the report on the quality of service provided in DSS offices.
It is, I agree, very important for clients of the social services, who are often among the most needy and vulnerable members of society, to receive the best, most rapid and most courteous service that we can reasonably provide. The social security reforms that we introduced some years ago have made the system easier for clients to understand and simpler for the authorities to administer, and that is already showing in the improved clearance times for—among others—income support claimants. In 1987–88, they had to wait for an average of 6·3 days for their claims to be cleared; last year, they had to wait for an average of 4·9 days. The time that they spend in the office —including waiting time—has been reduced in that period from 26 minutes to just under 20.
Hon. Members have expressed doubts about the DSS's survey figures as compared with those provided by Gallup's survey. Let me point out, particularly to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that the Gallup report was retrospective—it asked people to think back to their visits—whereas the DSS figures are collected at the time of the visits. Early in the new year, however, the DSS is to carry out the first external and independent poll of customers' opinions, which will be made available to the House and which will, I believe, be of value.
I may respond in more detail to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in writing, although his contribution was most welcome. Let me tell him now, however, that the new complementing system will take effect in April 1990. It will be performance-based —that is, it will make staffing levels fit agreed performance levels in each office. The Government do not accept that staffing levels are wrong, but we hope in time to improve the precise allocation and complement of staff.
Dr. Godman: I am obliged to the Minister. May I point out, however, that considerable anxiety is felt by many of my constituents who have made claims in respect of white finger disease? Their fear centres on the likelihood of the Treasury forcing the DSS to close down the take-up campaign by bringing forward a closure date for such claims. Will the Minister give me an assurance that that anxiety is misplaced, and that the Treasury would do no such dreadful thing?
Mr. Lilley: The Treasury never does dreadful things. I will, however, give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will look into the matter and write to him—and, if he wishes, that response can be made public. I am grateful to him for raising an issue that is plainly important both to many of his constituents and, more widely, to the industries affected.
The next report refers to the sale of the royal ordnance factories. We are satisfied that the arrangements for the sale of Royal Ordnance were designed to ensure that the competition was as wide-ranging as possible and open to bidders. Care was taken to ensure that the pressure on the

923
bidders was maintained until the final decision. We are confident that the price received for Royal Ordnance—£190 million—was a true reflection of its market value. It was twice the value that we were advised could have been obtained the previous year.
The media claims about the site values of the two main sites that have been mentioned in the debate have been demonstrated to be enormously exaggerated. The professional valuations were in the range of £25 million to £37·5 million—only 8 per cent. of the figure extensively quoted in the media. Quite clearly it was a mistaken report.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: It was produced by independent analysts.
Mr. Lilley: It was produced by an analyst and as I used to be one I know how unreliable analysts' reports can be. The valuation report was reasonably reliable.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned the importance of valuing sites on an alternative-use basis. Valuations of the two sites were made on an alternative-use basis, but they were found to be lower than those made on a current-use basis and for that reason they were not made public. However, they demonstrated that the current-use valuations were the highest and the most relevant.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the possibility of selling off in tranches. That is obviously much easier to do in respect of a public company than in the case of a private treaty sale, but occasionally we have sold off public companies in tranches as in the case of Cable and Wireless.
The right hon. Gentleman and a number of others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), expressed concern about the report on museums and galleries. I am not sure whether the report fully recognised that the Committee's concerns are already being addressed.
Improved corporate planning is being required of all the main museums and galleries. In 1987 we introduced three-year planning which makes it easier for them to plan ahead. In 1988 we announced a major increase in grant-in-aid for building and maintenance work, and the funding emphasis on conservation, storage and documentation has been enhanced. The total provision for museums and galleries has risen from £158 million in 1988–89 to £182 million in 1990–91—a 15 per cent. increase —and will reach £200 million in 1992–93—a 27 per cent. increase. That will provide a considerable increase in resources available to museums and galleries to carry out the work which the Committee rightly recognised is so important.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough that record-keeping will be an important aspect of corporate planning required of museums and galleries and I understand that many museums are using computerised records which will give them a much better ability to identify what they have in their collections.
The report mentioned by the greatest number of right hon. and hon. Members was that dealing with coronary heart disease. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) were disappointed in the fall in the United Kingdom rate of coronary heart disease. I understand that the fall has been greatest in countries where the level of disease initially was the highest. It is not
924
as high in the United Kingdom as in a number of other countries. It has declined here, particularly among younger groups, among which it fell 30 per cent. between 1970 and 1985. Those younger groups seem to be maintaining a more healthy lifestyle as they move into the older age groups, along with me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members emphasised what they saw as the disproportion between expenditure on prevention and on treatment. It would not be sensible to expect the numbers to bear any mechanical or arithmetical relationship. We recognise the importance of prevention, and in England we are introducing the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, which I understand is the first multifaceted campaign in the world directed at coronary heart disease. It recognises the many aspects that render people liable to the disease. Quite considerable sums are being spent, not only from the public purse but by private companies, which are being encouraged to participate in the campaign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the importance of tobacco taxes. They are a crucial way of discouraging smoking, which is a major cause of heart disease. In my previous capacity—Lilley of lacuna—I was the guilty man responsible for not raising tobacco taxes as much as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would wish. I assure the House that the Treasury discusses this issue closely with the Department of Health and takes health considerations into account. It is in part because of that, and apart from our insatiable desire for money, that we have such a high tax on tobacco. As I recall, it has increased in real terms by about 40 per cent. since 1979. The main decline in the use of tobacco over the years resulted from cultural changes, undoubtedly helped by the rise in tobacco tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West mentioned the importance of defibrillators and training for ambulance personnel. The voluntary extended training of ambulance staff is new; 1988–89 was the first full year of the National Health Service training authority's package. It is not therefore surprising that some doctors and consultants find it difficult to accept that a sea change is taking place and that ambulance staff are now capable of being trained for, and able to supply, advanced resuscitation and life-saving skills. The Department of Health is convinced that paramedic training and practice will form an increasingly important element within the accident and emergency ambulance service, which is why the proposal for increased salary to paramedics was made. We are taking action on that front.
Mr. Page: I appreciate the advances that are being made, but does not my hon. Friend find it frightening that only last year we began to get our act together on this vital matter? The spread of best practice and the introduction of defibrillators should have been done by the National Health Service through the Department of Health years ago, not last year. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?
Mr. Lilley: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but many of those better qualified than he or I believed until quite recently that it was not desirable for treatment to be carried out by ambulance personnel. Who are we to ignore medical advice? My hon. Friend's attitude is much more in tune with the majority of the medical profession than it was in the past.

925
The other medical report that we debated was on the use of operating theatres in the National Health Service. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that it is a matter of concern that such important pieces of plant and equipment are not fully utilised. He said that only half the available theatre time was fully employed. That is significant. The report gives a figure of 20 per cent. spare capacity. That demonstrates that there is scope for improving value for money in the Health Service. I noted a comment in the report that:
"Traditional practices and habits, framed for the convenience of consultants and staff, must be revised as necessary".
That is in line with the Government's attitude and probably with the attitude of the whole House. Indeed, it is part of the philosophy of our planned National Health Service reforms, although they will not necessarily have universal support.
The NHS reforms wil help make better use of operating theatres within the NHS by making two changes. First, contractual arrangements for health care will become more widespread. Hospitals will have a direct incentive to use their facilities efficiently, attract patients and use theatres more fully because cash will follow the patient. That is a vital and important reform of the NHS which will encourage greater efficiency. The other change will be in capital accounting. Until now, there has been no proper capital accounting in the NHS so it is not surprising that proper use is not always made of the large amount of capital resources in the NHS.
I now come to the report on the highway maintenance backlogs, which was mentioned by several right hon. and hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne who is Chairman of the PAC said that roads were not built to last long enough and that the Department of Transport would prefer to press on with building roads rather than fill gaps in knowledge about road design. The United Kingdom is a leader in road design backed by major research programmes. Over the years, national roads have usually performed better than expected by carrying more traffic than they were designed for before having to be rebuilt. Designs were substantially upgraded in 1985 and roads are now being built to last 40 years before they need to be rebuilt.
Over £670 million was spent on the capital maintenance of national roads and bridges over the past three years. That is a 220 per cent. increase in real terms over the 1978–79 budget.
The Autumn Statement prepared by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury showed that we would spend £1·3 billion on capital maintenance on roads over the next three years which is a further real increase of 40 per cent. Planned spending over the next three years should be enough to eliminate backlogs of road maintenance as currently estimated. That will be welcomed by members of the Committee, both in their capacity as guardians of the public purse and as frequent users of the motorways.
The next report is on the reliability and maintainability of defence equipment. The Ministry of Defence is in full accord with the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations about improved procurement procedures. A director of reliability was appointed in July 1989. The Ministry is reviewing the future requirement for reliability
926
and maintenance specialists both within the directorate of reliability and in the service departments and other parts of the procurement executive to support that increased emphasis. The services defect reporting systems are being reviewed to see how they can be adapted to provide information for statistical analysis to support the plans for improvement. Greater attention will be paid to life cycle costs at all stages of projects and the new emphasis has been widely publicised within the services. The Ministry of Defence and the industry are being made aware of it by meetings, seminars and video presentations, all of which have attracted considerable interest.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne commented on the report on urban development corporations. The report was a little out of date when it was published because it was overtaken by other developments. Many of the suggestions for tighter control and monitoring have been implemented since the Comptroller and Auditor General's report was published. The new urban development corporations have been set up, taking into account his criticisms of earlier guidance, and a comprehensive guidebook has been issued to all UDCs together with a revised financial memorandum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West made several points about the road planning report. The Department of Transport has studied the PAC report carefully. It is not complacent about traffic forecasting methods and there is no evidence that the methods are fundamentally flawed. It has a system of checking forecasts against actual traffic, as the Committee recommended. Of the 41 road schemes cited, 60 per cent. had forecasts with an accuracy within plus or minus 20 per cent.—that is within the level of accuracy determined by the technique. Those checks show that there is no systematic bias. Forecasting errors at the extreme of minus 50 per cent. up to 105 per cent. were quoted. They were largely due to planned changes in land use not taking place. Traffic forecasting is inherently uncertain. The methods have been and will continue to be improved. The new national road traffic forecast provides a more up-to-date basis for appraising road schemes. I am pleased to note that my hon. Friend was encouraged by the Treasury response to the report and by the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".
My hon. Friend mentioned his anxiety about the environment associated with the future widening of the M25. The consultants' report has been published and the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment has been expanded and asked to examine the evaluation of environmental effects.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) apologised to the House for leaving early and we are grateful for that apology. We welcome his speech. He is an hon. Member for whom I have great respect when he is not muck-raking. He commented on information in reports to Parliament, particularly about the secret services and GCHQ. The House has long accepted that it is not in the public interest to reveal details of the security and intelligence services, but the NAO has full access to expenditure on GCHQ. Given the nature of the expenditure on the secret vote, there are long-standing conventions that Parliament has accepted that there should not be detailed external examination of that expenditure, but obviously the PAC can examine it in private session.

927
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough raised an important point about the public sector borrowing requirement and its arcane definition. I can well understand that he may be puzzled by it. It has perplexed me in the past. It is a complicated matter, but there is logic behind the definition. As he said, if a subsidiary of the Commonwealth development corporation borrows abroad to lend abroad, it does not count against the PSBR for the good reason that it has no impact on the British economy. Borrowing by British Nuclear Fuels plc does not count against the PSBR because it is a Companies Act company borrowing on the ordinary markets. The Government's guarantee of that borrowing does not involve any expenditure unless the guarantee is called, in which case any Government payment would count as public expenditure.
Sir Michael Shaw: Government agencies or local government could often adopt the same policies as those of British Nuclear Fuels. The arguments are more or less the same. That would allow it to compete in the open market for genuine, commercial objectives that are necessary. I cannot help but feel that from time to time the Government use the PSBR definition to stop developments. Certainly the variations due to Government changes in policy on PSBR make continuous planning in some areas uncertain.
Mr. Lilley: I understand what my hon. Friend says. What is surely not in doubt is that the Government must exercise control over public sector borrowing. I can understand the difficulties of comprehension to which companies such as BNFL give rise. Plainly, the solution to all our problems of definition is to privatise as much as possible and have a much smaller public sector to which the definition will apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) spoke in telling terms of his concern about prisons and law and order and I recognise the importance of the matters that he raised. The Treasury minute responds to some of them, notably on prison building where the programme is on target to yield an additional
928
7,000 places at new establishments by March 1993 and a further 2,500 new places at existing establishments somewhat earlier, in March 1991. In addition, there is a new programme of integral sanitation which should provide 6,500 cells with access to it within the next seven years. Ways of expanding that programme are being considered. However, I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the matters that my hon. Friend has raised and I am sure that he will be influenced by them. If my hon. Friend permits, I shall write to him about some of the more detailed aspects that he drew to the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield appealed for a change in the format of the Treasury minutes. The Treasury is happy to redraft the form of those minutes in order to meet the wishes of the Committee and I hope that the next minute, which will be presented to the House early in the new year, will be in a form that better meets my hon. Friend's wishes and those of the Committee as a whole.
On that happy note I shall end my contribution to the debate. I renew the debt of gratitude that the whole House owes to the members of the Committee and to hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 37th to 40th and 42nd to 52nd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1987–88, of the 1st to 33rd Reports of Session 1988–89 and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memorandum on those Reports (Cm. 533, 563, 624, 648, 697, 717, 747, 831 and 850), with particular reference to the following Reports:—
1987–88:
Forty-fourth, Quality of service to the public at DHSS local offices;
Forty-eighth, Sale of Royal Ordnance plc.
1988–89:
First, Management of the collections of the English national museums and galleries;
Twenty-sixth, Coronary heart disease;
Twenty-eighth, Backlog of maintenance of motorways and trunk roads;
Thirty-first, Reliability and maintainability of defence equipment.

PETITIONS

  Deaf Television Viewers
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by more than 1,200 of my constituents and other citizens of the city of Leicester on behalf of deaf television viewers. The petition draws attention to the fact that broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example, with subtitles or sign language. It states that at least 4 million viewers are affected and that deaf viewers, as equal members of the general public, are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
  The prayer calls upon the Government and the House to ensure that legislation is
  passed 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.
  May we please help deaf people to understand the debates in this House when they are shown on television?
  It is a pleasure to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Like the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I have pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of deaf people in and around my constituency, including my daughter, who is profoundly deaf.
  The petitioners are strongly of the view that the arrangements for televising the House do not provide complete access for deaf television viewers, specifically by the use of sign language and the provision of subtitles. They point out that some 4 million people in the United Kingdom are affected by deafness, and that they are as entitled to equal access to television broadcasting of Parliament as other members of the community. If they are to participate in the democratic and political process, it is essential that they are provided with that support.
  The petitioners therefore pray
  that your Honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed 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.
  I have pleasure in presenting this petition, which I wholly support.
  To lie upon the Table.

Rural Schools (Humberside)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
9.45 pm
Mr. David Davis: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting my subject for the Adjournment debate. Rural schools in Humberside face specific problems. I will come to the details in a moment, but I suspect that those problems are replicated in many counties with large rural areas and a majority urban population.
In recent years, much of Government policy has focused on the problems of the inner cities, recognising the specific problems there and attempting to do something about them. On the obverse side, there is a general belief that life is healthier in rural areas and that people in small towns and villages have a better quality of life than people in cities. They have less unemployment, less crime and fewer social problems. In my view, rural life is better than urban life, and I think that it should be made available to as many people as possible.
The quality of rural life is reflected in the schools, which have fewer behavioural problems, more parental involvement and a more positive attitude among the children. Accordingly educational attainment levels in rural schools are as good as—and sometimes better than —those in big urban schools. All those are virtues to be cherished. The thrust of my argument is that in Humberside all those virtues are at risk due to a policy of neglect.
Humberside has a large rural area, dominated by three major cities—Hull, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. My constituency of Boothferry is a predominantly rural area in the west of the county, furthest from Hull and Grimsby.
We all know how the mechanism for county councils obtaining money from central Government works—in practice if not in theory. On an annual basis, a typical county council makes a bid, which is almost always for more than the amount that it could reasonably expect to spend, because of the way the system works. It justifies the bid in the best way that it can and the Government agree to meet a proportion of the bid. In the past 50 years the average proportion nationwide has hovered at around 40 per cent. In other words, the Government have paid a typical council an average of 40 per cent. of its bid. Humberside has done much better than that. Although the bids have been large, the Government have allowed more than 60 per cent. of the bid submitted—almost half as much again as the national average. The Government have been generous to Humberside, and that generosity has allowed Humberside to spend £44 million to £45 million in capital on educational establishments.
More than £22 million of that money, however, has been spent on the Hull reorganisation alone. When it is finished, that reorganisation will have cost £23·6 million —50 per cent. more than the original bid. That massive overrun must be put down either to poor planning or to poor control—in other words, to poor management. There is considerable evidence that Humberside is not well blessed with good management in that respect. For example, the Audit Commission study of the provision of school meals in Humberside led to a number of salient

931
criticisms about the way it was managed and identified management weaknesses accounting for some £2 million per year in excess costs.
In the reorganisation, the local authority did not send teachers to the schools that they ought to have attended, but left them for a considerable time in places where they were no longer needed. The local authority then offered an early retirement package so generous and so loosely managed that, instead of the 178 people that it needed to retire, 372 left. The county thus had to pay out for all those extra ones and then employ 200 new ones. That cost at least £4 million, which does not take account of the effect of the loss of a great number of experienced staff.
Such sloppy management is bad news for the ratepayer and the taxpayer, but the capital overrun is even worse news for my constituents in rural areas. For one school after another completion has been deferred, expansion has been put back and replacement has been denied. Many schools in my constituency are now overdue for capital expenditure. The most outstanding—there are many more are the schools at Howden, Walkington and Rawcliffe. So as not to take too much time, I shall take just one as an illustration—the Howden infants school.
Plans for a completely new infants' school were drawn up in the 1960s, and it was opened in 1971. At that time, the school operated on a split site—the new site, called Hailgate, and the old site, called Pinfold. As a temporary measure, in 1981, the children were moved from the Pinfold site to the Hailgate site and the Pinfold site was sold. The money from the sale went back to the county council. The children were put in temporary buildings on the new site. The county council got the money, but provided only half the school.
I will read an extract from a letter from a constituent, who takes up the story and describes better than I can what has happened since. She writes:
"For the past 8 and a half years, more children have been housed in temporary classrooms than in permanent accommodation. Continuous housing developments in Howden during the past 10 years have led to increased numbers of children at the school. In the summer term of 1986 there were 199 pupils on the roll. It does not take a mathematician to work out 3 x 30 in each mobile classroom plus 80 in a permanent building adds up to 170. That is a theoretical accommodation level at 29 less than the actual pupil numbers. In the summer of 1987 pupil numbers stood at 189. Having experienced severe difficulties the previous summer, pressure was brought to bear and the authorities agreed to the school's use of a vacant classroom in the adjoining junior school. Such a measure would not be possible in the future as the junior school is now at full capacity. The numbers for summer 1989 were 164, within the school's present capacity, but it is predicted that pupil numbers will rise again in the next few years. Numbers at the moment are expected to be 165 in 1990, 178 in 1991 and 180 in 1992."
I think that those are very optimistic and low estimates.
The letter continues:
"In December 1988, Humberside County Council stated that late January 1990 start and completion of the building was expected and there was no intention of delay, unless the current budget review dictated otherwise. Following a visit by the assistant education officer (sites and buildings) it is now understood that the completion is unlikely to take place for at least two years. The proposed completion (or extension as the authority mistakenly call it) has been in the building estimates for several years. Each year the authority has deferred the building programme.
The reason given this time is that the County Council has discovered that it needs to build a new school in Hull's dockside area. Why should Howden have to suffer for the County's poor planning and lack of foresight? It is not even known how large a school will be needed. Children from the
932
new Dock side area could be bussed to one of Hull's half empty schools as a temporary measure. The children of Howden are here now; they are not a projected figure for the future and they should have their school completed now. It always seems to be the case that money is available for building in the cities but not in the rural areas."
That view is widely held by my constituents. Indeed, it is a commonplace belief. The letter continues:
"This year 77 year 1 and year 2 children aged 5 to 7 years are starting the new year in mobile classrooms; they have to trek across the yard to the toilets, to the hall for Physical Education, movement, dance and drama and collective worship. It is time wasting, and on a wet day they are soaked, and on very cold days it is just miserable and unnecessary. Please can something be done now?"
That letter is calm, collected and factual, but for all that, it is a plea from the heart from someone who has children in a school that is more than half temporary and has been so for a long time.
It is not the only case. From my own visit there, Walkington seems to be a similar problem. Rawcliffe school is so old and bedraggled that it needs complete replacement. The reasons for the delays and deferrals given by various representatives of the county council vary enormously—so much so that they smack of excuses rather than reasons. Sometimes they say that the school will be completed, and sometimes that it will not be, either because there are plans for a new school in Howden or because the money is to be used for something else.
I illustrate that with a response from the director of education explaining why Howden is to be deferred again, just one more time. He blames the Government first, of course, for not meeting his bid in full. He then says that there is only enough money for four new schemes. He writes:
"One element of the new scheme is a new primary school to serve the new housing development in the Victoria Dock area of Hull. This is a development which has been planned since we planned the Hull Schools reorganisation."
That would be in about 1986. The letter continues:
"There are no schools that are within reasonable distance of the new houses which could provide relief."
"Reasonable distance" is, of course, a rather subjective measure. Many of my constituents' children travel much further than the whole diameter of Hull to get to school, and they have no alternative. The letter continues:
"The size of the school is 240 places and facility to expand to 360. You will understand that forecasting the size of a school in this housing development is difficult until the mix of housing types is known. We are now confident we know the balance and can forecast accurately. I am sure that you will appreciate that substantial developments such as this constantly bring new factors into our planning process."
In other words, the Hull school has been planned since about 1986. Howden has been planned, nominally, since 1981. The Hull school is for predicted numbers, whereas the Howden completion is for current numbers of pupils and Howden is already overcrowded. The county council's priorities will prevent pupils in Hull having to travel perhaps a mile to another school by frequent bus services. Many of the children at Howden school have to travel quite considerable distances and there is no alternative.
There is a saying in my constituency that Humberside is longhand for Hull. Such political favouritism towards Labour-voting urban areas is, I suppose to be expected, but it is unacceptable that it should continue year after year to the penalty of my constituents' children.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to allocate the money for this year's budget for Humberside to specific projects so that my constituents could be

933
guaranteed fair treatment, but I know that that is no longer an option under current rules. The law expects and assumes that the county council will behave in a responsible manner. However, I ask my hon. Friend to make a generous allocation to Humberside again. Humberside has particular needs and I have no dispute with the county council about the fact that those needs —not least the reorganisation of schools in Goole which is also in my constituency—will prove expensive.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear to Humberside, however, that in giving it a generous allocation, he expects it to behave fairly towards the rural schools, especially those in my constituency. The other parts of Humberside have the same right to a good education and proper facilities for their children as are enjoyed by children in the Labour areas of Hull. When my hon. Friend reviews the bid in subsequent years, he should take into consideration just how the money given this year is used and whether the rural population has had a fair deal, because I want a fair deal for rural children in Humberside—no more and no less.
9.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to him for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the important issues that he raised tonight. I have noted, of course, what he has said about the way in which Humberside local education authority has proceeded in implementing the reorganisation proposals and his belief that, as a consequence, rural schools have been neglected. I can well understand his feelings of frustration and those of his constituents as they see much needed work on their schools deferred. I know that projects have been planned but not yet implemented for work at the schools to which he has referred—Howden, Hook, Airmyn, Rawcliffe and Walkington.
I appreciate the difficulties that pupils, teachers and parents have experienced at Howden. My hon. Friend has been in contact with the authority and with us about Howden. Howden infant school is a named school for a 120 basic need extension in the authority's bid for the coming year. It has, however, as my hon. Friend suggested, featured in the authority's bids in previous years, along with other basic need projects—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended—
10.2 pm
On resuming—
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Mr. Howarth: As I was saying, Howden featured in the authority's bids in previous years. As basic need was allowed for in the allocation made to the authority in the past it would seem that it has decided not to give priority to this project and presumably has channelled its allocation into the reorganisations. I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that my Department cannot direct a local education authority on how it should spend its
934
money. The authority is responsible to its electorate for its spending policies, capital and recurrent. In the case of recurrent expenditure, the community charge will make all authorities more directly accountable to their electorates. It is my hon. Friend's constituents who must make their voices heard if there is to be criticism of the way in which Humberside local education authority has spent the money provided for it.
Humberside LEA, in common with every other, has received allocations from us over and above those calculated as necessary to implement proposals for school reorganisation for spending on improvements to other schools, including those in rural areas. If my hon. Friend does not consider that the resources available to the authority have been properly distributed, these are matters for him to continue to take up with the authority, as he has done already on behalf of his constituents.
My hon. Friend has referred to the reorganisation in his constituency—the Goole area—and in particular to the significant increase in the costs of the project. I understand that that has arisen as a result of the authority bowing to local pressure. It has developed, or is in the course of developing, a modern sixth form centre for pupils at the local comprehensive school in the premises of Bartholomew school, a former middle school. This was originally intended to house a primary school. It is now proposed to establish the primary school instead in the premises of the former Boothferry road first school, again in deference to local wishes. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that approval of the new proposal has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the authority notified accordingly.
I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will be glad that their pleas in respect of the proposed new primary school have not been in vain.
I note my hon. Friend's view that not enough money has been allocated for the Goole reorganisation, and that the authority has spent disproportionately large sums on the establishment of the new sixth form centre. I can only say that the estimated cost of the original proposals, as indicated by the local education authority, was fully taken into account in Humberside's allocations. Where an authority chooses to increase expenditure, or where cost increases occur, these have to be absorbed within its existing capital programme. It is up to local education authorities to get their costings as accurate as possible.
On the more general question of capital resources for schools, the Humberside LEA has submitted ambitious plans for capital spending to my Department. So have all the other local education authorities in England. I am glad to be able to remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State secured an increase for local authority capital, and for grants to voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools, in this year's public expenditure round. This extra provision will allow continued progress on improvement programmes in schools. Allocations to individual authorities of what are now to be called annual capital guidelines under the new capital control system will be announced by Christmas. We shall be looking at Humberside's needs, including the needs of some of the schools he has described which feature in the authority's plans, against that background. But I would not seek to give the House the impression that what we can distribute will meet all the spending needs identified by all local education authorities.

935
Hon. Members will have seen the Labour party's report published on Monday on the state of our schools. It is an opportunist and emotive document. Many of the figures are wrong, and some of the conclusions drawn are fanciful. But we would be the first to recognise that a great deal needs to be done to the fabric of schools all over the country to bring them up to scratch and to fit them for delivery of the high standards of education to which parents and teachers alike aspire, not least in the rural areas, and which our children should have. Local education authorities, and governors of voluntary aided schools, spend substantial sums of money each year in tackling the problem. They do this by means of borrowing power which we distribute, of receipts generated by sales of education assets—typically school sites sold as part of a reorganisation —by the use of revenue funds, and grant from the Department in the case of voluntary aided schools. Of course there is never enough to satisfy. The same is true of all public spending programmes.
Capital spending per pupil has nevertheless increased by 10 per cent. in real terms since we came into office. But more needs to be done, and it is against that background that there is to be an increase in local authority capital guidelines and in the money available for grant to governors of voluntary aided schools to which I referred earlier.
As in recent years, priority will be given first to meeting committed expenditure on projects outstanding from previous years. This stands Humberside in good stead because of the large-scale reorganisations approved in Grimsby and Goole which are still being implemented. Priority is next given to meeting the cost of new school places in areas of population growth, and then to removing surplus places. I know that new places for schools in my hon. Friend's constituency figure in Humberside's plans submitted to us. Any remaining funds are distributed to LEAs through an objective formula for spending on school improvements. I must stress that this is the basis for our calculations of entitlement at the Department of Education and Science. How local education authorities choose to spend the money generated by the borrowing power we distribute is up to them. They will be free to supplement this from proceeds of receipts, and from revenue—including the proceeds of the community charge—if they wish.
My hon. Friend suggests that not enough has been allocated to Humberside in recent years. I have yet to meet an hon. Member who tells me that his authority has had a sufficient allocation of capital for schools. What is available within public expenditure constraints has to be shared out as equitably as possible. But, as my hon. Friend generously acknowledged, Humberside has done better than most authorities in recent years in terms of the percentage of its plans covered-72 per cent. in 1987, 53 per cent. in 1988, and 55 per cent. in 1989, against averages for all LEAs of 38 per cent., 39 per cent. and 34 per cent. I am pleased that we were able to offer Humberside an extra allocation this autumn of £213,000 to meet the need for new school places in place of a crumbling school—an example in Humberside of how bogus the Labour party is to claim that we do not care.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the difficulties under which rural schools labour, and the need to safeguard rural life. I entirely agree. It is immensely important that authorities ensure that rural communities have a fair share of the services that they deserve. As for education, we are
936
well seized of the difficulties that rural primary schools face. Humberside is one of the local education authorities that has benefited from the education support grant programme launched by my Department four years ago to help broaden and enrich the curriculum in rural primary schools. The Department recognised, long before the Education Reform Act and the national curriculum, that small rural primary schools can have real difficulties in ensuring a rich curriculum experience for their children, and that such schools can only too often suffer from isolation, lack of opportunity for contact between pupils and their peer groups, and little chance for teachers, and even head teachers, to compare notes. That is why we have paid grant—at 70 per cent.—on expenditure of some £1·5 million per annum by the 14 local education authorities concerned, all of which had a substantial number of small rural primary schools, as pump-priming funding for a series of projects, developed according to the way in which each authority thinks that the funding should best be used.
We have commissioned an evaluation study from Leicester university of the effects of the education support grant programme so that other authorities, which are not participants in the present programme, can benefit from the lessons learnt. But it is already possible to assert that the programme in general has been successful in meeting its prime objectives in reducing the isolation of small primary schools in our countryside, and enabling pupils to benefit from a richer variety of experience. As it happens, the programme could not have been better timed. Schools which have benefited from the programme, in Humberside and elsewhere, have told us that experience gained from projects funded by the programme has been invaluable in coming to terms with the introduction of the national curriculum.
In Humberside, for example, the local education authority has used education support grant money to fund the costs of five advisory teachers to offer a range of specialist curriculum expertise to schools where otherwise it would not be available. The teaching areas that they have chosen to cover are craft, design and technology, art, expressive arts, and environmental studies. One of their particular briefs is to explore ways of maintaining a degree of specialist teaching in these areas after the withdrawal of teacher consultants. This will enable schools to be more confident about curriculum development in these areas, which are important parts of the national curriculum, and which many small rural schools might not be able otherwise easily to deliver.
I should like to end by thanking my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the consequences of decisions by his local education authority of changes in priorities for capital spending—consequences which impact directly on the quality of life in the rural areas that he represents. I am as concerned as he to see the quality of rural life safeguarded and enhanced. Rural areas must share in the increase in prosperity which the Government have helped to bring about since we have held office. This applies as much to the fabric of schools as it does to roads and other services.
My hon. Friend asked me to be generous to Humberside, and I assure him that I shall do my best to ensure that resources are made available to the Humberside local education authority at a level which reflects its needs and the needs of rural areas as far as is compatible with the need that we have to be fair to all authorities within the funds at our disposal.

Education (Industrial Links)
10.14 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for keeping him at the crease at this late hour, but I promise to be brief. I welcome this opportunity to talk about the important subject of the requirement and the necessity for industrial links with education. I want to speed on the cultural change taking place between education and industry and to help our school leavers to understand the importance of industry.
Going back a few years, I remember a story that did the rounds about a school teacher who took a number of her charges to a factory. As she loaded them into the coach to return to school, she said, "There you are, children, that's where you'll end up if you don't pass your exams." Unfortunately, that was part of the cultural thinking within the education system at that time. It is a silly story, but it has a grain of truth. That approach must be changed.
I know that over the years attempts have been made to change attitudes. A few years ago it was industrial year and many hon. Members spoke to schools and to industry. I was grateful to the Eastern Electricity board—one might regard it as an unlikely vehicle—which ran a vigorous campaign to bring schools and industry closer. I could not help thinking at the time, "I bet that in Japan every year is industrial year." The industrial links between education and the factories that produce Japanese products are well known. The French education system tries to avoid any form of selection, but for fifth and sixth formers it is the Baccalaureate "C" that has the social cachet connected with maths and science. French parents are proud to say that their sons or daughters have the "C".
On another tack, which I regularly raise in the House, it is a sad fact that of the G7 industrial countries Britain is lowest of the pile in manufacturing investment. In research and development, as a percentage of gross national product, we are lowest in the pile, and the amount we spend on training makes us lowest of the pile. However, the efforts being made by my hon. Friend's Department to give to industry the responsibility for training is beginning to bear fruit and there is a great realism within industry.
It is clear that industry must work a great deal harder to establish links with the classroom and to inspire the young to the view that industry is the future of this country. Teachers must overcome any previous taint that industry is somehow second class. The future economy of our country rests with industry, and I look forward to what my hon. Friend has to say on this matter.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I very much welcome his choice of subject.
Since the industrial revolution we have seen what might be called the acceleration of history. The rate of change has grown faster, and it grows faster still, and we have to be able to adapt successfully to these rapidly changing technological and economic conditions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the 1990s will present us with problems and opportunities different from those we have
938
experienced in the 1970s and 1980s. We cannot hope to predict all of these, but some of them are clear now and it is by no means too early to be planning our strategies to deal with them.
The quality of life for all of us depends on the extent to which our business community—the people who generate the wealth—can cope with the kind of changes of which I speak, and the education system has, as my hon. Friend said, a vital part to play in helping business to succeed.
Our young school leavers will have open to them opportunities that our predecessors would have envied, and a good many of them are getting ready to seize those chances. However, as Louis Pasteur put it,
"chance favours only the prepared mind."
The corollary is, of course, that mischance visits the unprepared.
There are now only three short years until the single European market comes into effect in 1992. But beyond the EC lies wider international competition and, of course, the pressure of accelerated scientific and technological innovation.
We must also remember another factor—the demographic time bomb. By the mid-1990s there will be I million fewer 16 to 19-year-olds than in the mid-1980s. Therefore, school leavers will be in a stronger bargaining position than ever before, and that is important. The firms that will be able to attract and retain young people in an increasingly competitive future will be those which offer worthwhile training, the firms that are positively regarded in the local community, the firms that go into schools and the firms that are known to pupils and teachers.
The last decade has seen a tremendous growth in links between schools and the business world. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that about 90 per cent. of secondary schools now have links with local firms, and more than half of primary schools as well. In the mid-1970s, under 15 per cent. of final-year pupils had been placed in industry for full work experience. By last year this had risen to more than 70 per cent. of all eligible pupils.
However, as my hon. Friend said, there is still more to be done, in terms of both quantity and quality, and much of the onus lies with industry. The CBI business education task force report of last autumn found that more than half the respondents to the business questionnaire had no regular links with secondary schools in 1987, and that very many more small and medium sized companies will need to be recruited to the links effort if we are to meet our targets for work experience. It was schools rather than businesses that were taking the lead in establishing links.
The best way for business to influence the future and to improve its own productive and creative capacity is to become involved now in the schools and colleges. Education-industry links are not a fringe activity. They are not a luxury. It is those firms that are working with schools now who will be best placed to continue to recruit school leavers. In addition, crucially, they will also be best placed to influence the education those young people have received, to ensure that the knowledge, skills and attitudes they gain from their time in school are those that will best fit them for adult life.
To compete successfully as a nation we will need to exploit all our resources to the full, and a major resource is a properly educated and well-motivated work force. Therefore, it is a major thrust of Government policy that the school experience of young people should prepare

939
them for the responsibilities of adult and working life. Economic awareness should run through many aspects of a child's education. It will be a cross-curricular requirement and an important influence.
The appreciation of economic realities is a necessary complement to the broad scientific and humane education that we regard as necessary for all our children.
The responsibility for giving young people the skills they need rests with both schools and employers. I have mentioned what the CBI task force had to say about the level of business involvement. Its report also made clear that what business wants from education is not specific vocational training but a broad and flexible base of knowledge, skills and attitudes upon which pupils can develop their own talents. Young people should be able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing; be numerate; have basic screen and keyboard skills, and have a developed sense of responsibility. Business also puts considerable stress on positive attitudes to work, to change, to self-development and to team work—without which knowledge and skills cannot be applied effectively in the workplace.
That willingness on behalf of businesses to help in our schools is becoming more common. The new relationship between schools and business is one of partnership. As we labour to make our schools better attuned to the realities and challenges of economic life, so we are entitled to expect employers to take advantage of the invitation to become involved in education.
The Government's changes to the constitution of school governing bodies should make it easier for schools to draw on advice from people with business experience. One could put it like this: the changes mean, and are intended to mean, that schools and teachers are now in a relationship with business partners. I do not exaggerate the case. A National Foundation for Educational Research survey commissioned by my Department this summer found that 42 per cent. of the membership of reconstituted
940
governing bodies came from business, the professions, retail and technical occupations and engineering; and of course we are working to help teachers expand their own knowledge of the business world. Contrary to many people's belief, many schools have teachers with experience of work other than teaching. But this is an area where more is better, and the teacher placement service, funded through the DTI's enterprise and education initiative, aims to offer 10 per cent. of teachers each year the opportunity of a placement in business.
The Government are convinced of the virtues of close links between education and business. We have launched a number of major initiatives to bring schools into closer contact with the world of work—such as TVEI, which requires work experience and is currently being extended nationwide at a cost of £900 million; the provision in every LEA of a work experience adviser; and the teacher placement service. We provide support to a wide range of bodies that promote and arrange school-industry links. And, by no means least, the national curriculum will ensure that the education that our children receive is more relevant to the world of work—and thus to their needs throughout their lives—than ever before.
I must not finish without paying tribute to the work of the teachers in schools, without whose efforts the position would not be so dramatically improved. The Government have brought about the climate in which the improvements of the last decade have occurred. But the actual formation of worthwhile links between a school and local firms requires energy and commitment at local level. Those teachers who have worked so hard in the last decade to bring about such links—and who, aided by the framework of the national curriculum, will, I know, continue that development—deserve our praise and gratitude.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what are the numbers of(a) deaf, (b) blind and (c) wheelchair-bound civil servants that are currently employed; and what percentage they form of the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  At 1 June 1989, there were 7,682 staff employed in the Civil Service who are registered as disabled. This represents 1·3 per cent. of all civil servants. No comprehensive Civil Service—wide information is available about the number of civil servants who are deaf, blind or wheelchair-bound or about the numbers of civil servants who are disabled but who have chosen not to register under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

THE ARTS

  Theatres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Arts how many theatres he has visited in the last 12 months; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Luce
  I have made 19 such visits since December 1988. In that month I visited the Apollo theatre, Shaftesbury avenue, and the Unity theatre, Liverpool. In 1989 I have so far visited Sadlers Wells (on 18 January and 3 April); the Old Vic (16 February); the Royal National theatre (1 March); the Tricycle theatre (8 March); the Mercury theatre, Colchester (22 March); the Derby Playhouse (25 April); the Marlowe theatre, Canterbury (3 May); the Theatre Royal, Norwich (8 June); the Theatre Royal, Margate (30 June); the Stephen Joseph theatre in the Round, Scarborough (12 July); the Cricklade theatre, Romsey (14 July); the Hawth theatre, Crawley (28 July); the Theatre Royal, Newcastle (12 September); the Theatre Royal, Brighton (27 October); the Theatre Royal, Bury St. Edmunds (9 November); and the Savoy theatre (28 November. On 1 December I shall again visit the Unity theatre, Liverpool.

  Drama, West Glamorgan
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to increase the percentage of grants that his Department allocates to drama in West Glamorgan.

  Mr. Luce
  The funding of drama in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Arts Council.

  Drama and Museums
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what studies he commissioned and what research surveys he drew on as the basis for his statement of 27 November,Official Report, column 432 that Britain has the highest standards for drama and museums.

  Mr. Luce
  My statement reflected what many people have said. It is unnecessary to spend public money on research in this field: the evidence should be plain for the hon. Member to see, visit and enjoy.

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

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 19 July at column 180, I am pleased to announce that three offers of items have been accepted in lieu of tax; a portrait of Sir Alexander Carew attributed to Gheerhaerdts, a painting by Pissarro, and eight Islamic pottery tiles. The lax liability satisfied was £103,976·42, £73,040 and £42,000 respectively. The Carew portrait will remain in situ at Antony house, Cornwall and the Pissarro painting will go to the Whitworth art gallery, Manchester. The ceramic tiles originally formed part of the Godman collection which was accepted in lieu of tax in 1983 and they will now be allocated to the British museum to join the rest of that collection.

WALES

  Employment
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by how much employment has risen in Wales since 1983.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Over the period June 1983 to June 1989 the civilian work force in employment total has increased by 135,000.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those measures which have been taken since 1985 to increase the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1985 the Housing Corporation, and more recently Housing for Wales, has been asked to pay particular attention to rural areas. Consistently about 25 per cent. of the development programme for housing associations in Wales has, therefore, gone to these areas.

  More specifically, in July 1989, Housing for Wales announced a rural housing initiative to assist local people, and especially young people, to find a suitable home they can afford in their own communities. This initiative will be run on a pilot basis in 31 villages, the majority of homes being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right to return the home eventually to the relevant housing association.

  In addition, Housing for Wales has recently commissioned two research projects on rural housing issues. These will consider the nature and extent of need

  337
  for housing for young people throughout rural Wales and will assist Housing for Wales in the development of its future strategy to meet the needs of rural areas.

  In June this year a draft planning guidance, "Low cost housing in rural areas in Wales", was issued for consultation and we are currently considering the responses received.

  In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced changes to capital gains and inheritance taxes on land sold at less than best price to registered housing associations. Tax is now based on the actual proceeds of sale rather than the market value, thereby encouraging landowners to release small units of surplus land for low-cost local housing needs.

  Local authorities also have a very important role to play both in assessing local housing requirements and in seeking to achieve the most cost-effective means of matching them. In addition to the general resources that the Department has made available to Welsh authorities we have also allocated £1 million this year between nine authorities to purchase homes which would otherwise become second homes and then to make those homes available to local people.

  The Department is working with rural authorities and other agencies in Wales to help to broker best practice in meeting rural needs.

  Rural Unemployment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what form he keeps figures for rural unemployment in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There is no classification by which unemployment areas can readily or systematically be categorised as rural or urban.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people are now classified as homeless in Wales; and what steps he is taking to reduce that figure;

  (2) if he will make a statement on homelessness legislation in Wales;

  (3) what plans he has to deal with the homeless in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The normal measure of statutory homelessness is given by cases accepted by local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985. The number of persons in households accepted during the second quarter of 1989 (April to June) was 4,832. The Department is in touch with a wide range of organisations concerned with homelessness and a statement will be made soon.

  Land Authority for Wales
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the acreage of land acquired by the Land Authority for Wales for each of the past five years; and if he will separately distinguish those figures by district council area;

  (2) what was the acreage of land owned by the Land Authority for Wales in each district council authority in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Grist
  We have asked the chairman of the Land Authority for Wales to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Rents-into-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to extend his rents-into-mortgages scheme to local authority tenants.

