Sitting of 13 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] have power to adjourn from place to place.—[ The Second Deputy Chairman al. Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Women Workers
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the need to attract more women into the work force.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): It is estimated that women will take up 90 per cent. of the additional jobs that will be created between now and the year 2000. Employers will need increasingly to ensure that their work arrangements meet the needs of women.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's dramatic attitude in recognising that women should go to sea and should become Royal Air Force pilots must act as a great inspiration to employers who have been rather reluctant to consider taking on ladies and rewarding them? With a tremendous labour shortage in prospect in the next five years, should not we now advise those employers to wake up to that great source of untapped talent, and to do all that they can to recruit and retain women workers? Finally, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is fairer to the hon. Lady's colleagues.
    Mrs. Hicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a word in the ear of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage in these pre-Budget days any tax reforms that may assist women to return to work—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too much.
    Mr. Howard: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless and, indeed, ceaseless campaigning on behalf of women in work. There are more women in work in this
    124
    country than in any other member country of the European Community. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to deal with any representations that I may or may not be making to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Secretary of State agree that although there are more women in work in Britain, for the most part they are in poor conditions and are crowded into low-paid jobs? Does he care to enlighten the House on what the Government as an employer are doing for women and, specifically, what the Civil Service is doing in the provision of workplace nurseries and arrangements for women's careers so that they can come back to work after maternity?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept for one moment the premise behind the hon. Lady's question. I shall give her one example of what the Civil Service is doing. If she examines the most recent report of the Select Committee on Employment, she will find that particular tribute is paid to the attitude of my Department to the provision of part-time work. That provision is, perhaps, the most important factor in enabling women to combine work and responsibilities to their families.
    Mr. Marlow: Can my right hon. and learned Friend work out the value to the national economy, in terms of gross national product, of those married women who stay behind, look after their children and ensure that they have a decent social background and upbringing? When he has done that, will he junk all ideas of providing tax incentives for workplace nurseries and, I presume, nannies? If he is to provide tax incentives, will he provide them for the mothers who stay at home and do a decent job looking after their children?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the role that women who stay at home to look after their children fulfil. It must be a matter of choice for women whether they stay at home to fulfil that valuable role, combine it with work or go out to work. In response to his question about tax changes, I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said earlier.
    Mr. Blair: Is not one of the major obstacles faced by women at work the absence of workplace nurseries in many parts of the country? Would not it be best to remove the tax on workplace nurseries and, therefore, the tax on women at work?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman asks me for the third time a question which, as I have already said, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with today. It is important to consider the whole range of facilities available to women who wish to go out to work or return to work, rather than concentrate unduly on a particular aspect, as the hon. Gentleman did in his question.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the bulk of women who stay at home to look after children are single parents, many of whom would dearly like to return to work if issues such as child care were settled? Is he aware that if we encouraged the quarter of a million single parents who are currently on benefit to return to work, the saving to the Exchequer would be over £1 billion?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptionally generous arrangements available to single parents who wish to take part in our employment training programmes. That is the key to their return to work. I hope—I am sure that she will—that my hon. Friend will give full recognition to the Government for that initiative.

    Employment Training
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the take-up and retention rates on employment training schemes.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): Over 580,000 people have started employment training in little over a year. That is the biggest take-up of any adult training programme ever. People are currently spending an average of just over six months on the programme.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that a substantial number of people who are offered employment training places drop out, frequently because the schemes are poor, under-resourced, and badly managed? In view of Britain's increasing and serious skills shortage, does he agree that a new approach is required that includes the trade unions? What is he prepared to do to persuade the trade unions to participate with him in his determination to improve skills in Great Britain?
    Mr. Eggar: The key point is that 58 per cent. of people on employment training were shown in a recent survey to find jobs, to go into self-employment or further training or to go on to education when they had completed their training. Those who do not complete employment training do not have such a good record for entering jobs. The message is absolutely clear. Employment training is good quality training and if it is followed through, individuals are more likely to obtain jobs.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members believe in the scheme, they should have a word with Left-wing councils that refuse to co-operate on employment training?
    Mr. Eggar: It is extremely regrettable that a small minority of councils, including St. Helens district council, refuse to associate themselves with employment training. That is against the interests of unemployed people in those council areas.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the Greater Manchester archaeological unit is about to put its ET scheme into effective liquidation? That will mean that in that city the first and second largest ET schemes will have gone out of business. Is he further aware that the reason why the scheme has failed is not poor quality management, but that the scheme is so underfunded that it is impossible to keep it financially viable? Is he aware that because take-up and retention are falling, many schemes throughout the country will go exactly the same way as that one in Manchester?
    Mr. Eggar: Employment training is the best adult training programme that we have ever had in Britain. It will be taken over progressively by training and enterprise councils, which will have added flexibility to respond to local labour market conditions. That must be good for people who want good quality training when they have
    126
    been unemployed for a time. I should be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in some detail about the training management to which he. referred, if he so wishes.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment in the Basildon constituency.
    Mr. Eggar: In December 1989 there were 2,509 unemployed claimants. That represents a fall of just over 15 per cent. in 12 months.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend kindly undertake to send a set of screws to the Socialist-controlled Basildon district council, so that it might restore to a prominent place the board that used to display the number of people who are out of work in Basildon, which supposedly fell down because the screws were rusty? Does my hon. Friend agree that the board could now display the excellent message that unemployment in Basildon has reduced steadily over recent years as a result of the skill and enterprise of local businesses and of the success of this Government's policies?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not quite sure what the Public Accounts Committee would say about my using the departmental budget to buy screws to send to Basildon council, because my budget is devoted to training purposes. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and have no doubt at all that the council should be urged to display prominently the fact that there has been a fall in unemployment of over 50 per cent. in the Basildon area since June 1987.
    Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but the question is about Basildon.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that in Basildon there has been massive unemployment among estate agents in the past few years? Does the Minister agree that that is due to the collapse of the Government's housing and mortgage policies and that it will result in the unemployment of Basildon's Tory Member of Parliament at the next election?
    Mr. Eggar: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience of estate agents.

    Part-time Work
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will propose new measures to encourage people who are unemployed or, through a change of circumstances, become able to seek employment to take up part-time work if full-time work is not available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The Select Committee on Employment published its report into part-time working on 31 January. Ministers have read it with interest, and welcome the Committee's support for the concept of part-time work and its recognition of its value.
    Mr. Michael: Does not that sound rather odd when the Minister reflects on the punishment experienced by people such as one of my constituents, because if somebody works for two days a week and gets paid £43 for that, he or she then loses all rights to benefits, and the rate of £43 is £13

    127
    less than the married man's allowance and, as a weekly rate, is less than average daily pay in this country? In the light of those facts, does the Minister agree that something positive needs to be done by the Government to encourage those who want to work part time if full-time work is not available which, sadly, is still often the case for many people?
    Mr. Nicholls: I accept that a number of people have seen the new £43-plus per week rule as a disincentive for part-time workers. However, the position cannot be simplified in that way. Indeed, the Select Committee's report made the point, often denied by Opposition Members, that part-time work is a valuable part of the working life of this country and that a great many people find that it fits exactly into the pattern of their lives.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the opportunities for such people is self-employment? Will he therefore have discussions with his opposite number at the Treasury to find out why obstructions are so often put in the way of people becoming self-employed, including, for example, the Inland Revenue constantly reclassifying them as employed?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend makes a valuable point in drawing to our attention yet again the role of self-employment in bringing people back into the working life of our country. I am sure that he would not expect me to say what representations I might have wanted to put to the Treasury on the matter. However, anybody who has ever been self-employed will have considerable sympathy with what prompted my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister agree that one of the blocks facing many women returning to either part-time or full-time work is the absence of proper nursery facilities? Will he take to heart the comments made at the weekend by his former boss, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said that if industry should take a lead, the Government should at least give some help? What steps is the Minister taking to try to overcome that barrier facing women who are seeking to return to the labour market?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman speaks of one barrier—as it is seen to be by some people—to returning to work. The position is not as simple as it might seem, and there is no universal answer to the problem of the provision of proper child care facilities for those who want to return to work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) can now enjoy being more forthcoming about his thoughts than I can.
    Mr. Dickens: Does the Minister agree that during the war years, the women of this country returned to the workshop floors to produce our shells and munitions? Does he further agree that part-time work is valuable to women and that there are skill shortages? Should not we encourage more women to take those highly skilled jobs, not just medium and semi-skilled ones?
    Mr. Nicholls: We must be careful that in trying to ensure that women are given a fair deal and are able to go out to work if they want, they are not made to feel second-rate citizens if they want to stay at home to look after their families in a more conventional way. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that when the demographic
    128
    wheel goes full cycle, we must not say that our women have, once again, to leave their jobs to go back to the kitchen.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for employment training in Cumbria.
    Mr. Nicholls: Employment training continues to play its valuable role in helping unemployed people in Cumbria to obtain the skills and experience that they need to obtain jobs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is a deep sense of concern in west Cumbria that the new training and enterprise council will be unable to provide employment training for the thousands of people who will be made redundant through the run-down of construction projects at Sellafield. We are talking about thousands of men and women. Will the Government give some assurance, because the former Secretary of State gave an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that he would look into the matter'? Can something be done, because people are worried?
    Mr. Nicholls: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's concern about the redundancies that will take place in his constituency. I think that he will agree that those redundancies are due to take place over two to three years. Just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir. N. Fowler), the then Secretary of State, told the hon. Gentleman that he would certainly do everything that he could to ensure that a contribution was made. In any case of widespread redundancy, the full resources open to the Department of Employment can be brought to bear in particular circumstances. With employment training, although one normally has to be trained for six months, a number of flexibilities in the system can be brought to bear. The Cumbria TEC is due to be operational from April and if, by any chance, the hon. Gentleman has not yet had the opportunity to go along and make contact with it, I certainly hope that he will do so because the TEC will want to play its part.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the survey by Newcastle university, which showed that 15 times as many jobs were created by small firms, employing fewer than 20 people, as by large firms? Are not the Government right to focus their training schemes on the needs of small firms in Cumbria and elsewhere, rather than to attempt to boycott schemes?
    Mr. Nicholls: Some truths are so universal that they apply as much to Cumbria as to other places. My hon. Friend is entirely right—self-employment can have a valuable role to play. There is a range of Government initiatives and forms of assistance to help people start up in small businesses if that is what they want to do.

    Training
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of employers providing training in Great Britain.
    Mr. Howard: The latest survey carried out by my Department shows that more than 200,000 employers provided training for their employees in the year 1986–87.

    129
    That was 80 per cent. of the total. The survey excluded firms with fewer than 10 employees, agriculture and the armed services.
    Mr. Clarke: What exactly does the Minister intend to do about the one in five of Britain's employers who make no contribution to training needs and who are happy to poach on other people's efforts? Is there no strategy for training in Britain? Is that why we are doing so badly compared with our competitors?
    Mr. Howard: All the signs are that the number and proportion of employers providing training has increased since that survey took place about three or four years ago. But by setting up the training and enterprise councils, which will be employer-led, to ensure that the training that is provided in their local areas is sensitive to the needs of those areas, we are setting in train an exciting initiative to secure the maximum involvement of employers in providing the training that we need.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a look at the system of employee contracts? It is right that an employer should invest very large sums in the training of his work force, and we all agree that that should happen, but he should be able to require employees to serve a reasonable period in order that his investment might be recouped. That is happening in some parts of the world, and it has been tried in this country. There are problems with the legal framework, but I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend will look into the matter.
    Mr. Howard: It is my impression that the existing legal framework would make possible much of what my hon. Friend wants. However, I shall certainly look at the points that he has made to see whether any adjustments are necessary.
    Mr. McLeish: Why is it that, after 10 years of this Government, the recently published report of a study that was commissioned by the Government shows that 52 per cent. of all employees receive no training, 20 per cent. of employers provide no training, and 42 per cent. of employees do not think that they should receive training? What has gone so wrong that we now face a skills crisis and that the Government seem intent on walking away from it?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the training problems that we face are a legacy of past generations. The fact is that we are spending six times as much on training as was spent by the previous Labour Government, and that that expenditure has resulted in tremendous advances and benefits.
    Mr. McLeish: We have a mountain to climb.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right: we have a mountain to climb. And we are climbing it.

    Retraining
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his policy for retraining the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Eggar: There are 207,000 people currently on employment training. Fifty-eight per cent. of those completing ET have gone into jobs, self-employment or
    130
    further full-time training or education. Training enterprise councils, or local enterprise companies in Scotland, will be taking responsibility for employment training.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the fall that there has been in the number of long-term unemployed during the past two years or so? Is not that fall clear evidence that the ET programmes are not only the largest of their kind in Europe, but the most effective?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, there has been a significant fall in long-term unemployment in this country. Indeed, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen more sharply over the past year or so than has the number of unemployed people as a whole.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister of State aware that in December the Training Commission told the Select Committee on Employment that 45 per cent. dropped out before getting to the training agent; that there was a further drop-out of up to 80 per cent. before getting to the training manager; that, of the small minority who actually started training, 70 per cent. did not complete their original action plan; and that, of those who completed their training, 42 per cent. did not get jobs? Does the Minister agree that that shambles is a result of the fact that the programme is underfunded? Does he realise that he will not be regarded as dealing seriously with the matter unless he puts more money into the system? Under the public expenditure plans that we shall be debating today, investment is being cut. Until he improves the programme, he is not likely to be taken seriously.
    Mr. Eggar: As the whole House recognises, the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the matter. What he failed to point out is that all the statistics that he quoted are considerably better in respect of employment training than they were either in respect of the community programme or in respect of the job training scheme. Like him—and he took evidence from officials about drop-out—we are very much aware of the problem. We are considering ways of minimising that problem in a constructive way. An investigation is going on at the moment, and I am sure that, in due course, the hon. Gentleman and his Committee colleagues will be able to see the proposals that we shall bring forward to deal with the problem to which he alludes.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the date for completion of the TEC network.
    Mr. Howard: I expect the complete training and enterprise council network in England and Wales to be in place by the end of the year. That will be two years ahead of schedule.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the combination of the completion of the TEC network with the new youth training scheme by vouchers will provide exciting new opportunities to enable Britain's youth to meet today's needs?
    Mr. Howard: The councils will provide an exciting framework and exciting initiatives with or without vouchers, at which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are still looking.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that many of the employers he has put in charge of the TECs are the same employers who failed to provide training in the past? How does he expect anybody to have confidence in the scheme?
    Mr. Howard: I am surprised that the hon. Lady should take that attitude to the TECs, which have received a widespread welcome and are setting about their tasks with tremendous enthusiasm. We should all welcome that. They represent one of the most exciting training initiatives ever in Britain.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the energy and enthusiasm with which his Department has pursued new initiatives over the years, which has been copied by local authorities, has ended up with a number of employers having no clear idea whether TECs are much more important than any other initiative? Will he ensure that they are made aware of the enormous importance of getting in early on the TEC act?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. We have more to do to bring home the advantages of the TECs to all concerned and I welcome his co-operation in achieving that objective.
    Mr. Fatchett: Now that it is acknowledged that YTS has been a failure for a generation of young people in Britain, will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department is considering training vouchers for the 16 to 19 age group? If so, will he also confirm that those training vouchers will be under the control of the TECs, and will he give us some guarantee that their value will be sufficient to ensure that all youngsters can go on a course of their choice at a place of their choice?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were a pathetic misrepresentation of the youth training scheme. I have already confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that we are looking at the CBI's proposals for vouchers. If we decide that they represent the way forward, we shall make an announcement at the appropriate time.

    Tourism
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the United Kingdom's gross national product is represented by tourism income.
    Mr. Nicholls: The total turnover of the British tourist industry was estimated to have been £19 billion in 1988. That represented 4 per cent. of the total United Kingdom gross national product.
    Mr. Greenway: How do our earnings from tourism compare with those of other countries? Will the Minister confirm that the number of jobs in tourism has risen by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years? Will he try to divert tourists from watching the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace every day to enable some of us who have never seen it to do so?
    Mr. Nicholls: I should like to think that I could solve my hon. Friend's problem, but I suspect that it may be beyond me. My hon. Friend is entirely right to refer to a 20 per cent. growth in jobs in the decade to September 1989. We rank after the United States, Spain, Italy and
    132
    France in the world league which, given the size of the United States and the more beneficial climate of the other countries, is a remarkable achievement.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in Wales that we do not maximise our attractions to overseas visitors because, unlike the tourist boards for England and Scotland, the Wales tourist board has no authority to market Wales overseas? Instead that is undertaken by the British Tourist Authority. Will he have a word with the BTA to ensure that at least by 1992 Wales has direct access to the EEC?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that the BTA hopes that it properly represents the United Kingdom abroad in trying to attract visitors, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are made clear to the BTA.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why tourism is such a massive earner for the United Kingdom and employs so many people is the fact that it has a long and distinguished record of providing training for its employees? The service sector needs no lessons from the Opposition on how to provide training, and the example of the whisky industry is as good an example as I can give.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is also one of those industries where the diversity of jobs available to those who want to work within it is absolutely endless.

    Economic League
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to outlaw activities such as those of the Economic League; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir.
    Dr. Moonie: That was a typically pathetic answer. Will the Minister join us in utterly condemning the activities of organisations that seek to blacklist people for no other reason than legitimate trade union activities?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. If he cares to have a look at the matter he will find in the Employment Bill, which is presently going through Committee, that it will not be lawful after the Bill is passed to discriminate against a potential employee merely because he is a trade union member. It causes his own Front-Bench spokesmen some embarrassment because it means that they would have to support the abolition of the closed shop. That is a matter that he will have to take up with them.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Tredinnick.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. I am being urged to speed up Question Time.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage the numbers of those unemployed for more than five years has fallen over the past year.
    Mr. Howard: In the year to October 1989, the latest available figure, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for more than five years fell by 27 per cent.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the expansion in training prospects has been crucial in reducing the number of long-term unemployed? How can the Opposition criticise us when for every £1 that they spent on training we are spending £6?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The training initiatives that we have taken in the past 10 years, the youth training scheme and more recently employment training, have contributed a great deal to that remarkable drop in the figure for the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What proportion of those who have been unemployed for more than five years are disabled people? Is the Minister aware of the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that only 31 per cent. of disabled adults of working age are actually working? Does not that statistic shout discrimination against disabled people and the need for urgent action to protect them?
    Mr. Howard: I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman does not give credit for the steps that we have taken to encourage the disabled back into work, in the special programme for which my Department is responsible—which was praised in a recent article by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—and in the measures recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. We take the problems of getting the disabled back to work very seriously, and we are taking constructive action to help them.
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment in inner city areas has fallen since March 1988.
    Mr. Howard: In the 57 local authority areas in England within which the Government target inner city programme aid, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 334,828 or 34 per cent. since March 1988. In the United Kingdom as a whole the percentage fall has been 37 per cent.
    Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's policies in encouraging enterprise are proving successful not only in outer urban constituencies like mine, where unemployment fell by 35 per cent. in 1989, but in areas considered to be some of the most deprived in the country?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The dramatic fall in unemployment in the inner city areas is a particularly encouraging feature of recent economic development, and a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policy.
    Mr. Cryer: When does the Minister expect unemployment in inner city areas to sink to the level of 1979? Does he expect that current interest rates will make that happen more quickly or more slowly?
    Mr. Howard: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise, and give credit for, the fact that more people in the inner city areas are now working—as they are
    134
    in the country as a whole—than in 1979. That is a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to desist from holding private conversations during important employment questions.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment since June 1987.
    Mr. Howard: Between June 1987 and December 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by about 1·25 million, or 43 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving those figures, which bear eloquent testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies. Do not they also underline the importance of the Government's many training initiatives and, in particular, the critical need to encourage more part-timers, especially women, back into the labour force?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a successful economic framework and effective training policies. The combination of both has led to the fall in unemployment to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Heffer: Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman boasting about the fall in unemployment when, under the present Government, its level has risen dramatically since 1979? Can he explain why unemployment on Merseyside—particularly in Liverpool—although not quite as high as it was, is still much higher than it should be?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement, albeit rather grudging, of the progress that has been made on Merseyside—as elsewhere—in bringing down unemployment. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 1 million more people are now at work than in 1979, and that nearly 3 million extra jobs have been created since 1983.
    Mr. Barry Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in Wirral as a whole since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: Between June 1987 and December 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the Wirral local authority area has fallen by 8,232, or 34·7 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18 which were introduced in September 1988. Unemployment figures are not seasonally adjusted at a regional level.
    Mr. Porter: The people of the Wirral will be extremely grateful for the fall in unemployment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that Cammell Laird, the shipyard which is the major employer in Birkenhead, has recently announced 500 redundancies? Will he take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that orders are placed with the yard and that the number of unemployed in the Wirral continues to fall?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend will accept that it would be wrong for the Government to try to suspend the commercial judgment of companies in regard to redundancies. I can tell him, however, that where there are

    135
    redundancies the full resources of the Department of Employment will be brought to bear to help those who are affected, and I certainly undertake to look at that.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding some welcome improvements in employment on Merseyside, and in the Wirral in particular, does the Minister accept that the closure of plants such as BAT and Higsons sets back the cause of full employment in those areas? What have his Government done to make representations to those companies to ensure that socially disastrous decisions are not made in areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Nicholls: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I accept that redundancies can have a very bad effect and can represent a good deal of personal tragedy for those involved. What the Government cannot do, however, is try to manipulate matters by telling companies that they should not exercise their commercial judgment. Ultimately, the companies will form a view on what is the best part of the country for them in all the circumstances, and doubtless that will apply to Merseyside.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the main things that the Government have done to help the Wirral and Merseyside is to alter business rates? Is he aware that the north-west region as a whole will benefit to the tune of £300 million—money which, particularly on Merseyside, will be used for industrial investment and hence the creation of new jobs.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the most beneficial effects of the uniform business rate is to ensure that those parts of the country which have paid more than they should are at long last getting a fair deal, and it will also ensure that Left-wing authorities will not be able to turn their areas into ghettoes by driving out the businesses that would support people.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.
    Mr. Howard: In December 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, was the lowest for more than nine years, and it is now significantly lower than the EC average.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that excessive pay claims in the private sector which are not matched by productivity could lead to increases in unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone concerned with wage negotiations should take into account the longer-term implications of their actions, and the fact that excessive wage increases can clearly lead to job losses.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be
    136
    having further meetings later today. This evening I shall preside at a dinner in honour of the Prime Minister of Poland.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that the release of Nelson Mandela—a person who symbolises South Africa's cry for freedom—was made possible only because of pressure from the free world, including economic pressure from the rest of Europe and the United States? Does the Prime Minister accept that it is essential to maintain that pressure if a majority of South Africans are to be free to travel in their own country, free to have their own businesses, free to have access to higher standards of education and child care and the rest, and free—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a speech.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be pressure so that all the people of South Africa can be truly free citizens of a truly free South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that improvements are coming about in South Africa because there is a general agreement there, and the world over, that apartheid is wrong and that it must go. Everyone there is coming to realise that. I do not believe that we should have got the results that we have, including the release of Nelson Mandela, had we introduced comprehensive economic sanctions—that would have caused increasing violence and bitterness—instead of doing as we have done, and steadily improved prospects for peaceful negotiations, which I am sure Mandela stands for, too.
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government have no plans to allow local government councillors access to income tax returns? Will she also confirm that her Government have no proposals to penalise those who improve their homes by their own hard work? Does she agree that it is utterly cynical to refuse to give details of half-baked policies simply because local government elections are in the offing?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on all three points. Details of income tax matters are private and between the taxpayer and the income tax authorities. They are not to be handed on to anyone else, as they are private and confidential. Moreover, it is wrong to discourage people from making improvements to their houses by increasing the local charge when they do so. We shall continue with the community charge, which is the best local tax that has yet been invented.
    Mr. Kinnock: When Nelson Mandela says that sanctions must stay as an essential pressure for change, how can the Prime Minister think that she knows better than Mr. Mandela?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Mandela also said that he approved of armed struggle. I disagree with him on that; and I disagree with him on the present sanctions. When the South African Government were doing things with which we thoroughly disagreed, we put on some very minor

    137
    gesture sanctions to demonstrate our disapproval. Now that they are doing things which we have urged them to do and have helped them to bring about, I believe it is right to reduce the sanctions that we have, particularly as they are only voluntary.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that for her to insist that she knows better than Nelson Mandela is both arrogant and absurd? Does she also realise that, if she says no to the single request that he has made to her and the international community, what she is saying to Nelson Mandela is, "You are on your own; we are turning our back on you"?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman possibly takes his instructions from the African National Congress—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Prime Minister made some comment, will she rephrase it please?
    The Prime Minister: I do not take my instructions from the ANC, which believes in comprehensive economic sanctions, which we have totally rejected—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I confess that there was so much noise that I could not hear what the Prime Minister said. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This sounds awful. If an unparliamentary expression was used, I am sure the Prime Minister would wish to withdraw it.
    The Prime Minister: I shall start my reply again. The ANC believes in comprehensive economic sanctions—[Interruption.]
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply—[Interruption.] Order. The Prime Minister said that she would start her reply again.
    The Prime Minister: I said that I would start my reply again having withdrawn the previous words. I have said that now three times and hon. Gentlemen cannot hear me. The ANC stands for comprehensive economic sanctions; so does the Labour party. It stands for armed struggle; so, apparently, does the Labour party. It stands for nationalisation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very disorderly Prime Minister's Question Time. We must hear the reply.
    The Prime Minister: The ANC stands for nationalisation of most of the economic means of the country. Mr. Mandela naturally said he supports all three in what I would call his ritual speech. I believe he is making very much better and more peaceful speeches during his press conferences. I believe that what he said was ritual. There are other people in South Africa such as Chief Buthelezi and Helen Suzman who have been fighting for the end of apartheid far longer than many people in the House. They are absolutely against sanctions. I believe that it is right to
    138
    encourage President de Klerk and the people in South Africa to go further in the way we want by removing some of the sanctions.
    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend, as a London Member, had the opportunity to study the first Metropolitan police customer survey that was published today? Is she aware that 84 per cent. of people who visited police stations expressed satisfaction with the way in which the police handled their cases and found them polite, efficient and courteous? Does she agree that that is a very good result?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, That is a very good result. Most people would wish to express their thanks to the police for protecting us and upholding and enforcing the law.
    Mr. Ashdown: How many of the Prime Minister's Community, Commonwealth American colleagues were consulted before her lonely call to remove sanctions at the weekend? Is it not rather odd that when she is asked to support unity and freedom in Germany she says that there must first be massive international consultation, but that when she is asked to maintain international sanctions on South Africa she is prepared to reject that unilaterally and alone?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not fully appreciate precisely what happened. As for United Nations sanctions, of course the arms embargo remains in place because we all agreed to it and are bound by it. Orders through the European Economic Community that passed through the House, in particular sanctions on iron and steel which suit some people, have to be upheld, as do those on Krugerrands. Those are orders and they cannot be changed without full agreement. I wrote to Mr. Haughey and have received a letter back from him agreeing that the recent measures in South Africa
    "are indeed significant developments"
    and that EC Foreign Ministers should consider next week
    "to what extent profound and irreversible changes can be said to have already taken place in South Africa that would justify a relaxation of the measures imposed by the Twelve."
    Those are orders which have gone through the House.
    The sanctions to which I am referring are totally voluntary: a voluntary ban on investment from outside and a voluntary arrangement that we do not try to encourage tourists. Those are not bound by orders of any kind.
    I was glad to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury also said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: There needs to be—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that not only is the House interested to hear about these major matters, but others outside are interested.
    The Prime Minister: The Archbishop of Canterbury said:
    "There needs to be some measure of encouragement … if that requires some release of sanctions, I think that will be understandable."

    139
    President Bush made it clear that he does not think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"]—The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I am trying to reply. President Bush—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has a right to give her reply.
    The Prime Minister: President Bush has made clear that he does not think that sanctions are necessarily the right answer, but he is bound by a law passed by Congress. In so far as we are bound by laws, we uphold them, and in so far as we are not—[Interruption]
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that issuing death threats is an extremely serious crime which in all circumstances should be pursued with the full and impartial rigour of the law? Does she agree that when a foreign Government start behaving like a gang of hoodlums and issuing death threats against a British subject, it is quite impossible for us to conceive of having normal, civilised diplomatic relations with them?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Issuing death threats is totally unacceptable. Freedom of speech and freedom to write is freedom to say things with which other people do not agree. That is one of our fundamental freedoms; we must uphold it, and will continue to uphold it. I do not believe that such words or such writing will do anything to damage the great religions, which are far older than those who write about them.
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Ruddock: If the Prime Minister had just spent 27 years in prison—
    Mr. Kaufman: As she should.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have never heard the House behave in this way at Prime Minister's Question Time. I call the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who has a right to ask her question.
    Ms. Ruddock: If the Prime Minister had just spent 27 years in prison, separated from her family, but found when she was released that she and people like her were unable to live or work where they wished and did not have the vote, would she not want the support of the international community in continuing sanctions against the Government of that country?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not think that sanctions have achieved anything—[ Interruption.] As to getting rid of them, if the Labour party had had its way we would have had comprehensive economic sanctions, creating poverty and unemployment in South Africa and a good deal of unemployment here. That is not the way to keep South Africa as the most prosperous economy in Africa. Many people from the front-line states go to it and it will continue to be prosperous provided that it is run in the same way when the Government in South Africa are elected on the basis of one person, one vote.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, M r. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order later. I call Mr. Michael Howard—[Interruption.] Order. The whole House knows that I take points of order after statements.

Skills Training Agency
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Skills Training Agency—
Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House should reflect on the fact that the scenes that we have had this afternoon bring no honour on this place. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr. Howard: The Skills Training Agency provides training through a network of 60 skillcentres. It has experienced considerable financial problems over the years. It has broken even only once in the past five years, with a trading loss of about £20 million in 1988–89—
Mr. Nellist rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) must resume his seat. I have already told him, and he knows full well, that I take points of order after statements. That is when I intend to take them today.
Mr. Howard: That was in spite of an arrangement, up to 1987, under which fixed amounts of training were purchased from the Skills Training Agency by the public sector. That arrangement—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that the time to raise points of order arising out of Question Time is after the statement, and that is when I intend to take them.
Mr. Howard: That arrangement was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and ended in 1987.
In March of last year my predecessor announced to the House that he had decided, on the basis of a feasibility study, that the STA should be offered for sale. Throughout the sale process it has been made plain that the Government's interest is in receiving bids from those who wish to run a training business.
I have now received advice from Deloitte Corporate Finance on the final offers received. In the light of that advice, I have agreed terms of sale with two bidders. Their offers together cover 47 skillcentres, plus the STA's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges. The main successful bidder is Astra Training Services Limited, a company formed by a management buyout team in the STA head office. I am placing in the Vote Office full details of which parts of the STA I propose to sell, and to whom, together with the Government's objectives for the sale.
This is an extremely satisfactory outcome to the sale process. It enables the creation of a viable private sector network of training provision with good coverage of major
142
centres of population in England, Scotland and Wales. Over three quarters of the skillcentres will be sold on the basis that they will continue to provide training.
This will also be the first successful management buy-out bid in the Civil Service. The management buy-out team knows the business and has detailed plans, backed by professional advice, to develop training both for unemployed and for employed people in a way that responds to the needs of employers. Its plans include investment of over £11 million in the first three years, and opportunities for staff to participate more fully in the business through an employee share ownership scheme.
The existing five regional offices and 13 skillcentres are not included in this sale package. The regional offices do not feature in the management structure envisaged by Astra, and were not part of its bid. The 13 skillcentres are poorly utilised and at some no training is currently taking place. I propose to close down the training businesses in these parts of the agency, and wherever possible the staff will be redeployed to other posts. Alternative arrangements will be made to allow trainees to complete training in progress.
In addition to producing a substantial private sector training network, I expect the course of action I am announcing today to yield a positive return to the taxpayer. The sale of the training business will involve a payment from the Government to Astra of some £11 million. This is a price determined in the sale process after open competitive bids and subsequent negotiations. It reflects the costs of turning around a business which is currently unprofitable and creating training businesses with good prospects of viability.
The sites of those offices and centres which are not included in the package to which I have referred will be offered for sale. Having obtained professional valuations, I expect the net proceeds from these sales to exceed by a significant margin the payments from the Government to the training business purchasers.
My officials will now consult STA staff and their trade union representatives on the implications of my statement for staff, including the measures I have taken to give effect to ministerial undertakings about pension and other arrangements for staff who transfer into the private sector. In due course, I shall lay orders before the House to ensure that when the sales are concluded, staff who transfer are protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
I wish to pay tribute to staff who have continued to work unstintingly for the STA's success through a potentially unsettling period. For them, for the agency's customers and for the STA's contribution to our national training effort, the uncertainty of the recent past is now over and there are sound prospects for the future.
Mr. Tony Blair: Will the Secretary of State agree that the 60 skillcentres, which employ over 3,000 people and which last year trained tens of thousands, are a major national training asset whose secure future is in the public interest? As for the 13 centres that are to remain unsold, am I right in thinking that they are to be closed? What about the training that is done at these centres? What guarantee is there that that will continue? As for the 47 that are to be sold, what are the terms as to the quality of training contained in the sale? Are there any such stipulations?

143
Given the fact that some of the sites to be sold will be extremely valuable, and given that the Government will be paying money to the management buy-out team to take the skillcentres off their hands, what protection, especially in the light of the Government's record, will we have against asset stripping and the making of unacceptably large gains through the sale of the sites?
What assurances will be given to trade unions about their interests and about time for consultation on them? As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about the record of skillcentres, it is not right that the report of Deloittes on the Skills Training Agency has been published? Will he confirm for the benefit of the House that that report makes clear that the deficit of the skillcentres is largely due to the Government's own employment training scheme? Is it not right that they were breaking even before? Will he also confirm that the costs charged by skillcentres are comparable with those of private sector training providers for craft training and are cheaper for supervisory training? Is not the move to more employer-related training already happening? In those circumstances, what other than simple prejudice leads him to believe that the skillcentres cannot prosper in the public sector but must be put into the private sector?
Is not the essential point that after privatisation the future of the skillcentres as a national network and a national resource, whether they grow or whether they close, will depend not on their value to the community at large but simply on their commercial value to their new owners? With our record on training, described by the Secretary of State's predecessor as mind boggling, does not he accept that we have a massive gap to make up with our competitors? With a deficit and a crisis in relation to every main component of new technology, as well as traditional skills, why do his Government, uniquely in Europe, believe that market forces can succeed in the future where they have failed in the past? Should not he and his Government learn the lesson that today, with our admitted and huge training deficit, our national priority should be not to privatise training but to invest in it?
Mr. HowardThe hon. Gentleman's hysterical reaction shows that he is determined to emulate the example of his predecessor the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He leaves entirely out of account the fact that the skillcentres are currently losing nearly £30 million a year. The hon. Gentleman referred to the employment training scheme. He should know about, and should take into account, the remarks of the Public Accounts Committee of the House on the value for money provided by the skillcentres to the employment training scheme. As for his general attitude, it has, in common with so much of what we hear from the Opposition Benches, the refrain,
"Things are dreadful as they are; let us keep them exactly as they are."
Dealing with the questions that the hon. Gentleman put, I agree that it is important that secure training arrangements should be made at as many centres as possible. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the objectives that the Government have set themselves in considering the bids they have received, he will see that that features prominently among those objectives and is a key factor why we have accepted the management buy-out bid coming, as it does, from those with great experience of training and commitment and dedication to training.
144
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the future of training in the centres might be imperilled by the prospects of the gains that could be made from selling the properties. The answer to that question lies in the clawback arrangements which are part of this transaction. They provide that if any centre is sold in the first three years the taxpayer will receive 100 per cent. of the development gains. If the sale is in the fourth year, the taxpayer will receive 75 per cent., 50 per cent. if it is in the fifth year and 25 per cent. if it takes place in any of the subsequent five years. That far-reaching clawback arrangement provides the taxpayer with secure assurances against the danger to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Deloitte report contains a great deal of information that is commercial and, therefore, confidential. I am sure that he would not expect me to make such information public. We have achieved a deal which is excellent for the taxpayer and for those who want to continue to receive training from the skillcentres. The deal will, I hope, enable all those who are concerned in the management buy-out to prosper from it in the years ahead.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that this opportunity for the staff who have been so closely involved in the centres to make a go of it in the private sector is greatly welcomed. Can he assure the House that the proposed training arrangements will be meshed in properly with the vocational qualifications net which is gradually being spread? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also recognise that, at a time when individuals are at last beginning to realise that responsibility for improving their own opportunities and promotion rests at least as much with them as with employers, this signal is extremely welcome?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It will be very much in the interests of those who run the centres to mesh them in with other arrangements in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested. I have every expectation that what he has asked for will come to pass.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on Employment conducted an inquiry into skillcentres and the Training Agency, and that in the course of that inquiry Conservative Employment Ministers went on record and gave assurances that a national network of skillcentres would be maintained in the public sector and that it was in the national interest to keep such a benchmark of quality? That has now gone.
Is the Secretary of State also aware that the Select Committee said then that the financial arrangements that were being put in place would not work and would push the Skills Training Agency into the red, and that the Select Committee was right and the Government were wrong? Is he also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was right to draw attention to employment training? The skillcentres gave high quality training to the construction industry and others for about £140 or £150 a week. The employment training organisation wanted to pay £17·50 a week and the sums did not add up.
Is the Secretary of State also aware that one of the attractions to buyers is the land and buildings, which they

145
will obtain so cheaply? If the STA had been able to sell off its surplus land and buildings, it could have made the books balance by a crazy accountancy device, but it was not allowed to do so. Is not this a saga of broken promises and an extremely bad management which will lead to a diminution of training assets and abilities?
Mr. Howard: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's points. I made it clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that the clawback arrangements on the sale of property would provide that the development gains would be returned to the Government in the proportions that I identified, which destroys any substance that there might otherwise have been in that point. The hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of a distinguished Committee of the House, the Select Committee on Employment, and he will no doubt want to give full weight to the observations made by other Committees of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee. The changes in the financing arrangements, to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception, were included in the observations of that Committee.
Nothing in the announcement detracts from or affects the Government's guarantee to provide employment training for those who are eligible for it. It will be perfectly possible for those who are eligible, including those in areas where it is necessary for the reasons that I have given to close some of the centres, to obtain employment training.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will probably agree that skillcentres have not always looked to job training for the future. What assurances has he had from Astra Training Services Limited that the skillcentres that it buys will provide training for the future rather than jobs for the past? It will take over a skillcentre in my constituency.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It will be in the interests of those who will run the centres in the private sector to make sure that they provide the sort of training that is needed. That is the way in which we can be assured that the training that we want to see take place is provided. The management buy-out teams that have been the successful bidders have great experience in training and are dedicated and committed to continuing to provide training. In the private sector, free of the bureaucratic constraints under which they have laboured until now, they will be able to respond in an effective fashion to the demands of the private sector.
Mr. David Lambie: As Irvine skillcentre in my constituency will be the subject of a management buy-out and will not close, I welcome the statement today on behalf of my constituents. Could the Secretary of State give us more details on future negotiations between the trade unions and the new management on conditions and pension rights?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He recognises the good sense of the proposals that I have just announced. Consultations on conditions will be held with the trade unions. The staff are being informed of the proposals simultaneously with my announcement. I have obtained an independent assessment of the pension arrangements that Astra proposes. I have been told by the Government Actuary's department
146
that they are comparable with the pensions arrangements that would have applied if the staff had remained civil servants. The details will be disclosed to the staff in the consultations which will take place in the next few weeks.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: The employees and trainees at the skillcentre in the Mile Cross area of my constituency will have been interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Will he confirm that this good news removes any immediate threat of closure from the skillcentre and will enable it to work with greater flexibility to address the serious skills shortages that remain in the Norwich area?
Mr. Howard: The skillcentre to which my hon. Friend refers, together with others, has been bought as a going concern on the basis that training will continue to be provided there. That is a tremendous opportunity for those who presently receive training, those who want to receive training in the future, the management buy-out team and the staff of the business. They will know that if they provide the kind of training that is needed in the world into which we are moving—where, as we heard earlier, there will be an increasing emphasis on the need for training—their future will be secure.
Mr. Bob Cryer: But is not it second best for the staff involved? Would not it have been preferable to keep them in the public sector, particularly in view of the excellent work that they have undertaken, which the Secretary of State recognised? Does he agree that there is a question mark over the level of quality? What provision will he make to ensure that the standard of training is retained, particularly as the organisation is now dedicated to profit whereas previously it was completely dedicated to training?
Mr. Howard: I think that it is very much a first best, and not a second best as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope that in due course even the hon. Gentleman will see the advantages to his constituents of the measures that I have just announced.
On quality, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the arrangements that we are putting into place under the training and enterprise councils. They will recognise and accredit training providers for the purpose of the providers playing their part in the programmes that will be carried out under the auspices of the training and enterprise councils. If the centres are to play their full part in those programmes, it will therefore be very much in their interests to provide the kind of quality training that will lead to accreditation under the training and enterprise councils. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears on that score.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: As an hon. Member with a skillcentre in his constituency, may I warmly welcome the privatisation of the centres, which will be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of industry? To that end and because it is important that their links with the training and enterprise councils and the local employer networks, especially in relation to training in small firms, are as close as possible, what measures do the Government propose to ensure that that is so?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. It will clearly be in the direct interest of everyone concerned that the close co-operation

147
that he seeks should take place. That will be very much in the interests of those who manage the centre in his constituency and of the training and enterprise councils. In that respect, those interests will exactly coincide, which is the best assurance that my hon. Friend could receive.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not opposed to the sale of the Skills Training Agency and regard a management buy-out as the most welcome form of sale. However, given that we are to lose one third of the present network and that there will not be any new resources, will the Secretary of State be much more explicit about his assurances? Will he assure us that the quality and standard will be as high in the future as it is now? Will he ensure that there will be the wide range of skills training in the future that there is now, both in subject and in geographical area? Will there be the same regional assessment of skills needs as now? Will he ensure that trainers will be trained as they are now, and, above all, given that our skills training is so woefully inadequate in Britain, will he ensure that we shall improve both our commitment and the resources from both the public and private sectors in the future which we have not sought to do in the recent past?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words of welcome, although they were somewhat qualified by his later remarks. I hope that he will forgive me if I correct his arithmetic. It is not the case that one third of the centres are not being sold; over three quarters of the centres are being sold as part of the proposal—
Mr. Hughes: One third will be lost.
Mr. Howard: No, fewer than one quarter will be lost.
The best possible assurance of quality that anybody could have lies in the clear incentives that will be provided for the highest possible standards to be delivered through the centres. I have every expectation that, in each of the respects mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, quality will be improved. The quality standards will be much higher than in the past because those who are running the centres in the future will be the people with experience, commitment and dedication who will have every incentive to provide the best possible quality of training. That is the best assurance that anybody could seek.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed by industrialists and commercial people throughout the country? However, may ask him a wider question? Is he talking to the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the school-leaving age in this country and the need to re-examine it in the light of 1992 so that we can be competitive with the Germans and the French, who are not so hidebound and do not have such a late leaving age?
Mr. Howard: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is carefully considering all the matters that are relevant to an improvement of the education standards of the children in our schools when they leave school. I am sure that he will want to take my hon. Friend's remarks into account.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State made much of the financial loss incurred by skillcentres. Is he aware that the skillcentre in Sheffield, it, my constituency, which he proposes to sell off has shown a considerable financial surplus in each of the past four
148
years? What is motivating him? Has he any evidence that one single employer or trade union in Sheffield has sought this change? Can he given any assurance about the future costs and numbers of training places in Sheffield, and say whether they will be available to the unemployed?
Mr. Howard: As to whether the agencies are operating at a profit or loss, the hon. Gentleman ignores the figures that I gave which show that in the last year for which full figures are available—1988–89—the agency made a loss of £20 million and for the current year the loss is expected to be £30 million. As for training in Sheffield, I repeat what I said earlier: nothing in my statement detracts from or qualifies the Government's guarantees on employment training or youth training. I have every confidence that more than enough training for those who need it will be available in the Sheffield area.
Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best and most exciting part of his welcome statement is that this is a management buyout? The management, currently civil servants, has realised that, free from the burden of state ownership and stimulated by private ownership and the opportunity to run its own business, it can turn around a £30 million loss. Does not that demonstrate quite clearly that public ownership can never work as well as private ownership?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is for reasons of pure dogma that the Opposition fail to recognise the opportunities that are available to people when they are given control of their own enterprise in the way that this management buyout makes possible. My hon. Friend has entirely recognised the advantages of the proposals.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State should not hide behind the Public Accounts Committee; we were not responsible for the decision. Is not it ironic and perverse that on the very clay that I seek and, to some extent, secure assurances from Ministers in the Department of Employment on the future of training arrangements in west Cumbria in relation to the thousands of people who will be made redundant with the rundown of contracts at Sellafield, the Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box and close the skillcentre in Maryport? When this news hits the streets of Maryport and west Cumbria tonight, my constituents will say that Ministers are hypocrites and nothing else.
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will look at the facts and behind the rhetoric of which he has just been guilty. Nothing that I have said detracts from the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier, which I wholeheartedly endorse. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the skillcentre in Maryport, which is currently losing considerable sums of money, does not have a single employment training placement. It is not contributing to training needs in Cumbria. That contribution can be made in other ways, through other providers of training, which will continue to provide all the training necessary to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the new system that he has outlined will ensure that people are trained for work

149
that is actually available rather than for jobs which are not there, as has sometimes happened in the past? On the basis of that principle, will he rethink the closure of the Perivale centre in my constituency? That centre is at the heart of a highly industrialised area, where there is a strong demand for training and where employers are prepared to pay for training. Will he ensure, in any event, that the excellent staff at the Perivale centre do not miss out? Will he see that they are offered the alternative jobs that they deserve?
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's comments. The whole thrust of our training policy is to make sure that the training that is provided is relevant to the needs of today and of tomorrow. We have to ensure that people get the training that they need. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the skillcentre in Perivale has been empty and disused for some time, and its lease will run out in March. I therefore cannot give him the assurance for which he has asked. However, we shall make every effort to redeploy the staff.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree that the Wigan skillcentre has a very high reputation as an efficient and effective unit? It is well admired in the north-west region. Indeed, on a recent visit the Prime Minister complimented it. The Minister's statement today will do nothing to improve the efficiency of that centre, no matter to what part of the private sector it goes. Great distress and dismay is being caused. The staff themselves see this as an irresponsible move which will result in a lack of the authority that is needed to deal with the situation.
Mr. Howard: I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the excellence of the Wigan skillcentre. I hope that he will do his best to assure the staff that these proposals, if looked at constructively, will be seen to be giving them a tremendous opportunity for the future—enabling them to build on the excellence of the centre, and ensuring that it can provide training of even higher quality.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what he said about regional offices? I am not quite sure that it was heard in all parts of the House. His announcement—particularly the part about retention of land and development gain—will be greatly welcomed in the Bristol skillcentre. That announcement not only clarifies the position for the immediate future, but indicates the intention for at least three years, and probably a lot longer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary to make it clear to management in all industries that there is a need to train all people, regardless of their age and their skills, and whatever the system?
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I am grateful to him for his observations. The regional centres do not fit in with the management structure that Astra has proposed, and they will therefore be closed. My hon. Friend will be aware that the regional centre in his area is located in the skillcentre itself. As I said earlier, every effort will be made to redeploy the staff.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be aware that, after this, there is to be an important debate on public expenditure, as well as a ten-minute Bill. I will allow questions to continue until 4.15 pm so that as many Members as possible may be called. I ask hon. Members to be brief.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Does the Secretary of State accept that, as an inevitable consequence of his decision, small rural skillcentres will feel extremely vulnerable? Does he accept that training needs in rural communities are vastly different from those in urban areas? Does he agree that, in order to meet those needs, we need a comprehensive and coherent plan to ensure that the economy, which in many parts of the United Kingdom is very fragile indeed, is given an opportunity to grow from within? Does he accept the view of many people who are involved in training in rural areas that, because of the fragility of the economy there, we must have public support for training? Will he assure people living and working in rural areas that, under this proposal, the Government's commitment to training in those areas remains undiminished?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked in the latter part of his question. It is true that there are particular training needs in rural areas. One of the great advantages of the training and enterprise councils is that they will be locally based and will therefore be able to adjust the training that is made available under their auspices to the needs of the area. That cannot but help to ensure that the needs of rural areas are properly reflected. The hon. Gentleman must know of the tremendous amount of public support that will go into training. Very nearly £3 billion will be made available to the training and enterprise councils in their first year of operation.
Those who work in the skillcentre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should not feel vulnerable. The very fact that they are included in the management buy-out bid shows the considerable confidence that the management team has in the viability of that skillcentre.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give a specific guarantee that services and jobs at the Coventry skillcentre will be retained after the disgraceful privatisation that he has announced today? Since his statement contained no assurances on the quality of future training—I rule out the Mickey Mouse employment training and youth training schemes—have not we lost today public accountability for training standards in Britain? If the senior managers will be so good under privatisation, why have they cocked things up in the past three or four years so that a quarter of the skillcentres are having to be closed? The whole thing stinks.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about employment training and YTS will be regarded as nothing less than an insult to those millions of people who have benefited from those schemes during the few years that they have been in operation. The best assurances that any sensible person could want with regard to the Coventry skillcentre is that it will be run by those with experience of training, with commitment and dedication to training, operating under a regime that will provide every incentive for them to provide the best possible quality training in

151
response to the needs of the private sector. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman, imprisoned as he is in the dogma that is being abandoned even in eastern Europe in recent weeks, to see the good sense of the proposal, but I am confident that others will.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted that the Durham skillcentre will remain open, but I am not so delighted that it is being privatised. On a number of occasions I have had the pleasure to visit the skillcentre, which gives excellent training and I shall be disappointed if the measures announced today affect that. Will the Minister confirm that employees at the skillcentre will be involved in its management and that all jobs will be safeguarded? Will the Minister ensure that the rights of civil servants at the Durham skillcentre, some of whom have worked there for 30 years, will be protected?
Mr. Howard: Many of the rights will be protected by the regulations to which I referred in my statement, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to give his constituents assurances based on those regulations. In many respects, the arrangements will go further than those regulations provide. For instance, the regulations do not cover pensions, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been interested in what I said about pensions earlier. It is the management buy-out team's intention to involve staff to the greatest possible extent. I mentioned in my statement the possibility of participation in the business. It is to those intentions and objectives that the hon. Gentleman should look for the assurances for which he asked, and I am confident that, in large measure, they will be available.
Mr. Mike Watson: I want to press the Minister on two points that have been dealt with already. One is the question of quality assurance on which he has given an inadequate answer. The Minister talked of incentives. My first question is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure on time, may we have one question?
Mr. Watson: What if the incentives prove inadequate? How does the Minister propose to measure or monitor quality assurance? If that does not measure up appropriately, what sanctions does he propose to operate? It is all very well talking about training needs, but what about quality assurance for those receiving the training?
Mr. Howard: If one reflects on the history of the matter, it is astonishing to suppose, as the hon. Gentleman does in his question, that the only way to obtain quality assurance is through public sector involvement, public sector instruction or public sector monitoring. We are much
152
more likely to obtain improvements in quality by transferring the centres to the private sector where they will have every incentive to provide the higher quality standards that I want to see.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Presumably the management of the skillcentres will manage the new company—the management who oversaw a £30 million loss. I do not suppose that in the private sector it will have a magic wand with which to reduce those losses. Is the Minister confident that a national system of skillcentres will be retained and that such centres as the one in my own constituency will be protected to ensure at a national level the quality and provision of training?
Mr. Howard: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my statement about the investment that the management buy-out team intends to make—some £11 million in the first three years alone. I remind him that the company will be free of the constraints under which it has been operating in the public sector. I also remind him of the incentives which will be available to it to improve its standards in the private sector; we know that demands for training are bound to increase in the years ahead. In those circumstances, there is every reason to suppose that this will prove a considerable success and that the standards of training provided will increase.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a distinguished QC himself, could the Minister have a word with the Solicitor-General, who came very courteously to the debate on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill and the very complex issues of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981? He will know better than most that the law of detriment is very complex. Could he discuss with the unions concerned, before laying the orders, exactly what the difficulties are, so that they do not have to employ expensive QCs as hapened in relation to the PSA and the Crown Suppliers?
Mr. Howard: I am sure that the consultation which is about to take place with the trade unions and the employees will be far ranging, and it may well embrace the complex question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Front-Bench spokesmen whom I have not been able to call. I hope that they will find some other opportunity to refer to this matter.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that during Question Time today there was an unusual amount of disorderly noise. In the course of one of the quieter moments during that noise, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a grossly offensive remark about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear this, because I did not hear the remark that is alleged to have been made.
Mr. Onslow: It was clearly heard on the Conservative Benches, I suspect it may have been heard on the tapes, but I wonder whether you heard it, Mr. Speaker. If you did, it seems to me that it is a remark which you should invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I did not hear it, so I cannot call upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. I do not know what he said.
I hope that the House will reflect carefully on the disorderly way in which Prime Minister's Question Time proceeded today. The cut and thrust of debate is one thing, and the whole House subscribes to that, but noise and disruptions of the kind that we have heard today bring no credit upon us. Certainly personal abuse of any kind is not in the tradition of the Chamber.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a courtesy to the House, Mr. Speaker, may I notify you that the Opposition have decided to make a change in the business for the Opposition day tomorrow. We shall now start with a debate on Government policy on South Africa. That will proceed until 7 pm, and we shall then take the business already announced, which is a debate on rail fares and services.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Quentin Davies—[Interruption.] Order. I hope that tomorrow's debate will proceed in better order.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I may be able to help you. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to what was said at Question Time. I did not hear what was said; everyone else may have, but it did not come through my amplifier. Nor did I hear what the Prime Minister is alleged to have said earlier, which caused so much disruption in the Chamber.
I think that we should reflect on the fact that we are now seen on television. Scenes of the kind that we witnessed this afternoon, which will have been seen and heard by television viewers, bring no credit on us.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have received a most courteous letter from the Editor of Hansard pointing out that last night's Hansard reported, in column 117, that Mr. Colin Wallace had been acquitted in 1971. It should have read "convicted in 1981".
154
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has most courteously come to the Chamber to hear me make the correction.
The Ministry of Defence has considerable resources. It employs people to correct Ministers' speeches, unlike Back Benchers on boths sides of the House. Such carelessness is symptomatic of this whole affair, and is entirely unacceptable to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter in the best traditions of the House. I, too, have received a copy of the letter from the Editor of Hansard, in which the Editor—again, in the best traditions—takes responsibility for the error.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the error was not picked up, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his remarks. I am also grateful to the Editor of the Official Report. Perhaps I did not speak clearly enough.
Sir William Clark: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), Mr. Speaker. I understand that the remark made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was heard on television; it was certainly heard on both sides of the House, although I accept that you may not have heard it. The right hon. Gentleman implied that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have spent 27 years in prison. Although you did not hear the remark, Mr. Speaker, do you not agree that that is unparliamentary language and that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw it?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I have no power to have such statements withdrawn. Let me say that I hope that we can proceed without personal abuse.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it can be further to that point of order. In any case, I called the hon. Gentleman during Question Time.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your assistance and advice on a matter of grave importance in my constituency? More than 2,700 drums of contaminated waste have been dumped in my constituency, and a smaller quantity of the same consignment has been dumped in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). A number of my hon. Friends, some of whose constituencies are close to mine an in close proximity to the material—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This point of order is addressed to me. [ Interruption.] This is exactly what I was talking about a few moments ago. If Members continue to barrack—for that is what they are doing—it is impossible to hear the point of order being raised with me. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Hardy: The waste has been with us a long time, but not for 27 years, which might be attractive to Conservative Members.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Hardy: It is a point of order, as I shall show. Conservative Members are not particularly interested in areas like ours, but I hope that they will listen to this serious point.
A number of my hon. Friends, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, (Mr. Redmond) tabled an early-day motion in the House last week as a means of expressing the anger and frustration that is felt in our constituencies because this waste has been with us far too long. As a symbol of the frustration and anger that we have faced, having had to put up with this waste which should not be in our area—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I read the early-day motion on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this waste should be brought down here—
Mr. Hardy: No, I am not suggesting that.
Mr. Speaker: If it is suggested that this waste should be deposited in the House of Commons, I should take a poor view of it.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's motion suggests that, as a symbol of our rage and frustration, and as evidence of the inadequacy and poverty of British regulations, one of the drums should be brought to the Palace of Westminster, and I merely wanted to ask you where I should put it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I have made my views plain on that. I hope that the hon. Member will do no such thing.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet, and it has always been the tradition that when the Speaker is on his feet he is heard.
We have an important debate today on public expenditure, and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in it. There is also a ten-minute Bill motion which will take time out of the debate. I cannot have a continuation of Question Time. What was said at Question Time was said. I think that it was the worst Prime Minister's Question Time that it has been my unhappy duty to preside over. I ask the House to reflect and to ensure that we do not have a repetition of it.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the main problem during Prime Minister's Question Time was that five or six minutes of answers on two separate questions would have
156
been better given as a statement in calm so that everyone could have asked questions? Given that I and many of my hon. Friends think that, will you accept a request from me to ask a private notice question demanding a statement from the Prime Minister on the Government's policy on sanctions against South Africa?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for private notice questions has passed. We are to have a debate on the subject tomorrow. I shall take one more question from the chairman of the 1922 committee [Interruption.] Order. I decide who is called. [Interruption.] Behaviour of this kind from Front-Bench spokesmen is a terrible disgrace.
Mr. Onslow: Further to my original point of order and your response, Mr. Speaker. There is something very unsatisfactory about the situation in which the House finds itself. It seems that it is possible—I am not sure whether this is the first time that it has happened—for things to be said loudly in the Chamber by certain hon. Members, above and below the Gangway, which are heard clearly by Conservative Members, and can be heard outside the House but cannot be heard by you, Mr. Speaker. If the microphones are at fault, can you please tell the House what action you will be putting in hand to put the matter right? It cannot be satisfactory for order to be maintained on the basis that disorderly things are said and people get away with it.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he should know that, when an hon. Member has been called by the Chair to speak or to put a question, remarks from a sedentary position are not a proceeding of Parliament and such remarks are not shown in Hansard. [ Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Gentleman had better look up the rules. [Interruption.] I cannot be held responsible for such things. I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman is alleging, but I have a microphone in the wings of my chair and can hear very clearly the hon. Member who has been called to speak from his or her microphone. It is impossible under that system to hear what then goes on on the other side of he House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I will not take any more points of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will sort it out for you.
Mr. Speaker: I do not need it to be sorted out by the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have had enough of this and should proceed to the ten-minute Bill motion.