  Mr. Grist
  The scheme is being introduced by the Development Board for Rural Wales on an experimental basis. We shall be assessing its impact within the next 12 months.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to use television advertising to promote his rents-into-mortgages scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the estates owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales, showing their location within Wales; and if he will estimate the average income of eligible tenants for participation in the rents-into-mortgages scheme, for these estates.

  Mr. Grist
  The development board has five estates at Newtown—Trehafren, Treowen, Measydail, Vaynor, and St. Mary's close—and also housing at Bala, Dolgellau, Twyyn, Llandrindod Wells and Abercrave. It is not possible to estimate the average incomes of the development board's tenants with any accuracy.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Development Board for Rural Wales dwellings have been sold to sitting tenants.

  Mr. Grist
  Before the new scheme, 14 per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were classified as homeless in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport in 1979; and what is the most recent figure.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: The number of cases accepted as homeless during 1979 and 1988 is shown in the following table:

  1979

  1988

  Newport

  313

  643

  Gwent

  1,115

  1,671

  Wales

  4,676

  6,818

  The number of persons involved in these cases is 864 and 1,635 (Newport), 2,950 and 3,891 (Gwent) and 12,698 and 17,105 (Wales), for 1979 and 1988 respectively.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will make a statement on the implications for health, education, housing, roads, the environment, tourism and the arts in Wales flowing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Table 1.4 of the Autumn Statement 1989 shows that in round terms my total expenditure
  339
  provision for 1990–91 is £4,460 million. As explained in the statement, the public expenditure picture is affected by the introduction of the new planning total. On this basis the £4,460 million represents an increase of 15·5 per cent. (10 per cent. in real terms) over the forecast outturn for the current year (£3,860 million). Allowing for changes in coverage of Welsh Office programmes between the two years, the increase is 12 per cent. or 6·7 per cent. in real terms. This compares with the average increase of less than 9 per cent. (3·8 per cent. in real terms) for all other departmental programmes.

  I announced yesterday the provision that I have made for local authority capital programmes next year. This provides for gross spending of £475 million, an increase of almost 7 per cent. over the comparable provision for 1989–90.

  I shall be announcing my decisions on other major Welsh Office programmes in due course. Full details of my planned expenditure for the next three years covering all my programmes will be set out in the public expenditure White Paper and the Welsh Office commentary which will be published early next year.

  Health Authorities (Backlog Maintenance)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list, by health authority, the aggregated total figure for each district of estimated backlog maintenance, for the last available date.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is determined annually by district health authorities. They reported for 1988–89 the estimate of the cost of backlog maintenance for their respective districts in the following table:

  £ million

  Clwyd

  19·2

  East Dyfed

  4·5

  Gwent

  14·6

  Gwynedd

  10·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  26·4

  Pembrokeshire

  0·7

  Powys

  1·2

  South Glamorgan

  45·0

  West Glamorgan

  11·1

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will give the total number of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales per 1,000 of the population for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, together with the total for 1989 to the latest date currently available;

  (2) if he will give the total number of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales per 1,000 of the population for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and for 1989 up to the latest date currently available.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) of food poisoning (together with cases as certained by other means) in 1989 totalled 2,670 up to 10 November.

  The annual notification rates per 1,000 population for 1984 to 1988 were shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  0·35

  1985

  0·47

  1986

  0·50

  340

  Year

  Number

  1987

  0·59

  1988

  0·68

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what causes his Department has identified for the increase in incidents of food poisoning in Wales;

  (2) what research he has commissioned into the causes of food poisoning in Wales and ways of reducing incidence in the future;

  (3) what response he has made to the increase in the incidence of food poisoning in Wales; what steps he has taken to reduce future incidence; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he will make it his policy to make additional funds available for local authorities in Wales to strengthen their food inspection and environmental health teams.

  Mr. Grist
  All parts of England and Wales have an increased incidence of reported food poisoning to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. A contributory factor must be an increased awareness of, and therefore increased reporting of, food-borne illness generally.

  The Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food., chaired by Sir Mark Richmond, has been asked to establish whether any rise is linked to changes in agriculture and food production, food technology and distribution, retailing, catering and food handling in the home; and to recommend action where appropriate. After the first meeting, in April 1989, the committee indicated that it aimed to submit its first report as soon as possible.

  The Government have recently announced a series of measures which together will make a significant contribution towards preventing and controlling the incidence of food poisoning.

  The Food Safety Bill was published on 23 November. This is primarily intended to strengthen existing food law and provides improved powers to protect the consumer. In particular, for the first time it will be an offence to supply food that does not comply with food safety requirements. There will be tougher powers for enforcement authorities. In recognition of the additional burdens which will fall upon local authorities, it has been announced that resources totalling £30 million will be made available to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales for 1991–92.

  It is also proposed to amend the food hygiene regulations so as to introduce more stringent temperature controls on certain types of food and to extend these controls into distribution and retailing. These proposals have recently been the subject of a public consultation exercise.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the British Rail Board to publish, for Wales, the results of the consultation process under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We expect the board to publish its plan, which includes Wales, before the Christmas recess.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of total standard spending and aggregate external finance he has proposed for 1990–91; what increase this represents over 1989–90; what is his estimate of the community charge for standard spending in Wales; what are his estimates of the community charges which would be set by individual councils if local authorities budget to spend in 1990–91 at the same level as their income from rates and grant in 1989–90, adjusted for changes in funding arrangements and increased to be consistent in aggregate with total standard spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am proposing to set total standard spending and aggregate external finance (AEF) at £2,114·5 million and £1,738·5 million respectively. Total standard spending would thus increase by 7·1 per cent. and AEF by

  Provisional spending and community charge figures for 1990–911

  Authority

  Standing spending assessment £000

  Expenditure projection2 £000

  Community charge for standard spending £

  District and county council charges2 £

  Difference assuming present spending patterns £

  Total community charge £

  Alyn and Deeside

  6,967

  6,962

  27

  27

  0

  184

  Colwyn

  5,196

  5,484

  27

  34

  +7

  191

  Delyn

  5,695

  6,636

  27

  45

  + 19

  203

  Glyndwr

  3,785

  3,622

  27

  22

  -5

  180

  Rhuddlan

  5,637

  6,466

  27

  46

  + 19

  204

  Wrexham Maelor

  11,122

  11,256

  27

  28

  +2

  186

  Carmarthen

  5,436

  4,701

  27

  10

  -17

  151

  Ceredigion

  6,505

  6,214

  27

  21

  -6

  162

  Dinefwr

  3,499

  2,952

  27

  9

  -18

  150

  Llanelli

  8,285

  9,030

  29

  42

  +13

  183

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  7,041

  6,148

  27

  11

  -16

  152

  South Pembroke

  4,653

  4,093

  27

  10

  -17

  151

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,807

  10,713

  27

  42

  +15

  184

  Islwyn

  8,075

  7,947

  27

  24

  -2

  166

  Monmouth

  6,599

  6,829

  27

  31

  +4

  172

  Newport

  16,125

  16,659

  29

  34

  +5

  176

  Torfaen

  9,604

  9,591

  27

  27

  0

  168

  Aberconwy

  5,270

  5,735

  27

  38

  +11

  170

  Arfon

  6,075

  5,946

  27

  24

  -3

  156

  Dwyfor

  3,596

  3,511

  27

  23

  -4

  155

  Meirionnydd

  3,828

  4,363

  27

  46

  + 19

  178

  Ynys Mon

  7,034

  7,712

  27

  40

  + 13

  172

  Cynon Valley

  8,507

  8,145

  29

  22

  -7

  167

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,000

  7,891

  29

  27

  -2

  172

  Ogwr

  14,959

  15,299

  27

  30

  +3

  175

  Rhondda

  11,923

  10,836

  29

  11

  -18

  156

  Rhymney Valley

  10,490

  11,381

  27

  38

  +12

  183

  Taff Ely

  9,889

  8,559

  27

  8

  -19

  153

  Brecknock

  4,197

  4,022

  27

  22

  -5

  130

  Montgomeryshire

  4,628

  3,992

  27

  11

  -15

  120

  Radnorshire

  2,070

  1,943

  27

  20

  -7

  129

  Cardiff

  29,856

  30,691

  27

  31

  + 4

  163

  Vale of Glamorgan

  10,268

  9,599

  27

  19

  -8

  151

  Port Talbot

  6,259

  6,167

  27

  25

  -2

  208

  Lliw Valley

  5,882

  5,368

  27

  16

  -11

  200

  Neath

  6,924

  6,895

  27

  26

  -1

  210

  Swansea

  23,514

  23,840

  27

  29

  +2

  213

  Clwyd

  225,056

  228,557

  147

  158

  +11

  —

  Dyfed

  203,291

  201,935

  146

  141

  -5

  —

  Gwent

  248,799

  247,225

  146

  141

  -5

  —

  Gwynedd

  141,985

  139,287

  147

  132

  -15

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  319,716

  319,296

  146

  145

  -1

  —

  Powys

  77,887

  74,342

  147

  109

  -38

  —

  South Glamorgan

  226,991

  222,909

  147

  133

  -14

  —

  West Glamorgan

  209,474

  219,651

  147

  184

  +37

  —

  Total districts

  307,200

  307,198

  27

  27

  0

  174

  Total counties

  1,653,200

  1,653,202

  147

  147

  0

  —

  Total Wales

  1,960,400

  1,960,400

  174

  174

  0

  174

  342
  8·6 per cent. compared with the equivalent figure for 1989–90. Both increases provide sufficient resources to enable local councils to meet their obligations without reducing services and without passing extra costs on to their community charge payers. The community charge for standard spending for Wales is £174. This is achievable if all authorities spend in line with my proposals.

  The community charges which could be set by individual councils if they were to spend at the same level as their rates and grants income for 1989–90, increased to equate in total to £2,114·5 million and after adjusting for changes in funding arrangements, are set out in the table. The figures are provisional at this stage and are subject to amendment in the light of final population figures and other data changes. I look to councils in setting their budgets and actual community charges to ensure that their charge payers can share in the benefits of the realistic settlement that I have proposed for 1990–91.
  343

  1 These exemplifications are based on provisional population figures from community charge registers and are subject to change in the light of final population figures and other data. A fuller description is given below. 2 District expenditure figures include community councils' precepts and the district charge includes the average community council charge for the district area.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  The Secretary of State's provisional assessment of the spending level for each authority to be financed by Revenue Support Grant, income from the non-domestic rate pool and community charges in order to provide a standard level of service.

  Expenditure projection
  Each authority's projected spending level, consistent with Standard Spending Assessments, based on 1989–90 budgets adjusted for changes in functions and funding arrangements and inflated to 1990–91 levels.

  Community charge for Standard Spending (CCSS)
  The community charge component each authority could set if it spent in line with its Standard Spending Assessment and if appropriate payments were to be received from all those on the provisional community charges register. Variations in the CCSS between districts or between counties reflect the way library services are provided in each area.

  District and county council charges
  The community charge component each authority could set if it spent in line with its expenditure projection and if appropriate payments were to be received from all those on the provisional community charges register. District charges include the average community council charge for the district area.

  Difference assuming present spending patterns
  The District or county charge minus the CCSS.

  Total Community charge
  The sum of the district (including average community council) and the appropriate county council components of the community charge, assuming each authority spends in line with its expenditure projection.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by community charge registration officers in Wales in compiling community charge registers for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Excellent progress has been made. I have received provisional estimates of registered population as at 9 November from all 37 community charge registration officers in Wales. They show a very high rate of registration. Estimates of adult population from the registers are very close, for all authorities, to the equivalent estimates based on data provided by the registrar general. The total for Wales is slightly above the registrar general's 1988 mid-year estimate.

TRANSPORT

  Birmingham Airport
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in view of its expanding international operations, he will grant gateway status to Birmingham International airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 27 November,Official Report, column 80.

  European Community
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the results of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport; and if he will make a statement.
  344
  Mr. Portillo
  During the United Kingdom's year of holding the Presidency of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) which ended on 23 November, I chaired two regular meetings of the Council of Ministers at which we discussed a wide range of inland transport issues. We also decided to give Hungary and Poland observer status at ECMT Council meetings.

  In June, as President of the ECMT, I invited all Transport Ministers of eastern and western Europe to a meeting in London to discuss the possibilities of closer co-operation on transport matters. This meeting was followed by a similar meeting in Budapest in September at the invitation of the Hungarian Transport Minister, at which we concentrated on road safety issues.

  The final event of the United Kingdom's Presidency was a special session in Paris on 23 November on transport and the environment, in which Transport Ministers and representatives from Environment Ministries from ECMT member states met for the first time and reached a broad agreement on co-ordinated international action to back national initiatives. Ministers agreed that mobility is essential to economic development, but that a balance needs to be struck between transport and environmental needs. Considerable scope exists for further technological advances towards environmentally friendly cars and lorries; fiscal measures also have an important contribution to make, as is demonstrated by the actions taken by several member states, including the United Kingdom, to encourage the use of unleaded petrol. Ministers accepted that transport users should bear the costs which they impose on the infrastructure and the environment.

  Ministers agreed to set up a working group to promote and monitor follow-up action, and to hold a hearing with vehicle manufacturers and the fuel industry. The Swedish Transport Minister, as incoming President of the ECMT, has invited Transport Ministers from eastern and western Europe to a conference on transport and the environment in Stockholm in September 1990.

  The substantial progress made on international, political, transport and environmental protection matters has made this last year one of great importance for the ECMT.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the current size of the United Kingdom merchant fleet is sufficient to provide the support which the Royal Navy would require in time of war.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: The requirement of the Royal Navy for the use of suitable merchant vessels as support in time of transition to war or war is the subject of continuous planning between this Department and the Ministry of Defence. The situation is constantly monitored and there are at present sufficient numbers of these vessels available on the British registry to meet current needs.

  British Rail (Live Rails)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are(a) the total numbers of reported offences, (b) the total number of arrests and (c) the

  345
  numbers of deaths in the areas of live rails, such as those used by British Rail Network SouthEast track for (i) England and Wales and (ii) the Greater London area each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available in the form requested. I can, however, provide details relating to the numbers of fatalities resulting from contact with electrified railway lines for the country as a whole. The figures, taken from the Department's chief inspecting officer's annual reports, are as follows:

  Year

  Passengers killed

  Trespassers killed

  Railway staff killed

  Total

  1979

  1

  10

  —

  11

  1980

  —

  9

  —

  9

  1981

  —

  9

  2

  11

  1982

  1

  11

  15

  27

  1983

  —

  5

  —

  5

  1984

  —

  12

  8

  20

  1985

  —

  4

  —

  4

  1986

  1

  7

  1

  9

  1987

  —

  5

  1

  6

  1988

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Total

  3

  76

  27

  106

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on the instructions or guidelines the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police have issued on the safe apprehension of suspects in the areas of live rails;

  (2) what specific training or guidelines are given to British Transport police and Metropolitan police officers on the policing of areas with live rails; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Portillo
  Relevant guidelines have been produced by British Rail's director of operations at the request of the British Transport police (BTP). These have been issued to all police forces throughout the United Kingdom and I am placing a copy in the House of Commons Library as the hon. Member has requested. BTP officers receive specialised training concerning safety aspects of policing British Rail and London Underground railways. All BTP officers are authorised to work on running lines in the same way as British Rail operational staff. I understand that this does not apply to officers in other police forces, but advice and assistance is available from the BTP as and when needed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Slieve Croob, Dromara
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what type of building is currently being constructed at Slieve Croob, Dromara in South Down; and what consideration is being given to the fact that it is being constructed in an area of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Cope
  The building under construction at Slieve Croob is required to provide accommodation for the equipment and personnel involved with the communications relay station.

  The buildings have been designed and located to take the maximum advantage of the local topography to lessen the effect which the buildings might have on the surrounding environment.
  346
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what type of business or work will be carried out at the building currently under construction at Slieve Croob, Dromara in South Down on completion.

  Mr. Cope
  The building work currently under way at Slieve Croob is concerned with the improvement and development of an existing communications relay station which provides a service to the community at large. It is used by a number of public bodies, including the ambulance and other emergency services, the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) roads and water services and the Department of Agriculture forestry division.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amendments he made to the proposed Strangford Lough ASSI part 3, following representations from Strangford Lough Nature Conservation Association and representations from the local community living near Strangford Lough.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland confirmed the ASSI declaration with six minor amendments to the boundary. These amendments, which recognise changes which took place since the original survey and the need to correct some mapping errors, reduce the area originally included in the ASSI by half a hectare.

  Flag Flying
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has advised the Southern health and social services area boards of the appropriate dates to fly the Union flag on its buildings; and if he will seek information from the board why the Union flag was not flown on its premises at The Mall, Armagh, on Remembrance Sunday.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: The requirement to fly the Union flag on those prescribed days relevant to Northern Ireland applies to central Government offices only. There is no requirement therefore for the Southern health and social services board to comply.

  At the request of the Southern health and social services board, details of the prescribed days for flying the Union flag are issued to it each year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry (Surveyors)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report the number of surveyors employed by the Land Registry to serve each of its geographical divisions.

  The Attorney-General
  The current number of staff employed by the Land Registry on site and boundary inspections is set out in the table by district registry. At any one time in each district registry a large number of staff is qualified to do this work.
  347

  Number

  Croydon

  1

  Harrow

  2

  Tunbridge Wells

  3

  Lytham

  3

  Nottingham

  4

  Gloucester

  3

  Stevenage

  2

  Durham

  2

  Plymouth

  2

  Swansea

  2

  Birkenhead

  2

  Weymouth

  2

  Peterborough

  3

  Telford

  1

  Coventry

  1

  Hull

  1

  Total

  34

  In addition, the Ordnance Survey carries out surveys for the Land Registry on a repayment basis.

  Emma Worthington
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Court of Appeal the sentence for the manslaughter of Emma Worthington which was imposed upon Stuart William Ross at Exeter Crown court on 14 November.

  The Attorney-General
  The matter is under consideration. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have reached my decision.

  Mr. Khalil Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the appeal of Mr. Khalil Ahmed, date of birth 1 October 1969, Ref. Imm/93246, who has been refused permission by the post in Islamabad to join his wife, will be heard by the appellate authorities.

  The Attorney-General
  The papers in this case (which has been allocated the reference number TH/6834/89) were copied by the appellate authorities to Mr. Ahmed's nominated representatives in the United Kingdom on 14 August 1989. They replied on 16 August that they were ready to proceed, but before the matter was listed for hearing they withdrew from the case, as did another firm of solicitors on 4 October. The appeallate authorities wrote to the appellant in Pakistan on 12 October 1989 stating that unless he nominated a further representative before 12 December the appeal would be determined by an adjudicator without a hearing on the papers before him. If no representative is nominated the appeal will be dealt with as soon after that date as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Kemp Report
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to alter the methods of operation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  The interdepartmental working group of officials formed to advise Ministers on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD has now submitted its report, which is being considered by Ministers. A decision on the way forward will be taken as soon as possible.
  348
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Kemp report on export credit guarantees.

  Mr. Redwood
  The interdepartmental working group of officials formed to advise Ministers on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD has submitted its report, which is now being considered by Ministers. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Optoelectronics
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals exist for the development of a major programme for a national fibre optics communications network aimed at implementing optoelectronic research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Development of the national telecommunications networks is a matter for the telecommunications operators in response to market demands.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support he has given for trial schemes to test optoelectronic systems and products in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have recently licensed British Telecommunications plc to run, in collaboration with equipment manufacturers, a technical trial in Bishop's Stortford to test telecommunications delivery systems based on optical fibre.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to protect with-profit policy holders against a foreign predator acquiring and asset stripping a United Kingdom life insurance company.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Insurance Companies Act 1982 (section 61) provides that no person may become the controller of an insurance company without first notifying the Secretary of State, who may object if he considers that the proposed controller is not a fit and proper person to be a controller of that company. "Fit and proper" is not defined in the Act, but in considering whether to exercise his power to prevent a change of control the Secretary of State has regard to any issue which may affect the interests of the company's policyholders.

  Further provisions in the Act require that the long-term business fund must be kept separate from the company's other funds and place restrictions on the purposes for which these funds may be applied. The Act also gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to intervene where this is necessary to protect policyholders' interests. Where appropriate the Secretary of State may require assets of the company to be maintained in the United Kingdom or to be.held in trust.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce new pyramid selling scheme regulations to replace the 1973 regulations.

  Mr. Forth
  I have today laid the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1989, under the Fair Trading Act 1973, which will come into operation on 1 March 1990.
  349
  The new regulations are designed to ensure that no one will be able to participate in a pyramid selling, or multi-level marketing scheme, without having first signed a contract which sets out their rights and includes a statutory warning about such schemes.

  The promoters of the scheme will be required to set out in the contract details of when the scheme started in the United Kingdom and where it is operated from as well as descriptions of the goods or services on offer. They will also have to specify in the contract that the participant may withdraw from the scheme without penalty within 14 days of first signing and set out the participant's rights should he subsequently wish to withdraw.

  The regulations also prohibit promoters from accepting more than £75 from participants within the first seven days. They set an upper limit of £30 as payment for participants recruiting others. There are also provisions relating to payments for training facilities and deposits.

  In making these regulations I have focused on enabling a prospective participant to make an informed choice when considering whether to join the scheme.

  These regulations do not cover the content of advertisements, notices, prospectuses and circulars which do not state the financial benefits of joining a scheme, or which may appear in the press or as handouts. These remain, quite properly, subject to the Advertising Standards Authority's code of practice.

  Copies of the regulations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Israel
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the ministerial visits which have taken place in the last two years involving United Kingdom ministers visiting Israel and Israeli ministers visiting the United Kingdom; what further visits are planned over the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: I can only answer for visits to or by Ministers of my Department. In the last two years the following Israeli Ministers have visited the Department of Trade and Industry: Mr. Moshe Shahal, Minister for Energy; Mr. Ariel Sharon, Minister of Industry and Trade; Mr. Gad Ya'acobi, Minister of Communications.

  No DTI Ministers visited Israel in that period, and no inward or outward ministerial visits are currently planned. DTI officials are expected to go to Israel in 1990 for the United Kingdom-Israel joint committee on bilateral trade.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies failed to lodge annual accounts for the financial year 1986–87; and how many prosecutions took place as a result.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: The chief executive of Companies House tells me that information is not available in the form requested. However, 130,000 companies in England and Wales had not filed their latest accounts at 30 June 1988. These accounts related mostly to financial years ending between September 1986 and August 1987.

  Companies House seeks to achieve compliance primarily by means of reminders to companies before they
  350
  are due to file and warning letters after companies have gone into default. These measures are supplemented by publicity aimed at directors and professional advisers.

  Companies House's present policy is to prosecute only when other methods of obtaining statutory documents have failed. In the year ending 31 March 1989, there were 4,543 prosecutions for failure to deliver accounts. Some, but by no means all, of these prosecutions would relate to accounts for 1986–87.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  History Teaching
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding the recent Government report on recommendations for the teaching of history in the national curriculum, and its relevance to a multi-cultural society.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In its interim report published in August the national curriculum history working group gave its provisional views on the teaching of history. The group is expected to make its final report to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales by the end of the year. My right hon. Friends will publish their proposals when they have considered that report.

  Head Teachers (Correspondence)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary school head teachers have written to him in the month of November, either directly or through hon. Members forwarding their letters to him, expressing concern about teacher morale, pressure of work and administrative or resource difficulties in implementing the national curriculum; and what has been the general nature of his reply to such letters.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend frequently receives correspondence from primary school head teachers about various aspects of education provision. They receive appropriate replies, which I hope they find helpful.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how many occasions in the last three months he and his Departmental Ministers have visited maintained schools in their official capacities; and what are the equivalent figures for grades 1, 2 and 3 officials in his Department.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the three months to 30 November my ministerial colleagues and I have visited 30 maintained schools. The equivalent figures for grades 1, 2 and 3 are zero, 13 and three respectively.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to reduce the flow of Departmental circulars, letters or guidance notes to head teachers; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The flow of material to schools over the last year has reflected the need to give schools information
  351
  and guidance about their new responsibilities under the Education Reform Act. My right hon. Friend recognises the pressure which the volume of material has placed on schools and is taking a close interest in the flow of new material to ensure that it is kept within reasonable bounds and within the capacity of the system to absorb it.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on primary schools training of supply teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, "The Implementation of the National Curriculum in Primary Schools", found that primary schools have made a satisfactory start in preparing for the introduction of the national curriculum. Expenditure on training related to the national curriculum (including that for supply teachers) is supported through the local education authority training grants scheme. It is for LEAs to make decisions about training priorities in the light of identified local needs.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on primary schools on resources to implement the Government's plans for the core subjects of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, "The Implementation of the National Curriculum in Primary Schools", found that levels of resourcing for the core subjects in key stage 1 were generally adequate. The report also comments on the good use being made of the specific grants which the Government have provided to support the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he expects the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to close courses which cannot meet the minimum resource requirements.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council has no power to close courses. It is for the institutions to determine their own academic provision in the light of the funds available to them.

  Engineering Courses
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the student-to-staff ratio in engineering courses at polytechnics for each of the last 10 years to the current year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Available data on student: staff ratios (SSR) are given in the table.

  Laboratory and workshop based higher education SSRs at polytechnics: 1978–79 to 1987–88 (England)

  Academic year

  Ratio

  1978–79

  7·8

  1979–80

  8·0

  1980–81

  8·5

  352

  Academic year

  Ratio

  1981–82

  9·1

  1982–83

  9·5

  1983–84

  10·1

  1984–85

  10·6

  1985–86

  11·0

  1986–87

  11·1

  1987–88

  11·5

  These SSRs are calculated from data collected in the Department's Annual Monitoring Survey and are on a different basis from those calculated using student data from the Departments Further Education Statistical Record and lecturer data from Form 618G.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department will make available resources to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sufficient to meet the funding requirements indicated by the Engineering Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced the resources available to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) in his statement on 15 November (Official Report, written answers, columns 272–76). I understand that the Engineering Council has written to the PCFC about the question of resources for engineering education. It is for the PCFC to consider what its response should be.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when Her Majesty's inspectors received a copy of the Engineering Council's recommendations on the minimum resources required for engineering education in the polytechnic sector; and what response they propose to make.

  Mr. Jackson
  Her Majesty's inspectorate is aware of the statement published in 1984 entitled "Resources for Engineering Education" at degree and HND level. A review of engineering in the polytechnics and colleges, based on HMI inspections over the last five years, is about to be published. The review will include comment on a wide range of aspects of engineering education, including resources and their management.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has given to the proposed merger of the five research councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend recently received advice from the ABRC on the future structure of the research council system. This arose from consideration of a report to the board by a review group under the chairmanship of Mr. J. R. S. Morris CBE which recommended a merger of the present five research councils.

  My right hon. Friend is considering the board's advice and will make a statement in due course.

  Civil Science Expenditure
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total Government spending on civil science in Britain(a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  353
  Mr. Jackson
  The figures of total Government spend on civil research and development are as follows:

  1985·86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Estimate Provision

  Real terms (£M) (1989–90 prices)

  2,792

  2,805

  2,729

  2,674

  2,706

  Proportion of GDP

  0·62

  0·60

  0·55

  0·52

  0·52

  Sources:

  Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development 1988 and 1989.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current pay claim by the National Union of Teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The interim advisory committee will no doubt consider carefully the evidence it has received from the NUT in formulating its recommendations on teachers' pay for 1990–91.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to attract more well-qualified young people into the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Since 1986 the Department has taken a number of measures to improve teacher supply, at a cost so far of £50 million. These include bursaries for trainee teachers in maths, physics, design and technology, and chemistry; new forms of initial teacher training courses; and greater publicity and advertising of teaching opportunities through the teaching as a career unit, TASC.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate for the city technology colleges at(a) Solihull, (b) Nottingham and (c) Teesside the number of pupils from outside the agreed catchment area that he has authorised to be accepted.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All pupils under the age of 15 attending the Teesside and Nottingham CTCs are admitted from within the college's catchment areas. There is no defined catchment area for 16-plus admission to the Nottingham CTC, but priority is given to pupils living within a two-mile radius of the college. My right hon. Friend has given permission for nine of the 360 pupils attending the Kinghurst CTC to be admitted from outside its catchment area. I understand that all pupils attending CTCs live within reasonable travelling distance of the colleges.

DEFENCE

  Armoured Vehicles (USSR)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any evidence that the Soviet Union has reduced its production of modern armoured fighting vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Soviet officials have said that there has been a significant reduction in activity at the Soviet Union's tank plants during the course of this year.
  354
  We believe that total tank production will be lower than in previous years but are unable to quantify the actual figures.

  US Bases (East Anglia)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any assessment of the future of United States air bases in East Anglia, following comments by the United States Secretary for Defence on possible troop reductions in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States Government has made it clear that the Allies will be consulted on any force level reductions made in Europe. Any decisions affecting United States air bases in the United Kingdom will be the subject of full consultations with the United Kingdom Government.

  WE177 Bomb
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred to date on the study of procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 November at column 572.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb that are currently being studied.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 17 July at column 71 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any agreements have been concluded with(a) the United States Government or (b) the French Government regarding the study of procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Arrangements enabling an exchange of information have been concluded with the United States Government. Negotiations are in hand with the French Government about similar arrangements.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any money has been paid to(a) British Aerospace or (b) Hunting Engineering in connection with the study of possible procurement options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb;

  (2) whether any plans exist to pay money to (a) British Aerospace or (b) Hunting Engineering in connection with the study of possible procurement options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.
  355
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any of his officials has visited French Government facilities in connection with the study of possible procurement options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb;

  (2) whether any of his officials has visited United States Government facilities in connection with the study of possible procurement options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I have said on several occasions, discussions are taking place with both the United States and French Governments on procurement options for the possible replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb, which include visits to the appropriate establishments. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Military Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to confirm the identity of those people who receive military training from British service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Appropriate arrangements are made with the authorities of the foreign Government concerned.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to ensure that the benefits and lessons gained from military training by British service personnel are not transferred from those who receive the training to those who are authorised to receive it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The control of information released to members of foreign armed forces during training by British service personnel is a matter for the civil and military authorities of the country concerned. The extent and type of any classified information to which foreign nationals are granted access will reflect their need to know and will also be commensurate with Her Majesty's Government's assessment of the recipient country's ability to control the information in an appropriate manner.

  Mr. O'Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for the study of the legal aspect of warfare in the military training provided for foreign nationals by British service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Instruction in legal aspects of warfare is provided to foreign and United Kingdom students where it is appropriate to the subject of the training course concerned.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British service personnel have been involved in the provision of military training in(a) Zimbabwe and (b) Thailand at any time in the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British service personnel have provided military training in Zimbabwe to both the Mozambiquan and Zimbabwean armed forces during the last four years. British service personnel have also made several short advisory visits to the Thai armed forces in the same period.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign military forces have been provided with military training by British service personnel over the last four years.
  356
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1 April 1986, personnel from the armed forces or police of the following countries and dependent territories have attended military training courses in the United Kingdom or received training from British service personnel overseas:

  Algeria

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Burma

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Congo

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Luxembourg

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Korea

  357

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  United States of America

  Venezuela Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Thailand
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British service personnel have visited Thailand in an official capacity at any time in the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes, there have been a number of advisory visits by British service personnel to the Royal Thai armed forces during the last four years. In addition, troops from the Hong Kong garrison regularly exercise in Thailand and, in 1988, RAF Tornado F3 aircraft used training facilities in the country.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any training in military signalling has been provided by British service personnel in Thailand at any time in the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of military assistance provided to foreign Governments are normally confidential.

  Cambodia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British signalling equipment has been supplied to the Khmer People's National Liberation Army or the National Sihanoukist Army at any time in the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has not supplied any such equipment to either organisation.

  Chemical Weapons (USSR)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the stocks of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's position regarding Soviet stocks of chemical weapons remains as expressed in paragraphs 219–220 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm. 675-I).

  Trident
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of lobbying in the United States in favour of Trident.
  358
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 November at column 569.

  BAOR
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to table 2.3 of volume 2 of the 1989 Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm. 675-II).

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of Warsaw pact armament production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our latest estimates for Warsaw pact armaments production relate to 1988 and are as follows:

  (a) approximately 4,200 tanks, including approximately 3,500 made in the USSR;

  (b) approximately 700 fighter aircraft, plus approximately 200 combat trainers;

  (c) 11 submarines (including two major conversions) and five major surface ships; and

  (d) approximately 375 ballistic missiles.

  It is not yet possible to give figures for 1989. However, we believe that there may have been a fall in tank production and that cuts in some other areas, such as fighter aircraft, are being implemented. Any cuts will, of course, be from high historic levels of output.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report on the review of the use of helicopters in the land battle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The balance of investment in weapon systems, including helicopters, is kept continually under review. The results of this work will continue to be taken into account when we reach procurement decisions.

  Canadian Base, Suffield
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, in tabular form, each incident at Canadian forces base, Suffield, in which British service men have been injured, giving the date of each incident, the number of soldiers injured and the nature and extent of their injuries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Date of incident and nature/extent of injuries

  Number injured

  7 June 1984: minor injuries

  3

  5 September 1985: burns face and forearm

  1

  19 October 1985: eye injury

  2

  31 October 1985: minor gun shot wound to right forearm

  1

  31 July 1986: smoke inhalation

  1

  28 August 1986: eye injury

  1

  24 September 1986: injuries to leg

  1

  4 June 1987: fatal

  2

  17 July 1987: 1 fatality, 2 minor injuries

  3

  359

  Number injured

  17 August 1987: minor injuries

  1

  9 May 1988: minor injury to left temple

  1

  2 August 1988: lacerations to forehead

  1

  7 August 1988: gun shot wound to left ankle

  1

  25 August 1988: calf injuries

  1

  22 September 1988: burns to right arm

  1

  5 May 1989: gun shot wound to chest/leg

  1

  16 May 1989: injuries resulting from road traffic accident

  1

  30 May 1989: burns to hands

  1

  7 July 1989: serious leg injuries resulting in amputations

  3

  26 July 1989: wound to left leg

  1

  29 July 1989: gun shot wounds

  2

  8 August 1989: compound fracture of two fingers

  1

  26 August 1989: flash burns to right hand

  1

  The British Army training unit (BATUS) is located within the Canadian Forces base at Suffield. It provides the British Army with invaluable facilities for tactical live firing and manoeuvre exercises at battle group level. During this five-year period, approximately 45,000 service men have trained there. Safety procedures are given a high priority.

  HMS Upholder
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding leaks in the torpedo tubes of HMS Upholder.

  Mr. Neubert
  During the trials of HMS Upholder in 1988, a design fault was discovered which could, in certain circumstances, allow water to enter the submarine's torpedo tubes. The tubes were locked shut as a precautionary measure while trials continued. A modification to correct the fault has been designed and will be fitted to the submarine when sea trials have been completed.

  Invincible Class Carriers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if there have been any problems experienced with the existing aircraft lifts on the Royal Navy's Invincible class aircraft carriers;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding replacement aircraft lifts for the Royal Navy's Invincible class aircraft carriers.

  Mr. Neubert
  The aircraft lifts in the Royal Navy's Invincible class aircraft carriers have successfully supported the operations of these ships over the past 10 years. However, they have experienced a higher than anticipated incidence of defects and failures, and an associated high maintenance and repair burden. Modifications and improvements carried out to date have increased their reliability, but not to the extent considered adequate to enable them to support the ships' role over the remainder of their projected lives. In consequence, a programme to develop a replacement lift has been initiated, and an invitation to tender for proposals is soon to be issued to industry.

  Procurement Establishments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will calculate the number of jobs in establishments producing the procurement budget for each year since 1979.
  360
  Mr. Neubert
  Estimates of United Kingdom employment dependent on defence equipment expenditure from 1978–79 to 1986–87 (the latest period for which estimates are available) are given in table 6.8 of Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Volume 2.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the size of the defence budget in real terms for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Defence expenditure since 1979–80, after taking account of defence specific inflation, was as follows:

  1988–89 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  18,015

  1980–81

  18,564

  1981–82

  18,736

  1982–83

  19,894

  1983–84

  20,230

  1984–85

  21,126

  1985–86

  21,030

  1986–87

  20,270

  1987–88

  19,936

  1988–89

  19,073

  1989–90

  119,106

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list total defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1979–80, defence expenditure has represented the following proportions of GDP:

  per cent.

  1979–80

  4·4

  1980–81

  4·7

  1981–82

  4·8

  1982–83

  5·1

  1983–84

  5·0

  1984–85

  5·2

  1985–86

  4·9

  1986–87

  4·7

  1987–88

  4·4

  1988–89

  4·0

  During the current financial year, it is estimated that defence expenditure will be about 3·9 per cent. of GDP.

  Otterburn Training Area
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department plans to take in relation to entry by the Newcastle and District Beagles on to his Department's land at Otterburn training area on 15 September.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On this occasion, the Ministry of Defence has accepted an apology from the master of the Newcastle and District Beagles for crossing the boundary of the Otterburn training area without permission. However, we have given notice that further trespass cannot be tolerated.

  Cyprus
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arms Britain is selling to the Greek side of Cyprus.

  Mr. Neubert
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to give details of arms sales to specific countries. In the case of Cyprus, however, our policy precludes the supply of arms to the armed forces of either side, because of our desire to preserve our neutrality and help bring about a peaceful solution.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in civil servant numbers there will be in existing Government departments presently dealing with the water industry, after its privatisation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following the successful privatisation of the water industry, it is anticipated that as a result there will be a reduction of 47 posts in my Department. Account has been taken of this in setting the manpower baseline for 1990–91.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ports currently registered for the import of toxic waste, together with the amount of such waste imported, the countries of origin and destinations and the nature of the waste, through each of those ports, for the last three available years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There is no statutory requirement that ports be "registered" to accept waste.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) collects information on imported waste from waste disposal authorities every financial year. For the financial years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 that information indicates that the following ports accepted the amounts of waste indicated. The information collected does not enable HMIP to determine the amounts of waste in relation to the country of origin, destinations or make-up.

  Following the implementation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988 HMIP now collects more detailed information but has not yet compiled data for the current year.

  Quantities of waste (tonnes) imported via named ports

  Port

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Avonmouth

  1,519

  2,737

  —

  Barking

  —

  2,276

  —

  Boston

  —

  1,283

  164

  Bristol

  1,333

  —

  —

  Briton Ferry

  2,300

  7,536

  12,360

  Chatham

  1,730

  49

  88

  Dartford

  4,122

  4,133

  52

  Devonport

  25

  —

  —

  Dover

  1,638

  3,559

  20

  Felixstowe

  13,038

  21,416

  12,311

  Fishguard

  50

  —

  —

  Fleetwood

  1,956

  2,173

  1,440

  Garston

  203

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  2,276

  —

  Grimsby

  271

  14

  —

  362

  Port

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Harwich

  855

  1,578

  141

  Holyhead

  124

  384

  221

  Immingham

  12,233

  293

  20,020

  Ipswich

  543

  15

  290

  Liverpool

  80

  658

  1,405

  Manchester

  60

  —

  —

  Newhaven

  23

  48

  —

  Newport

  3,082

  —

  315

  Plymouth

  42

  —

  —

  Poole

  230

  72

  —

  Portsmouth

  70

  17

  —

  Purfleet

  100

  109

  83

  Rainham

  924

  —

  —

  Ramsgate

  25

  —

  395

  Seaforth

  127

  —

  —

  Seaham

  3,599

  —

  —

  Southampton

  13

  222

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  Teesport

  —

  1,650

  2,959

  Tilbury

  2,666

  2,910

  41

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the proportion of households which will be liable to pay above average community charge which are households with below average incomes.

  Mr. Chope
  An up-to-date estimate is not available at present.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to take account of any quarterly returns giving the numbers of children of claimants of supplementary benefit or income support received between December 1987 and April 1988 in calculating standard spending assessments in respect of poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  We were advised by the Department of Social Security that the quarterly inquiry for February 1988 had been cancelled in order to accommodate the changeover from supplementary benefit to income support.

  Palace of Westminster
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis(a) Ministers of the Crown and (b) other hon. Members are charged for connections into the Palace of Westminster aerial system.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Ministers are provided with televisions in their offices at the House when required by their official duties.

  Other right hon. and hon. Members are charged the actual cost of connecting their private television sets to the aerial system.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what electrical, mechanical and technical works would be required in order to replace the existing annunciators with live television feed of proceedings in the Chamber or Committees; and if he will give an estimated financial breakdown of the costs of such works.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  To provide a live television feed would require the provision of a cable network and television sets. The installation of a cable network would be a complex task and I regret that without a full study, it is not possible to estimate the cost.
  363
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost of providing a connection into the Palace of Westminster aerial system.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The cost of providing a connection to the Palace of Westminster aerial system is dependent on the distance from the main trunk runs and on whether sound amplification is needed. The average cost of connections up till now is about £60.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total energy bill at the Palace of Westminster for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  Expenditure on energy for the parliamentary estate, including the House of Lords, over the last five years has been as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  821,951

  1985–86

  909,957

  1986–87

  901,051

  1987–88

  850,655

  1988–89

  849,569

  The figures are at cash prices.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimates of the community charge for the city of Nottingham issued by his Department since 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  The only estimates of the likely level of the community charge which my Department has published were placed in the Library on 6 November 1989. These showed a provisional 1990–91 community charge of £225 in Nottingham. Without any special transitional arrangements the community charge would be £252.

  Illustrative figures have also been published for 1987–88 to 1989–90 showing what the level of the community charge might have been based on local authority responsibilities and expenditure levels in those years. The published figures for Nottingham are shown in the table both with and without the transitional arrangements then proposed.

  Published illustrative community charge in Nottingham

  Without transitional arrangements

  With transitional arrangements

  1987–88

  207

  195

  1988–89

  251

  231

  1989–90

  242

  247

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many householders in the Bolton area will receive safety net payments on the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The impact of the community charge safety net in each area is not yet known. Provisional figures placed in the Library on 6 November suggest that Bolton will benefit from the safety net, and every chargepayer in Bolton will see the same reduction on their bills.

  In addition about 6 million people in England are expected to benefit from the proposed transitional relief scheme. Estimates of the number in each local authority area are not available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Macedon trust, Nottingham regarding homelessness and hostels.

  Mr. Chope
  None since February when my Department agreed an additional housing investment programme allocation to Nottingham city council of £150,000 to help provide accommodation for the trust.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has any plans to restrict the domestic use of lindane;

  (2) whether he has any plans to restrict the domestic use of pentachlorophenol.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The future use of lindane is under review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which advises Ministers on the operation of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. Pentachlorophenol is the subject of a European Communities proposal to amend directive 76/769 EEC on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, which is currently under consideration by the Council.

  Pollution
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached any conclusions on the proposal for a tax to make the polluter pay, contained in the Pearce report; if he will make it his policy to include noise pollution from airports as the basis for such a tax, as recommended in the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's policy already reflects the principle of making the polluter pay. Thus he incurs the full cost, without subsidy, of meeting current environmental protection regulations. "Noise taxes" have been proposed as minor policy instruments by Professor Pearce and others, but the Government have no plans to implement such a tax.

  High-Density Baling
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the use of refuse for high-density baling for environmental protection.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has been involved in the monitoring of full-scale trials of high-density baling plant for more than a decade.

  Our conclusion is that there can be benefits in transport costs between transfer stations and disposal sites, but overall the benefits are marginal.

  Housing Capital Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list at 1988–89 prices housing association capital investment(a) on new buildings for rent, (b) on renovation of existing dwellings for rent and (c) on other housing capital programmes in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) metropolitan areas, (4) the south-east outside London, (5) other non-metropolitan areas and (6) England as a whole for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1982–83, (iii) 1984–85, (iv) 1986–87 and (v) 1988–89.
  365
  Mr. Chope
  This information is not held by the Department. The distribution of grants and loans for housing association projects is largely for the Housing Corporation to determine within the broad policy framework established annually in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have therefore asked the Housing Corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct. Some support for housing association schemes is also provided by local authorities.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of member-led training schemes for housing association staff in Greater London.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department does not maintain such lists.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's commitment to training in the housing association sector.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government support promotional and advisory activities in the housing association sector, including training for housing association staff, through an annual programme funded by grant-in-aid to the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet representatives of London housing associations to discuss the provision of training to assist associations in providing for the homeless and badly housed in London.

  Mr. Chope
  My ministerial colleagues and I frequently meet representatives of the housing association sector and we discuss a wide range of housing matters. We are quite prepared to listen to views about training in the course of discussions such as those.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the effects on London housing associations of the closure of London housing associations training scheme; and if he will make a statement about the future funding of the scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  I am aware that the London housing associations training scheme is held in high regard by those who use its services, so I hope that it will not be closing. By far the greater part of the scheme's income is in fact from the member associations which use the services. Details of public funding for the organisation are primarily a matter for the Housing Corporation, although I understand that the corporation is making available a grant of about £16,000 to the scheme in the current financial year and is hoping to make available a similar amount in 1990–91. But the overall position on resources is that the balancing of its budget is entirely the responsibility of the organisation itself. It is thus for the scheme to discuss with its member associations the level of costs which they are prepared to bear for its services.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received concerning the proposed closure of London housing associations training scheme.
  366
  Mr. Chope
  My Department has received letters from six sources about the future of the scheme.

  European Environmental Agency
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost to industry and the consumer of the work of the European Environmental Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The proposed agency will assemble and analyse information on the environment from a network of national institutions and organisations. There is no intention to place further burdens on industry or to increase costs to the consumer.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report those he consulted in formulating his policy on the establishment of a European Environmental Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government's policy on the establishment of the agency has been formulated in the light of the normal round of discussions between the relevant Government Departments.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the nature of the property-owning powers of the European Environmental Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The draft Council regulation contains articles stating that the European Environment Agency shall have a legal personality and that standard EC property rights as laid down in the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, annexed to the treaty of Rome, shall apply.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated capital and revenue costs of establishing and running the European Environmental Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total costs of establishing and running the European Environment Agency in its first year, as estimated by the Commission of the European Communities, is 5·5 million ecu. The division between capital and revenue costs is not available.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what negotiations he has had with his European Community counterparts to establish a system for the voluntary exchange and publishing of information regarding environmental matters.

  Mr. Trippier
  A number of Community instruments such as the industrial air pollution framework directive allow for information about environmental matters to be exchanged. The Commission also publishes environmental information from member countries in its periodic state of the environment reports. Discussions have also been taking place to establish a comprehensive system for the voluntary exchange and publication of environmental information in the context of the proposed regulation establishing a European Environment Agency.

  Oil Slick, Mersey
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any of the chemicals used to disperse the oil slick in the Mersey this summer had a mercury base.
  367
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None of the dispersants deployed by the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit or obtained from their stockpile contained mercury.

  Rainham and Aveley Marshes
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the possibility of a theme park and film studio being developed on Rainham and Aveley marshes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has received four representations objecting on the ground of nature conservation.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the basis of his estimate of the yield from non-domestic rates in 1990–91, which is to be distributed to local authorities for that year.

  Mr. Chope
  The figure announced by my right hon. Friend on 6 November—£10,428·5 million—is the total amount which I expect to be paid by way of rates and a contribution in aid of rates in respect of Crown property. This has been derived by estimating the rateable value of all private business and nationalised industry properties, on the basis of the most up-to-date information available about the effects of the 1990 revaluation, and calculating a multiplier—36p—which will produce an amount that is consistent with the Government's commitment that the yield from those sectors should be broadly the same in real terms under the new system as in 1989–90; by applying that multiplier to the estimated new values of properties occupied by local authorities and the Crown; and by making certain allowances for income likely to be forgone, and adjustments to take account of the effect of transitional arrangements. The detailed calculation is set out in the table.

  £ million (1990–91)

  1. Income from Local and Central Lists

  a) Total Local and central Lists RV × Multiplier (£27,590m × £0·36)

  9,932

  + b) allowance for net buoyancy in 1990–91 (1·5 per cent.)

  + 149

  -c) charitable reliefs and other allowances

  -306

  - d) transitional arrangements

  -38

  - e) allowance for loss of income as a result of lower rating of empty property

  -497

  - f) allowance for losses on collection (0·3 per cent. Of 1 a+ b- c- d-e)

  -25

  - g) allowance for costs of collection

  - 42·5

  Sub Total

  9,172·5

  2. Income from Local Authorities

  + Local Authority RV × Multiplier (and after transition)

  +635

  3. Income from Crown Contribution in Aid

  + Crown RV × Multiplier (and after transition)

  + 653

  4. Total

  10,465·5

  5. -City Offset (at 1990–91 prices)

  -37

  368

  £ million (1990–91)

  6. Total NNDR Distributable Amount (at 1990–91 prices)

  10,428·5

  1 Excludes Central List.

  Notes:

  1. Item 1(a): the estimated rateable value total represents the values of private businesses and nationalised industries on local and central rating lists.

  2. Item 1(b): "net buoyancy" reflects changes in the rateable value base largely as a result of new buildings, demolitions and alterations to existing buildings. No separate allowance has been made for 1990–91 for appeals against the new rating list, which are likely to he settled in later years.

  3. Items 1(c) and (e): these deductions take account of the effect of changes in statutory provision for charitable relief and unoccupied property rating.

  4. Item 1(d): the adjustment for transition represents the amount by which it is estimated that the transitional arrangements will not balance in 1990–91, i.e. the amount of rates foregone as a result of protection against increases which will not be recoupled by way of the limitation on reductions.

  5. Items 2 and 3: the figures for rates paid on local authority property and the Crown contribution in aid are net of buoyancy and reduced payments for empty property.

  6. Item 5: the City offset is a preliminary estimate of the reduction in the amount which the City of London will be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool on account of the local rate in the City. This is the amount which will be retained by the authority to meet its expenditure.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 28 November.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  Political agreement was reached on a regulation establishing a European Environment Agency responsible for the collection, co-ordination and analysis of environmental information. The agreement met the concerns of Her Majesty's Government and of the Select Committee on the Environment. It is envisaged that the agency will be a small, independent, professional body which will provide an authoritative source of information to underpin Community environmental policy. Care has been taken to avoid possible duplication of work being undertaken in other fora. The question of the eventual participation of non-Community countries remains open. No decision was taken on the location of the agency's headquarters. The United Kingdom has offered to host it in Cambridge.

  The Council considered a compromise text, tabled by the French Presidency, of a draft directive for the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and wild fauna and flora and in particular the proposed procedures for drawing up a list of protected sites. The Council reaffirmed its support for the principle of a directive and congratulated the Presidency on the progress made in breaking the stalemate over the Commission's proposals. The Presidency text was referred for detailed examination. It is hoped that further substantial progress will take place during the Irish Presidency.
  369
  The Council took note of a recent Commission task force report on the relationship between the environment and the completion of the internal market. There was also a preliminary exchange of views on the potential role of fiscal instruments in environmental protection.

  I emphasised the Government's strong support for the pinciple of the draft directive aimed at ensuring freedom of access to information on the environment held by public authorities and its dissemination throughout the Community. Following a useful discussion, the proposal was referred back for further detailed examination.

  The Council agreed conclusions underlining the need for the Community and member states to play an active part in the conservation of tropical forests and calling for further examination of the Commission's communication on the subject.

  Ministers reviewed progress on a draft directive on nitrate pollution from diffuse sources in water, in the light of some suggestions by the French Presidency. Discussion of this proposal will continue in the Irish Presidency.

  The United Kingdom received warm support in urging the Commission to bring forward early proposals for two directives controlling vehicle emissions: a consolidated directive which would bring emission standards for medium cars into line with those already agreed for large and small cars; and on measures to reduce emissions from diesel heavy goods vehicles. There was also support for our call for an early Commission report on means to reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles.

  At the request of the United Kingdom the Commission undertook to draft Council conclusions on the need for developed industralised countries to become self-sufficient in the disposal of their own waste as far as possible. It is intended that consideration of the draft conclusions should prepare for discussion of the same subject in OECD.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in(a) Yorkshire and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom have had their water supplies disconnected for non-payment of water charges in the past year, to date.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: The information on disconnections for non-payment of water charges is collected on a full year basis. Information in respect of the year to date is not available.

  County Councils
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the past 12 months regarding county council policies and green issues.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: The principal area of concern in representations during this period has been with county councils' responsibilities for waste disposal, and with our proposals for legislation to strengthen their role and powers to discharge their duties.

  Football Identity Cards
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what date the introduction of the identity card scheme for football spectators has been deferred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The introduction of the national membership scheme has not been deferred.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he estimates live on the state retirement pension exclusively; how many live on this pension and income support exclusively; and how many have additional income of up to £5, £5 to £10, £10 to £20, £20 to £50, £50 to £100, £100 to £200 and above £200 per week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The latest available information is for 1986:

  Per cent.

  1. Proportion of Pensioner Tax Units1 in receipt of Retirement/Pension/Supplementary Benefit only

  4

  2. Proportion of Pensioner Tax Units in receipt of Retirement Pension /Supplementary Benefit and Housing Benefit only

  13

  3. Proportion of Pensioner Tax Units who have income2 additional to Retirement Pension/ Supplementary Benefit and Housing Benefit, in stated ranges:—

  £0.01 to £5 per week

  18

  £5 to £10 per week

  9

  £10 to £20 per week

  13

  £20 to £50 per week

  19

  £50 to £100 per week

  12

  £100 to £200 per week

  9

  £200 plus per week

  4

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  Notes:

  1 A pensioner tax unit is the unit on which tax is assessed; in this context where the head of the tax unit is over pensionable age and the tax unit receives some Retirement Pension.

  2 At 1986 prices.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) approximately how many pensioners over 75 years have applied for the new £3·50 per week supplement introduced in the Budget; and how many of these applications have been successful;

  (2) approximately how many pensioners over 75 years have applied for the new £3·50 per week supplement introduced earlier in the current year in the Budget; and how many of these applications have been successful.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Around 2·5 million pensioners who were already entitled to income support or housing benefit will have benefited automatically from the premium changes introduced in October. These changes applied to pensioners aged 75 or over and to disabled pensioners aged 60 or over. Single people will have received an increase of up to £2·50 a week and couples an increase of up to £3·50 a week.

  Information is not yet available on which to estimate the number of pensioners who newly qualified for benefit

  371
  from October as a result of the changes. However, over the four months from the start of the publicity campaign in July until the end of October a total of 579,000 claims for income support were received from pensioners, of which 196,000 were successful. This compares with a total of 66,000 successful claims over the previous four months. Information on new claims for housing benefit is not yet available.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the eligibility criteria of mobility allowance to other groups whose mobility problems do not arise from a physical inability to walk.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall announce proposals to improve the balance and structure of social security provision for people who are disabled within the next few months.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria will be used to determine who is deaf-blind for the purpose of mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The extension of mobility allowance to people who are deaf-blind will be introduced through regulations which will prescribe the circumstances in which they will be treated as being unable or virtually unable to walk for the purpose of section 37A of the Social Security Act 1975. The detail of the new eligibility criteria is still under consideration.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people benefited from mobility allowance in 1979–80 and in 1988–89; and what are the values of mobility allowance in three years at current prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is:

  1979–80

  1988–89

  Estimated average number of recipients at any one time

  140,000

  530,000

  Value of new rate of mobility allowance introduced during year, at current prices

  £23·40

  £25·60

  Disability (OPCS Survey)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra resources are available to fund the fuller and more strategic response he will be making to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey on disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The public expenditure plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer include an overall increase in the social security budget by £3 billion next year to a total of £55·6 billion and to over £63 billion by 1992–93. These increases will make possible a variety of real improvements in social security, including benefits for disabled people. Further details of projected expenditure on those benefits will he published early next year in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Visual Handicap
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the ways in which people with a visual handicap incur extra cost as a result of their disability.
  372
  Mr. Scott
  The surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys between 1985 and 1988 provide valuable information about the ways in which people with disabilities, including seeing disabilities, incur extra cost. The surveys were based on a sample of 10,000 adults, 27 per cent. of whom had seeing disabilities. A recent study by the Royal National Institute for the Blind of the additional expenditure incurred by 10 visually impaired people also provides information about extra costs.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total estimated spending from public funds on people beyond retirement age in respect of(a) the state retirement pension and (b) all other benefits, including income support and housing benefit, for the latest year for which these figures are available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated expenditure outturn for retirement pension for 1988–89 was £19,281 million. Estimated outturn on all other social security benefits for the elderly in 1988–89 was £4,409 million; this includes income support paid to men aged over 60 but under retirement age.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the effects of the changes in the legislation to persons living in local authority hostels from 9 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There was no change in legislation from 9 April 1989 which affected people living in hostels. From 9 April 1990 the protected sum currently in payment to some hostel dwellers will be divided so that the local office pays that part appropriate to the claimant, and the Department's central unit takes on any compensation due to the hostel.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the number of homeless who are in receipt of invalidity benefit or retirement pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret the information is not available.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the change in benefit entitlement of a person in a hostel who is in receipt of the protected sum if they temporarily leave for two days to attend a sick relative or to attend a family bereavement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The protected sum ceases if the claimant changes or vacates the hostel.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last visited a hostel for the homeless; and what matters he discussed with the residents and staff.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since his appointment as the Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend has not had the opportunity to visit a hostel.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of lone parents and their dependants in November 1979 and Novemberx
  373
  1989, or the latest date possible, dependent on receipt of social security benefit or income support and family income or payment; and what was the total number of lone parents and their dependants on the same dates, showing in each case the percentage change since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the table. The latest information available is shown but the dates vary and the sets of figures are therefore not strictly comparable. The references to social security benefit and family income have been read as supplementary benefit and family income supplement/family credit respectively.

  Percentage increase

  1979

  1988

  Supplementary Benefit (now Income Support)1

  Lone parents

  318,000

  722,000

  127

  Dependants

  558,00

  1,235,000

  121

  1979

  1989

  Family Income Supplement (now Family Credit)2

  Lone parents

  42,000

  122,000

  190

  Dependants

  73,000

  191,000

  162

  1979

  1986

  Total of Lone Parent Families;3

  Lone Parents

  840,000

  1,010,000

  20

  Dependants

  1,400,000

  1,600,000

  14

  1 Annual Statistical Enquiries—November 1979 and May 1988. Figures exclude prisoners' partners.

  2 Ten per cent. sample of Family Income Supplement load and 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit load.

  3 Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys—"Population Trends 45" (Autumn 1986) and "Population Trends 55" (Spring 1989).

  Appeals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of appeals heard by social security appeals tribunals in the Bolton area during 1988 and each of the previous three years; and how many of these appeals were successful for the claimant.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  National administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals are not available for areas smaller than a social security region.

  The table gives the information for north-western region for the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Social security appeal tribunals North Western Region

  Period

  Appeals heard and decided

  Successful appeals for the claimant

  1985

  19,631

  4,592

  1986

  18,167

  4,460

  1987

  26,361

  5,997

  1988

  32,615

  9,307

  Stolen Order Books
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reach a decision on whether or not to provide statistical information by district, throughout the United Kingdom, on the number of stolen Department of Social Security order books; and if he will make a statement.
  374
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Central records are maintained clerically about order books reported missing but do not separately identify those stolen. With the use of information technology, tests are being carried out with the aim of refining the present system, the primary purpose of which will be to assist in the early detection and investigation of losses. It is likely to be some time before a decision is taken on the format that best suits the Department's needs in that area.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the continued monitoring of the impact of the social fund in Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received no such representations.

  Benefit Records
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of errors was found in benefit records from(a) Ealing and (b) other London offices when these were checked at the Glasgow processing centre.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Two London offices, Ealing and Southall, have so far transferred their income support benefit records to the social security centre in Glasgow. Detailed statistics are not kept of the errors found in those records when preparing them for entry on to the computer. However, it is estimated that around 34 per cent. of Ealing cases and 40 per cent. of Southall cases require correction before they are computerised. A significant proportion of these involve incorrect postcodes or National Insurance numbers; a smaller number involve incorrect payment of benefit. Incorrect payments detected are corrected and arrears paid promptly.

  The improved and more accurate service that the Ealing and Southall public now receive fully justifies our decision to move the work to Glasgow.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wildcat Strikes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to outlaw wildcat strikes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Proposals were published for public consultation in the Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law" (Cm. 821). Legislation will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which regions in England have seen a decline in the number employed in manufacturing industries from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the relevant percentage decrease.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows the number and change in employees in employment in manufacturing industries between June 1979 and June 1989. All regions have seen a reduction over this period.
  375

  Employees in the manufacturing industry Unadjusted, Thousands

  June 1979

  June 1989

  1979–1989

  change

  percentage change

  South East (including London)

  1,871

  1,304

  -567

  -30·3

  East Anglia

  206

  175

  -31

  -15·0

  South West

  439

  366

  -73

  -16·6

  West Midlands

  985

  665

  -320

  -32·5

  East Midlands

  606

  489

  -117

  -19·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  708

  484

  -224

  -31·6

  North West

  971

  669

  -301

  -31·1

  North

  410

  281

  -129

  -31–4

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of unemployment in the United Kingdom, expressed as a percentage; and what is the comparable total of unemployment in the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest comparable date, unemployment in the United Kingdom was 6·3 per cent. compared with an EEC average of 9·1 per cent. The following table shows a full comparison. Over the past two years the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other major European country.

  Unemployment rates for comparison between EEC counties Seasonally adjusted

  September 1989 Rate

  Luxembourg

  2·0

  West Germany

  5·6

  Portugal

  5·7

  United Kingdom

  6·3

  Denmark

  7·4

  Greece

  17·4

  Belgium

  9·6

  Netherlands

  10·0

  France

  10·1

  Italy

  11·0

  Spain

  16·4

  Ireland

  17·0

  EEC average

  9·1

  1 April 1987

  Skills Training
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the actions Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve the skills of the work force.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  The Government are currently modernising arrangements for training and enterprise in this country. The introduction of a network of local training and enterprise councils will in particular revolutionise this country's approach to training and enterprise and prepare us for the challenges of the 1990s. The Government are also investing nearly £3 billion this year to improve the skills of the work force and encourage enterprise development.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the change in the number of weekly net business start-ups in the east midlands from 1987–88 to 1988–89.
  376
  Mr. Eggar
  In 1987, the number of businesses registered for VAT in the east midlands rose by an estimated 3,000, or an average of 58 a week. The estimated increase in 1988 was 4,100, an average of 79 a week.

  Members of Parliament
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what rules govern the eligibility for unemployment benefit and the assessment of availability for work of hon. Members.

  Mr. Eggar
  These conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit are set out in the Social Security Act 1975 and consequential regulations. This legislation does not provide specific variations for claimants holding public offices.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list those Government measures of particular help for small businesses since 1979;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report those Government measures of particular help to small businesses which are the subject of current legislation or are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1979 Government policy has been to create and foster a climate in which small firms can flourish, by minimising the compliance burdens of taxation, regulation and red tape, and by putting in place a complementary range of fiscal, financial and advisory measures.

  The principal Government measures of particular help to small businesses include: a range of tax reductions and structural reforms to improve the incentives and rewards for successful small business owners. For example the basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent., the small companies rate of corporation tax has been reduced from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent., and the nine higher rates of income tax, ranging from 40 per cent. to 83 per cent., have been reduced to one higher rate of 40 per cent.; the loan guarantee scheme, introduced in 1981, which provides a Government guarantee for loans by banks to small businesses; the business expansion scheme, introduced in 1983, which provides tax relief on investments made in shares of unquoted companies of up to £40,000 a year; the enterprise allowance scheme, introduced in 1983, which provides an allowance of £40 per week to previously unemployed people to make up for loss of benefit in their first year of self-employment; a range of training opportunities developed by the Training Agency, now included in business growth training, which take account of the training needs of new and growing

  377
  small firms; the provision of information and confidential advice and counselling through the small firms service and the rural development commission, and through substantial support for local enterprise agencies and other advisory bodies, including the princes youth business trust; the enterprise initiative, launched by the DTI in January 1988, which offers access to specialised consultancy in key business areas.

  These and other measures have been highly successful in creating and maintaining a framework for enterprise and the growth of the small business sector, which continues apace.

  The Employment Act 1989 has prepared the ground for the introduction of training and enterprise councils (TECs) by the end of 1990. TECs will be responsible for the delivery and development of training and other support for small businesses.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months and in the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  The growth of the small business sector itself is the best indicator of the success of the Government's policy towards small business. In 1988–89 the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses was 64,000, an average of just over 1,200 a week.

  The performance figures for the measures operated by my Department in 1988–89 are as follows:

  The small firms service answered over 281,000 inquiries (an increase of 6 per cent. on 1987–88), handled over 30,000 new counselling cases (an increase of 12 per cent. on 1987–88), and conducted over 43,000 counselling sessions (an increase of 10 per cent. on 1987–88);

  The usage of the loan guarantee scheme has increased from 1,234 small businesses in 1987–88 to 2,292 in 1988–89. The total loan value increased from £46·23 million to £64·76 million. Improved procedures under the scheme include simplified procedures for loans up to £15,000 and an increase in the maximum loan size from £75,000 to £100,000.

  The number of entrants to the Training Agency's enterprise programmes, the business enterprise programme and the enterprise element of employment training, have increased by 22 per cent. from 43,489 in 1987–88 to 53,003 in 1988–89.

  The number of entrants to the graduate enterprise programme rose from 155 in 1987–88 to 1,150 in 1988–89.

  Commissioner for Trade Union Members
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases the commissioner for the rights of trade union members has dealt with; how many applications she has received; how many of the applications she received fell outside her jurisdiction; and if he will list the unions involved and how many for each.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am advised by the commissioner for trade union members that in the period ending 27 November 1989 she had dealt with 245 cases; 30 of these 378
  have resulted in formal applications for assistance, of which 18 fell outside her jurisdiction. The numbers of applications per union are listed in the table.

  Number

  National and Local Government Officer' Association

  5

  GMB

  4

  Transport and General Workers Union

  4

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  2

  National Union of Public Employees

  2

  National Union of Railwaymen

  2

  National Union of Seamen

  2

  Union of Communication Workers

  2

  Amalgamated Engineering Union

  1

  Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union

  1

  National Union of Journalists

  1

  National Union of Mineworkers

  1

  Society of Graphical and Allied Trades 1982

  1

  Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

  1

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

  1

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the estimated running costs of the commissioner for the rights of trade union members in 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The commissioner for trade union members has provided White Paper accounts to the Secretary of State for Employment and the Comptroller and Auditor-General as required by the Employment Act 1988. Copies of the statement of accounts will be laid before each House by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in due course.

  Closed Shop
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints he has received each year since 1979 from firms and employees on the pre-entry closed shop.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers and officials in the Department of Employment continue to receive complaints from a variety of sources which describe difficulties experienced as a result of the operation of closed shop arrangements, involving pre-entry closed shops. However, no record is maintained of the number of such complaints received each year and, in any case, it is not always clear whether a complaint relates to pre-entry or post-entry arrangements. In addition, it would not be possible to establish precisely which complaints were made by firms and employees.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints the commissioner for trade union rights has received(a) from local authority employees, (b) from National Health Service employees and (c) from any employee working in the public sector against their union on the closed shop.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been advised by the commissioner for trade union members that precise figures concerning the number of complaints by type of employer are not available as complaints relate to the trade union not the employer, who is often not involved or identified. Complaints in relation to the closed shop are outside the scope of the commissioner's assistance.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his response to the interim results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report entitled "Disabled Adults: Service, Transport and Employment 1989"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The results set out in the report published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in June 1989 have been taken into account in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. However, the report does not provide, with sufficient precision, the information about the nature and consequences of employment difficulties arising from disability which my Department needs to plan its services. My Department has commissioned a further survey to provide such information, and the results of that survey will be available soon.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to strengthen programmes aimed at a change in employers' attitudes towards the employment of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Employees in employment1 in the Textile industry2 by region

  Thousand

  Region

  September

  September

  September

  Net change3

  1981

  1984

  1987

  1981 to 1984

  1984 to 1987

  South East

  13·1

  10·2

  10·6

  -2·9

  + 0·4

  East Anglia

  1·4

  1·9

  1·6

  + 0·5

  -0·3

  South West

  5·7

  5·2

  5·2

  -0·6

  0·0

  West Midlands

  13·0

  12·2

  12·6

  -0·8

  + 0·4

  East Midlands

  80·5

  72·4

  71·3

  -8·1

  -1·1

  Yorkshire and

  Humberside 57·4

  47·6

  45·9

  -9·8

  -1·7

  North West

  52·7

  40·7

  41·7

  -12·0

  + 1·0

  North

  8·6

  8·3

  7·1

  -0·2

  -1·3

  Wales

  4·0

  3·6

  3·6

  -0·4

  -0·0

  Scotland

  38·6

  32·9

  31·1

  -5·8

  -1·7

  Great Britain

  275·0

  234·9

  230·7

  -40·1

  -4·2

  1 The figures exclude the self-employed.

  2 Class 43 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 (Textiles including hosiery)

  3 Changes calculated on unrounded employee estimates.

  Between census of employment dates, information about employees in employment subdivided by region is available only for those industry headings listed in Table 1.5 of Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Employees in employment1 in the Footwear industry2 by region

  Region

  September

  September

  September

  Net change3

  1981

  1984

  1987

  1981–84

  1984–87

  South East

  4·8

  4·4

  3·6

  -0·5

  -0·7

  EastAnglia

  3·2

  3·3

  2·7

  0·0

  -0·6

  South West

  8·1

  7·5

  7·3

  -0·6

  -0·2

  West Midlands

  1·8

  3·0

  2·2

  +1·1

  -o·7

  East Midlands

  1·8

  3·0

  2·2

  -3·3

  -0·1:

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·3

  2·0

  2·1

  -0·3

  + 0·1

  North West

  8·2

  8·3

  8·0

  + 0·2

  -0·4

  North

  3·8

  3·6

  3·5

  -0·2

  -0·1

  Wales

  0·8

  0·8

  1·0

  +0·1

  +0·2

  Scotland

  0·9

  0·7

  0·7

  -0·2

  0·0

  Great Britain

  56·6

  53·0

  50·4

  -3·7

  -2·5

  380
  Mr. Nicholls
  The adequacy of current programmes aimed at encouraging employers to adopt and implement good policies and practices on the employment of people with disabilities is being considered in the 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.

  Hosiery and Textile Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by year and by region since 1979, the figures for job losses in the hosiery and textile industry; and if he will make a statement regarding forecasts of these figures for the coming year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no figures for job losses and job gains. Net changes in employment can be given, but only for dates when censuses of employment are taken. The available information from censuses taken in September 1981, September 1984 and September 1987 is as follows:

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by year and by region since 1979, the figures for job losses in the footwear industry; and if he will make a statement regarding forecasts for these figures for the coming year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no figures for job losses and job gains. Net changes in employment can be given, but only for dates when censuses of employment are taken. The available information from censuses taken in September 1981, September 1984 and September 1987 is as follows:
  381

  1 The figures exclude the self-employed

  2 Group 451 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980

  3 Changes calculated on unrounded employee estimates

  Between census of employment dates, information about employees in employment subdivided by region is available only for those industry headings listed in Table 1.5 of Employment Gazette a copy of which is in the Library.

  Redundancy Fund
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans for the redundancy fund.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Proposals will be included in the 1989 Employment Bill to merge the redundancy fund with the national insurance fund. This will simplify administration and provide a single source of funding for the relevant payments. No change will occur in the statutory entitlements of employees as a result of this merger.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to safeguard consumers' rights when the independent television companies are allowed to broadcast home-selling programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mellor
  Under our proposals on broadcasting, the Independent Television Commission will be required to draw up a code on advertising and sponsorship, with which its licensees must comply. In drawing up the code, the ITC will need to take account of the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. Article 12(3) of the convention states that forms of advertisements such as direct offers to the public for the sale, purchase or rental of products or for the provision of services shall not exceed one hour per day.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss broadcasting.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps in regular touch with the chairman of the IBA on a wide range of broadcasting matters.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homes in Britain are receiving multi-channel television via satellite dish aerials on their own premises at the latest available date.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect information on this subject, but I understand that research carried out by Continental Research indicated that in October 1989 352,000 households had direct-to-home satellite dishes.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to implement the recommendations of the chief inspector of prisons in his report on Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  A statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) setting out the action being taken was published on 19 October 1989 as his 382
  response to the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on Wandsworth prison and a copy was placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider his rejection of the recommendation by the chief inspector of prisons to install integral sanitation at Wandsworth prison in seven years in the light of his announcement of more resources for prison refurbishment.

  Mr. Mellor
  The speed of refurbishment is determined largely by the need to keep a prison fully operational while the work goes on. The large programme of refurbishment already in hand at Wandsworth, which includes the installation of toilets and washbasins in 300 cells, cannot be increased or accelerated while its full use as a local prison remains so essential to meet current high levels of overcrowding.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give powers to Sir John May's inquiry into the case of the Guildford Four to compel witnesses to attend, to subpoena documents and to provide immunity from prosecution to witnesses.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to confer on Sir John May the power to compel witnesses to attend his inquiry or to subpoena documents. We have no reason to believe that he will not be able to conduct his inquiry satisfactorily in the absence of such powers.

  The question of offering immunity from prosecution to any person in respect of criminal offences is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will usually consult the Attorney-General. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 6 November 1989 at columns 439–40.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the project licences issued in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, either partly or wholly applicable to Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire, have been referred to the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is treated as confidential between the applicant, the Home Office and the Animal Procedures Committee. The annual reports of the committee for 1987 and 1988 (HC 36 and 458) show the kinds of applications which are considered by the committee.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the project licences permitting regulated scientific procedures in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at
  383
  Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire, are classified as being of mild severity, how many of moderate severity and how many of substantial severity; and what is the total number;

  (2) how many project licences currently exist authorising regulated scientific procedures in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire;

  (3) how many regulated scientific procedures conducted in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at Huntingdon research centre in 1988 involved the use of dogs;

  (4) how many regulated scientific procedures were conducted in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire, in 1988;

  (5) how many regulated scientific procedures were conducted in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire, in 1988, for the purpose of testing cosmetics and toiletries or their ingredients.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is treated as confidential.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the regulated scientific procedures at the Huntingdon research centre, Cambridgeshire, were terminated as required by section 10(2)(b) in accordance with the inviolable termination condition.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of such terminations are not available centrally. It is the practice for project licences to include specific provisions for end points which have effect before the condition imposed by section 10(2)(b) of the Act is reached.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Commission for Racial Equality has dealt with in each region in the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information on cases of racial discrimination referred to the commission is provided in the following table:

  Region

  Cases handled

  1986

  1987

  1988

  London

  252

  307

  342

  South

  241

  265

  389

  Midlands and Wales

  246

  380

  391

  North and Scotland

  277

  319

  318

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Government policy concerning funding for the Commission for Racial Equality for the next year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The commission's statutory duties and strategic priorities are being taken into account in determining its grant-in-aid for next year.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homes in Britain are receiving multi-channel television through cable television systems at the latest available date.
  384
  Mr. Mellor
  I understand from the Cable Authority that on 1 October 1989 a total of 287,219 households in the United Kingdom were connected to cable systems, of which 75,811 were connected to broad band cable systems.

  Philippine Immigrants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants from the Philippines have been admitted to work as domestic servants in the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers involved cannot be separately identified in the statistics of passenger admissions.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many specialised units for young offenders exist in the United Kingdom; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are 35 male and female young offender institutions in England and Wales. The position in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is a matter respectively for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. The list of the young offender institutions in England and Wales is as follows:

  Aylesbury

  Bullwood Hall1

  Campsfield House

  Castington

  Deerbolt

  Dover

  Drake Hall1

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Everthorpe

  Feltham

  Finnamore Wood

  Glen Parva

  Grendon

  Guys Marsh

  Hatfield

  Hewell Grange

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  Huntercombe

  Kirklevington Grange

  Lowdham Grange

  The Mount

  New Hall1

  Northallerton

  Onley

  Portland

  Stoke Heath

  Styal1

  Swinfen Hall

  Thorn Cross

  Usk

  Wellingborough

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  1 Female prisons which are also designed as young offender institutions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders are presently awaiting trial in local adult prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  According to the records held centrally, about 640 males and 60 females aged under 21 were held
  385
  as untried prisoners in local prisons and in remand centres not exclusively designated for those aged under 21 in England and Wales on 30 September 1989.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if young offenders once sentenced are automatically confined in specialised units.

  Mr. Mellor
  The great majority of young offenders who receive custodial sentences are sentenced to detention in a young offenders institution. Of these, male juveniles and short sentenced young adults are committed directly from court to a young offender institution; the rest are initially committed to an allocation unit, usually within a local prison or remand centre, for a short period for assessment before being transferred to an appropriate young offender institution.

  Young offenders sentenced to detention in a young offender institution may be retained in a prison, at the direction of the Secretary of State, for example for judicial, compassionate or medical reasons, for accumulated visits, or for reallocation.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate legislation to extend the magistrates courts powers to include protecting any children living with the applicant, in addition to the current protecting of only children of the family.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Law Commission is reviewing the civil law on domestic violence, which is in need of rationalisation; and I do not think it would be sensible to bring forward legislative proposals on a piecemeal basis in advance of consideration of the commission's proposals as a whole.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inquiry referred to in the replies by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid),Official Report, 26 October, columns 1032–33, will look at material collected by the Devon and Cornwall police in the course of their investigations into the appeal of those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The investigation into the work and practices of the serious crime squad concentrates on the period since the beginning of 1986. The conduct of the inquiry is the responsibility of the investigating officer, Mr. Shaw, subject to the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. I understand that there is no intention at present to look at the material collected by the Devon and Cornwall police, which relates to earlier events.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he will be co-operating with the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in its inquiry into the convictions of those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I said in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 29 November 1989 at column 268, I understand that the Legal Affairs Committee has not yet decided whether to conduct such an inquiry and, if so, what its terms of reference should be. We believe that 386
  it would be inappropriate for the European Parliament to inquire into the convictions of the Birmingham Six, it being a matter wholly outside the Parliament's competence.

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to co-operate with the Schengen information system to pool police data in anti-drug operations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Schengen information system does not yet exist. However, we are discussing with our European Community partners, which includes the Schengen countries, a wide range of measures for further strengthening co-operation between law enforcement agencies. The development of an information system serving all European Community countries is one option which is being studied.

  Fires
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many outbreaks of fire were recorded in each of the last five years in(a) England and Wales and (b) the Bolton area;

  (2) what was the number of incidents of arson in each of the last five years in (a) England and Wales and (b) the Bolton area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available figures for 1983 to 1987 are given in the following table. Separate information is not available centrally for the Bolton area as this is part of the area covered by the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority. The United Kingdom total for 1988 will be published shortly in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Summary Fire Statistics UK 1988" with separate figures for Greater Manchester being available from spring 1990.

  Total fires (fires in occupied buildings, outdoor fires and fires in derelict buildings) and fires in occupied buildings reported by local authority fire brigades

  United Kingdom

  Greater Manchester

  Year

  Total

  Occupied buildings

  Total

  Occupied buildings

  1987

  353,996

  104,079

  21,030

  6,669

  1986

  387,298

  105,650

  23,177

  6,913

  1985

  388,042

  104,655

  21,838

  6,172

  1984

  446,557

  101,545

  27,822

  6,442

  1983

  372,405

  97,490

  20,275

  5,804

  Fires in occupied buildings reported by local authority fire brigades as deliberate or possibly deliberate

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Greater Manchester

  1987

  18,774

  1,490

  1986

  19,317

  1,683

  1985

  18,414

  1,426

  1984

  17,756

  1,467

  1983

  15,486

  1,013

  Source: Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1983–87

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of(a) men and (b) women who have been sent to prison each month during 1987, 1988 and up till October 1989.
  387
  Mr. Mellor
  Quarterly information on receptions is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin (table 7 of the latest issue 12/89, "The Prison Population in 1988," a copy of which is in the Library). A person received as an untried prisoner will also be recorded as received after sentence if subsequently received to serve a sentence. Reliable monthly data on persons received as convicted unsentenced is not readily available; in 1988, 7,000 persons were received as convicted unsentenced who had not been previously received as an untried prisoner. The readily available monthly information is given in the tables.

  Untried prisoners received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1987–89

  Number of prisoners1

  Males

  Females

  Under 21

  21 and over

  Under 21

  21 and over

  1987

  January

  1,700

  3,100

  60

  160

  February

  1,700

  3,200

  50

  160

  March

  1,600

  3,000

  40

  150

  April

  1,700

  3,100

  60

  140

  May

  1,700

  3,200

  60

  170

  June

  1,700

  3,100

  50

  170

  July

  1,700

  3,000

  50

  150

  August

  1,800

  3,400

  50

  170

  September

  1,700

  3,200

  70

  190

  October

  1,700

  3,100

  70

  200

  November

  1,800

  3,200

  80

  190

  December

  1,600

  3,100

  70

  190

  1988

  January

  1,900

  3,400

  80

  200

  February

  1,700

  3,000

  70

  240

  March

  1,500

  2,900

  70

  190

  April

  1,700

  3,100

  60

  200

  May

  1,600

  3,000

  70

  170

  June

  1,600

  3,000

  50

  170

  July

  1,600

  3,100

  60

  160

  August

  1,500

  2,900

  30

  100

  September

  1,500

  2,800

  50

  180

  October

  1,600

  3,400

  80

  200

  November

  1,700

  3,100

  60

  190

  December

  1,500

  3,400

  70

  190

  1989

  January

  1,800

  3,300

  60

  230

  February

  1,600

  3,100

  80

  250

  March

  1,700

  3,300

  60

  260

  April

  1,600

  3,200

  70

  160

  May

  1,600

  2,900

  50

  210

  June

  1,600

  2,900

  60

  190

  July2

  1,600

  3,400

  90

  240

  August2

  1,300

  3,200

  80

  170

  1 Rounded seasonally adjusted estimates.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Prisoners received under sentence1 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, 1987–1989

  Number of prisoners2

  Males

  Females

  Under 21

  21 and over

  Under 21

  21 and over

  1987

  January

  1,800

  3,200

  40

  190

  February

  2,000

  3,400

  60

  210

  March

  1,900

  3,300

  50

  190

  April

  2,100

  3,400

  70

  220

  May

  2,000

  3,600

  60

  200

  June

  2,000

  3,600

  70

  210

  July

  1,800

  3,600

  60

  190

  August

  1,900

  3,500

  60

  200

  September

  1,900

  3,400

  60

  180

  October

  2,000

  3,600

  50

  200

  November

  2,000

  3,500

  70

  200

  388

  Males

  Females

  Under 21

  21 and over

  Under 21

  21 and over

  December

  2,000

  3,400

  50

  190

  1988

  January

  1,900

  3,600

  60

  190

  February

  2,000

  3,300

  60

  180

  March

  1,900

  3,400

  50

  190'

  April

  1,800

  3,500

  50

  180

  May

  1,700

  3,500

  50

  220

  June

  1,600

  3,200

  50

  180

  July

  2,000

  3,700

  50

  210

  August

  1,700

  3,400

  50

  150

  September

  1,700

  3,500

  50

  220

  October

  1,700

  3,300

  50

  170

  November

  1,600

  3,400

  40

  190

  December

  1,600

  3,700

  50

  160

  1989

  January

  1,500

  3,500

  60

  190

  February

  1,500

  3,400

  40

  200

  March

  1,400

  3,300

  50

  180

  April

  1,600

  3,700

  40

  200

  May

  1,500

  3,300

  50

  190

  June

  1,400

  3,100

  40

  150

  July3

  1,300

  3,100

  40

  170

  August3

  1,400

  3,400

  40

  210

  1 Excluding fine defaulters.

  2 Rounded seasonally adjusted estimates.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Prisoners received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in default of payment of a fine, 1987–1989

  Number of prisoners1

  Males

  Females

  Under 21

  21 and over

  Under 21

  21 and over

  1987

  January

  340

  1,260

  15

  70

  February

  410

  1,220

  20

  70

  March

  390

  1,290

  20

  60

  April

  360

  1,110

  15

  50

  May

  330

  1,000

  15

  60

  June

  380

  1,210

  20

  60

  July

  360

  1,180

  10

  50

  August

  330

  1,090

  15

  60

  September

  320

  1,080

  30

  70

  October

  370

  1,160

  10

  70

  November

  340

  1,180

  15

  60

  December

  300

  960

  20

  50

  1988

  January

  350

  1,250

  10

  60

  February

  370

  1,200

  15

  70

  March

  390

  1,230

  30

  70

  April

  260

  930

  15

  70

  May

  320

  1,110

  25

  70

  June

  380

  1,150

  20

  80

  July

  320

  990

  20

  60

  August

  300

  920

  10

  30

  September

  240

  760

  15

  50

  October

  280

  900

  20

  50

  November

  350

  1,010

  15

  60

  December

  220

  740

  15

  15

  1989

  January

  360

  1,070

  15

  60

  February

  260

  1,070

  10

  60

  March

  350

  1,050

  15

  April

  300

  1,030

  25

  70

  May

  320

  970

  15

  40

  June

  290

  1,100

  20

  60

  July2

  220

  960

  10

  50

  August2

  210

  1,020

  10

  50

  1Rounded estimates

  2 Provisional figures

  389

  Persons received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales as non-criminal prisoners, 1987–1989

  Number of prisoners1

  Males

  Females

  Under 21

  Hand over

  Under 21

  21 and over

  1987

  January

  25

  290

  —

  5

  February

  25

  320

  —

  10

  March

  .20

  260

  —

  5

  April

  10

  250

  —

  5

  May

  15

  220

  —

  10

  June

  10

  270

  —

  5

  July

  10

  240

  —

  5

  August

  15

  220

  —

  5

  September

  10

  220

  —

  10

  October

  10

  230

  —

  5

  November

  20

  260

  —

  5

  December

  5

  210

  —

  5

  1988

  January

  10

  250

  —

  5

  February

  10

  220

  —

  5

  March

  15

  310

  —

  15

  April

  10

  220

  —

  5

  May

  10

  240

  —

  5

  June

  15

  230

  —

  5

  July

  15

  240

  —

  10

  August

  10

  180

  —

  5

  September

  10

  230

  —

  5

  October

  15

  220

  —

  5

  November

  15

  230

  —

  5

  December

  15

  240

  —

  —

  1989

  January

  10

  230

  —

  10

  February

  10

  240

  —

  15

  March

  20

  240

  —

  15

  April

  15

  230

  —

  20

  May

  15

  270

  —

  5

  June

  15

  260

  —

  5

  July2

  5

  190

  —

  10

  August2

  15

  180

  —

  10

  1 rounded estimates

  2 provisional figures

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held on remand in police stations cells in England and Wales on 20 November.