Fuel and Energy Provision
4.33 pm
Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device; to abolish standing charges; to establish local authority monitoring committees; to facilitate the effective insulation of the homes of those on low incomes; and for connected purposes.
The hardship, the risk to life from hypothermia experienced by the elderly, the sick, single-parent families, the unemployed and the disabled in 6 million homes affected by fuel poverty is exacerbated by the fuel industries' wanton use of the legal system and the courts.
By means of an early-day motion, I have already drawn to the attention of the House an example of this and its effect on my constitutent, Mr. Quigley, of 8 Loach drive, Coventry. Mr. Quigley, an elderly pensioner, was pursued by British Gas with the voracity of Shylock; British Gas arrayed the full legal system against this elderly pensioner. Solicitors and magistrates took control of Mr. Quigley's meagre pension. He had no say in the matter.
Without considering whether the imposition of the technically correct legal decision would place Mr. Quigley at risk from hypothermia, the magistrate arranged to have £352·66 deducted from Mr. Quigley's pension for the cost of the magistrate's adjudication and the value of the gas used by two other British Gas customers. After the wheels of justice had turned, Mr. Quigley's £141·83 bill became an alarming bill for £499·49.
It is a case which illustrates that magistrates, like justice, are blind: blind to the circumstances that affect the millions of people on whom they pass judgment. It is a blindness which prevails in this House and which many hours of debate have failed to change. The House is affected by what can only be described as a multi-sense impairment which exceeds even that of the brass monkeys. The House refuses to see the problem; the House refuses to hear about the problem; The House refuses to discuss the problem. The House refuses to feel the problem by taking up my suggestion and shutting off the heat in the Commons to enable every Member of Parliament to experience the killing cold that affects 6 million households. And the House refuses to use the other sense associated with the heart, the caring sense of compassion.
If we sat in this Chamber without heat for only a few hours we might sense the cold that immobility induces—the cold endured by my disabled constituent, Martin Jenkins, of 134, Longfield house, whose circumstances are the lot of many disabled people. Confined to a tenancy on the 10th floor of a high-rise block, he is no longer receiving any extra heating allowance. In winter he is continually under financial stress and his limited income is dissipated combating bad insulation and major heat loss through plywood walls and the extreme cold at that high level.
Martin's circumstances and those of Mr. Quigley, although painful, are not unique. There are Martins and Mr. Quigleys in every constituency and they are crying out for help. They, I am sure, welcome my suggestion that the heating should be switched off in the House of Commons, just as they would welcome the opportunity of
158
experiencing the temperatures that we enjoy. We could do that by giving them more money or by allowing them to use heat without fear of disconnection. In the meantime, until the House adopt that course, we could convey the temperature that we enjoy by showing it on the television screens every time Parliament is televised.
Unfortunately, my representation or the House's consideration of my Fuel and Energy Provision Bill will be of no benefit to Mr. John Bowling, whose death I heard reported on my car radio as I drove to the Commons. As far as I am aware, his death was acknowledged as the first death from hypothermia this winter. On 30 November, council caretakers found Mr. Bowling on the floor dead when they broke into his flat. The inquest reported that he had died of hypothermia—time of death unknown. The report of Mr. Bowling's circumstances and his anonymity should wring even the hardest heart. The comments of Sergeant Canning of Luton police carried a tragic message. None of the residents could say anything about Mr. Bowling. They had not seen him for some time. They could not remember when they last saw him. They could remember him only as the man who lived at No. 131.
That is not a fitting epitaph for John Bowling. The House should cry for him and should do its best to ensure that there are no more such deaths. The tragic end of John Bowling should be the beginning of a campaign by the House against hypothermia which puts the lives of our elderly constituents at risk every winter.
My Fuel and Energy Provision Bill, which is a small step towards that objective, needs the support of the House and that is why I am writing to every Conservative Member, asking for support. On previous occasions my Bill failed to get a Second Reading because only one Member objected. The reasoning behind that deliberate block is difficult to understand. What can be described only as a national disaster is being ignored by the House. Surely there can be no issue more important than saving the lives of elderly citizens.
My letter to each Member and my campaign messages are headed by the budgerigar, a bird particularly sensitive to the cold. That bird played a significant part in saving the life of an elderly lady. I hope that it will move the Government to take measures to save thousands of lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Frank Cook, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Tony Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: Watch those Gradgrinds on the Tory Benches.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sedentary remarks do not help us at all.

Fuel and Energy Provision

  FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION
  Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device; to abolish standing charges; to establish local authority monitoring committees; to facilitate the effective insulation of the homes of those on low incomes; and for

  159
  connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members were silent when you asked whether any hon. Member opposed the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes). As it is quite clear that they intend to block it to prevent it from being given a Second Reading—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are purely hypothetical matters. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) has been given leave to bring in his Bill.

Points of Order
4.40 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: When I attempted to raise a point of order after Prime Minister's Question Time, you, Mr. Speaker, said that you would allow points of order to be taken later. My point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. But I hope it is not on a matter with which we have dealt.
Mr. Marlow: I hastily reassure you that it is not.
Neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor I are responsible for what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says—more is the pity, because I should be very honoured if I were. I am concerned about how the Leader of the Opposition receives advice—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me, nor should it be too much of a concern for the hon. Gentleman. Surely we deal in this place with policies rather than the personalities of hon. Members. What advice is given to the Leader of the Opposition is not a matter for me.
Mr. Marlow: I am concerned about the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that inadvertently—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am concerned about the reputation of the House. I think that we will leave it at that.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Hoyle: No. You, Mr. Speaker, should know better than that. I am seeking your guidance. I thought that I distinctly heard you say a little earlier that you were calling a right hon. Member because he was chairman of the 1922 committee. Does that departure mean that in future you will be calling the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, the chair of the Tribune group or the chair of the Campaign committee? Is that a new departure?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is such a chairman.
Mr. Hoyle: I know that.
Mr. Speaker: At Question Time, he gets some precedence because of the position that he occupies in the parliamentary Labour party. But perhaps even Speakers should not allow things to be said from a sedentary position.
Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You gave the impression a few minutes ago—certainly to me, and I think to others—that Hansard does not report comments that are made from a sedentary position. I had always understood that, occasionally, Hansard does so. You may care to reflect on what you said, in case there is confusion in the future either in the House or in the mind of the Editor of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: I am delighted to clear this up. Hansard does not record remarks made from a sedentary position unless they are referred to subsequently in the House. That has been the long-standing tradition. Too many remarks

161
are made from a sedentary position. Hansard would not read well if that tradition were not followed. Remarks that are referred to subsequently in a debate are, of course, referred to in Hansard.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We have an important debate ahead of us, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman would like to speak in it.
Mr. Banks: No, Sir, not unless you give me a guarantee that I shall catch your eye.
This is a desperately serious point of order. What you just said about sedentary comments not being recorded unless they are referred to subsequently in the House puts me in an embarrassing position. I have just received a note from the Official Report, which says:
"Supply sedentary intervention to which Mr. Speaker replied."
I thought that you were in a sedentary position when you replied, so how can we have two—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If I referred to it, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's remark from a sedentary position will appear in Hansard. I regret that I did that. Let us get on to the public expenditure debate, and I must say to the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking any more points of order. I am sure that it would be helpful, but I am not taking it.

Public Expenditure
[ Relevant documents: First Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1989–90 on the 1989 Autumn Statement ( House of Commons Paper No. 20) and First Special Report: Government Observations on the First Report ( House of Commons Paper No. 209).]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.44 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Government's Expenditure Plans for 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm. 1001–1009, 1011–1018, and 1021).
Three weeks ago, we debated the Autumn Statement and focused on overall economic prospects and policy. Since then, the public expenditure White Paper has been published. In a formal sense, it will be the last to be published, because 18 months ago the Government announced that they would replace the White Paper with individual departmental reports. That follows the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I should like once again to pay tribute to his skill in chairing the Committee and to the contribution that it made to the development of the format of the White Paper.
The Committee included in its report on the Autumn Statement a number of useful recommendations on public expenditure. The Government responded yesterday, and the Committee made that response available to the House. Some of the Committee's suggestions are reflected in the White Paper, and we have undertaken to consider others further.
Tight control of public expenditure is, and always has been, a central element of the Government's economic strategy. Getting inflation down is an important priority, and a tight fiscal policy plays a crucial role in that. If spending is not firmly controlled, the burden of financing it will cripple and hold back an economy. Only when the burden of tax is set at moderate and reasonable levels will enterprise and growth flourish.
That has always been our approach. Twelve years ago, we said in the document, "The Right Approach":
"Our intention is to allow state spending and revenue a significantly smaller percentage slice of the nation's annual output and income each year. This is not a prescription for poorer social provision … In the longer term it is only by building a healthier, more productive economy that we shall afford the improvements in services that we need."
Those words have been well justified. In line with the objective that we set ourselves 12 years ago, we have reduced public spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. Public spending means total spending—central and local government spending, and that includes finance for nationalised industries and debt interest. Debt interest is, of course, expenditure which must be paid for like any other item. The Labour party tends to forget that.
The ratio of public spending to GDP reached nearly 50 per cent. in 1975–76, but is now below 40 per cent. Over the past seven years, it has fallen by a remarkable eight percentage points—a fall that is unparalleled since the war time economy was unwound.

163
In real terms, total public spending, including debt interest, is now broadly at the same level as five years ago, while the economy has grown by an average of 3½ per cent. a year. One would have to look hard to find another five-year period in any country where public spending has been so successfully controlled and economic growth has been so high.
Mr. Tony Banks: There is a down side to that—that there has been insufficient investment in the social and economic infrastructure that the nation requires. That is evident from the collapse of transport and roads in London. How do the figures that the Minister has just given compare with the expenditure patterns of other European Community countries?
Mr. Lamont: I shall deal with those points. The subject about which the hon. Gentleman asked is precisely the theme of my speech, and I shall comment specifically on infrastructure, investment and comparisons with other countries.
I emphasise, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that we have in the past five years succeeded in meeting two objectives simultaneously. There has been restraint in overall total public spending but there has also been higher spending in key areas where that has been necessary and justified.
How has that been achieved? The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is not here, often in these debates contrasts the position of Treasury Ministers boasting about overall control and the position of individual departmental Ministers boasting about spending increases within their individual Departments. The answer to how that has been achieved is that it has been done not by chicanery or magic, or by mirrors. It has been done by three methods. First, we have reduced borrowing. The public sector borrowing requirement averaged nearly 7 per cent. of GDP between 1973–74 and 1978–79. Five years later it was at half that level and five years after that we were in the new and unprecedented situation of repaying debt.
That reduction in debt has brought with it lower debt interest payments. The cost of servicing debt is now 15 per cent. lower in real terms than it was five years ago. That yields savings of about £3 billion a year, to spend on priority areas. A virtuous circle is now at work and that is indeed in contrast to some other European countries, which are facing severe handicaps from uncontrolled and threatening deficits.
Compared with the rest of Europe, Britain has become a country of low taxation, low national debt and lighter regulation. That is a happy combination and it is no accident that, at the same time, we have moved from the bottom to the top of the growth league of major European countries.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was interested in the Minister's remarks about other Government Departments. Looking at table 3·1 on page 1 of chapter 3, which applies to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the heading "Support for the fishing industry," the figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 will enable the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to introduce a decommissioning scheme so as to reduce the size of the United Kingdom registered fishing fleet?
164
The Minister will be aware that the European Community has instructed Her Majesty's Government to reduce the size of the British fishing fleet by about 25, per cent. What recent discussions have taken place between his officials and those of other Government Departments on the introduction of a decommissioning scheme, which would reduce the fleet in a humane—[Interruption.]—and fair-minded way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be in the form of short comments rather than speeches.
Mr. Lamont: We have not taken any new initiatives or made any announcements on a decommissioning scheme, although there have been discussions on the subject. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to see whether, when he replies to the debate, he can give any further details.
I was saying that the first room for extra expenditure has been created by the reduction of debt interest. The second saving that we have achieved has occurred as a result of the dramatic turnround in the nationalised industries. As a result of improvement there and of privatisation, we are saving about £5 billion each year, a sum approaching the cost of the whole of the wage bill for nurses in England this year.
The third point is that the strength of the economy in recent years has produced substantial savings as the number of unemployed has fallen and the cost of unemployment likewise. Those savings on debt interest, the nationalised industries and on benefits to the unemployed add up to a substantial amount. Those savings have enabled us to pull off the trick—which puzzles the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—of keeping overall spending tight but at the same time giving large increases to programmes such as health, transport and education.
The expenditure plans in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper are firmly in the same tradition of overall control, with substantial increases in the most important areas. Resources for health in this year's White Paper will be nearly £3 billion higher next year than this. By 1992–93, spending on national roads will be twice as high as last year. Spending by central Government and public corporations on fixed investment is to rise by £2 billion between this year and next.
There are a number of smaller but important increases, including over the next two years about £250 million to relieve homelessness, and an extra £75 million for the arts, which, pace Sir Roy Strong's remarks at the weekend, received a wide welcome.
Mr. John Battle: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important areas should have been housing, remembering that the Conservatives have reduced the housing budget by £7 billion in the past 10 years—a cut of 67 per cent.? Does he regard that as a wise way to reduce homelessness in Britain?
Mr. Lamont: I do not believe, as the hon. Gentleman believes, that the answer to dealing with homelessness lies in building more council houses. The solution lies in other areas, including the revival of the private rented sector; and the absence of available accommodation in the south-east has added greatly to the housing problem.

165
There is a tight outcome to this year's spending negotiations. The additions, substantial though they are, have been made only because they can be afforded within the overall strategy for public spending.
As has been noted, we have not automatically compensated Departments for inflation. Indeed, if a cash planning system is to be effective, it cannot be based on accommodating inflation. As a result of that tough approach, we have been able to keep the ratios of public spending to national income for 1990–91 and 1991–92 at exactly the same levels as in the previous plans—39 and 38·75 per cent. respectively. The downward trend of the ratio of public expenditure to GDP is continuing and is set to continue.
Many of the increases in this year's White Paper are in areas that should be welcomed by the Opposition. They are in some of the areas that they have highlighted. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), now that Socialism has been ditched everywhere in the world, wants to persuade us that Socialism—though he is careful never to use that word—consists only of more miles of motorway and more students at polytechnics. That is breathtakingly daring in its boldness of vision and in its radicalism.
This year the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting plenty of miles of motorway and more students at polytechnics. We shall spend next year £1 billion more on national roads, a 50 per cent. increase in real terms. Investment by British Rail and London Transport will be £700 million higher, an increase in real terms of nearly 60 per cent. In the next three years, British Rail and London Transport will be investing about £6 billion.
There are a large number of important schemes now in the pipeline. One could mention many of them and read from a long list. But whatever else this is, it is not the neglect of infrastructure. For anyone with eyes to see, who observes the cranes at work in our cities and machines at work on our roads, it is clear that what is going on is an extensive modernisation of our infrastructure.
That modernisation could not have been afforded by the Labour party. Indeed, it would not have been necessary had Labour been in power, because the demands for better transport facilities, better roads and so on are a product of the growth and expansion of the economy in recent years.
That investment in transport is part of a huge programme of investment across the public sector. Overall, investment by central Government and public corporations in creating new capital assets for the nation will be about £2 billion higher next year than this, an increase of 7·5 per cent. in real terms.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister is right. In Hackney in my constituency, in the south of the borough where it borders on the City, we can see cranes and development work. The problem is that that building work is in the private sector, because the Government are not releasing resources for the public sector to invest in the Underground, house building and the building of hospitals.
Mr. Lamont: Unlike the hon. Lady, we see nothing wrong with booming private investment. We have close to record investment, public and private, as a proportion of
166
GDP. We do not want, as the hon. Lady seems to, public investment crowding out private investment. Private and public investment are both needed.
Within the overall settlement, and taking into account the additional funding announced for the review body pay awards, there is also another huge increase of nearly £3 billion, or over 6 per cent. in real terms, in spending on the National Health Service. It will allow continuing improvements in health care and higher capital spending. We already have under way the largest ever programme of hospital building. In England, 500 major schemes, each costing over £1 million, are in various stages of design and construction. The new plans mean that gross capital spending in the Health Service in England next year will be no less than 55 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the fact that one of those schemes is phase 3 of the hospital building programme in Lancaster, for which we begged the Labour party in vain? We are delighted that it is going ahead.
Mr. Lamont: In the debate on the Autumn Statement—indeed, it was also reflected in one of the comments made from a sedentary position and no doubt not recorded in Hansard—various Opposition Members tried to minimise the scale of the increases. They tried to talk them all away because of demography, increases in the price of drugs and increases in the cost of medical equipment. No matter how much we spend, whether it is £500 million or £2 billion, as they were urging us to spend, they make out that every sum is in reality a cut. The position is different; today we are spending about 45 per cent. more in real terms on the Health Service than we did a decade ago.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Lamont: I have given way a lot and I should like to make more progress.
The White Paper plans also include substantial extra provision for the science budget, something dear to the heart of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. The increase comes on top of the increases announced after the 1988 survey. After a 15 per cent. increase between 1988–89 and 1989–90, a further 8 per cent. growth is provided for next year. As a result, the science budget will be 25 per cent. larger in real terms than it was a decade ago.
Investment in research compares well with that of our competitors. As a percentage of GDP, Government support for research and development is as high as in West Germany and higher than in Italy and Japan; and the Government's support for civil research and development surpasses that provided by the Government of the United States of America, again as a proportion of GDP.
The White Paper again contains further additional resources for education. Provision for spending on education and science by central Government will rise from £5·75 billion in 1989–90 to £6·59 billion in 1990–91, a cash increase of 14 per cent., or over 9 per cent in real terms. In addition, local authority spending on schools in England will benefit from education standard spending of £15 billion in 1990–91, which will be 9·5 per cent. more than the comparable figure for the previous year.

167
With those considerable extra resources, which mirror what happened in previous years, it is no surprise that record numbers of students are choosing to stay on and study beyond the age of 16, something that Opposition Members urge on us but seem to be unaware is happening already. In 1980–81, 29 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds chose to stay at school or colleges of further education; in 1987–88 nearly 35 per cent. did so.
There is also in this year's plan a large increase for higher education, to provide for 27,000 more students than forecast in the previous plans. During the period since 1979 we have made substantial progress in making higher education available to increasing numbers and also to an increasing proportion of the age group that wants it. By the end of the previous Labour Government, 12·3 per cent. of young people benefited from full-time higher education. This year the figure is 16 per cent. and it is projected to rise to 19 per cent. by 1992–93.
Those increases are substantial by any standards, but I do not seek to disguise the fact that there are some areas where we have felt it proper to make cuts because, if one is to control overall spending, one must find the resources for the priority areas. We have cut the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry. We recognise that investment is important, but the offer of increasing subsidies does not lead to worthwhile, high quality investment. We do not seek to encourage the right attitude in companies by bribing or bullying them to do the things that they should be doing in their own interest. Companies do those things if they are allowed to build up profits to finance investment. That is what we have done. Since 1981, profitability has increased by 300 per cent., a staggering increase about which we do not hear much from the Labour party. That is why we have had an investment boom and why it is right to make cuts.
Mr. Robert Sheldon rose—
Mr. Lamont: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make progress.
Mr. Sheldon: In detailing the cuts, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention cuts in maintenance, which cause so much decay and dilapidation. The road maintenance programme has been bitten into. In the hospital programme, £1·8 billion of maintenance has not been undertaken. There may be new schemes, but the maintenance of our estate and our national heritage is in danger.
Mr. Lamont: There is substantially increased provision for maintenance of the fabric of buildings in some of the plans, particularly for higher education and hospitals. Local authorities also have some responsibility for road maintenance.
We have made reductions in the programme for training. Those reductions follow very much the reduction in unemployment. Our training programme has been geared towards the unemployed. As unemployment has fallen dramatically and substantially, it is right to make adjustments in training, given that there are fewer young people coming on to the labour market.
Opposition Members seem to think that nothing is happening in training unless money is spent by the public sector. There is tremendous investment in training by the private sector. Employers are spending about £20 billion a year on training. By any standards, that is a substantial
168
investment. Indeed, the latest figures published by the Eurostat labour costs survey show that the share of labour costs spent on training is broadly the same here as in Germany.
Opposition Members love to paint a picture of this country with an ill-educated, ill-equipped, untrained labour force. If that were the position, we should not attract the largest proportion of any European country of Japanese and American investment. Opposition Members may think that our work force are the ill-educated serfs of Europe, but that is not the view of Toyota, Honda or Fujitsu when they invest here. They know that we have a skilled labour force able to handle the most sophisticated processes.
Mr. Denzil Davies: If everything is going so well, why do we have the highest inflation rate in western Europe and the worst balance of payments deficit? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
Mr. Lamont: We do not have the highest rate of inflation in western Europe. I am happy to debate the economy on any occasion and we have had many debates on that, but we are now trying to debate the public expenditure White Paper.
One important aspect of presentation in the format of the White Paper, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who, as I said, is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service, and the Committee commented, is the new definition of planning total. The new definition distinguishes more clearly between central and local responsibilities. It includes central Government's support for local authorities; it excludes what local authorities spend from their own resources. That is a change that brings us into line with practice in many other countries. It is a change that the Select Committee welcomed shortly after we first announced our proposals in summer 1988. Above all, it is a change that recognises the way in which decisions are taken in the real world. It was a point on which we commented in our reply to the Select Committee.
There is much material in the White Paper about efficiency measures and measures to increase value for money. Value for money is neither a gimmick nor, as the Opposition allege, a euphemism for cuts in spending. It simply means getting the best possible value for the taxpayers' money put into a service. Unlike the Labour party, we are serious about efficiency and we are getting results from a series of initiatives over the past 10 years.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Lamont: Those savings and value-for-money improvements are either being ploughed back into the same service or redeployed to other initiatives. Taken together, the figures are substantial. The figures are for the National Health Service cost improvement scheme, the departmental efficiency scrutinies, better Government purchasing, market testing and contracting out and local authority efficiency savings. Together, they add up to ·2 billion each year and they are the result of measures that we have introduced, the vast majority of which were opposed bitterly by the Labour party and which would not be available for the Labour party should it ever assume responsibility.
The Labour party likes to portray the Government's attitude as, "public spending bad, private spending good."

169
That is not our attitude, but we believe that public spending should be limited to what is affordable. All public services, such as health, education and transport, are ultimately dependent on the strength and growth of the economy. We all know what happened to public spending when the Labour party was in office. Public spending was on the big dipper. We had zooming, unaffordable increases up to the sky followed by crashing cuts. But what would have happened if the Labour party's policies had continued throughout the 1980s? What would be the state and size of the resources put into the Health Service if the Labour party had remained in office throughout the 1980s?
Let us suppose that Labour's straitjacket of high taxation and high spending had been kept in place for the past 10 years and that Britain had remained bottom of the European growth league, just as we were when the Labour party was in office. What would have happened? The economy would have been a good deal smaller than it is today. If Labour spent the same share of that smaller economy as it did in 1979, it would probably be spending about £3 billion less today on the NHS. What would that mean for the Health Service? It would mean that we should probably be spending about 12 per cent. less than we are now. Twelve per cent. fewer nurses would mean 60,000 fewer nurses. Twelve per cent. fewer doctors would mean 10,000 fewer doctors. Twelve per cent. fewer in-patient treatments is almost 100,000 fewer patients being treated. That is the reality and that is what would be likely to happen if we followed Labour's policies of uncontrolled spending and high taxation. Labour's irresponsible attitude would ultimately have been self-defeating and would have resulted in less provision over the medium term.
In the Autumn Statement debate, I said that we welcomed the appointment of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and we are certainly looking forward to her first House of Commons speech devoted exclusively to public spending. We were looking to her for some answers—[Interruption.]—to the questions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), when he was shadow Chief Secretary, refused to answer. It is not only the Labour party's policy towards local government finance, but its attitude to central Government finance, which is a mystery wrapped in enigma. I was a little disappointed when I read that the hon. Member for Derby, South had been appointed not to cost Labour's programme, but to stop members of the shadow Cabinet saying anything. She may find that difficult with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
The hon. Lady went on Sky television shortly after she was appointed and told us that the Labour party would not increase taxation. That might be believable if she were about to welcome the increases in the White Paper as reasonable, affordable and generous, but we know that she will not. We know that she will describe them as inadequate and mean. How is it that the hon. Lady is unable to answer the two basic questions: how much will the Labour party's programme cost, and what will be the consequential increase in taxes? If the hon. Lady will not tell us that, perhaps she will give us the answer to a far more modest question: when will the costing of the
170
programme be made available to the public? I am not very optimistic about receiving an answer to that limited question.
The Leader of the Opposition appeared on "The World at One" on 4 October and told us that the costing of Labour's programme might have to wait. The audience waited. Would he say six weeks, six months or nine months? He then told us that it might have to wait until after the election. Is that the responsibility and accountability that Labour Members assume? It is not an attitude that they would accept from anyone else and Labour cannot go on indefinitely dodging the question because the British public demand to know. We have spelt out our spending priorities for the British people, which are based on the same principles as those which have brought a record improvement in living standards for the British people in the past decade. They are combined with affordable and realistic improvements in vital public services, and I commend them as such to the House.
5.17 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets the Government's continued failure to recognise the threat to long term prosperity of inadequate levels of investment in manufacturing, in training and in infrastructure; deplores its refusal to play its own part in the manner of the governments of this country's major competitors in promotion of these objectives; and recognises that this refusal further jeopardises the United Kingdom's future in the Single European Market.'
This is the first public expenditure White Paper in the 1990s. It reflects the Government's judgment of the contribution that public spending should make to the nation's needs not only in this year of grace 1990 but, at least in outline, in the two succeeding years. Frankly, it is terrifying in its complacency—at least if it is viewed without the blue filter. After a decade-of Tory rule and a decade of unprecedented wealth flowing from the North sea—£87 billion accruing to the nation's coffers under this Government, which was not available to any of their predecessors—we enter the 1990s with an equally unprecedented balance of payments deficit of potentially catastrophic proportions, with inflation higher by any measure than that faced by all our major competitors, with interest rates higher than those of our major competitors and with the most decrepit public services and the most run-down infrastructure of all our major competitors.
Although the Government no longer talk quite so much about an economic miracle, they still call this "success". The position in which we find ourselves would be alarming at any time. To find ourselves so placed two years away from the completion of the European single market is even more frightening. To find in all the circumstances that the Government have learnt nothing from the missed opportunities of the past 10 years is terrifying. We could not catch up with those whose Governments have prudently invested in their future if we started now to follow their example, but we are not starting now. According to the policies revealed by the White Paper, we are not starting at all. It is still, "Steady as she sinks".
I shall address three main points in the debate. First, I shall examine the Government's stewardship of the nation's assets. Their record is one of the pieces of evidence that enables us to judge their future commitments. I shall then look at those commitments, as revealed in the White

171
Paper. Thirdly, I shall consider whether what the White Paper reveals shows that we are squaring up to the challenges of 1992 and beyond.
I listened with keen interest to the brave and cogent speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury setting out as best he could how great everything has been, is and will be in future. The trouble is that it is the speech that we heard from that Bench last year, the year before and the year before that. The scene and the cast change, but the scriptwriter goes on and on.
To be completely fair, the script shows some textual amendments that are of key interest and significance to scholars. It seems only yesterday—and it was not all that long ago—that the then Chief Secretary, now gloriously translated to the Chancellorship, was telling us that firm control of public expenditure in itself brings interest rates down. We have all noticed that, haven't we? That was before interest rates rose to their present giddy heights.
There are no longer the same mystic incantations that were once a feature of all economic debates, calling on the gods of monetary policy to bless their faithful disciples. We no longer hear the reading of the runes and the targets for M3. Whatever happened to M3? Nor do we hear respectful references to M4—rising at 18 per cent. when last sighted. Even good old MO—the only one that the Government still target—is still outside its target limits.
As if to make up for those failings, what remains of the text is chanted with ever-increasing fervour—one might almost say desperation. The Chief Secretary tells us that the Government have been wise stewards of our economy. He says that public spending has been reduced as a proportion of our income, which he claims is a desirable thing in all circumstances. He tells us that due to the Government's firmness in cutting out waste and their determination to obtain value for our money it has still been possible to meet the nation's real spending needs. Bunkum! It is bunkum on a truly grandiose scale. Whatever else the Government may lack, they possess gall and bravado in astonishing proportions.
Let us take the question of waste and value for money. During the Government's tenure of office, amazingly for a Government who rejoice in the title of Conservative, they have mounted a vast sale of the nation's assets, which was well described by the late Lord Stockton as selling the family silver. I suspect that his Lordship did not contemplate even then the extent to which the proceeds—as with the windfall revenues from the North sea—would simply be blown away on buying victory at three successive general elections.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of what was a dogmatic decision to sell, the conduct, timing and manner of the sales owed everything to the Government's political convenience and nothing to the efficient management of assets or to obtaining value for what the Prime Minister likes to call our money.
The history of privatisation abounds with cases where the Government spent our money on advice about the mechanics of the sale which they then ignored. The inevitable result was overall losses to the taxpayer on a heroic scale. They include losses from debt write-offs, special offers to make sales more attractive, advertising and marketing costs and low asset valuations. Estimates of debt write-offs alone suggest a loss to the taxpayer of about £16 billion. That money was spent on fattening industries for privatisation. In the cases of gas, electricity and water, the losses were not just to the taxpayer but
172
disproportionately to those who are too poor to pay tax. In those industries everyone had to pay increased prices jacked up by the Government to make the industries even more attractive to buy.
The loss to the taxpayer from artificially low sale prices and badly timed or imprudent marketing decisions is estimated by Price Waterhouse at a further £31 billion. The costs of advertising and underwriters' fees come in at a mere £1,400 million. That is a grand total of net and irretrievable losses to the taxpayer of our money of approaching £50 billion.
I have a better analogy for that rip-off than that of selling the family silver. It is as if a great house had been put into the custody of the nation. When, after a period of years, the trustees return, they find that the appointed stewards have sold off all the contents cheap on the spurious ground that it was a lot of trouble to look after them. The man who got the removal fees and the new owners are all delighted with their bargains, but that does not alter the fact that the original owners have been rooked by those trusted and paid to look after their interests. Nor have the proceeds been reinvested. The former stewards do not care if the roof falls in. They have stashed their cut. If they are sacked, they will be off to pastures new and possibly even more lucrative.
I recognise that the Prime Minister's line is that we have had a jolly good deal. We paid mugs to relieve us of a burden and what a good thing it was too. What exactly is the right hon. Lady saying? Is she saying that all those purchasers have been conned and that they bought a pig in a poke? When it comes to taking people to the cleaners, my money is on that simple soul Professor Smith any day, rather than any Minister in this Government.
Of course, it ain't so. Those in a position to buy are now sharing in British Telecom profits of nearly £700 million this year. Presumably, next year or whenever it comes to light, the shareholders in the electricity industry will benefit from the £1 billion or so profit that that industry paid to the Treasury this year.
With every day that passes, more examples of the Government's poor stewardship come to light. Recently, just one of Sealink's ferries was resold for more than the total price that the taxpayer received for the whole enterprise.
Those are not the only examples of waste arid misappropriation. Spending on Government advertising has increased by about £50 million in the last five years. Government advertising included such notable examples as the media launch of the National Health Service White Paper. What a waste of our money that was. It also included adverts for the Government's employment training scheme. Particularly close to the 1987 general election—a mere coincidence of course—it was concentrated not in the parts of the country or sections of the media where the unemployed were most likely to see them but those where they might convince a doubting electorate that the Government were trying to do something about unemployment.
The Government spent £1 million of our money on unsuccessfully prosecuting the "Spycatcher" case. While the armed forces were condemned by the Public Accounts Committee for letting their stock of public housing fall into disrepair, the Prime Minister spent £1·2 million on doing up No. 10—although she will not tell us what she

173
spent it on any more than she will tell us what it cost to put gates on Downing street. So much for the record and stewardship of the Tory party.
Mr. Tim Smith: If the Government's record on privatisation is so appalling, why do so many other countries not only follow our example but come here for advice on how to do it?
Hon. Members: How not to do it.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. My point was the incompetence of the way in which the Government have marketed privatisation and the enormous losses to the taxpayer that have accrued. That point is not affected by the fact that people are coming here to consult. As my hon. Friends said, it is more than likely that they are coming to find out how not to do it.
That brings me to my second point. The Government's argument—and the Chief Secretary reiterated it again today—is that they have been able to spend not just sufficiently but generously on our public services.
Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Lady referred to Professor Roland Smith. I assume that she was referring to British Aerospace and Rover. She implied that Professor Smith had bought Rover for a knockdown price. To whom else would Rover have been sold and for what price would a Labour Government, if they ever came to power, have sold it?
Mrs. Beckett: I imagine that if British Aerospace had not been offered the deal that it apparently was offered by the Government—I do not wish to prejudge any consideration—one of the other people who were competing to buy it might have done so. There were several alternative buyers, of which, as I recall, Ford was one. Toyota was another.
Mr. Porter: No, there were not.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that there were not alternative offers, but Ford and Toyota say that there were. Frankly, I prefer to rely on their knowledge of their bids rather than that of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Graham Allen: As sedentary interventions are often not put on the record, it is worth pointing out that Professor Smith has not yet parted with a single penny for the Rover deal. I understand that he will not pay anything until 31 March. That may assist the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) in his financial analysis.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall go on to the second point that I want to raise. As I have said, the Government have argued that they have been able to spend generously on our public services, whether they are local authority-provided or within the National Health Service. That squares ill with the White Paper's indication of support for local authority spending, which is predicted to remain at an effective standstill. Where does that leave the needs of the nation's school children? Where does it leave all the grand statements about community care? It leaves them with the
174
last part of the Chief Secretary's speech—in the realm of myth and fantasy with, no doubt the Government hope, local authorities of all political shades carrying the can.
The National Health Service is the area of the greatest Government boasts—
Mr. Ian Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her debut as an Opposition Front-Bench Treasury spokesman. She is reading extremely well so far. At some point would she care to comment on the Labour party's expenditure plans, how much they will cost, and how they will be financed? Is The Independent's assessment that Labour's tax proposals will cost anyone earning between £18,000 and £30,000 another £4,000 per year correct? Is that how the Labour party intends to finance its plans?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear all the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I intend to say something later about our own approach to public spending. The article to which he referred—[Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I shall say this in my own way. The article to which he referred was extremely inaccurate and unworthy of comment. It was so far-fetched and so wrong that it is not worth my taking up all its details.
As the Minister repeated again today, the National Health Service has received what he described as £2,600 million "extra"—presumably on the grounds that if he keeps repeating the figure, those who say that the Government do not care will be confounded. However, anyone who looks at the figures will at least raise an eyebrow. We believe that the residual sums left for patient care may amount to only £500 million, because, although the Chief Secretary does not like it, we first have to take out the figures for inflation, and then the extra figure for inflation in the National Health Service. That is not new money, although the Government seem to imply that it is.
Then I deduct the "creative accounting" sum of £150 million or so for cost improvements, because that is not money at all. It is a wholly imaginary figure. It is unrelated to any factual information and represents what the Government have decided that health authorities could save this year by cutting out waste and inefficiency. It is not based on any survey, assessment or information. To my knowledge, the health authorities have been telling the Government for several years that they have reached the end of any such savings that they could ever have made without cutting patient care, unspecified and unplanned as those savings always were. However, although the figure is a complete fiction and is money that the health authorities never see, it still appears because it bumps up the spending total.
We then have the figure of about £300 million for implementing the Health Service White Paper. That is the money to provide for hospitals to opt-out and to introduce, at a wholly unrealistic speed, thousands of accountants, computers and billing procedures into our Health Service. Before anyone asks, I make it perfectly clear that we are not against proper, efficient accounting because there may well be an argument for saying that there was room for improvement in the record-keeping and cost-management in the Health Service. If I were asked whether I would bring in more doctors and nurses, more therapists and radiographers, more ambulance staff, or more accountants, I fear that, at least temporarily, my vote would go against the accountants.

175
I wonder how many people have looked at the scale and scope of the accountancy procedures that the Government have envisaged over time and for which those substantial sums are being provided. I refer, for example, to the listing of capital assets down to the last iron or electric kettle and to the details about how, when assessing depreciation, the lifts must be on a different time scale from the buildings themselves. That may be prudent, but is it really what we should be spending our money on?
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose—
Mrs. Beckett: If I may, I shall continue for a little longer.
I refer also to the procedures that are needed to cost and bill what the document calls "every episode" of patient care. The document explains that in the long term the Government want to be able to list, cost and to send out a bill for all patient care episodes, not only for in-patient admissions, but for out-patient visits and ultimately for community care. Every district nurse visit, every home help, and every out-patient clinic will be listed and billed. Although that is the long-term perspective of the White Paper on the Health Service reforms, it is the perspective and it will be very expensive.
Mr. Arbuthnot: In view of the things that the hon. Lady is suggesting that we should look at, has she herself looked at the sheer numbers of new doctors, dentists and nurses that we have brought into the National Health Service?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, of course, but i am well aware of how often the Government have fiddled the figures by changing, for example, the way in which hours were counted—
Mr. Arbuthnot indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head because, as he is well aware, that money is not being spent on doctors and nurses or on any of the other staff who work in the Health Service; it is being spent on accounting procedures which seem to be so detailed that they cannot possibly be needed for anything other than a privatised Health Service.
The final insult is the £40 million that is allocated to help to subsidise the Prime Minister's private health insurance. It is more than has been given for the special waiting list initiative for the whole National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has calculated that the outturn of the expenditure could he far higher if we examine the actual costs of private health care. Experience suggests that his warnings are justified. The Chancellor, at least, will remember—because he shared the responsibility for putting it on the statute book—the 2 per cent. bribe that was paid from the national insurance fund to persuade people to gamble their retirement income on personal pension plans. He may even remember that the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), costed the expenditure at a mere £60 million. In the first year of payment, covering a period of almost two years, £900 million or so was paid in place of the predicted £60 million. This year and for the next couple of years, unless the law is changed—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major) indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the Chancellor shaking his head—this material is from parliamentary answers. Unless the law is changed, about £500 million per year will be paid this year and for the next couple of years for the same purpose. What was that about prudent fiscal management and about avoiding extravagant and uncosted promises? Frankly, £60 million is too much for that purpose. If the scheme is to people's financial advantage, why should the state waste money giving them more? If it is not to their financial advantage, how dare the state use our money to persuade people to act against their own long-term interests?
What can we learn from the White Paper about this country's investment needs? I believe that it is now widely acknowledged—even to some degree inside the Government—that our training and education are woefully inadequate, compared with our competitors. The Chief Secretary was strong on that, saying that it was all nonsense, so it is a pity that that was exactly what his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said a few days ago.
Central Government spending on education is to be cut between this coming year, 1990–91, and 1992–93 by £85 million in real terms, while spending on city technology colleges—individual prestige schools in certain areas—will reach £135 million over the same period. Despite the present fall in pupil numbers, the all-important pupil-teacher ratio has not fallen in the past three years and even the Government admit to a teacher shortage of 3,600, affecting the education of about 60,000 children. However, the teacher unions believe that the shortfall is more like 8,000 and that the education of 250,000 children is at risk. It is true that the Government have found some money for education, although the Chief Secretary did not refer to it. They are to spend £500 million more for student loans than the cost of uprating the existing grants would require.
Spending on training programmes this year is £190 million less than the Government originally planned and, by 1992, will have fallen even further. When pressed to explain that, the Government talk vaguely about the falling number of unemployed people. The Chief Secretary did it again today.
The White Paper shows that spending per head on youth training, employment training for the adult long-term unemployed, and training for the disabled and for those in work—in many ways the most neglected group of all—will fall. All that is happening at a time when the bottlenecks and inflationary pressures of skill shortages are once more evident. The Government are washing their hands of the country's training needs.
Research and development are part of the key to our future. Government spending on civil R and D has been cut in real terms by 2 per cent. since 1984–85, when we were already behind the spending of our competitors. It appears from the figures in the White Paper that spending is set to fall another 8 per cent. between 1992 and 1993. I listened with great interest to what the Chief Secretary said about that, and I shall look again at his justification for his figures. That does not alter the fact that there are fewer research studentships now than in 1986 and spending on the science budget is set to fall in real terms from next year onwards.
Support for industry has been cut once again, by 2·5 per cent. in real terms by 1992–93. Support for the regions is also being slashed by £75 million in cash terms over the

177
same period. By 1992–93, the year of the single market, for which our colleagues and competitors in Europe are pulling out all the stops, assistance to the regions and general industrial support will have fallen by 37 per cent. from the not overgenerous levels of last year. To complete the picture of a Government displaying total indifference to the welfare of its wealth-creating sector, spending on export promotion services will be frozen for the next three years—a fall in real terms of 16 per cent.—while the Export Credits Guarantee Department budget is to be slashed by £100 million next year.
Most hon. Members are now familiar with the anxieties expressed by, among others, the Confederation of British Industry about the costs and inefficiency caused by our neglected transport system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) described that precisely. The White Paper shows that every class of road in Britain is in a worse state of repair than it was 10 years ago.
The helpful little diagram from last year's White Paper with its categories of "better" above the line and "worse" below the line, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) used to such effect in last year's debate has—surprise, surprise—disappeared. [ Laughter.] I thought that the civil servant who had drafted the White Paper had gone down the oubliette, but we shall see.
The lack of maintenance identified ties in, if not with the diagram, with the day-to-day experience of people who are, increasingly, bouncing from pothole to pothole as they drive along the nation's roads. That is apart from in the south-east where, for much of the time, there is no bouncing because the traffic is not moving at all. Only a Government who have taken complete leave of their senses would, in those circumstances, decide to abolish the subsidy to Network SouthEast. It has been said before, but bears saying again, that if there is one part of the country where the last thing people need is a financial incentive to travel by road, it is the south-east.
I can see only one possible explanation for such utter stupidity. The Government were forced, by the weight of public opinion, to say that they would meet the bill for the safety improvements recommended following the tragedy at Clapham. I do not doubt that they will. The savings from cutting the subsidy will be returned to meet the safety bill. That will give the Government lots of kudos at no extra cost. Public funds for British Rail are being cut again, so that the much-vaunted and more than welcome investment plans will be paid for by higher fares, Iand sales and British Rail borrowing. That is a neat financial trick, but a short-sighted policy.
This careful study of the White Paper reveals where, and in what context, the Government are cutting or reining back on their previous plans and commitments. Of greater importance than all those details, revealing though they are, is the question: why? Why do the Government ignore the pleas for greater investment in training, education, research and development and transport? Why do their plans show that they will still cut where they can conceal it, and give false reasons for those cuts? They did so with training, claiming that the cut was due to the fall
178
in unemployment, when we all know that unemployment is soon likely to rise and, anyway, spending per head is falling.
There seem to be two possibilities. The first is that the Government, and they alone, still refuse to accept the proper role of public spending in oiling the wheels of the economy. The second, and even more disreputable, reason is that they are making that choice to which the Chief Secretary referred in his evidence to the Select Committee, when he said that a major reason for cutting public spending was not that it was inflationary or intrinsically undesirable, but to make room for income tax cuts. The Government are leaving themselves room for an income-tax cutting and, they hope, election-winning Budget in 1991.
The Government are making the choice that they have consistently made throughout their period in office. When it comes to a choice between the national interest, the future well-being and prosperity of our country and the electoral interest of the Conservative party, the country can whistle. The Confederation of British Industry can whistle for more investment in the infrastucture, schools can whistle for repairs or enough teachers, the employed and the unemployed alike can whistle for the training opportunities which are giving our competitors more and more of an edge over us. Where, even with the restraints on investment that such a policy imposes, choices remain, they will be dictated by the Prime Minister's dogma.
I shall lay down a number of extremely simple but pertinent parameters about public spending. First, the Opposition reject the simplistic view that there is always, and in every circumstance, merit in reducing public spending as a percentage of national income. For example, West Germany spends a higher proportion of its GDP on public spending than we do, and does so successfully. Secondly, on each occasion, the level of public spending should be judged according to a balanced assessment of the nation's current needs and what can prudently be afforded, bearing in mind the American saying that one sometimes has to spend a buck to make a buck and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] There is nothing very exciting about that. We should also bear in mind that proper and prudent public investment may be not only non-inflationary, but counter-inflationary.
Many comments in the Select Committee report, as elsewhere, show that our long-term economic problems, for example balance of trade, cannot be resolved without investment—some of which must come from the public sector. We are determined to make only the most limited of firm spending commitments—those that we must and can afford. Beyond that, we shall set out the direction of public investment and the priorities and choices of a Labour Government, emphasing throughout that we will not spend more than the country is earning or can prudently afford. The real question for the country, as for the House, is about the way we use the fruits of growth as they become available, where they are diverted, what needs they seek to meet and what choices are made.
Our priorities are clear: immediate relief for those who have suffered most—the pensioners and families with children—and the fostering of much-needed investment in our future, not by Government alone, but by forming a partnership and giving a lead to those many groups in our society who see the gaps opening up and wring their hands in despair at the Government's indifference and inaction.
Mr. Tim Smith: On 22 January, in the debate on the Social Security Bill, I asked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about the cost of Labour's package for the disabled. She said that the Labour party would provide detailed costings of its entire programme before the next election. When can we expect that?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening. What I said was clear and simple—what we are promising after the next election is—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Chief Secretary would let me finish. What we are promising is an increase for pensioners and an increase in child benefit. Everything else that is regarded as a desirable aim is also listed, quite clearly and specifically, as something that we hope to do as resources allow. There is an excellent document that I can recommend to the hon. Gentleman. It has quite a nice beige cover, costs only £2·50, and is available from the Labour party at 150 Walworth road. It is called "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". The hon. Gentleman will find it interesting.
Mr. Norman Lamont: What is the point in the Labour party's listing things that it thinks are desirable but which it might not implement? Is it not the height of dishonesty to include in a document undertakings that there is no firm intention to carry out?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I follow the Chief Secretary's argument. I thought that he, in his speech, and other Conservative Members, in their interventions, had demanded as comprehensive a list as possible of the things that a Labour Government might want to do in the next 30 years. Clearly, they do not want to know what we are promising to spend in the immediate future and thereafter. The Chief Secretary should make up his mind.
Mr. Norman Lamont: The hon. Lady is saying—and we have heard this before—that things in a Labour manifesto might not be implemented by a Labour Government. Surely things in the Labour party's programme ought to do things that the party intends to do—not things that it might do.
Mrs. Beckett: I will not take the hon. Gentleman's advice about what ought to be in a manifesto. I presume that in 1979 he fought the general election on a manifesto that contained nothing about increasing value added tax to 15 per cent.—almost doubling it. I can assure him now that the Labour party will not play a con trick of that kind on the British electorate.
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Lady is walking delicately round the subject of public expenditure and Labour's future expenditure plans. Is she aware that her party's transport spokesman has said that our public transport system is in need of public investment on a massive scale? Does that mean that transport is near the top of the list of priorities for a Labour Government, or is spending on a massive scale just par for the course?
Mrs. Beckett: Some public sector investment in transport is indeed one of our priorities.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Is it not one of the hon. Lady's priorities'?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry that it is not one of the hon. Gentleman's priorities.
180
As we get near an election and see what room there is for manoeuvre, we may be able to make a better assessment of what the ranking order should be. There is no question about the overall priorities of an incoming Labour Government. As I have already said, there is an immediate commitment to the very poorest, who have suffered most under this Government and have had precious little sympathy from Conservative Members. There will be an indication of the direction in which we believe that investment can prudently flow.
Our message to the electorate is quite straightforward. One clear, cold look at the stewardship of the present Government points to the need for a new set of stewards. Here is our job application, our damage assessment: "Frankly, you have been robbed. We cannot return all your property; some of it has gone for good. We cannot overnight repair all the damage and undo all the neglect; some of the scars will always show. But we can make a start. Together we have already taken the first step. We know—all of us know—the scale of the problems and the needs. We can begin to rebuild. We can begin to repair. We can begin to reinvest. Give us the tools, and we will do the job."
5.53 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having called me at such an early stage in the debate. I am sorry if my contribution is one that will prove to be excessively modest in relation to the position that I have been allotted.
In my view, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an excellent start in the high office that he now holds. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that almost as important as having wise policies is conveying the impression that those policies are wise and that they are supported by a united Government. It was the impression of the ill-concealed differences between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the Prime Minister over economic policy—most notably over entry into the exchange rate mechanism—that had so damaging an effect on confidence and on sterling. It had a more damaging effect than any possible mistakes that the former Chancellor may be held, with hindsight, to have made. By and large, the present Chancellor, by keeping his mouth shut when it is not necessary to open it, has avoided any appearance of conflict between himself and the Prime Minister. This has undoubtedly calmed nerves.
The trouble is that there has to be rather more than the usual element of guesswork in assessing whether there has been any fundamental change in economic strategy. It is now accepted wisdom that pure monetarism was abandoned a good while ago, and that we are now in a twilight zone where the ostensible policy still relies almost entirely on interest rates but where, nonetheless, there is a growing feeling that the present Chancellor may be more ready to employ fiscal means than were any of his predecessors. But until the Chancellor delivers his Budget we will not know whether that is true.
I have never made any secret of my support for the judicious use of public expenditure to stimulate industrial investment, particularly in the regions. Of course, we in Wales have a Secretary of State who has been an outstandingly successful proponent of that idea. During the current financial year we have had about £3·7 billion of public expenditure—representing an increase of 9·8 per