  Mr. Mellor
  Twenty-three men and no women were held in police cells on Monday 20 November 1989. It is likely that most were on remand, and were being held by the police for no more than one night.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest annual cost of reimbursement of National Health Service charges incurred by police officers for drugs, medicines, appliances and dental treatment; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Violence
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage crimes of violence have increased over the past five years.
  390
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is set out in the table. Further information on crimes recorded by the police is pubished in table 2.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1988", Cm. 847.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police 1984–88

  England and Wales

  Number

  Year

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Total violent crime

  1984

  114,187

  20,222

  24,890

  159,299

  1985

  121,731

  21,456

  27,463

  170,650

  1986

  125,499

  22,684

  30,020

  178,203

  1987

  141,042

  25,154

  32,633

  198,829

  1988

  158,248

  26,529

  31,437

  216,214

  Percentage increase 1984–88

  39

  31

  26

  36

  Pet Animals (Protection)
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the consultations that he is conducting in respect of the European Convention for protecting pet animals, if he will set out in the Official Report a list of the interested organisations he is consulting, the date of writing to each and the date of each response so far received, together with an indication of when he expects those consultations to be completed or the date he has given for responses to be received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have consulted more than 20 bodies about the convention and a related report by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Surgical operations is the main area in which the provisions of the convention conflict with current United Kingdom legislation and practice. That part of the consultation process has now been completed. This summer meetings were held with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Kennel Club and the Council for Docked Breeds. We are now involved in interdepartmental consultation and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to reach a decision soon.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, for each year since 1974(a) the number of applications submitted under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, (b) the number where an award was made, c the number where the applicant died before determination of the application, (d) for rejected applications, the average duration of applications submitted, from date of application to the date of determination and (e) for successful applications, the average duration of applications submitted from date of application to date of receipt of the award.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which considers claims for victims of crimes of violence in Great Britain, does not record the number of applicants who die before their claims are decided nor the average time taken to reject or assess a claim. Details of the percentage of cases submitted to a member of the board for decision within certain periods of registration are given in the board's annual reports. This and the other information requested is given in the following tables:
  391

  Percentage of cases submitted to single member from date of registration of claim

  Year ended 31 March

  Within three months

  Three to six months

  Six to nine months

  Nine to twelve months months

  Over twelve months

  1974

  32

  43

  15

  6

  4

  1975

  30

  44

  16

  6

  4

  1976

  28

  46

  16

  6

  4

  1977

  19·6

  52·8

  16·4

  6·6

  4·6

  1978

  7·5

  40·8

  31·5

  13

  7·2

  1979

  3·5

  29

  37·3

  17·4

  12·8

  1980

  1·8

  22·7

  31·6

  18·7

  25·2

  1981

  4

  30

  26·4

  15·9

  23·7

  1982

  5·3

  31·6

  29·9

  15·1

  18·1

  1983

  1·6

  29·4

  27·7

  17·6

  23·7

  1984

  4·7

  30·1

  24·6

  15·9

  24·7

  1985

  5

  27·3

  25·2

  17

  25·5

  1986

  2·3

  18·3

  26·4

  22·6

  30·4

  1987

  1·5

  5·1

  16·4

  26·8

  50·2

  1988

  1·5

  2·6

  6·7

  20

  69·2

  1989

  1

  2·1

  4·8

  19

  73·1

  Applications Received

  Number of Final Awards Made

  Year ended 31 March

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1974

  9,873

  2,343

  7,272

  1,752

  1975

  11,561

  2,666

  8,811

  1,897

  1976

  13,717

  2,973

  9,501

  1,999

  1977

  16,786

  3,614

  11,750

  2,201

  1978

  17,019

  3,807

  11,592

  2,460

  1979

  18,078

  3,882

  13,901

  2,456

  1980

  18,948

  3,853

  14,659

  2,801

  1981

  20,613

  4,066

  17,355

  2,783

  1982

  22,099

  4,416

  14,820

  2,530

  1983

  24,635

  4,805

  16,498

  3,235

  1984

  26,828

  5,111

  17,930

  3,203

  1985

  29,050

  5,840

  17,123

  2,648

  1986

  33,420

  6,277

  19,977

  2,557

  1987

  35,957

  6,344

  18,796

  3,129

  1988

  35,940

  7,114

  17,906

  3,085

  1989

  36,285

  7,100

  23,721

  4,031

  Police Manpower (Wales)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will indicate, in the case of each police authority in Wales, the criteria that weighed with him in reaching his decision on(a) how many additional police posts and (b) how many additional civilian posts he would allow to each authority for 1990–91;

  (2) if he will list the figures of additional money he will make available for 1990–91 to each of the police authorities in Wales to pay for the additional establishment of police officers and indicate whether this will cover in full the cost of filling those posts;

  (3) if he will list the number of additional police posts he plans to allow for 1990–91 for each police authority in Wales, together with the present police establishment for each authority and the number of additional police posts requested by each of those authorities;

  (4) if he will list the number of additional posts for civilians, full-time or full-time equivalent, he plans to allow

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales1

  South Wales

  Police posts applied for

  —

  11

  10

  67

  Police posts approved with effect from 1 April 1990

  —

  2

  21

  31

  Police officer establishment as at 1 April 1989

  935

  1,007

  1,330

  3,137

  Number of civilians2 posts as at 30 September 1989

  228

  245

  423

  1,072

  392
  for 1990–91 for each police authority in Wales, together with the present civilian establishment for each authority and the number of additional civilian posts requested by each of those authorities;

  (5) what sum he intends to make available to each police authority in Wales in order to fill additional civilian posts;

  (6) whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the finances that he makes available to each police authority in Wales are fully adequate to cover the whole cost of filling the increased number of posts for civilian support staff employed by each authority and filling the increased police posts in the establishment for 1990–91 with the most suitable and experienced candidates available, as well as maintaining other support services as a safe level.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A table showing for each police force in Wales the number of police posts applied for, numbers approved, existing force establishment and civilian establishment, is set out as follows.
  393

  1 Eleven extra posts offered subject to police authority's confirmation that it will meet its share of the cost. (12 of the 21 posts are already held supernumerary to establishment.)

  2 Part-time staff counted on a 2: 1 basis. Traffic wardens not included.

  My right hon. and learned Friend considers applications for increases in police establishments on the basis of the demonstrated needs of forces and in the light of advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The general criteria which govern assessment of applications for increases are set out in Home Office circulars 114/1983 and 106/1988, copies of which are available in the Library. One of these criteria is that police authorities should have signified their intention to meet their share of the costs of the posts applied for.

  Under the normal police funding arrangements, the Government meet, through police specific grant, 51 per cent. of all police authorities' expenditure for police purposes. An additional contribution is made from central funds through revenue support grant, in the case of Welsh forces from the Welsh Office. It is for police authorities in Wales, as in England, to determine the resources to be made available to their forces.

  Police civilian staff attract police specific grant. My right hon. and learned Friend's approval however is not required for their appointment in provincial forces. This is a matter for the police authorities.

  Police Conduct (Photographs)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Hampshire on the photographing on Saturday 18 November, between 10.30 am and 11 am, at Brockenhurst hall in the New Forest, of members of the League Against Cruel Sports by a police photographer and how many other occasions similar photographs have been taken.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Hampshire that he decided to authorise the photographing of both hunt protestors and huntsmen as one response to an increasing number of breaches of the peace occurring at meets in that county.

  Photographs were taken on the last three weekends in November.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Kirkham remains on his list of definite sites for a new category B prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are considering this matter and I hope to write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Parole
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to eliminate parole delays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  We have been increasingly concerned with the administrative arrangements which have led to unacceptable parole delays. Earlier this year, action was taken on several fronts to reduce these delays. A significant increase in staffing for the parole unit was approved and regular overtime working authorised. The unit has also been completely reorganised and certain procedures streamlined to enhance productivity. Additional members 394
  were appointed to the Parole Board; and it has made a significant contribution to the effort by increasing its sittings and the number of cases dealt with at each one. But the need to train new staff, coupled with the advent of the summer leave season and the impact of transport difficulties, meant that the reduction in delays took some time to come through. However, a marked improvement has now been achieved. Delays are confined to those 30 per cent. of cases which must go to the Parole Board for advice. Owing to the growing number of inmates serving longer sentences whose cases must be referred to the board, our forecasts suggest that on the present basis, parole delays on these cases would continue until mid-1990. This is clearly unacceptable and further action is thus clearly necessary.

  We considered assigning yet more staff to the unit, but concluded that with the inevitable training requirement, this would not lead to an early elimination of delays. I have therefore decided to change the administrative arrangements underlying the advice given to me on which I take parole decisions.

  Section 35 of the Criminal Justices Act 1972 enables me, having consulted the Parole Board, to define classes of cases for which I may authorise parole on the basis of local review committee advice alone. At present, about two-thirds of all parole cases are decided on the basis of such advice. I have consulted the Parole Baord and decided with its agreement, to extend the section 35 arrangements to include all sentences under four years. Every parole case will, of course, continue to be considered very carefully on its merits in the Home Office; and where I believe that a second opinion would be helpful, I shall still ask the Parole Board to advise on the case.

  This action is likely to reduce the board's caseload by about a quarter. It will reduce the workload of the parole unit, freeing staff to deal more rapidly with existing backlogs. As a result, I expect that the present parole delays should generally be eliminated within about three months.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many individuals sought asylum in the United Kingdom in each year from 1980 to the latest available date in 1989;

  (2) if he will list the number of individuals who were (a) granted asylum, (b) granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom and (c) removed having applied for asylum in each year from 1980 to 1989 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: Information on the numbers of applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom, and of grants of refugee status and of exceptional leave, in the years 1980 to 1988, is published in table 5 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 25/89 "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom 1988". Provisional information for the first three quarters of 1989 has been provided to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  Comprehensive information on asylum seekers who were removed in these years is not available.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of alleged over-lenient sentencing have been referred to the Attorney-General under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and how many sentences have been revised upwards in consequence.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sixty-one cases of alleged unduly lenient sentencing have been referred to me. I have applied for leave to refer the sentencing in nine cases to the Court of Appeal. Leave has been granted in five such cases and sentences have been increased in four of the cases. I have withdrawn two cases in the light of later information and the remaining two cases await consideration by the court.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether Members will be permitted to install television satellite dishes at the House(a) for non-parliamentary programming and (b) to receive live pictures of the Chamber.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The reception of satellite television programmes in the House and its precincts is being considered by the Services Committee. Pending any final decision, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has resolved that no Member be allowed to make individual arrangements for reception of this service. I have no doubt that the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House will want to consider carefully the implications of any proposal to allow Members to receive in their rooms any satellite channel dedicated to continuous coverage of the House's proceedings, especially in the light of the Committee's decision not to accede to requests from Members to receive the clean feed direct from the Chamber.

  Welsh Question Time
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the time available for oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales to restore the total available time for these purposes to that prevailing before the establishment of the Department of Social Security.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the questions roster is a matter for discussion and agreement through the usual channels. I have looked at the matter raised by the hon. Member but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to alter the existing arrangements at the present time. I will, however, keep the matter under review.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to give councils in Scotland discretion about levying the poll tax on dead people if the person has died within a very short time after the start of a new financial year such as the end of April.
  396
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans to change the present arrangements under which regional and islands councils collect community charge arrears from the estates of people who have died. I believe that local authorities will want to use their powers sensitively, taking advice as necessary in relation to the circumstances of particular cases.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ensure that notices of death are automatically passed from CCRO offices to poll tax administrators in Scotland with an instruction that the final notice of poll tax payment be made no later than one month from the date of notification by the registrar's office or by the family, whichever comes first.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Community charge billing and collection arrangements are a matter for individual levying authorities. I have no plans to change the statutory provisions under which they operate. I believe that authorities will want to use their powers sensitively, especially in relation to people who have recently died.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools are involved in by-elections for school boards for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures are 934 primary schools and 83 secondary schools.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the cost to date of school board elections;

  (2) what is the projected cost of by-elections to be held for school boards;

  (3) what steps his Department is taking to offset the extra costs of by-elections to school boards.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on authorities' spending on school board elections and by-elections is not yet available. It is for individual authorities themselves to decide how much they spend on each element of their programmes within the overall resources available to them. Specific account was taken of authorities' estimates of the administrative costs of setting up and running school boards in the revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report on teacher shortage completed by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The report was requested by the Scottish Education Department as a contribution to the work of the planning group on teacher supply set up by my right hon. and learned Friend earlier this year. The report confirms that at present in Scotland there are no general difficulties in recruiting teaching staff for primary or secondary schools. It indicates, however, that some authorities, notably Strathclyde, expect difficulties in obtaining sufficient absence cover over the winter months. The information in the paper was taken into account in my recent proposals for target intakes to courses of teacher training in colleges of education for session 1990–91.
  397
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance the Department has given to education authorities in respect of a pay increase for teachers for 1990.

  Mr. Lang
  It is the responsibility of the Scottish joint negotiating committee for teaching staff in school education (SJNC) to determine the level of pay increases for teachers in Scotland. In their negotiations on the 1990 settlement, employer representatives will require to take account of the overall level of financial resources available to authorities including central Government grants.

  School Staffing Circular
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new school staffing circular is to be issued.

  Mr. Lang
  I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 20 July 1989 at column 306.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1974(a) the number of applications submited under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, (b) the number where an award was made, (c) the number where the applicant died before determination of the application, (d) for rejected applications, the average duration of applications submitted, from date of application to the date of determination and (e) for successful applications the average duration of applications submitted from date of application to date of receipt of the award.

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

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of YTS and employment training trainees that there have been in Grampian region since these schemes were established, in total and broken down by district; and how many trainees were in each instance offered full-time employment on the completion of their course.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of YTS and employment training entrants in Grampian region and in each district of the region since these training schemes were established are set out in the table:

  Local Authority District

  Employment Training

  YTS

  Gordon

  128

  1,027

  Banff/Buchan

  194

  2,565

  Moray

  318

  2,398

  Aberdeen

  2,111

  10,346

  Total for Grampian Region

  2,751

  16,336

  Follow-up information on YTS completers in the Grampian region is available from year ended April 1987 onwards, and is set out in the table below:
  398

  Percentage of YTS completers in full-time employment

  Year ended

  per cent.

  March 1987

  50·0

  March 1988

  75·1

  March 1989

  87·1

  At present, information of the number of employment training trainees who find full-time employment is not available. A 100 per cent. follow-up survey which will provide information on this is now under way.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the next annual increases in legal aid remuneration will be effective from 1 April and that thereafter increases will be awarded on an annual basis.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While it is our objective to avoid protracted negotiations on legal aid fee levels, no specific date can be set for their completion.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider extending the period within which criminal legal aid accounts must be submitted to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for payment following conclusion of the case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This matter will be considered in forthcoming discussions between the Scottish Home and Health Department, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland.

  Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the aims and objectives of the Nature Conservancy Council's overview of special protection areas to be designated under the European Council directive on the conservation of wild birds; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The NCC was asked by environment departments to produce an overview setting out the requirements for the British series of special protection areas to ensure the conservation, survival and reproduction of species listed in annex 1 of the EC birds directive throughout their natural range in Great Britain; the safeguard of important breeding, moulting, wintering and nesting sites of migratory birds not listed on annex 1; particular attention being paid to wetlands and especially those of international importance.

  The draft overview was received at the beginning of November 1989.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites where consultation with interested parties has been completed and which are awaiting designation under European Council directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: None. The Scottish Development Department has consultations in hand on 12 possible sites for which the Nature Conservancy Council has submitted a detailed case.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures were given in the supporting documents of the Hague Preference (Council Resolutions) 1976 for the United Kingdom quota for North sea haddock and cod species.

  Mr. Lang
  The documents associated with the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 did not identify the appropriate levels of threshold for the Hague preference arrangements. However, subsequent working documents proposed thresholds for the United Kingdom of 60,000 tonnes for haddock, and 43,179 tonnes for cod, both for the North sea.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the definition of a partnership in relation to the application of the headage limits imposed under the reform of the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the terms of EC Council regulation 3013/89, the headage limits applying to sheep annual premium will be applied individually to each member farmer of a group, association or other form of co-operation between producers. In the case of partnerships, the headage limits will be applied to each member farmer provided that the partnership involves reciprocal rights and obligations in relation to the keeping of sheep.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current cash value of hill livestock compensatory allowances, the impact of the proposed new European regime and whether he has any plans to introduce a British top-up scheme to protect the cash value to British farmers.

  Mr. Curry
  Total payments of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the United Kingdom in 1989 are expected to be some £115 to £120 million. The decisions on HLCAs taken by the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers at its meeting on 20 and 21 November 1989 will not affect the 1990 HLCA scheme. The Government have not yet taken decisions on arrangements for subsequent years.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the consequences for dairy farmers in England of the agreement on 21 November of European Community Agriculture Ministers(a) to increase European Community milk quotas by 1 per cent. and (b) to reduce guaranteed prices of butter' and skimmed milk.

  Mr. Curry
  I am currently considering, with the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales, how best to distribute the additional 1 per cent. of quota now available for allocation to producers. The reductions in intervention prices may in the long run lead 400
  to lower market prices than would otherwise have been the case but much depends on the market management strategy followed by the EC Commission. At present market prices for butter and skimmed milk powder are well above the level of the intervention price.

  Environmental Groups
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he considers the political stance of the environmental groups with whom he has discussions before meeting them;

  (2) if he will list all the environmental groups with whom he has had discussions since taking office;

  (3) what is the normal practice on meeting environmental groups whose philosophy is against the free market;

  (4) when he last received representations advocating a free market solution to environmental problems.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have met representatives from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Green Alliance, Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

  I have received a wide range of representations on environmental issues. None has specifically advocated a free market solution, although I am ready to listen to opinions from all quarters.

  I have the same approach in considering whether to meet environmental groups as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In any meeting with environmental groups I look for a constructive exchange of views which can contribute to our understanding of the environmental issues that we face.

ENERGY

  Tritium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what safeguards are currently applied to the storage and import of radioactive tritium in the United Kingdom; what is the minimum amount of tritium loss from storage or transport that would trigger an investigation by Euratom, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Her Majesty's Government under the Zangeer trigger list; and what communications he has had with the United States Department of Energy over the loss of tritium in transit from Oak Ridge national laboratories to the United Kingdom earlier in the current year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Tritium is not subject to IAEA or Euratom safeguards and does not feature on the Zangeer committee trigger list.

  Users of Tritium are either registered under the Radioactive Substance Act 1960 or, in the case of licensed nuclear installations, licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965; and are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate as appropriate. In all cases the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, which control the storage of, and provide for accountancy for, all radioactive substances apply.

  Exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology are controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987, through which we give effect to our international obligations. There is no evidence of any tritium being diverted.
  401
  Officials of the United States Department of Energy met recently the United Kingdom Department of Energy and United Kingdom customers for United States Tritium to discuss measurement and auditing procedures.

  Grimethorpe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he intends to assist the establishment of experimental fluidised bed combustion stations additional to that at Grimethorpe;

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken or commissioned into the building of pithead power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  On 24 August my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced financial support of up to £8 million to assist development of British Coal's topping cycle concept at the Grimethorpe test facility. This is an experimental fluidised bed combustion plant rather than a power station, and it is hoped that the concepts being developed there will be applied commercially, either at the pit head or elsewhere. Fluidised bed technology is proven and commercially available. The promotion of specific applications is a matter for industry, rather than Government.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by regional area the numbers of mining jobs that have been lost during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Average colliery manpower by British Coal area is shown each year in British Coal's annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the planned future tonnages of opencast mining over(a) the next five years and (b) the next 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is no Government target for opencast coal output. The overall level of opencast production will be determined by the market, subject to the need to obtain planning permission.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any compensation has been paid by the United Kingdom to other countries for acid rain damage.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to take charge of the management of implementation of the electricity supply industry flue gas desulphurisation programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Management of implementation of the flue gas desulphurisation programme is a matter for the industry itself.

  Switchgear
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of Monday 27 November to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, how many disruptive failures of 11KV switchgear occurred in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not readily possible to provide annual statistics of the specific type and nature requested by the hon. Member for a period as long as 10 years. The number of incidents involving the disruptive failure of 11KV switchgear which have been notified to my Department since 1987, for the specific reporting periods indicated, are as follows:

  Number

  April 1987 to March 1988

  29

  April 1988 to March 1989

  4

  April 1989 to date

  25

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many incidents in area electricity boards involving 11KV switchgear which would have given rise to injury, death, fire or explosion occurred in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not readily possible to provide annual statistics of the specific type and nature requested by the hon. Member for a period as long as 10 years. The number of incidents, however, notified to my Department since 1987 involving 11KV switchgear, which could have given rise to injury, death, fire or explosion, for the specific reporting periods indicated, are as follows:

  Number

  April 1987 to March 1988

  9

  April 1988 to March 1989

  40

  April 1989 to date

  34

  1987–8S

  1988–89

  1989 to date

  Number of fatalities (public)

  0

  0

  0

  Number of fatalities (electricity supply industry)

  2

  0

  n/a

  Number of injuries (public)

  0

  0

  2

  Number of injuries (electricity supply industry)

  2

  2

  n/a

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what investigations the engineering inspectorate of his Department carried out on 11KV switchgear in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The engineering inspectorate has carried out an average of eight investigations per annum since 1979 into incidents involving assets of the electricity supply industry and injury or fatality to members of the public. Only one of the investigations in this period has specifically involved 11KV switchgear. Incidents involving employees of the industry or their contractors while at work are investigated by the Health and Safety Executive. The engineering inspectorate, however, carries out periodic inspections of ESI assets, including 11KV switchgear, to ensure compliance with the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988. All the area electricity boards in
  403
  England and Wales were, for example, visited between March and May this year, and a number of substations and overhead line support structures were inspected. A number of follow-up inspections arising from these visits have also been made.

  Electricity Boards (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many prosecutions of electricity boards were initiated by his engineering inspectorate in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No prosecutions of the electricity boards were initiated by the engineering inspectorate of the Department of Energy between 1979 and 1988. One prosecution has been initiated so far in 1989.

  Redundant Mineworkers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much the Government have paid out under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme in each year since its inception; what is the latest estimate for the current year; and what is his estimate for each year to 1993.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total payments under the RMPS between 1968–69 and 1988–89 were £2,309 million. The estimates provision for 1989–90 is for payments of £132·5 million. Payments are projected to fall steadily to reach less than £90 million per year in the early 1990s.

  Nuclear Companies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what account will be taken in setting prices for the new national nuclear companies of(a) market-related factors and (b) cost-related factors.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Pricing is a matter for negotiation between Nuclear Electric and the area boards, subject to Government approval of the conclusions reached.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the new national nuclear companies will provide base load electricity to the grid.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Yes. Nuclear Electric plc will provide base load electricity.

  British Coal
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the effect of the interest rate increases of the past 18 months on the finances of British Coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for British Coal. However, I can say that the increase in British Coal's external finance limit of £423 million which I announced on 23 November 1989 was intended to cover, among other things, the effect of an increase of £35 million in the corporation's annual interest bill caused by higher interest rates.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department makes of the research and development programmes of each of the energy industries.
  404
  Mr. Wakeham
  My Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power (ACORD) reviews annually the R & D programmes of the electricity supply industry and British Coal. After privatisation, the successor companies will determine their own R & D programmes. However, discussions with the ESI will continue to ensure that, where necessary, the national interest in long-term electricity R & D is protected through Government promotion of specific activities.

  My Department also collects and reviews information periodically on the R & D programmes of the oil and gas companies on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of his Department's research and development budget was devoted to(a) coal-fired generation and (b) nuclear power, in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Proportion of D/Energy R & D expenditure on:

  nuclear Per cent.

  coal technology Per cent.

  1979–80

  84·2

  1·0

  1980–81

  85·1

  1·2

  1981–82

  81·5

  1·8

  1982–83

  85·2

  1·2

  1983–84

  85·7

  1·3

  1984–85

  84·6

  0·3

  1985–86

  85·4

  0·3

  1986–87

  83·0

  1·0

  1987–88

  79·9

  0·8

  1988–89

  81·3

  0·7

  Source: Annual Review of Government Funded R & D Percentage for nuclear prior to 1986–87 is based on D/Energy grant to the UKAEA for R & D

  The difference in the proportions of R & D expenditure allocated to either technology reflects both the difference in scale and expense of the research effort involved, and also the fact that much coal technology R & D was (and is) carried out by British Coal, the electricity supply industry, and the private sector. The Government's policy is to support R & D only where that is necessary to ensure that work in the national interest is done to an appropriate time scale.

  Power Station Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's latest estimate of the comparative cost per kilowatt hour of(a) nuclear power stations and (b) modern conventional stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The costs of electricity generation are a matter for the CEGB.

  Engineering Inspectorate
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the establishment of professionally qualified staff in the engineering inspectorate of his Department; and how many such staff are in post;

  (2) what is the establishment of the engineering inspectorate of his Department; and how many staff are in post.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The establishment of the engineering inspectorate of the Department of Energy is for five
  405
  professionally qualified electrical engineers, one administrative officer (full-time) and one administrative officer (part-time). At present there are four professionally qualified staff in post and one administrative officer (full-time).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the maximum amount of time which can elapse between the occurrence of an incident which could give rise to injury, death, fire or explosion in an electricity board and the incident being reported to his engineering inspectorate.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Under the requirements of regulation 34(2)(e) of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 the reporting of incidents by an electricity board which could give rise to injury, death, fire or explosion must be in writing and sent to the Secretary of State within 15 days of the end of the month in which the event became known to the board.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the total tonnage of polychlorinated biphenyls in transformers owned by the area electricity boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board;

  (2) what percentage of transformers owned by (a) the area electricity boards and (b) the Central Electricity Generating Board contain polychlorinated biphenyls.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I have therefore asked the chairmen of the Electricity Council and the CEGB to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Subsidence
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Waddlilove committee on subsidence.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Over half the recommendations of the Waddilove committee have already been implemented wholly or in part by British Coal. (For details, I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmore Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on 12 January at columns 739–41). The Government's proposals for legislation concerning the remaining recommendations will be implemented as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Electrical Manufacturers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he or his predecessors last met representatives of United Kingdom electrical plant manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet representatives of the United Kingdom plant manufacturers from time to time, as did my predecessor.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the status of the report that his Department is preparing on possible further United 406
  Kingdom greenhouse gas emissions for the intergovernmental panel on climatic change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the study entitled "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them" for the energy and industry subgroup of the response strategies working group of the UNEP/WMO intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is now ready and has been sent to the IPCC. The United Kingdom along with certain other countries volunteered to submit such urgent studies in order to assist the subgroup in its work. The aim of the studies is to illustrate, from the national perspectives of participating countries, the practical technical options and their possible costs, which may be available to curtail emissions of the "greehouse" gases from the many energy-related activities of society.

  Of necessity, the study has to consider the size of future emissions of the greenhouse gases and the shape of the then energy system, as background against which the technical measures can be analysed. Such scenarios of future emissions, being very dependent on the input assumptions, are intended to provide only a framework for assessing the options. They are not predictions of the future. Similarly the impact of any one technical option is uncertain; and since each option in the paper has been considered in isolation it would be wrong to draw any conclusion from any combination of them.

  It is clear that the United Kingdom is responsible for only a fraction (approximately 3 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions) and that this is likely to decline proportionately in the future. Therefore, tackling the problem of climate change needs truly international action, as all recent studies of the subject (including the recent valuable contribution from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology) have stressed. That is why it is important for all countries to concentrate their efforts on the work of the IPCC. Once its advice is available, it will be for the international community to decide what measures should be taken, and how best individual countries can contribute to the global response.

  I have today placed a copy of the study report in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has as to the prevalance of the practice of killing unborn babies prior to abortion after 18 weeks by injecting a saline solution into the womb; and whether this is in accordance with best practice as set out in guidance to abortionists by his Department;

  (2) what information he has as to the prevalance of the practice of killing unborn babies prior to abortion after 18 weeks by injecting urea into the womb; and whether this is in accordance with best practice as set out in guidance to abortionists by his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The method of termination used in a particular case is a matter for the doctor concerned.
  407
  The available information is that in England and Wales in 1988, 2,501 abortions were carried out in which the use of urea was reported and 13 were carried out in which the use of saline was reported in conjunction with prostaglandins.

  Speech Therapists
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether there are sufficient trained speech therapists to perform their duties within the Leicestershire health authority; what is the total current number on establishment; and how far that establishment is filled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for health authorities to determine their staffing levels for particular services. Leicestershire health authority has a funded establishment of 45 whole-time equivalent trained speech therapists and there are currently 38 whole-time equivalent trained staff in post.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that development plans he has approved for Whipps Cross hospital do not include reprovision of any service currently provided by Wanstead hospital; and if he will make it his policy not to approve any decision to close Wanstead hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  Phase 1 of the Whipps Cross hospital development was approved by Ministers in February 1988 and is due to open in 1990. This development does not include any plans for alteration in services currently provided by Wanstead hospital. We have received no plans from North East Thames regional health authority proposing any other major changes to services in Waltham Forest district health authority.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the most recent declaration of a red alert at Whipps Cross hospital; and if he will consider additional action to get the hospital through the winter without having to declare a further red alert.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest red alert at Whipps Cross is due to higher than normal levels of emergency admissions. Waltham Forest health authority has implemented the red alert to ensure that in-patient services for emergency and urgent admissions are fully maintained whilst causing the least possible disruption to patient services. The health authority will continue to operate a flexible bed allocation policy as has been the practice in previous years.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his responsibility in the case of a health authority that does not commit sufficient resources to a hospital to maintain its fabric and services and to retain staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for regional and district health authorities to allocate resources to hospitals ensuring that services best meet the needs of the patients they serve.

  Blind or Partially Sighted People
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are registered blind in St. Helens and Knowsley health authority;
  408
  (2) what is the total number of people, in percentage and in numerical terms, in the population with a severe sight impairment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of people in England registered with local authorities as blind or partially sighted is published in "Registered Blind and Partially Sighted Persons at 31 March 1988 England", a copy of which is in the Library. This shows that

  (a) the number of persons registered as blind within the boundaries of St. Helens and Knowsley health authority at that date is 713; and

  (b) the total number of people in England registered as blind or partially sighted at that date is 205,876. This represents 0·4 per cent. of the estimated England population. However, not all blind or partially sighted people register with local authorities and the proportion who do not register is unknown.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance personnel were employed in each of the last 10 years in both(a) actual terms and (b) full-time equivalents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is given in the table:

  NHS ambulance staff in post at 30 September 1979 to 1988 England

  Numbers

  Ambulance officers and control assistants

  Ambulancemen/women

  Total

  1979

  3,178

  13,997

  17,175

  1980

  3,232

  14,580

  17,812

  1981

  3,206

  15,059

  18,265

  1982

  3,285

  15,135

  18,420

  1983

  3,273

  15,245

  18,518

  1984

  3,206

  15,059

  18,265

  1985

  3,172

  15,220

  18,392

  1986

  3,165

  16,227

  19,392

  1987

  3,086

  16,592

  19,678

  1988

  3,032

  16,357

  19,389

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  NHS ambulance staff in post at 30 September 1979 to 1988 England

  Whole-time equivalent

  Ambulance officers and control assistants

  Ambulancemen/ women

  Total

  1979

  3,156

  13,973

  17,129

  1980

  3,214

  14,554

  17,768

  1981

  3,293

  14,928

  18,221

  1982

  3,265

  15,059

  18,324

  1983

  3,249

  15,148

  18,397

  1984

  3,174

  14,930

  18,103

  1985

  3,139

  15,049

  18,188

  1986

  3,124

  15,841

  18,966

  1987

  3,037

  15,973

  19,010

  1988

  2,980

  15,781

  18,761

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the document "The London Ambulance Service in the Nineties: Management Proposals" in the Library; how many district health
  409
  authorities in London will be affected by the proposals contained in the document; and whether similar proposals are being prepared or discussed for any other regions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The document "The London Ambulance Service in the Nineties" is a public document which is available on request from South West Thames RHA. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  South West Thames is currently discussing the proposals it contains with the three other Thames regions. In all, 32 DHAs are served by the London ambulance service.

  A number of other regional health authorities are reviewing the management arrangements of their regionally managed ambulance services in line with the Department's circular EL(89)MB/59, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to proceed with the privatisation or contracting out of non-emergency ambulance services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities were advised in 1984 that it was open to them to buy-in part of the ambulance service if that was more cost effective and provided that the quality of service was maintained. A number of NHS ambulance authorities are using private contractors, the hospital car service and the voluntary aid societies to transport appropriate NHS patients. The proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before Parliament offer a further opportunity for authorities to re-appraise their non-emergency patient transport services.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out by his Department of the costs benefits and processes of privatising ambulance services; when these studies started and were completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such studies into the ambulance service have been carried out. However, in 1983, a Rayner scrutiny of the non-emergency ambulance service recommended that budgets for transport should be introduced at unit or clinical level and that it would be for managers at that level to buy in part of the ambulance service of other public agencies or the private sector if that was more cost effective and provided that the quality of service was maintained. Health authorities were advised accordingly in 1984.

  A scheme for charging the cost of non-emergency ambulance services to units has been piloted in the West Midlands RHA and a full report of the results is expected shortly.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the special advisory groups on nurse prescribing, chaired by Dr. June Gown; and when and in what form he proposes to bring forward the necessary legislative changes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The advisory group's report will be published and distributed for comment within the next few weeks. The Department is considering the implications of the report, including the legislative changes that will be needed if the group's proposals are adopted.

  Speech Therapists
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a child to have a first consultation with a trained speech therapist today; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Fostering (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are currently in foster care in the Bolton area; what proportion are in long-term foster care; and how many foster parents are currently going through the process of adoption of such children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of children in care in the metropolitan district of Bolton who were boarded out with foster parents at 31 March 1988 was 155. Information is not available centrally about what proportion of these children was in long-term foster care or how many foster parents were going through the process of adoption of such children.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he will make to ensure that community health services are provided locally by all district authorities as part of their core services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It will be the responsibility of every district health authority to ensure that its population has access to a comprehensive range of services, including community health services. Many services such as community health services will need to be provided locally either for clinical reasons, because of the nature of the service or for the convenience of patients and their relatives. District health authorities will be expected to arrange a pattern of services which secures local access where this is needed and at the same time gives patients and their GPs the maximum possible choice. DHAs performance in obtaining the most appropriate pattern of services will be monitored through the review processes. The concept of "core services" is not relevant to this process in most circumstances. The term "core service" applies only to services which an NHS trust will, if necessary, be required to provide because local access is essential and there is no appropriate alternative provider available.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition of rehabilitation is used by his Department; and how he intends to ensure that it is carried out effectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  Within the Department rehabilitation is taken to mean the complex of measures and activities aimed at helping disabled and handicapped people achieve the highest level of physical, psychological and social adaption and integration. We intend to ensure it is carried out effectively by continuing to bring about the improvements in health and social services outlined in two recent White Papers "Working for Patients" and "Caring for People" and by liaising with other Government Departments as and when necessary.

  General Practitioners' Contract
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision has been made in the new general practitioners' contract for the reimbursement of the salary of doctors' wives working in their surgeries;

  (2) what provision has been made in the new general practitioners' contract for the direct reimbursement of ancillary staff salaries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From 1 April 1990, restrictions on the number and type of staff for whom general practitioners may receive direct reimbursement will be removed. Within their cash allocations, family practitioner committees and health boards will be able to authorise reimbursement for whatever staff they and general practitioners consider best for the provision of care in the area served. These new arrangements which are set out in the statement of fees and allowances payable from 1 April 1990 are the same for doctors' wives who work in the surgery as for other practice staff.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) from whom advice was sought regarding the cost of the help likely to be needed by HIV-infected haemophiliacs and their families before the figure of £20,000 for an individual lump sum payment was decided upon; and what advice was given;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the £20,000 lump sum payment to HIV-infected haemophiliacs does not affect the receipt of social security payments and legal aid by them;

  (3) what advice was given by the Charity Commissioners regarding the legality of the Macfarlane trust giving equal lump sum payments to all HIV-infected haemophiliacs.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will explain the method to be used for parcelling out the £19 million promised to haemophiliac cases who are HIV positive; whether they will each receive an equivalent capital sum; and how soon he expects the payments to be made;

  (2) what discussions took place with the executors of the Mcfarlane trust about using part of the existing fund to top-up the ex gratia capital sums to be given to haemophiliacs who are HIV positive; and whether it is intended to restore that money to meet continuous need for extras including heating and dietary requirements;

  (3) whether, as a result of the payment of £20,000 to each of the haemophiliacs who are HIV positive, they will be deemed to possess a capital sum in excess of what is allowed for claiming legal aid; and whether this money will affect their ability to pursue their claim for compensation on legal aid.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are firmly committed both to making equal lump sum payments of £20,000 to each haemophiliac infected with HIV through the use of blood products, or to the family of such a person who has died and to enabling the Macfarlane trust to continue on a more generous scale their help to families in particular need. Together, we believe that these measures are adequate to ensure that the special needs of the infected haemophiliacs and their families are met. Discussions are 412
  taking place with representatives of the Macfarlane trust, and with the Charity Commission, on how our objectives can be achieved.

  We hope that payments will be made as soon as possible.

  The payments will be disregarded for the purpose of social security as have past payments from the Macfarlane trust. Also, such payments should not prejudice the legal aid position of haemophiliacs with HIV who are, or seek to be, involved in the current litigation concerning their HIV infection.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health last met the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority on 14 November 1989 to discuss matters relating to the management of the NHS.

  Basildon and Thurrock District Health Authority
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current net annual rate bill paid by each hospital within Basildon and Thurrock district health authority to the relevant local authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally. I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts Basildon and Thurrock health authority direct.

  AIDS
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current budget for expenditure on AIDS and the related educational campaign; and whether the budget has changed from the sums made available for the year 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has made the following provision for AIDS-related health and personal social services and health education expenditure in England.

  (£millions)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Advances to health authorities

  58·74

  121·90

  AIDS support grant allocations to local authorities.

  nil

  7·00

  Section 64 grants to voluntary organisations

  1·09

  1·67

  Allocations to the Health Education Authority (including United Kingdom mass media remit)

  10·00

  12·00

  Research (made available)

  1·60

  2·29

  Other Government Departments also spend money in response to. HIV-AIDS, for example, the Department of Education and Science provides funds to the Medical Research Council for its directed programme on AIDS.

  Edwards-Duromedics Heart Valve
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the class I recall, issued in the United States of America on the Edwards-Duromedics heart valve,
  413
  reached his Department; what action was taken as a result; and when and what warnings were issued to general practitioners about the hazards of the valve.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department became aware on 17 May 1988 that the manufacturer had arranged a voluntary recall in the USA. Urgent arrangements were made for a meeting in this country on 19 May 1988 between the manufacturer and the Department of Health medical and technical staff. This led to agreement to the company issuing a letter on 25 May 1988 to all implanting centres and known United Kingdom purchasers of the specified heart valves with instructions to inform appropriate medical staff of the need to discontinue use for new patients and ensure very careful monitoring of patients currently using them. Guidance was also given on diagnosis and treatment. After further independent evaluation of various types of valve in Sheffield the Department subsequently issued a "Dear Doctor" letter on 19 August 1988 to all consultant cardiothoracic surgeons and cardiologists in the United Kingdom, covering the question of valve failure. Since 1986 the Department has been funding a heart valve registry based at the Hammersmith hospital to monitor usage and failures in use in the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Drugs
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special assistance the Government are giving or planning for Colombia, Bolivia and Peru to assist them in their efforts to eliminate illicit drug production and trafficking.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As far as assistance to Colombia is concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 29 November to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). In Bolivia, we are contributing via the United Nations fund for drug abuse control to a £2·2 million alternative development project, and have recently allocated a further £5 million of aid funds. We have also contributed some £250,000 to drugs rehabilitation projects in Bolivia. United Kingdom assistance to Peru has included the provision of an aircraft and communications equipment. Future aid is likely to include training for the Bolivian and Peruvian customs services.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have received any requests for assistance from the Government of E1 Salvador in the matter of the recent murder of six Jesuit priests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. We shall, of course, do all that we reasonably can to help the Government of El Salvador bring the perpetrators of this terrible crime to justice. We welcome President Cristiani's obvious determination to establish all the facts.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of members of the El Salvadorean armed forces who have been prosecuted for involvement in death squads, torture and murder since the beginning of the present conflict.
  414
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's ambassador to E1 Salvador has made to the E1 Salvadorean Government on the recent murder of six Jesuit priests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following statement of our view on the killing of the six Jesuits has been passed to the Salvadorean authorities in London and San Salvador:"We utterly condemn the cowardly and appalling murders which occurred at the Catholic university in the early hours of 16 November. The rector and his colleagues were men whose reputation for honesty and integrity stood high in the world. Words cannot express our disgust at the simultaneous killing of their cook and one or more of her children. We hope that the perpetrators of this crime will be identified and brought to justice.
  In the present tense situation in San Salvador, we urge restraint on all parties. Acts of retribution will lead only to further tragedy and despair. This cannot be the way forward for El Salvador.
  We hope that everything will be done to facilitate the task of the Red Cross, in particular to bring the wounded to safety where they can receive treatment.
  We renew our call on the FMLN to bring to an end their offensive which has caused such suffering and to return to the negotiating table."

  Children
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government have adopted towards the proposal for a world summit for children as suggested by UNICEF.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs joined other Commonwealth heads of Government in welcoming the proposed summit for children as a means of stimulating national and international action. I understand that preparations for this conference are in train and we await proposals from those concerned.

  UN Relief and Working Agency
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the increase of contributions to United Nations Relief and Working Agency announced by Council of Europe member states at the pledging conference of 16 November.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At the pledging conference held on 16 November at the United Nations general assembly, donor countries announced contributions to UNRWA for 1990 amounting to US $76 million. Some ten pledges have yet to be quantified. Of the total announced to date, Council of Europe member states have pledged more than US $64 million (a modest increase on 1989).

  Britain's contribution for 1989 was £5·25 million. This was increased at the 16 November conference to £5·5 million. In addition, we have provided a grant of £250,000 to fund an UNRWA housing and infrastructure feasibility study being carried out by British consultants. We also contribute substantially through the European Community, both to UNRWA's regular programmes and to its emergency programmes.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been made homeless in the dependent territory of Montserrat as a result of Hurricane Hugo on 17 September; and what is the estimated cost of the damage sustained during the hurricane.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A complete survey of the extent of damage to housing from Hurricane Hugo is being conducted by the Montserrat Government. Their preliminary estimates are that, of the 4,000 houses in Montserrat, perhaps as many as 30 per cent. were totally devasted and 60 per cent. rendered temporarily uninhabitable. It will clearly take time to produce an accurate assessment of the cost of the overall damage. The extent to which this figure will be met by insurance policies is also not yet known.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what material and financial help has been given to the Government of Montserrat since the hurricane of 17 September; and whether he will assist financially those people who have been left homeless to rebuild their homes and those people who have lost business and crops.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Immediately following Hurricane Hugo, Britain made an initial £1 million available to the area for emergency assistance, such as tents, blankets, roofing, medicaments, and also the services of British armed forces for immediate repairs and the airfreighting of supplies. Most of this assistance was directed to Montserrat. Subsequently, a further £3·2 million has been committed for reconstruction, mainly on Montserrat. A major use has been to finance teams of engineers, linesmen and electricians from British electricity boards to repair the electricity distribution system on Antigua and on Montserrat where over 50 men are currently working. It is also being used to purchase, for the Montserrat public works department, equipment and materials (such as galvanised sheeting, roofing shingles and nails) for public assistance housing, clinics, schools and other Government buildings.

  A number of other donor Governments and agencies, including the United States, Canada and the European Community, are also providing emergency assistance.

  Losses to private businesses, homes and crops are a matter for the companies and individuals concerned drawing on their private insurance cover. I understand the Montserrat Government is providing help for individuals facing particular difficulties.

  British officials, including specialist advisers, from our development division in Barbados and from London, recently completed a report on Montserrat's longer-term needs. They have formulated a rebuilding strategy, which we will now be discussing with the Government of Montserrat and also with the international aid institutions and other donors. The aim will be to prepare an action plan and financing assessment.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the size of the overseas aid budget for each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list the size of the overseas aid budget in real terms for each year since 1979.
  416
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures for net public expenditure on overseas aid at current and at 1979 prices are as follows:

  Year

  Current prices £ million

  1979 prices £ million

  1979

  864

  864

  1980

  842

  704

  1981

  1,062

  798

  1982

  991

  692

  1983

  1,080

  716

  1984

  1,200

  760

  1985

  1,210

  726

  1986

  1,233

  714

  1987

  1,174

  649

  1988

  1,540

  798

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people he anticipates will be compulsorily removed from Hong Kong by 25 December.

  Mr. Maude
  As of 27 November, a total of 3,629 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong had been finally screened out with no alternative but return to Vietnam. Some may volunteer to return. It is therefore not possible to determine in advance how many will need to be repatriated, nor how long it will take to complete the process. But a start will need to be made soon.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance is to be given to each Veitnamese boat person who will be compulsorily removed from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  The level of reintegration assistance to be paid to the first group of Vietnamese boat people who return involuntarily to Vietnam will be the equivalent to what UNHCR pays under the voluntary repatriation scheme. It will cover such expenses as transport within Vietnam, food, domestic appliances, housing and resettlement in other places, vocational training, job placement and production tools. The level of expenditure will depend on the details of each case.

  South Korea
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Korea in order to bring about an end to the inhumane treatment of dogs and cats intended for human consumption in that country; and if he will make it his policy to raise the issue at an intergovernmental level.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Korean Government are well aware of the revulsion felt by the people in the United Kingdom at the cruel treatment of animals. During the recent visit of President Roh, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs once again drew the attention of the Korean Foreign Minister to the strong concern which many people in this country feel about the way in which dogs and cats are reared and slaughtered for food in Korea.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to initiate
  417
  and co-ordinate action by international environmental and animal welfare organisations to bring pressure on the Government of Korea to end inhumane treatment of dogs and cats intended for human consumption in that country.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Korean Government are well aware of the strong concern in this country and elsewhere about the way in which cats and dogs are reared and slaughtered for human consumption. Non-governmental organisations can best co-ordinate their own activities.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his sources of information on famine in Ethiopia; how often this information is updated; and what procedures are in place to consider and respond to developments as they arise.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive continuing information from a variety of sources: in particular the emergency planning and preparedness system which we have helped the United Nations to establish in Ethiopia, our embassy in Addis Ababa, British non-governmental organisations and international agencies such as the United Nations world food programme. Information is also provided by the Ethiopian Government and the relief organisations of the Eritrean and Tigrean rebel movements.

  Regular co-ordination with other donors, both in Addis Ababa and elsewhere, and close liaison with British NGOs help us in our assessments of our data. Within ODA the interdepartmental co-ordinating arrangements are such as to enable us to respond speedily and effectively with both food aid and other emergency relief to the threat of famine.

  Sikh Human Rights
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he sought to raise the question of Sikh human rights at the recent Commonwealth conference.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask for the question of Sikh human rights to be placed on the agenda of the next Commonwealth conference.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Cyprus
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on arms build-up on the Greek side of Cyprus; and what efforts he is making, in the interests of preserving peace, to counter such moves.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government of Cyprus are pursuing a substantial arms purchasing programme for the Greek Cypriot national guard. We have made clear our view that such measures do nothing to help create the right climate for resuming the intercommunal talks, which have been stalled since last June.

  Secure Office Automation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been on the secure office automation project in the diplomatic wing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A review of the project was conducted following announcements by the contractor, SD-Scicon, of significant delays in the delivery of future stages. The FCO and SD-Scicon have agreed that the project be halted on terms whereby the FCO pays only for what it has received, retaining equipment, documentation and the use of software. SD-Scicon will provide maintenance cover at no charge for a period of two years, refund payments totalling £1·57 million, and acquire full rights to the software developed under the contract. In total, the cost to the FCO of the FOLIOS contract, including staff costs, was £3·4 million. The value to the FCO of the settlement, in equipment, services and returned money, is £3·3 million.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  We shall publish our observations on the report at noon on 1 December 1989.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Jacques Delors
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last had discussions with Mr. Jacques Delors.

  Mr. Major
  I last met Mr. Delors on 13 November.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last had discussions with Mr. Jacques Delors.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last had discussions with Mr. Jacques Delors.

  Mr. Lilley
  Mr. Delors attended the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 13 November, a report of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the House on 15 November,Official Report,column 315–16.

  Inflation
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for inflation in the fourth quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for inflation in the fourth quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  Inflation is expected to average 72 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1989, as outlined in the Autumn Statement forecast.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current inflation rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Group of Seven countries.
  419
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current inflation rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  The underlying inflation rate in the United Kingdom is 6·1 per cent.; the inflation rates in other G7 countries range from 2·6 per cent. in Japan to 6·8 per cent. in Italy.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the peak inflation rate for 1989; and what was the peak rate reached between 1974 and 1979.

  Mr. Ryder
  The all-items RPI inflation rate for 1989 probably peaked in May and June of this year at a rate of 8·3 per cent., far lower than the peak rate of 26·9 per cent. in August 1975 under the last Labour Government.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current policies to contain inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government's tight monetary and fiscal policies are working. Demand is slowing and lower inflation will follow.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to control inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government's tight monetary and fiscal policies are working. Demand is slowing and lower inflation will follow.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from small businesses about the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Over the last year we have received a small number each month.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the level of interest rates; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received one, to which he replied on 24 November.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what organisations have made representations to him about the present level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the main guide to interest rate policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  In formulating their monetary policy, the Government will continue to be guided by movements in narrow and broad money (especially the movement of MO in relation to its target range) and the behaviour of other financial indicators, in particular the exchange rate.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
  420
  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about high interest rates from business groups in Scotland.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about high interest rates from business groups in Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about high interest rates from business groups in Scotland.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about high interest rates from business groups in Scotland.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the current level of interest rates from the representatives of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have received a number of such representations.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's analysis of the effect high interest rates are having on small businesses.

  Mr. Ryder
  Inflation is the greatest threat to the prosperity of all small businesses. They will therefore benefit from the Government's determination to keep interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary as part of their firm anti-inflationary policy.

  Short-term Capital
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the short-term capital flows into the United Kingdom so far in 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital flows.

  Investment and Consumption
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in total investment and in total consumption over the last seven years.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in total investment and in total consumption over the last seven years.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in total investment and in total consumption over the last seven years.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total growth in investment and in total consumption over the last seven years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over the last seven years, total investment has grown by over 56 per cent., twice as fast as total consumption.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and what matters were discussed.
  421
  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to change the status of the Bank of England.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Public Spending
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product was devoted to public spending in the current year and five years ago.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimate of the ratio of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to gross domestic product in 1989–90, as given in the 1989 Autumn Statement, is 383/4 per cent. The corresponding figure for 1984–85 was 46 per cent.

  Magazines and Journals
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce value added tax on magazines and journals.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce value added tax on magazines and journals.

  Mr. Ryder
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his approach to economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Lilley
  A number of representations have been received.

  EC Finance Ministers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Finance Ministers of other European Community countries; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Finance Ministers of other European Community countries; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on 15 November at column 315–16.

  Wealth
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to redress the relative wealth available to the richest and poorest groups in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  The sound economic policies pursued by this Government will continue to benefit all groups in the United Kingdom.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the future level of business investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets representatives of the Confederation of British Industry at which many issues are discussed. In the recent Autumn Statement forecast, business investment was projected to increase by 91/4 per cent. in 1989 and by 4½ per cent. in 1990.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide further details of the extra spending on the National Health Service announced in his Autumn Statement; and how much of the extra spending is accounted for by anticipated cost savings, projected income generation and the cost of the National Health Service review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide further details of the extra spending on the National Health Service announced in his Autumn Statement; and how much of the extra spending is accounted for by anticipated cost savings, projected income generation and the cost of the National Health Service review.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide further details of the extra spending on the National Health Service review announced in his Autumn Statement; and how much of the extra spending is accounted for by anticipated cost savings, projected income generation and the cost of the National Health Service review.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provision for the NHS in the United Kingdom will be about £2,400 million higher in 1990–91 than 1989–90. In addition, the Health Service will have available some £200 million extra cash released by a new round of cost improvement programmes and income generation. The expenditure plans for 1990–91 assume that rather over £250 million of the increase will be available for implementation in England of the NHS review proposals. Expenditure on implementation of the NHS review in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be decided in due course by the respective Secretaries of State.

  Foreign Banks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has on whether foreign banks would support a voluntary agreement to restrict credit.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has no evidence to suggest that foreign banks would support any such agreement.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had on the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism during the so-called "stage 1" of economic
  423
  and monetary union which my right hon. Friend discussed at the meeting of Community Economic and Finance Ministers in Brussels on 13 November.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the United Kingdom to enter the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the conditions for British entry to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system to be met.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom will enter the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system during the so-called stage 1 of economic and monetary union which begins on 1 July 1990.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission a study to assess the influence upon United Kingdom interest rates of the early entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  As my right hon. Friend has made clear, membership of the exchange rate mechanism does not insulate a country from high interest rates.

  Imports
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of imports production and investment goods were in(a) 1974, (b) 1984 and (c)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Up until 1979 it fell continuously to 741/2 per cent., but since 1979 the share has risen to 751/2 per cent., in both 1984 and 1988.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss the tax on workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the abolition of tax payments on workplace nursery places.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss the tax on workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Lilley
  There is no special tax on workplace nurseries. Any element of subsidy in a workplace nursery place is a benefit in kind and benefits in kind are generally subject to income tax. My right hon. Friend has no plans to discuss this matter with the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Child Poverty Action Group
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives from the Child Poverty Action Group.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since he became Chancellor, my right hon. Friend has not met representatives from the Child Poverty Action Group.

  Child Tax Allowance
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would today be the value per child of the child tax allowance, abolished in 1978; and if he will consider its reintroduction.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  Child tax allowances in 1976–77 (the year before they began to be phased out) were £365 for each dependent child over 16, £335 for each child aged 11 to 16, and £300 for each child under 11. They were never covered by indexation provisions. We have no plans to reintroduce them.

  Foreign Exchange Earnings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Britain's foreign exchange earnings for 1988 are accounted for by(a) visible exports and (b) invisibles.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Britain's visible exports for 1988 totalled £81 billion. It is not possible to give a meaningful figure for gross invisibles credits as some items are measured as net flows.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure he has for the number of personal equity plan investors; and what plans he has to encourage further investment in such schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  About 575,000 personal equity plans had been taken out between the scheme's introduction and the end of September 1989. PEPs are now extremely successful and I have no plans at present to change them.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make it his policy to increase the funds available for infrastructure projects to compensate for any loss of funds resulting from changes in European Economic Community polices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Community support frameworks for the structural funds are still under discussion with the Commission. The Government's public expenditure plans already allow for substantial increases in infrastructure spending.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet representatives of the small firms sector.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend meets business men involved in the small firms sector from time to time and is always glad to do so.

  Tax Yields
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest forecasts for the yeild in the current year of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) value added tax, (d) petrol tax, (e) drink tax and (f) tobacco tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures consistent with the Autumn Statement forecast are given in the table.
  425

  Forecast receipts in 1989–90

  £ billion

  Income tax

  48·4

  Corporation tax (including ACT)

  23·0

  Value–added tax

  30·1

  Petrol duties

  8·8

  Alcohol duties

  4·7

  Tobacco duties

  5·2

  CBI
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the CBI; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks forward to meeting representatives of the CBI from time to time, and to discussing a wide range of subjects with them.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much private medical insurance tax relief will cost in a full year.

  Mr. Major
  About £40 million in 1990–91.

  Investment
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts he is making to bring investment in British industry to a level comparable with major competitors.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Business investment rose by an average of 7·3 per cent. a year between 1980 and 1988, faster by far than all the other major economies except Japan. This represents a major improvement on our position in 1970–80 when we had one of the lowest rates of investment growth relative to our major competitors.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to allow any expenditure approved for 1990–91 to be incurred in 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is primarily for Departments to manage their programmes in a way that maximises value for money. Proposals to add to 1989–90 public expenditure would be considered on their merits.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of income tax collected by the Inland Revenue in 1978–79 to 1988–89 and on the proportion paid by the top 5 per cent. of earners in each case.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information is given in the table.
  426

  Total Income Tax Receipts and Tax Liability of Top 5 per cent, of Taxpayers as Percentage of Total Liability. 1978–79 to 1988–89

  Year

  Total income tax receipts £ billion

  Income tax liability of the top 5 per cent, of taxpayers as a percentage of total liability1 Percentage

  1978–79

  18·7

  24

  1979–80

  20·6

  23

  1980–81

  24·3

  24

  1981–82

  28·7

  25

  1982–83

  30·4

  25

  1983–84

  31·1

  26

  1984–85

  32·5

  26

  1985–86

  35·4

  27

  1986–87

  38·5

  29

  1987–88

  41·4

  230

  1988–89

  43·4

  229

  1 Liability relates to personal incomes only whereas tax receipts include payments made by other sectors (e.g. income tax deducted from annual payments made by companies).

  2 Provisional, based on projections of 1986–87 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for cutting income tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional monthly cost to the average household if the standard rate of income tax today were set at the same level as in 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  If the basic rate of income tax were raised from its level of 25p in 1989–90 to 33p, the level in 1978–79, a married man on average male earnings would pay £68 per month more income tax. If his wife worked and was paid average female earnings, she would pay £47 more per month. The calculations assume that the couple are entitled to only the married man's allowance and wife's earned income allowance.

  Output
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in output over the last five years for which figures are available in the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in output over the last five years for which figures are available in the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland).

  GDP
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the percentage of gross domestic product to be taken by general Government expenditure for 1989–90.
  427
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  General Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) as a percentage of gross domestic product for 1989–90, as published in the 1989 Autumn Statement, is 38¾ per cent.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures indicating the share of gross domestic product taken by business investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Business investment as a share of GDP at factor cost was estimated to have been 14·7 per cent. in 1988.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of personal debt in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for personal sector debt are given in financial statistics table 14·4. The amount outstanding at end June 1989, as shown in the November issue, was about £378 billion. An analysis of the greater part of this debt using an alternative instrument classification and showing the amount regarded as consumer credit is given in financial statistics table 9·3.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the current account of the balance of payments for 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest forecast for the balance of payments deficit for 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

  VAT
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the threshold for value added tax registration.

  Mr. Ryder
  The level of the VAT registration threshold is subject to regular review and has been increased in line with inflation since 1979. It represents the maximum possible within our obligations under the EC sixth VAT directive, which restricts increases in the threshold to those which maintain its value in real terms.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax takes up for a family on average male earnings with two children in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax takes up for a family on average male earnings with two children in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie).

  Demographic Change
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the economy of demographic change.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There will continue to be significant demographic changes in the United Kingdom in the next decade and beyond. In particular there will be an increase in the numbers of the elderly, and especially those aged over 85, while fewer young people will be entering the labour force.

  The interactions between the structure of the population and the state of the economy are complex and uncertain, and demographic change is only one of the many factors that affect the economy.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to improve the effectiveness of the Government's policy to control consumer credit.

  Mr. Ryder
  The only fair and effective way to control consumer credit is, as now, by the use of interest rates.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increased opportunities for the British economy following recent events in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government very much welcome recent developments in eastern Europe. The dismantling of barriers to trade and investment and the freeing of eastern European economies which is likely to follow should provide opportunities for United Kingdom firms to greatly increase the business they do there.

  Productivity
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figures for productivity per man hour in manufacturing industry for the last three years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Output per man hour in United Kingdom manufacturing industry grew by an average of 1·6 per cent. a year over the last three years. The annual figures are 3·4 per cent. in 1986, 6·0 per cent. in 1987 and 4–8 per cent. in 1988.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest available index figures for real output in manufacturing industry together with figures for the time period or periods in 1973 for the United Kingdom with France, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the information requested.

  Manufacturing Output Indices (1985 = 100)

  1973

  1988

  United Kingdom

  110·4

  114·0

  Germany

  90·7

  106·8

  429

  1973

  1988

  France

  95·0

  107·6

  Italy

  84·1

  112·3

  Source: OECD except United Kingdom, CSO.

  Pensioners (Free Shares)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider giving all retirement pensioners free shares in forthcoming privatisations.

  Mr. Lilley
  The arrangements for each sale are a matter for the relevant Secretary of State. In past privatisations, it has not been the practice to offer all retirement pensioners free shares. There have, however, been special terms for the past and present employees of the privatised company.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current yield from stamp duty split between the major transactions from which it is derived; and what proportion of total taxation revenues it forms.

  Mr. Lilley
  The yield from stamp duty, including stamp duty reserve tax, in 1989–90 is forecast to be £2,260 million, about 1·4 per cent. of the latest forecast of total receipts in 1989–90 from taxes on income, expenditure and capital. The stamp duty yield is forecast to be split as follows:

  £ million

  Land and property

  1,210

  Stocks and shares

  980

  Life insurance policies

  60

  Other duties

  10

  TOTAL

  2,260

  National Savings Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to encourage savings in national savings schemes.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government wish to attract into national savings funds which investors will leave untouched for several years. They therefore introduced the capital bond last January, offering a taxable guaranteed return of 12 per cent. a year if held to maturity after five years. The Government also aim to provide through national savings a fair return on the savings of non-taxpayers. Interest on national savings income and deposit bonds, and on deposits in the national savings bank investment account, is therefore paid or credited gross of income tax. The Government recently announced that the interest rate on these products would be increased by 1 per cent.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Civil Service Staff are currently based outside London and what were the figures five, 10 and 15 years ago.

  Mr. Ryder
  The servicewide information available on numbers and proportions of civil servants working outside London is given in the table.
  430

  Staff numbers (thousands)

  1 April 1989

  1 January 1984

  1 January 1979

  Non-Industrial

  London

  112·9

  119·8

  138·6

  Outside London

  386·9

  389·1

  427·5

  Proportion outside London (per cent.)

  77·4

  76·5

  75·5

  Industrial

  London

  6·1

  11·7

  10·7

  Outside London

  63·3

  112·1

  156·4

  Proportion outside London (per cent.)

  91·2

  90·6

  93·6

  Total

  London

  119·0

  131·5

  149·3

  Outside London

  450·2

  501·1

  583·9

  Proportion outside London (per cent.)

  79·1

  79·2

  79·6

  Figures for non-industrial staff are extracted from a computer system which came into being in 1975. Before that date figures were collected by means of manual returns which gave no separate information about London-based staff numbers.

  Current Account Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the elimination of deficit on current account.

  Mr. Ryder
  The current account deficit will narrow as the Government's tight monetary and fiscal policies continue to slow domestic demand.

  Capital Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the proportion of imports of capital goods bought by manufacturing industry; and what is the ratio of imports to United Kingdom production of capital goods.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No estimates exist giving the proportion of imports of capital goods bought by manufacturing industry, or of the ratio of imports of capital goods to United Kingdom production of capital goods. To derive these estimates would involve disproportionate costs. This is due to the lack of consistency between the definition of capital goods according to the standard industrial trade classification (SITC) used for overseas trade statistics, and the standard industrial classification (SIC) used to define United Kingdom industries and commodity groupings.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of imports were production and investment goods in(a) 1974, (b) 1984 and (c)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Up until 1979 it fell continuously to 74½2 per cent., but since 1979 the share has risen to 75½ per cent., in both 1984 and 1988.

  Charities
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1959 Governments have borrowed money from a charitable trust.

  Mr. Major
  I regret that this information is not available. When the Government borrow they do so mainly through the issue of securities, which may be bought by charitable trusts, either directly or in the market. The extent of such purchases is not known.

PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the introduction of the community charge.

  The Prime Minister
  Following the successful introduction of the community charge in Scotland, I understand that most local authorities in England and Wales are making excellent progress in preparing for the community charge. Many chargepayers will already have received notification that they are on their authority's community charge register. I have every confidence that all authorities will wish to ensure that bills, with any necessary adjustment for transitional relief and rebates, will be issued to chargepayers on time next April.

  Engagements
  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  This evening I shall attend a dinner given by the Royal Green Jackets to mark the retirement of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Holderness as their honorary colonel.

  Official Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any of her official engagements have been cancelled or postponed in the week up to Wednesday 6 December.

  The Prime Minister
  Previous official engagements for Monday 4 December have had to be changed to enable me to attend the NATO summit in Brussels on that day. That is the only change to my earlier plans.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hours she devoted or expects to devote to official duties in the weeks 21 to 28 November and 29 November to 5 December.

  The Prime Minister
  Most of my waking hours.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what official hospitality will be extended by her to hon. Members in the week up to Tuesday 5 December; and to which parties the hon. Members receiving such hospitality belong.

  The Prime Minister
  I meet right hon. and hon. Members from time to time from all parties.

  South Korea
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has made to the President of South Korea during his visit about the prisoners of conscience detained by his Government for political activities in contravention of article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights.

  The Prime Minister
  In our talks on 28 November, I congratulated President Roh on his achievements in extending democracy in Korea but did not discuss article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the sum above which an answer to a parliamentary question is considered to represent disproportionate cost.

  The Prime Minister
  Any parliamentary question likely to cost more than £250 is referred to the responsible Minister before significant resources are committed.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has plans to change the current public right of access to official information; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The policy remains to make as much information available as possible while preserving the confidentiality essential to the effective working of the Government. I continue to think that a statutory general public right of access to official information is inappropriate for our system of Government.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she discussed the proposal compulsorily to repatriate Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong at her recent meeting with President Bush; and if she will make a statement on her current policy on this issue.

  The Prime Minister
  The repatriation of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong was discussed with President Bush. I explained that all who arrive are screened. Those who are found to be genuine refugees will not be returned. Those who are not genuine refugees will be regarded as illegal immigrants and repatriated as provided for in the comprehensive plan of action agreed at the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees last June in Geneva.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister when she proposes to reply to the letter she has received from B. J. Allen of 72 Salters road, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne.
  433
  The Prime Minister
  I am unaware of any such correspondence having been received in my office.

  Commonwealth Conference
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her visit to Kuala Lumpur for the Commonwealth conference in October, she discussed with any other political leaders the sale of United Kingdom designed fluidised-bed combined cycle coal-fired power plants to Commonwealth nations.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Sir Leon Brittan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met Sir Leon Brittan, the European Economic Community Commissioner; and what subjects were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  I last saw Sir Leon Brittan on 1 November. We discussed a range of issues.

  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has made to the President of the Republic of South Africa regarding the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela immediately and without conditions; and what reply she has received.

  The Prime Minister
  We have made frequent representations to the South African Government calling on them to release Mr. Mandela immediately and without conditions. We continue to look for a positive response from the South African Government.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on proposals in the Gracious Speech relating to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on proposals in the Gracious Speech relating to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the proposals in the Gracious Speech relating to the National Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  The National Health Service Bill will implement the reforms that will ensure that the resources and talent devoted to the NHS are used to give patients an even better service and the widest possible choice.
  434
  The hospitals that give the best service to the greatest number of patients will receive more resources. General practitioners who believe that they can give better value to patients by holding their own budgets will be able to do so. Together with the improved GP services that we have introduced, the changes should mean that patients will be able to get operations more quickly, hospitals will have a reliable appointment system for outpatients, more Children will be vaccinated against disease and there will be more regular check-ups on people's health. The Bill will also implement care which will enable growing numbers of elderly and disabled people to live at home and will direct more resources and assistance to the relatives and friends who help to look after them.

  Dunchurch
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Dunchurch, near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  English History
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the teaching of English history.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on the teaching of English history. The Government intend that under the national curriculum the teaching of history should have at its core the history of Britain.

  Poland
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Poland.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit Poland at present. I very much look forward to meeting Mr. Lech Walesa, chairman of Solidarity, on 2 December.

  Strasbourg Summit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what subjects she expects to be discussed at the European Community summit meeting in Strasbourg.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect discussion of a range of issues, including eastern Europe, the single market, economic and monetary union and the social charter.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Buildings: Insulation Measures
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to encourage heat-saving schemes when buildings are being constructed or rebuilt.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are requirements in the building regulations relating to the insulation of new buildings, and the provision of controls for space heating and hot water supply systems. The Secretary of State for the Environment has recently amended the 1985 regulations, which apply in England and Wales, by upgrading the standards and introducing more flexibility in how they can be achieved. The new standards are due to come into operation on 1st April 1990, and they should achieve a saving of about 20 per cent. as compared with buildings constructed to the existing standards. The regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland will be revised to achieve similar higher standards.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply which is welcome. Does he agree that much energy can be saved by designing buildings which are effectively insulated and which can be ventilated by control? If this were practised widely, would it not help to conserve our resources and at the same time contribute to reducing pollution?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee considers that the new requirements go to the limit of what can safely be achieved by regulations at present. It may be possible to achieve higher standards in special situations but regulations must hold good for situations where the climate and other circumstances are not always favourable. Calculations carried out by the Government's Building Research Establishment suggest that higher standards would not generally be cost effective.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in preparing the new standards, which we are all pleased to learn will lead to increased energy savings, did the Government carefully consider the practices pursued in Continental countries where it is generally recognised that the insulation methods and energy savings on the construction of buildings are better than ours? If that is the case, did we learn any lessons from that study?
Lord Reay: My Lords, according to my information our thermal insulation standards are
514
comparable with those in other European countries. The new standards are much the same as those applying now in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, and are rather better than those in France.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, have the Government yet discovered that conservation of energy by the methods mentioned in the Question is seven times as cost-efficient as the use of nuclear energy? Have they yet discovered why it has been decided to reduce the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office from £24·5 million to £15 million?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office was reduced because it had successfully fulfilled some of the tasks it was carrying out. Its budget for 1989 to 1990 is £15 million and will not fall below that level in the next three years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the Government carried out any cost benefit analysis in relation to whether it would be cheaper to give a good deal of support to the insulation of buildings rather than to build new, costly nuclear generating stations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that matter goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, has the Minister seen the work of Friends of the Earth which is based on government figures and which shows that expenditure of £3·8 billion would produce savings in energy consumption of £12 billion? Has the Minister absorbed these figures? Is there any response to them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I shall take note of the figures and study them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not the case that about two years ago the Government introduced regulations which restricted the number of householders who could apply for thermal insulation, such as double glazing and loft insulation, to the top age groups? Was that not a retrograde step? Should we not, because of the value of saving energy, encourage all householders to pursue this kind of activity with reasonable support from the Government?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that point relates to existing buildings rather than new buildings which are the subject of the original Question. However, I should say that the Government are making a number of grants available to encourage energy efficiency in existing housing. The Secretary of State for Energy, for example, has just announced a new scheme of grants towards the cost of basic insulation measures in houses belonging to people on lower incomes. Legislation is proposed which will allow grants to be paid towards the cost of draught-proofing and loft, tank and pipe insulation. Details will be announced in due course.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Am I to assume that those grants will be available to all age groups?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot add anything to the information I have given. We shall have to wait for further details to be announced.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend correctly? Did he say that the standard of insulation in France is lower than in this country? If so did my noble friend take into account the possibility that the standard of construction of buildings in that country is higher than in this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no information about differences in standards of construction. My information relates to insulation.

War Widows: Pensions and Allowances
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total of pension and allowances paid to a war widow of a corporal and of a second lieutenant killed in service in 1974, and to the war widow of a corporal and of a second lieutenant killed in 1972.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the total of pension and allowances received by a war widow depends upon the circumstances of each case. However the main difference between the widows of those killed in service in 1972, and in 1974, is that only the latter are assured of receiving a pension under the Ministry of Defence occupational scheme. All war widows receive a pension under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that carefully drafted reply. How does my noble friend justify, if he does justify it, the substantial discrimination overall between the treatment of the pre and post 1974 war widows?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have always recognised and continue to recognise the special position of those whose husbands died in defence of freedom. Perhaps I may repeat very clearly that that is why the pensions paid to war widows under the DSS scheme and the extra allowances are much more generous than the state pension for other widows. They are between 30 per cent. and 72 per cent. higher according to age and, I repeat, all payments are tax free. Furthermore, about 75 per cent. of war widows of retirement age also receive a state retirement pension as a result of contributions made during their own employment. I believe that that is very generous and substantiates the preferential treatment given in this case.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in view of the continuing failure of every government to put right this injustice could Parliament —which I hope is still the supreme authority in this country—have an opportunity for a free vote on the matter? I believe that that would recognise public concern about this gross injustice.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, any form of free vote would have to be arranged through the usual channels.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only the widows of those killed in the war but also those of servicemen who died after the war who are dealt with differently depending upon the date on which their husbands retired? While I do not wish to divert attention from the issue before your Lordships' House now, will he please remember that that is a linked and equally important issue?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that the war pensions scheme is administered by the Department of Social Security. It is not confined to members of the Armed Forces and their dependants. It provides pensions and other special payments to anyone suffering disabilities or to the dependants of anyone who has died as a result of war injuries or, in the case of the Armed Forces, from any cause attributable to service in the forces whether or not in time of war.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Earl consider that his statement in reply to the previous question that any form of free vote would have to be arranged through the usual channels is almost equivalent to saying that any form of democracy would have to be arranged through the Central Committee of the Communist Party?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not necessarily accept that argument.
Lord Carver: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has not answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Is he aware that there is very strong feeling within the Armed Forces that the injustices caused by this anomaly, whereby some war widows receive up to three times the amount paid to some of the older war widows who are in exactly the same circumstances, must be put right and bureaucratic excuses must not be put forward instead?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point which has been made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I am aware of the public feeling on this special case. However, perhaps I may give a further example. A war widow who receives age allowance and the full rate of retirement pension could receive up to £115 a week, which in April of next year will rise to £127, whereas the normal state widow's pension is £43·60, rising to £46·90 in April next year.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while we understand that there is a distinction because contributions from pay since 1974 have been taken into account, does the Minister appreciate that every time there is a percentage increase the gap between pre and post 1974 pensions increases? While as a Minister in the Department of Defence he is properly defending his department's responsibilities, does he not realise that he is answering a Question which was addressed to Her Majesty's Government? Will he not therefore take steps to see that the social security aspects of the pre 1974 pensions are also taken into account? It is no good giving the hypothetical case of someone who receives the maximum because she worked every day after her husband died and therefore receives an old age pension; it is a question of comparing one war widow's pension with another. Why does he seek to escape that comparison?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not seek to escape that comparision. The Government's record as regards improvements on the DSS side is second to none.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, if the noble Earl cannot accept the very powerful arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Jeger, will he consider, in view of the very strong feeling on the issue, that there should at least be a review to establish the true circumstances in which those elderly widows are living at the moment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I repeat that I am aware of the feelings in your Lordships' House. In answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the last occasion on which this issue was raised, I assured him that I would report the feelings of the House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I can always say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes very due notice of what your Lordships say.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as most of the widows from the 1939–45 war are now probably aged 75 or more, and are becoming fewer and fewer in number, it would not cost that much money to bring their pensions up to 1974 standards?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the occupational pension scheme administered under the Ministry of Defence, the argument in that case is that it would cost £200 million to accommodate the war widows. One could not possibly leave out the war disabled, and that would cost a further £400 million, making £600 million in all. Your Lordships are very well aware of the knock-on effect that that would probably have in other public service sectors.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared yet again to talk the matter over with the Royal British Legion's executive and the women's section of the Royal British Legion which represents all widows from all wars? I admit that they take the simple view that no matter in which war their husbands were slain their treatment by the nation ought to be adequate and equal.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, fully appreciates, as I pointed out on the last occasion, that we are always in touch with the Royal British Legion and other similar bodies to review pensions on an annual basis.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has not attempted to answer the basic question as to the justification for discriminating between pre and post 1973 pensions simply on the basis of the date of war widowhood? Does he recognise that until he does so he will leave many people, on all sides of this House and outside, deeply depressed at the insensitivity of Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I particularly wish to point out to my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government, on this particular occasion, are not insensitive to the special case of war widows. My noble friend knows very well the problems in trying to accommodate the pre-1973 pensions as regards the occupational pension scheme and the dangerous implications that are involved.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for the letter which he sent to me in reply to mine. His letter indicates that the improvements that are to be made in April 1990 will:
"further increase the very preferential position of the more elderly war widows compared with those who only receive pension under the basic state scheme".
Am I correct in assuming that those improvements will further increase the anomalies that have already arisen between pre 1972 and post 1972? Will he take it from me that if the position of war widows is better than that of ordinary widows it is not because of Government action; it is because Parliament from time to time has taken the bit between its teeth and insisted on it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is quite right. Parliament has from time to time taken the bit between its teeth. His party has done something to that effect. It introduced the 50 per cent. tax allowance, and the Conservative Party made it 100 per cent. At all times, particularly on the DSS side, we are steadily trying to improve the lot of war widows.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even setting aside the system of allowances detailed by him, there is discrimination between pre-1973 war widows and post-1973 war widows? Does he also agree that, if the difficulty is one of precedent and perhaps opening the floodgates for other groups of people, it must be possible to have a proper, clear definition of a war widow and that the appeal that has been made from all sides of the House should refer exclusively to war widows?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is trying to suggest that the case for war widows under the Ministry of Defence occupational scheme could be ring-fenced and therefore that it would cost only £200 million. It is unlikely that it

519
would stop there. Many people, including even the war disabled themselves, have suggested that they would naturally lay claim to a further £400 million. There would therefore be great difficulty in ring-fencing to £200 million.
Lord Carver: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that none of the organisations representing the war disabled has raised any objections whatever to war widows being regarded as a special case?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am aware that many people feel that war widows should be a special case. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, recognised that when he was a service chief. But, in spite of the argument for a special case, I have tried to do my best to point out where the problems are and what they are.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that German war widows receive almost double the amount of pension that ours do, together with various other benefits? If the West German Government can do that without fear of precendent, ring fences and the rest, why cannot the British Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord on that point very simply. Valid comparisons are difficult to make. It is not simply a matter of converting pension rates. Availability of schemes differs. Conditions of entitlement, of allowances and use of means testing are relevant factors. Social and health service provisions and costs of living must also be considered. It is therefore difficult to make a comparison on a like-for-like basis.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that today is the day of our patron saint, St. Andrew, who was a fisherman? Would it not be nice if there were equal loaves and fishes for people who have suffered longer than others?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend always adds a nice, attractive touch; but I think that even she understands the problems of all governments on this matter.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in calculating the £200 million, has the noble Earl taken into account the fact that we are spending £25 million less under this heading than we were in 1979, and that these ladies are dying off at the rate of 3,000 a year, so that we are certainly reducing the costs?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is considered that at the turn of the century there will still be approximately 30,000 war widows remaining. Furthermore, I can tell the noble Lord that, compared with 1978–79, £83 million extra was spent on war widows in 1988–89.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not this Question turning into a debate? Should we not move to the next business?

Unemployment Figures
3.24 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest available figure for the change in the unemployment total in the United Kingdom since June 1987.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, between June 1987 and October 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 41·4 per cent. from 2,857,200 to 1,674,000, and in October was 5·9 per cent. of the estimated total workforce.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which I am sure is one of interest to every Member of this House. Will he tell the House how the United Kikngdom unemployment totals compare with those which are averages in the European Community?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in September —the latest month for which I have comparable figures —the U.K. unemployment rate was 6·3 per cent., considerably less than the EC average of 9·1 per cent. The U.K. rate has been below the EC average since July 1987 when the figures were 10·7 per cent. for the EC and 10·6 per cent. for the United Kingdom.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the gross disparity in employment figures in various regions of this country? For example, is he aware that in September the figure for various areas of Glasgow was 25·3 per cent. and that for Manchester central and for Glasgow central respectively it was 19·3 per cent.? Is he further aware that the figures for various other areas where there has been manufacturing industry are also very high? Does he agree that, although the figures in the South-East are as low as 1·5 and 1·1 per cent., the gross disparity between areas where there has been heavy manufacturing industry and those where there is service employment is quite unacceptable? What do the Government intend to do about that?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have specific figures for the various regions of the country. However, there has been a fall in all regions in the United Kingdom over the past year. Rates of unemployment have fallen mostly in the North, followed by Wales and the West Midlands.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Northern region continues to have the highest rate of unemployment in the country after Northern Ireland? If he says, as I assume he will, that unemployment in the region is falling, will he comment on the fact that if it continues to fall at the rate that it has done over the past 10 years, it will achieve its 1979 rate in 2002?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I said, I do not have figures for individual regions. I think that the noble Lord is becoming involved in speculation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question that I put to the noble Earl. I asked him specifically what the Government intended to do about the high unemployment rates in the areas that I mentioned. Will he be kind enough to answer that question?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, unemployment has fallen in all the regions mentioned by the noble Baroness. The Government hope that that will continue to be the case.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister tell me —if not now, then later —how many people have been made unemployed by virtue of the fact that they have reached the very ancient age of 40?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House what he believes the rate of employment will be throughout 1990 if interest rates persist at 15 per cent. and perhaps go even higher?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, that question is probably outwith the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. The Government do not involve themselves in speculation.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my noble friend Lady Turner was referring to black spots in different parts of the country and asked what specific measures the Government will take to deal with those difficult and intensive problems? Will he please answer that quesion?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to say, but again it is slightly beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us why the Government are prepared to forecast the future course of inflation, which they think may fall slightly, and not the future course of unemployment, which is at least as easy to forecast and which will no doubt rise somewhat?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the trend for unemployment is downwards. We hope that that will continue to be the case.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will focus on the younger age group. Will he give us any figures which show how the youth employment rate compares with the European average?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, youth unemployment is currently under half that of the EC average and has been since May.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about the future course of unemployment appeared to me to be quite different from the one he gave to me? He said to me that my inquiry was outwith the Question, but he has now said that he hopes unemployment will be on a downward trend. What is the truth of the matter?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have already stated, unemployment is falling and has done so for 39 consecutive months.

London City Airport: Planning Inquiry
3.31 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the need for an early ruling on the question of extending the runway of the London City Airport by 169 metres, they will separate this question from the public inquiry set up to consider this and the wider question of an East London river bridge and its associated feed roads.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government share my noble friend's wish for an early decision on the planning applications by London City Airport. But because of the potential interaction between the airport inquiry and that on the design of the East London river crossing, we believe that this can be best achieved through the two concurrent public inquiries which my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport propose to hold.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that travel in and out of London is becoming steadily slower and that the London City Airport offers an opportunity for speeding it up and making it more efficient? Can he not speed up this inquiry about a small extension of 169 metres to the runway in the middle of a river? Does it need month after month of deliberation before a report is submitted? If we slow down everything like this, the whole of our economy slows down and the efficiency of our city slows down.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. Public inquiries are necessary because the two developments are proposed under different legislation. The order in which the inquiries are taken or the extent to which they may overlap will be for the inspectors to determine once they have been appointed. I can tell my noble friend that Ministers are receiving regular reports of the progress on the statutory processes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be surprised to learn that this is one occasion on which I completely agree with the reply that he has given? I do not know whether he has looked at the Question on the East London river crossing put in your Lordships' House on 26th April when his noble

523
friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the matter of the relationship between the crossing bridge and the City Airport. It would therefore be ridiculous not to take the two matters together. In any event, the purpose of having the extended runway is obviously to attract other planes and more passengers. Therefore, does he agree that it is vital to take together the matter of road routes to both the crossing and the City Airport?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord agrees with me and delighted to be able to agree with him. My right honourable friends are anxious to keep the period of uncertainty as short as possible, but the planning applications raise important and complex issues which need to be properly considered.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, does the noble Viscount feel that it is essential that aircraft taking off from city centres should be of the short take-off and landing variety?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at the moment that is the case, but the whole purpose of the planning inquiry is to see whether the runway can be extended so that aircraft with more capacity can land and take off there.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government accept that the tremendous delays in planning inquiries represent an enormous burden on future economic development? Do they agree that hastening the process would be a tremendous advantage to the progress of our economy, notably in London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friends are aware of that point. They are anxious to keep the period of uncertainty as short as possible. But, as I said, the planning applications are important and raise complex issues. They have to be properly considered. My right honourable friends will do everything in their power to speed up the process.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many noble Lords share his view that it is desirable to speed up these processes when possible? Will he bear in mind that people in the area concerned also have rights? Does he agree that in terms of the City Airport and some of the other developments, there is a real risk of environmental damage to the people in the area concerned?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly the reason we are undertaking two public inquiries.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the bridge has been entirely replanned since he referred to it last April? It is now intended to be a six-lane flat bridge without pylons, which could be obstructions. That minimises the overlap between these two projects. Can my noble friend report to the House when this public inquiry will
524
start? It was set up in September. Already two-and-a-half months have been lost and nothing has happened. It is now rumoured that the inquiry will not start until next July. Does he appreciate that it will be desperately difficult for those who want to get ahead unless some progress is made in this field?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only repeat that my right honourable friends are aware of the necessity for speed in this matter. Perhaps I shall not be able to report to the House on a regular basis but I am sure that my noble friend will be able to ask the same question on a regular basis.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable the United Kingdom to co-operate with other countries in criminal proceedings and investigations and to join with other countries in implementing the Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 6th December
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Hunter of Newington set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes". —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the

525
opinion of the committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee: —

Aldington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bridges, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nicol, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Peston, L.

Renwick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rodney, L.

Serota, B. (Chairman)

Shannon, E.

Shepherd, L.

Somerset, D.

Stedman, B.

Young, B.

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the committee have the power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the committee and any sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the committee or any sub-committee appointed by them have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any committee of the Commons on European legislation &c. or any sub-committee of that committee for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman for any such meeting. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

Adrian, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caldecote, V.

Carver, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Dainton, L.

Errol of Hale, L.

Flowers, L. (Chairman)

Gregson, L.

Kearton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Nicol, B.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whaddon, L.