181
cent. over the previous year. This has undoubtedly helped in a major regeneration of industry, urban renewal and rural development throughout the Principality, and has resulted in a truly massive volume of inward investment. A quite disproportionate amount of investment, particularly from Japan, in the United Kingdom has come to Wales. The effects of my right hon. Friend's policy are very widely appreciated throughout the Principality. Magic worker though he is, it has taken the electors a little time to appreciate the merits of this policy. However, I assure him that they are widely appreciated throughout the Principality.
My right hon. Friend managed to secure an extremely generous allocation of Government support for local government expenditure throughout the Principality. Thereby it has been made possible for most local authorities in Wales to keep their community charge within bounds. It so happens that the county that I represent and part of my constituency have both, in their separate ways, been clobbered very heavily by the change in the formula used for assessing the Government contribution to the revenue support grant. The county of Clwyd is having to make a rate precept of no less than £223 per person, which is terrifyingly higher than is regarded as acceptable as an average throughout Wales. I do not think that much of this can be attributed to extravagance or mismanagement. A great deal of it is due to the reduction in the level of the revenue support grant coming through this new formula. Still worse, the district of Rhuddlan in my constituency, which has been exceptionally well managed, is having to increase its share of the poll tax from £35 to £53—a 50 per cent. increase—purely as a result of the new formula. That is clearly not within the province of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but it shows that, even where the general level of Government support for local government finance is adequate, there is still a margin of error. Therefore, a reasonable settlement for most local authorities almost inevitably involves considerable unfairness for a few.
I had intended to allude to the possible effect on local government finance of the severe flooding in my constituency yesterday when the sea wall broke. However, to my delight, I find that that is entirely the responsibility of British Rail because the wall runs within a few hundred feet of its railway line. I can rejoice in that, but ultimately that may not be for the benefit of public expenditure.
We can debate endlessly the right level of public expenditure. There is no doubt that tight control of public expenditure is vital and that the Government's record throughout has been immeasurably better than that of their Labour predecessors and infinitely better than is likely to come from any Labour successor if, God forbid, there ever should be one. But some public expenditure is necessary. However far we go with privatisation, there will always be things that people cannot buy out of the money that an increasingly indulgent tax collector leaves in our pockets. There are things that cannot be provided by the play of market forces.
For Socialists, if such creatures still exist after the recent upheavals in eastern Europe, the answer is simple: public expenditure can meet pretty well all of our needs, and those needs that cannot be met by public expenditure are somehow less serious, almost frivolous. When it comes to
182
saying how that level of public expenditure will be financed out of wealth generated by the economy, the Labour party, and in particular the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), becomes extraordinarily unconvincing. Nothing that has been said by any Labour party spokesman gives any ground for believing that a Labour Government would ever take the firm decisions that are necessary to enable the process of wealth creation to go ahead.
But somewhere between the doctrinaire excesses of what sometimes appears to be the Government's attitude that all public expenditure is somehow wasteful, that public bodies are splashing around taxpayers' hard-earned money, and the Labour party's contention that there is a bottomless pocket from which public expenditure can finance just about everything there has to be a happy medium. I believe that the Chancellor is steering such a middle path, but when the Chief Secretary says, as he said this afternoon, that we do not want to see public investment crowding out private investment it leaves me a tiny bit queasy.
In my constituency—this is not a particularly good example—private investment is roaring ahead in the massive provision of retirement homes for elderly people, not resident in the area already, but to be attracted into the area by that massive provision of retirement homes. One of the most hideous buildings that I have ever seen now damages the front at Colwyn bay. It is a vast block of unwanted, unused old people's flats. Planning controls have proved an extraordinarily ineffective way of preventing some of those developments. It is all very well to say that market forces should prevent such a thing happening, but they do not. They happen through market forces. At the same time that that unwanted private development is roaring ahead, many of our schools are in a physically deplorable state. I am sure that more clear-cut examples could be found in other constituencies.
In conclusion, I repeat that we in Wales have benefited to an extraordinary extent from the skill with which two successive Secretaries of State for Wales—I say this in homage also to my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, who preceded my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Wales—have achieved a skilful balance between the tight controls operated by the Government and a measure of interventionism which has brought great benefits to the Principality and to my constituency.
6.4 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) enunciating the traditional Tory view which is at present dormant in the Conservative party.
I want particularly to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She made two points that were of great importance. First, she pointed out the particular problems that arise from the decrepit nature of so much of our industry and the various structures of our society. She also dealt with the prudent way in which she will act as the Chief Secretary in the next Labour Government. The prudence lies in the fact that she intends not to spend until the money has been earned. That is a lesson that all of us must welcome. We look forward to her carrying it out.
In particular, I want to mention our failure to maintain our inheritance. Our public buildings, roads, estates and hospitals were set up by previous generations and those

183
institutions grew with the passage of the years. We have seen a failure to maintain them properly, and the inability to prevent the decay of so many of our assets which previous generations have produced for us.
I want to deal first with the civil estate, the estate owned by the Government. It is the Civil Service buildings, Department of Social Security offices, the Government Departments, police stations and so on. We have 8,000 properties held on trust by the Government; 110 million sq ft of property, worth about £3 billion—a desk estimate—in 1982. It is probably worth much more now. Offices account for about two thirds of that and storage and specialised buildings, such as the courts of law, the remaining third. The need to maintain that valuable inheritance is obvious to us all.
It was obvious to the Public Accounts Committee, as was made clear in its thirtieth report of 1983–84 entitled "Building maintenance expenditure in the United Kingdom". On 21 May 1984 it took evidence from Mr. Gordon Manzie, as he then was, who had just been appointed chief executive of the Property Services Agency, and Mr. Geoffrey Chipperfield, who spoke on most of the matters because he had been in post much longer. The PSA did not seem able to distinguish between essential and desirable works. In question 3338 I said:
"there is some widespread inconsistency in distinguishing between the essential and the desirable work. There does not seem to be a clear distinction between what is essential and what is desirable … How do you decide which should have priority when you are unable to distinguish between essential and desirable work?"
Speaking on behalf of the PSA, defending the ability to maintain the structures that it holds on our behalf, Mr. Chipperfield said:
"We entirely accept the criticism of the report here that we have not instituted adequate guidelines from the centre in order to guide our regions and areas and districts on what things they should take into account when deciding on the categorisation of maintenance expenditure. At the moment we are working hard to produce such guidelines which we will be issuing to our offices in the course of the year."
That was 1984.
The Public Accounts Committee took evidence again in 1988 and that was set out in our third report of the 1988–89 Session. Our report deals with the six years of backlog of maintenance which is priority I and priority 2. Following our earlier report the PSA did distinguish between what was essential, where there was clear decay coming into buildings held on our behalf, and what was less essential. We took evidence on 15 June 1988 and questions 4865 to 4867 say:
"How long will it take you to clear this backlog?"
Sir Gordon Manzie replied:
"If we maintain the kind of level of spend that we have at the present time our aim is to clear the backlog by the middle of the '90s."
I went on to say:
"So you reckon you have somewhere between six and seven years of backlog."
Sir Gordon Manzie said:
"That is priority 1 and 2."
I said:
"That is a very large backlog."
Sir Gordon Manzie agreed.
The backlog has been allowed to grow. We question the Treasury as to the justification for not allowing the PSA to have more resources for maintenance work. The Treasury stated that it was for the PSA to decide its priorities from within its total budget. Nevertheless, it accepted that
184
constraints on funding had been a factor which had prevented the PSA from doing some things which would have been desirable if more funds had been made available.
Now, four years later, we are not discussing optional matters; we are talking about an attempt to prevent further decay of the value of the estate. I refer to our third report, paragraph 30:
"Maintenance requirements for which the PSA are responsible are categorised into four priorities. Priority I: Unavoidable services to meet statutory obligations, which cannot be deferred for health and safety reasons, or which if not undertaken will seriously affect the crime department's operations and function.
Priority 2: Essential services which cannot be deferred without risk or serious penalties in terms of dilapidations and/or increased costs."
We found that allocations were sufficient to cover only 80 per cent. of priority 1. That is really appalling. We are not talking about gilding any lilies; we are talking about matters which can lead to serious consequences for health or affect the operations of the Department itself.
Then there is priority 3—urgent services which it is desirable to undertake. Nothing was done about essential services that could not be deferred without risk or serious penalties; action was taken only in regard to 80 per cent. of that crucial priority, where legal action could have been taken against them. The PSA now tells us, four years later, that following recommendations made by our predecessors it has improved the procedures for identifying and recording maintenance requirements, which included inspection arrangements. Its forward maintenance registers were now up to date. We managed to get it to do that.
Despite the fact that the PSA had been spending approximately £80 million a year, the backlog on priorities I and 2 over these years had risen to £125 million. In addition, there was a backlog on priorities 3 and 4 of approximately £50 million. The position has become worse.
The terrible thing about this is, as anybody who is familiar with property knows, that it is not just a question of a stitch in time saves nine. The value of money lost through failure to take essential action is a serious matter.
That is precisely what is happening to the civil estate—the buildings which the Government own, and which they are allowing to decay. The assets that are held in trust for British people have been declining because of that.
Let us consider defence. I refer to the sixteenth report of the Public Accounts Committee entitled "Control and Management of the Defence Estate". The estate consists of approximately 500,000 acres, 3,000 sites, including barracks and houses for soldiers, and 137,000 married quarters. The replacement value of all this property was thought to be £50 billion. The market value would be very much less, especially if it is in remote parts of the country—about £7 billion. Paragraph 18 reads:
"We are concerned about the alarming increase in the maintenance backlog from £125 million for 1987 to an expected £269 million at 1 April 1989 and in particular the under-maintenance of many married quarters. We trust that the introduction of competition and choice in maintenance will enable the Ministry to secure the highest possible level of effective maintenance from the funds available and reduce the backlog."
We repeated the earlier recommendations that this should embrace maintenance and spend-to-save schemes and allow funds to secure the optimum return.
Paragraph 20 reads:

185
"The Estate has some 137,000 married quarters, of which about a third are overseas … but the vacancy level had continued to increase from 17 per cent. (13,876) in 1986 to 19 per cent. (15,228) in March 1988. The Ministry told us that the vacancy position had worsened."
It has far more vacant sites than any local authority has as a proportion of the stock. Before complaining about the local authorities' activities, the Ministry should see what it is doing itself.
In July 1988 the Ministry sought the advice of consultants, who reported that in July 1988 the service's performance in managing married quarters was poor. Anybody who knows anything about this aspect would accept the criticism of that report.
The Committee looked at this matter in its ninth report, during the Session 1986–87, and found not only that many properties were empty, but in the London area—an area where one would not expect to find difficulty in letting property—the Ministry of Defence had 2,000 vacant properties, although more than 1,900 single or unaccompanied service personnel were in receipt of lodging allowance. Any strategy for maintaining the value of that which we own ought to embrace maintenance and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South pointed out—the principle of spending to save.
There is an argument for spending to save. Money can be borrowed for the purpose. It is a far better investment to stop the decay of properties. This is the best investment of all, because it is a year later, after the rain has got in and the property is decaying, that the really expensive bills are incurred.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Surely some of the storm damage would have been less if there had not been neglect? Would my hon. Friend respond to that? It would not be all that difficult to assess how much less the damage would have been.
Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that that is right. The storm damage affected particularly those properties that have been falling into neglect. This wanton neglect, about which little is done, is the falsest of all possible economies.
Another area of neglect is the roads and motorways, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South referred. This was mentioned in the nineteenth report for 1985–86. The Committee found that the cost of maintaining roads was not only leading to excessive delays about which we all know, but to unwarranted expenditure which needed to be incurred at a later date. Those who travel on our motorways will know that my journey to Manchester, for example, takes three hours when I leave here at night after a 10 o'clock vote and up to seven hours on Friday evenings.
Paragraph 19 of the report says:
"The liability for maintenance is increasing yearly as new road schemes are completed and added to the network, and older roads need major repair or resurfacing as heavy traffic takes its toll. While expenditure on maintenance might therefore have been expected to take up a larger share of its programme, it had in practice remained fairly constant at around 25 per cent. of total expenditure."
The report does not deal with road construction, which is a disgrace. Roman roads have lasted for years, even centuries, but after only a few years cones can be seen up and down the motorways.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh!
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Lady travels on the M6. If she has not seen cones appearing again and again in the same places, she has not been keeping her eyes open.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is true that I suffer as a result of the motorway, but I do not drive a Roman chariot; nor do I exceed the speed limit, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly does. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already taken action to prevent ridiculously unnecessary coning, and he is eager for us all to let the regions know when it happens. The right hon. Gentleman is right: the cones are a disaster.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Lady is extraordinarily gullible. I shall forget what she said about my exceeding the speed limit, although I do not do so, and I feel that she ought to withdraw her remark. Four years ago I was given an assurance by the Minister for Roads and Traffic that the level of the cones would be improved. I have been told that again and again, but anyone who believes it had better think again.
Paragraph 20 of the nineteenth report states:
"To achieve value for money in road maintenance it is important to resurface at the optimum time, to prevent undue deterioration leading to premature reconstruction, which can be nearly three times more expensive."
Surely it is desirable to save nearly 300 per cent. by investing in preventive maintenance—or, rather, in maintenance to deal with damage that has already been caused.
The report refers to
"a backlog of 60 miles of motorway maintenance by the end of 1984–85"—
the position has become much worse since then—
"and possibly as many as 220 single carriageway equivalent miles."
Paragraph 23 states:
"We consider it most unsatisfactory that maintenance of roads has been starved of funds for many years. More funds are now to be made available",
we said optimistically.
"We consider it imperative that they should maintain roads in good repair and avoid the need for premature and extremely expensive reconstruction of either motorways or trunk roads due to lack of timely maintenance."
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should remember the vexed question of the M25. That was probably one of the most disgraceful examples, but it is outside my area.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheldon: No; I have already given the hon. Lady her chance.
The twenty-eighth report updates information about the backlog of maintenance of motorways and trunk roads. Let me quote from paragraphs 8 and 9:
"In July 1988 the Department estimated that as a result of their cut back in maintenance funds—
the Department actually cut the funding—
"they would be able to deal with less than half the equivalent miles of road which they had intended to renew. They told us that the result would be to increase the size of the backlog and therefore the amount of maintenance needed in later years. Further deterioration caused to roads by a lack of maintenance would also lead to extra costs later."
After four years, the position was still worsening. We hear the same promises year after year, and we see the same results—sometimes rather worse results. In that instance,

187
money was taken from the road renewal and maintenance schemes and was spent on one or two new roads, and the same has been done several times since then.
The potholes referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South are almost like those to be seen in an undeveloped country. There are some not far from here, and drivers must keep their eyes peeled to avoid them. It is a scandal. The PAC does not examine the underground and overground railways—they are outside our purview, more's the pity—but I am aware of the problems.
There is also the problem of dilapidation in the National Health Service, which is referred to in the fortieth report, dated 1987–88. The NHS owns about 50,000 acres, and 2,000 hospitals, the estimated value of which is about £13 billion, and we do not even know the condition of some of those hospitals. The report states:
"We are concerned that surveys of the condition of NHS property are not reliable or generally kept up to date. In view of the value of the estate … we are surprised that the use of space within buildings has not generally been assessed … Overall, we are not satisfied with the assurances".
The report identifies health and safety as a major problem and states:
"We therefore expect the three health departments to monitor compliance with standards rigorously through their review processes."
Paragraph 25 states:
"The maintenance expenditure required to bring NHS properties in England to a level regarded as the minimum acceptable standard had last been estimated at about £2 billion".
Paragraph 27 states:
"the proportion of the estate in adequate or better condition had increased to 68 per cent".
That means that 32 per cent. was in an unacceptable or inoperable condition.
We are talking about essential repairs, not minor ones. The worst of it was, however, that we did not know the full extent of the problem. Only 113 of the 191 area hospital boards replied to the questionnaire with which they were issued, and it is at least arguable that those that did not reply could present an even worse picture. Money is best used to prevent existing problems from getting worse. If a roof tile has gone, for instance, it is essential to replace it at an early stage; once the rot has set in, much more expenditure will be involved.
I have referred to the civil estate, the defence estate, the roads and the National Health Service; our first report, in Session 1988–89, dealt with the museums. The nation's historical, cultural and artistic heritage is of enormous value to us. We gained that heritage when we were a wealthy country. We shall never be as wealthy, in comparison with other countries, as we were in the last century and the century before that. Our heritage was acquired at enormous expense to us as a nation; its value is incalculable, and much is irreplaceable.
The Victoria and Albert museum has accepted that its care of the valuable books and manuscripts was a national disaster. We found that it was highly likely that a number of the most valuable collections had not been properly catalogued, and it is even possible that some pilferage has taken place. Much of that criticism could apply to other museums and art galleries elsewhere in the country.
In all those instances, the story is one of decay—do not let us cloak it in any other language. We are failing to maintain our fabric. I have not dealt with matters that the PAC does not consider, such as roads and streets in towns,
188
and schools—although I know that in my constituency school roofs are leaking and walls are covered with fungus. Some of our utilities are also not being looked after. We are asking future taxpayers to pick up this generation's bill, and that cannot be right.
I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives many calls for investment, and it is always difficult to know the rate of return on long-term investment, however advantageous it may appear. In this instance, however., we are talking about disinvestment, and the longer that we wait to tackle it seriously, the more the British people will suffer from the consequences of our inaction.
6.29 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I welcome the fall in Government debt interest which is reflected in the White Paper. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury refer to the large reduction in the national debt in the past three years, and the resultant saving of some £3 billion a year in debt interest.
The fall in interest is all the more remarkable when one considers the extraordinary rise in Government debt and debt interest in the 12 years up to 1986. Under the last Labour Government, between 1974 and 1979, the national debt doubled from £40 billion to £80 billion and from 1973–74 to 1979–80 the cost of servicing the national debt more than trebled.
The figures in the White Paper reflect the fact that it took the present Government more than a parliament to reverse the trend of Government borrowing and to start upon modest repayment. The table on page 25, in chapter 21 of the White Paper, which is adjusted for inflation, shows how the increase in expenditure on Government debt interest started to crowd out and choke other forms of public expenditure.
By 1985–86 debt interest had grown to equal the size of the education budget, and to be almost on a par with the defence budget. Debt interest constituted a sum equal to five sixths of the expenditure on health services and social services and to some 40 per cent. of the expenditure on social security. The figures, which are adjusted far inflation, show a decline of £4 billion in the figures since 1985–86, from £20·6 billion a year to £16·6 billion, and that is a change which I welcome.
Looking back over the course of British history, arid studying the pattern of Government borrowing and debt servicing, it is clear that the period of history which immediately preceded the change was an exceptional period in the peace time performance of a British Government. I welcome the fact that that period now appears to have changed. I hope that the pattern of repayments will continue with a substantial repayment of the debt in the coming Budget. I hope that, when Ministers consider the Autumn Statement and the policy for the coming year, they will take a prudent fiscal stance.
I remind the Minister of what is said in the first report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee concerning the effect of sales of Government and local authority assets. The Committee warns:
"privatisation proceeds and other asset sale receipts give an exaggerated impression of how tight the fiscal position is. Privatisation receipts contributed £4·2 billion and local authority capital receipts provided another £5·3 billion to the budget surplus."
The Committee remarks:

189
"although the fact that the government's finances are in surplus is a sign of fiscal tightness, it does not necessarily mean that it is tight enough, when related to the private sector deficit and the balance of payments deficit."
Therefore, when we consider the present situation, and the favourable reversal that the Government have achieved, there is a strong case this year for maintaining a substantial repayment of debt to bring down the level of interest payments for the future. I believe that such a policy is prudent, sensible and constructive for sensible decisions about public expenditure, which will permit sensible growth of public expenditure where that is needed. It is also fairer to future generations not to saddle them with an increasing burden of debt.
It is time—as we are considering the White Paper—to look back over a period of 15 years of British history, and perhaps a few years before that, and to say that we welcome the fact that a period of heavy Government borrowing is coming to, or has come to, an end. We welcome the fact that lower debt interest payments by central Government are likely and may make more room for increases in various Government expenditure programmes. I hope that that approach is not necessarily partisan to the Conservative Benches, but is a policy of prudence which can commend itself to many other hon. Members.
We have learnt from bitter experience the effects of ever-increasing public debt. It creates overcrowding in the budget and ridiculously high interest payments.
6.36 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The background to any debate on public expenditure is inevitably the general economic circumstances that the country has to face. It is not possible to debate public expenditure divorced from that. We know that considerable economic difficulties lie at the Chancellor's door at present. One of those difficulties is the considerable trade deficit—a record deficit—which a Government that came into office talking about turning round our competitiveness should not have to consider. They can hardly be pleased to have to do so.
There is also the background of the problems that the Government have encountered with inflation—problems that are not entirely caused by outside forces. They can be laid, in no inconsiderable part, at the Government's door.
Whatever the reason, it means that when we consider the figures given in the documents, and by the Minister, in regard to planned increases in expenditure, we can anticipate that inflation over the coming year is likely to bite severely into the kind of increases in expenditure of which Ministers like to boast. I do not believe that economic forecasts that interest rates and inflation will fall, which the Government are currently basing their plans on, are credible. The Government's plans also assume that inflation for the coming financial year will be 6·5 per cent., and that inflation will be down to 3 per cent. by September 1991. That is wholly unrealistic in the circumstances that the Government face.
If we consider the impact that inflation has on expenditure plans, we find that they will be rapidly eaten away by any realistic estimate of what inflation is likely to be. If inflation is higher than the estimated figures, we may hope that Ministers will respond by increasing planned public expenditure. Yet the Chief Secretary to the
190
Treasury made it quite clear that he did not believe that budgeting for inflation was an adequate way of proceeding. What he meant was that, irrespective of inflation, these are the kinds of expenditure targets that the Government intend to implement. I do not believe—and I do not think that in their heart of hearts most hon. Members believe it either—that those inflation targets can be met, so we can assume that the real expenditure increases of which the Government boast will not be met either.
Part of the answer to all this, in my view, is that the Government must abandon the dogmatic approach to reducing public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. In an economic downturn, it is extremely difficult to meet such targets. Indeed, the Government appear in part to have acknowledged this, because this year, excluding the proceeds from privatisation, they are allowing for a slight increase in the percentage of GDP going into public expenditure. It is right, in my view, for spending to increase in that way at present. Indeed, I believe that it needs to increase further, but, if they are going to allow for that—and I will come later to some of the areas in which I believe that is necessary—a tight budget in other ways is needed, given the inflation problems about which I have already talked.
The Government need to do a number of things in terms of their overall economic strategy to make possible the kind of expenditure increases that I advocate. One is that in their economic policy making they need to give far greater certainty than they have as yet to the markets. The Government attempt to do that through interest-rate strategy. They say that they will do what is necessary with interest rates to create ground rules and certainty of that kind. But I believe not only that that is an inadequate tool but that it is not using the range of tools that are and should be available to Ministers.
I believe that the kind of economic restraint and certainty that could be provided through much more rapid progress towards joining the exchange rate mechanism is one way of tackling that. A second way, in our current economic circumstances, would be to make it quite clear that further cuts in income tax are at present ruled out.
If we were to adopt that kind of strategy and, particularly, to join the ERM, we would have to make compensating fiscal changes. I believe that we can do that by tackling some of the clear anomalies within the tax system, including the higher rate relief on mortgage interest rates and abolition of the ceiling on national insurance contributions, both of which unfairly help the rich.
Once we have done that, we can start to look at how the long-term impact of Government expenditure targets and restraints is affecting the economy and the kind of changes we can make on the supply side—changes that should be in the documents that we are debating today.
One of the difficulties in debating this matter is caused by the changes which the Government have included in their papers separating central and local government expenditure, for political reasons which the House finds easy to understand—although, given poll-tax capping, I doubt that the idea that the poll tax should introduce greater accountability to local government is really effective, as I believe the Government have ultimately acknowledged. Nevertheless, we can understand why Ministers might want to do it.

191
The problem is that, looking at the papers, it is impossible to get an accurate idea of what the Government think will happen in terms of expenditure on many important areas of the infrastructure and public services, because this becomes obscured by the complication of the local government system of assessing what expenditure should be, what the Government think it should be and what it actually will be.
Even so, if we consider some of those areas we can expose some of the weaknesses in the Government's plans. I start with education. Whether we put people first, or perhaps believe that in order to help people the priority must be to put the economy, business and incentives first, education is fundamental to this country's future. It gives an unrepeatable opportunity to young people. By and large, they cannot go back in later years to make up for shortfalls now. So it is one of the crucial areas for any politician, who must look at the quality of what is provided.
Last week's report of Her Majesty's schools inspectorate has met political flak in the Chamber. Different interpretations of it have been spun across the Floor and it has been the subject of political argument. But there is no doubt that, whatever the proportions may be, it tells of staff shortages, buildings in a poor state of repair and inadequate provision of books and equipment. Those problems, as I know very well from the situation in my part of the country, relate especially to primary schools; and education for the youngest people is something that education scientists would say is crucial to the prospects of young people as they grow up.
The education expenditure paper shows that the increase in cash terms in central Government funding is from £5,748 million to £6,590 million, while local authorities are expected to spend £15 billion this year. This is inadequate for the task of tackling the problems. Teachers' salaries will not rise sufficiently to deal with the problems of low morale and, especially, teacher shortages. It cannot be acceptable, whatever one's political view, to continue to have historians teaching physics and English teachers trying to teach maths for lack of qualified staff.
The local authority associations, not all of them by any means Opposition dominated, say that the education spending assessments for local authorities will leave a shortfall of some £800 million—a shortfall that is reflected at present in the estimates of what will be required in poll tax. If it were not so reflected, a cut of some 3·5 per cent. in spending on education would be required. This is reflected also in the debates in council chambers, including the debate today in Cornwall county council, about how to balance the need to keep the poll tax as low as possible so that people can afford it with the need to push it as high as possible to meet the spending requirements of the education system.
The December Adjournment debate that I was privileged to initiate allowed me to point out the special needs in my own area. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) talked about similar problems in his area. Cornwall's schools need some £100 million to be spent on them to bring them up to the minimum standards laid down by the Education Act 1981. The allowance for capital expenditure from the Government is less than £10 million a year. We are moving backwards in Cornwall in terms of the state of repair of our schools. There are still 50 schools with outside toilets and 50
192
schools without the necessary school halls, and we have schools that in many other respects fall short of the minimum required.
I asked the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science what we should do about it. Would the Department allow us to spend the extra money, our money, needed to bring our schools up to standard? Her reply was not that the Government would allow us the money but that they were reviewing the standards. All hon. Members should be aware that when Ministers debate the specifics they are not talking about meeting the needs of the children and providing the things that parents are demanding for their children; they are talking about cutting, changing and reviewing the standards they have themselves laid down. That is the reality behind the expenditure proposals. No matter what Ministers say, tossing about percentages and talking about cash in real terms, the reality is that in many cases our schools are going backwards in terms of facilities.
There have been cuts in training and the privatisation of training provision was announced today. Again, public expenditure falls short of the real needs that are often presented to us in our surgeries and when we visit businesses, particularly small businesses. Such businesses suffer most from high interest rates as they are unable to negotiate the best discounts and are always on the edge of their borrowing limits. At the same time, they are being hit by the uniform business rate and revaluation, which hammer particularly small, local high street traders. They cannot distribute the costs around a large plc or make up for loss of profit in the high street by higher profit in manufacturing. The Minister has the ability to tackle those problems.
Small businesses suffer most from the lack of Government training initiatives. Of course, bigger businesses can and should be encouraged to take on some of the burden. One of the most distressing things to happen in the past 10 years has been the disappearance of many apprenticeship programmes which have been replaced by Government-funded and less-adequate YTS programmes. Cuts in Government expenditure hit smaller businesses which are in no position to train people or to do anything to tackle the skills shortages. Surely it should be a priority for Conservative Members who claim an interest in the needs of businesses to tackle the skills gap that is being addressed far more adequately in our nearest competitor nations in Europe and elsewhere.
I do not agree with the Minister that public investment crowds out the private sector. The lack of a basic infrastructure and a skilled work force crowds out private sector investment because businesses do not have the public sector background against which they can make that investment work.
We are told that spending on the National Health Service will increase by £2·4 billion, or 3·4 per cent. in real terms. Yet the White Paper assumes that Health Service pay and prices will increase by only 5 per cent. It is predicted that if inflation runs at 7 per cent. in the next financial year and wages in the Health Service reflect that, as I suspect they will, the health authorities could have a £37 million shortfall. That brings us back to the old argument between the reality of cuts and Government claims about increased expenditure. Of course both are true, but that will not solve the problems of overcrowded hospitals and morale in the Health Service.

193
We also lack the price information on inflation in the Health Service that would allow us to make a judgment about what is happening. We do not have information about demographic and other changes that are affecting our Health Service. It would not be difficult or expensive to tackle some of the problems that our constituents face. There are still long waiting lists for operations, despite the Government having announced programme after programme. I do not need to elaborate because hon. Members on both sides of the House are only too well aware of the problems that their constituents face in getting operations and medical care within a reasonable time. All too often Ministers know the cost of something but not its value.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: I shall give one example before giving way to the Minister.
I do not apologise for using the opportunity to raise a local example. Cornwall's first air ambulance, in my constituency, is not funded by the health authority or by the Government; it is funded entirely by public subscription. It costs about £30,000 a month and an enormous effort has been put into paying for it. We were proud of the fact that it was the first air ambulance. People came from other parts of the country to look at it. Some of those people were from the Daily Express. They went back to London and announced in the Daily Express that they were launching the first air ambulance in the country. That was a surprise to us as we thought we had already done that and they had had a look at it. They had splash coverage in the Daily Express, but what really got our goat was that through a series of parliamentary questions we discovered that the Government were not only supporting it but were putting £50,000 a month—more than the total cost of Cornwall's air ambulance—into the Daily Express programme.
No matter how much we asked and how hard we tried to find out why that difference should occur, the reeking suspicion remains that Ministers do not treat public services as a priority; they do not recognise the value of what the public have done in Cornwall, but consider only the politics and the publicity content. Therefore, the Daily Express came out far ahead of the people of Cornwall.
Mr. Lilley: When I tried to intervene earlier, the hon. Gentleman had just said that Ministers know the cost of everything. Unfortunately, that is not so; we do not know the cost of the Labour programme or of the Liberal programme, although we know the value of both. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to cost the pledges that he has implicitly made today and his party has made repeatedly or, as with the Labour party, is there a line of small print saying, "You will never get it ever"?
Mr. Taylor: I am sympathetic to the Minister's criticisms of the Labour party, but he knows that in previous elections the Liberal Democrats undertook some difficult work in costing our programmes and we shall do precisely that in future. The Minister should accept that that is harder to do in opposition than in government, but nevertheless we intend to produce answers in subsequent elections, as we did in the last election.
Mr. William O'Brien: Returning to local support and local initiatives to help people who need treatment and assistance from the Health Service, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that local organisations have to raise funds to maintain local hospices? In my constituency people are working hard to raise funds and have approached the Department of Health for assistance, suggesting that perhaps the Secretary of State for Health should match pound for pound the voluntary subscriptions to help fund the hospice service, but we are miles from achieving that principle. The assistance that local organisations receive from the Government is miserable. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the hospice service?
Mr. Taylor: I support what the hon. Gentleman has said about hospices. They work on the same principle as the parent-teacher associations, which put in enormous efforts. What bites them is not that they have had to put in such great efforts but when the money they raise gradually stops being a top-up and becomes part of the essential service. That really hurts people.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: No. I have been speaking for some time and wish to conclude my speech.
Despite the Government's talk about percentages, real terms and the rest, the reality is more than apparent. More often than not it is reflected when hon. Members talk about individual cases. The White Paper represents missed opportunities. We need a change of tack, and that is motivating many people throughout the country to believe that the Government are coming to the end of their natural life.
6.59 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I always find that these debates take place in a somewhat unreal atmosphere. Opposition Members furiously conceal Government expenditure in order to produce some imagined sleight because they would like more money spent elsewhere. Increasingly, they furiously conceal their future public expenditure plans, either because they have none or, more likely, because they dare not reveal them. Quite naturally, they conceal their past record, rather like the offender who believes that time has lapsed on his conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and that it is rather naughty to mention it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is my neighbour in Norman Shaw, on making a good speech. It was beautifully enunciated, but weak on policy. Should Glenda Jackson become an hon. Member, she will find that no one speaks from the Dispatch Box with clearer diction and more properly than the hon. Member for Derby, South.
The hon. Member for Derby, South used the analogy of a house when considering the Government's economic policy. Had she used the analogy of a house during the period of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, she would have given the picture of a house falling down, with severe subsidence, a "For sale" notice on the front, a foreign buyer giving the caretaker a list of demands to carry out and subversives busy underneath continuing to undermine its foundations. If she had produced the analogy of a Labour house in the future, she would have given not the picture of a house but, like foreign holiday

195
brochures of a few years ago, an artist's impression. The British public, like the tourist of a few years ago, would find only a chap saying, "Sorry, we are too busy. Come back when the house is built." To add to the air of unreality, Conservative Members have sometimes concealed public expenditure for quite different reasons, but we no longer do so.
There is something touchingly biblical about the Government's modesty—of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing—but that can be alarmingly counterproductive. Although all too often it is not recognised by the general public, our public expenditure record is very good. The prospects that were all outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make the opportunities better still.
No one seriously believes in the blank cheque argument any more, except perhaps the hon. Member for Derby, South and her hon. Friends. Priorities, rightly, must be preferred, and the Government's honest determination to put those facts before the people is to be commended.
Our perceived attitude to the public sector has cost us dear in the mind of many people. I think that we should be unequivocal. Some services are well provided by the public sector, and will continue to be so. Those who work in public service are to be commended for the difficult jobs that they often must do and, in many cases, for the excellence with which they do them. It is a genuine outrage to suggest that Conservative Members believe differently.
The Government's overall stance is correct. They are right to prioritise, which is why I welcome the further emphasis that has been placed on the National Health Service, with spending rising from this year to next by £2·4 billion, or 5·5 per cent. in real terms.
However, mere recitation of those figures becomes tedious and unreal to constituents, so let me briefly mention what the Government's record over the past few years has meant in tangible and practical form to my constituency and health authority. Consultant medical staffing has increased by about 35 per cent. over the past five or six years. Money has been earmarked to support those doctors, and the new posts will lead to reduced waiting lists and to the introduction of services that previously were not available in Bury. Nursing staff has increased from 875 in 1979 to over 1,100 now. Capital spending since 1979 has run at about £19 million. That is not just a figure, because it has produced at Fairfield general hospital a new children's ward, a new children's out-patient department, a new ante-natal clinic, a new catering department, a new sterilising department and a new ear, nose and throat out-patient department.
Developments from April 1989 onwards show a new ENT theatre costing almost £500,000, a major upgrading of an orthopaedic theatre and the provision of additional wards for the elderly at Bury general hospital. Those are not just figures; they are tangible services that are now available in my health authority. That is what public expenditure on the Health Service has meant in Bury.
Curiously, over the past 12 months a new group has formed in my constituency, called the Bury Health Services defence campaign. I am at a loss to work out quite from whom it is defending the National Health Service. It cannot be from me or from Ministers, who have provided more nurses, doctors, buildings and services over the past decade. I believe that it is working to defend us from a severe attack of a Labour Government, because a previous attack was serious indeed. They cut nurses' salary, capital
196
expenditure and total spending on the Health Service in my constituency by 2 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, compared with the growth of 19 per cent. over the past decade under this Government.
I therefore look forward with confidence to future expenditure on Health Service provision in Bury, secure in the knowledge that the Government properly dispense care through efficiency and competence, whereas care under Labour Governments, mouthed uselessly all too often, is not provided and is threatened by mismanagement and over-heavy union control.
I am in a position to reveal a great truth to the House. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made passing reference to traffic problems and to cones on our motorways. There is much mystery about from where those cones come. Do they multiply among themselves in the dead of night? Do they appear, like Santa Claus and Labour party policies, from fairyland? No, I can reveal that the world's best cones are made in my constituency by a firm called Swintex, under the guidance of a chap called Harry Houghton. They are the best cones in the world. They are beautifully made and have improved substantially over recent years. They are more fluorescent and more stable, and, if properly used in traffic management control, they can make a significant contribution to road safety. The next time that hon. Members pass those traffic cones, they should curse them not; they should think only that they are yet another good product from Bury and rejoice in the safety that they bring to the roads as necessary road repairs are carried out.
I welcome the projected increase in overseas development aid from £1,430 million in 1990 to £1,750 million by 1993. The aid budget is planned to increase by about 22 per cent. in cash terms and, we hope, by about 9 per cent. in relation to domestic inflation. I make a particular plea to Ministers for an increase in the share of that aid for southern Africa, particularly for South Africa.
It is not sufficiently widely known how much Britain has achieved for black South Africans over the past few years. South Africa is much more a mixture of first and third world than people realise. Rural poverty is extensive, and apart from the obvious inequalities between blacks and whites, which must be addressed by the future South Africa, much work will ultimately need to be done in rural areas to improve health, education and economic standards. Anyone who has visited rural Africa will have been touched by the scenes at the sides of roads in the early morning or in the afternoon of children from poor homes managing to struggle to appear in some form of school uniform. Such is the value of education that great effort is made.
I have visited South Africa twice in recent years on a Christian basis and have seen some of the work that the Government have done for the black community of South Africa and for Mozambiquan refugees in the area of South Africa known as Kangwane, under the fine leadership of chief Minister Enos Mobusa.
Many people in South Africa believe that the changes currently taking place there have much to do with internal changes of attitude as a result of years of patient work for peace and reconciliation by Christians and others across, all races. Put in that context, the equally patient work undertaken by Britain, either directly or via voluntary agencies, deserves some credit. Together with our uncompromising message of hostility to apartheid, which

197
has been personally delivered by our excellent ambassador, Sir Robin Renwick, who is highly regarded in all South African circles, that work has been helpful in changing attitudes for the best.
What sort of work do we do among black South Africans that is so valuable? Between 1987 and 1992 this country will have provided over £30 million in support of the black people of South Africa. We provide help and assistance for students, the seed corn of the future of South Africa.
This year we are providing for 90 undergraduate awards in Great Britain, 60 undergraduate awards in South Africa and 250 postgraduate awards in Britain. In total, including those who continue their studies from earlier years, Britain will be financing about 1,000 black South African students from 1991.
Rural schools and squatter camps have also been assisted. There is a project in Johannesburg called Women for Peace, a non-racial organisation with branches across South Africa. It aims to break down barriers between races. The Women for Peace building in Alexandria, the black township nearest the centre of Johannesburg, was opened in 1988. Britain contributed 30,000 rand, the majority of the construction costs and a number of sewing machines. The building is used for typing and sewing lessons, craft lessons for the handicapped, and supplementary lessons for school pupils, and is available for general community use. The building has proved so successful that Women for Peace is in the process of extending it. That is an example of what Britain is doing in South Africa through public money.
The further development of South Africa is the key to the future of the continent. It could be an engine of change for the countries around it, with immense benefits accruing to all. That is why it is important for our programme for black South Africans to be continued and intensified.
I have given two examples, one at home and one abroad, of the good that can come from public expenditure. There are other examples of the good that has been done under Conservative rule in Britain. Public expenditure must not become so large as to distort the economy. We have had examples of that in the past and, frighteningly, we have had a foretaste of what might happen in the future. The Labour party cannot get away with what it has said about its public expenditure policy. We will not accept a blank cheque. But if public expenditure is not to grow and distort, neither should judicious public expenditure wither on the vine. We have much of which to be proud in our public expenditure policy. We should proclaim that loudly, correct what is wrong and protect this country from the financial disaster that would befall us all if the Labour party was ever to take office.
7.12 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer)—who is not now in his place, and I make no criticism of that—referred extensively to the economy of Wales, to the Secretary of State for Wales and to his own constituency. He waxed lyrical about the economic situation in Wales, and it might be wise if, at the outset of my remarks, I were to put the record straight.
198
Income per head in real terms in Wales has fallen over the past 10 years. It is lower now than it was in 1979. It is also lower in Northern Ireland. The other regions of Britain have just about maintained their income per capita. The gap between Wales and Northern Ireland is now narrower than it was in 1979. We have low incomes, high unemployment, much part-time employment, a run-down social infrastructure and run-down social services. That puts the record straight.
The Chief Secretary, as always, did his best this afternoon. He tried to pretend at the outset that he did not like public expenditure, but went on to say that it was a good thing. We are again debating an expenditure White Paper produced by a Government who do not really believe in public expenditure. In the last 10 years the Conservatives have hacked, cut, sliced and nagged away at public expenditure with the exception of expenditure on the armed forces and the police.
When the Conservatives came to power, they were imbued with the ideological belief that public expenditure was bad, and they took the same view of the trade unions, the dreaded public sector borrowing requirement and high taxation. They claimed that public expenditure was at the root of all our problems, especially inflation and economic decline.
Mr. Tim Smith: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with the suggestion that we have cut public expenditure. The Autumn Statement shows that in 1978–79, real-terms expenditure was £164·8 billion. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was at that time a Minister at the Treasury. Next year, the year that we are debating, it will be £191·7 billion, so it has increased substantially in real terms.
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. He should talk to hospital management board members and others.
Mr. Tim Smith: Has public expenditure not increased?
Mr. Davies: Yes, a great deal has been going into unemployment and social security payments, due to the problems that the Government have caused. But on matters that are crucial to our infrastructure, such as education, training, research and development and trade and industry, there have been cuts in public expenditure.
When the Chief Secretary discussed research and development, he said that we spent a higher percentage than Germany and Japan. But that is so only because the right hon. Gentleman included the figures for military research and development. He went on to say that we spent more than the Americans on civil research and development. Of course we do, because they spend more than us on military research and development. The fact remains that all areas vital to our economic infrastructure have suffered cuts time and again under Conservative rule.
A Government who did not have such ideological hang ups about public expenditure would have used the marvellous opportunities of the 1980s—low international inflation and massive surpluses, approaching £85 billion, from oil revenues—judiciously and prudently to build up our economic infrastructure to enable us to compete in the more difficult years of the 1990s and the turn of the century. Instead, spending on almost every item—education, training, support for industry and civil research and development—has been cut over the years.

199
Education expenditure has fallen from 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1978–79 to 4·8 per cent. in 1988–89. Only 35 per cent. of people in Britain between the ages of 16 and 18 stay on in full-time education and full-time training. The figure for France is 66 per cent. In other words, during 10 years of Conservative rule, with the most favourable economic climate that any Government have had since the war, that is all that our Government have been able to achieve.
Consider the figures for trainees qualifying in craft, engineering and technical subjects in Britain compared with France. Last year, 27,000 youngsters qualified in Britain, whereas 80,000 qualified in France, three times as many. How on earth is Britain to compete with the French and the Germans—even with the Italians—in the 1990s when the amount we spend on training is so meagre?
Instead of planning for the future and using correctly the £85 billion or £87 billion of oil revenues, the Conservatives threw the lot into an unfettered marketplace and allowed the money to be redistributed in that way, instead of using it to improve the economy. One need not be a financial wizard to appreciate what the market did with those billions of oil surpluses. They went, as always in the British economy, to those areas of the marketplace that have dominated the economy since the war and have caused so many of our problems. They did not go into manufacturing. Indeed, manufacturing investment has been slow in growing since 1979. Service sector investment has grown in the past 10 years while about one third of our industry has been destroyed.
In the first instance, the money went into residential and commercial property. The Prime Minister preaches financial rectitude. She has encouraged enormous borrowing to enable people to acquire residential property. At the height of the boom it was possible to borrow three and a half times one's income from banks and many building societies to buy a house or flat. It was also possible to borrow 100 per cent. of the valuation. That did not happen 10 or 20 years ago. In France, Germany and other European countries Governments would never have behaved with such profligacy as the British Government have behaved in encouraging such borrowing.
The shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), mentioned M4, one of the monetary indicators which I do not think the Government have adopted. They have adopted all other monetary indicators and then abandoned them. M4 includes building society activity. Over the last 10 years, M4 has increased by at least 15 per cent. every year. The increase has been far greater than any other productive potential or power of the economy. As a result of the boom, asset values, house prices and the value of residential property increased, and people started to borrow on the basis of their value. They borrowed and they bought more goods which had to come from abroad because British industry, having been decimated by the Government to a considerable extent, could not produce the goods. The supply side was not there to produce the goods that people wanted because they had the money to buy them.
Then money poured into commercial property. Insurance companies and pension funds are still collecting people's contractual savings. It must be said that over the last 10 years people in employment have had a substantial increase in their real incomes and wages. The Government
200
cannot take credit for that. I accept that some of the increase resulted from increased productivity in manufacturing industry, but most did not. In fact, most of the economy is now a service economy which does not know the meaning of productivity and which is not subjected to the same competition as manufacturing industry.
The increased earnings and increased contractual savings went into the pension funds and insurance companies. With their incestuous and sometimes unhealthy relationship with developers and with the bureaucrats in some of the larger town halls, they poured money into the shopping malls, marinas, B and Qs and Great Mills. Money poured into places that were selling goods from abroad. After 10 years of the Tory Government, the economy could not produce the goods that people could buy with the money they borrowed or earned.
I think that it was Napoleon who said that the English were a nation of shopkeepers. They are. Perhaps the Welsh are, too. At least in Napoleon's time the English and perhaps the British had the wit, the art and the skill to produce the goods that they sold in their shops. We are still a nation of shopkeepers but unfortunately we cannot produce the goods that our people want. We have to go abroad for them; hence the massive balance of payments deficit.
The other area to which the money went—surprise, surprise—was the good old City of London. Ten years ago the City of London was the most open financial economy, if that is the right description, in the world. Any bank could come in; anyone could set up in the City. It was far freer than Frankfurt. The Germans do not seem to need a large stock exchange, yet they have a massive balance of payments surplus; they can keep inflation down and they have high public expenditure. Compared to the City of London, Frankfurt is a small stock market. So is Paris, and the French have done much better than we have.
Ten years ago we had an open financial market but the Government have opened it up even more; they have made it even freer and competition is even more unfettered. They did it in many ways. They removed the reserve asset ratios established by the banks. There was freer borrowing from banks, with no problems from the old Bank of England asset ratios. Then the Government relaxed, and released almost immediately, exchange controls; the former Chancellor did that when he was Financial Secretary. Of course, exchange controls had to go in the end because of the rules of the treaty of Rome. But why did the Government do it suddenly? Why did they not do it gradually, as the French did? The French lifted one control after the other. They kept an eye on the economy to make sure that when they lifted controls they did not damage the real economy. The Germans did the same, as did other countries. Why did we overnight completely abandon exchange control? We did it, causing a boom and the inflation from which we are suffering.
Mr. Norman Lamont: If the right hon. Gentleman has read the autobiography of his boss, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will recall that in that book the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) described how he considered abolishing exchange controls and explained clearly why he thought it necessary. That was when the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister.
Mr. Davies: I concede that exchange controls had to be abolished. I also appreciate that the treaty of Rome made us abolish exchange controls, whether we agreed or disagreed with them. But exchange controls did not have to go overnight.
Mr. Norman Lamont: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East wanted them to.
Mr. Davies: Whatever my boss wanted, my view is that they did not have to go overnight. We could have followed the experience of the French and the Germans and relaxed them gradually, but that was another instance of opening up the financial community completely.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had abolished exchange controls overnight, I can tell everyone in the House that he would have had a resignation on his hands.
Mr. Davies: The reserve asset ratios had gone; exchange control had gone. Then we had the big bang which broke down many of the traditional barriers, financial and ethical, in the City. Again, nobody cared. Those barriers had to go. Over the last few years we have had takeover after takeover, merger after merger. Nobody cared about the company. The only question was, who owned it? No economic analysis was made of the consequences of the takeover.
The irony is that, despite all this, the Chancellor is not getting much money out of foreign investment. Money went abroad. The Central Statistical Office is scrabbling around trying to find £100 million to help reduce the massive balance of payments deficit. I have not looked up the figures, but I would not be surprised if the amount of money remitted to Britain in income and dividends is not that much greater than the amount remitted when we had exchange controls. I may be wrong. Despite all that has happened, the money remitted is going down every month. Perhaps that is an indication of the confidence that the financial community has in the Government.
The flow of money into property, wages and earnings, and the City has created the position with which we are faced. A prudent Government—the word "prudent" is used all the time by Chief Secretaries—would have used some of the £85 million to build our economic infrastructure, and to improve training, education, and civil research and development so that we could compete with the French and the Germans in 1992.
A future Government will pay a heavy price for this Government's profligacy. The Government like to talk about financial rectitude. Future Governments and the public will pay a heavy price. Of one thing we can be certain: the Tory party will pay a heavy price at the next election.
7.27 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I am accustomed to hearing some fairly neanderthal speeches from Scottish Labour Members, but some parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made them sound like models of progressive realism. We heard a great deal of Welsh rhetoric about cuts. When it comes down to it, my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a cut is when a spending programme is reduced as a percentage of gross domestic product. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that gross domestic product has
202
gone up from £173·4 billion in 1978–79 to £517 billion in the current year. That is why the Government could increase expenditure in real terms on key programmes.
It is a pity that none of the Opposition Members who have spoken recognised the force of the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who pointed to the crucial importance of public sector debt repayment and the fact that that enables the Government to increase expenditure on priority areas without risk to their overall policy.
Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on making her first speech in her present Front-Bench position. I do not criticise her for not giving way to me earlier as she had very fairly given way to a number of my hon. Friends. I now have the opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) whether he will answer the simple question that I would have asked his hon. Friend. Apart from defence, is there any expenditure programme that the next Labour Government would reduce? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on Nick!"] I shall be happy for the hon. Gentleman to answer.
The Opposition have three approaches to public expenditure. First, there is the approach of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). In The Guardian on 2 October he said:
"We have to say now what we are going to spend and where the money is going to come from."
That is a proper and honest approach. Secondly, there is the approach that might be described as the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink to the pressure groups" approach. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that transport needed
"public money on a grand scale".
Every Opposition Member who speaks on the Health Service says that expenditure must be increased on whichever aspect of the Health Service is being discussed. The education spokesmen say that student grants must be increased and social services spokesmen say to the pressure groups that social services expenditure must be increased.
The third approach might be described as the "Monklands amendment". The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) goes around quoting as a pillar of fiscal rectitude—
Mr. Norman Lamont: My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that the answer to what he said was given by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she told us that a future Labour Government would be committed only to two things—an increase in pensions and an increase in child benefit? Everything else might happen or might not happen, but would none the less be listed. Is not that a thoroughly dishonest approach?
Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. The speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South will be read carefully by my hon. Friends and will, no doubt, often be quoted objectively in future.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East goes round like the famous Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. As the floods of promises and pledges increase, he rushes round saying, "Remember lads, say 'as resources allow'. Don't put any figures on it." He is not succeeding in that approach and he will not do so.