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and, if the committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities: the Future
3.37 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the White Paper Charities: a Framework for the Future (Cmnd. 694); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation to those who put down their names to speak in the debate. I hope that I may be forgiven if I say how especially pleased I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has felt able to contribute to these discussions. It may not be an especially glamorous topic compared with some of the wide-ranging issues discussed during the opening days of the Session, but it seems to me to be quite important. What we say today could affect the content of promised legislation.
I am conscious that I have not invariably spoken from these Benches in enthusiastic support of government proposals. Today it is a pleasure to be able to start by giving a warm welcome to this White Paper, for, despite its colour, that is what it is. I should like to thank the Government for presenting that detailed document and, unlike what happened with another White Paper about which we know, giving us time to discuss it before legislation is prepared.
I feel slightly apologetic —but only slightly —when I look back at the number of debates on charities that I have initiated. At any rate they have provided a means for the Government to perform a gradual and graceful curve. Only three years ago the Government went on record as saying that they had no plans for changes in the charity law; yet here we are now, with the slight disappointment that there will be no legislation in this Session but with a commitment to have legislation before the end of this Parliament. We also have a White Paper which, although there are some loose ends still left, tells us in some detail what the Bill is likely to contain.
I was interested to read in Tuesday's edition of The Times that the Government have introduced a charities Bill which is currently going through Parliament. However, I think that we should be well advised to continue our discussions today on the assumption that for once that great organ may have got it wrong. The last major piece of legislation in this context was the Charities Act 1960. Since then there have been many changes. It is estimated that charities in England and Wales now collect and spend something over £10 billion a year and enjoy tax privileges—privileges which, it is fair to say, have been extended by this Government and which amount to some £2·5 billion a year. We have now discovered that television appeals can reach pockets that more traditional appeals cannot reach. Social needs have changed greatly, and so has the scope for abuse.
Following the Woodfield inquiry and the report made by the Public Accounts Committee in another place —which brought to notice some of the problems that we have already been discussing in this House for some years —we now stand on the verge of major new legislation. Since it is likely to be quite a long time before we have another major Bill, we must do our best to get it right.
There are one or two preliminary points. The Government say rather grandly in the White Paper that they will continue to provide the necessary resources. I pass over without comment the suggestion that they have been providing such resources in the past. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us rather more information. My impression is that there will be additional staff and not merely the redistribution of those who will be released from functions that are to be given up. But it will be agreeable to have that confirmed. I cannot envisage that the charity commissioners can carry out their enlarged role unless they receive more resources.
Secondly, to put more responsibility on to trustees is no doubt a good idea, but when one thinks of the
528
vast number of small charities it may not be all that easy to find enough knowledgeable trustees with the time to spare. In the new order of things they will need rather more help and guidance than they receive at present. It is also desirable that the responsibilities put on trustees by this new legislation should not be too complicated.
Thirdly —to strike a slightly discordant note —I find it a little disturbing that the White Paper should begin by discussing the voluntary sector in terms which rather imply that charity law is mainly at issue in respect of those bodies which co-operate with the Government in carrying out government policy. There are a very large number of small charities where that consideration simply does not arise. It would be a pity to mix up the efficiency scrutiny of government funding of the voluntary sector with the review of charity law.
Turning to the White Paper, I agree with the main objectives of the Government. As I understand them, they are to make the Charity Commission focus more sharply on monitoring and investigatory work at the cost of giving up certain functions on some of the advisory work; to reduce the scope for abuse; to put more responsibility on trustees; and, above all, to maintain public confidence.
It is not very easy to do justice to the 63 pages of the White Paper in the time at my disposal. I shall simply do my best to pick out some of the major issues as I see them. I start inevitably with the question of whether an attempt should be made to find a legal definition of charity. It is perhaps typically British that we should rest in the main on the preamble to an Elizabethan statute which has long since been repealed and the judicial pronouncement made a century ago before the welfare state was thought of. However, I agree with the conclusion that we do better to put up with what we have.
One slight personal disappointment is that no one else seems to think anything of the idea that following the legislation concerning race and sex discrimination there should be a suitors' fund whereby test cases could be taken to the courts. I do not read the proposal in the White Paper that the Charity Commission should be enabled to go direct to the courts as a means of enabling it to seek a declaratory judgment on a legal condundrum. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that although charity law is what the courts tell us it is, there is still only an accidental and occasional means of having issues tested in the courts. But so be it, my Lords.
There is the special difficulty of whether anything should be done about cults with anti-social characteristics. It is not surprising that the White Paper should deal with this topic at some length since it is one that arouses deep feeling, especially as two of the many bodies functioning under the Moonies secured registration as charities. Noble Lords will recollect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has addressed us with some eloquence on the topic on more than one occasion. However, I confess that I hesitate over the proposition in the White Paper that the law should be amended to make it explicit that the Charity

529
Commission has the power to remove a body from the register where there is evidence that it is acting in ways not for the public benefit. The amendment in those terms would not be limited to religious bodies and I do not know where it would take us. I am sure that lawyers would welcome the prospect of arguing in the courts about the meaning of public benefit, but I think that I would do nothing.
On my next point, there can be no dissent from the view that it is necessary to improve the register, to make it accurate, and to keep it up to date. There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about the purpose of the register. Its role is quite different from that of, say, the companies register. Entry does not of itself confer charitable status. Nor is it in any sense a licensing system. There are a great many exempt and excepted charities—perhaps 100,000 of them —which are not on the register, many of them being subject to some other form of control. The register would be swamped if this were changed.
In this context, perhaps I may ask three short questions. Will the database now being designed provide for cross-referencing so that it is possible to discover the charities devoted to similar purposes, however dissimilar their names may be? Is it contemplated that the register, or parts of it, might be sold to advertising agencies to raise a little money? That is a point of comparative detail but it is one that is causing some anxiety. My third question is not a point of detail. What exactly is the present state of play? The White Paper states that steps are being taken to computerise the register. But how far have preparations gone; and when shall we reach this brave new world? I pass now to the submission of accounts.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to interfere with the brilliant presentation of the noble Lord on this important matter of charities, but perhaps I may ask him this question. Is there not a fourth matter to be referred to? Where is the money coming from and what is the number of employees necessary to bring into force those very important matters which he thinks are so essential in the debate on charities tonight?
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am trying to cover that point as I go along. I take it that the noble Lord has in mind the resources of the Charity Commission. Perhaps the Minister will be in a better position than I am to explain what is in prospect. I shall come to the point about where the money is coming from in a moment.
I was about to comment on the submission of accounts. I do not think that there will be opposition to the general approach of the White Paper as regards requirements graded according to the size of the charity. However, the detailed proposals seem to me to run into the danger on which I touched; that of being too complicated. Some accountants have been rubbing their hands at the thought of every single charity being obliged to conform to the statement of recommended practice worked out by the Accounting Standards Committee. For many of the tiny charities that is simply not on. In any event, I
530
believe that the limits set in the White Paper are too low.
There is need to consider the best way of marking the register so that the public is not misled if a charity simply fails to make the statutory return in time. The White Paper deals vaguely with publicity for such a marking. I hope that the Minister will be able to expand on what is in mind.
In taking up the point that has been made, I ask, above all, whether there will be a sufficient number of qualified staff to look at the accounts and draw conclusions from them when they come rolling in. That would be quite different from what is happening now.
In my quick tour I turn to the question of making a charge to charities, including the proposal that there should be a modest fee of, say, £25 for registration. It sounds so very reasonable and has not been opposed. However, I ask those concerned with charities to have a care. My service in the Treasury instilled into me a concern about hypothecation which leaves me in doubt about whether the Charity Commission would be allowed to keep the money. Even if it were able, the money would cover only a tiny proportion of the cost of the commission. Once the mechanism was in position, the temptation to turn the screws just a little tighter would always exist. If in the end the Bill should make provision for charging I hope that it will also contain a provision limiting the amount by which increases can be made.
It must be borne in mind that there is an anomaly. The large number of charities which need not register would happily continue without paying a penny. I just do not know what would happen in Scotland. Running a charges scheme would also require the diversion of staff. I doubt whether it is worth it. At all events, it would be unwise to count on that as a prime means of increasing the resources of the Charity Commission.
I wish to say just a word about the paragraphs on page 30 of the White Paper dealing with charitable companies. I raise the point because the NCVO tells me that it is unhappy about the large number of requests it receives from charities —some of them very small —which are under the impression that incorporation as a company meets every problem and in particular provides protection against personal liability. I find the relevant paragraphs in the White Paper a little delphic in their drafting. But they take the point that the legal framework for commercial companies is not wholly appropriate for charitable companies. Can the Minister say whether thinking is any further advanced on the possibility of evolving a special form of incorporation for charities and issuing guidance to trustees? Can he confirm that the Government intend to include such a provision in the forthcoming charities Bill and not in companies' legislation of which I believe we have had quite enough?
I turn to the subject of avoidance of abuse. It would be easy to make a long speech on that topic alone but, again, I shall content myself with posing a question or two. Does the Minister see any prospect of the co-operation now permitted with the Inland

531
Revenue resulting in any prosecutions? Have the Government now decided to include in their forthcoming legislation a power for the Charity Commission to exchange information with the DTI and the Serious Fraud Office? In ruling out trustees with criminal conviction, is it proposed that the Charity Commission shall be given access to police records? Will it be added to the list of bodies which are exempt from the law about spent convictions? Further, in that context, will there be special provision about the charities dealing with ex-offenders?
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I turn to my last point. Fund raising is a phenomenon with which the 1960 Act was not really concerned. In the intervening years the climate has changed dramatically. I have the impression —perhaps slightly unfair —that at this point the White Paper tends to run out of steam. I am surprised to say that I agree that the street and house-to-house collections legislation needs tidying up, although the details must be examined. However, as regards the rest, I go along with the proposals based on the admirable report of the NCVO on malpractice and fund raising and the findings of the Woodfield Inquiry. I hope that the outcome will not be the necessity of printing on every single Christmas card the percentage of profit going to the charity.
Special problems arise from the new forms of fund raising, especially the television appeals. The Government may be right in believing that in the present state of knowledge it is best to rest on voluntary codes of conduct. The White Paper includes some sensible ideas such as a cooling off period for those so swept away by the emotion of the moment that they telephone generous contributions by credit card. I am in no doubt that the organisers —and I have had some discussion with those in Comic Relief—are alive to the need to maintain high standards. Certainly one would not wish to decry those methods of securing vast sums of money for charitable purposes.
All the same, I find that there is a good deal of anxiety about the fact that there is more publicity for the sums which are raised than for what happens to that money and the expenses involved. I understand that the fund raising bodies are not charities and one cannot help thinking that some of the contributors manage to obtain prime viewing time a bit on the cheap.
The Government are clearly right in saying that developments must be watched. But when the White Paper states that powers will be taken in the Bill to make regulations governing the conduct and accountability of appeals, it will be interesting to see just how those powers are phrased when, on their own showing, the Government have no idea of what they want to do.
I have been able to touch only lightly on a few of the salient points. I am well aware that there are a number of issues that I have not mentioned. For example, there is a possibility of easing the cy-près doctrine; the operation of the 1985 Act relating to small charities; local reviews which require further
532
resources; giving up most of the work of the official custodian; advertising; and political activities by charities. That is quite a list but perhaps some of those matters will be touched on by other noble Lords as the debate proceeds.
For my part, perhaps I may conclude as I began by thanking the Government for presenting the White Paper and affording us the opportunity to discuss it before a Bill is drafted. It heralds the introduction of much needed and, indeed, overdue legislation affecting a not insignificant part of our national life —and a compassionate side of that national life —of which we do not hear over much. It is something which matters quite a lot to quite a lot of people. I beg to move for papers.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the opportunity of this debate today. His interest and expertise in charity matters is well known to your Lordships and, as he said before he sat down, what happens will be of interest to quite a lot of people.
What the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has to say on these matters —and perhaps I may say that he said a great deal this afternoon in a very short period of time—always deserves attention and never more so than now when, for the first time in very nearly 30 years, we have put forward detailed proposals for substantial legislation which will change the position of charities.
The Government have produced a White Paper in which we have outlined the way in which we feel that that change should come about and I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say. I believe that the importance of the White Paper's proposals can scarcely be exaggerated. That is reflected in the number of noble Lords who are to speak today. The legislation which we have proposed will set the framework for the supervision of charities for many years to come. In its unspectacular way it will affect the lives of many people. It is, therefore, not just consonant with the special interest which your Lordships have always taken in charity, but entirely right that our proposals should be subject to detailed scrutiny.
The White Paper signals our concern to see voluntary action thrive and to ensure a growing and healthy charitable sector. It is, I think, fair to say that we are committed to the broad outlines of the White Paper and to the basic principles of sharpening the Charity Commission's tools for dealing with abuse; of encouraging trustees to shoulder their responsibilities as stewards of charitable funds; and of increasing public accountability.
We are also committed to an evolutionary approach —both as regards the law and the machinery of supervision. In our view, and I think it will be that of your Lordships, that is much better than a clean sweep.
I think, too, that we have to recognise that matters will not end with this next piece of legislation. The charity world can be likened to an ant hill. It teems

533
with life, is always on the move but is rather unpredictable and ever changing. Unpredictability can be uncomfortable, but we need to make sure that in bringing a little order to the scene we do not constrain the life and vigour of the colony.
Mercifully, charity is not a party political matter, and within the broad framework which I have described, the Government will listen carefully and take on board any suggestions which may help to get the legislation right. It will be quite a significant change. There is no simple preconceived blueprint which will ensure success, and we are anxious to get the result as near right as we can. It is very much in that spirit that, as Minister with particular responsibility for charities, I shall listen to your Lordships today and, indeed, I welcome this debate.
Your Lordships will well understand the difficulties of predicting when legislation will take place. It is our desire to bring in legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament. Beyond that I cannot go, but it may not be too much to hope that our next debate will be on a Second Reading of the Bill.
The reform of charity law, desirable though it is, is an area where one does well to hurry slowly. Charity law is complex and as one might put it, full of "fine print" which is often of vital importance. Proposals, which look at face value simple, can be far from easy to translate into clear and workable legislation. It will, I am sure, be well worth while taking a little time to get the Bill in the best possible shape before it is introduced. There are still areas which we wish to pursue in order to clarify our own minds, and your Lordships' advice is most helpful.
I can assure your Lordships that such time as remains before legislation will not be wasted. In saying this, I am particularly conscious of the need for us to take full account of the views which are coming back from the charitable sector —what one might call the "grass roots" of the charity world. The White Paper, I am glad to say, has been something of a Jeffrey Archer, as those sorts of documents go. It has been a best seller and there is good evidence that it has been widely available.
It is important that it should be widely available because its proposals affect not just those large, fully professional organisations which are experienced in putting their point. They will also affect the smallest charities which may well not be accustomed to commenting on matters such as those which are exposed in the White Paper. It is vital, if the Bill is fully to reflect their interests, that we take the time to listen to what these small charities may have to say.
We must remember that whatever laws on charity we produce charities will always remain diverse and individual. We will not get —nor should we aim for —a row of tulips all of the same height and same colour. Rather it should be a garden full of shrubs and plants of different colours and characteristics and form. That is, apart from anything else, what gives beauty to the scene. The charity world should resemble more a Sissinghurst than a Dutch bulb field.
In expressing the view that small charities need time to collect their thoughts, I should not wish to
534
give the impression that the charitable world has been quiescent since the publication of the White Paper. Far from it. We have been immensely heartened by the number and the quality of the responses which we have received, and by the care which has clearly gone into preparing them. Some have even taken the trouble to come and see me for which I am very grateful, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who have contributed to the discourse and to assure them that we shall consider and, indeed, are already considering the points which they have made.
While there have, of course, been criticisms I am happy to say that the great majority of commentators have welcomed our proposals as being balanced and well considered.
So, what are those proposals? I said at the beginning that we were sharpening the commission's tools against abuse. When I said that it might have been more accurate to say that we intend to give them tools. The most basic, and in many ways the most important of those tools, is information. Without that, one cannot do very much. As we all know and we all regret, the commission's register is incomplete and extremely out of date. What we propose, and what the legislation will enable, is, first, a complete spring clean. Once that is completed computerisation will provide the means for the register to be annually updated. The result will be that, for the first time since the register was started, it will serve the commission and the public in the way it was always intended. For the commission, it will be the driving shaft of their supervisory machine. For the public, it will be a rich quarry of accurate information.
No-one should underestimate the size of the task. It can, I believe, only be compared to that sterling and patient work carried out by the Brougham Commissioners before the 1853 Act which established the Charity Commission. An accurate and up to date register, with the routine provision of basic information is the fundamental requirement. It will enable the commission to identify cases of risk and nip abuses in the bud. Where that information is not forthcoming it will also give the commission automatic warning that something may be amiss. But once the commission has information which leads it to expect abuse it must have the means to act quickly and flexibly in defence of charities. Our proposals will both add significantly to the commission's powers and enable them to be used more readily.
We believe it is consistent with the added stature which the commission will acquire as a result of this legislation that it should for the first time have powers concurrent with the Attorney-General to take court action to correct abuse and protect charity property. This will undoubtedly strengthen the commission's hand in dealing with those who are abusing charities.
Legislation is not just about the Charity Commission. The commission cannot do everything. Trustees must also shoulder their responsibilities. This is the second broad principle which I mention as being a fundamental part of the legislation.Trustees

535
must do this not just because they are the people in charge but because it is necessary if the commission is to make full use of its new machinery and its new powers. The commission should be enabled to focus its resources on what only it can do. Consistent with this aim we intend that in the future trustees should, in most circumstances, have greater freedom to deal in land. They should also take charge of their investments.
Computerisation and the return of charities' investments present a golden opportunity to harness the initiatives already occurring in the charity world to make far better use of funds locked up in local charities throughout the country. The first class principles laid down in the 1985 Act —as a result of an initiative taken in this House —are to be extended, by simplifying the procedures for trustees and by raising the financial limits. Taken together, these measures should result in substantial increases in efficiency at the grass roots and should accelerate the pace at which resources which might otherwise be left idle are released for beneficiaries.
Our third guiding principle is increased public accountability. Our proposals aim to introduce, for the first time in charity legislation, basic standards of good accounting practice. The proposals will also enable members of the public to obtain copies of accounts directly from charities, and all registered charities will be required to send accounts to the commissioners each year. Together with the annual report this information should give an accurate and indeed a vibrant picture of the affairs of charities.
Somewhat distinct, but nevertheless of the highest importance, is the question of fund raising. Here we are proposing to follow the admirable lead given by the Scots in Section 119 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. This will entail a clear-out of some rather elderly and confusing legislation and its replacement with a single, comprehensive —and, we hope, more easily comprehended —set of provisions. This will be complemented by a number of measures which are designed to curb the activities of unscrupulous professional fund raisers.
In all this we are concerned not to burden trustees unnecessarily. We have tried hard to steer an acceptable course between freedom and accountability. On the one hand, there must be proper control by the Charity Commission; on the other hand, charities must be free to develop and do business without unnecessary interference.
We understand the worries, which have been expressed, that trustees of small charities in particular may find their new freedoms a little daunting and their new responsibilities somewhat onerous. I think that I can offer substantial comfort —but not too much. The fact is that responsibility is the essence of trusteeship. Freedom inevitably brings responsibilities in its wake. There cannot be proper monitoring of charities without the provision of more and better information to the commission. Monitoring, after all, is designed to ensure a degree of general public confidence which will benefit the individual charities themselves.
536
Having said that, our proposals go a long way towards recognising the position of small charities. The accounts, which they will have to submit annually, will, in the vast majority of cases, be very simple. The annual report on their activities need not be long and involved. The procedures for selling land will be straightforward, and will be well within the capacity of the average trustee.
For those who may have, for the first time, to manage without the help of the Official Custodian there are available a number of valuable, safe and fuss-free investments with almost all the advantages which the Official Custodian is able to offer. I think —and I hope —that small charities will rise to the modest challenge which the new legislation will present to them and that they will grasp the new opportunities which will be open to them.
Certainly there is room here for trustee support and education, and I have been encouraged to learn of a working party which has been set up by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations —an organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred. The purpose of the working party is to look at ways of promoting efficiency and effectiveness within the voluntary sector, including the training of trustees. The chairman of this group is the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who follows in an honourable tradition. We are advised that a report will be issued early in the new year, and welcome this as a step towards equipping trustees to rise to the challenge of trusteeship. I only hope he does not confuse the methods of dealing with trustees with the evidence he received on murder and life imprisonment.
The White Paper rightly acknowledges that, while the new legislation will be vital, it will need to be complemented by a more active and efficient Charity Commission —one which is able to give a better service to charities.
I should like to pay tribute to the immense efforts which the chief commissioner and his staff have made in order to fit the commission for its post-legislative role. They really have been Herculean. The Charity Commission has undergone in the last two years quite enormous changes and they have had to keep their wits about them not only to effect the changes but to continue with the day-to-day administrative work at the same time for which they exist in the first place. They have tackled a daunting task with energy and enthusiasm.
Two new part-time commissioners have been appointed and are already making a valuable contribution. The commission's management has been restructured so that business can be conducted more efficiently. The department has acquired an accountant and a new head of monitoring and investigations with long experience in Customs and Excise. A large and impressive programme is well under way for the introduction of information technology and for the computerisation of the Register of Charities.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made a somewhat precipitous intervention in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He invited the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to ask a question. The

537
noble Lord, Lord Allen, did not wish to ask the question, but as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, had already asked it I thought it appropriate for me to answer; but I see that the noble Lord is no longer here!
Nevertheless, as he is an assiduous reader of Hansard I am sure that he will be interested to know —because he asked what the staff figures for the Charity Commission were —that in January 1988 there were 320 staff; there are now 420 and next year there are likely to be 500. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked whether there will be enough qualified staff to examine the accounts. The answer is that the commission has an accountant who is already training other staff. Another will soon be acquired and a new head of monitoring and investigations has also been engaged. He is a former employee of Customs and Excise and is, of course, expert in this whole area. The number of staff devoted to investigating mismanagement and abuse has continued to rise. A little over two years ago there were only six such staff. When the new chief commissioner took office in early 1988 there were 14. Now there are 40, and the number will rise. That is, I think, by any standards a substantial achievement. I hope that answer satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and also the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he reads it.
As if that were not enough, the commission has also found the time to open a new regional office in Taunton. That will relieve pressure on the present accommodation in London, and it will, in time, make a significant contribution to the increased efficiency of its operations.
One does not alter overnight an organisation of the size, composition and importance of the Charity Commission. That is rather like changing the direction of a battleship by giving it a poke with a boathook. It takes time. I know that your Lordships will be concerned that the Charity Commission should be given enough funds to do its work. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked, in a slightly waspish way, whether the Government were going to give enough funds because he implied that the Charity Commission had not been given enough in the past.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, they have not.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought I heard my noble friend Lord Whitelaw say that they had not. Maybe they have not, but perhaps I may tell him what the Government are going to do because we are looking towards the future and not back to the past. Last year the Charity Commission was given £7 million and this year it will receive £1 I million. Next year it will have £16 million. So in two years the funds put at the disposal of the Charity Commission will have more than doubled. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Allen, or my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, but whether it does or does not, I am sure they will agree that it is a very substantial improvement indeed.
A large proportion of this money is necessary in order to enable the commission to embark on the use of new technology; to computerise the registration of
538
charities and their operation which of itself is a mammoth task. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked whether there would be a cross-referencing on a charity database. That will be done as one of the benefits of the new technology if it is possible to carry it out. He wanted to know what the state of play was regarding the database. The first stage is complete; the second stage begins next year and the whole programme will be completed in four years.
The noble Lord also asked whether the contents of the register will be sold. I can assure him that it will not be sold to advertisers, but we have in mind to offer some access to the register to payroll giving organisations.
At a time when most people would say that the Government have not been noted for their largesse in public spending, I hope that your Lordships will think that the funds that the Government have put and intend to put at the disposal of the Charity Commission underline the importance which the Government attach to the changing role of the commission.
Charities are an important part of our national life and they are likely to become more so as new techniques, new technologies, new methods and, we hope, a new desire to give more, increase. It is important that those who give of their charity and those who work in the charities should know that what is done and the way in which it is done is carried out in a manner that is beyond reproach. I hope that when the time comes the advice that we shall have received from all quarters, including from your Lordships who have consistently and traditionally taken such an interest in charities, will enable us to prepare a Bill that will prove not only acceptable to Parliament but of value to our way of life for many years to come.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have the opportunity of paying three tributes. The first is to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is known in this House as an introducer of interesting debates and as a valuable contributor on the subject of charities. The second tribute was paid some time ago but I pay it again. It is to the Woodfield Report which has been very largely followed in the recommendations made in the White Paper. The third tribute I pay to the Minister who has just sat down for his picturesque metaphors of which I noted only a few. He referred to "anthills', "tulips", "Dutch bulb fields" and "sharpening tools" —all in the course of one speech dealing with the not always attractive subject of charity law. He also referred to Mr. Jeffrey Archer. I am sure that if he had known I might have received some instructions to thank the noble Lord for that reference.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I used those metaphors knowing that that would be one way of retaining the noble Lord's attention.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if that was the only method of attracting my attention to the noble Lord's speech I would not have been so courteous to him as I always wish to be.

539
It is right and proper that we take our measure of the subject before the House and our discussion of the White Paper by referring to a couple of figures mentioned right at the beginning of the document. The first is that this industry of charity runs to a turnover in the charitable sector of some £13 billion. I wish to pay my tribute in due course to what has been achieved by the commission with very little funding and with a very small staff to deal with the work. I believe that was indicated through an intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who knows so much about the past work of the Charity Commission. I am sure that he also knows about its present work.
The second figure given at the beginning of the White Paper is that a charity is registered every 30 minutes of the working day. From that one gets an appreciation of the great volume of work that has to be done and the little time there might be for proper supervision, inspection and checking of accounts. I shall come to that matter in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with his usual care, read one of our national newspapers assiduously and discovered an error in its supplement on charities published last Tuesday. Very correctly, he told your Lordships that the newspaper had referred to a charities Bill at present passing through Parliament. That was an inaccuracy.
But another section of the supplement contained something that we should take into account very carefully when thinking in terms of charities, their growth, government contributions from the public sector and what is happening in the private sector. Amid words of caution the supplement quoted figures which are of some importance when we are considering charities generally and what is likely to happen in the years ahead unless there is an alteration. Attention was drawn to the fact that until now local authorities have been great contributors to charities and charitable work.
I am endeavouring to keep away from political theory or argument in an address on a non-political subject. But there is a great amount of fear and concern that the introduction of the community charge may adversely affect the contributions that local authorities make to charitable work and organisations. As The Times supplement pointed out, there is evidence that statutory support to the voluntary sector is falling off. There is a growing number of charitable organisations making demands on the state. We are told from a very reliable source of both the rate of increase of government funding running at £290 million a year and funding from non-departmental government bodies totalling about £920 million a year. I point out that £500 million of that figure of £920 million comes from the now defunct community programme. The rate of increase on both sets of figures has slowed to a trickle.
The private sector is always very generous to charities according to our tradition in this country but its contributions are also slowing by virtue of a growing suspicion that the more it gives the less the state gives. That is extremely material and a matter obviously to be taken into account.
540
In that context I should like to say a few words about what the Minister described very correctly as the ideal. He said that we should not constrain the private sector. On the subject of constraint, it is necessary to make the point that we must not be too legalistic. We must not be too restraining in our regulations on the private sector. That would be discouraging.
Perhaps I may give a brief example. There are many generous settlors who give quite a slice of their interests in private companies or even in public companies where they have a substantial interest. They settle those shares on a charitable trust which they create. There is an ordinary law in regard to trustees. Under the Trustee Act trustees must look at the question of diversification. If they feel that it is right and proper to sell shares, because they can get a little more by way of income or whatever it may be, they ought to do it.
A great many benefactors will be discouraged if that rule is taken too literally, be it by the charity commissioners or by the courts, and we put into our legislation, our regulations or our order of things a completely legalistic and technical way of looking at that kind of generosity.
I wonder whether I may take up the question of resources. I though that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was dealt with aptly in his absence. I notice that there is a companionship, if I may put it this way, in the absence of the whole of the Front Bench at which I am looking at this moment. The point was a proper one to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, had talked about resources at the beginning of his speech. I took one look at the figures given by the noble Lord. They sounded terribly impressive when his organ-sounding voice recited them —320 staff last year; 420 increasing to 500 this year. He quoted the figure of £7 million going up to £11 million and, it is to be hoped, to £16 million next year.
Then I took a look at the new duties recommended by the White Paper. I shall quote a few of them. They are recorded in the annex to the White Paper which summarises the recommendations of the Woodfield Report. Recommendation No. 4 says:
"The Commission should set up a top management board".
Recommendation No. 5 says:
"The Commission should, in conjunction with the Treasury, consider urgently the findings of the forthcoming information technology strategy study, according particular priority to the introduction of a management information system".
Recommendation No. 6 says:
"There should be more secondments of staff between the Commission and other departments; and the Commission should examine the possibility of exchanges with charitable organisations".
Recommendation No. 11 says:
"The Commission should arrange suitable training for those staff who are engaged in examining annual accounts".
I pause for a moment. With annual accounts being compulsory, and with there being one registration every 30 minutes of the working day, I just wonder about the ability to check those accounts, to seek information and to see whether anything is going wrong. Was I right —I could not have been —when

541
I heard the Minister talk with pride about there being one qualified accountant? He must have meant very many more. If I heard incorrectly, I am sure that he will give a figure. I thought that he would give a figure of 100 accountants, bearing in mind what the accountancy department is expected to do.
I have not yet finished. Recommendation No. 25 says:
"The Commission should continue to review the presentation and content of their leaflets, drawing up a programme to this end".
That recommendation comes under the section on local reviews and the Charities Act 1985. Recommendation No. 29 says:
"The Commission should as soon as practicable establish a local charity liaison section to promote and assist future local review work".
I shall not go on with this recital. However, the recommendation would require virtually the setting up of a government department. And it is right and proper that it should.
The tribute I said I was going to pay to the Charity Commission I pay now. As a legal practitioner I have had the privilege of being in touch with the commission over the years. I want to tell the House that I have met with nothing but courtesy every time I have asked for assistance and every time I have asked to discuss anything with the charity commissioners. I am talking of the chief charity commissioner down to the humblest of the staff. However, every time I have been in that building I have wondered how the staff manages to cope with the work. If we are dealing with the figure which the Minister gave today, in regard to resources, personnel and money, I am saying to the House that, to my untutored mind, it does not seem enough.
I stress to the Minister and to the House that it is not the quantity of staff that is important but the quality of the staff. Over the years I have noted a turnover in staff which has made me feel very dispirited. I am not quoting information given to me by any officer of the Charity Commission. I have received none. I have received the impression that many members of the staff go there for a short period of time in order to gain experience. They then go on to more highly remunerated posts elsewhere. We must not repeat this mistake. If we want the kind of Charity Commission that we are entitled to have and that charities are entitled to have, especially if we want them to carry out the duties that are mentioned in the White Paper and the Woodfield Report, we need high-quality staff who are properly paid and will remain in the post. That is an important point on the question of resources.
I was delighted as a lawyer to see the recommendation that there should be no statutory definition of charity. This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord referred to—I know that it was only a slip of the tongue—a legal definition of charity. In fact, a legal definition of charity is embedded in our 1602 statute and in the well-known judgment, under four headings, of Lord Macnaghten. It would be wrong if we got rid of the valuable stream of precedents that have grown up over the years. Our courts have been flexible and have gone with the mode and with the
542
different social needs of the moment. We have ended up with rational and sensible decisions in regard to whether or not a charity comes within those famous four headings.
I was a little less than rejoicing when I read that section of the White Paper which deals with how we ought to treat some of the religious cults, as they are called, where a great deal of harm is experienced in family life and in the development of young children. Of course, the White Paper discusses the matter. But I had hoped that there would be a better conclusion other than a rough subsequent finding as to whether it is for the benefit of the public that these organisations exist. I wish I could give your Lordships a better alternative.
I hope that other speakers will be able to make a more constructive contribution to this debate than I have. I also hope that we do not leave the debate today without someone finding a better way of dealing with some of these religious cults, although I perfectly understand how each and every one of us in our tolerance would want to say, as I believe a famous judge once said, that any religion is usually better than having none at all.
I promise your Lordships that I shall now deal, finally, with the question of fund raising. I was delighted to see the recommendation that funds collected by fund raisers should be passed over, without any deduction, to the charity for which the funds have been raised thus leaving it to the charity concerned to pay the fund raisers, rather than the deduction taking place before the moneys go to the charity. That seems to me to be very proper.
However, there is just one matter that I want to raise before I sit down —and I promise your Lordships that I shall do so shortly. From time to time I have come across members of staff from hospitals and other charitable institutions who have told me that they have found out —but, unfortunately, too late to be able to do anything about it —that people have been visiting houses and making completely unauthorised public collections on behalf of what they say is their principal —namely, the hospital or the institution involved —and that the institution or hospital concerned had not seen one penny of the money collected.
I hope that there will be very near co-operation between the charity commissioners and the police in this matter. Moreover, when such matters are discovered I also hope that people will realise that it is a public duty to point them out to the authorities. I further hope that the regulations in our law will always make it extremely unprofitable, if I may put it in that way, for people to indulge in this kind of cruel fraud.
Perhaps I may, as did the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, broadly welcome the White Paper. I hope that it will be the parent of a Bill which we shall be able to welcome in this House.
4.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this debate and for giving us the

543
opportunity to discuss the White Paper now before us. I am also delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because of the two matters which I wish to raise, the second one concerns religious cults.
However, I shall first draw your Lordships' attention to the anomalous position in relation to the law of charity of a small, and by definition a non-vocal, group of individuals. I refer to the contemplative religious communities which are to be found primarily in the Roman Catholic Church and to a lesser extent in the Church of England. There are actually less than a hundred of these communities in the whole of England, Scotland and Wales but the importance of the issue which I seek to raise is not thereby diminished.
For many years the matter has been the concern of the Churches Main Committee, a body representing, among others, the mainstream Christian Churches, of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is chairman. He very much regrets that he cannot be present in the House today. As your Lordships will be aware, the Churches generally enjoy charitable status —and I think I should emphasise the word "enjoy" —under the law, and the fiscal benefits which this brings, since the advancement of religion has traditionally been regarded as a charitable activity.
Integrated with the organisation of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are communities of contemplative monks and nuns whose contribution to the spiritual life of these Churches lies particularly in the support and inspiration which they give to other members of their church whose work takes them out into the world. A very small percentage of these communities enjoy charitable status by virtue of the public benefit which they render and which is more easily demonstrable than that of their primary vocation of intercessionary prayer. But the law of charity, as interpreted by the courts some 40 years ago, denies the contemplative communities the charitable status enjoyed by the body to which they belong. The fact that they are in a special position was recognised by the Government in the provisions made in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 regarding their exemption from payment of the personal community charge.
I readily accept that as individuals these people will have taken a vow of poverty and all that that entails; but it is as a community of which they are members that the present law of charity discriminates against them, as I think your Lordships will agree, so unreasonably. It leaves them in a sort of limbo where they have no legal standing. The disadvantages of this anomalous position are manifold: for example, the ownership of their property is uncertain and they suffer tax disadvantages whereby not only do they not have the advantages of exemption from tax as a charity but they also bear a heavier burden of tax than they would as members of the public generally.
Historically, a trust which provides for the support of those engaged in saying masses or private prayer was always regarded as a valid charitable purpose.
544
It was at the time of the Reformation that the climate of opinion changed because of the suspicion of abuse. Today the place of prayer is strongly accepted in all the mainstream Churches. The climate has certainly changed. This is certainly not a marginal matter; it is now central.
I am told that the matter is already under discussion with officials of the Home Office in the context of the comments made by the Churches Main Committee on the proposals set out in the White Paper before us today. My plea to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who will reply to the debate is for him to recognise the anomalous position of these religious communities and to undertake to consider the extent to which changes in the law of charity stemming from this White Paper may be made to accommodate the removal of this anomaly which causes considerable concern and distress to the Churches affected.
I turn now to the question of charitable status for new religious movements. The General Synod's Board for Mission and Unity recently published a report entitled New Religious Movements. The General Synod commended the report for discussion. It outlines the Church's attitude to new religious movements and gives details of what the Churches concerned have been doing in response to the widespread concern about the activities of new religious movements in this country. Legislation has to come from Parliament, but the actions outlined in the report show that the Churches are not just asking others do do something about the problem; they have taken important steps themselves.
In conjunction with the Home Office, the Churches have helped to set up INFORM, which provides the objective information that is vital in this field and puts inquirers in touch with members of its network for counselling or advice. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is one of INFORM's patrons. He addressed a recent seminar organised by the agency, where he said:
"INFORM is the place where we can find information on the new religious movements. It provides that truthful information store which is literally invaluable for those of us who try to lend help and support to those who are distressed by their encounters, or those of their loved ones, with new religious movements. I know … that INFORM is in fact achieving what it sets out to do. It has helped many people and it certainly deserves continued support".
Anglican diocesan bishops are also appointing a Church network of advisers of new religious movements in consultation with other Church leaders at the request of the British Council of Churches and on behalf of all the Churches. These Church advisers cannot be impartial about new religious movements; they are mostly Christian ministers advising other Christian ministers and members of their flocks. But the objective information which INFORM is able to supply as an impartial agency is invaluable to them and, indeed, to all others.
It is on the basis of the action which the Churches have already taken that on Tuesday 9th November the General Synod of the Church of England felt able to request Her Majesty's Government to take action with regard to the charitable status of the new

545
religious movements. It passed the following motion by 205 votes to nil:
"This Synod

(i) welcomes the publication of the Government White Paper: Charities —A Framework for the Future, and encourages Her Majesty's Government to make explicit, and if necessary to strengthen the existing powers of the Charity Commissioners to remove a Charity from the register where there is evidence that it is in acting in pursuit of its objects in ways which are not for the public benefit; and

(ii) commends for discussions GS Misc 317 and especially paragraphs 29 and 30 as a draft code of practice, contravention of which might constitute evidence that a religious body is not acting for the public benefit".

The Church of England could not support legislation which singles out one religious movement by name to exclude it from charitable status, which would appear to be an arbitrary act; nor could it support legislation to remove charities from the register on the grounds of their beliefs. Of course we disagree profoundly with the beliefs of the new religious movements. We do not believe that one faith is as good as another; but we support freedom of belief, the right to believe what one wishes, and do not believe that the courts should be asked to adjudicate on matters of belief or rule that one set of beliefs is better or truer than another.
It is not the beliefs of the new religious movements, bizarre as some of them may be, which cause widespread public concern, but their activities. It is on the basis of their activities —their behaviour —that they should be judged so far as concerns charitable status. The General Synod welcomes the White Paper and encourages Her Majesty's Government to make explicit and, as I have said, to strengthen if necessary the existing powers of the Charity Commissioners to remove a charity from the register. Evidence will be required; otherwise such a removal from the register would be an arbitrary act.
Perhaps I may suggest and share with your Lordships some of the items in the code of practice which pins down the matter a bit further. For instance, in the draft code of practice the board deplores inviting people to an event under false pretences, without explaining the true nature and purpose of the event; raising money under false pretences, or not making clear the purposes for which money will be used and the name and nature of the organisation for which it is being collected. Those of us who have been pestered at American airports will know just what that means. Such behaviour is not confined there; it is becoming common at Oxford Circus.
The board deplores using unfair or immoral means of persuasion, such as "heavenly deception", "flirty fishing", sleep deprivation, food deprivation, hypnosis, or any form of emotional, psychological or spiritual blackmail; serious discussion with minors without the knowledge of parents, guardians or school teachers, and refusal or unreasonable hindering of access to adherents or prospective adherents. It deplores failure to be publicly accountable as to the use of finance and resources where money has been raised from public sources. There are other items in the code of practice, but I
546
shall spare your Lordships and not: give further details.
The General Synod motion requesting that legislation and commending discussion was passed, as I said earlier, unanimously, and the synod therefore hopes that Her Majesty's Government will consider that point seriously.
Perhaps I may add a postscript. I am sure that many of us can illustrate from our experiences of charitable law how much of an overhaul is needed; not least the way in which outdated and irrelevant rules need to be altered in some charities.
A few weeks ago in my city of Chester the trustees of an educational charity, which had operated a building since 1933, were stunned when they received a ruling from the Charity Commission. That building had, for not more than 12 years in the 1920s into the 1930s, been a rifle range. Since then, it has been operated by the educational charity as a means of support for education in the city. Recently it was burnt down, and the site has been sold. The amount of money raised was sufficient to meet the crying and urgent need for a major school hall which the educational charity could supply to the Church of England secondary school which does not have a hall. The Charity Commission has ruled that it should be used to rebuild a rifle range, 56 years after the site was last so used. I am sure that that is the law, but in that case the law is an ass or even a dangerous ass because rifle ranges are not popular in the North-West of England at the moment after the murder of a policeman on the M.62.
I illustrate what many other people may illustrate from their experiences, and thus for those reasons as well as the other matters that I have raised I welcome the White Paper.
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating the debate on charities and for his excellent speech, if I may humbly say so, which outlined clearly the whole problem. He has considerable experience of the subject both from his distinguished career at the Home Office and thereafter his constant work in the House for charities. I cannot match his experience or his knowledge.
My reason for intervening in the debate stems from an increasing involvement in the world of charities. I shall limit my remarks to my short experience. For that reason, I shall not follow the right reverend Prelate in his important remarks about the charitable status of religious movements. I shall leave others to deal with that subject.
My experience started when I was Home Secretary. I learnt to appreciate the problems of the Charity Commission, which is expected to carry out an important supervisory role while totally lacking the necessary resources. If my noble friend Lord Ferrers heard my characteristically loud comment, it stemmed from a guilty conscience. I failed when I was Home Secretary to achieve the resources for the Charity Commission which I knew it needed.

547
My discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his friends when I was Leader of your Lordships' House merely confirmed all my worst fears. Since I left the Government, I have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Goodman —an almost impossible task in any way in any circumstances —as chairman of the Council for Charitable Support. In that capacity I have come face to face with the importance of helping many charitable organisations to promote charitable activity and charitable giving—surely an essential feature in any civilised society.
Once again, I have realised the vital role of the Charity Commission as a supervisory body in providing the necessary confidence to potential donors. That aspect of its work should never be forgotten. Therefore, I have greatly welcomed recent developments. Sir Philip Woodfield was a tower of strength to me in Northern Ireland and the Home Office. As a result, I was not surprised when he produced an excellent report which has been widely welcomed by charitable organisations and by your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The Government, and in particular the Home Office with my noble friend Lord Ferrers as the Minister in charge, deserve great credit for producing a White Paper generally so supportive of Sir Philip Woodfield's conclusions about the best regulation for charities. I hope that your Lordships will give the White Paper a warm welcome. We are promised a Bill based on the White Paper. Contrary to what were well known to be my normal efforts to keep the parliamentary programme in control, which I equally always failed to do —
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, thank you. I trust that that Bill will be in the next Session of Parliament. No doubt many suggestions will be made in the debate about possible improvements for when the White Paper is turned into a Bill. I want to stress just one point which I regard as of paramount importance, and which will arise after the Bill has become an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already referred to this aspect of what I want to say.
The whole purpose of the Bill will be to make sure that charities are properly supervised, so far as that is humanely possible, and to make sure in that way that improprieties do not occur. This is the challenge facing the Charity Commission in an increasingly important field if it wants a solid foundation for increased charitable giving in this country. This challenge will be met only if the Government provide the necessary resources to enable the Charity Commission to perform the duties laid upon it by an Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, outlined far better than I could many of the duties that will thereby be involved, but they will be the duties which we in Parliament will have put upon the Charity Commission when that Act is passed. If the necessary resources are not then given, the Charity
548
Commission will not be able to perform the task put upon it by Parliament and that will be a very great tragedy indeed.
I turn now from the regulating base to the promotion of charitable activities and charitable giving. In this consideration I start with the realisation —I think it is an important one —that many people in all walks of life give generously of their time and money to charitable organisations.
Against that background we have to evaluate two rather contradictory pieces of evidence. On the one hand, there are occasions when some tragedy or appeal touches the imaginations or the feelings of the public. Then their generosity can be quite remarkable. On the other hand, the general level of giving is surely low by any standards. The Charities Aid Foundation believes that about 80 per cent. of adults make donations during the year, but estimates an average donation of a mere £2 per month. The strange contradiction between these two facts needs to be studied by charities on their methods of appeal and by the Government when deciding on their direct involvement. The Government provide incentives to individual giving, and as has been said, government departments individually and local authorities give direct contributions to various charities. I believe that these two roles both require examination.
The Government's comparatively new pay roll deduction scheme should be welcomed. I hope it will develop as a means of systematic giving —and systematic giving and regular giving are very important factors which we much lack at the present time —for employees in the firms that operate it. I believe that it needs every encouragement. At the same time government concessions to charitable donors contain anomalies which should surely be removed when the opportunity occurs. For example, there is no limit on covenanting but there is a limit of £480 on payroll deduction giving. Also companies can obtain tax concessions on single gifts; individuals for some strange reason cannot.
I hope that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will instruct the Inland Revenue to review these areas of differential treatment with one simple, general objective —which it must surely be in the interests of the Government to promote —to encourage individuals to give generously. Some of these anomalies are encouraging one section but inhibiting another at the same time.
It has been reported that there has been a scrutiny by the Government of direct grants to charities by government departments and that this will be published soon. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to set out their general policy on the level of direct support which they plan to give to charities. Until they do there is always a danger that companies and individuals may feel that, if they give a lot more to charity, the Government themselves may then decide to withdraw. Of course this also applies to direct departmental grants to particular charities.
It would actually help to clear the air if the Government would promote discussion, which should address some fundamental questions. For

549
example, is there satisfactory co-ordination between government departments on the grants which they individually give? My personal experience of government over a good many years would lead me mildly to say that I doubt whether there is.
Secondly, what are the principles underlying support for particular charities with the taxpayers' money? My suspicion is that the whole process has developed as a somewhat haphazard and uncoordinated process. I do not blame governments over the years for this, as to some extent it is inevitable. But surely the scrutiny is a good moment to look at the Government's direct charity contributions as a whole and to decide how they should be handled, why they ever started, whether they should continue and whether we will find that some government departments are actually duplicating their contributions. It may very well be so.
To sum up, therefore, it seems to me that this White Paper on charities and the proposed Bill provide us with an opportunity to study the whole field of charitable giving by direct government and local authority contributions, by government incentives to companies and individuals, and indeed the work of the charities themselves in their methods of appeal for public contributions. I believe that all those who are interested in charities should seize this excellent opportunity. If we do, then we will be showing our determination to increase charitable giving to a level appropriate to a prosperous and civilised society.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege, and in these circumstances a great privilege, to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. According to my reckoning there were nine Leaders of the House and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were not leaving the House now I would invoke him in what I am about to say. I see that he has been kind enough to take his seat again, and I should just like to say that I am sure he, as well as the other absent previous Leaders of the House, will agree with me that there was never a more popular or successful Leader of the House of Lords than the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw.
Speaking as one who never got anywhere near the House of Commons owing to the obstruction presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, struck me as more a House of Lords man than a House of Commons man, which is very acceptable to some of us who never got to the House of Commons. I hope he will accept that as a kind of compliment.
I hope he will also accept this as a compliment. He is regarded in many eyes as the acceptable face of Thatcherism, and it was said that if only he had managed to stay in the Government there would not have been any need for this Sir Galahad to step forward. That again is a matter of argument. But be that as it may, and we are discussing other matters today, what he has said is very noteworthy.
550
I speak partly out of admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the initiative he has taken and partly because I want to explore a little further an aspect —quite a large aspect —of the controversies which surround this issue. I have had beneficial conversations with an organisation called Strategy Europe, of which my friend Peter Thompson is a deputy director. I have paid tribute to him before, as having done more for mental health than any other layman in this country. But be that as it may, it is about to produce an important document, and we must await that document before discussing it, about the issues that arise as soon as you begin to ask what is legitimate activity for charities and what is not.
I hasten to say —I shall not repeat it yet again; I have said it in previous debates on charities —that I am happy to think that it was 40 years ago when as a Member of the then Government I proclaimed the devotion of the Labour Party to voluntary action, which has been reaffirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, not only today but on other occasions. I need not pursue that matter further.
I shall now turn to the question of the political activities of charities. That is obviously a grey area. We are talking about politics in the sense of party politics and obviously charities must not become involved in that kind of activity. On the other hand, if one is talking of social change, it is almost impossible to conceive of any charity involved with social questions which is not interested in changing the situation. I have been involved with two flourishing charities involved in social change or social assistance. I have never been concerned directly with any kind of housing trust, but anyone who is would wish to see better housing laws. It is impossible therefore to draw a very definite line here. I shall take an example from one area to illustrate the admitted difficulty of the issue. This issue can never be finally disposed of, but I do not think it has been tackled fully enough in the White Paper.
The Matthew Trust is a pioneering group concerned with special hospitals and the aftercare of mental patients and victims of violent crime. It was started by the same Peter Thompson that I mentioned earlier. The Charity Commissioners cannot doubt that the hospital is carrying out good work, but the question is: how far is it allowed to promote certain objectives which may be thought to be borderline? The trust believed that:
"the care of patients in the special hospitals—at Broadmoor, Moss Side, Park Lane and Rampton —would be best served by all nursing staff belonging to the Royal College of Nursing rather than the Prison Officers Association".
That is an arguable point and I am not taking sides on it. There is much to be said on both sides of the argument. In the abstract one could say that the staff in such hospitals should belong to a nursing association. On the other hand, the prison officers have over the years carried out very good work and it could be considered wrong to try, as it were, to take that away from them. There are arguments on both sides but I am not concerned with the merits of that case. However, the Charity Commissioners

551
considered that the trustees should be rebuked on the grounds that:
"Such an interference in the legal right of employees to choose for themselves the trade union which they consider best able to promote and protect their interests, is not, in our view, capable of being construed either as a main charitable purpose or as a legitimate pursuit ancillary or incidental to the attainment of a charitable object, and we accordingly advise the trustees of the Trust to discontinue their campaign".
I need not recount the argument that followed. However, in the end a kind of compromise was struck. Such a situation shows the difficulty of the issue. From reading the White Paper I do not think that that issue is fully recognised.
I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments longer, but I must say that I feel that the more the Government back out of what many of us regard as their proper responsibilities for social welfare and the more they, so to speak, pass the buck to charitable bodies, the more this issue will arise. It is an acute issue and cannot be dodged. While it will never be settled and finally disposed of, I hope that much more thought and attention will be given to it by the Government in the time to come.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I must start by making an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and to my noble friend the Minister as I have a speaking engagement at seven o'clock and I may not be able to get back in time to hear the Minister's reply. If I cannot get back in time to hear that, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I seek to speak on two matters only. The first concerns the Charities Act 1985. In his opening address my noble friend the Minister mentioned small charities. Reference is made to this Act in chapters four and six of the White Paper. Is it possible at this stage to be told to what extent small charities have voluntarily amalgamated under the terms of the Charities Act 1985? Can my noble friend tell me how many have not amalgamated? However, I realise this information may not be available.
Further, when is it proposed to bring forward the suggested amendments outlined in chapters four and six of the White Paper? As is known, I did not altogether agree with the recommendations of the committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, which led to the passing of the Charities Act 1985. However, I appreciated the great wisdom of the noble and learned Lord in not making the amalgamation of small charities mandatory. He was quite right to consider that the country at that stage would not have accepted that. I have given notice of my next question to my noble friend the Minister. What exactly is the position with regard to the Charities Act 1985?
Coming from Oxford, as I do, perhaps it is inevitable that I should have made inquiries concerning the letter in The Times of 23rd November 1989 headed:
"Charity role in political arena".
The letter concerned Oxfam. The charity role in the political arena is a sensitive and difficult area. If a
552
charity such as Oxfam should use its charitable status to promote a particular political party or a particular regime, or to be partisan in respect of a political party or regime, it would of course forfeit charitable status. However, having said that, Oxfam and many organisations like it are in real difficulties. If the objective of the project which they are promoting is to be carried out on behalf of beneficiaries who are in need —I believe Oxfam is promoting such projects —I believe my noble friend the Minister would agree that that does not constitute political partisan activity. It is fair to say that supporting a particular project may by implication be interpreted as being critical of a particular regime or party. I draw attention to the letter in The Times in which it was suggested that by helping the Palestinians Oxfam had inferred criticism of the Israelis. It could be said also that helping the starving Ethiopians could be construed as criticising by implication the Ethiopian Government who have not looked to the question of irrigation and who have not planned for their country's future. However, I suggest that the objectives of the Oxfam projects are relief to the starving, the poor and the ill. Therefore, I am sad that there has been criticism of the work which that organisation is doing.
I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, on the matter of the changing structures of our central and local government. These changing structures are affecting the giving of grants to charities, both at central and local level. A number of charities which are carrying out projects, and whose workers are all independent, are finding that the grants given to them by the Government have not been increased although their workload has increased. On a local level the reorganisation of the Inner London Education Authority devolved responsibility to local authorities. We all agreed with that but I believe that a number of voluntary organisations, in particular youth organisations, are suffering as the independent authorities are not giving the grant that ILEA gave. Therefore I plead, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for consistency in this matter and an appreciation of the problem.
Finally, I cannot forbear to join the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in asking where the resources will come from.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask the leave of the House to apologise for not being in my place when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replied to the question to which the noble Baroness has just referred. I put that question when I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, as he presented his case. I did not think that this Government would be so swift to answer a fundamental question. I had anticipated that later in the evening I should be in my place to receive that answer. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is no need for me to be in my place late in the evening to hear the answer, since he has already given it. I shall read that answer in Hansard. It is an important question and I am very grateful to the Minister for having replied to it so quickly and so sincerely.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am sure that the House will admire the courtesy and indeed guile of my noble colleague who has just spoken.
It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, particularly on a subject such as this. I very much hope that the Government will take note of what she has said. I thought that she made some extremely wise comments on the question of the dividing line between examination and propaganda. I was chairman of a minority rights group which examined the plight of minorities in different countries. We had to remain a charity and undertake not to lobby on its behalf. However, if one exposes what is happening to minorities one almost inevitably becomes involved in politics because the government in question does not like the exposure. Therefore I hope that the Government will be reasonably generous in their interpretation of what charities can do.
I am opposed to the enormous quantity of legislation which comes before us; and so, I believe, are most other Members of this House. However, when it comes to particular matters, as with expenditure, we very often find that pressure is brought upon the Government to introduce more legislation.
I began by thinking that as charities seem to get on fairly well, and there were no scandals such as there have been in other areas, perhaps we should leave well alone. But I was converted, largely by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, when he argued that such an enormous business as charities have now become—and charity is very big business indeed—needs a fresh scrutiny. In any case, the Government are going to legislate. In general I approve of the White Paper, and I believe that this is a very sensible way to set about legislation.
I hope that the Government will lay particular stress upon the preparation of accounts. I believe that many people are interested in seeing in charities' accounts what proportion of their money goes to the real purpose of the charity and how much is spent on fund raising and administration.
I also hope that the Government will say a little more about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, concerning small charities. We are all aware that merely appearing on the register of charities is not a licence, but I believe that I am right in saying, as the noble Lord indicated must be the case, that small charities will not be expected to register, and although they will have to produce accounts a very simplified form of accounts may be adequate in their case.
I want now to go on to two rather wider subjects, one of which I am afraid may be considered rather controversial. First, I draw the Government's attention to the document Charities in Scotland: a Framework for Supervision, of which they are no doubt aware. In the discussion last year on the Woodfield Committee's recommendations it was pointed out that the committee had indicated that it would be unsafe to leave the law on charities in Scotland as it is. I was fairly sure that we should find that the Government intended to set up a charity
554
commission in Scotland, or some such body, knowing the liking in this country for quangos. I expected at least that a large amount of legislation would be produced for Scotland. However, I am delighted, though surprised, that that has not happened.
The Scottish Office has produced what I think is a very good document. It makes five recommendations. One concerns producing proper accounts, one affects the new powers of the Lord Advocate and the others concern the powers of the Inland Revenue. I should perhaps explain, for those noble Lords who are unfamiliar with Scotland, that in Scotland there is no charity commission and charities have to make their case to the Inland Revenue. That system appears to work reasonably well.
The Woodfield Committee was rather cryptic in its criticisms. It did not specify what was wrong in Scotland. I, for my part, find the document on Scotland a satisfactory document. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the Government why it is necessary to have a much larger machinery in England for managing charities than in Scotland. There are probably perfectly good reasons. Of course the subject is much bigger in England. It may be that in Scotland we follow the lead of the Charity Commission to a certain extent in that I believe that we now follow English law.
It would be interesting to know why there is that curious contrast between Scotland and England. Further, if it is enshrined in legislation will there not be a tendency for such charities as may be rather frightened of the Charity Commission to move to Scotland? There they would escape its investigations. I do not know whether the Government have considered that possibility, though it is a serious matter. On the face of it, it would seem that if one had any doubts about fulfilling all the demands of the Charity Commission one would move one's headquarters to Edinburgh.
The other matter about which I want to say a few words is the definition of a charity. All committees and the White Paper, and the debate today, have studiously avoided discussing the matter. I wish that that could continue, because it is extremely difficult to define a charity for the purposes of taxation. I sympathise very much with those who say that we should not go into the matter, but I believe that we are bound to do so if we are to produce a Bill on the question.
The fundamental question is whether or not those bodies are entitled not to pay taxes. If they do not pay taxes somebody else has to pay the taxes which they would have paid. The public at large has a right to know our position on the matter because the sums at stake are so large. Exactly how large they are may be a matter of some doubt, but, as has been said, the sums in question are of the order of £2 billion a year. Something of that order, or slightly less, is the amount of money that taxpayers and ratepayers in this country—many of whom are not at all rich—forgo for the sake of charities.
As I understand it, in Scottish law a charity used to be closely linked to the alleviation of poverty.

555
Now Scotland follows England in the definition of a charity, such as the Macnaghten definition, so far as it affects the matter of taxation. Most people think that the Scottish attitude is rather sensible. They believe that charity is connected with the alleviation of poverty. Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary connects the two closely.
We must realise that our terminology in this matter is becoming rather confused. Charity largely used to mean the giving of alms to the poor. It now covers all sorts of things; and rightly so. It is an enormous field. We talk of voluntary societies and bodies, but they are not voluntary in the sense that they raise all their own money or that their staff are volunteers. They may receive large sums from the Government and they quite properly employ a fairly highly salaried staff. The public schools are charities. Eton is a charity. Many lesser centres of education are charities. I believe that the Inns of Court are charities. The liveried companies are charities. We have heard of curious churches which are charities.
Not so long ago, I came across a very rich man who lives outside this country and who wished, for very unselfish motives, to give some of his money away. I asked him why he did not just give it away, to which he replied that he would like to set up a foundation which would bear his name. That is a perfectly proper ambition.
The question in all these cases is not whether it is a proper ambition, but whether we should indiscriminately relieve charities of taxation. That is the point at issue. I am in doubt about it. I am not sure, but I believe that there is at least a case for saying that those large, well-known foundations—I am not now talking of the Inns of Court or of Eton—should make a contribution to taxation. I find myself in two minds about the issue. I do not think that there is a cast-iron case for exempting them.
The reason that Eton, the Inns of Court and the liveried companies are charities is that they educate. But it cannot be said that the people whom they educate are necessarily the poor. Might it not be a condition of retaining charitable status that they either increase the number of poor whom they educate, which admittedly many of them try to do, or that the matter is looked at again and other arguments are adduced, as they can be? It can be argued that, by sending one's sons to a fee-paying school, one relieves the taxpayer of a certain amount of the burden that he would incur if they went to a state-aided school. I do not find that argument totally convincing. It is like saying that, because one works, one does not charge the state for unemployment benefit or national assistance and should therefore be suitably rewarded.
A stronger argument is that those schools are centres of excellence, but they are centres of excellence which largely benefit the better off. One may say that they are in the public interest, but a considerable number of people in this country believe that they are not in the public interest, that the division of education is not in the public interest, and that if we all went to the same kind of school we should be a more unified country.
556
In last year's debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned the enormous good that the large charitable foundations have done. He mentioned in particular the research work of Florey. It is perfectly true. There is everything to be said for encouraging that. If they paid some tax, would their benefit disappear? Would they go out of business? I do not know; but they are entering deep and large waters—deep in the sense that there are philosophical difficulties and large in the sense that the sums of money involved are very large.
The strongest case for keeping the present wide definition of charity is that in this country today there is a great deal to be said for having other centres of affluence and power than the government, so that the petitioner who wants something slightly unusual has a chance of obtaining it from places other than government departments. The strongest case for continuing the present administration of charities is that they fulfil that need. They provide other sources from which the ordinary citizen who may be refused government aid may obtain aid. However, charities are chiefly of benefit to the middle class. Far too much of our welfare state is of benefit to the middle class. Far too many subsidies on housing, transport and so on go primarily to the middle class. We should remember that the fundamental purpose of charities is to help those who are not well off.
My feeling at present is that we should perhaps totally exempt traditional charities which simply help to alleviate poverty and that a wider class might pay something towards taxation. The matter should be discussed. It would be a good thing if it were discussed in this House, as it would be discussed much more rationally here. The debate would be much freer of prejudice here than anywhere else.
One point that flows from this is the extreme desirability of low taxation. The whole of the problem arises because of the weight of taxation. I trust that the Government will press on with that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intends to speak in the debate, I should say that I hope that the Bill will be intelligible. When I ventured to say that the Scottish education Bill was not intelligible, the Minister very fairly agreed and said that he would arrange for an explanatory memorandum to be published with it. The Government should be able to legislate in a manner which they at least can understand. It should not be necessary for other people to draft explanations of it.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper, especially the invitation that it includes for contributions to its substance and meaning. I shall presume to offer a number of comments which are the product of almost a lifetime of involvement in these matters. Two of them, of a general nature, must be borne in mind for any effective contemplation of the role that they should play and the contribution that they can make.
First, it is not incorrect to say that in many respects enlightened policies of goodwill which are unilaterally pronounced and expedited in the

557
voluntary system can become the bell-wethers of enlightened public administration. Many of those adventures in charity which begin in small ways and in obscure corners develop, by the very process that by their works we begin to know them, into the substance of better general preparation and performance in the realm of public administration.
Secondly, most of the charities with which I have been involved have been stronger in heart at their beginning than perhaps they were in intellectual substance. However, I am encouraged by the great Pascal who said or wrote that the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. That may be very dangerous, but, in as much as it was said by one of the most enlightened scientists of all ages, it is particularly important and, I believe, imperative in this regard. It is not necessary to be able to declare precisely all the evidence that belongs to a particular programme of charities in order to give it the opportunity of testing itself out and becoming far more articulate as the process is developed.
It is in that regard that I looked at the first of the propositions on which is found this particular inquiry into a framework for the future. Immediately I discovered that there is difficulty in describing in precise terms just what is a charitable purpose. I believe it is right to say that it denies the possibility of legal or statutory definition in many respects. Again, "public benefit" is an imprecise term, although most of us, I am sure, know what it means. In general terms I concur entirely with the commission and those who prepared the White Paper in their conclusion that it is not necessary precisely to define all the objectives of a charitable proposition in order that it may qualify for the process of being experimented with. I therefore heartily support the part of the document that denies the necessity for more precise statements. I take comfort in the much used phrase that provided something appears worthwhile in its substance to the heart as well as to the mind, it is worth trying.
I turn to the second of the observations that I should like to make which is in regard to religion. I believe that religion as a body of theology or a creed should not by itself be entitled to the opportunities and processes of a trust. Religious bodies should not automatically be regarded as having charitable functions. As a minister of the Christian faith I say with due care that I cannot find evidence to support the proposition that because a number of people collect together and announce something that they are prepared to defend as the truth, that necessarily indicates a compassionate attitude on their part and they are entitled to charitable status.
I am quite sure that the charitable status of the religion of which I am a member is justifiable. I shall not weary your Lordships with a catalogue of religions that are followed by others, from the Borneo headhunters downwards—or upwards, if you like. However, to give such groups a general baptism by hosepipe as if they were charitable institutions in themselves seems to me unwarrantable. Therefore, I oppose in particular the imprecision of what is said in the White Paper:
"The Government have considerable sympathies for these anxieties…. It has been suggested that the problem would be
558
solved if charitable status were removed from all trusts which are established to advance religion".
That is quite simple. But "to advance religion" is altogether too vague a statement to justify the inclusion of all kinds of queer cults—I come across many of them, in the open air in particular—which would claim to be charitable just because they hold a number of beliefs which certain other people are prepared to endorse and offer their help.
I believe that charitable status can only be determined in the areas of performance and intention. What is required is a much more comprehensive understanding than as yet seems to be available of what we mean by charity. One thing that seems to me to be beyond all question, however, is that charitable status must be very largely antipathetic to a moral judgment on who practise it. Unless there is a provision within such legislation as is now anticipated for an essential attachment to the concerns of goodwill and compassion, I do not believe that we shall avoid difficulties and I do not believe that we shall produce the answer that is required.
I probably disagree with a number of my ecclesiastical friends in that regard. I believe that it is not sufficient to pronounce upon ultimate reality and, having done so, claim compassionate status. In this regard as in any other "by their fruits shall ye know them". In my judgment the only qualification that would justify giving a compassionate verdict is that it is manifest, although it may not be precisely clear, that the body works in the interests and the general progress of goodwill, kindliness and love. It is in that regard that I make my plea.
I realise that the difficulties are immense. I return to the point with which I began. There is one all important consideration. All charities must see themselves in the light of what ultimately will be the triumph of their success or the disaster of their failure. That is a corporate and social commitment. I do not believe that any government can ignore the fact that if charities progress, the government's responsibility will dwindle.
I believe that the public responsibility is absolute. But whatever may be the virtues, as I cordially regard them, of the way in which individuals practise in their own private affairs opportunities which are not offered to them within the public realm, I believe that there has to be much more; namely, that the real aim of a charity lies in making itself no longer desirable.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has performed a valuable public service by saying what he has about so-called religious charities. There are some charities which call themselves religious but their purposes are so bizarre, and sometimes dangerous, that they should not be given charitable status. Bearing in mind the important position that the noble Lord holds in his own Church and the reputation that he has for being outspoken, I think we should be very glad that he said what he did. There is no need for me to embellish it.

559
I feel sure that the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is partly and largely the outcome of the splendid work that he has done in a wide area of charitable work, especially, I like to think, on behalf of Mencap, where he followed me as chairman and then president, which he now is. We should also be grateful both to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the open-minded way in which he described the Government's possible intentions and, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is unusual for me to find that when he makes a long speech, as he did, that he makes a speech with which I completely agree.
The noble Lord said some very valuable things, of which I shall remind him and the Government from time to time. Then of course we had that open confession which is good for the soul by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. It is a fact that Home Secretaries have very limited powers under the present law. The Charity Commission has quite considerable powers but can never properly exercise them unless it is given the resources, which it has so far never been given.
I speak with a little feeling on this matter because I had the responsibility of preparing and piloting through another place the Charities Act 1960 which, added to by the small charities Act introduced by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, is still the basis of the present law.
It is rather interesting to reflect that the present law has mainly been evolved by the judges over centuries. The first framework was given to it in the Act of Queen Elizabeth I in 1601, and the Act of 1960 under Queen Elizabeth II contained eight pages of repeals of previous legislation. Although succinct by current standards—it runs to only 67 small pages compared with hundreds of pages of most present major statutes—the 1960 Act has stood the test of time reasonably well, as I am sure noble Lords agree. On page 33 of the White Paper the proposals for amending the legislation are very limited. When the Government introduce their Bill it needs to be fairly narrow in scope. I shall have a little more to say about how that might be done in a moment.
I know that a lot has been said about resources. Perhaps I may say a brief word. Since the 1960 Act was passed, and continuing every year, there has been an enormous increase in the number, size and diversity of charities. This has greatly increased the work of the Charity Commission. However, the main factor has been not merely the total lack of money and resources but, as has been mentioned and should be emphasised, the lack of enough qualified and experienced legal staff. The truth is that both branches of the legal profession find that their services are in such great demand that relatively young people in their early thirties, by becoming solicitors or barristers, can have a more prosperous and sometimes wider life. We therefore have to ensure that enough people with legal qualifications are attracted to the Charity Commission and that they remain there and obtain the necessary experience.
560
When the 1960 Act was discussed in another place we were pressed to insert a definition of charity. We resolutely refused to do so. I am thankful to see that Chapter 2 of the White Paper argues convincingly against doing so; so did the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Mishcon.
I wish to say a word on political activities by charities. We surely need to make a clear distinction between those bodies which have a political purpose as a main reason for their existence and those genuinely charitable bodies which find that they need to go public politically from time to time in order to pursue their truly charitable aims. I must confess that I have had responsibility for both those types of body. I venture to mention my contrasting experience.
As president of the National Council for Civil Defence, as it was called, which was mainly a pressure group to persuade the Government to spend more on protecting the people in case there should be war, we felt that we existed for the good of the people and that by pressing for better arrangements for dealing with emergencies we were pursuing a charitable aim. We therefore applied to the Charity Commission for registration. However, we were firmly told by the then Chief Charity Commissioner, "No, I cannot register you. If I register you I shall have to register the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has already applied and has been refused". We therefore accepted that and agreed that both his decisions were correct.
On the other hand, as chairman of Mencap I pressed first the Labour Government in 1978 and then the Conservative Government in 1980 to get as many mentally handicapped people out of those enormous long-stay institutions as possible and to provide financial help for us to get some of them living in small homes and hostels in the community. I am glad to say that in 1981 Mencap was given some modest financial help to get this started. If we had been forbidden by law to pursue that matter politically, and publicly politically, it would have inhibited our charitable purpose most severely. I therefore hope that we shall not have any rash, unwise provisions put before us trying to curtail that matter. But we have to be very careful that those who do not have a genuine charitable purpose but mainly a political one are not given the favour of charitable status. The White Paper has struck the right note on this at the end of Chapter 2.
Perhaps I may say a quick word on the cy-près doctrine. I agree that, as recommended in paragraph 19 of Chapter 6, it should be applied more flexibly. But I say that legislation is not necessary. The White Paper does not think it is necessary. It is simply a question of dropping a hint to the courts and to the Charity Commission, because it has a part to play in this also, and I think that we could achieve a better result.
On fund raising, practice and principles conflict. If it were made the law that the fund-raisers had to be paid before the charity received a penny, then some charities might fear that they may not receive the funds eventually. I do not know whether that is so, but I lean to the view that we should provide in

561
some way or another, or the Charity Commission could make it a condition, that the charity must first receive all the funds and then the fund-raisers should have their cut after that happens.
The White Paper is a valuable document. It is a White Paper with a blue cover. It could provide a blueprint for the future. Not much legislation is needed. We should merely marginally increase the powers of the Charity Commission, as suggested by the Woodfield Committee, and let the courts continue to decide cases in what my noble friend Lord Ferrers called an ever-changing situation.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, say, "Do not let us be too legalistic". I was also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for saying that if there is to be legislation let it be intelligible. It would be a serious mistake for us to legislate in detail to cover a mass of hypothetical cases which are in any event part of an ever-evolving practice. Several broad statements of principle are acceptable so long as they do not descend to detail. But I do not think that we need even that. Let us stick to the minimum of legislation and the maximum of provision of resources.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him this question following his excellent and informative speech. He mentioned that lawyers and solicitors should be more active in assisting charities. Many professional people who are involved in charity work give their services for nothing. Would such barristers and lawyers give their services for nothing?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord misheard me. I said that we should try to persuade as many qualified lawyers as possible to work in the Charity Commission. A great many work with charities, either voluntarily or otherwise. If one may dare to be egoistic in your Lordships' House perhaps I may say this. I returned to the Bar in 1962, since when I have become involved in unpaid work for various charitable organisations. I have been fully involved, as have many other lawyers, both solicitors and barristers.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so that it is apparent that such activity does not exist on only one side of the House, on many occasions I have also had the pleasure of acting as honorary solicitor to charities and carrying out the same good work as the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
6 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about, and stress the urgent need for, reform in the field of charity. After reminding us that no licence is required from the Charity Commissioners before a charity can appeal for funds, the report of Sir Philip Woodfield referred to:
"the continuing high public concern about malpractice in charitable fund raising".
I should like to give your Lordships a short example of malpractice which came within my personal knowledge and demonstrate the moral to
562
be drawn from the story. Mr. Brown—that is not his real name and I shall say nothing which will identify him—was a failed businessman living on public assistance. He had been associated with a building society which was wound up and a finance company which collapsed. He had been through the bankruptcy court.
After those misfortunes he decided to turn his attention to raising money for charity. He registered a charity for the relief of children in the third world. He bought over 1,000 collecting boxes and distributed them to public houses, hotels, restaurants and factories. They were not a success. The money collected was small so he stopped distributing the boxes. However, he did not trouble to retrieve all the boxes which he had put out as he should have done. Two hundred and thirty-four boxes were left lying around because Mr. Brown said that it was too expensive to collect them. Therefore, those boxes remained on site as a continuing invitation to the public to donate money to a charity which the money would never reach.
After the setback Mr. Brown decided to go in for more active collecting. He rented a small office. He engaged so-called "area organisers" whose job it was to recruit collectors and to receive from them in the contents of their collecting boxes. But he did not take up the references of area organisers before engaging them because, as he said, they were so difficult to find. It later transpired that one of his area organisers had already been convicted of serious criminal offences in connection with charities. I should mention that Mr. Brown obtained without difficulty from the Metropolitan Police a licence under the House to House Collections Act 1939 enabling him to promote collections in London.
Those responsible for collecting money for Mr. Brown's charity received a commission varying from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the donations received. Mr. Brown's theory was that it was better to pay the high commission and collect some money in than to collect no money at all.
The so-called "charity" operated for a period of three years until the Charity Commissioners got wind of what was happening, and with much difficulty managed to put a stop to Mr. Brown's activities. During the three years of the charity's active life, a sum exceeding £10,000 was collected from unsuspecting members of the public. The public never knew that not one single penny was spent on any charitable purpose during the three years. The cost of collecting was so high that out of each pound donated only 11 pennies remained after Mr. Brown had deducted commission and other expenses.
Many people consider it distasteful to resist the rattle of the collecting box or to turn a deaf ear to an appeal. No one likes to cast himself in the image of a Scrooge. But if the true facts had been known to the public, as they became known to the Charity Commissioners and to me, I am certain that not one single penny would ever have found its way into any of Mr. Brown's collecting boxes.
That simple story, which for all I know is not unique, demonstrates how necessary it is that

563
Charity Commissioners should be given the powers, the staff and the finance which they need in order properly to regulate and monitor the activities of charities. The activities of fund raising charities should be strictly controlled. There should be restrictions on the amount of commission and expenses that can be claimed against charitable donations. There should be some qualification required of people who are permitted to organise and run charitable appeals and collect money from the public.
I should like to mention only one other matter, if noble Lords can bear with me for a moment longer. The subject has already been touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Section 3 of the Charities Act 1985 enables the trustees of a small charity to resolve to transfer their whole property to the trustees of another charity with comparable charitable purposes as an accretion to the funds of the transferred charity. Such an amalgamation is effected by a simple resolution of the transferor trustees under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners. The purpose is to eliminate the expense of operating a small charity and so avoid the unnecessary waste of money and effort. The section is confined to charities with a gross income of £200 a year or less. But—and this is the important point—under Section 5 of the Act the Secretary of State has power to increase the limit by negative instrument.
That power to amalgamate charities was an innovation. It was well received. First, it was applauded by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, speaking on behalf of the Government on the Second Reading of the 1985 Bill. It was a Private Member's Bill which started in this House. She said:
"We believe that this power for trustees of small registered charities to transfer their property to another will appeal to trustees and others who want to see sensible use made of small, perhaps dwindling, amounts of capital and who believe that the money cannot be put to good use in isolation… We think that its simplicity should commend the procedure to trustees".—[Official Report, 17/12/84; col. 492.]
Secondly, the power was blessed by Sir Philip Woodfield in paragraph 93 of his report. He recommended that the limitation to charities with an income not exceeding £200 per year should be altered to £1,000 per year. Thirdly, the extension to charities with income of £1,000 per year was blessed by paragraph 6 of the White Paper without imposing any additional restrictions or qualifications on the use of the section.
Fourthly, the viability of Section 3 as a welcome means of simplifying charity administration has been amply proved by the fact that 169 amalgamations were processed by the Charity Commissioners last year.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whether it would not be possible for the limit of £200 to be raised now to £1,000 by the simple expedient of an almost one-word statutory instrument without waiting for a new charities Act in one or two years' time. I ask: would not the public interest best be served by a statutory instrument
564
now particularly having regard to the difficulty of predicting, as the noble Earl said, when primary legistlation will take place?
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I was very interested in his story of Mr. Brown, as I am sure the Charity Commissioners will be. If we can relate that story throughout the charity world, then I feel that that will save a lot of trouble. That was not a new story to me although it may be to others.
We are privileged this evening to have my noble friend Lord Whitelaw with us, sitting as he does behind a desk at the Home Office in order to take charge of a part of charity work. He will now know charities from both sides of the desk, and I do not believe that charities could possibly be put in better hands. I am also very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for bringing forward the discussion this evening on the White Paper. That is a very important document which raises many of the problems which some of us will have to overcome.
I should like to make a few remarks from my own experience of charity work. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to trustees. I am privileged to be a trustee of several charities and on behalf of them, I welcome the further responsibilities which this White Paper will give us. I believe that we all work hard with diligence and try to do the best we can, sometimes with very small amounts of money.
Speaking of money, I hope that in future the accounts of all charities will be examined by accountants. I understand from the Minister that we are to pay a sufficient amount of money to the Charity Commissioners so that there will be quality, as one noble Lord said, as well as quantity.
I should like to ask in particular, as was also mentioned by another noble Lord, whether the accounts of appeals on television are submitted to the Charity Commissioners. I believe that the general public would rather like to know where the very large amounts of money are going which are raised very cleverly by those appeals.
It has been brought to my attention that a number of charities hoard—and "hoard" is perhaps not the word one should use—or do not distribute money freely given to them. In many cases, those charities are sitting on large amounts of money which have been given to them to be used. I hope that the Charity Commissioners will look into that matter because I know that that does occur. Also, I hope that when the accountants go through the accounts, they will look at the comparative percentages of the overheads because some charities, as we all know, have a large number of people working for them who are perhaps taking up too much of the incoming revenue of the charity.
Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned, too many charities are aiding the same objective. Again, I hope that the Charity Commissioners will look at that matter through the cross-referencing which will be available to them in the future.

565
I understand from this document that registration of charities will be computerised. As we all know, that can cause problems. Every year I work hard for a charity which appeals at Christmas time on behalf of the single homeless. Unfortunately, our computer has failed which means that we were unable to start writing our appeal letters in October. As a result, we have been inundated with letters. Because of the failure of the computer, we now have only one weekend in which to write the letters—and when I say "we", that means "me".
I hope that that spring cleaning of the register of charities will go ahead. Some of us may have seen a television programme some two or three years ago. In that, I was absolutely horrified by the conditions in which the Charity Commissioners had to work. They were almost Dickensian. I suppose that even a broken down computer would be better than that.
I wholeheartedly agreed with my noble friend Lord Renton when he spoke about political pressure groups. That is a difficult subject. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether a charity is helping government to make a decision one way or the other, or whether it is putting too much pressure on them.
Another point which I should like to raise is that the money raised from the public on behalf of a certain charity for a specific cause should be used in that way. It should not be diverted into other channels. To my certain knowledge that happens, and I hope that the Charity Commissioners will see that the money is used for the purpose for which the donations were given.
This has been a very interesting debate with different points covered so well by many speakers. I want to pay my tribute tonight to all those who work for charities for nothing. They are volunteers in the truest sense of the word. They collect money; they work for people, but as far as the fund raising is concerned they do it freely because they believe in the charity for which they work. There are thousands and thousands of them throughout this country and our country could not do without them. I therefore pay my tribute to them.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has exposed himself to some attention. Without looking at him I will say that all Home Secretaries share the blame for allowing the Charity Commission to fall into the decrepit condition that it has been in recently. It has been utterly unable to discharge the responsibilities, meagre as they are, under the existing law. It has no hope of coping with problems which are now arising fast and somewhat furiously in the charitable world.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, gave a fascinating account of the failure of the charity law and the supervision of those concerned to detect fraudulent activity. I have a better example than his. In my former constitutency a few weeks ago—I repeat, a few weeks ago—a man was sent to prison for having defrauded people locally by posing as a charity and getting notable patrons around him to bless the appeal that he was making. He was conducting his operations from a lonely farmhouse
566
on the Yorkshire moors; nobody knew what he was up to except those in the immediate family. Before anybody found out anything about it he had cleared half a million pounds. What are we to do about people like that? It is no good being cosy about the regime that we must impose on those who are given a licence to make an appeal to the public and a licence to receive all the concessions of taxation and local government assistance on account of being charities.
The amount of revenue being forgone in concessions is enormous. Mortgage interest relief amounts to £4·5 billion; pension contribution concessions and pension funds, another 4·5 billion; charities now amount to over £2 billion. Over £10 billion of revenue is being forgone in three fields of social activity. We must watch this because it will all come back on the revenue and that means that it falls back on the taxpayer.
By common consent—or almost common consent—we have left out of our review of charities at this time the definition of what is a charity. I am glad we have done that, but I think we will have to come closer to it before this Bill is passed by the House in the next Session. I will tell your Lordships why. The boundaries between state provision and other provision are being moved into the field of charitable activity. If your Lordships do not take heed of that, it can be found in the farewell message of the retiring chairman of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—the Reverend Alan Morgan, who has just been appointed Suffragan Bishop of Sherwood and who had to resign from the chairmanship of the NCVO. He says:
"In the period I have been Chairman of NCVO, the growth of voluntary organisations has reflected the shifting boundaries between the state, the private sector and ordinary citizens".
He states that the voluntary sector has now to respond to the new demands that are laid upon it as the Government adopt a more limited role in relation to the economy and society.
What is happening is that the Government are gradually moving the responsibility for the test of needs from the state and public provision to the charities. The charitable organisations at present are becoming indispensable adjuncts to state provision for the maintenance of basic services. It is not money they distribute so much; it is services. They are the most difficult to provide but they are being left more and more to the voluntary sector.
That has a bearing upon the role of charities in the future. It will not be as a pathfinder for new areas of need and new provision that might be made by the state but as an indispensable partner to the state itself. That will mean a very big difference to our approach to the whole question of charity law.
We owe this White Paper to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. But for his persistence we should never have had it because the indolence of the Home Office about the condition of the Charity Commissioners was in this field of the review of charity law. It is quite an education to read back and see the first responses from the Government Benches about the approach to them for a review of this kind. They did not want to know, but it was the pressure of the charities themselves that added to the

567
insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We are grateful to him. He should go down in the history of charity law as one of the great benefactors of the age.
Since our last debate in February several things have happened which have a bearing on this debate. First, we are now fairly well up to date with the new flood of charitable appeals. I have brought mine with me. I do not know what other noble Lords experience in regard to the junk mail that is put through the letter boxes at this time of year. Do the noble Lords open it themselves? If they do they will make a discovery about the inefficiency and the waste of money that is now circulating over a wide area. More and more expenses are being incurred and, in some respects, more misleading propaganda is being sent out to seek further assistance from the public.
I have here mail from 16 charities, but six of them are duplicated. It is extraordinary that some are addressed using one's title. Others are addressed using one's former role of Mr. They probably send a similar envelope to your wife addressing her as "Mrs." and then another one arrives addressed to "Lady". If you have another address besides the one in London then you get still more of this mail. I have five here from one rather small charity.
There is another aspect. A careful look at the mail that arrives will show a number. Watch that number; see whether it occurs on more than one of the appeals received. My number is 15533. That occurs on one appeal after another. It means I am a marked man in the charitable world. I am identified. I do not know whether this number goes the rounds and whether I am classified as rich, gullible or as having given money to charities before. Am I a likely lad, or what?
I believe that this kind of approach causes people of good will towards charities a great deal of irritation at this time of year. A charity states on an envelope with large letters which one cannot help but read:
"Inside how you can help a crippled child to walk within 3 months".
If you do not open that you have a heart of stone, so you open the envelope; but the contents are not what you think they are. They are misleading, but it is not a criminal misstatement. I do not like that kind of method. I shall leave the charities to do something about their own circularisation arrangements because change is very badly and urgently needed.
The next point I wish to raise is the Government's decision to allow commercial advertising for charitable appeals. There is a good deal of concern about that matter. I sent a long letter to the Home Secretary in which I asked a great number of questions about this form of advertising. A reply came from the present Home Secretary to the effect that it will be the IBA which will be largely responsible for overlooking standards and all the rest of it. That is a development which we shall have to watch carefully. A monitoring committee is to be set up to look at the situation. All kinds of problems will arise in that regard.
568
The next issue is novelties in the field of institutional charitable fund raising. A local authority which owns the local bus service put a notice in a bus on Friday 17th November to say that all the fares collected on the bus after 6.30 p.m. that night would be given to the Children in Need fund. What authority has a public body to announce to its passengers that all that they pay in fares after a certain time is going to charity? Think of the implications of a passenger saying, "I am not playing this game and I am not paying you my fare if it is going to charity. I shall give you my name and address and deal with the local authority. If you attempt to turn me off this bus then all the rest of the passengers will have to stay on until the conflict is over".
There is also the policy of the Post Office. I wonder whether noble Lords have noticed what it is doing. It has introduced Christmas stamps. The 15p stamp is free of the charity levy but all other denominations of Christmas stamps have a levy of 1p. You cannot buy a Christmas stamp above the value of 15p without paying a charity penny. But the Post Office says that you are quite free to buy stamps of other denominations from the Post Office; namely, the ordinary stamps which are on sale.
My mail goes out with ordinary stamps on all the envelopes—airmail and the rest but not Christmas letters and those requiring a stamp for more than 15p. The Post Office will say, "This fellow is a mean chap. He is not sticking Christmas stamps on his letters. What the hell is wrong with him?" This policy is discriminatory. What is more, the Post Office does not know what to do with the money. It is expecting to raise £1 million from the scheme and so it commissions the Charities Aid Foundation to decide how to give the money away.
I want to know by what statutory authority the Post Office operates this exercise. Who says that it should become newcomers in the field of charity fund raising? I have not as yet got an answer to that from the Post Office, but I have been told by the chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council that it was informed shortly before the scheme started what was being done, but it was not consulted. That is outrageous. Fancy not consulting that organisation when the Post Office intends to introduce a charity tax into the postal system. I will leave that matter there.
In the field of institutional fund raising we shall have to take more notice than we have done of what is happening. When we reach the broadcasting Bill, that may be the time to raise the question of the role of the television authorities concerning fund raising. This morning I read in the Independent newspaper that the television authority chiefs have deferred a decision as to whether they are to launch another appeal for the relief of starvation in Ethiopia. We know that we are on the threshold of another tragedy which will probably be even worse than that of 1984.
I wish to know whether the television authorities are in control of the nation's voluntary effort on a world scale of this kind. Is that part of their statutory obligations, and is it in order for them to do so? Are the Government not consulted? What are they going

569
to do about this threatened tragedy of which we shall hear a good deal on television?
I come now to the question of religion and the qualification for charitable status. I hope that we are not going to have religion dragged into our debates at the present time. Leave the Moonies alone; they do not matter. If we are to consider the Moonies and give opportunities to the Charity Commission to examine the credentials of dubious charities with a view to withdrawing their registration, we have to be careful not to regard that as relating only to religious charities. I believe the examination has to be spread overall. There should also be an independent tribunal if any organisation is to be struck off the register.
At last we are beginning to regard charitable effort and the voluntary societies as having great social and economic importance. In my home when I was a boy, the word "charity" was the most hated word in the dictionary. To those of my generation charity was humiliation, despair and patronage from those who were better off. In my home all our charitable work was conducted between neighbours. We did not want patronising ladies with fancy hats coming to see what was wrong in the home; what they could do for us, and look down upon us; to consider that the house was not tidy or the kids were not properly washed, and that kind of thing. We do not have that feeling now. We have raised the status of charities and realise that they have a different role.
In conclusion, let us guard against charity becoming an industry. There is now considerable professional interest in charitable work. We have an association of charitable fund raisers whose members I am sure confer together to decide what is the most promising line of approach for the circulars that we receive. We have to watch this situation very carefully. In my opinion no regime proposed in this White Paper is too harsh to apply to charities regarding the handling of money and the conduct of their affairs.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow such a redoubtable speaker as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Having listened to his robust views as one engaged in the work of charitable trusts and having spoken in the debate last year, I shall try to be concise today. Once again we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this discussion. I am very pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is to speak next. His father was largely responsible for the 1960 Act. In 1955 he drew up the deed for my family charitable trust, for which I am always grateful.
Part One of the White Paper deals with policy and the law in the voluntary sector. After paying tribute to its work, it proposes a well-balanced programme to encourage individual initiatives coupled with strengthened regulatory requirements to protect both beneficiaries and taxpayers. This policy will give donors the confidence that is essential to the healthy development of their increasing participation in charitable activity. In this regard, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord
570
Mishcon, on reinvestment was a good one and worth bearing in mind.
Reference is made in the report to the growing partnership between the Government and private sources in making matching grants, which, for example, has proved so successful in the case of the children's hospital at Great Ormond Street. This partnership is being further developed, particularly in funding for the arts, giving an important multiplier effect. That is very welcome indeed, as is the requirement for the Charity Commissioners to focus more sharply on inefficiency and abuse.
I should like to refer to some of the Woodfield recommendations, which are summarised on pages 61 to 63 of the report, and to mention some other relevant issues. First, I turn to recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 11. These relate respectively to the apppointment of two additional part-time commissioners, the setting up of a top management board, information technology strategy and training for staff engaged in examining annual accounts. Desirable and overdue as some of these objectives are, there is no indication in the White Paper of the timetable involved or of the internal cost of implementing them.
An alternative way forward might be to invite leading business organisations and accountancy firms to offer experience and, because it is for charitable purposes, free advice on these matters. Such commercial and professional advice would provide quicker access to proven management techniques and cost-effective methods for the commission, which would accelerate the implementation of the proposals. I hope the Government will give some thought to this possibility.
I am not clear as to the role of the two additional part-time commissioners because it is not stated. This omission should be corrected, as numbers per se are not necessarily to be equated with improved performance. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made the relevant point about market rates of pay to attract and retain talented people.
Secondly, I turn to the additional powers recommended for the commissioners in paragraphs 19 and 22. Those are certainly needed. I hope that the legislation will define in specific terms the criteria for their use so that the rules are understood and respected by all concerned. Prevention is better than cure.
Thirdly, I too am not really happy about the recommendation that the commissioners should be enabled to introduce charges for new registrations. Charities already pay for their professional costs, and although the proposal is not unreasonable, this could well be the thin end of the wedge. It seems a pity to charge charities approximately £750,000 per annum for registration services, a petty sum to the Exchequer paid with money that otherwise would have gone to a variety of good causes, but for them a not insignificant amount. I do not believe that the Government intend to penalise charities in this way, and consequently I hope they will review the matter in a sympathetic manner.