203
I shall give two examples relating to education in different parts of the country. A document called "London Pride", published by the Labour party in January 1990, said:
"Labour will make repair and modernisation of school buildings a top priority."
How many top priorities are there? In Scotland, the approach has been rather different. Last week, the Labour party there announced its plans for Scotland to journalists. One of them asked mildly how much they would cost. He was told:
"We have had 10 years of not affording education and look what it has cost us."
That approach to public expenditure reminds me of a Scottish friend who, when he came to London, discovered a doubles bar with a happy hour. After about his fifth cheap double, my friend was generally admonished by others there about the merit of continued expenditure. He said. "Have another. Think of the money I'm saving." Such is the approach to much of public expenditure which is adopted by Opposition Members.
Mr. Burt: Does my hon. Friend agree that a fourth principle has been enunciated this evening? It was mentioned clearly by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and was not contradicted by his Front Bench. He said that the spending policies of the next Labour Government would be revealed the day after the election. There was no contradiction from his Front Bench. Is not that a further extraordinary example of how to lay policy honestly before the British electorate?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is right. All that that pledge to the British electorate means is that if there were, by any mischance, to be a Labour Government, they would issue a public expenditure White Paper at some point.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) spoke about Wales. They would not expect me to talk about Wales, but it is interesting to examine identifiable general Government public expenditure per head in different parts of the United Kingdom. For 1988–89, the figure for England was £2,161. For Wales, the figure was higher at £2,489. The figure for Scotland was £2,805. It is interesting that no Scottish Labour Members are here now, although I do not criticise them for that.
Mr. Tony Favell: They are spending all the money.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend says that he believes that they are out there spending all the money. It is impossible to argue that Scotland is somehow disadvantaged in public expenditure.
I want to refer to local authority expenditure and to table 21.4.11. Will my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East say a word about the implications for those figures of the implementation of the local government finance policies currently being advocated by the Labour party? If one removes the index linking of non-domestic rate income—which is a Labour party pledge—inevitably, that constraint on local authority expenditure is removed. My hon. Friend may, on this occasion or in the future, want to talk about the implications for public expenditure of the roof tax, which is clearly proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his
204
colleagues and far less clearly proposed by hon. Members south of the border. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will do the entire United Kingdom a service tonight and confirm that the Labour party generally agrees wholly with the concept of a iroof tax as spelt out by its Scottish spokesman and that it will apply in precisely the same way north and south of the border. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way to him, I shall be happy to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman want to get the wording right for his winding-up speech?
The introduction of such a tax, among its many other disadvantages, would have major implications for public expenditure. The tax base would be so much smaller than either the base of community chargepayers or the old base of ratepayers. The burden would fall on a small, selected part of the electorate. There is a recipe for massive increases in local authority expenditure when local authorities can go ahead with such increases without any real political cost. Those may be questions for the future, but I hope that we shall be given some answers tonight by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
7.38 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: In our previous economic debate, I began my remarks by quoting the line from "Jaws":
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water"
in respect of Ministers. I feel like quoting the same line tonight, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has now moved on to greener pastures. His place has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who showed real merit and steel in her opening speech. Conservative Members may yet grow to wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East was back in his place as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, given the performance of his successor today.
Before I speak about the public expenditure plans, I should say that I am grateful to the Government for the changes that they have made to the layout and format of the Government expenditure plans in the White Paper. I was sorry that the Chief Secretary did not pay tribute to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee along with his warm tribute to the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee. The documents have advanced so far that they are almost comprehensible to an ordinary human being. That is quite some progress, given the way that the documents looked some years ago. I thank the Chief Secretary in particular for his efforts in moving the papers on a wee bit.
I hope that hon. Members will begin to look at these documents seriously. Each Select Committee has an opportunity to examine them, in conjunction, one hopes, with annual reports from Departments, and to give some teeth to the parliamentary financial accountability of the public expenditure plans that the Government lay before the House. It would be no bad thing if each Select Committee reviewed the relevant documents and brought before the House a report on Government expenditure.
All that was by way of an aside. It worries me that Conservative Members do not know which tag to adopt when defending Government expenditure plans. Sometimes they say that we must control public expenditure. That is a totem to show how fiercely they are prepared to guard the financial integrity of the

205
Government. At other times they talk about how much more the Government are spending. There is always an irreconcilable contradiction in Conservative Members' remarks. They cannot reconcile the desire to promote the image of the Government as a high-spending authority at national level with the idea that the Government have a tight fiscal policy, as the Chief Secretary would have it called. That is called having your cake and eating it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) will refer to that when he sums up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South did in her opening remarks.
There is a basic fallacy and misunderstanding in the remarks of Front-Bench Conservative Members, too. They equate on a one-to-one ratio the financial health of public sector spending with that of the economy as a whole. That is to mistake Great Britain Ltd.—the enterprise of the Government, who have balanced their books—for the health of the economy as a whole, which is in a deplorable state.
The stewardship of the Government does not merely involve Government expenditure. It sounds fine to say that we are repaying a certain amount of our debt, but the responsibility and the role of Government in the financial sphere is not only to manage their finances properly. The essential priority is to use that finance to ensure that the wider economy works properly. To express joy merely because one part of the economy is under control—as the Government would have us believe—is not enough.
We see the poor condition of the wider economy in the various indicators of economic success. Our trade deficit is the highest percentage of GDP in any industrialised country in the West. Inflation is running at an average of 7·7 per cent. over the year. We have the highest inflation of the Group of Seven countries. Interest rates are going through the roof and one in 10 people who have a mortgage are falling behind with their repayments. Every hon. Member knows that industry is screaming out because it cannot obtain the finance that is essential for long-term investment. That is the measure of the Government's economic success. The Government may take pride—perhaps misplaced pride—in the state of the minor section of the finance for which they are executively responsible, but the fact that they are repaying the public debt is not enough.
The Government have had tremendous advantages. It is commendable to repay the public sector debt, but, with North sea oil revenues over a 10-year period of some £87 billion and the massive consumer boom—with money sloshing around throughout the economy—the Government do not have a great deal to show for 10 years of tremendous advantages. Yet at the end of that period they talk so glibly and gladly about the one area in which the Government seem to have balanced their books.
To make my point, I can do no better than to quote as a point of reference for the missed opportunities the following extract:
"without higher investment—in skills, innovation and the infrastructure as well as new production capacity—we stand little chance of overcoming either our balance of payments deficit or inflationary pressures without a recession.
But I regret to report that we enter the new decade with an unfavourable economic background against which companies will be formulating their investment plans".
206
That quotation is not from the shadow Chancellor or Financial Secretary but the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, that renowned Socialist Labour supporter, John Banham.
In this month's CBI News both Conservative and Opposition Members will read that the CBI will soon hold its annual dinner. It is on Thursday 17 May, in case Conservative Members have not put it in their diaries. It is to be
"a relaxed and cheerful gathering of members and their guests to enjoy a convivial evening of good food and conversation."
It will be of interest to both Conservative and Opposition Members that the guest speaker will be none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that he will have on his left John Banham, who may even read him that quotation from his article in CBI News. On the Chancellor's right perhaps he will have Sir Trevor Holdsworth, the outgoing president of the CBI. He, too, has made several pungent comments on how the Government are failing to meet the needs of commercial and industrial development. He could do no better when the Government talk of their large public sector surplus than to quote from the CBI report to members. Under the heading "Economic Priorities for 1990" it urges that:
"The large public sector surplus be used for increases in public spending on the transport infrastructure and for cuts in business taxes:".
I hope that at that dinner the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be sandwiched between those two chairmen and that that sandwich will be the most savoury item on the menu. I hope that the Chancellor will listen, if not to the Opposition or rational economic argument, at least to the views of people who in the past were supportive of his party.
Public expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen. That is clear from the documentation. That fall in public expenditure in real terms is evident in the lack of investment in industry and transport. The fall in expenditure simply represents cuts—good old-fashioned cuts. For example, there has been a massive reduction in the rate support grant to local authorities. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said that his local authority was suffering. It is no reduction in the tax burden or in requests for moneys from individuals if the Government say, "We are not giving you more or even the same rate support grant. That money will have to be found from other sources." Ultimately, the individual, the family, the taxpayer and the poll tax payer has to meet the bill.
It is a sleight of hand to imagine that local government expenditure can somehow magically be reduced merely because central Government reduce their contribution to local government. We all know—all hon Members know this from constituency experience—the pressure under which local government has been put by that sleight of hand. It does not reduce public expenditure; it simply makes the national books look a little healthier.
There are also cuts right across the range of housing provision. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will refer later to council housing and to the allowances for home improvements and the reductions in the money for housing associations. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), has eloquently outlined the cuts in maintenance. All those things come back to roost. If I can put it in

207
Granthamite terms, if people do not put a lick of paint on their window sills or elsewhere on their house, they will soon have to buy new windows, guttering or whatever. The same Granthamite arguments apply to the national estate, to Government buildings, to roads, sewers and railways. The Government cannot cut maintenance by £1·8 billion on hospital maintenance, for example, as we heard recently in the Public Accounts Committee, without the ghost coming back to haunt us in a big way. Yet again it will be a Labour Government who will have to pick up the bill in the future.
Cuts in training and a reduced public sector obviously influence the way in which Government debts at national level are viewed. If the Goverment sell off the family silver, there is less of a public sector. Again, as we heard in the Public Accounts Committee, we have had a parade of privatisations, brought about by sweeteners, and by money spent on marketing, advertising and all sorts of devices, including bribes in one sense or another, extremely low sale prices or dowries. Whatever the term used, the Government have been selling Britain's assets short. That has been the way in which the major public assets—the family silver—have been disposed of, but it is a one-off and can never happen again. Once again, massive amounts of money have gone into subsidising the Government's obsession with balancing the Government's national books instead of being used to develop the wider economy, which is what I and many of my colleagues feel is the Government's real economic responsibility. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, there has been a grand total of £50 billion-worth of wasted expenditure in that respect.
Another thing that the Chancellor could have a chat about with Sir Trevor Holdsworth and John Banham at their lunch—that is assuming that the Chancellor is still in post—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dinner."] Well, it could be a long conversation that runs from lunch to dinner. I note the obvious experience of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), which appears to be far more profound than that of any other hon. Member.
I refer now to a concept that lost "fashionability" about 10 years ago but which is nonetheless paraded by Ministers occasionally—it is called "crowding out". Let us look again at that famous Labour party journal, CBI News. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tried to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the front page of CBI News at Prime Minister's Question Time last week because it showed a tremendous drop in the investment intentions of CBI members. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister had a problem with her myopia and could not see the diagram. No doubt it can be sent to her if she has not yet got her own copy. It looks very much as though the intentions of CBI members to invest in plant and machinery over the next 12 months are themselves being crowded out. The concept has now lost all credibility.
The only crowding out that is taking place is in areas such as research and development. Once again, that is an area in which Sir Trevor Holdsworth has great expertise, especially in respect of the defence percentage of research and development. I believe that we have the highest percentage of R and D on defence—as opposed to civil R and D—of any country in western Europe, which will be made worse by the Government's expenditure plans in which we can see that the civil element in R and D is to be reduced by a further 2 per cent.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is it part of Labour party policy to reduce corporation tax and to allow companies to retain more of their own profits so that they can invest in research and development and in training?
Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being able to speak on behalf of the party. but I shall, of course, give him my personal opinion. I believe that corporation taxes should be reviewed. They are too high and could be reduced. That is a possibility, along with an examination of depreciation allowances, all of which could be paid for in time by an increase in growth when the Government's own expenditure acts as the pump-priming mechanism for a growing industry. I do not know whether that is the view of my Front Bench.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Allen: Well, I should be happy to talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends about it. We should not forget which party is in government, but it is unfortunate that the Government are not taking any notice of the CBI's request for that sort of review and examination. I believe that it bears examination and I very much hope that when the time is right we can look at bringing this country's corporation tax levels more into line with the levels on the continent.
The continent does not have the theory of crowding out. If we consider the expenditure of the Governments of France, West Germany and elsewhere, especially on transport and on infrastructure developments, we see that they take no notice of the ancient Bacon and Eltis nostrum of crowding out. That is old hat. They realise that where there is a good transport infrastructure and investment, there are benefits for the private sector and the public sector equally and for those who work in them.
To me, that is common sense and it is common sense to the French, the Italians, the West Germans and to everyone else in Europe. However, once again our isolationist Prime Minister has failed to catch up, which has meant that we are falling further and further behind. That is why our trade deficit is getting higher and higher and why our imports are increasing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) so eloquently said, we may be a nation of shopkeepers, but the stuff that we are now selling in our shops comes from Japan and Europe and less and less of it is being made in this country.
As hon. Members are looking for suggestions for future policies under a new Government, I put forward my suggestion on the exchange rate mechanism. While all parties appear to have a host of pre-conditions for joining the ERM, my only pre-condition would be that in a new climate, with a new Government, it would be quite easy to negotiate the condition early on that our levels of public expenditure investment in industry and commerce should match those of our continental competitors. That could be achieved and there would be the will to achieve it under a Labour Government which, sadly, there is not under this Government.
If we look through the public expenditure documentation we do not see the rhetoric that we have heard tonight from Government Back Benchers who seem confused about whether the Government are holding down public expenditure or are the greatest thing since sliced bread for a host of sectors in which there is public expenditure. We see cuts in real terms in the provision for industry, the

209
regions, research and development, housing, education and training. There is a desperate need for expenditure on education and training, but spending has been cut back by £85 million this year, despite the fact that the city technology colleges, a pet project, have a provision of £135 million. Ironically, some of the few increases in the public expenditure White Paper are to pay the extra high interest rate repayments generated by the Government's incompetence in other sectors. They have to set aside greater provision to pay back interest rate charges than they did a year ago.
I am not in a position to give Labour's priorities. I am certainly one of those referred to earlier as the Monklands, East tendency who believe in the philosophy, "We shall let you know in good time." I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are more liberal and want to talk about matters more freely. If there is a kitty of £190 billion there is immense scope for reordering public expenditure provision on the lines of the social priorities that we would seek.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has already outlined what she would like in terms of pensions and child benefit. There is great scope for reorienting current programmes, even without growth. Once growth provides additional expenditure for other programmes, be assured that Conservative Members will be the second to know the sectors of greatest expansion and the matters of first priority.
I have one final worry about what we shall face as a party coming into government. It has always been our lot to inherit what has been left after the locust years of a Tory regime, be it the years after 1964 or the boom and bust of Barber in 1974. No doubt, when the Thatcher era ends, be it in 1991 or 1992, we shall inherit that position again. Massive investment will be necessary throughout industry, commerce, the transport infrastructure, sewers, water and electricity industries, right across the board to education and training. It will take a new Labour Government to make that investment. The Government have steadfastly refused to put aside the amount of money made available through North sea oil and the credit boom of the 1980s. Once again it will fall on the Labour Government to dig the country out of the hole in which the locusts have placed us. I regret that that should be so. I particularly regret that it takes a number of years before the fruits of investment are seen.
I remember having a conversation with a senior member of British Rail management who said that the organisation could not use money if it was given it on a plate within a matter of months or even one or two years. Gearing up was necessary to ensure that plans were ready and schemes were put into operation. It may well fall to a Labour Government to put those schemes into operation. I hope that the electorate will have patience with an incoming Labour Government and realise that it will be a long time before those investments bear fruit. Be that as it may, it will be the duty of the next Labour Government to undertake that task.
8.4 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak.
Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) with considerable interest, particularly towards the end when she said that the Opposition knew the scale of the problems and the scale of the needs. Unfortunately, that did not enable her to state the scale of the costs. Finally, she said in grand Churchillian crescendo, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Some of us feel that Labour nearly finished the job in 1979, but not in the way that the hon. Lady meant.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury on the presentation of the estimates. I was particularly pleased that there will be a 9 per cent. increase in Overseas Development Administration spending in the next few years. Surely it is right that, as our economy becomes strong and the country wealthier, we should spend more on Third-world countries.
Increasing spending is one thing, but actually getting it to the sharp end—the patient or pupil—can be quite another. Over the past few weeks, it struck me that one or two of the schools that are opting out are absolutely delighted with Government funding because they have suddenly found that the local education authorities were keeping up to 40 per cent. of the money. If that is so, there is no doubt that they are much better off. If that happens between local education authorities and schools, I wonder whether it also happens between regional and district health authorities. I wonder how much the regions are keeping back from the district health authorities. It would interest some of us to know.
I intend to speak about small businesses. The growth of the economy over the past few years has enabled increased public expenditure and, over the decade, a reduced proportion of GDP to be used. It is that ratio that is vital because Government income depends on the health of, and growth in, the economy. In particular, we must continue with a business environment in which small businesses can thrive. We have done a great deal towards that during the past decade, but there is one aspect where we can do a little more.
It is wonderful that such a large proportion of people have taken the plunge over the past decade, risked all and started their own businesses. The vast majority of people with energy would sooner put up with a few blips in capitalism than have the dull, drab certainties of Socialism. Labour could never even afford to acknowledge the value of small businesses or their contribution to the economy because that is absolutely incompatible with state planning. If some people prove that they can manage without such benefits, it may be catching.
The nadir of state planning for many of us with longer memories was the Meriden motor cycle co-operative. That was on the shortlist without doubt. But for me the nadir of state planning was the sale of the 24 ships to Poland. That business was conducted to prop up the shipbuilding industry—or did we think that we needed zlotys at the time? The effect was that in a short time the sale undermined the Merchant Navy.
In 1979, British industry and small businesses were hopelessly uncompetitive, overmanned and dictated to by

211
the trade unions. That was not entirely surprising because, at that time, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said:
"It is inconceivable that we could transform this society without a major extension of public ownership and control."
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was not saying anything very different. By 1988, the same right hon. Member for Islwyn said:
"faced with a market economy … we have got to run it better than the Tories."
I do not know what to make of a right hon. Gentleman who makes such a sharp U-turn, except that it is possible that he does not believe in very much.
Of course, in 1979 it was obvious that new large-scale, labour-intensive undertakings were not forthcoming to replace those that were closing, and, even if they had been, it was unlikely at that time that they would have chosen to set up in this country. So we had to rely on new small industries and businesses. At that time it was absolutely essential to release the energies of business men, and we did so. It cannot be stated too often that in 1978 the number of business closures exceeded the number of start-ups by 100 every week, whereas now the number of start-ups exceeds the number of stops by 1,200 every week. No wonder the number of people in self-employment has risen from under 2 million to over 3 million in the course of just over a decade. That is an increase of about 60 per cent.
Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that, although, during the past decade, literally hundreds of thousands of men lost their jobs in the old-fashioned heavy industries, there are now more people in employment than ever before?
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is only capitalism that could have brought that change at a reasonable social cost. That contrasts with the results of the planned Socialist economies of eastern Europe that we have seen over the past few months.
I hope, in due course, to draw the attention of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to the situation in my constituency, which is a striking example of the change that has taken place. Not only was there an increase in self-employment, but the right climate for small businesses was created by the promotion of investment, enterprise and, indeed, competition. We have reduced the levels of inflation and of taxation, although inflation is still far too high, at least by the standards of a Conservative Government. I am sure that we shall all put up with the short-term pain of high interest rates for a while, to cure inflation once and for all. Not least, the Government have reformed employment law and are continuing to do so. In fact, a member of the Committee on the Employment Bill told me that he and his colleagues started off thinking that reform of the closed shop would be a very contentious issue. Now some Labour members of the Committee are actually supporting the proposed change.
I have said that my constituency of Stroud is a perfect example of this business transition. My constituency was early into the first industrial revolution, essentially with textiles—the mills in the valleys and the sheep on the hills—but also with engineering, which usually needed to be located by streams or rivers. For many decades, the valley industries prospered, particularly in what is known as the Golden valley. Many firms ended up with 200 to 1,000 employees, and one engineering firm at Dursley employed
212
4,000 people. On top of the hills, overlooking the valleys, there were the large and imposing employers' houses, and woe betide any mill foreman who sounded the "leave work" hooter a minute early. The local economy there shadowed the national economy. The engineering and textile industries are still important—in the case of textiles, billiard cloths, tunics and suit materials in particular—but not as important as they used to be.
Indeed, both locally and nationally, most labour-intensive firms had to shed labour to stay competitive, both nationally and internationally. The firm that employed 4,000 people now employs 1,200, and high rates demands have not been helpful. But, with 1,200 employees, it is more competitive and has a better product range than for many years. Fortunately, unlike parts of the north or, perhaps, Corby, Stroud did not have lay-offs all in one go. They were gradual. Then the transition occurred—hundreds of new small businesses springing up, often on the sites of former textile mills and outbuildings. Business parks with planning permission for five, 10 or 20 units were soon fully let, and sometimes had a waiting list. Of course, some of those businesses will grow, and some will perish, but the capitalist cycle will go on.
In one of the valleys there is a modern factory employing 400 to 500 people, producing all sorts of high-tech materials for the North sea oil industry. A very prosperous factory it is. Adjoining it is a five-storey, Cotswold stone, mullion-windowed mill with all its windows broken. In my eyes the transition has been from one to the other. Only capitalism could have brought about that transition at an acceptable social cost. The constituency of Stroud, and for that matter the nation as a whole, owes its prosperity solely to capitalism, and not in any way to Socialism.
I am grateful for all that the Government have done over the past decade to improve the situation of small firms. I want, however, to end with a small criticism. We have promised to reduce bureaucracy, to reduce red tape. Indeed, we have done so, but not to a great enough extent. We must reduce the burden on small businesses, of their unpaid tax-gathering functions. I want to quote from "Your Guide to Government Help for Small Firms".
Under the heading, "Cutting Red Tape", it says:
"Most Government departments now have Deregulation Units whose job is to cut red tape wherever possible, see whether existing laws can be simplified and assess proposed new laws for their impact on business, especially costs."
I believe that if some civil servants were to spend time with the average small business, they would find a fairly consistent and common complaint. It would be about the red tape that those businesses still have to suffer, in the payment of wages and the collection of taxes.
It happens that my background is in small business, so I hope that I understand that one has to be a man or woman of many parts. One arrives on Monday morning somewhat ahead of the staff, to make widgets or whatever. Before long, one gets production going, but suddenly the first customer comes along and one has to sell something. The business has to be kept going. One is dealing with the sale when a lorry arrives and has to be unloaded. Otherwise production would stop. No sooner has one started doing that than a machine break down, and one has to become chief engineer. In small businesses, any time that is taken away from the essential processes of buying, selling or manufacturing is, relatively speaking, wasted. Yet we expect the owners of small businesses to be unpaid

213
tax gatherers. They have to collect national insurance and VAT. That process takes up a lot of time for a person running a small business that employs up to 10 people. Above all—hideously complicated for small business—is the system of pay-as-you-earn. Here I am not criticising. I realise that much has been done to simplify the tax system. We now have one higher rate of tax, rather than four or five, as previously. However, we can do more, and I think that we should.
I should like to suggest a further move from taxes on income to taxes on expenditure, which would benefit most the small business man. It would do more for him than all the other advice put together. When I became parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Stroud about four years ago, the main problem in that area was unemployment. It is most certainly not the area's main problem now. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent. to 6 per cent., compared to a rate of about 9 per cent. in the rest of Europe. That is an immense achievement. For several years we have created more new jobs than the rest of Europe put together. If we encourage small firms, particularly by further simplification of the tax-gathering system, they will give more money, through taxes, to the Government, and we shall be able to continue to spend more on the Health Service and on education. We have a record of which we should be proud.
8.18 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Like perhaps other hon. Members, I scanned the Government's new public expenditure plans to see what the Department of Employment was proposing to spend on training. Everybody now surely knows how abysmally we lag behind our competitors in vocational training. Unfortunately, we have the worst trained work force in the industrialised world, falling behind not only Europe and north America, but now also many Asian countries.
Only last month yet another paper, this time from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, reported that in the West German kitchen furniture industry nine tenths of all German employees had vocational qualifications based on a three-year, externally examined apprenticeship-type course. In Britain only one tenth came anywhere near to being in that category. Is it any wonder that the German industry has a huge productivity advantage and dominates the high value added sector of the market? In clothing manufacture, the institute found that 80 per cent. of German machinists had completed the relevant two or three-year examined course, whereas in British plants it did not come across one machinist with such a qualification. So the comparison goes on for industry after industry.
Recently, the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), described a study by the Department into training as mind boggling—mind bogglingly bad, not mind bogglingly good. As countries can buy in state-of-the-art technology, it is by the skills of their work forces that they compete. Training our people is the vital strategic investment.
This matter has been analysed to death. Everybody knows the facts. The question is: what are we going to do?
214
After 10 years of a Conservative Government we are falling further behind. We are getting into a sort of low skills equilibrium with poor management and badly trained workers producing low-quality, low value added goods, and the orders for sophisticated goods are going overseas. As a result, our trade deficit now threatens to overwhelm us.
But what do we get from Ministers at the Department of Employment? We get lots of speeches and empty, windy rhetoric, lots of continuous chatter and lip service about training. But where is the action? Where are the resources? We have to turn to chapter 6 of the Government's expenditure plans. What are they going to do? They are going to make cuts. Are they going to put their money where their mouths are? No, they will do the opposite.
In the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93, the training programmes are grouped under the heading "Skill and competence for work", and the figures are given in table 6.3, "Expenditure on training". If we take an index figure of 100 for the estimated outturn for this year, 1989–90, in real terms 1987–88 was 122. Two years ago we were spending 22 per cent. more. In 1992–93 it is planned to be only 73. The cash for training has been falling and it is planned to fall further. In real terms, expenditure this year is almost one fifth lower than it was two years ago, and in three years' time it is planned to be only three quarters of what it is now.
Since last year's White Paper the cash for 1990–91 and for 1991–92 has been cut in real terms by 18 per cent. and 21 per cent. That is the measure of the cuts in planned expenditure on training which the Treasury has obtained from Ministers in the autumn public spending round—a major victory for the Treasury, but a defeat for the nation's training needs.
Nor can it be claimed that the fall in numbers justifies the fall in expenditure. During the next three years, funds for YTS are to be cut in real terms by nearly a half, but the numbers are planned to fall by only one quarter. Real expenditure per trainee will fall by one third. It is right that employers should contribute more, but it is wrong for the Government to spend less and thereby send the wrong signals.
It looks as though the Treasury is saying that while there was mass youth unemployment it was willing to spend money as a cosmetic, to massage the unemployment figures, but now that there is to be a demographic change, the pretence of training can go hang while the Treasury saves money. We now have fewer young people, so more will go into jobs, but we must see that they are trained. The Government should look carefully at the plans being recommended by the CBI and the TUC to give substantial training credits to every young person.
Now let us look at the other major programme—employment training. The Government made a big splash about that when it was launched, but we do not seem to hear so much about it now. A fall in numbers cannot be argued here. The employment training programme is not hitting its numbers target, and, even it it did, it would reach only a fraction of what the Training Agency calls the client group. Despite that, there have been two cuts so far of £200 million in that programme and the cash stays the same this year while its real value is planned to fall by about one tenth. That is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Employment training, which has the germ of a good idea, is badly flawed. It is grossly underfunded and because

215
of that it is often inadequate and unattractive. As a result, it reaches ony two thirds of the Government's published target for which it allocated the money. In those terms, it is not a success. The participants who were expected partly to work receive just £10 above the level of benefit. That is not very much of an incentive. Many are financially worse off.
The training agents receive £38 in London and £31·50 outside London to work out a personalised action plan for each participant, and £15 for each placement with a training manager. Those are shoestring budgets. Training managers receive £15 for each person who starts training and £18 a week basic grant for each person in training. In some cases there can be supplementary grants averaging perhaps another £20. That makes perhaps £38 a week to pay for training. What quality training can be obtained for that? What private training organisation would offer training for such derisory sums? The CBI refused to become involved in the scheme on those derisory figures. Hardly any large firms have lent themselves to the scheme and the construction industry refused to be involved with the scheme. It has a different and much better one where the courses cost between £150 and £180 a week.
Because of the underfunded, unsatisfactory, inadequate and unattractive nature of the programme most people drop out. When the Select Committee on Employment went to Dundee in March last year to inspect the programme we found that 33 per cent. of those referred by the employment service dropped out before reaching the training agent. We found that a further 47 per cent. dropped out before reaching the training manager, leaving only 20 per cent. who stayed with the training manager for at least one week.
Mr. Roger Dawe of the Training Agency gave evidence to the Select Committee in December 1989 when he said that, nationally, 45 per cent. drop out before reaching the training agent and then there is a further drop out before reaching the training manager. So it seems that there is a drop-out rate of about 80 per cent. Of the 20 per cent. or so who enter training, 70 per cent. leave before completing their original action plan and 42 per cent. of those who complete their training do not get jobs at the end. The House might well conclude that the employment training programme is completely shambolic. No one can pretend that it matches up to Britain's training needs or that it matches the efforts of our competitors. So unattractive is the programme and such is the number of the drop outs, it does not even spend the money that has been allocated to it. There are continual underspends. There was an underspend this year, last year and the year before that.
The last time I spoke on employment training I said it was half a loaf; now I do not think it is even that. These cheapskate schemes fail the unemployed and betray the needs of the country. Rather than making these cuts, the Government should make the essential investment that is needed in training. If they do not, it will be for a new Government to do so.
8.30 pm
Mr. James Hill: I have had a rather chequered evening. I had a meeting in the House with some of the officers of Hampshire county council at which one of the items that we discussed was, of course, the community charge. Hampshire county council is about to submit a budget for ratification of £770,510,000. That is
216
an increase in one year of £140 million. In cash terms, it is 22 per cent. and in real terms 12 per cent. It would seem that local government expenditure is beginning to roar ahead. According to the people I have been talking to this evening, there seems to be no way of dampening it down. If these are the sort of figures that we will be confronted with, obviously the Government must examine some of the services for which local government has to pay.
I have said for some years that the police, the fire brigade and perhaps even education should be the responsibility of central Government. I am not sure that all local authorities are as ham-fisted as some, but nevertheless they do not seem to be able to keep a check on their expenditure. I am particularly concerned because only this evening the figure for Portsmouth was announced at £308. I have a nasty feeling that the Southampton community charge may be in that region. This was not the intent of the community charge; the purpose was to keep down local government expenditure. It does not seem in this first year to be able to do it. I am only saying this for the benefit of the Treasury Bench because it may be necessary in future to review some parts of local government expenditure and perhaps add a tranche to the community charge.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are in other parts of the country many people who think his constituency jolly lucky? My constituents in Derbyshire are facing community charges likely to be well over £400 and at least £100 more than neighbouring county councils with similar geography and social needs patterns.
Mr. Hill: I am sure that that is true. There is always someone who can leap-frog a little higher, but the position of my constituents is my first priority, and Derbyshire is not on the same plane.
One good happening of the last few months has been the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The Department of Transport says that over 40 per cent. of dock workers were made redundant. I point out to everyone, including the Transport and General Workers Union, that the cost to the Government of the abolition of the scheme was £90 million, and the cost to the port employers was some £60 million. Already there are signs of rejuvenation in the port of Southampton, which may even challenge Felixstowe. I congratulate not only the Department of Transport but the Treasury on making the money available.
Law and order is, naturally, the mainstay of Conservative policy. We are indeed the party of law and order. The Opposition would take a different view, but real spending—this may quieten some Opposition Members—on law and order will rise to £422 million in 1990–91. Spending to keep the bobby on the beat is said to have increased by 70 per cent. since 1978–79. As a result of these increases, for which we are all grateful, whether we are Socialist, Liberal or Conservative, there are 14,500 more police, and over 8,500 more civilians working in the police service, which naturally releases trained policemen for duty in the street. These figures are to be commended. Once in a while it would be nice if the Opposition were to compliment the Treasury team on making the money available.
We have heard a lot about housing. In fact, a long time ago I was chairman of the housing committee. It was always a battle to meet one's targets. There was always an

217
incredibly long waiting list. I remember Enoch Powell saying in a housing debate that he likened it to two stalls in the market selling tomatoes; on one stall they were 3p a pound and on the other they were 6p a pound. We do not need any imagination to know which stall will have the longest queue.
Under the Government, as a result of pressure from the Treasury, rents are becoming more realistic. Over the years they have helped owner-occupation. Whatever one says about Europe, we have the highest percentage—68 per cent—of home owners in the whole of Europe. No one else can touch us. We have built 1·4 million public sector houses since 1979. This is a tremendous achievement.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend will also be aware that because of the changes in the local government legislation last year Labour-controlled councils have now got their housing account ring-fixed so no longer can they, through the use of the public purse, supported by rate support grants, subsidise housing tenants who should be paying a market rate, with all due respect to the Treasury and the rest of the ratepayers.
Mr. Hill: I should like now to speak about transportation. The great problem is that, no matter how much money we put up front, as the expression goes, we will always have the long delay caused by public consultation. This has happened in southern Hampshire. We have now got the M27 finished, but the M3 is still not finished.
I agree completely that in the development of a motorway adequate compensation must be offered to those who are threatened by plans for the motorway. This is an old Mussolini idea. The autostradas would not have been built had it not been for the fact that he provided for the most generous compensation. But unfortunately here we are only just beginning to get round to dealing with the problem of Socialism perhaps devaluing people's property that they had fought for and paid for and is then offered to them on a take-it or-leave it basis by the Inland Revenue valuation officer or, indeed, in conjunction with the valuation officer of the local council. I am extremely pleased that that item has been approved.
I am astounded at the amount that can be devoted to central Government expenditure. This must be a very prosperous country. The business man must be paying his taxes, and VAT must be an extremely good revenue provider. In 1992–93, £234 billion is to be spent in cash terms.
The Opposition, of course, want to return to power, and they imagine that once they have done so it will be easy enough to pull the levers one after another to achieve the desired results. They think that everything will run like clockwork. But, as they know, they have not the necessary expertise on their Front Bench, and they have not enough entrepreneurs at their disposal to show them the way when they go wrong. They denigrate the CBI and the Institute of Directors; they will clearly drive every entrepreneur out of the country and then say, "We cannot understand it: we have not the money to pay for all our grandiose schemes."
Once in a while Labour policy comes out, usually in remarks shouted across the Chamber. Earlier we heard that corporation tax would be reviewed—probably abolished altogether, indeed: after all, what does a promise
218
matter when it does not have to be honoured until after the election? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) nods. "Goulditis" has got everywhere. The symbolism of Labour policy is, "Do not ask us to explain the percentages or the ideas; just take it on faith, and we will show you after we get in."
I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak. I have found the debate very useful—it has enabled me to bring up my little constituency points—but I think that before long we shall have to take another look at the community charge and the arrangements with local government.
8.42 pm
Mr. John Battle: Introducing the debate, the Chief Secretary was at pains to argue both that the Government were operating a policy of tight spending controls on public expenditure, and that public expenditure was increasing. He gave some examples of savings and spending in what he considered the most important areas, but used his figures selectively, presenting a contradictory image of public spending at once rising and falling.
Significantly, the Chief Secretary forgot, or rather neglected, to mention what the White Paper makes clear—that a massive £7 billion has been taken out of the housing budget in the past 10 years. Both public and private housing has suffered from the removal of grant, assistance from housing associations, improvement areas and so forth. Investment in Britain's entire housing fabric—not just council house building—has been undercut. There is no real reason for the Government's action apart from their blind opposition to council housing, illustrated in the Chief Secretary's response to an intervention from me.
Britain's housing has borne the brunt of the cuts, as the White Paper demonstrates. Between 1979 and 1989–90, it has been slashed by 67 per cent.—£7 billion. Nevertheless, the Chief Secretary had the nerve to refer to Government measures to tackle the scandalous increase in homelessness. The money that they are providing is a pittance compared with what they have taken out of the budget for building and improving housing which is desperately needed for homeless people.
Paragraph 11 of the chapter of the White Paper on the environment tells us that even the £250 million that the Government claim to be spending on emergency measures to tackle homelessness over the next two years includes the cash payments that will be used to bribe remaining tenants into owner-occupation. While paragraph 2 claims:
"The Government's overhall aim in its housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family,"
the allocations in the housing budgets fall somewhat short of that.
The housing cut reveals the Janus-face of Conservative public expenditure philosophy: it faces both ways at the same time, immobilising development in provision. The Government are trying to cover up a lack of investment in housing and other forms of infrastructure, and the consequent poverty of development. That is the price that must be paid for the squandering of our oil revenue and public assets, the bulk of which ended up in the pockets of the wealthiest 5 per cent. in the form of Budget tax cuts.
It is plain to everyone but the Government that, ideologically blind as they are, they have based their policies on the crude antithetical view that private is good and public must be bad. They have attempted to deride

219
and undermine the public sector to such an extent that everyone is now paying the price of that dichotomy. I do not believe that opposing public provision is a new philosophy; I do not even believe that it is a great Conservative insight thought up in the past 10 years. In fact, it was tried in the United States.
I seem to remember the passing of the great Proposition 99 in California under Governor Reagan, who suggested that there should be no public fire service, but that everyone should arrange fire cover through private insurers. The public fire service was duly abolished. When two houses were burnt to the ground in Beverley Hills, the owners thought that they could easily replace them by claiming on their insurance. They were shocked to learn that the insurance companies would not pay out because there was no sufficient fire cover at the time. It was not long before California reinstituted its public fire service.
It seems stupid to embark on such circular processes—abolishing public provision, discovering that it is needed and reintroducing it. The way in which the private sector has been set against the public sector is a consequence of the Government's total commitment to—their blind faith in—the idea of a free-market economy. Despite the frequent use of the phrase, in practice markets are not really free. The Chief Secretary has often referred to the need for a level playing field, and Conservative Members demand fair trade. There are many other contradictions. Water is sold off at well below its market value, and British Aerospace is offered sweeteners. It is clear that the market does not operate freely; it is fixed, and there is intervention.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are actually opposing the ideas of early Conservative Governments and local authorities? In the past, Conservative authorities created the water services for huge cities, built the parks and got the first housing schemes off the ground. If I were a Conservative, I would be rather proud of those early Conservative authorities.
The present Government, however, are a crowd of nutcases. They even turn against their own basic philosophy. I find that incredible until I look at the Government Front Bench and at the right hon. Lady who usually sits there. Then I am not so surprised; they are all mad.
Mr. Battle: I cannot comment on the state of mental health of Conservative Members. However, in my own city it was not Labour councils which built housing, took away back-to-back houses or instituted a common sewerage and drainage system. Those things were done because if there had remained only private provision for them the whole of the city would have been polluted. There was a need for public provision, and that was recognised and implemented. It seems that for the past 10 years the Government have decided that the market is all and that there should be no planning whatsoever. But the tide is turning. Conservative Members have learnt to recognise that there is a need for intervention to protect the environment.
I was once surprised to meet a small demonstration outside the House. A gentleman had a placard saying, "Justice in Berkshire". I asked him why he stood there with that placard, and he said, "Well, it's like this, there is a builder about to build." He owned a property, a house with a large garden, with poplars at the end of it, but the
220
market said that the land at the end of his garden could be sold for a price. He said that he wanted the Government to give the local authority the power to stop the building to protect his view. It seems that all are coming round to the view that there should be intervention in planning. There is a move away from the market towards public planning co-ordination. The free-market model is being left behind as a theoretical myth, and it is universally being seen as such.
Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman's thesis is that there is no role for the public sector, as far as the Government are concerned. He will notice that at present 37¾ per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on public sector provision. That is a much larger percentage of GDP than the 43 per cent. spent by the last Labour Government in 1978–79. What we recognise, and what he fails to realise, is that many things have been done by the public sector in the past that can be done better by the private sector. However, the public sector still has a major role to play, hence the 37 per cent. of GDP, otherwise it would probably have been much lower.
Mr. Battle: I would be interested to find out the number of times that Conservative Members have used the word "public" as a derogatory term in the House. What is interesting and welcome is the shift towards the view that the public sector has a role. But most people's experience of housing, infrastructure, roads and hospitals shows them that there is still a desperate need for public investment in those facilities.
The reality of a policy that claims to idolise the free-market model has been high interest rates, high inflation, a huge trade deficit, the rundown of the manufacturing industrial base in constituencies such as mine, and millions of people in Britain paying the price for the Government's economic experiment.
The public expenditure White Paper reveals that the cost of mortgage interest to the Exchequer—never mind to those people who have to pay higher mortgages—has increased from £5·5 billion to £7 billion between 1988–89 and 1989–90.
Expenditure on the Export Credits Guarantee Department was £347 million and, as it says in the White Paper, in chapter 4, paragraph 106, it was due to
"the increase in short term sterling interest rates."
In other words, high interest rates and high inflation are the stark question marks over the failure of the free-market economic system. It is worth hon. Members remembering that Monday in October 1987, when the stock markets around the world lost a quarter of their value in less than 48 hours, and the foreign exchange rates became highly unstable. The effect of the recent rumour that President Gorbachev was to resign also underlines the volatility of the market and brings into question the validity of the expression the "efficient market hypothesis" according to which current prices reflect all publicly available information.
We are entitled to ask what has been Government policy in the face of the extreme volatility of the market. In 1981 the Government said that they were leaving the exchange rate to the free working of the markets. By early 1987 it was clear that the Treasury was responding to the weakness of the foreign exchange rates by altering domestic interest rates. In practice, domestic monetary

221
policy had been abandoned to external considerations, and the operation of an unannounced exchange rate target.
In 1988 there was yet another change of tack. Concern about overheating in the economy meant that interest rates were once again directed towards meeting domestic objectives. There is another glaring contradiction at the heart of Government economic policy—the long-running tension between the internal and external calls on monetary policy—which still remains to be resolved.
Today in The Times the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—spells out:
"since I ceased being Chancellor no new measures have been taken."
That means that the stalemate that we discussed throughout the whole of last year still remains. I suspect that the current Chancellor is waiting with his head down for something to turn up, or for the dark clouds to blow over. The former Chancellor puts it in a nutshell when he says that in practice the Government have abandoned all their former policy objectives. He said:
"In politics, the unexpected always happens and you just have to see how events unfold."
The Government's economic policy is characterised by sitting out the market, and that is in line with their short-term investment strategies. That short-termism characterises the stock market and money markets. All we now get is short-term, day-to-day management and the abandonment of longer term objectives. In practice future investment is sold short.
The Government's policies are absolutely clear to those people who are paying the price in higher mortgage rates or who are forced into part-time, temporary, low-paid jobs. As the former Chancellor said in his article this morning:
"The capitalist system is seen as something rather grubby. If you say nobility is associated with low pay, then it is a very easy transition to say … that those who do what they are doing for the money are ignoble."
I suspect that it is usually the other way round. Those people on low pay are usually denigrated, marginalised and expected to survive, without proper protection or adequate supplementary benefits under this Government. Some 9 million people are in low-paid jobs. The wages councils have been abolished and the unemployed are forced to take jobs regardless of how low the wage is. The result is that in some sectors wage rates are falling, particularly in part-time, temporary work. And the guru ghosts of the new right, such as Professor Roger Scruton, are now advocating that the Government reintroduce the Victorian value of child labour. He wrote recently:
"Many a 14-year-old, set to work as a builder's apprentice, an electrician's mate or a stable hand will learn far more than he could ever at school … If the pay were sufficiently low—and children are willing to work for quite paltry sums—there would be no lack of employers ready to offer it."
It is significant that there was no reference in that article to the great Victorian campaigns against the exploitation of children or the appalling health and safety conditions in which people had to work. I wonder how many Government Members would consent to that and put their own children out to work in such circumstances.
222
The point lays bare the model of the free market as being intrinsically and inevitably exploitive. It generates, in practice, a two-tier economic model and on the lower tier people are low-paid, unprotected part-time workers.
Government economic policies as they now stand certainly seem to us to be theoretically threadbare. The Government seem to be drifting aimlessly and waiting without any clear sense of direction or comprehensive and consistent strategy. Even a former Member of the House, the Right Hon. Enoch Powell, referred to earlier, in an article in British Rail's InterCity journal, spelt out that it is the Government who have caused inflation, not credit cards or wages. And all the key objectives set by the Conservatives some 12 years ago remain unachieved.
In an article published in the Salisbury Review last September, entitled "One cheer for Mrs. Thatcher's economic achievement", E. J. Mishan writes:
"The Conservative Government's economic achievement is impressive enough when judged by its own declared priorities; somewhat less impressive when judged by reference to familiar economic criteria; least impressive when viewed in a broader social context which encompasses the quality of life."
I submit that the practical daily experience of millions in Britain under this Government's economic policies is that the real quality of their lives, private and public, has been eroded as a result of those policies. So, while the Chief Secretary invites us, as he did when moving the motion on this public expenditure White Paper, to support it, I urge the House not to give its approval. In the interest of those who experience Britain under these policies and feel that the quality of their lives has been eroded as a result, I urge hon. Members to vote against it.
9 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: Although the immediate prospects of the United Kingdom economy are not, in my view, encouraging, I think that there is every reason to be optimistic about the prospects for Britain in the 1990s. There are three specific factors which I want to draw to the attention of the House and which I believe constitute substantial evidence to support my proposition.
The first—and it was referred to in an article in The Independent on 31 January headed "Workshop of the world again"—is the very good prospects indeed for British exports. It is pointed out that in the fourth quarter of last year exports were 23 per cent. up in value on the same period in 1988 and, Hamish McRae said:
"That is an absolutely astonishing performance".
He went on:
"The good news about exports is that it shows that, despite the fact that we have vacated large areas of the manufacture of internationally traded goods, we are still able to increase vastly what we sell abroad."
I believe that there is every reason to be optimistic about our export performance, and Hamish McRae suggested that, whereas the 1980s were the decade of oil and services, the 1990s will be a decade of manufacture.
The CBI has been much quoted, and I think it was probably the same copy of the CBI News as was quoted by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that contained an article by its director of economic affairs, Dr. Sentance, in which he said about exports:
"In 1988 and 1989 export growth averaged 7 per cent. a year—double the average growth from 1971–1987."
He went on:

223
"non-oil exports have been growing more rapidly than imports—in the three months to November, they were 14 per cent. up in volume terms on a year ago."
He added:
"With oil production recovering, as long as the world economy remains fairly buoyant, and continues to help export growth, there could be a very significant improvement in the current account deficit during 1990."
Mr. John Smith: It is still substantial.
Mr. Tim Smith: The deficit is still a very substantial one; the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. But I believe that we now have the right conditions for a substantial improvement. This is the difficult part; the easy part, in a sense, is damping down imports. The difficult part has always been improving Britain's export performance. I believe that we are now seeing a major improvement in Britain's export performance.
The second factor—and this addresses one of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—is the way in which the quality of investment has improved during the 1980s. One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, for this is that such a high proportion is now investment made by the private sector. Indeed, in an article in The Times, Tim Congdon estimated that in a couple of years' time private sector investment would account for 90 per cent. of total investment in the United Kingdom; so we can say once again that we are a genuinely capitalist economy. I am sure that Opposition Members think that we are concerned about that because of some blind ideological reason, but there is a much better reason: private sector investment is much more likely to be well directed. We have only to look at eastern Europe and the recent history of European economies to see the truth of that observation. The state is not very good at making investments, and much investment has been wasted in eastern European economies. Under the last Labour Government the National Enterprise Board demonstrated that private sector investment is of much better quality. That bodes well for the 1990s.
The third factor that has been much discussed in today's debate is public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. Again, there is a good reason why it is important to reduce that. At least some Labour Members seem incapable of taking that on board, but it is possible to increase public spending in real terms and at the same time to reduce it as a proportion of GDP. That is exactly what has happened in the past 10 years and the figures speak for themselves.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Enterprise Board under the last Labour Government. Is he not aware that the real problem was that the National Enterprise Board constantly had to save capitalist private enterprise firms from collapsing? That was not its original role. We had to save British Leyland and many other private enterprise companies from collapsing. Rolls-Royce was brought under public ownership by a Conservative Government. That was not the role envisaged for the National Enterprise Board. Some of us were critical of the fact that it was not carrying out its proper role. It should have been creating new public enterprise companies to compete in the market. The hon. Gentleman should realise that we had collapse after
224
collapse. Shipbuilding and many other industries would have collapsed totally if public enterprise had not stepped in and taken them over.
Mr. Smith: That illustrates my point very well. The National Enterprise Board devoted a great deal of time to saving companies, many of which almost certainly should not have been saved because the investment would have been better directed to new enterprises. It is not the job of the state to pick winners. Private investors make better investment decisions and produce a better-quality investment. The hon. Gentleman has proved my point beyond any doubt.
We have had much discussion about what the next Labour Government will do about public spending. One way of assessing what the next Labour Government will do is to look at the performance of the last Labour Government. In their first year of office the last Labour Government increased public spending from £150 billion to £169 billion, and in the next five years they gradually cut it back so that at the end of that period the figure was £164 billion. That was the performance of the last Labour Government; a huge increase in the first year followed by a series of cuts in every successive year. That is exactly what will happen next year if we have the misfortune to have a Labour Government. We shall have a huge unsustainable increase in public spending in the first year and after that we shall have the IMF at our door exactly as we did last time.
It is important to reduce public spending as a proportion of GDP because if we leave a larger proportion of resources for the private sector to invest that will produce a better rate of economic growth. There was a very good article in The Spectator the other day, headed,
"We're doing better than Europe"
by Tim Congdon in which he shows how the reduction of Government spending is placing Britain in "a virtuous circle" of prosperity. He turned the argument about a twin-track Europe on its head. He concluded that as a result of the Government's achievement in reducing public spending as a proportion of GDP,
"if Mrs. Thatcher's policies continue, the 1990s will see a two-speed Europe. A lowly taxed, lightly regulated and debt-free Britain will outpace the highly taxed, heavily regulated and debt-burdened nations of the inner core."
I think that he is right. For those three reasons, the economic prospects of the United Kingdom economy are good.
The acid test of that is not what I say but what investors do. Overseas investors are moving into this country at a rate that we have not experienced for many years. They are putting their money where their mouth is. I am talking about not only the Japanese but the Americans and Germans.
We can have endless debates on how much we should spend. Spending money is easy, and Labour Governments have been good at it, but the difficulty is creating the wealth in the first place, and Conservative Governments are very good at that.
9.9 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In what I promise will be a brief intervention, I wish to make a somewhat unfashionable plea for the continuation of certain financial subsidies to two maritime industries—shipbuilding and fishing.