571
In this context I am uncertain as to who will be responsible for the overhead expenses, as distinct from the supervisory costs of the Charity Commission itself, which occupies premises in the West End, although I am pleased to learn that more of its activities are being relocated to Taunton. It is a question of quis custodiet. If in future charities are required to defray part of the commission's overhead costs, they need to have knowledge of these matters. It would be helpful if in the course of time the commissioners were to provide similar financial and other relevant information as proposed for the charities themselves, particularly to publish annual accounts with a narrative report, to summarise by sector the work of the charities, highlighting financial account features and cost performance comparisons, and to report on the progress of the commission's computer information programme.
I should still like the commissioners to monitor more closely the parameters for the administration costs of charitable trusts and fund-raising bodies, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has referred, and also the purchase of supplies and services in the best market. Any saving in these areas would result in additional donor funds being available for the charitable purposes intended. Guidelines are needed for overhead expenses which encourage prudence and provide suitable penalties for indivudual extravagance.
Similarly, effective joint buying methods on commercial lines should be required for the purchase of supplies and services, with at least three quotations being obtained to ensure value. I hope that the Government will give further thought to these matters and perhaps also consider a modern adaptation of the word "charity" itself, a time honoured but rather old fashioned and patronising phrase associated with a bygone era, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out.
The Sunday Times referred to the White Paper on community care, which acknowledges the major voluntary role of relatives, neighbours and friends, as a remarkable example of individual caring to help others less fortunate. In addition to the substantial personal contribution, the private sector now provides valuable and growing support totalling £13 billion per annum, of which 20 per cent. is tax relief but 80 per cent. is extra funds. This money is provided for vital areas of health and welfare, education, the arts and humanities. I prefer to think of many aspects of these activities as a catalyst; an investment in people in innovation, in research, in better facilities and improved caring arrangements.
A good heart allied to a good head and integrity of purpose provide an essential framework for effective charitable work as defined in law. The White Paper recognises these factors. The Woodfield Committee is to be congratulated on its well researched proposals. The Government have moved with commendable speed to produce the White Paper. The impending legislation will provide necessary improvements to the law and will enhance the performance of charities in the voluntary sector.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made some very kind remarks about my father and his work not only in relation to his great family foundation—one of the great foundations in the country—but also in relation to his report of 1951 which led to the 1960 legislation of which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke earlier. Since those days, the number, size and diversity of charities has grown enormously, and so have social changes affecting trustees. It is to that topic that I should like to speak this evening.
The legislation foreshadowed in the White Paper will make an essential contribution to the proper supervision of charities and thus contribute to making them accountable. The public increasingly and rightly require to know how their money is spent and to know that it is applied in the best way to achieve the stated objectives for which they gave it. But legislation needs to be supplemented by improvements among charities in their capacity to regulate their own affairs in order to become more efficient and effective.
Trustees have a central role in the management and administration of charities. The White Paper stresses the need for charity trustees to be more aware of their duties and responsibilities. The noble Earl the Minister referred earlier to the special responsibility of trustees. It is not adequate to consider the rare cases of inefficiency and abuse which can be dealt with by the Charity Commission when required. A wider view must be taken, with those involved in the voluntary sector in the lead, as to the source of trustees in the coming years, the extent of their duties and therefore their commitment and the talents and aptitudes required; and as to the provision of advice, information and training which may be required.
Charities are infinitely various in size and purpose. The duties of trustees—and those who can best fill the role—are equally various. In larger charities providing services, there may be a substantial staff, the most senior of whom may equate, in a commercial context, to senior executives. In that way trustees may fill a role somewhat akin to a supervisory board. They must maintain the mission and purpose of the charity and assess its performance. An assessment of performance is not to be measured solely in the case of charities by provision of the cheapest service; it can also be done by involving recipients as active participants rather than their remaining passive and dependent. The objective may be to create spin-offs of benefit to community activities. Therefore there needs to be a qualitative as well as a quantitive assessment of performance.
The same principles apply to small charities, possibly local in operation, where the trustees carry out the functions themselves without any assistance from persons who are employed. In all cases the qualifications, talents and aptitudes of the trustees are of first importance. This is the context in which I believe it is important that much attention be given to the provision of informal courses and discussion

573
groups, as well as more formal training, where required, for trustees. The money required would be well spent on this aspect.
A great encouragement in this respect would be the allocation of some funding for the purpose by the great foundations. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred may be one of the bodies to provide such a service. I should make it clear that I have no authority to suggest that it either should or would do so; I mention the organisation merely by way of example.
The source of trustees requires consideration in view of increased demands on senior management in business. Not so long ago it was quite customary for the chairman or senior directors of a great public company to allocate part of their time to being trustees and to being responsible for the great charities in the country. Yet that situation is now scarcely possible since the pressures on senior management are so very great. Therefore that source is no longer so readily available.
It is true that the existence of more leisure time seems to result in much volunteering, especially among young people in the environmental contexts. It is for consideration whether this will spill over into willingness to be a trustee of all the wide range of charities which require them. It is very different for a young person to volunteer to clean out a canal or to undertake some other physical work in a voluntary capacity for charity than it is for him to take on the responsibility of being a trustee for a local or indeed a national charity, which requires rather special talents and experience.
Women are increasingly drawn into employment and therefore they are not readily available as trustees, although their experience and talents may be especially appropriate to particular kinds of charity where they have made such a contribution in the past. It would be wrong and most unfortunate if the willing people in what has been described to me as the age group of 60 to 75 years of age— that is, the retired or shortly to be retired population — constituted the vast majority of trustees. The duty of trustees is to direct the trusts into new and exciting fields. Moreover, this is not a field which should be monopolised by those people in retirement, although I should emphasise the great contribution that so many of these people provide.
The idea of bringing to the public eye the need for volunteers as trustees has not hitherto been much canvassed. I believe that it has now become necessary to do so as the burdens increase. As we know, there are burdens on the vast number of charitable trusts from increased registration. There are also the burdens being put upon them —rightly, in my view —under the proposals contained in the White Paper.
I understand that experiments are being made with a register of people who would be willing to be trustees and that the compilation of this register is presently being put in hand. That may indeed be one way forward in the matter.
This debate presents an opportunity for discussion beyond proposing or questioning proposals for
574
action by government. Recruitment, assessment and training of trustees whose importance is emphasised by the White Paper, and, as I said, by the Minister, should be the prime responsibility of the voluntary sector, assisted I suggest to the extent to be considered by the Charity Commission. However, the Government should not intervene in this field.
There is one other matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. However, I do not wish to spend too much time in so doing. This is the concern which I have with regard to fund-raising. It is not a concern which has been raised thus far in the debate. The Charity Commission has certain powers in relation to the fund-raising carried out by charities. However, there are now many organisations which are very well-known and which are excellently, run. They collect very large sums of money, but they are not charities. If one of those organisations which is not a charity mishandled funds for which it had appealed and which it had received, it would have the most devastating effect upon the collection of money for charitable purposes. It seems to me therefore that it is a matter for consideration whether some control ought to be placed upon fund-raising in respect of non-charitable bodies.
I have heard mention of the name of one such body of the highest standing. It is generally regarded as one of the leading charities in the country. I refer to Amnesty International. It is not a charity. Indeed, the courts so found not so very long ago. It would be disastrous if an organisation of such high reputation which is not a charity mishandled funds which had been susbcribed to it. As I said, it would have a devasting effect upon the whole field of charitable collection. Therefore, in my view, it is a matter for consideration as to whether control over fund-raising should be extended beyond the charitable field.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the whole debate. It has been quite fascinating. It also demonstrates the fact that we are all present in the House tonight enjoying the debate without being divided by any political division whatever. I think that we have all been engaged in charitable work and we have all had experience of charitable organisations. Indeed, we all speak with authority based upon our own experiences.
I am speaking today on the proposals contained in the White Paper because I have had many years experience in charitable organisations. I agree with the main proposals which are set out in the report from the Home Office. My agreement is based on experience. The trust with which I have had the longest association is the Carnegie UK Trust. I have been 40 years on the executive and now, although no longer on the executive, I remain a trustee. With my experience I can support the many proposals contained in the report.
The Carnegie UK Trust always publishes an annual report and accounts and always sends these to the Charity Commission and in Scotland to the Inland Revenue. The trust's policy has always been

575
based on a five-year period and that policy has always been clearly outlined for the public to see and understand.
The same principles applied to another trust with which I was associated for 16 years. It started as the King George V Jubilee Trust and over the years has undergone many royal changes. It has now been amalgamated with the many trusts of the Prince of Wales and funds many excellent organisations. As the result of my experiences I entirely support paragraph 1.7 of the report describing partnership with the Government.
Much of the social work started many years ago in places such as youth clubs, community centres, village halls, amateur drama and music groups and clubs for handicapped and non-handicapped people run by an organisation known as PHAB and also the work done by the Mental Health Association and the Society for Autistic Children, originated from the efforts of a few enthusiastic people who started the work on an entirely voluntary basis. They were so successful that the organisations have grown and are now spread all over the world.
In 1938 or 1939 the Department of Education set up a committee to inquire into youth clubs and youth work. I was a member of that committee, having been chairman of youth club organisations. The result some years later was co-operation between education committees and youth organisations. Today all local authorities have youth committees which are generally linked to the education committees upon which voluntary organisations are represented.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw spoke about the co-operation between voluntary and statutory organisations, which has been an enormous success. In the report the Government say that they will continue that co-operation and give financial assistance to voluntary organisations which will be in addition to the fund-raising efforts of the voluntary organisations which will and must continue.
There is another valuable aspect of the matter. Sometimes new ideas are put foward. It is not known whether they will be successful but they might break new ground. Voluntary funds can help with such experiments. If they succeed, all good and well. If they fail, and that is also an answer, no public money will have been involved and no harm will have been done to the public. Such experiments are only possible because they can be funded by voluntary effort.
A difficult problem arises sometimes about whether the help given has a political interpretation. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Renton said. I am against political influence in voluntary organisations. I support the Government's view on that matter. All the societies with which I have worked and have helped have been non-political. That is a policy which should be maintained. I also agree that the Charity Commission should have powers to deal with abuses, although there has never been any abuse in any of the charitable organisations with which I have been associated. I was interested in the terrible story told by the noble and learned
576
Lord, Lord Brightman. Luckily I have never come across such abuses.
Small charities and charitable organisations occasionally come to an end and funds are left intact and unused. I agree with the White Paper that the commissioners should have powers to transfer that money to an approved operating charity.
The work done by the Charity Commission is vital to the organisations, but I hope that discretion will be used, as indicated, in respect of charges to be made. It would be a severe drawback if the Charity Commission had to charge a large sum of money which would have to come out of charitable money which we want to go directly to the cause for which it is raised.
I am told by trustees whom I know that they are being inundated with requests for grants. I therefore believe that the conditions laid down in the White Paper will be of help to them and fair to both parties. There are many other proposals in the White Paper. I have spoken of my own experiences. I approve of the White Paper. I shall support the Government in any legislation brought forward along those lines. I congratulate the Government on their policy.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in welcoming the White Paper and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. When one comes so late in the batting order, the chances are that a great deal of what one wanted to say has already been said. To a certain extent, that is the case this evening. On the other hand, I was delighted to hear a number of noble Lords mention cults. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester devoted almost half his speech to them. I look forward to reading the General Synod's report which he mentioned. If he will excuse me for saying so, it sounds as though at long last the Church has come down strongly against those new so-called religions.
My impression is that, although examinations of applications for registration have been thorough, if such applications contained references to religious connections, that was to a great extent accepted at face value and registration was granted without too much investigation. However, as many noble Lords have said, the system has fallen down on the monitoring of an organisation's activities once charitable status has been obtained. As we have heard and know, few charities have submitted their annual reports and, of those, few were audited or examined in detail.
If the commission becomes more circumspect, we should see a considerable tightening of control of charities which will ensure that they operate in accordance with the aims detailed in their constitutions and that their accounts are audited and properly presented. That should also eventually benefit the charities themselves. It will enhance the credibility of the genuine ones and weed out the less desirable.
My interest in the White Paper, as some of your Lordships may have already guessed, is in the effect

577
it might have on cults. Here I am afraid that I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I cannot ignore the Moonies, as I think he suggested. I am encouraged by the mention of them in the White Paper and the apparent desire to bring them under closer control. Regrettably, there seems to be a lack of positive suggestions, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. I hope that when the Bill appears such suggestions may become more apparent.
When considering cults, one is tempted to look at them from a religious point of view, although a number of them do not even make a pretence of having a religious basis. That is something which is often forgotten. People always believe that cults are religious. Whether or not that is the case, such an approach leads to a minefield of uncertainties when it comes to defining what is a religion, the consideration of freedom of worship and so forth. That is a road that has been trodden by many people more agile than I. There is another condition for charitable status: that the organisation should act to the benefit of the public interest and should not be morally subversive. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, did not give that point much credence.
Many cults, with their emphasis on recruiting, fund-raiding and purported self-betterment, are the antithesis of public-spirited bodies and would find it hard to convince the Charity Commission that they exist for the benefit of the public. In the past there has been an almost automatic assumption that religions are beneficial to the public. With the inception of the new so-called religions, that is by no means certain. Many such cults have assumed names, such as the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology, the Children of God and Jesus Army, to take advantage of that outdated assumption. Having put forward a convincing case, I fear that some of them have been registered as charities almost on the nod.
There is another consideration, which is not generally known, that some of the larger cults, such as the Moonies and the Scientologists, have as many as 200 or 300 subsidiary organisations which are not recognised as belonging to the main body. It is quite feasible for one or more of them to apply for charitable status, even if the parent organisation is unacceptable.
I have no legal training, so it is difficult for me to put forward legal suggestions as to how a more credible application of charitable status may be achieved, but I believe that this White Paper is a good start. However, I wonder whether it might be possible for applications for charitable status to be announced in, for instance, the London Gazette, thus giving people at least the possibility of lodging objections before registration is granted. It is a fact that before a charity can be struck off a considerable period of time elapses during which the organisation in question can, of course, continue as a charity and derive all the benefits that go with that status.
In conclusion, I hope that the Bill when it appears will ensure that acting to the benefit of public interest is spelled out clearly and also that the commissioner
578
give due weight to this condition when considering new applications and reviewing existing charities.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am speaking in the gap before the noble Lords who are to wind up the debate, and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence so that I may make just two points. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for yielding to my request to speak now.
I have heard most of the debate. I am one of the very fortunate people in your Lordships' House to have received an immense amount of help from the trusts and from trustees on personal fortunes. That has helped me and my colleagues in the hospitals where I have worked and in the universities. I am very anxious that the record of the debate should include an expression of gratitude from someone who has been so much helped by the charitable impulse that runs through this country. My colleagues and I have been able to start new ventures. We like to believe that we have been able to improve things. We like to believe that we have been able to maintain, improve or extend high standards as a result of charitable dispensations.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am very worried, as a recipient of so much charity, that the charitable impulse will be blunted by unethical activities. I cannot resist the impulse to ask for your Lordships' indulgence. A very mischievous idea occurs to me which is probably of no use. I should however like to share it briefly with your Lordships.
Your Lordships know that random chance plays a considerable part in many charitable procedures. I suppose that the finding of the numbered ticket in the big drum is an example of that. It crossed my mind —perhaps when we get computerised at the Charity Commissioners —that the sort of procedure that is applied to the Macmillan bonds may be applied to the smaller charities who need to be worried.
I can assure your Lordships that in Cambridge, where I come from, a certain number of people are worried about random tests when driving home in the evening. Some kind of random test about the true nature of charitable organisations applied annually, triennially or, if you go back to the old university methods, quinquennially, might just improve the ethical standards. I am most grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this has been a valuable and constructive debate. I am sure that the Government will give serious consideration to the constructive suggestions and ideas expressed by almost everyone who has spoken. At the outset I join other noble Lords in paying full tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having initiated the debate. The noble Lord has done so much over the years to bring to the attention of the House, and, through this House, to the attention of the public, the problems which exist in this area and which have

579
yet to be resolved. It is however reassuring that the noble Lord has welcomed the White Paper.
It is also significant that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has spoken. The noble Lord is one of those who fashioned the 1960 Charities Act. I am very conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan —for me, the son of Lord Nathan on charities —has also made his contribution to the debate.
Some of us became fully aware that something radical needed to be done at the Charity Commission when we were privileged to serve in 1983 and 1984 on the Select Committee on the parochial charities and the small charities Bill, under the noted and wise chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It also remains fresh in my mind how concerned, indeed, how alarmed, we became as we listened to the evidence —in particular, that of the Charity Commission and the Home Office —about the commission's approach to its task. Giving all due allowance, as we had to do, to the shortage of resources, the lack of trained staff and even the lack of a computer, which the commissioners had been requesting since 1981, it seemed to us that the commission's approach was dismally inadequate.
The noble Earl the Minister has reminded the House that at the core of the White Paper are proposals giving the Charity Commissioners new powers in dealing with management, mismanagement, malpractice and abuse. All registered charities will be required to submit fuller and, except for the smallest charities, audited accounts to the commission each year. My noble friend Lord Mishcon spelled out clearly the new tasks to be discharged by the commission and their implications.
I must confess that I too am troubled that the commission will exercise its new monitoring and investigative role at the expense, at least to some extent, of its advisory services to trustees. I am troubled that that should be so. We have heard that in land transactions the trustees will have to apply a do-it-yourself procedure, as outlined in the White Paper. I feel that to rely on the do-it-yourself procedure may pose problems for small charities and could be counter-productive.
I have been acting for over 100 small charities in the valleys of Glamorganshire. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, will appreciate the contribution that has been made by those charities —for example, in recreation grounds and welfare halls —to the well-being of South Wales. That has been my experience. The trustees of these small charities, giving generously to their task, are often unaware of the legal responsibilities which are carried by trusteeship. That conclusion is amply borne out by the evidence of the Home Office to the Select Committee in 1983 and 1984. That conclusion is not surprising when one bears in mind that trustees in the valleys of South Wales —I am sure this must also be the case in parts of England and Scotland —more often than not have no legal accounting, banking or even business experience.
580
The House will need to reflect carefully in this regard on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
Many trustees tend to treat the assets of a charity as if they were private property, but private property which is being used for public purposes. Having made that assertion, I should refer the House at least to one incident. A year ago it came to my knowledge that the sole surviving trustee, acting with the widow of a deceased trustee, wound up a charity and transferred the assets of about £2,500 to one of the national charities. This was done without consent. So the charity was wound up. I wonder whether this is one of the 10,000 charities that the National Audit Office has not been able to trace.
I have a feeling that the need to obtain the Charity Commissioners' consent for land transactions should be retained as regards small charities, at least until the new system has had time to settle down, if not for an even longer period. I believe that that is the view of the chief executive of the coal industry social welfare organisation who wrote to me recently. The letter states:
"I believe the removal of Section 29 consent to be a retrograde step and is probably based on ignorance of how many small charities operate with lay trustees who perhaps do not fully appreciate their responsibilities".
Moreover, it seems to me that the submission of an application for consent is at least an opportunity for the Charity Commission to know what has been happening and what is happening. I fear that as the strategy of transferring more and more responsibility to lay trustees of small charities comes to be worked out and tested, it will become clear that it may not work out as well as is hoped. I say this kindly but I believe it is common ground that the Charities Act 1960 has been hampered by persons holding the office of trustee of a charity who lacked expertise or awareness of the tasks involved. However, if under the proposed legislation more responsibility is transferred to trustees, such persons will be even more at sea than they are at present.
I appreciate that safeguards will be built into the Bill but I believe that inevitably difficulties will arise. In my view there is a strong case for moving slowly in relieving the Charity Commission of its involvement in land transactions for small charities.
There is general support for the commission's new powers, particularly the power to appoint a receiver and manager, the power to exercise its scheme-making powers without an application by the trustees and the power to transfer a charity's assets to another charity. When the Minister replies will he tell us whether the trustees will be able to make representations against the use of those powers? Is it envisaged that the trustees will be able to appeal against the commission's decision, or is it the case that the trustees will have to involve the judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court, assuming of course that the trustees of a small charity will have the funds to do so? Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on how those powers will be exercised and on the future locus of the trustees.
I now come to an issue which has not surfaced in the course of the debate. Should not trustees of a charity have the right, with the consent of the Charity

581
Commissioners, to transfer land or buildings belonging to the charity to another charity at less than market value? That question is raised in paragraph 71 of the Charity Commissioners' report for the year 1988. The paragraph states:
"We detect increasing pressure on charity trustees, when they are disposing of surplus land or buildings, to make them available for socially useful purposes which are outside the scope of the trusts… By refusing to sell to an organisation established to promote a worthy local cause at less than full market value, the trustees are often perceived as acting contrary to the public interest and in an 'uncharitable manner' ".
It seems to me that the commissioners are acknowledging the existence of a growing problem. However, in the next paragraph of their report the commissioners go on merely to reproduce the existing law, which is that trustees must sell on the best terms in the interests of their charity alone. One wonders whether it is possible in this kind of situation to have a compromise between the wishes of the trustees and the local community on the one hand and the doctrine of the law on the other hand. In Wales this problem nowadays arises where the trustees wish to dispose of an empty chapel, a manse, a welfare hall or a recreation ground when they are no longer required for the original purposes of the charity. The trustees would wish to sell below market value to another trust which is under another head of charity serving the local community but which cannot afford to pay the price on the open market. Speaking for myself, I would urge that the new Bill should allow for a more flexible approach by the commissioners in this kind of situation.
Having regard to the substantial changes in social conditions which have taken place since such trusts were founded and which are continuing to take place, we would strongly urge that the position which is reflected in paragraph 72 of the Charity Commissioners' report is no longer satisfactory. I have dropped a few hints to the Government and I should be grateful if the Government could give consideration to that point.
It remains merely for me to say, like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, that we welcome the Bill very much. We hope that there will be an early opportunity of implementing the proposals.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as a number of noble Lords said at the end of this debate, we have had a most interesting discussion. The Government are very grateful to noble Lords for what they said. The whole purpose of the debate was to find out your Lordships' views, and your Lordships have not been slow to give them. I was glad to hear that in the majority of cases your Lordships approve of the Government's initiative.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Elliot for saying that she approves of what we are doing. I recognise that she has been connected with charities throughout her life. She also said that there are no political divisions. That is absolutely right. We have all been seeking the right way round the problem. Many noble Lords have had long experience with charities. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who described himself as a recipient of
582
charity. I have no doubt that that disturbed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, though perhaps the noble Lord did not mean exactly the same as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
I join my noble friend Lady Elliot in thanking all those who have given so much of their time to charities throughout their lives. In terms of man hours the total effort would be colossal. It is part of human nature to want to give, and the fact that so many people do so so often is a source of great encouragement.
I could not help but be amused by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He always amuses us. He objected to paying an extra penny for a Christmas stamp. I thought that a vestige of Scrooge entered the debate. I was interested that the noble Lord remembered his number so well. The only number that I can remember is the number I was given in the army when I did my national service. That is indelibly printed on my memory. Unfortunately, that does not have the draw of the noble Lord's charity number. I doubt whether the noble Lord will find many ladies in fancy hats coming down his way. I reckon that they would give his house a very wide berth because they would know the kind of reaction that would emanate from the noble Lord if they were to go to him and tell him what he should do.
The purpose of the debate was to allow us to have the benefit of what your Lordships had to say. I have been asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was concerned about land that belongs to a charity. He said that if a charity wants to sell the land to another charity it ought to be able to do so and should not necessarily be required to sell it to the highest bidder. That is a matter of great concern. It is always difficult to get it right and to be fair. I accept that it can be irksome for charities to have to sell their land to the highest bidder when they believe that there are other factors to be considered.
I believe that the principle involved is a sound one; namely, that the trustees of a charity should act at all times in their charity's best interests. I shall certainly take on board the observatons of the noble Lord but I think that he would agree that a charity should adhere to that fundamental principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, suggested that the graduated accounting bands were too low. The levels suggested in the White Paper reflected responses to the Charity Commission's consultation paper on accounts. Most of those who responded to the White Paper asked for the levels to be higher. We are reviewing the bands in the light of those responses. The noble Lord was also concerned that there should be an exchange of information with the Serious Fraud Office. We have had no difficulty with the free exchange of relevant information on abuse. There is no reason why the Charity Commission and the Serious Fraud Office should not continue to communicate if there are difficulties in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was also concerned about co-operation with the Inland Revenue. The amendment to the Charities Act 1960 under the Finance Act 1986 permitting the Inland Revenue to

583
pass information relating to abuse in charities to the Charity Commission has led to substantial numbers of cases being referred to the commission. Consideration of those cases is continuing. The cases are complex and it will be some time before the results are forthcoming.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to intervene. It required legislation to enable the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Charity Commission. Would it require legislation to enable the Serious Fraud Office and the DTI to give information to the Charity Commission?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not to my knowledge. If I am wrong I shall let the noble Lord know.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to the very difficult problem of contemplative orders. He expressed the hope that the opportunity which is provided by legislation might be taken to accord charitable status to closed religious communities. We understand the very important role which the closed order communities play in the life of the Churches. We are all sympathetic to the motivation which lies behind the request of the right reverend Prelate. I only wish I could say that we can accommodate him on this matter. However, I am afraid that there are real difficulties in the way of our doing so.
The real difficulty is that the position of contemplative communities is not anomalous, as the right reverend Prelate described it. It reflects fundamental principles of charity law which have been consistently applied by the courts for many years. These principles go to the heart of what is meant by the expression "of public benefit" when it is applied to the advancement of religion. The courts have said that they cannot accept as proof of benefit whatever a particular church may happen to believe about the benefits or efficacy of intercessory prayer. As the leading judgement in the case of Gilmour v. Coates puts it:
"The faithful must embrace their faith believing where they cannot prove: the court can act only on proof".
I believe that the court was endeavouring to say that where the Church is engaged in worship in public there is public benefit, but where there is only the example of private prayer on private premises that in itself is not proof of public benefit. However, those who are of that faith may quite rightly find there to be public benefit.
There are two important concerns behind that judgment. The first is that it ought not to depend on the proposer's view —in other words, the Church's view —as to whether a particular object is beneficial. The second is that in these multi-cultural days the courts could find themselves in grave difficulties were a ruling of benefit to involve in any sense assent to the truth of the religion in question. The only way to put that right —if "right" is the correct word—would be to alter the law. But once one starts to define the meaning of charity one changes the law on charity. Those are very murky waters in which
584
to stray and I do not believe that many people would wish to do so.
On a very different subject but in a similar vein in that it concerns religion, a number of noble Lords expressed concern about cults. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester expressed his anxiety on the subject. I was grateful to him for saying that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury supported INFORM, which is an organisation that is doing its best to help people who are caught up in cults. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, disliked cults being charities. He said that it was the way in which they acted which was important. That view was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Rodney.
Some noble Lords may have expressed disappointment that the White Paper failed to deal directly with undesirable religious cults. I am immensely sympathetic to the anxieties which abound for those who are caught up in that unhappy problem. We have thought long and hard about how the matter could best be approached. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate said that it would be wrong for the courts to decide what is acceptable and what is not. I entirely agree with him.
However, our way in this country is not to proscribe beliefs but to govern their public expression. People have a right to make a choice of their religious pursuit and they have a right to make a wrong choice. In that spirit, we do not believe that the right approach is to attempt to exclude from charitable status bodies whose objects may offend. I find it difficult to know on what possible basis we can do that. We should be getting into great trouble. The public disquiet arises not so much from the professed objects of cults, which in many cases are quite unexceptional, as from their activities. Their beliefs are in themselves frequently harmless. It is the way in which they are pursued which becomes objectionable. It is here that we believe the law needs clarifying.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that the way in which a religion conducts itself should determine whether it is a charity. It is not always understood that under the existing law the Charity Commissioners have the power to remove a body from the Register of Charities if there is evidence that it is acting in ways which are not for the public benefit. That is an important safeguard and there is a strong case for clarifying the law. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested that even to do that would be too much. I do not think that it would ever be too much to clarify the law. We do not intend to change the law but simply to make the present position clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, also spoke about the passage in the White Paper concerning charitable companies. Paragraphs 5.21 and 5.22 of the White Paper raise two questions. The first concerns the adequacy of company law as a framework for charities. Charitable companies are clearly companies but they are not just companies; they are also charities and as such they are regulated by both company and charity law. That dual regime can give rise to uncertainties. Some of those uncertainties

585
have been cleared up in recent companies legislation For example,in the Companies Act 1989 it was established that charitable companies, as distinct from ordinary commercial companies, cannot change their objects without the Charity Commission's authority. However, other grey areas remain. For example, the precise duties and power of a charitable company in relation to its general property have never been settled. The White Paper states that between now and legislation we should look to see whether clarification of those points may be achieved in the Bill.
The second question arises from the increasing propensity of charities to take the form of companies. Our strong impression is that small bodies typically take that route, not because they need to be companies but because their trustees want the advantages of limited liability which incorporation can offer. However, in return for that advantage, charities must take on the whole burdensome business of conforming to company law as well as to charity law.
We shall explore whether it might be possible to establish a new form of incorporation which would to some extent try to limit the liability of trustees without bringing the whole body under company law. It might be possible to do that but our discussions are still at an early stage. We might succeed in killing two birds with one stone. For many small bodies the new form of incorporation, which we have tentatively called the incorporated association, would be considerably more attractive than that of the company. Since that new form would be under the Charity Commissioners' jurisdiction, the problems of uncertainty afflicting charitable companies would not arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that charitable status should be confined to charities for the relief of deprivation. I know that that definition has been suggested, but it might deprive our country of the efforts of many charities which do not strictly relieve deprivation but which nevertheless operate for considerable public benefit.
A number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Soper, referred to charitable status. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, wondered whether education was a suitable object to have charitable status. One area in which we particularly sought comments is that of charitable status. One or two of those who commented expressed dissatisfaction with the common law, but the overwhelming message that reached us was that the present system has the priceless advantage of flexibility and that it should be retained. As I said, to try to define charity would be to alter the law and not many people would want to do that. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Renton when he said that we should not, for goodness sake, try to define everything. We would be making a mistake.
There are of course curiosities and anomalies. It is sometimes difficult to understand why one worthy body should have charitable status yet another, which is apparently equally worthy, should not have it, but the fact that the system might be imperfect
586
does not mean that is is necessarily capable of easy improvement. It would be easy to argue interminably and fruitlessly about a new definition, to reach a temporary consensus which would satisfy no one and to find ourselves saddled with criteria which quickly became outdated. That would serve only to distract us all from the real business of legislation, which is to ensure that future supervision of charities is the best that can be achieved.
My noble friend Lord Rodney referred to Section 4(3) of the 1960 Act and I welcomed his support and clarification of that section. He suggested that the Charity Commission should publish its decisions on charitable status. Some important decisions are already published in the commissioners' annual reports, but I shall certainly consider my noble friend's suggestion with the Chief Commissioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw suggested that the private sector is suspicious for fear that the more it gives, the less the Government will be prepared to pay towards efforts in the charitable sector. The White Paper states clearly that the Government are not in any sense seeking to withdraw from providing the services of care and support which are rightly their responsibility. I draw the attention of the noble Lord and of my noble friend to paragraph 1.7, which states:
"nor is it any part of the Government's policy to place on voluntary organisations the burden of delivering the essential services for which it is right that the Government should remain responsible".
Although the Government seek to encourage charitable giving and the involvement of charities, they recognise that there is a responsibility in the public sector which is that of the Government alone.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned about the recruitment and retention of more qualified legal staff. There was a report by Sir Robert Andrew on the provision of government legal services. The Government have set up a legal management unit to assist them in the recruitment and retention of lawyers in the government legal service. At present the Charity Commission has some 20 legal staff engaged in its work and it is encouraging to note that in the current recruitment round some 10 candidates have offered to work in the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, expressed some anxiety that the Charity Commission would be so busy dealing with abuse that it would neglect its helping role —all the essential advice which it gives to charities. It is true that there will be a shift in emphasis in the commission's work, but only a shift in emphasis and not a sea change. It will still be there to give expert advice which is very important.
One or two noble Lords referred to television. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to charity advertising. Concerns have been expressed about telethons and other major fund-raising events on television. We are keen to see greater accountability. Legislation covering new forms of fund-raising will be difficult to frame and to enforce for no sooner will it hit the statute book than some other form of appeal will have evolved. However, I understand

587
that, since the White Paper was published, the major organisations have got together with the voluntary sector to work on a code of practice. That is precisely the kind of development which we wish to see. Since the White Paper was published, Children in Need has registered as a charity. Again, that is welcome.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked whether the well known appeals on television will have to send their accounts to the Charity Commissioners. They will have to produce their accounts and, since these appeals are all large charities, they will have to be detailed.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned television advertising. I think it is right that charities should be free to choose whether or not they advertise in the media. But of course advertisement does not mean a free for all. Charities which wish to advertise will need to meet certain safeguards and the IBA will need to be satisfied that the charity is raising money in good faith. The content, tone and style of the advertisements will be closely regulated and the IBA has set up a group specifically to monitor those developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke of unauthorised house to house collections supposedly for some hospital or other charity which in fact sees little or none of the money. Several of the White Paper's proposals should help to put a stop to that. For example, we propose that licensing authorities should be able to refuse a collector's licence where they are not satisfied that the applicant has the authority or permission of the charity in whose name he is collecting. We also propose to make it easier for charities to take legal action to prevent fundraisers from using their name without permission.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw mentioned payroll giving and various anomalies. I shall certainly see that what he has said is studied with care. The new opportunities which the introduction of payroll giving have opened up are being promoted by the Payroll Giving Association. The Government are keeping in close touch with the association and giving it some tangible evidence of support in the form of a grant to help its activities.
My noble friend also understandably referred to the Government's voluntary sector scrutiny. I think that he would have liked the Government to have conducted a root and branch review of the support of the voluntary sector as a result of the efficiency scrutiny. The scrutiny report is directed more at the effectiveness of the Government's arrangements for funding the voluntary sector. I cannot expand on the report's conclusions at this stage, nor give the Government's response. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government intend to give the most careful attention to the issues raised by the report.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester mentioned the need for trustees to move with the times. He referred to a particular charity within his own city. I am afraid that I do not know of that charity, but I shall ask the Chief Charity Commissioner to look into the matter and write to the right reverend Prelate. He also described the
588
code of practice drawn up by the Churches to help decide when a religious charity was acting in a way which was not in the public interest. I find that particularly interesting and I should be grateful if he would care to let me have a copy of that code.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, complained that the White Paper does not recognise the difficulty of deciding where to draw the line on political activities. We hold the view that any blurring of the distinction between politics and charity would be very damaging. I agree that in theory it is difficult to define the boundary but, rather like an elephant, one notices it when one sees it. In any event, most charities do not find it difficult to draw that line and in cases where they do, the commission is there to help and guide them.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said he hoped when the Government produced the Bill it would be intelligible. I do so agree with him. Even if it is, I doubt whether it would make my comprehension of it complete. However, I shall certainly bear in mind what he said. The noble Lord was also concerned about Scotland. He thought that some charities might escape from the Charity Commissioners and end up in Edinburgh, as though Edinburgh were some kind of sinecure for charities which were trying to escape. I do not think he meant to give that impression. However, I do not think that that will happen any longer as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in October that we intend to legislate to plug that escape route in future. Escaping charities will be caught by the Lord Advocate.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked how many charities have been amalgamated under the 1985 Act. In the three years from 1986 to 1988 the commission received 609 resolutions made under the Act. Of those the overwhelming majority —447 of them —was made under Section 3, which dealt with charity amalgamations; but there were 77 under Section 2 and 85 under Section 4. She asked me how many had not amalgamated. I am afraid that the answer is that I cannot tell her.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked why we could not extend the financial limits of Section 3 now by negative resolution under Section 5 of the 1985 Act. He asked whether it could in fact be done by a statutory instrument. The answer is that it could be done by a statutory instrument. However, in practice, one of the main obstacles to charities who want to use the Act has been the cumbersone procedures which trustees need to go through. We think it best to simplify those procedures and extend the Act at the same time.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about Oxfam and political activities. I understand that the charity commissioners are at present considering several complaints under political activities by Oxfam. I do not think that it would be proper for me to comment other than to echo her regard for the excellent work done by that charity. I should clarify one point. If a charity strays into the political arena, it does not mean that it would forfeit charitable status. Rather it would be for the

589
commissioners to ensure that the trustees mend their ways.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked about charities receiving the money before the professionals got at it. Those were not his exact words but my paraphrase. That is precisely what we propose to do. In case there are anxieties, I should say that we do not envisage that local branches of a charity should have to pay out the proceeds of fund-raising before deducting the expenses. It is the professionals whom it is important to get at, as it were. The charity would then pay the professional direct and could control how much is paid.
My noble friend also hoped that, when it comes, the Bill would be narrow in scope. That is our approach. It should be evolutionary. By that I mean that we would preserve the basis of the 1960 Act, which my noble friend helped to pilot through another place. Having said that, the opportunity for charities legislation does not occur all that often, and as I said we shall be listening carefully to ensure that the Bill covers all that it should do.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred to Mr. Brown in a graphic description. I can tell him that under the new system Mr. Brown would be caught by his failure to supply financial information and accounts.
I am acutely aware that there are other questions which noble Lords have asked me. I think that it would be trespassing upon your Lordships' time were I to answer any more now. I can only say that I am deeply grateful for the concern which has been expressed and the advice which has been given. I can assure noble Lords that all views which have been given today will be carefully taken into account before the Government produce any legislation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, characterised by two very agreeable features —(a) it has in no sense been political; and (b) we have not heard one word about interference from the secretariat in Brussels.
It must be very gratifying to the Government that, although a number of points have been raised, the
590
White Paper as such has had a very favourable reception in all quarters. Obviously a great deal of very good work has gone into its preparation. I shall certainly not comment in detail on any of the speeches that have been made. Perhaps I may take up two references which were made to me what now seems like some hours ago. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the fact that I had said that there was no legal definition of charity when I meant no statutory definition. As usual, he was quite right.
The Minister said that I was rather waspish in my reference to previous shortages of staff. That the commission has been understaffed and has not had sufficient resources has been brought out by a considerable number of speakers today. What has not been mentioned is that at one stage not so very long ago the Treasury tried to cut down even on the staff that it has. I believe that it is partly as a consequence of debates in this House that the attack was repelled.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, ascribe the entire responsibility for this sad state of affairs to successive Home Secretaries but there was not a word about successive Permanent Under-Secretaries of State.
I take it from the concluding remarks of the Minister that he will write on points with which he has not been able to deal. One can quite understand that he cannot cope with everything. For example, when the Charity Commission decides that someone is unsuitable to act as a trustee because he has previous convictions, how is it to know that he has previous convictions? Is the blanket rule to apply to charities which deal with former offenders?
I shall not delay your Lordships any further. I shall go with the comforting reflection that it will not fall to me to propose a sixth debate on charities but that the next one will be the Second Reading of the charities Bill. It is likely to be rather more extensive than the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had expected. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.

  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  A.4 HAMMERSMITH/CHISWICK SECTION: LITTER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 28th NOVEMBER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 28th NOVEMBER
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: COSTS AND ACCOUNTING
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: COSTS AND ACCOUNTING
  FAST BREEDER REACTORS
  FAST BREEDER REACTORS