225
What is the Government's position on the continuation of the European Community shipbuilding intervention fund? We are reaching the end of the period of the sixth directive, and I should like to know where the Government stand on the continuation of that important subsidy.
The aim of the shipbuilding intervention fund is to narrow the gap between the price that a European Community shipyard can offer a would-be customer and the cost of a ship built in south-east Asia.
If we are to retain our shipbuilding industry, it is essential that the European Community retains the shipbuilding intervention fund. The next directive should increase the subsidy. The industry will require that essential form of assistance if we are to retain anything of what was once, especially in the north-east of England and Scotland, a magnificent industry. All that is left is a remnant of it, but it is still an important employer of highly skilled labour in areas of the United Kingdom that have high unemployment.
My constituency is a classic example of that. Unemployment in Greenock and Port Glasgow is twice the national average, yet it would reduce substantially if the Government allowed Scott Lithgow designated status vis-a-vis the intervention fund. I hope that I receive an answer to that from the Minister.
Parts of the catching sector of the United Kingdom fishing industry are in a terrible state. I am seeking from the Government and the European Community a maritime counterpart of the agricultural set-aside scheme. Paragraph 67 of Cm. Paper 1003 shows that the set-aside scheme will cost £22 million in 1990–91, £33 million in 1991–92 and £44 million in the following financial year, making a total of about £99 million. The Government—and I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a question about this earlier—should be introducing a decommissioning scheme, which would allow our fleet to be restructured fairly and humanely.
Paragraph 80 on page 23 of Cm. 1003 entitled "Structure of the fishing fleet" is misleading in what it says about the European Community's instruction to reduce the size of the fleet. In reality, the United Kingdom registered fleet will have to be reduced by about 23 per cent. between now and the end of 1991. I estimate that that reduction, as a result of the European Community's multiple annual guidance programme, will involve the loss to the fleet of between 500 and 800 vessels. What is to happen to those vessels, their owners and crews?
Many of the vessels in Scotland are owned on a share basis, under which the fishermen who crew them are not simply company employees; they are parts of small businesses. If the EEC and the Government can, rightly, assist farmers, particularly the more disadvantaged farmers, why can they not assist fishermen? Many middle-aged fishermen would happily tie up their elderly vessels and come ashore for good if there was in existence a decent decommissioning scheme of the kind introduced some years ago by the Danish Government.
The need to introduce such a scheme for our fishermen has been dodged by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ducked by the Scottish Office. It is nothing short of a scandal. Because of the savage reductions in
226
quotas, particularly of North sea haddock—quotas are necessary if we are to conserve the stocks of valuable fish—many of our fishermen will be ruined.
I know of one fisherman whose vessel has been taken over by the Sea Fish Authority, as a result of which he and his family have had to leave the home in the north-east of Scotland in which they have lived for many years. Had a reasonable decommissioning scheme been in operation, he might have retained his home.
The calamitous situation facing fishermen in the north-east of Scotland applies equally to fishermen in the south-west and north-east of England and elsewhere. I hope that there will be discussions between Treasury Ministers and their counterparts at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office with the aim of introducing a decommissioning scheme that is as fair-minded as some of the schemes of compensation offered to hill and other farmers in less-favoured areas.
Such a scheme would assist fishermen and vessels, for not only are there elderly vessels but some of our fishermen are reaching an age when they are too old to be fishing in bad weather. Fishing is a young man's occupation. Many fishermen would happily come ashore if they received financial assistance from Brussels and the Government. The British Government owe it to our fishermen to introduce such a scheme in the near future.
9.19 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to speak to appendix F of Cm. 1021 and draw the attention of the House to the reliefs and allowances against the six main Inland Revenue taxes. Those six taxes raise a total of £76·3 billion against which there are no fewer than 88 reliefs and allowances, which cost the Revenue £80·3 billion. I instance particularly capital gains tax, where the yield is £2·1 billion but the reliefs against it are no less than £7·8 billion.
What conclusions are we to draw? Apart from the conclusion that we still have too many taxes, that those taxes are too complicated and that too many of the nation's best brains are engaged on tax matters at a time when industry is crying out for professional people in accountancy and legal services, not to mention the problems the Revenue itself has in recruitment, my real concern is about the complicated network of reliefs through which the Government effectively bribe taxpayers with their own money—because taxpayers' money is effectively the only money that the Government have—to do the politicians' bidding. There is nothing new in that; it has been going on for centuries. The question is whether that is consistent with consumer choice and the free market economy of Tory philosophy.
If politicians decree that there will be mortgage interest relief, which costs £7 billion, and that there will be exemption from capital gains tax for those investing in property, which costs £7 billion, we must not be surprised at the result. Money will inevitably be sucked out of savings into bricks and mortar. The proof of that is in the eating. We see inflated property values and a massive increase in personal borrowing.
Money spent is indisputably more inflationary than money saved. There is a widely held view that savings are too low. In fact, they are at a record low level. My real fear is that we will not resist the temptation on 20 March to

227
introduce yet another relief for savers. That would be wrong on every count. It would deal with the effect, not with the cause. It would further complicate the tax system and repeat many of the mistakes of the past. The answer for the future must surely be not more reliefs but fewer reliefs on fewer and lower taxes to bring about a position where to buy a house, to invest in stocks and shares, to purchase a pension or simply to put one's earnings into old-fashioned savings is an equal bet.
No one can doubt the beneficial effect of savings upon any economy and particularly upon inflation. To my right hon. Friend the Chancellor I simply say, now is the time for courage. We must not abandon the winning formula. My right hon. Friend should continue the drive for fewer, lower and less complicated taxes, particularly for those on lower incomes. Above all, he should encourage individual citizens to back their own judgment by progressively dismantling the multiplicity of reliefs and allowances that distort individual choice.
9.23 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on his critique of the Government's private medical insurance tax relief. I am sure that when he had an opportunity he at least contemplated voting against the Government.
The debate has been good. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the debate on the Autumn Statement, he said:
"This is probably the last occasion that the House will have to debate the economy before the Budget, which I can now inform the House will be on Tuesday 20 March."
As Treasury forecasts go, his remarks were at least broadly in line with other Treasury forecasts. I am sure that he did not intend to tell the House that the details of the Government's expenditure plans had no bearing on the management of the rest of the economy, but that was the impression that he gave. Clearly he did not mean to say that because he went on to say:
"Proper control of public spending—tight control—remains central to the Government's economic strategy."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 749.]
In winding up the debate, the Chief Secretary made a similar point. He said:
"It is because our finances are in order that we have been able to do three things simultaneously"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—
comma—
"control spending, reduce taxes, and give much needed funds to priority sectors."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 831–32.]
This debate is an opportunity to test whether the Government have controlled spending, reduced taxes and given much-needed funds to priority sectors. When the Chief Secretary says that he will give much-needed funds to priority sectors, it is an implicit criticism of the previous Chief Secretary, who deprived those priority sectors of the funds that the present Chief Secretary says are "much needed".
Let us examine the Government's claim to have reduced taxation as a total share of gross domestic product. As the Opposition have often said, the tax burden—direct and indirect—has risen from 34·25 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37·5 per cent. in 1989–90. Perhaps the Chief Secretary was referring to direct taxation alone, but, if so, it is still the case that, under the present Government, a family—with two children—earning 50 per cent. of the average national income is paying more tax and national
228
insurance now than it did in 1978–79. It must now be evident that the Conservative party's tax cutting has been highly selective. It has been designed to restore or redistribute wealth to where the Conservatives believe that it belongs—with the wealthy.
The Conservative Government are not truthfully committed to an anti-poverty strategy. They are supported by people who believe that it is an anti-poverty strategy to round up their poorer constituents and take them to Scotland's poll tax warrant sales to look for bargains. The Government do not realise just how unacceptable the social divisiveness of their tax and public expenditure policies are to most decent people.
The personal conduct of one or two former members of the Government does not help very much. Matters are not made easier for an ambulance worker whose annual pay rise is being resisted by the Government when he realises that the amount that he is claiming for the entire year is the equivalent of the wages of the previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer for three and a half hours. Such a situation does not make for social unity. I accept, of course, that I may be understating the position as I have allowed the former Chancellor only half an hour for lunch.
The Government's second claim is that they are giving much-needed assistance to priority areas. The Government claimed as priorities the Health Service and transport, and homelessness and museums were also mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in an excellent speech, made it absolutely clear that the total sum that may be available for patient care is only £500 million, in spite of all the Government's claims to be giving substantially more money, and she set out why that was the case. It is possible to say that that meets the description of providing extra resources, but one can hardly say that it is targeting much-needed resources to priority areas. Surely the public's grievance about the funding of the NHS is that patient care is not being funded adequately—not that reviews are not being funded adequately.
The same is true of transport, another target of much-needed resources. The Government funding for British Rail—one assumes that that is still part of the transport infrastructure—is being cut by £22 million next year and by £124 million by 1992–93. Much-needed resources will have to come from asset sales, borrowing or fare increases.
In 1986, Britain invested 0·09 per cent. of our GDP in the national railway infrastructure, compared to Germany's 0·36 per cent. No doubt the Government will claim, as they did in the previous debate on the economy, that the Germans envy that. If the Germans could cut investment in their railways to the level that the British Conservative party has done, no doubt they would feel happier than they do now.
Our roads are so congested that the Confederation of British Industry estimates that in the south-east alone the cost to British industry is some £15 billion per year. Every class of road in Britain is in a worse state now than it was 10 years ago.
I pay tribute to the Public Accounts Committee, even if the Chief Secretary found it difficult to do so, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). My right hon. Friend pointed out that the long-term cost to the Exchequer of the way in which the Department of Transport has handled the split between

229
road maintenance and new roads is considerable. The contribution that the PAC has made to the debate is considerable. I, at least, pay tribute to it.
Some cynics say that the road network was bound to be given extra resources because it was in such a dire condition. Other cynics say that the reason why it was given extra resources was that the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury thought that he might be moved to the Department of Transport. When he found out that that was not the case, it was too late to claw the money back. I do not accept that. I have known that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was destined for greater things ever since we served together in the Committee stage of the Rates Bill in 1984. As Government Whip he sought to curtail the length of my speeches with offers of bars of chocolate. That gritty pragmatism, in his own surfing metaphor, led him to ride the waves, peaks and troughs of economic decision-making. The only problem with that image is that there is no such colour for the Chancellor's shorts as dayglo grey.
I have discussed the Government's priorities. It is only right to consider what is not a priority. Education is not a priority. An editorial in The Independent said on the topic of public expenditure plans for education:
"In real terms, that means cutting expenditure on education for the next three years. That is incredible. The Government's attitude to education seems dictated by atavistic prejudices of the business culture—prejudices which have directly contributed to the country's long-term economic performance. There is a contempt for teachers, seen as an unproductive class of persons, corrupted by socialism."
That is The Independent's view of the Government's approach.
I know that the Conservatives take education seriously.
That is why they have their children educated at private schools. For the Government to allow expenditure on education, as a percentage of GDP, to fall from 5·5 per cent. in 1987–89 to 4·8 per cent. in 1988–89 is a national outrage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said. It serves only to accentuate the already widening economic and social divisions in our country.
The same is true of higher education. It takes a peculiar form of narrow sectarian meanness and utter incompetence to devise a scheme for student loans that will cost the Treasury more money this year than paying out the grant increases. The Government's student loans scheme does not make any sort of financial sense until the next century, if at all. The only thing that it will achieve is to dissuade working class youngsters from going into higher education.
If that was the only example of the Government's lack of control over sensible public spending, one would let it go as an aberration. But it is not an aberration. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South referred to the total cost of advertising, underwriting and debt write-offs associated with the privatisation programme and to the £1·5 billion bill for installing National Health Service computers. That money was spent, not on improving patient care, but on tracing various mathematical calculations through the NHS.
The deadweight cost of introducing the poll tax is £443 million, with recurring costs of £235 million. In anybody's language, that is just a waste of money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will be aware of the scandal surrounding the sale of the royal ordnance
230
factories and the subsequent sale of the Rover group, which cost the taxpayer about £100 million. We await the eventual report on that. Even more outrageously, the undervaluing of assets in privatisation sales is accompanied by about £16 billion of debt write-offs.
A fortnight ago we debated the Government's plans for tax relief on private medical insurance schemes for pensioners. About 90 per cent. of the £40 million that the scheme is supposed to cost is deadweight costs. In other words, that is money that the taxpayer is giving to people who already have such schemes and who do not need persuading into them.
When we challenge the Government on their management of the economy, they come back to us with two things. First, we get cod versions of Labour history from people who think that "The Ragged Trousered Philatelist" is about an impoverished stamp collector. Secondly, we have new and imaginative facts from the Chief Secretary. My hon. Friends know the sort of thing—that we have a trade surplus with the Cook islands and more telephones per household than Algeria. The Chief Secretary's most recent list includes boasting about a 40 per cent. increase in business investment in the past three years. If the same fact is put the other way round, it means that business investment as a share of national output is at an all-time high. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) pointed out, that presentation of the Government's case looks a bit grim in view of what is said in CBI News and the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin which have set out a more pessimistic view of the future.
Company profitability and VAT registrations are all relevant facts in their own way, but if one is boasting about one's skill in managing the economy, I should have thought that one would stoop to mention things like the balance of payments, inflation or interest rates. When Sir Winston Churchill said,
"Never … was so much owed by so many to so few",
he was not talking about mortgage interest repayments, although if he were serving on the Government's Front Bench now he could have been.
The previous Chancellor wanted inflation to be his judge and jury. Two things can be said in defence of the previous Chancellor—and because the Chief Secretary did not come to the aid of his former boss, I shall. The first thing is that, although he may well have said that inflation would be his judge and jury, he never said he would hang around for the sentencing. The second thing that can be said in his defence is that with interest rates being so high and with inflation not yet under control, it is only right that a Chancellor who always commended prudence should make sensible provision for himself in an uncertain world. What can be wrong with that? Understandably, his successor has told the House:
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind. We will bring the economy back on track, as a preparation for prosperity in a decade of promise."—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 758.]
What happened to the last decade? What does the Chancellor mean by "back on track"? Back on track from where?
In keeping with his stealthy devaluation, the new Chancellor replaces the bombastic complacency of his predecessor with a quiet, dull grey, low cunning that is all his own and, although it is bad news for Britain—
Mr. Tony Blair: It is a compliment to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brown: Yes, it is a compliment. Let there be no misunderstanding about it, I am very fond of the Chancellor. However, although it is bad news for Britain, I predict that as we enter the Chancellor's "decade of promise", low cunning and shabby pragmatism will be characteristic of the Government's approach in the early years of that decade in the run-up to the next general election.
9.39 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on the knighthood that he was awarded on the Order Paper at the beginning of this week. The speech that he gave today shows that that was clearly well merited because it surpassed in its wit even the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Unfortunately, he has also learnt from the right hon. and learned Gentleman how to make a speech that is entirely devoid of substantive content. I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Becket) on her first outing—like me—as a Front Bencher speaking in a public expenditure White Paper debate. Her speech was admirable, particularly in its content. It was meaty and I intend to get my teeth into it later.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will want to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his success in the public expenditure round, which culminated in the White Paper. By chance I stumbled across the Lamont clan motto which, I discovered, translates, "Neither spurn nor spare". The Chief Secretary has certainly neither spurned the chance to spend more on priority services nor spared waste, inefficiency and bids that exceed the country's ability to pay.
The speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South suggested that, as shadow Chief Secretary, she has adopted as her motto, "Neither cost nor control". She gave no hint of having costed her colleagues' proposals, let alone having brought them under control.
The White Paper represents an achievement in three respects. First, public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product is back at the lowest level it has been since the mid-1960s and is one of the lowest in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said in a powerful speech, that gives us a great competitive advantage as we enter the Europe of the single market.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has kept spending, as a percentage of GDP, within the plans laid down by his predecessor last year. Thirdly, despite that, he has been able to increase resources allocated to priority sectors. There is now nearly £3 billion more for the NHS, one of the biggest increases ever. There is an extra £1·8 billion for transport over the next two years. Capital investment by central Government and public corporations is set to rise by 7·5 per cent. in real terms.
Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), are genuinely baffled by how we repeatedly succeed in finding more money for priority areas, while still keeping within our overall planning targets. The answer is straightforward enough. First, we have a growing economy. Secondly—linked with
232
that—we have falling unemployment and declining losses in the remaining nationalised industries. Thirdly, we have sound public finances resulting in the repayment of debt.
The repayment of the surplus this year, last year and the year before accounts for a reduction in the interest burden of about £3 billion a year for ever. The extra £3 billion that we have been able to make available to the NHS can be said to come from that source. Certainly it would not have been available to a Labour Chancellor because Labour is in the business of piling up debt, not unloading it.
The great majority of Opposition speakers mentioned transport and the infrastructure. However, there is a sharp contrast between the rhetoric that we heard today from the Opposition and the actions of the Labour party when it was in government. I looked up what the last Labour Government public expenditure White Paper had to say on the subject. We all know that in the previous years they had cut public expenditure on transport by 40 per cent., but were they then planning for the ever-expanding needs that hon. Members now take for granted? The White Paper is succinct. It says:
"A broadly constant level of expenditure, below that of earlier years, is planned for roads and transport."
It is equally bleak for the infrastructure as a whole. It says:
"The share of capital expenditure in public expenditure as a whole is now lower than in the early 1970s … The amount of investment needed in roads and water is now less than in the early 1970s."
It is a different tune now. By contrast, this Government have reversed the cuts that the Labour Government introduced and are planning a massive but balanced increase in spending on transport over the next three years. On national roads, in England alone, we shall be spending £5·7 billion, in addition to territorial budgets. On rail and other forms of mass transport we are planning to spend no less than £5·9 billion.
The other subject that came up repeatedly in the speeches of the Opposition Members, as one would expect, was the National Health Service. A year ago the Leader of the Opposition declared that the National Health Service needed another £1 billion a year to solve its problems. My right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary managed to secure about £2 billion in extra resources, so this year the Leader of the Opposition declared that the service needed £3 billion more than was planned. Once again he has been capped, and the additional funding for the pay review awards, plus the £2·5 billion already announced, means that the National Health Service will have nearly £3 billion of extra resources in 1990–91. If the Leader of the Opposition declares yet again that a larger sum is needed, he will make himself even more foolish than usual, but it is a racing certainty that he will.
Those huge increases have posed the Opposition a serious problem: how can they describe as cuts increases that match their most extreme demands? But they have risen to the occasion, and they now argue that the increase, if one excludes all its components, is not an increase at all. The hon. Member for Derby, South was at it today. She dismissed what is called the extra inflation in NHS costs. But that is largely the result of pay awards rising faster than prices. It is true that Labour did not succeed in getting nurses' pay to rise faster than prices, but there is no reason why Labour should dismiss the achievement when we secure it. The hon. Lady dismissed expenditure on the Health Service review. I am advised by my hon. Friend:; that on this subject the hon. Lady has little to offer. The fact is that expenditure on the Health Service review is

233
financing 100 extra consultant posts. Do the Opposition not want those posts? It is financing an improved medical audit. Are the Opposition uninterested in the quality of health care?
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the Minister will try to be accurate. It is not 100 posts this year. The money to which I referred is the money for this year. This year only one third of those posts—30 to 35—will be provided.
Mr. Lilley: And this year only a fraction of the money will be going on that.
The hon. Lady talked about the spending attributable to what she dismissively called demographic factors. Nothing could be more spurious. "Demographic factors", in commonsense language, means people living longer, fitter lives. That is happening partly because of the very expenditure that we have committed to the Health Service. People live longer because they receive medical care, not vice versa. The hon. Lady tried to pretend that there had not been an increase and that the statistics could be dismissed. She at least ought to know better because in her own city we have seen completed in recent years at the Derby city hospital an obstetric, gynaecology and maternity unit costing £18·3 million. Secondly, Derbyshire royal infirmary stage 2 cost £12 million. Thirdly, Ilkeston community hospital cost £6·3 million. What gratitude from the hon. Lady.
We have heard a great deal about the Opposition's concern about training. I welcome the agreement that is beginning to emerge about the antiquity of the training problem and the importance of training for our future.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: If the future is so rosy, and if everything is so good, why did the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) quit?
Mr. Lilley: I knew that I should not have given way to an hon. Member who had not even had the courtesy to attend the debate. Now he makes a point that is wholly irrelevant to it.
It is increasingly accepted that, on training, this country has suffered, not just for years, not just for decades, but probably for a century, from three problems. There has been too little vocational training for school leavers who do not go on to higher education, too few of them entering higher education and too few of those who enter higher education qualifying in science or engineering.
What the Opposition do not like is that the Government have a track record of addressing those problems with vigour and increasing success. By contrast, when Opposition Members were in power they failed to do anything. Since they have been in opposition, they have denigrated and opposed every step taken and they have backed the unions when they have tried to prevent us from introducing constructive proposals for education and training.
The hon. Member for Derby, South was a junior Minister, although she probably prefers to forget it, in the Department of Education and Science in the previous Labour Government.
Mr. John Smith: That is insulting.
Mr. Lilley: I am in no way insulting the hon. Lady, only casting aspersions on the record of the previous Labour
234
Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lady were members. She may be able to confirm that the Labour Government considered a proposal to deal with the lack of vocational training for school leavers similar to the youth training scheme, and turned it down because their priorities were the ideological ones of forcing through the rest of the comprehensivisation programme, in no way improving training for our school leavers. I note that she does not deny that. She cannot, because Labour did nothing to solve that problem. But we have done so. We have achieved a vast increase in the proportion of people going into higher education and we have increased the proportion who achieve qualifications in science and engineering. The proportion of British graduates in science and engineering combined exceeds that of all other major countries, not excluding Japan.
In one sense, this has not been a proper debate, although we have had some admirable contributions.
Mr. George Foulkes: I confess. Take me to the Tower.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has not been a very good day for the House of Commons. If we could have fewer comments of that kind from Front-Bench Members, it would be helpful.
Mr. Lilley: It has not been a good debate because real debate requires an alternative, and the Labour party has failed to give us an alternative to our public expenditure White Paper. It has refused to respond to two questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary: how much would the Labour programme cost and how much—
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lilley: I shall give way briefly.
Dr. Godman: The Minister will recall that the Chief Secretary promised to answer my question on negotiations with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the funding of the decommissioning scheme.
Mr. Lilley: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the answer to the detailed point that he put.
Members of the Opposition Front Bench will be grateful for that intervention. They have once again failed to respond to the two questions: how much would Labour's programme cost and how much extra tax would it require? Labour Front-Bench Members are in a peculiarly embarrassing position. Their initial aim after the election was to steer clear of any spending commitments if possible, but they have failed. The rest of the party forced them to take on board a welter of commitments when they agreed the policy review. Recently I wasted a shining hour or two reading it and encountered no fewer than 170 potential spending pledges, and that is only a start.
Despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for Derby, South in her role as shadow Chief Secretary, each new party document that issues from the Opposition Front Bench contains more promises. Even in this debate we have had plenty more calls from every Opposition Member, Front Bencher or Back Bencher, for more expenditure on everything: training, education, research and development, science, health, and so on. The hon. Lady herself gave every impression, unless my ears

235
deceived me, of demanding more spending on health, training, research and development, investment and transport.
I could not help thinking how bizarre the public spending round would be if ever the hon. Lady were to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It would be a case of her going round to the spending Departments' Ministers and knocking on the door demanding that they spend a little more money but I happily give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that "happily" is quite the right word. The hon. Gentleman has been too clever by half. If he looks at the commitments that I said the Government should not have cut, and at the choices that the Government should not have made in spending terms, he will find that they balance almost exactly.
Mr. Lilley: That is absolute nonsense. The only number of any size that the hon. Lady specified was the alleged costs which she asserted had resulted from the privatisation programme. Without the privatisation programme, the Labour party would be deprived of revenues far in excess of any costs she referred to and it would have a black hole that it would be incapable of filling.
During the debate the hon. Lady, in response to excellent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, dropped a bombshell. She declared that not only would those promises not be costed before the election, but they would not neceessarily be implemented afterwards. She revealed a core manifesto. It consists of just two pledges: higher pensions and better benefits for families with children. Everything else—every other item—would depend on circumstances, happenstances and maybes.
I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Lady, but will she confirm that there is no firm Opposition commitment to spend on any other items apart from those two? Is there no firm commitment for extra spending on health, no firm commitment for extra spending on training, no firm commitment for extra spending on transport, and no firm commitment for extra spending on infrastructure? I look at the worried faces among Opposition Back-Bench Members and I realise that the pledges that they forced the party to accept, to "Meet the challenge, make the change", have now been disowned.
Now I know what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East meant when he told The Times that there might be room only for what he calls "symbolic commitments". Labour's calls for more spending on health are, after all, purely symbolic and if ever a Labour Government were elected, patients could look forward to being treated in symbolic hospitals, we should be defended by symbolic tanks, and the ambulance men could, no doubt, look forward to a symbolic pay rise from the Labour Government. I shall happily give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he wishes to disown his remarks. He does not.
The other extraodinary remark made by the hon. Lady was that not one of Labour's pledges and promises would be costed until after the next general election. That is extraordinary, not only in terms of democracy and common sense; it flatly contradicts the commitment of her
236
own leader, and it was a commitment not lightly given. In the preface to Labour's document, on page 8 the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) wrote:
"At the time of the next General Election, we will set out the accurate costs of our manifesto proposals in the light of the economic situation we are likely to inherit and the priorities which we consider most urgent."
That promise has now been rendered purely symbolic, I gather. There is to be no costing exercise, no attempt to explain to the people the issues on which they will be voting. The fact is that we shall not let the Opposition get away with it, and it is not only us, but some Back-Bench Opposition Members who will not let them get away with it. I remember the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) saying:
"You can be miles ahead in the polls, but when you get to the last three weeks people think, 'Could I afford a Labour Government?"
He added:
"If you can't tell people where the money is coming from, they won't vote for you".
Absolutely.
At the heart of the debate lies the question: does control of public expenditure matter? Conservative Members believe that it is crucial. Opposition Members appear to be willing to accede to any remotely plausible demands for more money. We have seen where that leads. We saw where it led in 1976, when the brokers' men from the IMF were called in.
There is a positive face to public expenditure controls: they make for a more dynamic economy. Ultimately it is everyone's right to spend his own money as he wishes, but the Opposition would take away that right. They have seen Socialism destroyed, but they are not prepared to admit it as they face the electorate in the next general election.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 274.

Division No. 73]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cartwright, John

Allen, Graham

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Alton, David

Clay, Bob

Anderson, Donald

Clelland, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cohen, Harry

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Coleman, Donald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Crowther, Stan

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Bell, Stuart

Dalyell, Tam

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Darling, Alistair

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

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bidwell, Sydney

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

Blair, Tony

Dewar, Donald

Blunkett, David

Dixon, Don

Boateng, Paul

Dobson, Frank

Boyes, Roland

Doran, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Douglas, Dick

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Buchan, Norman

Eadie, Alexander

Buckley, George J.

Eastham, Ken

Caborn, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Callaghan, Jim

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fearn, Ronald

Canavan, Dennis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

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

237

Flannery, Martin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Flynn, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Foster, Derek

Morgan, Rhodri

Foulkes, George

Morley, Elliot

Fraser, John

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fyfe, Maria

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Galloway, George

Mullin, Chris

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Murphy, Paul

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Nellist, Dave

George, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Godman, Dr Norman A.

O'Brien, William

Gordon, Mildred

O'Neill, Martin

Gould, Bryan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Patchett, Terry

Grocott, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Pike, Peter L.

Harman, Ms Harriet

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Prescott, John

Haynes, Frank

Primarolo, Dawn

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Radice, Giles

Heffer, Eric S.

Randall, Stuart

Henderson, Doug

Redmond, Martin

Hinchliffe, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Richardson, Jo

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Home Robertson, John

Rooker, Jeff

Hood, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Ruddock, Joan

Hoyle, Doug

Salmond, Alex

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Illsley, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Ingram, Adam

Short, Clare

Janner, Greville

Sillars, Jim

Johnston, Sir Russell

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

Kennedy, Charles

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Kirkwood, Archy

Snape, Peter

Lambie, David

Soley, Clive

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Leighton, Ron

Steinberg, Gerry

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Strang, Gavin

Lewis, Terry

Straw, Jack

Litherland, Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Turner, Dennis

Loyden, Eddie

Vaz, Keith

McAllion, John

Wall, Pat

McAvoy, Thomas

Wallace, James

Macdonald, Calum A.

Walley, Joan

McFall, John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wareing, Robert N.

McKelvey, William

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McLeish, Henry

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Maclennan, Robert

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McWilliam, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Madden, Max

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wilson, Brian

Marek, Dr John

Winnick, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Worthington, Tony

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wray, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Meale, Alan

Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashby, David

Amess, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Amos, Alan

Atkins, Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Atkinson, David

238

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

French, Douglas

Batiste, Spencer

Fry, Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gale, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Gardiner, George

Bendall, Vivian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gill, Christopher

Benyon, W.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodlad, Alastair

Body, Sir Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell, Tim

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gow, Ian

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grist, Ian

Brazier, Julian

Ground, Patrick

Bright, Graham

Grylls, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, William

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

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Hannam, John

Buck, Sir Antony

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

Budgen, Nicholas

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Burns, Simon

Harris, David

Burt, Alistair

Haselhurst, Alan

Butcher, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Butler, Chris

Hayes, Jerry

Butterfill, John

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carttiss, Michael

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hill, James

Chapman, Sydney

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, Mr

Hordern, Sir Peter

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

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Colvin, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hunter, Andrew

Couchman, James

Irvine, Michael

Cran, James

Irving, Sir Charles

Critchley, Julian

Jack, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Janman, Tim

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

Jessel, Toby

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Day, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Devlin, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dicks, Terry

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dorrell, Stephen

Key, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kilfedder, James

Dover, Den

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dunn, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Durant, Tony

Knapman, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knowles, Michael

Evennett, David

Knox, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fallon, Michael

Lang, Ian

Favell, Tony

Latham, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lee, John (Pendle)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

239

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Rowe, Andrew

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Maclean, David

Ryder, Richard

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sackville, Hon Tom

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Madel, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Major, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Malins, Humfrey

Shelton, Sir William

Mans, Keith

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Marland, Paul

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marlow, Tony

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sims, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maude, Hon Francis

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Speller, Tony

Mellor, David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Miller, Sir Hal

Squire, Robin

Mills, Iain

Stanbrook, Ivor

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stern, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David

Stevens, Lewis

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Moss, Malcolm

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Sumberg, David

Mudd, David

Summerson, Hugo

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tredinnick, David

Norris, Steve

Trippier, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Twinn, Dr Ian

Oppenheim, Phillip

Viggers, Peter

Page, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Warren, Kenneth

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wells, Bowen

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilkinson, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wilshire, David

Price, Sir David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Winterton, Nicholas

Rathbone, Tim

Wood, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tellers for the Noes:

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Government's Expenditure Plans for 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm. 1001–1009,1011–1018, and 1021).

Prison Officer's Quarters (Ashford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
10.14 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a serious domestic problem facing one of my constituents which has been caused by the prison department, and to urge the Home Office to do something about it. For reasons that will become obvious, I do not propose to name my constituent tonight, although I have written to the Minister giving him her name and address.
In a nutshell, the problem I am inviting the Minister to solve is as follows. Contrary to the rules, the prison department allocated a second quarter to the husband of my constituent after he walked out on her and his two children. That amounted to helping a husband and father ignore his responsibilities. Now, two years later, the Home Office is seeking to rectify its error by putting my constituent and her children out on the street as there is no way that they can find alternative accommodation. That nasty little case of prison department incompetence and Home Office dither has caused great anguish to my constituent.
Let me set out the facts of the case. My constituent has been married to a prison officer for nearly 22 years. She has lived in prison department quarters for 21 of those years and she has lived at her present address for nearly 11 years. Her children were born in 1968 and 1970 and both still live with her. In autumn 1987 the prison department offered the house for sale at a discount under the fresh start scheme to my constituent and her husband because that house was surplus to requirements. In February 1988, the husband left home to live with another woman. Subsequently his plans fell through and he ended up in digs. In June 1988 the prison department allocated him another quarter. Thirteen months of silence followed. In June 1989, my constituent discovered that the Home Office was beginning to ask questions. In July 1989 my constituent asked the Home Office what was going on and in the same month she received her first contact from the prison department. On 11 August 1989 she received a notice to quit. That notice expired on 12 September 1989, since when there has been another silence, this time for five months.
Four issues arise out of that catalogue of facts. First, the prison department has broken its own rules by allocating a second quarter. Secondly, the prison department has actively helped a husband and father walk away from his responsibilities. Thirdly, the prison department and the Home Office have responded to my constituent's and my inquiries and correspondence with protracted delay and dither. Fourthly, contrary to natural justice, the Home Office is seeking to make my constituent and her two children put right its mistakes and those of her husband.
I do not need to say much about the first issue—breaking prison department rules—because the Government themselves are on record as admitting that the rules have been broken. A letter to me from the then Under-Secretary of State dated 22 August 1989 stated:
"On the point you have raised about the allocation of a second prison quarter, I can confirm that this is contrary to Departmental policy. Since this allocation was made, very specific guidance has been issued to all governors and a similar situation should not occur in future."

241
In plain English that means, "We were wrong. It will not happen again.". That is fine for the future, but it is not much comfort for my constituent.
The second issue concerns the role of the prison department and the Home Office in helping a husband and father walk away from his responsibilities. One letter from a Minister suggested that I was claiming that the Home Office had contributed to the breakdown of a marriage. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am making no such claims, but the prison department helped the husband to ignore his responsibilities. The husband left home for another woman. It did not work out. He could have gone back to his original home after making proper arrangements for his family. Instead, he persuaded the prison department to give him a second home. One accepts that he paid both rents, but his words make his motives absolutely clear. In a note to my constituent dated 21 July 1989, he says:
"I have checked again with the Prison Officers Association. After you receive your Notice to Quit you should not move. The Department then applies for a Possession Order and a time limit is set—even after this there is an appeal procedure. The whole process can take up to several months. They have never evicted anybody yet and Spelthorne Council have always eventually co-operated."
Again, in plain English, he is saying "I am OK; let the Home Office do my dirty work, and let the council pick up the pieces." Being party to such a plan does the Home Office no credit whatever.
The third issue that emerges from this sorry saga is a small but important one about bureaucratic dither and delay. Between February 1988 and July 1989—almost 18 months—my constituent heard nothing from the prison department. Last year it took the Home Office four months to answer one of my letters. As I said earlier, the notice to quit took effect five months ago, since when there has been another deafening silence. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to imagine what it is like every time the letter-box rattles in my constituent's home. Every time that she hears something drop on the doormat she fears the worst. In my view, that is no way to treat a citizen of this country, and what has happened is no way to treat a Member of Parliament.
The fourth issue is that my constituent has been made to pay for the errors of others. Courtesy of a mistake, the husband has a roof over his head and has no worries. Meanwhile, my constituent and her two children face the prospect of sleeping rough.
Spelthorne borough council has made it crystal clear to me that there is no question of its providing her with a home. Private rented accommodation simply does not exist in my constituency. My constituent has approached over 40 housing associations for help, but has been given a no every time. There is no question of her being able to afford buying on the open market.
The situation amounts to this: the husband need do nothing; he walked out, but my constituent pays the price; he remains cosy and warm, but she will get cold and wet. Where is the natural justice in that? The Home Office should be ashamed of being associated with that.
What is to be done about the problem? I can foresee four possible solutions. The first is to evict the husband and let him sort out his own problems, whereby the Home Office would be back to one quarter for one prison officer. Secondly, the Home Office could transfer my constituent's
242
home to the local council; the problem would go away because the council would have another house and she would have somewhere to live. Thirdly, the Home Office could make my constituent a secure tenant, and she would know where she stood in the future. Fourthly, the Home Office could sell the house to my constituent at a discount.
To date, the Home Office has shown little interest in trying to be helpful. Last August, all that it said was, "What a pity." Last December, it said, "We will do nothing for three months, and then out she goes." Finally, it told me, "We will sell to her at market price." That will not help. If my constituent could afford a house she would have bought one by now. That is not a record to be proud of.
We have reached a stage where the only honourable solution for the Home Office is to return to where we were in the autumn of 1987 and to agree to allow my constituent to buy her home at the discount that was then on offer. She has lived in a prison house for 21 years, and on that argument qualifies for the maximum discount. Her current home was declared by the Home Office to be surplus to requirements. I am aware that matters have moved on and that the Home Office is trying to say, in effect, "We did not really mean that, and the situation has changed." But it must still be surplus to requirements, for as recently as in the last two months the Home Office has again agreed to sell it.
At the same time, there is no danger, if the Home Office agrees to the sale, of setting a precedent. That is clear from a written answer that I received in December of last year from the Minister of State, who told me:
"I am aware of only two cases where a second quarter has been allocated to a prison officer before surrender of the original quarter with vacant possession."—[Official Report, 21 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 387.]
So there were only two, and hence there is no question of opening the floodgates if this wrong were put right. As I explained, there is no danger of it happening again because the Government have made it clear that they have tightened up the regulations.
Here we have an episode which does nobody any credit. A husband and father has walked away from his responsibilities, a Government Department has broken its rules and helped him to do so and a wife and two children face sleeping rough because of what has happened. That offends against my sense of decency and is contrary to what I believe government, of whatever party, is all about.
Those who caused this problem have it in their power to put things right. I call on my right hon. Friend to do just that and thereby to put an end to three people's anguish, to agree to sell their house at a discount and to restore my faith in decency and natural justice.
10.27 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I rise with some temerity to answer the debate because I am understudying for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has ministerial responsibility for prisons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) appreciates.
My hon. Friend represented the issue characteristically, in a robust and forthright way, and nobody could hope for a better representation than my hon. Friend provided for his constituents tonight.
I apologise to my hon. Friend unreservedly for any delays in answering his correspondence on the part of the

243
Home Office. That should not happen. We try to make sure that it does not happen. Sometimes, alas, it happens, and when it does, Ministers are responsible. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delays that occurred.
In responding as constructively as I can, it might be useful if I gave a brief history of developments in housing for prison officers and explained how the prison department finds itself in the position that we are considering tonight.
For many years, official quarters have been provided for prison officers, who were required, as part of their conditions of service, to occupy them. In other words, they had to live there. A housing allowance was paid if a quarter was not immediately vacant, but officers were required to move into official accommodation when it became available.
Permission to live out, as it was called—if an officer wished to buy his own property—was given infrequently and generally, in prison officer practice, only when an official quarter was not available. Such an arrangement meant in effect that the vast majority of prison officers, as they neared retirement, had no house of their own and little prospect of obtaining a mortgage. It was not a happy situation, and certainly not one that the present Government would wish to encourage.
An increasing number of prison officers began to seek permission to live out to enable them to become home owners and it became difficult to justify a policy that insisted that if a quarter was available, it must be occupied.
By 1979, about one third of all prison officers were living in their own houses. In August of that year, the Government introduced a change in policy enabling prison governors to allow applications to live out wherever possible. There was no good reason to oppose it. Where that resulted in quarters becoming surplus to long-term requirements, they were, in effect, sold on the open market, and I am sure that that has happened in my hon. Friend's constituency. Some quarters could not, and probably never can be, disposed of on security grounds. But some were sold to prison officers and others to authorities and private individuals at full market value.
By 1983 that approach had led to something of a revolution. By then two thirds of prison officers lived out. The Prison Officers Association sought a scheme whereby the remaining official quarters could be sold at a discount. That approach was in line with Government policy, of course, and during 1983 and 1984 negotiations between the Treasury. the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association took place. The official side offered two package schemes comprising discount sales and the consolidation of housing allowances into basic pay. The POA balloted its members, who did not like the schemes, and they were rejected.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of discounts. In the light of the rejection of the proposed schemes, it was concluded that there was little prospect of any progress being made on discount sales, but requests for such a scheme continued, understandably when prison officers looked round at others in the public service who were enjoying the right to buy at a discount. In 1987 the wider-reaching fresh start proposals, which included the consolidation of allowances, including housing allowances, into basic pay gave us in the Home Office another opportunity, rightly, to offer those in quarters assistance to purchase their quarter, or another surplus quarter if they preferred it, and the discount sales scheme was introduced.
244
Since the introduction of the fresh start scheme, as it is known, quarters are no longer provided as a condition of service. That has finished entirely. A prison officer no longer needs to go to the governor and say, "Permission to live out, sir." He has that automatically. Effectively an officer can choose to live wherever he or she wishes, but the distance the officer has to travel to work, any difficulty in getting to the establishment, or any domestic responsibility cannot be accepted as excuses for irregular attendance. The scheme is working well. We have agreed that those occupying quarters, who do not wish or are unable to purchase their homes at a discount, can remain in the quarter and pay a notional rent.
It became clear that with the end of quarters entitlement for prison officers and the introduction of a discount sales scheme, for which we have already received about 5,000 applications to purchase, the stock of quarters will reduce rapidly. There can, of course, be absolutely no suggestion of providing new quarters for staff, but we felt that there was a need to make the best use of the dwindling stock of housing, especially in London and the south-east where housing costs are high, as my hon. Friend knows. He said that there was no private rented accommodation available in his constitutency, which I understand. The available stock will be allocated to prison officers moving from a low-cost housing area to a high-cost area or where there are sound compassionate reasons.
How is a quarter allocated? How did my hon. Friend's constituent and his wife find themselves in a quarter? Allocation is made purely by virtue of employment as a prison officer; that is the key phrase. The quarter remains the officer's sole responsibility until it is returned to the department with vacant possession. In other words., a quarter is allocated because someone is employed as a prison officer. There is no other ground. Responsibility for allocation lies with the governor of each establishment who will liaise, as necessary, with his regional office.
So the allocation of a quarter is made to an officer on a personal basis and should be his main residence where he and his family should reside. In the event that he vacates the quarter, the officer remains responsible for the quarter and for payment of rent until it is returned with vacant possession. The officer cannot transfer responsibility for the quarter to his wife or to anyone else. The wife has no continuing right of occupancy. That is made clear at the beginning of the occupation of the quarter. By vacating, the prison officer has also broken his own continuity of occupancy and ceases at that time to be eligible to purchase the quarter under the discount sales scheme. That is an important point to make to the House.
The position of the wife and the children—if any—is that they have no right to remain in the quarter and will be subject to eviction proceedings. An officer will not normally be allocated a second quarter until he or she has surrendered the original quarter with vacant possession, but there is provision for second allocations to be made in exceptional circumstances.
That brings me to the specific case that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has so forcefully drawn to the attention of the House. With characteristic tact—and quite rightly—he has not named the individuals concerned and I shall follow his example. I am aware of the case at Ashford to which he refers, in which a prison officer separated from his wife, leaving her and the children of the marriage in occupation of a prison service quarter. I understand that, as my hon. Friend said, the officer made

245
alternative temporary arrangements for accommodation until he was allocated a second quarter at the same establishment. That is somewhat unusual, to put it mildly, although it is not unique. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, it has happened only twice before.
The governor clearly felt that the officer's circumstances were such that there were particular compassionate reasons for making the second allocation. The officer involved is, of course, responsible for both quarters and for the payment of both rents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is very concerned to support the family in this country, as I know from listening to him on other occasions in the House. He and I share a similar interest in family policy and in trying to develop ways of supporting rather than diminishing the family. There has been a flavour of a suggestion in the discussion and correspondence of this case with others involved—and I do not mean only in my hon. Friend's lucid speech—that the prison department made it a bit easier for the officer, not to leave his wife, but to evade his family responsibilities by providing him with alternative accommodation. I have considered that because it is an important suggestion. It does not seem, on examination, to bear such a close relation to the facts when one considers the chronology. It was several months after leaving his wife that the second quarter was allocated to the officer. My hon. Friend was generous enough to say that he was not suggesting that the prison department contributed to the break-up of the marriage, and he generously gives his assent to that now. However, my hon. Friend feels that the allocation of a second quarter, albeit several months after the officer had left his wife, allowed the gentleman concerned to evade his responsibilities.
I have examined the matter, and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for prison issues, advises me that the wife can purchase the property at full market value and that the offer has been made. Failing that, she can be required to find alternative accommodation. I have also found that, in December 1989, my hon. and learned Friend agreed that no further
246
action would be taken to evict the wife for three months, after which the case would be reviewed, and that it would not be right to prejudge the matter at this stage of a review.
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne an undertaking. I do not want the Home Office to take precipitate action to recover possession of quarters, especially after listening to my hon. Friend's forceful speech. If the wife is unable to purchase, I can pledge at least that I shall ensure that the Home Office considers sympathetically a request for extensions of time to enable her to make alternative arrangements. That gives some time before the dread envelopes drop on the doormat.
Mr. Wilshire rose—
Mr. Patten: I shall give way to my hon. Friend before I finish, if he wishes. I shall convey my hon. Friend's deep concern to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and put to him each of the three options that my hon. Friend outlined.
Mr. Wilshire: My constituent will be grateful for the consideration that has been shown but the facts will remain the same however much the time is extended. For the reasons that I gave, it will not be possible to make other arrangements when the time runs out. Whether the Home Office likes it or not, if it acts it will put my constituent and her two children out on the street with nowhere to live.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's constituent has made heroic efforts to find a solution to her problem. She has approached some 40 housing associations. In my experience of such cases, an opportunity to deal with someone's housing difficulty sometimes emerges which was not there a few weeks before.
I have given a clear undertaking to my hon. Friend, and apologised to him for what he saw as poor handling of correspondence. His constituent's wife will be able to remain. We shall certainly consider sympathetically a request for an extension of time to determine whether alternative arrangements can be made. In the meantime, I shall put to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State the three possible solutions that my hon. Friend put forward, and for which we are grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Libraries (Beetles)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recommendations he has made to historic libraries on protecting their collections of books against the Australian spider beetle and the biscuit beetle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The national preservation office, funded by the British Library, maintains a free inquiry and advice service to libraries in the United Kingdom on all aspects of preservation and security, including the protection of books against beetle.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Privatised Industries
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the possible renationalisation of privatised industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many profit-related pay schemes are linked to the profitability of the firm as a whole rather than to a smaller unit; and how many people are affected.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information is not readily available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer in each year of the profit-related pay scheme.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows.

  Year

  Estimated cost of income tax relief £ million

  1987–88

  negligible

  1988–89

  10

  1989–90

  15

  Costs are expected to increase in future.

  Payroll Taxes
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of different levels of payroll tax on the costs of industry.
  122
  Mr. Lilley
  A payroll tax levied as a percentage of total payroll would raise an estimated £1¼ billion for each 0·5 per cent. of the tax rate.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each year that PEPs have been in operation what is(a) the number of people with PEPs, (b) the average holding per person in a PEP and the distribution of holdings and (c) the distribution of PEP holdings by region.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of plans taken out since the introduction of personal equity plans is estimated as follows:—

  Year

  Total

  1987

  270,000

  1988

  120,000

  1989

  300,000

  Total

  690,000

  The average value of the investment in each plan is as follows.

  Year

  £

  1987

  1,650

  1988

  1,800

  An estimate for 1989 is not available yet and there is no information available on the distribution of the level of investments or the regional distribution of investors.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has on whether the existence of PEPs has increased(a) personal shareholdings and (b) savings.

  Mr. Lilley
  Personal equity plans offer a simple and cheap way of owning shares and have been very successful in shares and encouraging the spread of share ownership.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the distribution of personal equity plan holdings by income in each year of the scheme's existence.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of(a) non-United Kingdom shares and (b) shares in privatised companies held on average in each PEP and their distribution.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information is not available. Non-United Kingdom shares may not be held directly in a PEP.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of PEP savings he estimates are diverted from other forms of savings, and what information he has as to what these other savings are.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the amount and share of pre-tax income accruing to (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the top 25 per cent., (e) the bottom 70 per cent., (f) the bottom 5 per cent. and (g) all taxpayers in each year from 1978–79 to 1989–90 and the amount and share of tax liability for each of these groups.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are given in the tables for 1978–79 and 1983–84 to 1989–90. Information for other years could

  Group of taxpayers1

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 25 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  Year

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Gross Incomes before tax

  1978–79

  5·1

  5

  15·0

  15

  24·3

  24

  45·9

  45

  51·0

  50

  102·8

  1983–84

  9·7

  6

  28·3

  16

  45·0

  26

  81·7

  47

  82·0

  47

  173·7

  1984–85

  10·9

  6

  31·4

  17

  49·6

  26

  89·3

  47

  88·8

  47

  188·8

  1985–86

  12·9

  6

  35·7

  17

  55·9

  26

  100·5

  47

  100·0

  47

  212·6

  1986–87

  15·1

  7

  40·8

  17

  63·2

  27

  112·5

  48

  107·3

  46

  232·9

  1987–88

  16·4

  6

  45·3

  18

  70·1

  28

  124·2

  49

  116·2

  46

  255·1

  1988–892

  19·3

  7

  52·3

  18

  80·5

  28

  141·3

  49

  129·2

  45

  287·0

  1989–902

  22·0

  7

  59·3

  18

  91·2

  28

  159·5

  50

  144·5

  45

  322·1

  Income tax liabilities

  1978–79

  2·3

  11

  4·9

  24

  7·0

  34

  11·5

  57

  7·7

  38

  20·2

  1983–84

  2·8

  11

  8·5

  26

  12·2

  36

  19·5

  58

  12·5

  38

  33·4

  1984–85

  4·2

  12

  9·3

  26

  13·3

  38

  21·1

  60

  12·4

  35

  35·4

  1985–86

  5·0

  13

  10·6

  27

  14·8

  38

  23·2

  60

  13·6

  35

  38·8

  1986–87

  6·2

  14

  12·7

  29

  17·3

  40

  26·5

  61

  14·5

  34

  43·3

  1987–88

  6·6

  15

  13·7

  30

  18·5

  41

  28·0

  62

  14·9

  33

  45·4

  1988–892

  6·1

  13

  13·9

  29

  19·0

  41

  29·1

  62

  15·1

  32

  46·7

  1989–902

  7·1

  13

  16·0

  30

  22·0

  42

  33·3

  63

  16·9

  32

  53·1

  1 Married couples and single people.

  2 Provisional.

  Revenues
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenues have been received by Government for each year from 1979–80 to the present and in aggregate in real terms from(a) North sea oil, (b) privatisation proceeds and (c) other sales of land or property of central or local government.

  Mr. Lilley
  Such information as is readily available is included on the CSO database (identified by the database codes) and published in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1021) as follows:

  (a) total north sea taxes—database, code ABLG

  (b) privatisation proceeds—Table 21.5.13 of Cm. 1021

  (c) sales of land and buildings—Table 21.2.17 of Cm. 1021 implied GDP (at market price) deflator—database code DJDT

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will adopt the Keith committee proposal to require taxpayers to disclose tax avoidance transactions.

  Mr. Lilley
  The recommendation of the Keith committee that the taxpayer should be obliged to tell the inspector where he has taken the benefit of any doubt whether any item ought to be declared, or any relief or deduction allowed, was rejected, following extensive public consultations, because it was found that it would be both burdensome and impracticable.
  124
  be provided only at disproportionate cost. All estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1987–88 and projections of the 1987–88 survey for subsequent years; the latter are therefore provisional. I regret that information on the bottom 5 per cent. of taxpayers is not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to take measures to prevent fringe banks from funding tax avoidance schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. Banks must be free to decide whether to fund any legitimate activity.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take to protect the interests of the Inland Revenue in personal bankruptcy cases involving moneys held by Isle of Man or Channel Islands based trusts.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue will continue to use all measures available to it under the insolvency legislation.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking assistance through the tax system to employers setting up nurseries.

  Mr. Lilley
  Employers can already obtain tax relief for most of the costs of setting up and running workplace nurseries. As to the provision of any further assistance, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Child Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received about the taxation of the use of child care facilities.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of bank provision against less-developed country debt will be accepted for the financial year 1989–90 as appropriate to offset against corporation tax liability.

  Mr. Lilley
  Banks are entitled to a tax deduction for the proportion of doubtful debt which is estimated to be irrecoverable. The amount will be negotiated between the Inland Revenue and the banks when the banks submit their accounts for the year.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recieved, and from whom, seeking encouragement through the use of the tax system for the development or use of electrically powered road vehicles.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received few representations concerning tax concessions for the development or use of electrically powered road vehicles.

  Day Vee
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue has sought the return of any former directors of Day Vee to the United Kingdom to help with its investigations into the company's tax liabilities.

  Mr. Lilley
  Such information is confidential.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses regarding the effects of interest rates.

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

  Investment
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to meet his West German counterpart to discuss investment policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the West German Finance Minister at the European Community's Economic and Finance Council. In our countries business investment has been buoyant in the last two years: in the United Kingdom it grew by over 30 per cent. in the two years to 1988, owing to the success of the Government's policies in fostering confidence in the future of the United Kingdom economy.

  Taxation Revenue
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in rank order the total revenue raised from the 21 different forms of taxation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information can be found in tables 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 in "Financial Statistics", published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in order of amount collected by the Treasury each of the different and separate forms of taxation in the United Kingdom for 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The information can be found in tables 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 in "Financial Statistics", published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Inland Revenue Office, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons employed at the Inland Revenue office in Cumbernauld are registered as disabled; and what percentage this represents of the total work force.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue employs 26 registered disabled staff in its office at Cumbernauld; this represents 2·47 per cent. of the total staff at 9 February 1990.

  Paymaster General's Office
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to move the Paymaster General's office from Crawley.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: No.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional annual cost or yield to the Exchequer in tax relief on mortgage interest payments of every 1 per cent. rise or reduction in mortgage interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: An increase or reduction of one percentage point in the level of mortgage interest rates would increase or reduce the annual cost of mortgage interest relief on the current stock of mortgages by about £550 million.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures showing total receipts, from capital transfer tax and inheritance tax for each year from 1980 expressed(a) in cash terms at 1990 prices and (b) as a percentage of total Inland Revenue receipts.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The receipts of capital transfer tax and inheritance tax for each financial year since 1980–81 are:

  Year

  Receipts at forecast 1990–91 Prices £ million

  Percentage of total Inland Revenue Receipts

  1980–81

  760

  1·3

  1981–82

  781

  1·2

  1982–83

  758

  1·1

  127

  Year

  Receipts at forecast 1990–91 Prices £ million

  Percentage of total Inland Revenue Receipts

  1983–84

  869

  1·3

  1984–85

  909

  1·3

  1985–86

  1,156

  1·6

  1986–87

  1,263

  1·7

  1987–88

  1,299

  1·7

  1988–89

  1,203

  1·6

  11989–90

  1,200

  1·5

  1 Converted using the GDP market price deflator and Autumn Statement forecast.

  Beverage Containers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if value added tax was levied at(a) 20 per cent. (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 30 per cent. on non-returnable beverage containers.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: No measurable extra revenue would accrue because beverage containers are normally taxed at the same rate as their contents when the goods are supplied.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of not taxing company cars at their full value.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The benefit of the private use of a company car is taxed by reference to fixed scale charges, but the value of private use to any particular employee depends on a wide range of factors. Information about these is not available, so it is not possible to provide an estimate of the aggregate extent to which the private use of company cars is undertaxed.

  Inflation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the impact on inflation of raising £1 billion from(a) tobacco products, (b) beer, (c) wine and spirits, (d) petrol (e) value added tax and (f) vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The estimated impact on the retail prices index of raising £1 billion from each of the specific taxes and duties is shown in the table.

  Source

  Effect on retail price index (per cent.)

  Tobacco

  0·64

  Beer

  0·48

  Wines and spirits

  0·91

  Petrol

  0·29

  VAT

  0·32

  VED

  0·24

  These estimates are subject to a considerable margin of error given the large duty changes implied.

  Petrol Duties
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the impact on the retail price index of increasing excise duties on petrol by twice what is needed for indexation, and raising excise on the other areas by as much as is necessary to achieve the same overall revenue for the Exchequer as would be achieved by full indexation only of all items.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: 0·47 per cent.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual reduction in income tax for a married man earning(a) £160,000 per year and (b) £260,000 per year as a result of the changes brought in by the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: A married man earning £160,000 in 1989–90 and claiming no reliefs of allowances other than the married man's allowance has income tax liability of £25,045 less than if the allowances and thresholds in 1987–88 had been indexed to 1989–90 and the tax rates had remained unchanged at 1987–88 levels. A married man earning £260,000 would have a corresponding reduction of £45,045.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the general conditions of approval of occupational and personal pension schemes by the Inland Revenue are such as to permit the provision of payments out of such a scheme of an amount related to a person's accrued or prospective retirement pension under the scheme, such payments to be made throughout any period in which that person is entitled to the payment of an invalidity pension from the national insurance fund and to cease at the end of that period.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The main purpose of occupational and personal pension schemes is to provide an income in retirement. The tax approval conditions for such schemes allow benefits to be paid before retirement age if a person is incapable of continuing in employment. There is no requirement on schemes to provide a pension before retirement age. Decisions on whether an incapacity pension is payable are matters for the scheme trustees and their criteria might differ from entitlements to invalidity pensions. Incapacity pensions are normally payable for life.

  HMSO
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the quality of service performance indicators that have been introduced into HMSO since its establishment as an agency.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 15 January 1990 at column 98.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Taxis
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the circumstances under which police records are made available to the authorities concerned with the licensing of hackney-carriage and private hire drivers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information from police records is not generally made available for these purposes. In London records are available for the purpose of licensing hackney-carriage drivers, since the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is the licensing authority.

  Boundary Commission (Wales)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure of the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales during the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The parliamentary boundary commissions for England and Wales share a common secretariat and premises. Although work now in hand will enable costs to be identified for each commission separately, at present it is possible to give only the total combined expenditure of the two commissions, which for 1988–89 was £252,160. Members of the parliamentary boundary commissions receive no remuneration or attendance alowance, but are recompensed for any reasonably actual expenses incurred.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from Scotland concerning any proposed change to British summer time.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 5,475 representations, including signatures on petitions, were received from Scotland.

  Shotgun Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to whether any disciplinary action has been taken against any officer in regard to the renewal of the shotgun certificate of Mr. G. W. Phillips.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable that no such disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to whether a receipt was issued for the shotgun, the property of Mr. G. W. Phillips, when it was taken into the possession of the Gwent constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The local administration of the firearms licensing system is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned.
  130
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Gwent as to what training has been given to police officers on the procedures for dealing with applications, renewals and variation of firearms and for shotgun certificates under(a) the Firearms Act 1968 and (b) the Firearms Act 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Training in the local administration of firearm licensing procedures is a matter for the chief officer of police concerned.

  Security Service
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Horne Department whether the security service tribunal is declining to accept complaints against the security service which relate to matters that took place prior to any given date.

  Mr. John Patten
  The tribunal is subject to paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to the Security Service Act 1989.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will set out the procedure within his Department for authorising transfers of personal data to other Government Departments; and at what level such decisions are authorised;

  (2) on what grounds decisions are taken to transfer personal data held by his Department to other Government Departments;

  (3) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to other Government Departments; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (4) what internal guidelines covering the transfer of personal data to other Government Departments are available to staff in his Department; and whether he will place a copy of any such guidelines in the Library;

  (5) what kind of personal data held by his Department, whether on computer or manually, are transferred to other Government Departments;

  (6) what plans exist in his Department for the transfer of personal data via the Government data network; and what new procedures have been adopted within the Department to prevent unauthorised transfers of such data;

  (7) what records are kept of transfers of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments; and whether the Data Protection Registrar has access to the relevant records;

  (8) whether records will be kept of all personal data transferred to other Government Departments via the Government data network;

  (9) whether the rules governing the transfer of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments are the same for data held manually as for data held on computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Where information comprising personal data is computerised, disclosures are made only as permitted by the appropriate registration under the Data Protection Act 1984 or by one of the statutory exemptions embodied within the Act. The general guidance issued to staff is that dealing with the application of the Data Protection Act 1984, a copy of which has been
  131
  placed in the Library. This is the position whether or not there is any connection to the Government data network; and there are no plans at present to maintain records of, or issue central guidance dealing with, the transfer of personal data over the Government data network.

  As regards non-computerised personal data, depending on the nature of the information held appropriate local procedures determine to whom the information may be disclosed, and who may authorise the disclosure. The Home Office holds many millions of records containing personal data, both manual and computerised, on a wide range of subjects: in consequence, the remaining detailed information sought in these questions is not readily available and could not be obtained save at disproportionate cost.

  Drugs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposed international drugs conference in London.

  Mr. Mellor
  The world ministerial summit to reduce the demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine threat is being organised by Her Majesty's Government in association with the United Nations and will take place in London from 9 to 11 April 1990.

  It is to be opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who will be joined for the opening session by the President of Colombia and the Secretary General of the United Nations. Expert speakers from around the world will address the working sessions. It is hoped that the summit will strengthen our knowledge of ways to tackle the drug problem and will lead to an even greater commitment internationally to reduce the demand for all drugs and to combat the production and traffic in cocaine.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts his Department has given to outside management consultants in policy areas concerning his Department since January 1985 and the date of completion and cost of each contract.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to the reply, 31 January 1990, c. 203]: A contract awarded to Deloitte, Haskins and Sells to investigate the "Practicality of Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System", completed in February 1989 at a cost of £207,865 (exclusive of VAT), should have been included in my right hon. and learned Friend's answer of 31 January 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Women Staff
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Overseas Development Administration staff are women in(a) all positions within the ODA, (b) ODA staff based in the United Kingdom, (c) ODA staff based overseas, (d) ODA staff at or above the level of grade seven, and (e) ODA staff at or above the level of grade five.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 2 January 1990 the numbers of women employed in the ODA were:132

  Total

  Women

  per cent.

  All grades

  1,525

  662

  43·3

  Staff in United Kingdom

  1,475

  653

  44·3

  Staff overseas

  50

  9

  18·0

  Staff at or above grade 7

  259

  26

  10·0

  Staff at or above grade 5

  50

  5

  10·0

  These figures exclude casual staff and staff on special leave without pay.

  Education Conference
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be representing Her Majesty's Government at the world conference on education for all in Thailand on 5 to 9 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Government will be represented by the Overseas Development Administration's chief education adviser and by the Under-Secretary for international relations at the Department of Education and Science.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Antrim Technology Park
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to the Exchequer of developing the Antrim technology park in the period up to 31 March 1989; and how many jobs have been created by the expenditure to date.

  Mr. Needham
  The cost of developing the park and constructing the buildings has been £4,405,672. Present employment in companies located at the park is 234.

  Police Services
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police services, other than the Royal Ulster Constabulary, operate within Northern Ireland; what is the location of work for each of these services; how many personnel are employed as policemen and policewomen in each of these services; and what is the employing authority for each of these police services.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are three police services operating within the transport sector in Northern Ireland. They are:

  a. Northern Ireland Airports Constabulary; 76 policemen and 7 policewomen; Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.

  b. Belfast Harbour Police; 35 policemen, Belfast Harbour Commissioners.

  c. Lame Harbour Constabulary; 16 policemen; Larne Harbour Limited.

  Fire Service
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for the last three years for which information is available all those occasions when the fire service has had to attend Royal Ulster Constabulary police stations or other facilities, stating whether the incident was due to terrorist action, fire, arson or other cause; and if he will make a statement.
  133
  Mr. Cope
  During the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 the brigade attended the following incidents to RUC stations and other police facilities in the Province.

  Dale and Location

  Reason

  6 April 1987—RUC Station, Lisburn Road, Belfast

  Explosion

  8 September 1988—RUC Station, Main Street, Coagh

  Explosion

  11 April 1989—RUC Station, Enniskillen

  Accidental fire

  12 April 1989—RUC Station, Charlotte Street, Warrenpoint

  Explosion

  8 June 1989—RUC Station, Newtownabbey

  Explosion

  1 October 1989—RUC Station, Randalstown

  Explosion

  10 January 1990—RUC Station, Seapark

  Accidental fire

  It is believed that the explosions as listed above were as a result of terrorist attack.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people the Housing Executive has accepted as homeless since 1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989; and how many people who claimed homelessness in that specified period were refused under the regulations as laid down in the Housing (NI) Order 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive says that the information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 April 1989 and 31 December 1989, a total of 3,822 applicants were accepted as being either homeless or threatened with homelessness and 763 applicants were considered not to be homeless or threatened with homelessness under the provisions of the Housing (NI) Order 1988. A further 183 applications are still under consideration.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Northern Ireland Association of Community

  Books and equipment (separate figures for books and equipment not available)

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools

  Year

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  1978–79

  10·40

  22·81

  100

  22·88

  50·17

  100

  24·32

  53·33

  100

  1979–80

  12·05

  22·67

  99

  25·24

  47·49

  94

  26·65

  50·14

  94

  1980–81

  12·34

  19·58

  86

  25·73

  40·82

  81

  30·96

  49·12

  92

  1981–82

  14·37

  20·77

  91

  29·22

  42·23

  84

  38·34

  55·42

  104

  1982–83

  14·63

  19·74

  86

  30·62

  41·33

  82

  38·11

  51·44

  96

  1983–84

  15·08

  19·46

  85

  31·74

  40·95

  81

  41·83

  53·97

  101

  1984–85

  16·37

  20·13

  88

  34·26

  42·13

  84

  46·38

  57·04

  107

  1985–86

  17·14

  19·96

  87

  36·40

  42·41

  84

  46·13

  53·74

  101

  1986–87

  18·30

  20·67

  90

  42·14

  47·59

  95

  67·77

  76·54

  129

  1987–88

  19·94

  21·40

  94

  47·92

  51·42

  103

  84·78

  90·97

  171

  1988–89

  20·00

  20·00

  88

  46·55

  46·55

  93

  87·34

  87·34

  164

  134
  Workshops about the proposed funding arrangements for the youth training programme which will come into effect on 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Association of Community Workshops on 29 January 1990. In response to their representations I have made a number of modifications to the funding arrangements for the youth training programme to meet their concerns. I understand that the association has reacted positively to these changes.

  Fire Authority
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether(a) the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland and (b) Mr. Kerr were legally represented at the hearing held by the Fair Employment Agency in the case of Kerr v. Northern Ireland Fire Authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These are issues for the fire authority and Mr. Kerr. The fire authority was not legally represented at the hearing held by the Fair Employment Agency. Mr. Kerr was accompanied by his solicitor at the hearing.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Fire Authority sought the advice of counsel(a) prior to the decision of the Fair Employment Agency on 6 December and (b) thereafter in the case of Kerr v. Northern Ireland Fire Authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the fire authority whose chairman has informed me that the authority did not seek the advice of counsel either prior to the decision of the Fair Employment Agency on 6 December or thereafter. The fire authority took advice from its solicitor in relation to the FEA report and findings.

  School Expenditure
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will update to the latest available date the answer given to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), 12 May 1989,Official Report, columns 553–54, on expenditure on books and equipment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Donaghadee Carpets
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed at the firm of Donaghadee Carpets; how many redundancies there have been at this firm in the last four weeks; whether the firm is receiving the support of the IDB.; and if he will make a statement on future employment prospects with this company.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: CV Carpets Ltd. employs 460 at Donaghadee. The management and trade union representatives are in discussion about manning levels and working practices, but no redundancies have been made or announced in the last four weeks. The company is in receipt of selective financial assistance from the IDB for a capital investment programme which should provide an increase in employment over the next 18 months; the extent of that support is, as usual, dependent on achievement of the forecast employment levels.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in relation to the fair employment draft guide to effective practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: Following consultation with a wide range of interested parties, the guide was published in its final form by the Department of Economic Development on 31 December 1989. It provides advice and guidance to employers and others on their responsibilities and obligations under the fair employment legislation and has become the first code of practice under section 8 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Parliament
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit the European Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  In the normal course of events, I would expect to visit the European Parliament during the British presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to a rugby league ground.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on summer time.

  The Prime Minister
  The Home Office published a Green Paper entitled "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" (Cm 722) on 27 June 1989 inviting representations on three options for future summer time arrangement. I have received several representations. Over 30,000 have been received at the Home Office.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what further plans she has to meet homeless people in London.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no such plans at present. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking forward, with urgency, action following our review of the homelessness legislation. This includes the allocation of additional resources to relieve homelessness pressures in London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Planning have had a number of meetings with homeless people in London and with voluntary agencies who work with the homeless.

  Aberdeen
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Aberdeen.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to visit Aberdeen during the course of this year.

  TUC
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress; and what matters she intends to discuss.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Poland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Poland.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit Poland at present. I had a friendly and useful meeting with the Polish Prime Minister here yesterday.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the question of sterling and its relationship to the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no present plans to do so.

  1992
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the extent and purpose of the inquiries being initiated by the European Economic Community into the prospects for 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so, but will not hesitate to discuss the studies, if that is likely to be useful. The 1992 prospects are for both opportunities and challenges to British business, and the outcome will depend on the way in which individual firms and industries respond to those opportunities and challenges.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will invite the next meeting of the European Council to agree that the Commission should not present measures to
  137
  implement the provisions of the social charter until the charter has been agreed by all member states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Commission has the right to make proposals on any matters that fall within the competence of the Community as set out in the treaty of Rome. As I made clear in my statement following the last meeting of the European Council in Strasbourg in December—Official Report, 12 December 1989, column 858—we do not endorse the text of the social charter and, judging from their comments, I believe that many of my colleagues in Europe will have considerable difficulties with the Commission's specific proposals when they come forward.

  Private Office
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of her private office in each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of the Prime Minister's office over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Total cost £

  1985–86

  4,405,852

  1986–87

  4,962,950

  1987–88

  5,418,455

  1988–89

  6,553,712

  1989–90

  17,924,979

  1 Estimate.

  Salaries and wages, notional pension liability and administrative costs and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is not included, nor are my pay and allowances as a Member of this House.

  Since 1985 there have been two developments which have affected the way in which costs are assessed. These are inclusion of costs for office services from 1986–87; and inclusion of the cost of redecoration of certain state rooms and of major security works in 1988–89 and 1989–90. When the effects of these developments are excluded (as far as it is possible to do so) and the results expressed in constant price terms at 1988–89 prices, the cost has increased by 6 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of people employed in her private office in each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  The total number of people in my office in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1985–86

  66

  1986–87

  66

  1987–88

  67

  1988–89

  67

  1989–90

  68

  Security Services (Disinformation)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the dissemination of disinformation relating to public figures by the security services in the last 30 years.
  138
  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 6 May 1987.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has issued a formal invitation to Mr. Nelson Mandela to visit her in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  As we explained in our statement of 2 February I plan to do so now that he is free.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she intends to make an official visit to South Africa this year.

  The Prime Minister
  I plan to visit South Africa in due course.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her meeting with the Rev. Jesse Jackson on Monday 6 February.

  The Prime Minister
  We had a full discussion on the situation in South Africa. We share the objective of an end to apartheid through peaceful negotiations.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when was the last time she spoke to President de Klerk of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  We are in regular contact with the South African Government.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all representations additional to that made by the Minister for Sport to the chairman of the Test and County Cricket Board on 2 August 1989 made by(a) herself, (b) any of her Ministers and (c) Government officials to dissuade the members of the rebel cricket tour of South Africa frorn undertaking the tour.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position on the cricket tour to South Africa is set out in my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport's letter of 2 August to the chairman of the Test and County Cricket Board. At my hon. Friend's request, his letter was copied to the players concerned.

  Engagements
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I 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 preside at a dinner in honour of the Prime Minister of Poland.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil and Political Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to incorporate the international covenant on civil and political rights into domestic law.
  139
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply. No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply of 6 February, he will list the cases or proceedings which cause him to treat matters relating to Mr. Lorrain Osman as being sub judice.

  Mr. Maude
  Mr. Osman's fourth application for a writ of habeas corpus, launched on 2 February.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the WEU Assembly recommendation that the WEU Council work out the prior conditions necessary in the conceptual field for SNF negotiations to be resumed without delay after the implementation of the first CFE agreement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The comprehensive concept adopted by NATO Heads of State and Government at their summit in May set out the "prior conditions" for SNF negotiations, namely that once the implementation of an agreement on conventional arms is under way"the United States in consultation with the Allies concerned, is prepared to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction of American and Soviet land-based nuclear missiles of shorter range to equal and verifiable levels."

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the Western European Union Assembly's recommendation that the Western European Union Council call for(a) a complete review of the COCOM lists in the light of a fundamental reassessment of the current state of Soviet technology, with a view to encouraging maximum opportunities for trade, (b) negotiations with proscribed countries for the introduction of verification procedures to accompany all future sales of western strategic technology in return for the further liberalisation of the COCOM list and (c) the establishment, within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe framework, of a committee of experts to make recommendations for the sharing of high technology between East and West.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On his first point I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 15 December at column 839 to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  On his second point I refer my hon. Friend to the comments made by my hon. Friend during the Adjournment debate on 21 December at column 632. There have already been contacts at official level between COCOM partners and Poland and Hungary. The results of these will inform the review of COCOM and its procedures now under way.

  Finally, COCOM provides a forum for national experts to discuss the level of technology to be shared with or transferred to the proscribed destinations. Against the background of an existing military threat, this issue will receive increasing scrutiny in the meetings now under way
  140
  to discuss technology transfer and developments in eastern Europe. The participating states in the CSCE process do not include all the members of COCOM and we would not see the establishment of a separate committee, with the same mandate, as providing any practical benefit.

  EC (Security and Defence)
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken in the framework of the European Community to enable the European Commission to study security and defence questions.

  Mr. Maude
  The political and economic aspects of security are the subject of co-ordination among the member states in European Political Co-operation (EPC). The Commission is fully associated with EPC. The military aspects of security are not the subject of co-ordination in any Community framework.

  Baron Max Khatchaturian
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the post in India will come to a decision on the application by Baron Max Khatchaturian and his family for recognition of their British citizenship and concerning which he has received correspondence from the hon. Member for Caernarfon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Education Conference
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will protest at the participation of a member of the Khmer Rouge as the representative of Cambodia at the world conference on education for all in Thailand on 5 to 9 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The world conference on education for all is being organised and sponsored by four specialised agencies of the United Nations (UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank). We understand that, as Cambodia's representatives at the UN, the National Government of Cambodia (formerly the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea) will have been invited to attend. This is normal practice for such UN-sponsored conferences.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Multi-racial Comprehensives
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to the issues raised in "School Effect: A Study of Multi-racial Comprehensives" produced by the Policy Studies Institute and the University of Lancaster, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
  141
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This study is based on research which followed the progress of 3,000 pupils in 20 urban comprehensives, starting in 1981. The research found striking differences between the schools surveyed in what they did and how they did it. The level of achievement of pupils of similar abilities, regardless of their ethnic or social background, varied markedly according to the school they attended.

  This study reinforces the Government's determination to press ahead with the implementation of the national curriculum and with the arrangements for assessment and testing so that every child can have the best possible start in life. The study also suggested some profitable further lines of inquiry and my right hon. Friend is considering how best to pursue these.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research projects are receiving funding from his Department that are designed to contribute to the development of electrically powered road vehicles.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Science and Engineering Research Council, which is funded by the Department, has supported a number of research programmes in universities which are of relevance to the development of electrically powered vehicles. A collaborative programme between Durham university and Lucas plc, completed in 1987, developed a prototype hybrid electric/diesel vehicle. Two research programmes at Loughborough university, completed in 1989, and ongoing programmes at the university of Newcastle and London university's Imperial college are concerned with aspects of new battery systems.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of physical education teachers for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is available only in respect of 1984 and 1988. In 1984 the number of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England who were teaching physical education was 37,900, including 15,600 for whom physical education was their main teaching subject. The equivalent figures for 1988 were 30,300 and 13,300. Over the same period the number of pupils in maintained secondary schools in England fell by about 16 per cent. (from 3·65 million to 3·07 million).

  Expenditure per pupil—England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cash

  1Real terms

  Index 1978–79 = 100

  Index year on year increase

  Cash

  1Real terms

  Index 1978–79 = 100

  Index year on year increase

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Books and equipment

  1978–79

  12·85

  26·34

  100

  100

  24·40

  50·04

  100

  100

  1979–80

  14·33

  25·16

  96

  96

  26·61

  46·71

  93

  93

  1980–81

  16·05

  23·81

  90

  95

  29·26

  43·40

  87

  93

  1981–82

  18·16

  24·54

  93

  103

  32·18

  43·48

  87

  100

  1982–83

  20·90

  26·34

  100

  107

  36·53

  46·04

  92

  106

  1983–84

  22·79

  27·44

  104

  104

  39·21

  47·21

  94

  103

  1984–85

  23·54

  27·01

  103

  98

  42·53

  48·78

  97

  103

  1985–86

  24·91

  27·11

  103

  100

  44·83

  48·80

  98

  100

  1986–87

  28·04

  29·53

  112

  109

  57·15

  60·18

  120

  123

  School Hours
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the average numbers of hours per year spent in school by schoolchildren in(a) England and Wales and (b) other European Community countries.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Recent school staffing surveys in England indicate that pupils in primary schools spend on average some 860 hours in lessons (excluding registration, assemblies and break time) a year. The comparable figure for secondary pupils is some 900 hours. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. European comparisons are not readily available.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the numbers of hours of classroom teaching per year spent by teachers in(a) England and Wales and (b) other European Community countries.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On the basis of information from recent school staffing surveys, we estimate that primary teachers spend on average some 790 hours a year in classroom teaching. The comparable figure for secondary teachers is some 680 hours. These figures exclude time spent in registration, assemblies and supervision. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. European comparisons are not readily available.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update to the latest date available the answer given to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), 4 May 1989,Official Report, column 173–74, on expenditure on books and equipment.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information previously supplied has been updated to take account of latest data on actual local authority spending in 1987–88 as recorded in returns to the Department of the Environment: pupil numbers as recorded in returns to the Department of Education and Science; and price movements as recorded by the GDP deflator. Comparable data on spending in 1988–89 are not yet available. The table has been expanded to show two indices. The first shows the change in real-terms spending for each year compared with the base year 1978–79; the second, also shown in the previous table, shows the change in real-terms spending for each year compared with the previous year.
  143

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cash

  1Real terms

  Index 1978–79 = 100

  Index year on year increase

  Cash

  1Real terms

  Index 1978–79 = 100

  Index year on year increase

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1987–882

  30·64

  30·64

  116

  104

  62·19

  62·19

  124

  103

  Books

  1978–79

  4·25

  8·71

  100

  100

  7·16

  14·69

  100

  100

  1979–80

  4·69

  8·23

  94

  94

  7·82

  13·73

  93

  93

  1980–81

  5·32

  7·90

  91

  96

  8·08

  11·99

  82

  87

  1981–82

  591

  7·99

  92

  101

  8·60

  11·62

  79

  97

  1982–83

  7·00

  8·82

  101

  110

  9·89

  12·46

  85

  107

  1983–84

  7·14

  8·60

  99

  98

  10·09

  12·15

  83

  98

  1984–85

  7·29

  8·36

  96

  97

  10·15

  11·64

  79

  96

  1985–86

  7·49

  8·15

  94

  97

  10·66

  11·61

  79

  100

  1986–87

  8·25

  8·69

  100

  107

  13·13

  13·83

  94

  119

  1987–882

  9·01

  9·01

  103

  104

  14·82

  14·82

  101

  107

  Equipment

  1978–79

  8·60

  17·64

  100

  100

  17·24

  35·35

  100

  100

  1979–80

  9·65

  16·94

  96

  96

  18·79

  32·98

  93

  93

  1980–81

  10·73

  15·91

  90

  94

  21·17

  31·41

  89

  95

  1981–82

  12·25

  16·55

  94

  104

  23·58

  31·86

  90

  101

  1982–83

  13·91

  17·52

  99

  106

  26·65

  33·58

  95

  105

  1983–84

  15·65

  18·85

  107

  108

  29·12

  35·06

  99

  104

  1984–85

  16·26

  18·65

  106

  99

  32·38

  37·14

  105

  106

  1985–86

  17·42

  18·96

  107

  102

  34·17

  37·19

  105

  100

  1986–87

  19·79

  20·84

  118

  110

  44·02

  46·36

  131

  125

  1987–882

  21·63

  21·63

  123

  104

  47·37

  47·37

  134

  102

  1The cash figures for earlier years have been repriced to 1987–88 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  2The figures for 1987–88 include spending in nursry schools. This reflects a change in the classification of the local authority spending returns to the DOE whereby spending on nursery provision was incorporated into the primary sector, rather than being shown separately.

  Expenditure per pupil—England

  Special

  Cash

  1Real Terms

  Index 1978–79 = 100

  Index Year on Year Increase

  £

  £

  Books and Equipment

  1978–79

  37·16

  76·19

  100

  100

  1979–80

  41·78

  73·35

  96

  96

  1980–81

  46·73

  69·32

  91

  95

  1981–82

  51·09

  69·03

  91

  100

  1982–83

  61·00

  76·87

  101

  111

  1983–84

  68·24

  82·16

  108

  107

  1984–85

  70·45

  80·81

  106

  98

  1985–86

  88·84

  96·71

  127

  120

  1986–87

  87·58

  92·22

  121

  95

  1987–882

  98·95

  98·95

  130

  107

  Books

  1978–79

  5·93

  12·16

  100

  100

  1979–80

  6·73

  11·82

  97

  97

  1980–81

  6·90

  10·24

  84

  87

  1981–82

  7·09

  9·58

  79

  94

  1982–83

  8·65

  10·90

  90

  114

  1983–84

  8·68

  10·45

  86

  96

  1984–85

  9·12

  10·46

  86

  100

  1985–86

  11·46

  12·47

  103

  119

  1986–87

  10·65

  11·21

  92

  90

  1987–882

  12·35

  12·35

  102

  110

  Equipment

  1978–79

  31·23

  64·03

  100

  100

  1979–80

  35·05

  61·53

  96

  96

  1980–81

  39·83

  59·09

  92

  96

  1981–82

  44·00

  59·45

  93

  101

  1982–83

  52·35

  65·97

  103

  111

  1983–84

  59·56

  71·71

  112

  109

  1984–85

  61·33

  70·35

  110

  98

  1985–86

  77·38

  84·23

  132

  120

  1986–87

  76·94

  81·02

  127

  96

  1987–882

  86·60

  86·60

  135

  107

  144
  1The cash figures for earlier years have been repriced to 1987–88 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  2 The figures for 1987–88 include spending in nursery schools. This reflects a change in the classification of the local authority spending returns to the DOE whereby spending on nursery provision was incorporated into the primary sector, rather than being shown separately.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a breakdown of the overall increase in school unit costs shown in table 11.10 of Cm 1011 between 1979–80 and 1988–89 showing how much of that overall increase is due to increases in the level of school teachers' pay above the rate of inflation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Changes in overall spending on schoolteachers' pay reflect both changes in teacher numbers and successive pay settlements. As a broad estimate, the 42 per cent. increase in unit costs shown in table 11.10 of Cm 1011 may be analysed as follows:

  Percentage

  Total increase in real terms spending per pupil: Of which

  42

  Increase due to improvements in pupil:teacher ratio:

  13

  Increase due to improvements in teachers' pay above the GDP deflator:

  16

  Other increases, including improved provision for non-teaching costs such as equipment:

  13

  Mr. Win Griffith
  s: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the overall increase in real terms between 1979–80 and 1988–89 of (a) national average earnings, (b) average non-manual earnings outside the public sector and (c) school teachers' pay.
  145
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Between April 1979 and April 1989 national average earnings rose by 28 per cent. in real terms, and teachers' average salaries by 30 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period the real terms increase in average non-manual earnings outside the public sector was 43 per cent. for men and 48 per cent. for women. A combined figure is not available.

  Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will establish a national system for the collection of information about the exclusion of pupils from schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is introducing a national system for reporting to him all permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools and from grant-maintained schools during the two-year period from the beginning of the summer term 1990. Heads, governors and local education authorities, as appropriate, will be asked to provide the Secretary of State with information on the background to such cases and on the decisions reached about the pupils concerned, who will not be named in these reports. In the light of this information, my right hon. Friend will decide on the future of the existing statutory provisions on exclusion.

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will identify by name and by size of governing body in each case only those colleges and polytechnics in the PCFC sector for which he has agreed revised instruments of government under the Education Reform Act 1988 where the size of the governing body is in excess of 21 persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January 1990, c. 29–30]: Information given in the previous answer was not

  Band of Gross Income

  Families receiving Child Benefit

  Number of Children

  Child Benefit Expenditure

  (000s)

  Per cent.

  (000s)

  Per cent.

  (£ million)

  Per cent.

  Under £5,000

  430

  6·3

  490

  4·1

  180

  4·1

  £ 5–10,000

  1,740

  25·7

  3,340

  27·8

  1,260

  27·8

  £10–15,000

  1,520

  22·4

  2,620

  21·9

  990

  21·9

  £15–20,000

  1,380

  20·4

  2,520

  21·0

  950

  21·0

  £20–25,000

  740

  10·9

  1,340

  11·2

  510

  11·2

  £25–50,000

  870

  12·8

  1,500

  12·5

  560

  12·5

  Above £50,000

  100

  1·5

  190

  1·6

  70

  1·6

  Total

  6,760

  100

  12,000

  100

  4,530

  100

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1985 and 1986 Family Expenditure Surveys, supplemented by the Survey of Personal Incomes, and updated to 1989–90 levels of earnings and benefit rates.

  2. Income is measured on a gross basis, and is the family's total income from all sources including benefits.

  3. No detailed breakdown is possible for an income band above £50,000 because of small sample sizes.

  4. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  5. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.
  146
  completely up to date. Additional nominee members were appointed to the governing bodies of a further seven institutions subsequent to the appointment of the other members of their boards. The following institutions, therefore, should also have been listed as having governing bodies in excess of 21 persons:—

  Institutions

  Number

  Bath College of Higher Education

  22

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  22

  Bristol Polytechnic

  22

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  22

  Kingston Polytechnic

  22

  Portsmouth Polytechnic

  25

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  25

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, on the same basis as his reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), 7 June 1988,Official Report columns 521–22, the total amount of child benefit, together with the number of families and children in respect of which it is paid, and the percentage which each figure represents for the income bands (a) under £5,000, (b) £5,000–10,000, (c) £10,000–15,000, (d) £15,000–20,000, (e) £20,000–25,000, (f) £25,000–50,000, (g) £50,000–100,000 and (h) £100,000 and over.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the incomes of families receiving child benefit is not routinely collected. The following estimates of the distribution of gross incomes of recipient families in 1989–90 are therefore made on the basis of sample survey data which are subject to normal sampling and response variation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information about losses of items from the Department's offices relate to the 1988–89 financial year when the value of these losses came to £106,744.

  Benefits Leaflet
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make leaflet FB2 generally available in post offices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Social Security leaflet FB2 "Which benefit?" is displayed in all main post offices (about 1,900 offices). Copies are also sent to around 19,000 sub-post offices, but there is no obligation for sub-postmasters/mistresses to either display them or to make copies available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for each parliamentary constituency in Lancashire details of the number of people presently receiving housing benefit and income support together with housing benefit; and what are the costs involved.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not collected on a constituency basis. The table shows the available information by local authority area. Blackpool includes the constituencies of Blackpool, North and Blackpool, South, and Lancaster City covers the constituencies of Lancaster, and Morecambe and Lunesdale.

  Local authorities

  Housing benefit only Numbers

  Housing benefit income support Numbers

  Local authority estimated cost £ million

  Blackburn

  5,200

  8,905

  11·8

  Blackpool

  7,359

  10,954

  16·3

  Burnley

  3,084

  5,048

  7·3

  Chorley

  2,694

  3,841

  5·3

  Fylde

  2,369

  2,643

  3·7

  Hyndburn

  3,068

  3,962

  6·1

  Lancaster City

  4,577

  7,121

  14·6

  Pendle

  2,615

  4,266

  5·5

  Preston

  4,946

  7,661

  13·0

  Ribble Valley

  1,194

  1,007

  1·4

  Rossendale

  2,506

  3,116

  5·3

  South Ribble

  2,765

  3,073

  4·3

  West Lancashire

  5,126

  6,904

  10·9

  Wyre

  5,717

  4,774

  4·9

  Note: Expenditure information is not available by recipient group.

  Source: Local authority caseload returns and expenditure estimates.

  DSS Offices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will open new Department of Social Security offices close to current Department of Trade and Industry regional offices in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to open new DSS offices near the regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers will benefit from the increase of the invalid care allowance earnings limit from £12 to £20.
  148
  Mr. Scott
  I regret this information is not available. It is likely that a small number of carers earning between £12 and £20 per week will be able to qualify for invalid care allowance for the first time. Data are not collected on the numbers of existing recipients currently earning less than £12 who stand to gain by increasing their earnings to the new limit.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the cost of the increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit from £12 to £20.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 13 December 1989 at columns 663–64.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to publicise the increase in the earnings limit for the invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be publishing a revised version of the invalid care allowance leaflet in April, and we are considering what additional publicity we might provide to bring the increased earnings limit to the attention of those who might benefit.

  Carer's Premium
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data the Government have used to estimate that 30,000 carers will benefit from the introduction of a carer's premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimate was derived from information on recipients of invalid care allowance in the income support annual statistical inquiry.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans there are to publicise the introduction of a carer's premium;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that people who have not previously claimed invalid care allowance because of the overlapping benefit rules will now do so in order to benefit from the introduction of a carer's premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  People in receipt of invalid care allowance who get income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit will be awarded the new carer's premium automatically. For other people, we will be publishing revised versions of leaflets. We will also revise the guide to non-contributory benefits for disabled people, which is intended for advisers and members of the public who have a particular interest in disabled people. We are giving careful consideration to the question of additional publicity.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the carer's premium will be awarded in addition to any other premium; and whether(a) people who start caring after reaching pension age and (b) pensioners who were carers before reaching pension age but did not claim invalid care allowance, will be able to receive the carer's premium.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The carer's premium will be awarded in addition to any other premium for which the claimant qualifies. The premium cannot be paid to people who start caring after reaching pension age, or who did not claim invalid care allowance before reaching that age.
  149
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people who would receive the carer's premium with(a) income support and (b) housing benefit/community charge benefit if the premium was awarded to all claimants caring for someone receiving attendance allowance for at least 35 hours a week and not earning more than £20 a week, regardless of whether they were in receipt of invalid care allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information needed to make such an estimate is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates will be the cost of the additional pensions payable with invalidity benefit at 1989–90 prices in each of the tax years 1990–91, 2000–01, 2010–11, and 2020–21(a) if clause 4 of the Social Security Bill is enacted (b) if the present position with regards to the computation of additional pension for the purposes of invalidity pension remains unchanged and (c) if the Bill is amended to provide for guaranteed minimum pensions in respect of tax years after 1990–91 to be deducted from the additional pension payable with invalidity pension but no other change is made with regard to the computation of additional pension for purposes of invalidity pension; and, in each case, what proportion of the cost he estimates will relate to persons then aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Scott
  Projections of expenditure on additional pension with invalidity benefit at 1989–90 prices under current legislation and under the clause 4 proposals are as follows. These estimates are subject to considerable margins of uncertainty, particularly in the longer term.

  Year

  Current Legislation £ million

  Clause 4 Proposals £ million

  1990–91

  565

  565

  2000–01

  1,850

  1,375

  2010–11

  2,225

  1,200

  2020–21

  2,500

  975

  The figures illustrating the effect of the proposals in "The Way Ahead" show the gross effect on expenditure. The net effect of the proposals on social security spending will be less because of offsetting changes in invalidity allowance and income-related benefits.

  I regret that information to answer (c) or to apportion the costs between persons under and over age 60 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker),Official Report, 5 February, column 524, by what percentage those portions of the income support, introduced in April 1989 to cover the 20 per cent. of the average community charge, will be increased in the April 1990 uprating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income-related benefit levels will generally be uprated by 5·2 per cent. from April.
  150
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report all departmental circulars issued by his Department in connection with the community charge giving in each case the date of issue and an outline of the contents; and if he will indicate whether or not copies of such have been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows:

  HB(88)15 November 1988

  COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATE: SCOTLAND

  Describes arrangements for introduction of the Community Charge Rebate scheme in Scotland.

  HB(89)2 20 January 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATES

  Guidance and information on the Community Charge Rebate scheme in Scotland.

  HB(89)8 17 March 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATES AND DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT

  Explains the provision of various Regulations and outlines the timetable for consultation on the Community Charge Benefit Regulations for Great Britain.

  HB/CCB(89)11 24 May 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS (TRANSITIONAL) ORDER 1989

  Gives details of the draft Regulations and draft Order.

  HB/CCB(89)16 6 September 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS (TRANSITIONAL) ORDER 1989

  Gives details of the Regulations and Order, arrangements for the introduction of Community Charge Benefit.

  HB/CCB(89)17 13 September 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE ARREARS—DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT

  Explains the arrangements for the recovery of community charge arrears from Income Support payments for Scotland.

  HB/CCB(89)18 22 September 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS—LIAISON ARRANGEMENTS

  Sets out the liaison arrangements for the introduction of the Community Charge Benefit Scheme in England and Wales.

  HB/CCB(89)20 1 November 1989

  HOUSING BENEFITS AND COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS: 1990 UPRATING

  Advises local authorities of the proposed new rates of social security benefits from April 1990.

  HB/CCB(89)22 13 December 1989

  HOUSING BENEFIT AND COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT GUIDANCE MANUAL

  Informs authorities of the Department of Social Security's intention to publish a combined Guidance Manual covering both Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit.

  HB/CCB(89)23 19 December 1989

  HOUSING BENEFIT AND COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT

  Gives advice on various aspects of Housing Benefit and amends some details given in HB/CCB(89)20.

  HB/CCB(89)24 15 December 1989

  COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFITS—MONITORING LOCAL AUTHORITY PREPARATIONS

  Asks authorities in England and Wales to complete a questionnaire showing how far advanced authorities are with their preparations for the introduction of the Community Charge Benefit scheme.

  HB/CCB(89J25 14 December 1989

  AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING BENEFIT (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1987 AND THE HOUSING BENEFIT (COMMUNITY CHARGE REBATES) SCOTLAND REGULATIONS 1988: FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAEMOPHILIACS INFECTED WITH HIV

  Advises of the Department's intention to introduce amending Regulations to the above provisions to allow a full disregard of any payments from the Macfarlane Special

  151
  Payments Trust to HIV infected haemophiliacs and their families.

  Copies of all circulars have been placed in the Library.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people lost entitlement to unemployment benefit when the age limit at which occupational pensions affect entitlement was lowered in January 1989; how many had benefit reduced; how many subsequently sought a review and had money refunded; and whether he will make it his policy that all those who lost benefits will receive the correct entitlement via an extra-statutory payment if Mrs. D. Morris's case is upheld by the social security commissioner.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that, in a full year, 45,000 people will lose entitlement to unemployment benefit as a result of the age limit change. Of these, 14,000 would lose some, and 31,000 all, benefit. Following the local appeal tribunal decision in the case of Mrs. Doreen Morris, 1,552 people had, as at 31 December 1989, requested a review of their benefit disallowance. Further action will be considered once the decision of the social security commissioners is known.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Package Travel
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed European Community draft directive on package travel.

  Mr. Forth
  EC Ministers reached a common position on a proposal for an EC directive on package travel at the 21–22 December Internal Market Council, subject to finalisation of the recitals and amendments to the text. The common position is expected to be formally agreed by the Council in the near future. Thereafter, it will be subject to the EC co-operation procedure, whereby the European Parliament may give its opinion on the proposal before the Commission can put the draft directive to the Council for consideration of its final adoption.

  Post Office Vehicles
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many bicycles the Post Office operates; and how many bicycles are maintained in house and how many by private contractors;

  (2) how many vehicles the Post Office operates; how many are operated on long lease hire and maintenance contracts; and if he will list those postal districts where Post Office vehicles are maintained by a private contractor.

  Mr. Forth
  These are operational matters for the Post Office. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals for extending the Sale of Goods Act to estate agents; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
  152
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no proposals to extend the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to sales of land and has not received any representations on this matter.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on requiring estate agents to disclose personal interests in properties or sales and stopping them favouring bids which use mortgages or other services in which the estate agent has a personal interest; what proposals he has for legislation or regulations on these matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, and the National Consumer Council, have copied to me their responses to the Director General of Fair Trading's consultation document on estate agency which includes proposals on disclosure of personal interests and on tie-in sales. The director general will be reporting the conclusions of this consultation shortly. I will study the director general's report most carefully, and consider what action may be necessary to give effect to any recommendations he may make.

  Amateur Radio
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received in support of and against the recommendations of the Dylis Gane report of 1984 on the self-policing of amateur radio bands; and if he will list the relevant organisations that are opposed to these recommendations.

  Mr. Forth
  The Gane report of 1984 was an internal Department of Trade and Industry efficiency scrutiny document dealing with the work of the radio investigation service. The report contained proposals for reordering the priorities of the radio investigation service. The thrust of the section dealing with radio amateurs was that amateurs should take on greater responsibility for resolving interference problems. That policy has been implemented and the Department has received representations both for and against this policy from organisations and individuals: it would not be practicable to list them.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the amateur radio observation network operated by the Radio Society of Great Britain is currently operational; and if he will list any occasions on which it has not been operational.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for the Radio Society of Great Britain.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the amateur broadcasting licence fee is allocated to the radio investigation service; and what is the annual cost of that service.

  Mr. Forth
  The radio investigation service budget for 1988–89 was £6,284,000. Over 60 per cent. of the radio amateur licence fee represents the direct costs of licensing and enforcement. In addition all licensees benefit from the work of the radio investigation service in seeking to prevent interference and abuse of radio across the spectrum.
  153
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the radio investigation service is taking to prevent abuse on amateur radio repeaters.

  Mr. Forth
  The radio investigation service is currently holding discussions with the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB), which is the licensee for amateur repeater stations, about the minority of radio amateurs who act irresponsibly when using this service.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is giving any consideration to the shutting down of the amateur radio repeater network until the problem of abuse has been resolved.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The majority of amateur radio repeaters are used by responsible licensees.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which parts of the United Kingdom had, for the purposes of the EC's structural funds' provisions, per capita gross domestic product of less than 50 per cent. of the Community average in the latest available year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Gas Supplies (Contract Customers)
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British Gas has offered undertakings about contracting for new gas fields following the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of gas to contract customers.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. I have now accepted undertakings given by British Gas following discussions with the Director General of Fair Trading in the light of the Government's decision announced on 27 April 1989 about contracting for new gas fields. The undertakings are as follows:

  1. British Gas plc ("British Gas") hereby undertakes to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that it will in good faith give constructive support to the efforts of gas producers towards the achievement of the target that 10 per cent. of the gas coming forward from new gas fields and contracted to be sold after 31 May 1989 should be supplied to the industrial and commercial market in the United Kingdom by suppliers other than British Gas by:

  (i) not purchasing more than 90 per cent. of the gas on offer to it in the period 1 June 1989 to 31 May 1991;

  (ii) not requiring, in contracts for the purchase of gas entered into after 1 June 1989 under which British Gas does not buy the whole of the recoverable reserves of a field, the inclusion of terms which would unreasonably constrain the ability of the gas producers to dispose of the gas not sold to British Gas into the industrial and commercial market in the United Kingdom;

  154

  (iii) expeditiously co-operating in setting up and conducting negotiations for the securing of rights to have gas conveyed in its pipelines under Section 19 of the Gas Act 1986 (common carriage). In particular British Gas will, within four weeks of any application to it for such rights containing sufficient information for the purpose, provide to the applicant a full response thereto setting out the terms and conditions (including price) offered by it for the exercise of such rights or, as the case may be, an explanation of the reasons why such application cannot in full or in part be complied with. In the case of exceptionally complicated applications to which it is not possible to provide a full response within four weeks, British Gas will provide whatever information it can within that time and undertakes to provide a full response without unnecessary delay;

  (iv) not otherwise doing anything calculated to obstruct the achievement of the target.

  2. For the purpose of this Undertaking, in assessing the achievement of the 10% target level there shall be taken into account both gas coming from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf and gas imported from foreign sources.

  3. British Gas will provide to the Director General of Fair Trading any information to which it has access which the Director General may require to assist the Government in ascertaining whether the target level has been achieved or the undertaking in paragraph 1 fulfilled.

  The Government are very pleased that British Gas has given these undertakings which are a declaration of good faith by British Gas that it will co-operate in establishing competitive suppliers of gas. I would like to emphasise again the importance which the Government attach to the development of competition in the supply of gas to business users and their determination to encourage the emergence of such competition. This should give greater confidence to gas producers and independent gas suppliers selling gas directly to the market in competition with British Gas. I hope that they will take advantage of this new opportunity. If they have any concerns about the development of competition in the market they should make representations to the Director General of Fair Trading who will be able to look into the matter.

  Flame-retardant Covers
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to compensate retailers and small business men who have to destroy stock which does not have flame-retardant covers from 1 March.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 February 1990.]: I have no plans to do so. It would be very difficult to justify the payment of public money to retailers and small businesses for complying with a safety requirement of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations, which was announced almost two years ago, after a full consultation.

ENERGY

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the average equivalent pump price per litre and per gallon of(a) diesel, (b) leaded petrol and (c) unleaded petrol for each month since January 1989 (i) excluding Government taxes and duties, (ii) excluding Government taxes and duties and retailers' margin and (iii) including all Government taxes and duties, in the

  Price in Pence/Litre

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  PUMP PRICE OF DIESEL

  Excluding government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  12·10

  11·54

  11·86

  12·84

  12·37

  13·07

  12·81

  12·98

  14·33

  15·13

  Denmark

  14·78

  14·46

  13·69

  15·16

  14·49

  15·06

  14·66

  15·09

  14·50

  16·86

  West Germany

  10·77

  11·16

  11·26

  13·04

  11·81

  10·99

  11·28

  12·18

  13·40

  13·57

  Greece

  10·04

  8·97

  9·23

  10·47

  10·47

  10·78

  10·00

  10·10

  11·28

  12·93

  Spain

  12·52

  12·66

  12·52

  13·73

  13·48

  13·72

  13·04

  13·26

  13·91

  14·73

  France

  11·23

  11·21

  11·65

  12·63

  12·42

  12·34

  11·37

  11·40

  11·76

  n/a

  Ireland

  14·57

  15·72

  15·71

  15·85

  16·08

  16·69

  16·62

  17·54

  18·15

  19·60

  Italy

  11·71

  11·74

  11·89

  13·23

  13·34

  12·84

  12·20

  12·40

  12·78

  14·11

  Luxembourg

  11·46

  11·46

  11·65

  12·17

  12·17

  12·60

  12·56

  12·66

  12·61

  13·92

  Netherlands

  12·53

  12·08

  12·27

  13·08

  12·00

  12·75

  12·31

  13·76

  13·97

  15·50

  Portugal

  11·74

  12·75

  13·31

  13·62

  13·66

  16·23

  16·54

  16·30

  14·63

  16·04

  United Kingdom

  12·42

  13·17

  13·22

  14·08

  14·06

  13·95

  13·90

  13·75

  14·02

  15·17

  Including government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  26·18

  25·49

  26·07

  27·40

  26·81

  28·10

  27·73

  29·99

  31·61

  33·25

  Denmark

  35·68

  35·20

  34·47

  36·51

  35·66

  37·07

  36·48

  37·15

  36·34

  40·13

  West Germany

  27·77

  28·25

  28·60

  30·81

  29·36

  29·05

  29·27

  30·43

  31·73

  32·77

  Greece

  13·84

  13·76

  13·86

  13·85

  13·85

  14·26

  14·07

  14·22

  14·11

  14·38

  Spain

  26·94

  27·14

  27·47

  27·80

  27·71

  27·91

  30·49

  30·82

  30·73

  31·61

  France

  30·08

  30·09

  30·95

  32·29

  32·05

  32·57

  31·31

  31·55

  31·93

  n/a

  Ireland

  41·04

  42·45

  42·81

  43·19

  43·50

  45·15

  44·96

  46·24

  46·88

  49·85

  Italy

  31·45

  31·53

  32·43

  33·32

  33·58

  35·08

  34·79

  35·36

  35·74

  40·17

  Luxembourg

  19·88

  19·89

  20·21

  20·86

  20·85

  21·60

  21·53

  21·70

  21·61

  23·42

  Netherlands

  24·03

  23·51

  23·88

  24·92

  23·65

  24·92

  24·30

  26·10

  26·32

  28·62

  Portugal

  27·68

  27·68

  27·95

  28·13

  28·11

  28·99

  28·69

  32·83

  32·66

  33·53

  United Kingdom

  34·17

  35·03

  35·09

  36·08

  36·05

  35·93

  35·86

  35·70

  36·00

  37·33

  PUMP PRICE OF PREMIUM GASOLINE

  Excluding government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  12·41

  13·11

  13·22

  16·72

  17·68

  16·09

  14·56

  13·92

  15·62

  16·10

  Denmark

  12·61

  13·37

  13·93

  16·58

  17·79

  17·54

  15·92

  15·01

  14·82

  16·57

  West Germany

  11·11

  12·08

  12·32

  16·49

  16·30

  15·26

  14·01

  13·65

  14·96

  14·94

  Greece

  9·85

  10·38

  11·05

  13·99

  13·99

  14·40

  13·07

  13·21

  12·78

  13·38

  Spain

  12·26

  12·87

  13·31

  14·66

  14·64

  14·75

  15·39

  14·20

  14·76

  15·41

  France

  10·24

  10·34

  10·90

  13·75

  14·96

  14·77

  13·00

  12·08

  12·05

  n/a

  Ireland

  14·36

  14·11

  14·49

  14·61

  16·45

  17·07

  17·00

  16·81

  17·14

  18·40

  Italy

  12·34

  12·37

  13·03

  15·73

  16·46

  17·37

  15·79

  14·82

  14·77

  15·73

  Luxembourg

  12·85

  12·85

  14·02

  15·74

  16·94

  17·54

  17·07

  16·37

  16·31

  16·48

  Netherlands

  12·86

  13·55

  14·53

  17·96

  17·49

  17·56

  15·50

  15·85

  16·02

  16·81

  Portugal

  13·68

  14·32

  14·28

  15·62

  15·37

  18·24

  18·79

  18·94

  17·44

  19·38

  United Kingdom

  11·86

  12·86

  13·34

  15·33

  16·80

  16·69

  15·64

  14·27

  15·03

  15·11

  Including government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  37·44

  38·32

  38·82

  43·41

  44·60

  43·42

  41·44

  42·38

  44·41

  46·15

  Denmark

  52·06

  52·83

  54·01

  57·76

  59·22

  59·54

  57·36

  56·48

  56·09

  60·03

  West Germany

  35·36

  36·47

  37·11

  42·09

  41·85

  41·59

  39·99

  39·76

  40·98

  42·38

  Greece

  28·42

  28·25

  28·47

  28·44

  28·44

  29·28

  28·90

  29·20

  28·98

  29·52

  Spain

  36·25

  36·52

  36·96

  37·40

  37·29

  37·55

  40·83

  41·26

  41·14

  42·32

  France

  44·63

  44·89

  46·19

  49·95

  51·38

  52·36

  50·06

  49·35

  49·22

  n/a

  Ireland

  48·10

  48·65

  49·63

  50·06

  52·40

  54·38

  54·16

  54·09

  54·34

  57·49

  Italy

  56·80

  56·95

  57·66

  58·25

  58·71

  61·32

  60·82

  61·81

  61·61

  66·17

  Luxembourg

  30·70

  30·71

  32·28

  34·36

  35·71

  36·98

  36·41

  35·75

  35·61

  36·60

  Netherlands

  42·58

  43·44

  44·95

  49·28

  48·74

  50·71

  48·03

  48·67

  48·77

  51·18

  Portugal

  44·51

  44·51

  44·94

  45·23

  45·21

  46·61

  46·13

  50·81

  50·55

  51·90

  United Kingdom

  37·14

  38·30

  38·85

  41·14

  42·83

  42·70

  41·49

  39·92

  40·79

  40·89

  156
  manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), of 27 July 1989, Official Report, columns 807–08.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Department of Energy does not have data on retailers' margins. Figures from the Commission of the European Communities on the pump price of diesel and on premium grade leaded petrol are given for each month of 1989 available at present. Comparable figures for unleaded are not available.

  The figures are as follows:
  157

  Pump Price in Pence/Gallon

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  PUMP PRICE OF DIESEL

  Excluding government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  55·01

  52·47

  53·93

  58·37

  56·24

  59·44

  58·24

  59·02

  65·13

  68·79

  Denmark

  67·20

  65·72

  62·22

  68·90

  65·87

  68·47

  66·64

  68·61

  65·90

  76·67

  West Germany

  48·98

  50·71

  51·20

  59·28

  53·67

  49·97

  51·30

  55·38

  60·91

  61·70

  Greece

  45·64

  40·79

  41·98

  47·61

  47·62

  49·02

  45·45

  45·93

  51·27

  58·78

  Spain

  56·90

  57·57

  56·93

  62·43

  61·30

  62·39

  59·26

  60·27

  63·25

  66·96

  France

  51·03

  50·96

  52·97

  57·40

  56·47

  56·09

  51·71

  51·85

  53·46

  n/a

  Ireland

  66·25

  71·46

  71·44

  72·06

  73·09

  75·86

  75·54

  79·73

  82·50

  89·09

  Italy

  53·26

  53·39

  54·07

  60·15

  60·63

  58·37

  55·46

  56·36

  58·08

  64·15

  Luxembourg

  52·10

  52·11

  52·97

  55·32

  55·31

  57·29

  57·12

  57·55

  57·33

  63·30

  Netherlands

  56·97

  54·92

  55·79

  59·48

  54·58

  57·96

  55·96

  62·56

  63·49

  70·48

  Portugal

  53·36

  57·96

  60·49

  61·93

  62·12

  73·77

  75·19

  74·09

  66·49

  72·94

  United Kingdom

  56·46

  59·82

  59·87

  63·87

  63·91

  63·41

  63·18

  62·50

  63·73

  68·96

  Including government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  119·02

  115·86

  118·52

  124·55

  121·88

  127·72

  126·06

  136·32

  143·71

  151·16

  Denmark

  162·21

  160·00

  156·69

  165·99

  162·11

  168·52

  165·86

  168·87

  165·18

  182·45

  West Germany

  126·23

  128·40

  130·02

  140·04

  133·46

  132·07

  133·05

  138·36

  144·23

  148·97

  Greece

  62·92

  62·55

  63·03

  62·96

  62·97

  64·83

  63·98

  64·66

  64·15

  65·35

  Spain

  122·49

  123·39

  124·89

  126·38

  125·99

  126·89

  138·61

  140·10

  139·69

  143·69

  France

  136·77

  136·80

  140·70

  146·80

  145·69

  148·06

  142·36

  143·41

  145·14

  n/a

  Ireland

  186·57

  192·97

  194·63

  196·32

  197·76

  205·25

  204·41

  210·21

  213·12

  226·63

  Italy

  142·97

  143·34

  147·44

  151·48

  152·68

  159·47

  158·16

  160·75

  162·49

  182·61

  Luxembourg

  90·38

  90·40

  91·89

  94·81

  94·80

  98·19

  97·90

  98·64

  98·25

  106·49

  Netherlands

  109·25

  106·88

  108·57

  113·27

  107·50

  113·28

  110·48

  118·67

  119·64

  130·09

  Portugal

  125·83

  125·82

  127·06

  127·88

  127·80

  131·77

  130·41

  149·24

  148·48

  152·44

  United Kingdom

  155·34

  159·18

  159·23

  164·00

  163·91

  163·33

  163·04

  162·28

  163·64

  169·70

  PUMP PRICE OF PREMIUM GASOLINE

  Excluding government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  56·41

  59·61

  60·11

  76·01

  80·37

  73·13

  66·20

  63·27

  71·03

  73·18

  Denmark

  57·32

  60·79

  63·35

  75·36

  80·87

  79·76

  72·38

  68·25

  67·37

  75·32

  West Germany

  50·51

  54·89

  56·01

  74·97

  74·08

  69·39

  63·68

  62·06

  68·01

  67·91

  Greece

  44·77

  47·21

  50·24

  63·60

  63·61

  65·49

  59·41

  60·04

  58·09

  60·83

  Spain

  55·75

  58·52

  60·49

  66·62

  66·57

  67·06

  69·98

  64·56

  67·10

  70·07

  France

  46·54

  46·99

  49·54

  62·51

  67·99

  67·15

  59·10

  54·92

  54·77

  n/a

  Ireland

  65·27

  64·15

  65·85

  66·42

  74·77

  77·60

  77·28

  76·41

  77·93

  83·64

  Italy

  56·09

  56·23

  59·23

  71·53

  74·84

  78·97

  71·76

  67·37

  67·15

  71·49

  Luxembourg

  58·41

  58·43

  63·72

  71·55

  77·00

  79·76

  77·61

  74·44

  74·15

  74·91

  Netherlands

  58·45

  61·58

  66·07

  81·63

  79·52

  79·82

  70·47

  72·04

  72·81

  76·40

  Portugal

  62·20

  65·08

  64·91

  71·00

  69·89

  82·92

  85·41

  86·09

  79·29

  88·09

  United Kingdom

  53·92

  58·45

  60·64

  69·68

  76·36

  75·87

  71·09

  64·86

  68·32

  68·69

  Including government taxes and duties

  Belgium

  170·19

  174·22

  176·49

  197·33

  202·78

  197·38

  188·40

  192·66

  201·88

  209·80

  Denmark

  236·66

  240·18

  245·56

  262·57

  269·20

  270·70

  260·76

  256·74

  255·01

  272·88

  West Germany

  160·75

  165·77

  168·71

  191·34

  190·25

  189·05

  181·80

  180·75

  186·30

  192·64

  Greece

  129·21

  128·44

  129·42

  129·29

  129·31

  133·13

  131·37

  132·77

  131·73

  134·20

  Spain

  164·81

  166·02

  168·04

  170·04

  169·52

  170·72

  185·60

  187·59

  187·04

  192·40

  France

  202·90

  20·406

  209·99

  22·708

  233·57

  23·803

  227·57

  224·35

  223·75

  n/a

  Ireland

  218·65

  22·117

  225·60

  227·56

  238·21

  247·23

  246·21

  245·89

  247·06

  261·36

  Italy

  258·23

  258·88

  262·11

  264·81

  266·90

  278·77

  276·47

  281·00

  280·09

  300·83

  Luxembourg

  139·56

  139·59

  146·76

  156·20

  162·33

  168·13

  165·51

  162·51

  161·88

  166·39

  Netherlands

  193·59

  197·47

  204·35

  22·402

  221·59

  230·51

  218·34

  221·27

  221·70

  232·65

  Portugal

  202·35

  202·33

  204·32

  205·64

  205·53

  211·91

  209·71

  230·97

  229·79

  235·92

  United Kingdom

  168·84

  174·12

  176·60

  187·03

  194·71

  194·10

  188·63

  181·48

  185·42

  185·88

HEALTH

  Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for England for each year since 1974–75 (i) total National Health Service expenditure, (ii) current expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (iii) capital expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (iv) expenditure on the family practitioner services, (v) expenditure on centrally funded National Health Service services, and (vi) expenditure on personal social services, giving each in(a) cash terms, (b) adjusted using the relevant pay and prices index and (c)
  158
  adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator; and if he will place in the Library details of the methods used to make these adjustments.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. if he will give for each year since 1959(a) the total amount spent on health and (b) the capital expenditure, giving the figures at constant prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information, which is readily available only from 1974–75, has been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Patients (Mortality)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients have died as a result of catching infection whilst in hospital for treatment for other conditions during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exact information requested is not available. The number of deaths with the underlying cause of post-operative infection, England and Wales, 1984–88, is shown in the table.

  Deaths from post operative infection,1 England and Wales, 1984–88

  Year

  Deaths

  1984

  13

  1985

  12

  1986

  15

  1987

  11

  21988

  15

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 998.5.

  2 Provisional data.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the effect on services for mentally ill patients of the Government's proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received several representations and are considering them all carefully.

  Statutory Child Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many current cases there are of statutory child care; how many are not supervised by local authority social workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Particulars of the number of children in the care of local authorities under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Child Care Act 1980, and other legislation are published in the document "Children in Care in England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. Particulars of the numbers of children on child protection registers—some of whom are also in the care of local authorities—are contained in the "Survey of Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers", copies of which are also available in the Library. Information is not collected centrally about the numbers of child care cases not supervised by local authority social workers.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish figures indicating the change in the number of sight tests since 1 April 1989, nationally and regionally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Data on the number of National Health Service eye tests carried out between April and September 1989 will be available in the spring. We do not collect statistics on the numbers of private sight tests carried out since April 1989. An independent sample survey has been commissioned relating to the first quarter of 1990. The results of that survey should be available in the early summer.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the British Medical Association formally on 18 October 1989, when he had a friendly and constructive discussion about the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients". The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lords) and I met representatives of the British Medical Association on 7 February to discuss the question of junior doctors' hours of work.

  GPs' Contracts
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the impact of the new general practitioners' contracts.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the impact of the new general practitioners' contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We will monitor the GPs' new contract through family practitioner committees by collecting information about the services provided, by analysing claims for payment made by GPs and through research studies.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were inpatient and outpatient waiting lists(a) in 1979 and (b) currently; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The inpatient waiting list for England fell from 752,422 at 31 March 1979 to 704,724 at 31 March 1989, the latest date for which firm figures are available. Provisional figures for September 1989 suggest there has been a further reduction, particularly in the number of patients waiting over a year. We do not make forward estimates of the size of the waiting list, since this is subject to unpredictable factors such as variations in demand. No information is held centrally on numbers awaiting outpatient appointments.

  Patient Involvement
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the involvement of patients in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the involvement of patients in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the involvement of patients in the running of the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and for Wigan (Mr. Stott) on 23 January at column 662.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to meet the chairmen of the regional health authorities; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend's next meeting with chairmen of regional health authorities is on 21 March 1990 when the items for discussion will include the implementation of the NHS reforms and other matters of topical interest.

  Acute Hospitals
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds of 31 January,Official Report, column 235, if he will list in the Official Report the names and locations of the acute hospitals in England with fewer than 600 beds in total, indicating which regional health authority is responsible for each.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants now work in the Rugby health authority area; and how many did so in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to ask the West Midlands regional health authority which holds the contracts for consultants working in Rugby

  General Practitioners
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the proposed pay increases for general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received one letter on the GPs' pay increase.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an up-to-date statement about the ambulance dispute.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 18 January 1990 at column 402.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of resources his Department is committing to making women aware of the preventive effects of hormone replacement therapy with respect to osteoporosis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department provided in 1989–90 funding totalling £63,000 to three voluntary organisations which inform women about hormone replacement therapy (HRT)—Women's Health Concern, the National Osteoporosis Society, and the Amarant Trust. The Health Education Authority has also produced a booklet on the menopause, which includes information 162
  on HRT and osteoporosis. The Department is also providing funding for research and recently gave funds to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists towards holding a study group of experts on HRT and osteoporosis. The Department and health authorities allocate funds for the provision of courses and other educational activities for general practitioners, including courses on HRT and osteoporosis.

  Pharmaceutical Investment
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the report, "Pharmaceutical Investment in the United Kingdom: the impact of the proposals in the White Paper, Working for Patients", submitted to his Department by the Economist Advisory Group.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report, which was commissioned on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of the USA, acknowledges the attractions over the years of the United Kingdom as a place for investment, highlighting research activities in view of this country's strengths in pure science and pharmaceutical innovation. While some concern was reported about future manufacturing investment, there is no reason why these attractions should disappear.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on working paper No. 11 on information and information technology in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  One response to the document has been received to date, about the needs of regional and supra-regional services, which will be taken into account as part of the consultation, the closing date for which is 30 March 1990.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish Alan Glanz's report on the role of community pharmacies in AIDS prevention and drug misuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report was published on 8 February 1990 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report indicates that the involvement of community pharmacies in preventive health education activities for drug misusers could be an effective way of making contact with those who are at high risk of HIV infection.

  We welcome this news and acknowledge the good will displayed by many pharmacists who are prepared to supply injecting equipment to drug misusers, give out information materials and offer advice. Where the report has identified problems hindering the involvement of pharmacists, we are considering ways of making progress.

  Almost £15 million has been allocated to health authorities in 1989–90 for the expansion and development of drug services in the light of HIV. We would expect that money from this allocation could be used for both the provision of individual sharps containers for drug users to place their used equipment in, and also the provision and servicing of larger sharps containers sited in pharmacies.
  163
  Pharmacists' training needs are currently being considered by the Department in conjunction with the relevant professional bodies, and we have encouraged liaison between pharmacists and local drugs services through the drug advisory committees established in every health district.

  HIV
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe of 8 February, what steps have been taken to obtain evidence on the disadvantage after the infection has been discovered in respect of employment prospects and ability to obtain life insurance and mortgages, suffered by people who became infected with HIV via blood transfusions; and what comparisons have been undertaken between the situations of such people in the post-infection phase and that of haemophiliacs in the post-infection stage.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by such a survey of the financial circumstances after infection of any particular group with HIV. Our ex-gratia payments to haemophiliacs recognise their wholly exceptional circumstances whereby they were doubly disadvantaged by their pre-existing haemophilia as well as the HIV infection. We have no plans to extend these special arrangements to other groups.

  The full facilities of the National Health Service and a range of social security benefits are available to all those infected with HIV who suffer illness, unemployment or loss of earnings.

  Country

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  Latest estimate

  United Kingdom

  2·45

  1·81

  1·89

  1·80

  1·84 (1988)

  France

  2·48

  1·93

  1·95

  1·82

  1·82 (1987)

  West Germany

  2·02

  1·45

  1·44

  1·28

  1·35 (1986)

  Italy

  2·43

  2·21

  1·69

  1·41

  1·41 (1985)

  European Economic Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11·61 (1987)

  1 Estimate.

  Source: Eurostat, Population and Social Conditions, 1989.

  "Caring for People"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the percentage set out in chart 6 of "Caring for People" (Cm. 849) as the estimated cumulative rate of transfer will be affected if the costs of the continuing commitment to residents with preserved rights are higher than has been estimated.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to local authorities will be determined in the 1990 public expenditure survey. Any subsequent changes in the amounts required by DSS in respect of residents with preserved rights will be a matter for future surveys and will not therefore affect the transfer.

  NHS Pay Increases
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what will be the total cost to health authorities of the increases in pay for hospital doctors from April; and how much of that sum will be provided by additional central Government funding;

  (2) what will be the total cost to health authorities of the increases in pay for nurses from April; and how much of that sum will be provided by additional central Government funding.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total cost in 1990–91 of pay increases for National Health Service review body staff groups is £884 million in the United Kingdom. The cost of the increases for nurses and midwives is £523 million, and for hospital doctors and dentists it is £146 million. Of the total United Kingdom cost, £635 million is already within existing National Health Service provision, and an additional £205 million will be provided from the reserve. This additional funding is not specifically apportioned between the different National Health Service review body groups.

  Families
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average family size in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and the European Economic Community as a whole in 1970 and each five years thereafter, including data for 1989 or the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table gives total period fertility rates—which are the only available reasonably comparable measures of average family sizes for the areas concerned. The total period fertility rate is the average number of children which would be born per woman if women experienced the age-specific fertility rates, as recorded at a particular point in time, throughout their entire childbearing lifespan.

TRANSPORT

  Ports
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on labour efficiency in the ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The abolition of the dock labour scheme has created the conditions for more efficient working in the ports. The effects of this reform have still to finish working through the ports industry.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the effects of the abolition of the national dock labour scheme.
  165
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 5 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) at column 183.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received of the progress of the docks in Hull since the end of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None; but I would not expect any. However, according to press reports new flexible working arrangements have led to the reopening of the container terminal under new management, with a weekly service to Scandinavia, and to the establishment of new bulk trades at the port.

  Taxis
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many hackney carriage and private hire drivers were granted licences in(a) 1985 and (b) 1989;

  (2) what is the total number of licensed hackney carriage and private hire drivers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  The licensing of hackney carriage and private hire drivers belongs to district councils. Statistics are not collected by central Government.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hackney carriage and private hire driving licences were revoked in the last year for which records are available; and what were the most common reasons.

  Mr. Portillo
  District councils have powers to revoke licences for a variety of reasons. They have not been asked to supply central Government with statistics on revocations.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received regarding the protection of passengers in hackney carriage and private hire vehicles from drivers who have prison convictions for offences of a sexual or violent nature.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since October 1989 I have received five representations on the threat to passengers in hackney carriages and private hire vehicles from drivers who may have had criminal convictions.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider making statutory provision for a declaration of previous offences of a sexual or violent nature by all applicants for hackney carriage or private hire licences.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to make such a provision. Local licensing authorities already have powers under legislation which enable them to require the submission of information by applicants as a means of assessing their suitability.

  Bradford-Leeds Railway (Electrification)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive proposals from the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority concerning the electrification of the Bradford to Leeds railway and associated works; when he expects to reach a decision on such proposals; and if he will make a statement.
  166
  Mr. Portillo
  The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive has recently approached the Department of Transport about this project, which will be considered on its merits. More details will be needed before any decision can be taken.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport(a) how many people presently have cars registered in a company's name; (b) what is their income distribution; (c) how many are women and how many are men; (d) what is the regional distribution and (e) if he will give comparable figures for the information in (a) for each year since 1973–74.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest figures available show that in 1988, approximately 2,391,000 cars were registered in a company name. These include cars held in pools, rather than being assigned to particular users. According to the 1985–86 national travel survey, about 11 per cent. of household cars were provided by companies. For 84 per cent. of these, the main driver was a man.

  The distribution of these vehicles according to region and to the income of the main driver are given in the following tables.

  Regions (1985–86)

  Per cent.

  Great Britain

  100

  North

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  East Midlands

  7

  East Anglia

  4

  South East

  39

  South West

  7

  West Midlands

  9

  North West

  11

  Wales

  3

  Scotland

  9

  Income (1985–86)

  £ per annum

  Per cent.

  Less than 5,000

  14·4

  5,000–9,999

  26·3

  10,000–14,999

  30·5

  15,000–19,999

  15·2

  20,000–24,999

  6·3

  25,000 and over

  7·3

  The number of cars registered in a company name for 1983 to 1987 are given in the following table. Figures are not available for years prior to 1983.

  Year

  thousand

  1983

  1,840

  1984

  1,917

  1985

  1,981

  1986

  2,038

  1987

  2,170

  Motor Taxation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total revenue raised from motor taxation in 1988–89; and what is his estimated revenue for 1989–90.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's estimates of revenue from motoring taxation are as follows:
  167

  £ billion

  Revenue

  Tax

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Vehicle excise duty

  2·8

  2·9

  Fuel duty

  8·5

  8·6

  Total

  11·3

  11·5

  A40 (Lighting)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the standard of lighting on the A40 Westway and of the A40 in the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing.

  Mr. Atkins
  A consultant's report on lighting standards on the A40 in the London borough of Ealing was received in February 1989. Remedial works are already in progress or planned on those parts of this section of the A40 where lighting was found not to conform with British standard BS5489. Although the A40 Westway was not included in this assessment, there is no reason to doubt that it conforms to the British standard.

  Unleaded Fuels
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what proportion of(a) new cars use unleaded fuel, (b) car owners have converted their cars to unleaded fuel and what proportion this is of cars that can be converted and (c) new cars have a catalytic converter, (d) new cars made in the United Kingdom have catalytic converters, (e) car owners have had a catalytic converter fitted; and what were the figures in 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  Industry sources indicate that virtually all new cars can run on unleaded petrol without adjustment. Estimates are that about 20 per cent. of cars on the road were able to use unleaded petrol without adjustment at the end of 1989, against 10 per cent. at the end of 1988. An additional 50 per cent. could use unleaded with adjustment at the end of 1989, against 35 per cent. at the end of 1988. The current uptake of unleaded represent about 28 per cent. of the fuel market, and if the same proportion of the vehicle fleet uses unleaded fuel, and about 20 per cent. of that fleet can use unleaded without adjustment, up to 8 per cent. of the vehicle fleet may have been adjusted.

  There were 186 new car models and two light van models on the market fitted with three-way catalysts, out of a total of about 1,000 models listed in the Department's "New Car Fuel Consumption" figures for October 1989. Of these, 24 models were known to be of British manufacture. We know of one model offered with a catalyst in 1988. There is no information available on the market share occupied by these models, but I understand that the industry proposes to collate these data for the future.

  Tighter emission standards will take effect in 1992. The number of catalyst equipped cars on the market can be expected to increase rapidly during the next two years.

  Information on the retrofitment of catalysts by individual motorists is not available.

  St. Mary's Airport
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision has been taken on the request by the council of the Isles of Scilly for Government financial help towards the cost of repairing and extending the runway at St. Mary's airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department wrote to the council on 5 February describing the financial basis on which it envisages the runway works at St. Mary's airport being carried out later this year. I am sending a copy of the letter to my hon. Friend.

  M2-A2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which year's budget contained the relevant expenditure, in relation to the relevant authorities, in respect of the following works on the M2/A2:(a) London boundary to M2 provision of lighting and provision of hard shoulders, (b) Brenley to Harbledown provision of lighting and provision of central reserve safety fencing, (c) Harbledown to Bridge provision of central reserve safety fencing, (d) Shepherdswell provision of lighting and (e) Jubilee Way to Dover alterations to road markings and removal of lay-bys.

  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure was contained in the following years:—

  A2

  (a) London boundary to M2

  Hardshoulders:

  1985–86 to 1989–90 inclusive.

  Lighting:

  Not yet allocated

  (b) Brenley to Harbledown

  Lighting:

  Not yet allocated.

  Central reserve safety fence:

  Not yet allocated.

  (c) Harbledown to Bridge

  Central reserve safety fence:

  Not yet allocated.

  (d) Shepherdswell

  Lighting:

  1989–90.

  (e) Jubilee Way to Dover

  Alterations to road markings:

  1989–90

  Removal of lay-bys:

  1989–90.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research or other assistance his Department is funding for the development of electrically powered road vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  Electric vehicles have for some years been exempt from vehicle excise duty. A considerable amount of research related to electric vehicles has been carried out by the transport and road research laboratory. The Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry have also funded research into higher energy density batteries and the Department of Industry has funded the development of electric vehicles. Although no further research is foreseen, officials keep in touch with developments in electric vehicles both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Station Car Parks
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the capacity of station car parks in London in each of the last 10 years; and what is his current policy on the contribution station car parks can make to transport in London.
  169
  Mr. Portillo
  The provision of station car parks has an important role to play in encouraging commuters to leave their cars outside central London and to travel in by rail. The rail operators are in the best position to judge where increases in capacity will lead to increased rail demand. Network SouthEast has a substantial programme of investment in improving and expanding its car parks. I regret that I cannot supply the data requested.

  A66 Improvements
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to respond to the feasibility study on road improvements to the A66 near Longnewton in Cleveland carried out by Cleveland county council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A decision on the feasibility study will be announced shortly.

  Pedestrians and Cyclists (Accidents)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pedestrians and (b) cyclists were killed and injured in each of the last five years due to drivers causing accidents while in excess of the blood alcohol limit; and what research his Department has done on the impact random breathalysing would have on these figures.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers of(a) pedestrians and (b) pedal cyclists who were reported by the police as killed or injured as a result of collision with a motor vehicle whose driver was established to have a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit or failed to provide a specimen are:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Pedestrians

  killed

  116

  110

  83

  70

  61

  all severities

  1,117

  1,186

  1,092

  949

  919

  Pedal cyclists

  killed

  20

  19

  17

  14

  6

  all severities

  771

  217

  160

  144

  136

  These figures confirm the significant success of our campaign against drinking and driving, to which increased enforcement activity by the police has made a major contribution. The impact of any extension of police powers would depend on the extent to which they were used and on the level of associated publicity. The extensive powers currently available to the police were set out in the recent statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General (Official Report, 5 December, column 131). The Government fully support the full use by the police of these powers.

  Personal Travelling Time
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what values for personal travelling time are given in departmental assessment methods for(a) bus passengers, (b) pedestrians, (c) motorists and (d) cyclists.

  Mr. Atkins
  The values of personal travelling time are given in the latest version of the "Highways Economic Note No. 2" issued in May 1989, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Goods (Road and Rail)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tonnage of goods transported by road and rail in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is published in table 1.13 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1978–1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

WALES

  Carmarthen Southern Bypass
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with regard to the changes now being carried out to the roundabout at the junction of the Carmarthen southern bypass with the trunk road A40, why is the work necessary and what it is designed to achieve, how much it will cost, and who is responsible financially.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The improvement scheme at this roundabout scored very highly using the Welsh Office's computerised ranking programme for schemes costing less than £1 million. This programme takes into account a number of factors, including the incidence of accidents. The improvement scheme is being carried out at a cost of £500,000 to the Welsh Office.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of people living in bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  On 30 September 1989 there were 164 homeless families in Wales placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. Information on the number of individuals is not available centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to(a) each community health council in Wales, (b) each district health authority in Wales, (c) the All-Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Services for People with Mental Handicaps, (d) each family practitioner committee in Wales, (e) the Health Policy Board and (f) the Health Promotion Board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservative, (b) Labour, (c) Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (2) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to (a) the Administration of Radioactive Substances, Advisory Committee, (b) the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, (c) the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales, (d) the Agricultural Valuation Committee (Wales), (e) the Agricultural Wages Committee, (f) the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, (g) the Audit Commission and (h) the British Wool Marketing Board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed

  171
  allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) Liberal Democrats, (d) Social Democratic party, (e) Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (3) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to (a) the Farm Animal Welfare Council, (b) the Forestry Commission Reference Committee Panel for Wales, (c) the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, (d) Housing for Wales, (e) the Land Authorities for Wales, (f) the Library and Information Services Council (Wales), (g) the Local Government Boundary Commission and (h) the National Parks Committee, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) Liberal Democrats, (d) Social Democratic party, (e) Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (4) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to (a) the National Radiological Protection Board, (b) the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, (c) the Place Names Advisory Committee, (d) the Rent Assessment Panel, (e) the Saundersfoot Harbour Commission, (f) the Sports Council for Wales and (g) the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) Liberal Democrats, (d) Social Democratic party, (e) Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (5) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to (a) the Cardiff Bay development corporation, (b) the Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research, (c) the Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering, (d) the Council for National Academic Awards, (e) the courts and councils of (i) the National Library and (ii) the National Museum of Wales, (f) the Curriculum Council for Wales and (g) the Development Board for Rural Wales declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) Liberal Democrats, (d) Social Democratic party, (e) Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I do not require candidates for public appointment to indicate their political affiliation, as this is not a qualification for appointment.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to(a) the National Radiological Protection Board, (b) the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, (c) the Place Names Advisory Committee, (d) the Rent Assessment Panel, (e) the Saundersfoot Harbour Commission, (f) the Sports Council for Wales and (g) the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is shown in the following table:172

  Women in public appointments

  Number of appointments held by women

  (a) National Radiological Protection Board

  2

  (b) North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  None

  (c) Place Names Advisory Committee

  None

  (d) Rent Assessment Panel

  7

  (e) Saundersfoot Harbour Commission

  None

  (f) Sports Council for Wales

  4

  (g) South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  1

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made by him either solely or jointly with another Minister to(a) each community health council in Wales, (b) each district health authority in Wales, (c) the All-Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Services for People with Mental Handicaps, (d) each family practitioner committee in Wales, (e) the Health Policy Board and (f) the Health Promotion Board are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have taken the hon. Gentleman's question to refer at(f) to the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. The information is shown in the following table:

  Number of appointments held by women

  (a) Community Health Councils in Wales:

  Clwyd South

  1

  Clwyd North

  3

  Carmarthen/Dinefwr

  3

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  1

  Ceredigion

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  South Gwent

  2

  North Gwent

  3

  Arfon/Dwyfor

  1

  Aberconwy

  2

  Ynys Mon

  1

  Meirionnydd

  1

  Rhymney Valley

  2

  East Glamorgan

  3

  Merthyr/Cynon Valley

  2

  Ogwr

  2

  Brecon/Radnor

  2

  Montgomery

  1

  Cardiff

  3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2

  Neath/Port Talbot

  3

  Swansea/Lliw Valley

  2

  (b) District Health Authorities:

  Clwyd

  4

  East Dyfed

  4

  Gwent

  3

  Gwynedd

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  2

  Powys

  4

  South Glamorgan

  4

  West Glamorgan

  4

  (c) All Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Services for people with Mental Handicaps

  1

  (d) Family Practitioner Committee:

  Clwyd

  7

  Dyfed

  8

  Gwent

  8

  Gwynedd

  5

  173

  Number of appointments held by women

  Mid Glamorgan

  5

  Powys

  12

  West Glamorgan

  8

  South Glamorgan

  7

  (e) Health Policy Board

  1

  (f) Welsh Health Promotion Authority

  7

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to(a) the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, (b) the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, (c) the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales, (d) the Agricultural Valuation Committee (Wales), (e) the Agricultural Wages Committee, (f) the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, (g) the Audit Commission and (h) the British Wool Marketing Board are held by women.

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

  Women in public appointments

  Number of appointments held by women

  (a)Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee

  2

  (b)Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances

  None

  (c)Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  3

  (d)Agricultural Valuation Committee for Wales

  None

  (e)Agricultural Wages Committee:

  Dyfed

  1

  Glamorgans

  1

  Powys

  1

  (f)Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  1

  (g)Audit Commission

  1

  (h)British Wool Marketing Board

  1

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to(a) the Farm Animal Welfare Council, (b) the Forestry Commission Reference Committee Panel for Wales, (c) the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, (d) Housing for Wales, (e) the Land Authority for Wales, (f) the Library and Information Services Council (Wales), (g) the Local Government Boundary Commission and (h) the National Parks Committee are held by women.

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

  Number of Appointments held by women

  Number

  (a) Farm Animal Welfare Council

  5

  (b) Forestry Commission Reference Committee Panel for Wales

  None

  (c) Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  (d) Housing For Wales

  (e) Land Authority for Wales

  None

  (f) Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  2

  (g) Local Government Boundary Commission

  1

  (h) National Parks Committee:

  Brecon Beacons

  1

  Pembrokeshire Coast

  1

  Snowdonia

  1

  174
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to(a) the Cardiff Bay development corporation, (b) the Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research, (c) the Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering, (d) the Council for National Academic Awards, (e) the courts and councils of (i) the National Library and (ii) the National Museum of Wales, (f) the Curriculum Council of Wales and (g) the Development Board for Rural Wales are held by women.

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

  Number of appointments held by women

  (a) Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  2

  (b) Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research

  None

  (c) Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering

  2

  (d) Council for National Academic Awards

  None

  (e) Courts and Councils of

  Court

  Council

  (i) The National Library

  3

  1

  (ii) The National Museum of Wales

  1

  —

  (f) Curriculum Council for Wales

  3

  (g) Development Board for Rural Wales

  1

  YTS
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by county, the number of YTS trainees in Wales and the number of YTS vacancies.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Figures for YTS trainees are not available on a county basis. The Training Agency in Wales provides statistics on an area office basis only which refer to the area in which training takes place rather than where the trainee lives.

  At the end of January 1990, the numbers in training in Wales were 23,330 comprising South and Mid Glamorgan 7,337; Gwent 3,813; West Glamorgan and Dyfed 5,826; and Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys 6,354.

  At the end of January 1990 the number of unfilled places in Wales was 5,795 broken down as follows: South and Mid Glamorgan 1,889; Gwent 1,127; West Glamorgan and Dyfed 789; and Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys 1,990.

  Industrial Employment
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons in Wales were engaged in industrial employment, as described in article 9 of EC regulation No. 2052/88 of 24 June 1988, in each year from 1979 inclusive to the latest available year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  175

  At June each year

  No. of employees in Industrial Employment1('000s)

  1979

  439

  1980

  411

  1981

  355

  1982

  333

  1983

  315

  1984

  310

  1985

  305

  1986

  293

  1987

  296

  1988

  309

  1989

  313

  1 Employees in employment in Wales in Divisions 1 to 5 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980; ie. Energy and Water supply, manufacturing and construction.

  The decline in employment in the coal and steel industries has resulted in a reduction of 60,000 in the numbers employed. I am pleased to say that increases in the service industries and the self-employed have more than compensated for this.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales into which NUTS level III territorial unit for the purposes of article 9 of EC regulation 2052/88 the area covered by the Llanelli borough council has been put.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Llanelli borough council area comprises part of the Dyfed county council NUTS level III unit. For the purpose of article 9 of the EC regulation 2052/88, however, the Llanelli area is eligible for European Community assistance under objective 2 of that regulation because it is adjacent to West Glamorgan, a NUTS level III unit within the industrial south Wales objective 2 area, and because it satisfies all the Commission's criteria for objective 2 support.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the area covered by the Llanelli borough council is eligible for assistance under objective 2 of article 9 of the EC regulation 2052/88.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes.

  Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Board
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made either jointly or solely by him to the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The board comprises 35 members; 24 are appointed by the Secretary of State following election by the profession and 11 are directly appointed by him. Twenty-four are women.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to committee nominees.

  Mr. Grist
  Total expenditure for 1987–88 (the latest figures available) was £5,812,206 with allocations of:176

  (a) £622,717 for administration;

  (b) £2,500 for hosting of meetings and conferences; and

  (c) £33,901 subsistence allowances for attending meetings.

  There were no general allowances given to committee nominees.

  Agricultural Advisory Panel
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All appointments to the Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales are made solely by me. The full panel meets two or three times a year and the information requested is set out in the following table.

  Attendance record percentage since appointment

  In 1989

  Mr. R. E. M. Rees

  95

  100

  Mr. J. A. Parry

  95

  100

  Mr. D. F. R. George

  92

  100

  Mr. C. J. Beynon

  84

  100

  Professor M. Haines

  100

  100

  Mr. T. H. Jones

  90

  100

  Mr. D. L. Carey-Evans

  100

  100

  Mr. D. R. Williams

  100

  100

  Mr. R. C. Pratt

  75

  100

  Mr. E. H. Perkins

  100

  100

  Mrs. T. Adams

  100

  100

  Mrs. P. Keen

  100

  100

  Mrs. A. M. Rees

  100

  100

  Industrial Decline
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to meet the EEC Regional Commissioner to discuss aid for areas affected by industrial decline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My officials regularly visit the regional policy directorate in Brussels and I am in close touch with developments. I will make contact with the Commissioner whenever I believe it to be necessary.

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the South Wales sea fisheries committee are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One.

  Education Spending
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on(a) books and (b) equipment and comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in cash and real terms using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local authority expenditure per pupil on text books, library books, educational equipment, stationery and materials in primary, secondary and special
  177
  education since 1978–79 is shown in the following table. Reliable information on text books and equipment is not separately available.

  Table 1

  Expenditure (£/pupil) on books and equipment at outturn prices

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special1

  1978–79

  11·9

  20·9

  35·1

  1979–80

  12·7

  22·8

  42·2

  1980–81

  14·6

  25·2

  40·9

  1981–82

  16·2

  28·4

  59·5

  1982–83

  18·5

  33·5

  54·7

  1983–84

  19·8

  37·4

  57·9

  1984–85

  17·9

  39·9

  67·1

  1985–86

  20·0

  41·3

  93·7

  1986–87

  22·5

  57·4

  80·7

  1987–88

  23·9

  58·2

  102·6

  1 Figures relate to the education of pupils at maintained special schools and other special education provided otherwise than at school. Expenditure on special education in primary and secondary schools is included in the primary and secondary school unit costs.

  Table 2

  Index of expenditure (£/pupil) on books and equipment (1978–79=100)1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special2

  1978–79

  100

  100

  100

  1979–80

  91·4

  93·4

  103·1

  1980–81

  88·9

  87·1

  84·2

  1981–82

  89·7

  89·5

  111·7

  1982–83

  95·9

  98·6

  96·0

  1983–84

  97·9

  105·2

  97·1

  1984–85

  84·4

  107·0

  107·1

  1985–86

  89·3

  104·9

  141·8

  1986–87

  97·1

  141·2

  118·2

  1987–88

  98·4

  136·3

  143·1

  1 Primary includes nursery schools.

  2 Figures relate to the education of pupils at maintained special schools and other special education provided otherwise than at school. Expenditure on special education in primary and secondary schools is included in the primary and secondary school unit costs.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of development funding awarded to training and enterprise councils(a) in total and (b) by TEC.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The total value of development contracts at present is £311,620, broken down as follows: West Wales TEC £110,000; Mid Glamorgan TEC £103,500 and the North East Wales TEC £98,120.

  The levels of development funding for the other TECs whose bids have been approved, North West Wales, South Glamorgan and Gwent, are still being negotiated.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hydrogeological surveys have been brought to the notice of the Welsh Office via the National Rivers Authority and the Welsh Water Authority in conjunction with planning applications to use quarries and other locations as landfill waste disposal sites.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office has no record of a hydrogeological survey brought to its attention via the National Rivers Authority and the Welsh Water Authority in conjunction with a planning application for a landfill waste disposal site.

  Singleton Casualty Unit
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received for an extension of X-ray facilities at the Singleton casualty unit; and how many in opposition.

  Mr. Grist
  Since 1 June 1988, 102 individual representations and petitions have been received by the Department seeking expanded use of the minor casualty unit services at Singleton hospital, Swansea, the majority of which have explicitly sought improved access to X-ray facilities.

  The district health authority has indicated to the Department that it would neither support nor encourage the development of radiology services for the minor casualty unit.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish a table showing the average income of first time house buyers and average prices of houses in Wales in 1989–90;

  (2) what is the average new mortgage in 1989–90 in Wales:

  (3) what is the average outstanding mortgage in 1989–90 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The available information for Wales relating to building society borrowers only for the first six months of the financial year 1989–80 is given in the following table:

  First time purchases

  April—September 1989 all Purchases

  Average recorded income of borrowers1

  Average house price

  Average new mortgage

  Average house price

  £

  £

  £

  £

  13,291

  33,209

  30,026

  45,615

  1 Different building societies have different conventions for recording the income of borrowers.

ENVIRONMENT

  Foreign Taps
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prohibit the importing of foreign taps which do not conform to British Standard 5412 with respect to the diameter of the taps' internal construction.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to prohibit the importing of foreign taps. Taps have to comply with the byelaw requirements of the United Kingdom water undertakers. Such things as the performance of taps and their value for money are largely matters for consumers to judge.

  Lead Pollution
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the Department of the Environment pollution report No. 28.
  179
  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on Thursday 8 February to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) (Official Report, Vol 166, col. 757).

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish a central register of landfill sites receiving low-level radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Any waste disposal site licensed by a waste disposal authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) may receive low-level radioactive waste where this is authorised by HMIP under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Low-level radioactive waste authorised for disposal to local landfill sites with ordinary refuse is subject to certain conditions including activity limits. Disposals under these conditions present no hazard either to the refuse collector or at the disposal site and the destination of the waste is not recorded. It is therefore impracticable to establish a central register containing the information requested. Waste disposal authorities do, however, maintain registers of all disposal sites licensed under COPA in their areas.

  Nirex
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet met representatives of UK Nirex Ltd.

  Eco-labelling Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies to date have indicated their support and have offered assistance with the Government's product eco-labelling scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his reply of 9 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)(Official Report, Vol 164, cols 589–91), we received over 80 responses to the discussion paper which we issued last August proposing the establishment of an EC-wide scheme of eco-labelling. Just over 30 of these responses were from individual companies, and they were overwhelmingly in support of our proposals. We shall, of course, want to work closely with interested groups in moving towards setting up a scheme.

  Rivers
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the specific measurements of the substances that are to be present in or absent from river water in order to meet(a) the minimum clean water qualification standards of the National Rivers Authority and (b) the qualification standards set by the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The requirements of the general river classification system currently in use throughout England and Wales are set out in the report of the 1985 180
  river quality survey, a copy of which is in the Library. There is no EC legislation setting general quality standards for rivers, although there are directives relating to specific dangerous substances (76/464/EEC et seq, reproduced in Department of the Environment circular 7/89 (Welsh Office 16/89)), to the quality of designated fresh water needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (78/659/EEC), and to the quality of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water (75/440/EEC).

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what system of classifying the quality of river water has been prescribed by his Department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The general classification system for rivers currently in use throughout England and Wales is being reviewed and will not be formally prescribed until that review has been completed. In the meantime specific classifications have been established, by regulations made under section 104 of the Water Act 1989, for surface waters according to their suitability for abstraction by water undertakers for supply (after treatment) as drinking water (SI 1989 No. 1148) and for a range of specific dangerous substances (SI 1989 No. 2286).

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of the survey of rivers being conducted by the National Rivers Authority will be available.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the NRA expects to be able to publish results from its 1990 survey of river quality in England and Wales during the autumn of 1991.

  Radiochemical Inspectors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many radiochemical inspectors' posts(a) filled and (b) unfilled were provided for each year in respect of each organisation; what is the maximum period considered necessary between site visits by these organisations; and what statutory duties exist on these organisations to monitor, record and make public radioactivity emitted off-site from any site subject to inspection;

  (2) how many radiochemical inspectors were in post for each year from 1986–87 to 1989–90, respectively for (a) the radiochemical inspectorate prior to April 1987, (b) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, (c) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (Scotland), (d) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (Northern Ireland), and (e) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

  (3) how many sites were visited by radiochemical inspectors in each year from 1986–87 to 1989–90; and what is the average period between site visits;

  (4) what statutory duties exist on users of radioactive materials as defined in the Radioactive Substances Act to (a) monitor, (b) record and (c) make public in each case amounts of radioactive emitted off site from any site to which radiochemical inspectors have powers of entry or inspection.

  Mr. Trippier
  Organisations subject to control under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA60) must comply with strict conditions and activity limits imposed by HMIP in certificates of registration and authorisation
  181
  issued under the Act. The issue of certificates follows careful assessment of the possible environmental impact where appropriate.

  Conditions imposed vary with the circumstances, but in the case of radioactive waste disposals, these commonly require monitoring to take place. In all cases proper and detailed records must be maintained. All premises controlled under the Act are subject to scrutiny by HMIP inspectors under powers contained in section 12 of RSA60, to ensure compliance with the terms of certificates issued.

  Although there is no requirement in the Act to make information public, details of monitoring of radioactive discharges from the nuclear industry are published annually both by the industry itself and by this Department.

  The information available on the number and frequency of site inspections and on staff in the radiochemical inspectorate and HMIP, for the period 1986–87 to 1988–89 is contained in the Department's management information system returns (MINIS 8–10), available in the Library of the House. The MINIS 11 report covering 1989–90 will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Matters relating to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are the responsibilities of their respective Secretaries of State.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites in the United Kingdom are subject to powers of entry or inspection by radiochemical inspectors.

  Mr. Trippier
  In England there are some 9,600 premises subject to regulation by HMIP under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (RSA60). The administration of RSA60 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State for those countries.

  Leakage
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline his responsibilities in respect of protecting water sources and in respect of controlling leakage from the distribution system.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is primarily responsible for protecting water sources. The water undertakers are responsible for controlling leakage from the distribution system. But the Director General of Water Services will monitor their leakage control programmes to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between capital and operational costs in the interests of local consumers.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introductionary measures that would encourage an increase in the proportion of recycled paper used in newsprint.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am writing today to newspaper publishers to urge them to increase the proportion of recycled paper that they use. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he is doing to ensure that those waste disposal authorities identified in the answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)Official Report, 11 January, columns 684–85, submit waste disposal plans as they are required to do under section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today written to leaders of the 15 authorities concerned asking them to submit their plans by 30 November. My officials will be discussing with the authorities concerned the steps needed for completing the plans by this date. Officials are also writing to other authorities asking them to provide confirmation of their latest plans.

  At the same time, we are proposing an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set deadlines for the preparation of waste disposal plans and to prescribe the factors to be taken into account in preparing such plans.

  We attach considerable importance to having a comprehensive framework of such plans across the country. Under the Bill's provisions, we see these plans as providing a vital framework for informing investment decisions by public and private sector waste disposal interests as well as publicising required standards and enforcement policies by the new waste regulation authorities. We shall be reviewing the content and scope of these plans for the future and will be issuing, in due course, revised guidance to local authorities on how existing plans should be updated.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will propose revisions to the housing revenue account subsidy determination of 21 December in response to requests by local authorities.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is today sending to local housing authorities proposed amendments to the housing revenue account subsidy rules for 1990–91. These are designed to deal with questions put to us since the main rules were published on 21 December. They should reassure councils that rents next year can be kept within Government guidelines.

  The new policy is designed to begin moving authorities towards a sensible patten of rents in which the rents of council housing broadly reflect the geographical variations in the value of property. The old system was a nonsense because we had to assume that rents would move by the same amount in every part of the country. None the less, we are not suggesting that council rents should reach market levels (except where these are low) and we will make sure that rents can stay within the reach of ordinary working people.

  I know that many authorities have been doubtful about whether they can keep rent increases within our guidelines. I believe we have now removed the main outstanding problems, and that some of their worries have been unnecessary. I would urge councils to look closely at several aspects of the system that convey very considerable flexibility or help. Let me give a few examples.

  Some authorities have been worried that they could no longer fund repairs and improvements from capital

  183
  receipts from the sale of council property. But genuine capitalised repairs are not precluded by section 40 of the 1989 Act.

  Today's draft rules confirm our intention that subsidy will be paid on works that have been financed through deferred purchase or leasing schemes.

  Councils can carry forward balances up to £150 a dwelling or £5 million. Authorities can also look for economies and efficiency savings.

  We have also, today, confirmed a rule change that was prompted by the action of Wakefield council, on 9 January. Wakefield reduced its rent for the last seven weeks of this year from £17·82 to £1·70 a week, solely to gain an extra £5 million in 1990–91 from a recalculation of subsidy. We believe this was wrong and, after formal consultations with the council, have revised the rules so that the January change in rents will not alter its subsidy entitlement next year.

  As a result of today's revised rules, I believe authorities should be able to hold rent increases broadly in line with guidelines. Some may be above, some below. The final decision rests with councils themselves, which must decide on the levels of income and expenditure they want to budget for.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses for rent have been built each year since 1970; and how many are planned to be built in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Numbers of house-building completions for rent by local authorities and new towns are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1970

  127,700

  1971

  110,900

  1972

  89,400

  1973

  75,700

  1974

  95,600

  1975

  113,800

  1976

  116,200

  1977

  114,000

  1978

  92,100

  1979

  73,300

  1980

  73,500

  1981

  54,200

  1982

  30,800

  1983

  28,700

  1984

  28,400

  1985

  22,700

  1986

  18,900

  1987

  15,700

  1988

  15,300

  11989

  12,600

  1 Provisional.

  The Government do not expect local authorities to add significantly to their stock of houses for rent. Our policy is that housing associations should become the major providers of new subsidised rented housing and public expenditure plans reflect this.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has of pollution risk to water supplies or other health hazards 184
  from toxic waste deposited at Stanton road, Sandiacre, Pewit tip, Manners avenue, Ilkeston, and Long Eaton refuse tip, all in Derbyshire; what monitoring by pollution control authorities has been undertaken; and what information or advice has been given to Erewash local authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: In 1972–73, a desk study commissioned by my Department suggested that the sites presented the following potential risk to groundwater:

  (a) Stanton road, Sandiacre—no recorded information;

  (b) Pewit tip, Manners avenue, Ilkeston—some (risk) to minor (aquifer);

  (c) Long Eaton refuse tip, Meadows lane—serious (risk) to minor (aquifer).

  This information was passed to the local authority and water authority to assist them in their regulatory function.

  My Department has no evidence that the sites are presenting a risk to water supplies or public health.

  Irish Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask for the radioactive and chemical pollution of the Irish sea to be placed on the agenda of the forthcoming North sea Environment Ministers conference; what other issues will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Given the geographical scope of the North sea conference, it would not be appropriate for matters concerning pollution in the Irish sea to be included at the third North sea conference in March.

  The main purpose of the third North sea conference is to look at progress on the implementation of important measures agreed at the second conference in London in 1987. The conference will also review all the major activities which have an impact on the marine environment, including discharges of dangerous substances via rivers and the atmosphere, nutrients, dumping, shipping and offshore installations.

  The measures agreed at the North sea conferences are applied to all our seas, including the Irish sea.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table detailing the cost of the annual applications by archaeologists to(a) his Department and (b) English Heritage for rescue archaeological work to record and excavate sites of national importance in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 February 1990] The total annual figure for applications approved for funding for rescue archaeological work is as follows:

  Funding

  £ million

  (a) Department of the Environment

  1981–82

  6·700

  Department of the Environment

  1982–83

  7·900

  Department of the Environment

  1983–84

  17·000

  (b) English Heritage

  1984–85

  7·100

  English Heritage

  1985–86

  8·745

  English Heritage

  1986–87

  11·501

  English Heritage

  1987–88

  12·230

  English Heritage

  1988–89

  13·759

  English Heritage

  1989–90

  7·107

  1Estimate.

  185
  Comparable figures are available only from 1981–82.

  From 1989–90 English Heritage has adopted a rolling programme for funding rescue archaeological work and no longer accepts speculative applications. The total of the applications approved is therefore expected to correspond to the funds available.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing the amount of funding given by(a) English Heritage and (b) his Department to rescue archaeologist projects in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The figures are as follows:

  Spending £ million

  Department of the Environment Funding

  1981–82

  4·000

  Department of the Environment Funding

  1982–83

  4·877

  Department of the Environment Funding

  1983–84

  5·100

  English Heritage Funding

  1984–85

  5·538

  English Heritage Funding

  1985–86

  5·680

  English Heritage Funding

  1986–87

  7·437

  English Heritage Funding

  1987–88

  7·422

  English Heritage Funding

  1988–89

  6·877

  English Heritage Funding

  1989–90

  17·107

  1 Budgeted

  Comparable figures are available only from 1981–82.

  Figures from 1986–87 onwards include provision for the Greater London archaeology service, taken on by English Heritage following the abolition of the Greater London council.

  Domestic Water Services
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with what schemes, other than metering, the Government are offering help to the Director General of Water Services, so as to ensure that the changes in charging for domestic water services provide the best value for money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: It is for each water company to decide on what basis to charge for its services once rateable values can no longer be used, and to apply to the Director General of Water Services for an interim adjustment of its price limit (k) to cover the additional cost of introducing and operating its choice of system. The costs of metering on a wide scale are currently more uncertain than those associated with other methods of charging. The Government are therefore providing financial support to a

  First time purchasers

  All borrowers

  Average recorded income1

  Average house price

  Average mortgage advance

  Average house price

  £

  £

  £

  £

  (a)England

  15,921

  43,399

  39,130

  59,428

  (b)Northern

  12,145

  25,604

  26,869

  39,146

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13,025

  30,589

  28,952

  43,095

  East Midlands

  14,075

  37,707

  34,062

  50,656

  East Anglia

  17,210

  50,340

  44,367

  65,980

  Greater London

  23,528

  67,558

  60,383

  84,826

  South East (ex GLC)

  19,445

  60,270

  52,021

  82,743

  South West

  15,426

  49,355

  42,220

  68,867

  West Midlands

  13,763

  34,661

  32,696

  50,898

  North West

  12,852

  28,666

  29,675

  43,256

  186
  series of metering trials to ensure that the results are available in sufficient time to influence each company's choice of charging method and to enable the director general to have regard to the results when considering applications for interim adjustments. The director general may, however, commission research into other methods of charging if he considers it appropriate.

  Hooding (Windsor and Maidenhead)
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government will extend the Bellwin scheme or some other relief to cover the cost of the recent flood damage to Windsor and Maidenhead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The Government have not yet decided whether to extend the scope of the Bellwin scheme to cover flood damage at Windsor and Maidenhead. We are monitoring the situation to assess whether an extension would be justified under the criteria for the scheme.

  Council House Sales, Norwich
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much lower or higher on average the determinations of the district valuer are on council house sales in Norwich than the prices quoted by Norwich city council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  In the year ending 31 December 1989, the district valuer made 101 determinations of value under section 128 of the Housing Act 1985 on the application of tenants of Norwich city council. The value determined was lower than the council's opinion of value in 76 cases by an average of £3,334 or 6·52 per cent., higher in one case and the same in 24 cases.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing the average income of first-time housebuyers and average prices of houses in(a) England and (b) each region in 1989–90;

  (2) what is the average new mortgage in 1989–90 in (a) England and (b) each region.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The available information, which relates to building society borrowers only, is for the first six months of the financial year 1989–90:
  187
  1 There is considerable variation in the income details recorded by different societies.

DEFENCE

  Classified Documents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Colin Wallace file was finally found; on what date; and what other documents were located with it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the information given in the letter dated 2 February 1990, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence sent to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). A copy was placed in the Library.

  General Dynamics
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the details of the memorandum of understanding with the General Dynamics Company of the United States of America concerning offset agreements for the purchase of goods and services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. The details of the MOU are commercially confidential.

  Aircraft Disturbance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any controlled experiments have been undertaken to assess the response of seabirds to aircraft disturbance which have involved either the active participation or co-operation of his Department including service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any Ministry of Defence involvement in experiments of this kind, which would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  SA 80 Rifles
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has taken steps to have armour-piercing ammunition for the SA 80 rifles used by the Army in Northern Ireland procured and issued in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our usual practice to discuss detailed operational capabilities.

SCOTLAND

  Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedures to be used to monitor expenditure by local enterprise councils and training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on local 188
  enterprise companies. Training and enterprise councils are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Employment, Glasgow
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve employment in the north-east of Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  The full range of training and employment services is available to help people in north-east Glasgow to acquire appropriate skills and find work. The training and enterprise development provision available to the people of Glasgow will be further enhanced by the establishment of a local enterprise company for Glasgow which will have responsibility for delivering and combining the training programmes of the Training Agency and the economic development and environmental activities of the Scottish Development Agency at local level in a way which best meets the needs of Glasgow's economy and labour market.

  Investment
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the instances of inward investment since the formation of Locate in Scotland which have subsequently been closed down.

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

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inward investment projects from outside the United Kingdom were established(a) between 1964 and 1970, (b) between 1970 and 1974, (c) between 1974 and 1979 and (d) between 1979 and 1987 and how many of them survive today.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available for the period prior to the inception of Locate in Scotland in 1981. In the six years to 31 March 1987, LIS recorded 309 projects planned by companies. It is not possible to say how many survived to date, since not all the projects were in receipt of financial assistance and therefore subject to monitoring by the Department.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) metered water charge and (b) non-domestic water rate in each water authority area for 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The metered water charges and non-domestic water rates for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are set out in the table. The figures for 1990–91 are unconfirmed at this stage.
  189

  1989–90

  1990–91 (unconfirmed)

  Regional/Islands Council

  Metered Water Charge Pence Per Cubic Metre

  Non-domestic Water Rate Pence

  Metered Water Charge Pence Per Cubic Metre

  Non-domestic1 Water Rate Pence

  Borders

  28·00

  6·0

  43·50

  4·5

  Central

  21·00

  3·5

  21·00

  2·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28·20

  7·0

  33·90

  6·0

  Fife

  26·00

  8·0

  28·00

  6·5

  Grampian

  43·00

  7·0

  45·80

  6·2

  Highland

  35·50

  9·4

  37·50

  8·9

  Lothian

  28·70

  4·9

  30·60

  2·7

  Strathclyde

  27·84

  4·4

  30·19

  3·3

  Tayside

  32·00

  5·3

  34·00

  4·1

  Orkney

  33·00

  10·0

  38·50

  8·7

  Shetland

  22·04

  2·9

  58·70

  10·1

  Western Isles

  36·00

  16·8

  47·00

  17·7

  1 A revaluation of non-domestic property takes effect on 1 April 1990.

  Water Authorities (Debt)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the level of indebtedness of each water authority in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent figures available are given in the table.

  Capital debt outstanding at 31 March 1989: Water Account

  Region/Islands areas

  £000's

  Borders

  9,138

  Central

  21,602

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,734

  Fife

  32,017

  Grampian

  63,004

  Highland

  16,942

  Lothian

  88,809

  Strathclyde

  129,494

  Tayside

  27,781

  Orkney

  3,233

  Shetland

  232

  Western Isles

  3,048

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the expenditure to be incurred by each water authority in Scotland in servicing capital debt in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and the proportion which that amount is of their total expenditure in relation to water supply.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table. Figures for 1990–91, and on total expenditure in relation to water supply, are not yet available centrally.

  Estimated loans charges 1989–90: Water Account

  Region/Islands areas

  £000's

  Borders

  1,557

  Central

  3,435

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,075

  Fife

  4,468

  Grampian

  9,812

  Highland

  2,867

  Lothian

  11,463

  Strathclyde

  20,831

  Tayside

  5,385

  Orkney

  278

  Shetland

  280

  Western Isles

  619

  Water Supply
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure incurred by each region and islands area in respect of their functions in relation to water supply.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available figures for total expenditure, both current and capital, incurred by the regional and islands councils are for the year 1988–89 and are as follows:

  Total Current Expenditure Outturn £000s

  Total Capital Expenditure Outturn £000s

  Borders

  3,606

  965

  Central

  11,549

  2,347

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,365

  1,614

  Fife

  9,862

  3,066

  Grampian

  18,484

  8,767

  Highland

  7,199

  3,307

  Lothian

  22,374

  7,722

  Strathclyde

  68,050

  17,399

  Tayside

  13,353

  3,949

  Orkney

  1,412

  1,029

  Shetland

  2,040

  545

  Western Isles

  1,263

  352

  Education Spending
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on(a) books and (b) equipment and comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in cash and real terms using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available is given in the following tables which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. Expenditure on equipment was not separately identified in these returns until 1982–83. There have been some variations from year to year in the recording of expenditure under these two headings. In particular some of the figures for expenditure on library books may include some expenditure on items of equipment.
  191

  Table 1: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials at outturn prices.

  £

  Books

  Education tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  4·54

  8·31

  7·27

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  5·49

  9·61

  11·25

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  5·84

  9·29

  12·20

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  6·54

  9·77

  12·17

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  7·03

  10·03

  13·65

  8·18

  27·33

  48·46

  1983–84

  8·99

  13·35

  22·64

  7·28

  25·36

  42·11

  1984–85

  9·55

  13·83

  21·41

  8·91

  30·09

  57·77

  1985–86

  8·91

  13·47

  21·37

  8·33

  30·26

  53·42

  1986–87

  10·93

  16·67

  22·22

  8·92

  33·85

  61·98

  1987–88

  9·25

  12·93

  17·42

  11·71

  44·42

  77·58

  1988–89

  11·23

  17·85

  27·60

  13·23

  48·07

  80·86

  Table 2: Expenditure per pupil on text library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  £

  Books

  Education tools, equipment and materials

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  9·98

  18·27

  15·99

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  10·34

  18·10

  21·18

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  9·29

  14·78

  19·41

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  9·48

  14·16

  17·64

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  9·50

  13·56

  18·44

  11·06

  36·94

  65·50

  1983–84

  11·61

  17·24

  29·24

  9·40

  32·75

  54·38

  1984–85

  11·75

  17·01

  26·34

  10·96

  37·02

  71·07

  1985–86

  10·40

  15·73

  24·95

  9·73

  35·33

  62·37

  1986–87

  12·34

  18·83

  24·10

  10·07

  38·23

  70·00

  1987–88

  9·92

  13·87

  18·68

  12·56

  47·64

  83·21

  1988–89

  11·23

  17·85

  27·60

  13·23

  48·07

  80·86

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

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  120·9

  115·6

  154·7

  1980–81

  128·6

  111·8

  167·8

  1981–82

  144·1

  117·6

  167·4

  1982–83

  154·8

  120·7

  187·6

  1983–84

  198·0

  160·6

  311·4

  1984–85

  210·4

  166·4

  294·5

  1985–86

  196·3

  162·1

  293·9

  1986–87

  240·7

  200·6

  305·6

  1987–88

  203·7

  155·6

  239·6

  1988–89

  247·4

  214·8

  379·6

  Table 4: Expenditure per pupil on text and library books adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator, expressed as an index with 1978–79=100

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1978–79

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1979–80

  103·6

  99·1

  132·5

  1980–81

  93·1

  80·9

  121·4

  1981–82

  95·0

  77·5

  110·3

  1982–83

  95·2

  74·2

  115·3

  1983–84

  116·3

  94·4

  182·9

  1984–85

  117·7

  93·1

  164·7

  1985–86

  104·2

  86·1

  156·0

  1986–87

  123·6

  103·1

  157·0

  1987–88

  99·4

  75·9

  116·8

  1988–89

  112·5

  97·7

  172·6

  Note: Tables 3 and 4 do not include expenditure by authorities on educational tools, equipment and materials from 1982–83 as shown in tables 1 and 2.

  Human Retrovirus
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has as to the ownership and disposal of all material produced under the agreement between Cogent Ltd. and the CSA of the Health Service to carry out research work into the production of monoclonal antibodies against human retrovirus at Edinburgh university; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the total value of funding contributed by (a) the CSA of the Health Service and (b) Cogent Ltd. in pursuance of the contract between them to carry out research into the production of monoclonal antibodies against human retrovirus at Edinburgh university; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) why the contract between the Common Services Agency of the Health Service and Cogent Ltd. to produce monoclonal antibodies against human retrovirus at Edinburgh university was terminated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The contract was suspended in June 1989 by Cogent Ltd. following attempts by UnivEd Technologies (the commercial arm of the university of Edinburgh) to negotiate with Cogent financial and intellectual property rights in the project to which Cogent were unable to agree. Discussions continue between the Common Services Agency and Cogent Ltd. with a view to arranging formal termination of the contract in such a way as to safeguard the interests of both parties.

  The agreement between the Common Services Agency and Cogent Ltd. relates to the development of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus which might prove of potential value in the treatment of patients. A number of

  193
  antibodies were produced prior to suspension of the project although none was deemed suitable for development for patient therapy. The ownership and disposal of material produced under the agreement will require to be dealt with in terminating the agreement. The CSA has contributed £67,000 and Cogent Ltd. £175,000 to the project.

  Horticulture Diversification
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received by the Highlands and Islands Development Board under its horticulture diversification scheme; and how many have been approved.

  Mr. Lang
  Horticulture diversification is part of the Highlands and Islands Development Board's land diversification programme. Records of applications received and approved are not available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in publishing promotional material on its horticulture diversification scheme and mailing it to potential applicants.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1989–90, expenditure of £38,000 has been incurred on the information leaflets "Patterns for Change" which promote land diversification.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision exists within the current budget of the Highlands and Islands Development Board for a horticulture diversification scheme; and whether any provision is being made for next year's budget.

  Mr. Lang
  The total budget for the Highlands and Islands Development Board's land diversification programme, including publication of promotional material, for 1989–90 is £107,000. The budget for 1990–91 is £90,000.

  Cumbernauld—Kilsyth Road
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for the construction of a new road between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans. The present road between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth is the responsibility of 194
  Strathclyde regional council but the minor local realignments to it which will be required because of the proposed M80 Stepps-Haggs trunk motorway cutting across it will be financed in due course from the trunk road programme.

  New Hospital, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any proposals from Lanarkshire health board for the construction of a new hospital at Cumbernauld; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lanarkshire health board has recently submitted an option appraisal on the provision of geriatric and psycho-geriatric services. The options which include the development of a new 120-bed unit at Cumbernauld are being considered by my officials.

  New Towns
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice he has given to new town development corporations on privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The White Paper "The Scottish New Towns: The Way Ahead" published on 11 July last year, stated the Government's view that a number of the new town development corporations' functions were suitable for privatisation. The Government consider that the privatisation of these functions is not only likely to ensure the continuity of service necessary to enable the development corporations to complete their remaining tasks, but offers the best prospect of safeguarding employment and opening up wider job opportunities for corporation employees.

  Since the publication of the White Paper my officials have had extensive discussions with senior management of the five development corporations on the different options for the privatisation of the development corporations' services and functions, the appropriate methods of privatisation and other associated issues.

  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairmen and chief executives of the Scottish new towns on 1 December to discuss privatisation among other issues affecting the new towns. I am encouraged by the progress being made by the corporations in identifying privatisation options and in assisting their employees to explore these possibilities.

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he last met Mr. David Mitchell, chairman of Cumbernauld development corporation; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of Cumbernauld development corporation together with the chairmen of the other development corporations on Friday 1 December 1989, when he discussed a wide range of matters concerning the new towns.

  Storm Damage
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the £600,000 in European Community storm aid to the United Kingdom announced in February will be made available to his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions on the allocation of EC storm aid to the United Kingdom have not yet been made. Arrangements to identify those affected are under way and any awards will be distributed as soon as possible.

  Quarrying
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the expansion of quarrying in the Highlands and Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Representations regarding the expansion of quarrying in the Highlands and Islands have not been received.

  It is recognised that there are particular mineral resources which, owing to the nature of the geology of Scotland, are more likely to occur in the Highlands and Islands. The extraction of such minerals can, with the appropriate environmental safeguards, bring social and economic benefits especially to remoter areas.

  Any proposal for the development of quarrying would require planning permission and would, in the first instance, be the responsibility of the relevant planning authority.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made to enable persons who have qualified as teachers outside Scotland to upgrade their teaching qualification to meet the requirements of the Scottish Education Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Any person who proposes to teach in an education authority school in Scotland must be registered with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Where an applicant's qualifications do not meet the requirements for registration, the council is normally able to recommend a course of study at a college or university to bring those qualifications up to its required standards.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Green Pound
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the level of the green pound.

  Mr. Gummer
  I receive frequent representations about the level of the green pound from farmers and their representatives.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence is available to him that the causative agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy(a) is found in offal, other than brain tissue and (b) is not found in bovine tissue, other than offal.

  Mr. Maclean
  BSE was probably caused by the scrapie agent being transmitted to cattle through animal protein feed. Infectivity studies using various sheep tissues showed that the agent is most likely to be present in brain, spinal cord, spleen, tonsil, thymus and intestine, but not detectable in other tissues. These offals from bovines have therefore been banned from any use in human food as a precautionary measure, even though affected animals are slaughtered and destroyed. Infectivity experiments are being undertaken to confirm that the agent which causes bovine spongiform encephalopathy acts in the same way in terms of its presence or otherwise in relation to cattle offals and tissues.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions more than 50 per cent. compensation has been paid in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed cattle identified at abattoirs.

  Mr. Gummer
  The compulsory slaughter of animals suspected of suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy was introduced on 8 August 1988. Under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1988, compensation is paid to the owner of an animal in which infection is confirmed at the rate of one half of its market value, up to 62½ per cent. of the average market price.

  I propose to introduce from tomorrow new arrangements for the assessment of compensation for the slaughter of animals in which infection is confirmed. Compensation will be at 100 per cent. of the market value of the animal or the average market price, whichever is the less. There will be no change in the basis of compensation for animals in which the disease is not confirmed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take in the light of the discovery that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to mice through feeding stuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The mice to which bovine spongiform encephalopathy was transmitted were fed large quantities (at least half their own body weight) of brain and cerebrospinal fluid from advanced clinical cases of BSE cattle. This was a laboratory experiment and the method of infection used was completely unnatural. The results
  197
  were not unexpected and provide further evidence that BSE is similar to scrapie, a disease for which there is no evidence whatsoever of its being a risk to human health. Further action in the light of these results is not therefore appropriate.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected tissues are prevented from entering the food chain of any other animals either in this country or abroad.

  Mr. Maclean
  All cattle suspected of having BSE are compulsorily slaughtered and their carcases destroyed. In addition the offals which might harbour the agent in cattle with sub-clinical infection are banned from human consumption. Protein material, including these offals, derived from ruminant animals, cannot be fed to ruminants in this country. However, there is no scientific reason why the offals should not be incorporated into feedstuffs for non-ruminant animals. It is up to countries importing protein material from the United Kingdom to determine the conditions under which such imports may take place in the full knowledge they have about the disease and its likely cause.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations has he received about the future of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Gummer
  A number of individuals and organisations have made their views known including those representing the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation. The issue is an important one, and it is right that there should be an open exchange of views.

  Food Additives

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many substances of no nutritional value were permitted as food additives(a) in 1984 and (b) in 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are approximately 320 additives permitted by regulation for use in food and these include additives of some nutritional value. This number has not altered substantially between 1984 and 1989. In addition, there are about 3,000 flavourings available to the food industry that are not specifically controlled by regulations. They are however subject to the general provisions of the Food Act and are used in very small amounts.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the enforcement of section 4(2) of the Food Act 1984 in respect of colouring additives with no nutritional value.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 29 January at column 75. The criteria that the Food Advisory Committee uses in assessing food additives was published in "Food Facts—Additives No. 7", a copy of which is being sent to the hon. Member.

  Research and Development (Food)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount was spent on(a) research and (b) development on (i) food safety, (ii) food quality and (iii) food processing for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table sets out figures showing the expenditure by Government on food R and D over the past 10 years. Data on expenditure on food quality, safety and processing are not readily available before 1984–85. Figures for research and development separately are not available.

  The Government are firmly committed to funding research on food safety and hygiene issues of concern to consumers, producers and industry.

  Government spending on food R & D (at current prices)

  of which primary AIM:

  Total food R&D expenditure

  Safety

  Quality

  Processing

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  9·7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  13·6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  16·2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  17·8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  20·4

  14·6

  16·0

  19·0

  1985–86

  23·5

  5·2

  7·1

  11·2

  1986–87

  24·6

  5·1

  7·3

  12·2

  1987–88

  26·4

  29·7

  —

  316·7

  1988–89

  28·8

  210·9

  —

  317·9

  1989–904

  31·5

  21l·5

  —

  320·0

  Notes: n/a Figures not readily available.

  1 £0·8 million is not attributable to subject area.

  2 Change of definition in 1987–88; aimed primarily at food safety and applied nutrition.

  3 Change of definition in 1987–88: aimed primarily at food quality and technology.

  4 Provisional.

  Pesticide Residues
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are carried out to check for pesticide residues, and in particular DDT residues, on imports of fruit and vegetables from Spain.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government undertake a continuous monitoring programme of fruit and vegetables and other major food commodity groups from all sources, including Spain, to ensure that residue levels of DDT and other pesticides do not exceed statutory levels contained in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988. The results are published; the latest report covering the period 1985 to 1989 was published by HMSO in 1989 (Food Surveillance Paper No. 25).

  Waste Disposal
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name those materials categorised as inert or of natural origin currently dumped by the United Kingdom in the North sea under existing licences and those categorised under other headings.

  Mr. Gummer
  Materials licensed for dumping by the United Kingdom which are categorised by the Oslo commission as being inert and of natural origin are colliery stone and clean sand. Other material dumped includes
  199
  port and navigation dredgings, which other North sea countries also dump at sea. In addition the United Kingdom licenses the dumping at sea of sewage sludge, liquid industrial waste and flyash. The disposal at sea of liquid industrial waste and flyash is being terminated as soon as environmentally acceptable land-based means of disposal can be introduced.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the specific waste materials mentioned in the United Kingdom's current applications for further industrial waste disposal licences relating to the practice of waste disposal in the seas around the United Kingdom, including the North sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom has submitted information to the Oslo commission in accordance with the internationally agreed procedures in respect of the following wastes:

  1. Wash waters from synthesis of Intal—a treatment for asthma and allergies.

  2. Aqueous residues from preparation of paracetamol.

  3. Salt solution from manufacture of O-tolyl-byguanide, exported for use in paint and soap manufacture.

  4. Wash waters from synthesis of antibiotic and anti-ulcer medicines.

  The crucial importance of some of these products will be obvious.

  Since the date information was forwarded to the Oslo commission on the first waste an alternative means of disposal has been implemented. I have therefore rejected an application for renewal of the licence for the sea dumping of this material.

  Alternative means of disposal are also being put in place for the third and fourth of these wastes and dumping at sea will cease later this year.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's timetable for ending the current practice of the bulk dumping of various waste materials, including sewage sludge, in the North sea and in other maritime locations around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  The dumping of flyash and liquid industrial wastes is being terminated as soon as environmentally acceptable land-based means of disposal are available. Considerable progress has already been made in reducing the number of sea dumping licences and alternative disposal methods are currently being developed and implemented for the few remaining licensed materials.

  Nearly 70 per cent. of our sewage sludge production is already disposed of on land. Licences for the sea dumping of the remainder are issued in accordance with international agreements and are carefully considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sea dumping will cause no harm in the marine environment and to confirm that no practicable land-based means of disposal are currently available.

  There is no international requirement to phase out the sea dumping of dredged materials, which are dumped by all North sea states, and inert materials of natural origin.

  Eggs
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake a review of the overall effectiveness of recent legislation affecting the egg producing industry.
  200
  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 January 1990, c. 747]: As indicated to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee during its recent further inquiry on salmonella in eggs, I have been reviewing the compensation paid when flocks infected with salmonella are compulsorily slaughtered. I am now introducing new scales of values for calculating compensation which reflect increases in commercial prices since the scales were first drawn up. The scales will also be kept under regular review in future. If a producer disagrees with the Ministry's valuation he will continue to have the right to take the matter to arbitration.

  I am also amending the orders on the registration and testing of poultry flocks for salmonella, to remove the provisions that require the registers to be open to public inspection. I am taking this step as I accept that the ready availability of the registers could jeopardise the security of poultry premises.

  In our programme of measures to control salmonella, protection of public health continues to be our first priority, but, as these changes indicate, we are also alive to concerns expressed by the industry about certain aspects of our controls. I am also continuing to press hard for measures on salmonella to be introduced throughout the Community.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unofficial Disputes
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of strikes result from unofficial action.

  Mr. Howard
  Approximately half all stoppages and one third of all days lost in 1988 were in unofficial disputes.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost last year as a result of unofficial industrial action.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Separate statistics on unofficial strikes ceased to be published as a regular series in 1981. However, information from a special exercise for 1988 was included in the Government's Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. This showed that approximately 1·3 million days were lost to unofficial disputes in 1988.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received in response to his consultation paper on the work permit scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 70 responses to the consultation exercise have been received. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce the outome of the review in the near future.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any information about the growth of the small business sector in 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  Early indications are that there was a net increase of some 80,000 businesses registered for VAT in 1989. This compares with an increase of 64,000 in 1988.
  201
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of jobs created annually by small firms.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest research commissioned by my Department estimates that between 1985 and 1987, firms employing between five and 19 people created 290,000 additional jobs, compared with just 20,000 in larger firms.

  Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the representations made to him by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Servants Association regarding the staffing of local enterprise councils and TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of young people aged 16 to 20 years receive training in Germany, Japan, the United States of America, Sweden and the United Kingdom for the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Howard
  The figures available are for the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education or training in 1986. They are as follows:

  Country

  Percentage

  West Germany

  90

  Japan

  79

  United States of America

  80

  Sweden

  78

  United Kingdom

  64

  The figure for the United Kingdom rose to 69 per cent. in 1988. I agree that more needs to be done in the field of youth training. That is why we are setting up training and enterprise councils to ensure that more young people get training of the kind they need.

  ACAS
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chair of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman of ACAS.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to merge jobcentres with unemployment benefit offices.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service is working progressively to bring jobcentres and benefit offices together under one roof to provide a new and improved one-stop service.

  Over the next few years, the employment service will be working to establish a national network of some 1,100 to 1,200 employment service offices.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time jobs have been(a) lost and (b) created in the inner city of Liverpool in the last six months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available. The Department's statistics for local areas monitor only net changes in employment between census of employment dates, and the most recent figures are for September 1987.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the current rate of employment in the United Kingdom and list those countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development whose rate of unemployment is higher.

  Mr. Howard
  In December 1989, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the United Kingdom was 5·8 per cent. On the OECD international definition the unemployment rate was higher in Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Denmark and Canada.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in long-term unemployment since April 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for 12 months or more was down 743,194 or 54·8 per cent. compared with April 1986. The comparison is affected by the change of the count from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations affecting those young people aged under 18 years.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the change in numbers of unemployed in the Norwich travel-to-work area since 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Norwich travel-to-work areas was 5,918, a fall of 6,484 or 52·3 per cent. since the June 1987 election. The comparison is affected by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18, and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women over the age of 55 years were unemployed at the latest count (i) for less than six months, (ii) for between six months and 12 months, (iii) for between 12 months and two years and (iv) over two years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The requested information is contained in the following table.

  Unemployed claimants over 55 years old in the United Kingdom October 1989 (unadjusted)

  Duration of unemployment

  Male

  Female

  Less than 6 months

  41,795

  9,489

  6 to 12 months

  22,173

  5,298

  1 to 2 years

  19,965

  6,377

  Over 2 years

  69,167

  23,027

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on job losses in the east midlands in recent months.
  203
  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no figures for job losses and job gains, but latest estimates show that the civilian work force in employment has risen by 34,000 over the year to September 1989. Estimates for the last year are as follows:

  Civilian work force in employment in east midlands region unadjusted for seasonal variation

  Thousands

  September 1988

  1,777

  December 1988

  1,778

  March 1989

  1,782

  June 1989

  1,793

  September 1989

  1,810

  Change September 1988 to September 1989

  34

  per cent.

  Percentage change September 1988 to September 1989

  1·9

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals are working in two jobs and are thus counted twice in the employment totals.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Evidence on the number of people with two jobs can be derived from the labour force survey (LFS), which estimated that 567,000, 2·6 per cent., employees in Great Britain had a second job as an employee in spring 1988.

  However, the exact number of persons with two or more jobs included in the published employees in employment estimates is not known, since the estimates are based on figures collected from employers, who will not generally know if an employee is filling the post as a second job.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest available unemployment rate for under-18s in the Holloway travel-to-work area.

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

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement regarding the current level of unemployment in the city of Sheffield.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989 there were 23,347 unemployed claimants in the local authority area of Sheffield, a fall of 47·7 per cent. since unemployment in Sheffield began on a downward trend in July 1986.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in Cumbria since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between June 1987 and December 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the local authority area of Cumbria fell by 8,192 or 42·3 per cent. The comparison is affected by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the growth in jobs in Warwickshire since 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to give an estimate. The Department's statistics for the county monitor only net changes in employment between census of employment dates, and the most recent figures are for September 1987.
  204
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure for the constituency of Liverpool, Riverside.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Liverpool, Riverside was 7,425.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment in the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12 months to December 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom fell by 402,500 or 20 per cent.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in the north-west from its peak to date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989 the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment in the north-west region was 237,700, a fall of 189,700 or 44·4 per cent. since its peak in June 1986.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number and percentage of young people aged 16 to 20 years entering employment without training in Germany, Japan, the United States of America, Sweden and the United Kingdom for the most recent date for which information is available.

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

  Employment Training
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement regarding the availability of places on employment training schemes for people recently made redundant.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In certain circumstances redundant workers can have immediate access to employment training without satisfying the normal six months unemployed condition. The main examples are people wishing to train in locally identified skill shortage occupations; those wishing to train in business start-up or enterprise training; people who require training in English as a second language; and people with disabilities.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if will give(a) the total numbers of lone parents on employment training receiving financial assistance towards child care costs and (b) the total expenditure involved between September 1988 and December 1989 for each standard region, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The estimated proportions of trainees receiving child care allowances at the end of December 1989, the latest date for which information is available, are given in table 1. As a guide, the in-training figure for 15 December 1989 has been provided for each region.

  The total expenditure on child care payments between September 1988 and December 1989 is shown in table 2.

  The information requested is not collected by standard region; the figures quoted are for Training Agency regions and Scotland and Wales.
  205

  Table 1

  Employment training trainees in receipt ofchildcare allowances

  Region

  Per cent.1

  Number2

  South East

  5

  14,600

  London

  4

  21,400

  South West

  3

  12,200

  West Midlands

  4

  23,100

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3

  16,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  25,500

  North West

  3

  29,200

  Northern

  2

  24,600

  Wales

  1

  16,500

  Scotland

  3

  26,200

  Great Britain

  3

  3211,000

  1Proportion receiving child care allowances end December 1989.

  2 Numbers in training 15 December 1989.

  3The Great Britain Total includes a small number of trainees at large Contractors Unit and Residential Training Centres who are not reflected in the individual regional figures.

  Table 2

  Child care expenditure by region

  £ million

  Region

  Total expenditure September 1988 to end December 1989

  South East

  0·742

  London

  2·358

  South West

  0·518

  West Midlands

  0·895

  East Midlands and Eastern

  0·821

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·672

  North West

  1·375

  Northern

  0·665

  Wales

  0·351

  Scotland

  1·048

  Great Britain

  11·770

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of training managers for employment training in(a) the private sector employer, (b) local authorities, (c) voluntary organisations and (d) private training organisations in December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The total number of training managers participating in employment training at the latest available date is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Private sector employers

  201

  (b) Local authorities

  195

  (c) Voluntary organisations

  366

  (d) Private training organisations

  507

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount of employment training allowance paid in each of the months April 1989 to December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The following table shows the total amount of recorded expenditure in employment training (ET) trainee allowances (excluding travel, childcare and other allowances) in the months April 1989 to December for Great Britain.
  206

  1989

  £ Millions

  April

  1Nil

  May

  45·639

  June

  21·663

  July

  73·259

  August

  45·730

  September

  49·332

  October

  42·169

  November

  46·540

  December

  47·094

  1 Other than for the final month of a financial year, expenditure on ET trainee allowances is normally recorded in the month following the period of training concerned.

  2 There was a delay in recording expenditure on trainee allowances in June 1989.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment training initiatives sponsored by his Department in Essex.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training in Essex continues to play an important part in helping the unemployed obtain the skills and experience they need to get jobs and some 2,200 people are currently taking advantage of it.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's follow-up survey of employment training by region; and how many people who have proceeded through the scheme now have full-time employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The first results from the exercise to follow up all employment training leavers indicates that 58 per cent. of all those trainees completing their planned training enter employment, self-employment or full-time training or further education. Information at a regional level is not yet available.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the procedure currently being deployed by his Department to monitor expenditure on employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department monitors closely the level of expenditure on employment training through its financial management and accounting system. It also operates a system of financial appraisal and monitoring for all organisations contracted to deliver employment training, to ensure that public money is properly protected and spent for the purposes intended.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees entered permanent employment immediately after leaving employment training in the period January to December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the target for employment training places and (b) the number of filled places in the period from January to December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Targets for the number of employment training places are for internal management purposes only. The number of filled places on employment training increased from 111,000 to over 210,000 in the period January to December 1989.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time trainees spend on employment training.
  207
  Mr. Nicholls
  Trainees spend an average of about six months on employment training.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils he anticipates giving approval to so that they will become fully operational on 2 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of training and enterprise councils (TECs) will shortly be submitting their corporate and business plans for approval. The national training task force will consider these plans and will be making its recommendation to me.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of training and enterprise council groups awarded development funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country since we issued the invitation to form training and enterprise councils. Applications for development funding from 55 groups of senior employers from around the country have been approved. The table lists the areas which have received development funding.

  List of TECs awarded development funding

  South East

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Heart of England (Oxfordshire)

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Milton Keynes

  Thames Valley

  London

  AZTEC (Kingston/Merton)

  South West

  Avon

  Devon/Cornwall

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Staffordshire

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  Greater Peterborough

  Norfolk/Waveney

  Northamptonshire

  North Nottinghamshire

  Suffolk

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Leeds

  North Yorkshire

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Wakefield

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  208

  Cumbria

  East Lancashire

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  South and East Cheshire

  St. Helens

  Stockport/High Peak

  Wigan

  Northern

  County Durham

  Northumberland

  Teeside

  Tyneside

  Wearside

  Wales

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  North East Wales

  North West Wales

  South Glamorgan

  West Wales

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the typical budget of a training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The budget for each training and enterprise council (TEC) will be negotiated locally and will vary according to the size of its area. Budgets will range from around £5 million to around £35 million per annum.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will report on the progress of the training and enterprise council network.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country since we issued the invitation to form training and enterprise councils.

  We expect to have a complete network of training and enterprise councils throughout England and Wales by the end of the year.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have now been awarded development funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country since we issued the invitation to form training and enterprise councils. Applications for development funding from 55 groups of senior employers from around the country have been approved.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he is making to ensure that the training and enterprise councils are able to recognise a need in respect of the disabled which spreads beyond the immediate territory within which they will be operating.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will set out their training proposals in their business plan. My Department will want to be satisfied that these proposals meet the training needs of all individuals in their local community, including people with disabilities, and encompass access to training outside the TEC's immediate locality where appropriate.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the first training and enterprise council to be operational.
  209
  Mr. Eggar
  I expect the first training and enterprise councils to be operational in the spring.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total sum of money for which training and enterprise councils will have executive responsibility.

  Mr. Eggar
  As TECs become operational they will assume responsibility for the vast majority of expenditure which is currently managed by the Training Agency. This amounts to around £2·5 billion in 1990–91.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many requests for advice and information have now been received by his Department's small firms service.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1989 the small firms service in England handled 314,625 inquiries and provided 50,013 counselling sessions.

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the numbers of employees receiving training in Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A recent survey of employers estimated that 8·6 million employees received training through their employers in 1986–87. The survey excluded the armed forces, agriculture, and firms with fewer than 10 employees.

  More recent figures from the labour force survey show that in the spring of 1988 2·8 million employees received job-related training in the four weeks prior to the survey.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number and percentage of employees receiving training in the four-week period prior to the labour force survey in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 2,773,000 employees of working age received job-related training in Great Britain in the four-week period prior to the labour force survey in 1988. This is 13·3 per cent. of all employees of working age.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on training provisions available to the unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government make training available for young people aged between 16 and 18 who are not in full-time education or employment through YTS. Employment Training (ET) is available primarily for adults aged over 18 and under 60 who have been continuously unemployed for at least 26 weeks. It is also open to certain special groups who do not need to satisfy the 26 weeks' unemployment criterion.

  Currently there are 386,000 YTS trainees and 207,000 ET trainees.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the amount of expenditure on employer-based training as a percentage of gross domestic product in Germany, Japan, the United States of America, and Sweden and the United Kingdom for the most recent date for which information is available.
  210
  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that employers in Great Britain spent £18 billion in 1986–87 on training their work force. This is equivalent to 4·6 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Comparable figures are not available for the other countries listed.

  Training Agents
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of training agents who have(a) had their contracts terminated and (b) gone into receivership between January and December 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between January and December 1989, three training agents had their contracts terminated by the Employment Department Training Agency and none has gone into receivership.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve employment services for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department's general employment services are designed to help meet the needs of as many people with disabilities as possible. They are supplemented as necessary by a range of provision specifically for people with disabilities including sheltered employment for those with severe disabilities. These services are the subject of a review, the results of which will be made available as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used when issuing quota exemption permits under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Eggar
  Disablement resettlement officers are instructed to consider the availability of suitable registered disabled people, and the degree of commitment shown by employers towards meeting their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure that firms not meeting their quota obligations without permits meet their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department will continue to pursue a policy of education and persuasion designed to improve the policies and practices of employers in relation to the employment of people with disabilities. This includes advising them of their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, and using the Department's wide range of services for the recruitment and retention of people with disabilities to help them meet those obligations.

  Wages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring his Department undertakes of wage levels for jobs being advertised at jobcentres.

  Mr. Eggar
  Jobcentres have a responsibility to check that employers notifying vacancies are complying with any relevant wages council orders. They also advise employers on locally prevailing rates of pay.
  211
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of male and female manual workers earned less than £150 a week in earnings during(a) 1987, (b) 1988 and (c)

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information for full-time adult employees in Great Britain is published in table 1 of part A of the new earnings survey reports for each of the years, and in table 124 of part E of the same reports for full-time employees of all ages. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  Japanese Enterprises
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in Japanese industrial and commercial enterprises which have chosen to locate their main European research and development centres in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our figures on jobs created by Japanese concerns in the United Kingdom do not differentiate between manufacturing jobs and those in research and development. However, it is estimated that to date 36,000 jobs have been created by the 117 Japanese companies which have chosen to locate here.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of employees working in the United Kingdom who are citizens of the empire of Japan; and how many United Kingdom citizens are employed in companies resident in the United Kingdom owned by commercial interests resident in the empire of Japan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Data on the number of employees in the United Kingdom whose nationality is Japanese are not available.

  The Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau advises that there are 117 Japanese manufacturing companies known to be either currently operating in the United Kingdom or having announced a formal intention to operate. In total, it is estimated that these firms have created or will create some 36,000 jobs.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with trade unions in the United Kingdom as to their views on the EEC social charter and employment opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received no representations from the trade unions on the social charter.

  Fairground Inspection
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress on harmonisation of inspection rules for fairground equipment throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The European Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a directive concerning trade in fairground equipment. The work is at an early stage but it seems likely that the proposal will cover the design, manufacture and initial testing of fairground equipment. It may also cover the installation and erection of 212
  fairground equipment as well as the systems of examination and testing which should be used. European Commission staff have indicated that a proposal for such a directive will be submitted to the Council of Ministers within about 12 months.

  In anticipation of this directive, CEN (the European standards making organisation) has established a technical committee to prepare harmonised European standards for fairground equipment. These technical standards would support the directive by showing how its requirements could be met.

  Farms
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits to farms have been made by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive in the last year; and how many inspectors exist for this task.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the financial year ended 31 March 1989, 37,274 visits to farm premises (including horticulture and agricultural contractors) were made by Health and Safety Executive inspectors; on 1 January 1990, 149 inspectors were employed in the agricultural inspectorate field force for this purpose.

  Trade Unions (Transfer of Membership)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is planning to permit greater choice for trade unionists in transferring membership between unions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. This is entirely a matter for trade unions and their members.

  Skills Shortages
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to help tackle the problems of skills shortages among firms in the south-east.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is for firms in the south-east, as elsewhere, to anticipate their future needs for skills and to deal with any existing shortfalls. In this they will wish to take full account of the challenges set by demographic trends, new technologies and international competition; and draw on the underused talents of unemployed people, women, ethnic minorities, older workers and people with disabilities.

  The Government for their part have introduced a number of measures to help employers including the establishment of training and enterprise councils and launch of business growth training. We are also assisting young people and the unemployed to gain new skills through youth training (YT) and employment training (ET).

  Job Creation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met local authority representatives to discuss job creation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State nor I have held meetings with local authority representatives to discuss job creation.

  Training and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that TVEI equipment in schools is kept modern and in good working order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  TVEI is a development programme helping young people gain the skills required in the work force. Education authorities are given a fixed sum to deliver the TVEI programme, only a small proportion of which is normally spent on equipment.

  TVEI was not designed to be a continuing source of funds. As TVEI becomes embedded into the learning experience, education authorities are expected to fund any further developments from within their existing resources.

  European Commissioner for Employment
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the European Commissioner for Employment; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Howard
  I met Mrs. Papandreou on 22 January 1990 when we discussed a range of employment issues.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and what was the figure in June 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of people in self-employment in the United Kingdom in September 1989, the latest figure available, is 3,141,000. The estimate for June 1979 was 1,906,000. This shows an increase of 1,235,000.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many self-employed people there are in Greater London; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates for Greater London are not available for 1979. The available estimates of self-employed are as follows:

  Self-employed in Greater London Unajusted for seasonal variation

  Date

  Thousands

  September 1981

  274

  September 1989

  415

  Change September 1981-September 1989

  141

  Percentage change September 1981-September 1989

  51·2 percent.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have received assistance through job clubs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the job club programme started in November 1984, over 365,000 people have received assistance. Of these over 200,000 have gone directly into jobs and over 52,000 have taken up some other options such as training, self-employment or further education.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if job clubs are to become one of the conditions in the actively seeking work regulations implementing the Social Security Act 1989.
  214
  Mr. Eggar
  For claimants to be regarded as seeking work actively, they must take reasonable steps to seek work in each week for which they claim. Active membership of a job club is a way of satisfying the new conditions and a good way of finding a job. Latest figures show that 69 per cent. of job club leavers go into a job, self-employment, further education or training. Membership is voluntary and the new legislation does not mean that claimants are required to join job clubs.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the range of facilities available to users of job clubs in the more remote areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Members of job clubs in the more remote areas have available the full range of facilities available at other job clubs. These include payment of fares to attend job club. Additionally, an open learning package is provided to help members who cannot attend as often as is usual. The adequacy of facilities is kept under review.

  The employment service seeks to provide access to job clubs for long-term unemployed people living in rural areas wherever possible. A further extension of the service occurred on 12 February 1990 with the opening of Portree job club on the Isle of Skye.

  Creches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of workplace creches by employers throughout Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comprehensive information on the extent of provision of workplace creches by employers throughout Britain is not available. Figures in the "IMS Manpower Commentary No. 43, Retaining women employees" indicate that the percentage of organisations currently providing such facilities is small, only about 3 per cent. However, indications are that the provision of workplace creches by employers is growing.

  Workplace creches can be successful but are only one possible way of helping parents with child care and are not necessarily the most appropriate in all cases. Other possibilities include help with child care costs in the local home area and rearrangement of working hours and holidays to fit in with school hours and terms.

  Blacklisting
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to make blacklisting unlawful.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Employment Service
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will report on the progress of the plan to launch the employment service as an executive agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) announced on 1 December 1989,Official Report col 461, the employment service will be launched as an executive agency on 2 April. The framework document and annual performance agreement will be published and made available to hon. Members then.

  Tourism
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many self-employed people are currently employed in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available estimate from the labour force survey indicates that there were 204,000 self-employed workers in tourism-related industries in spring 1988, 4,000 more than in spring 1987.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total international tourism revenue figures for the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives the earnings from overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 complete years plus the current year to date, at current prices.

  Year

  Earnings (£ millions)

  1979

  2,797

  1980

  2,961

  1981

  2,970

  1982

  3,188

  1983

  4,003

  1984

  4,614

  1985

  5,442

  1986

  5,553

  1987

  6,260

  1988

  6,193

  11989

  6,285

  1To November.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the United Kingdom currently earns from international tourism; and what information he has on which countries earn more from international tourism than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that overseas residents spent £6·2 billion in the United Kingdom in 1988. In 1987 the United Kingdom was ranked 5th in terms of international tourism receipts after the United States of America, Spain, Italy and France.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of jobs in the tourism industry in the 10 years to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between September 1979 and September 1989, the estimated number of employees in employment in tourism-related industries in Great Britain rose by 216,000 to 1,374,000. In addition, it is estimated from the labour force survey that there were 204,000 self-employed workers in tourism-related industries in spring 1988, 41,000 more than in spring 1981.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of expenditure in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is provisionally estimated that overseas residents spent £6,285 million in the United Kingdom during the first 11 months of 1989, the latest period for which results are available. This is 9 per cent. higher than in the equivalent period of 1988.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to create employment opportunities for the inner city jobless men, women and youth.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department will continue to place high priority on the encouragement of enterprise and new and existing businesses in the inner city, and on helping inner city residents improve their skills and qualifications for work. The Department operates a wide range of national but flexible programmes and services directly relevant to these aims, as well as special measures for inner city areas such as schools-industry compacts and the pilot job interview guarantee scheme.

  The fact that unemployment in the 57 urban programme areas in England has fallen by over a third since March 1988 demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach, which is pursued in partnership and close collaboration with other Departments and agencies working to improve inner city conditions and economic prospects.

  Economic League
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the organisers of the Economic League; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met any member of the board of the Economic League; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the organisers of the Economic League.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees are currently employed in workplaces with a closed shop.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", which was published in March last year, estimated that around 2·6 million people are employed in jobs which are covered by all forms of the closed shop. This estimate was derived from a specially commissioned survey carried out between 22 February and 6 March 1989, a summary of which has been placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of directives under consideration which require subordinate legislation on employment matters involving health and safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Four directives recently adopted under article 118A (Health and Safety of Workers), and a further four draft such directives currently before the Council of Ministers are expected to require implementing legislation. The intention is to implement mainly by regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and in line with the regulatory philosophy of the Act. For those directives still in draft the present assessment is of course subject to final decisions on content. Implementation proposals will be published by the Health and Safety Commission for consultation in due course.
  217
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on 31 January when a range of matters relating to the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive were discussed.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of employees in jobcentres in Britain in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The gross numbers of staff employed in jobcentres as at 1 April 1979 and 31 December 1989 were 11,397 and 7,598 respectively.

  No direct comparison can be drawn between the numbers of staff employed in jobcentres in Britain in 1979 and 1989, since a number of functions which would have been reflected in the 1979 figures are no longer carried out in jobcentres.

  The 1989 figure does not include 4,781 counselling staff who work in unemployment benefit offices and other employment service premises.

  YTS
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will examine the YTS run by Cleveland county council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Currently, Cleveland county council provides about 1,300 YTS places for a wide range of young people. Two thirds of those leaving the scheme either gain employment or go on to further training.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Eggar
  All staff employed by the Employment Department Group have a responsibility to safeguard cash and assets from misappropriation and theft. There are 34 auditors and 15 accountants who are specialised in their fields.

  Labour Costs
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what labour costs were as a percentage per unit of output in manufacturing, by region, in the United Kingdom in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Regional data on manufacturing output are not available.

  London Borough of Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons for the decline in unemployment in London being slowest in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the period December 1987 to December 1989 unemployment in Newham fell by 28·3 per cent. The two London labour market studies commissioned by my Department have included Newham. In addition to the normal range of training and employment measures available in Newham as elsewhere there are a number of special projects in Newham to help local people into employment.

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

British Technology Group: Privatisation
Lord Birdwood Lord Birdwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have, and what timetable is envisaged, for the privatisation of British Technology Group (BTG).
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government consider that it is more appropriate for the British Technology Group to be in the private sector. This would, however, require primary legislation and the timetable would thus depend upon the parliamentary legislative programme.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that less than fulsome Answer. Does he concede that the Government are guilty of a considerable ideological fracture in holding back the privatisation of this outstandingly successful organisation because they are in favour of other priorities?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree that the BTG is exceptionally successful and has made great strides in its transfer of technology. However, I cannot say more about the legislative programme nor can I pre-empt the gracious Speech.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the heartland of the British Technology Group is the old National Research Development Corporation, the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, in 1948, and of which I was managing director from 1949 to 1959?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does my noble friend also agree that all the money advanced for priming the pump has been repaid to the Treasury with cumulative interest; that the company now operates internationally and needs the status of a private company; and that everyone from the managing director downwards is longing for the day when that can be achieved?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lorus, I confirm that the group is comprised of the National Research Development Corporation and the National Enterprise Board. In 1981 they came together to form the group. I also confirm that the original loans have been repaid to Her Majesty's Government and that the Government are determined to see the company in the private sector.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, my question is completely the opposite. Why should such a successful organisation which has done a great deal of work, be privatised?
A Noble Lord: Loot! Loot!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is considered that its activities are now of a commercial and training nature and that is not appropriate for the public sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government declared their intention early in April, 1988; they commissioned a report from Coopers & Lybrand on the whole privatisation programme of the BTG; they received the report in July, 1989; and they have done nothing since then? Is it not the case that any company management which has the Sword of Damocles of privatisation hanging over it cannot work properly?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I confirm the noble Lord's figures and dates, although the report was received in July, 1988. In his latest annual report, the chairman of the group, Mr. Barker, stated that extensive advice from the BTG council was communicated to the Government and it was in favour of a transfer providing that certain characteristics of the group could be retained.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that high technology needs a most flexible and adroit company? Does he agree that although the BTG did well under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Halsbury, its future depends on attracting the right young people who are much better drawn from the private sector —particularly the international private sector —than from a company which in due course grows old and fuddy-duddy if it is in the public sector?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the British Technology Group licenses the technology internationally and shares the income with the inventor. The group does not have its own research and development facilities but acts as an intermediary or broker between the inventor and the end user of the technology.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount reject the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing that the management of BTG, which has been in the public sector since the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was managing director, has become fuddy-duddy? It has been extremely successful and there is no reason why a public sector company cannot recruit proper management at the right price.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I certainly say that the management has been extremely active and it is a very successful group.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone:My Lords, with due respect to the knowledge of Greek mythology of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is not the promise of ultimate privatisation less like

1243
the Sword of Damocles and more like a promise of emancipation to a slave?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. I believe that it is a spur to better activity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount would care to explain to his noble and learned friend that the emancipation of slaves was not part of Greek mythology.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the universities' expectation of dividends from NRDC for 1990 is estimated to be £5 million. Is that the estimation of a group with the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that that shows the effectiveness of the group.

Electricity Privatisation: PR Advisers;
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the cost of public relations advice by Lowe Bell Communications to the Secretary of State for Energy on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government and the area boards appointed Lowe Bell Communications in July 1988 to provide marketing advice for the flotation of the distribution companies, as part of the electricity privatisation programme. This role did not include any public relations activities. Since then Lowe Bell Communications has been appointed as special marketing and PR advisers to the Secretary of State. The Government and the electricity supply industry have appointed Dewe Rogerson as joint marketing and PR adviser for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, frankly, that does not answer my Question. I am asking the Government how much public money is being spent on their public relations exercise as regards the privatisation of electricity. I do not believe that any Member of this House would disagree that the Government certainly need advice on their public relations on privatisation after all the messes they have got themselves into. However, we are entitled to know what the Government are spending on public relations in order to further the policy which the Conservative Party is putting over and what public money is being spent on that public relations exercise.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must repeat part of my original Answer. Lowe Bell Communications
1244
was appointed by the Government and the area boards jointly in July 1988 to provide marketing advice in respect of the distribution flotation. That company was not appointed to give public relations advice under that contract, which was terminated in January 1990.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that still does not answer my Question. I have a news release from the Department of Energy which states that John Wakeham, Secretary of State for Energy, has appointed Lowe Bell Communications to be special marketing and public relations advisers. I ask how much money the Government are spending on their public relations exercise as regards the privatisation of electricity.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I expect that the news release which the noble Lord has, is dated January 1990. No money has been spent to date on public relations activity. Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, do we take it that that company is doing the work free and gratis?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we all understand that the Secretary of State for Energy needs serious public relations advice on privatisation. We take that for granted. However, can the noble Viscount answer my noble friend's Question? How much money is the taxpayer—because this is the taxpayer and not the electricity industry —going to have to pay for public relations advice to be given to Mr. John Wakeham?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is not advice to Mr. John Wakeham but advice to the Department of Energy, as the news release makes clear. As regards marketing, which I believe is what the noble Lord is driving at, any expenditure on marketing will be designed to achieve value for money. Previous privatisations have demonstrated that expenditure on marketing generates strong retail demand and secures wide share ownership, including within the company's employees.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is there any reason the taxpayer cannot be told what is being spent on marketing? There cannot be any secrecy. That is clearly expenditure from public funds and surely the public have a right to know what has been expended.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the money involved in marketing will be declared. However, the money so far advanced has come from the Vote to the department.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this House really cannot understand why the Minister is so diffident about public money being expended apparently for some public good. First, I certainly do not know what is the public good. Surely the

1245
Government are not trying to persuade the public that they are going to give them a nice gift, as they did regarding the water industry. Everybody knows that the Government are out to ensure that shareholders will make 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. profit. Exactly what, therefore, do the Government intend by the expenditure of this money, and how much is it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have already told the House that the marketing of the privatisation is to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money. A proper marketing campaign maximises proceeds for the taxpayers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Viscount must realise that this is a serious matter. Can he tell the House whether there is any precedent at any time for any Secretary of State engaging a firm to give advice in this way?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that this has been done. The amount spent is commercially confidential.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what is commercially confidential about the amount of money the taxpayer will pay for this?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the various sides require information and advice and I do not think it is necessarily right to allow these commercially confidential details into the public domain.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am afraid the Minister has made a mistake. He says that this organisation has been appointed to the Department of Energy, but that is not what the press release states. It states that it has been appointed as public relations adviser to the Secretary of State —not to the department but to the Secretary of State. This is public money used in order to obtain public relations advice for the Secretary of State. That money comes from the taxpayer. Whether or not money has been spent yet does not make any difference. What money has been contracted to be spent from the taxpayers' pocket in order to give public relations advice to the Secretary of State?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have answered the question already. The details are commercially confidential. The Secretary of State requires the information while he is preparing the industry for privatisation and I am quite certain that most people feel that he should be properly briefed.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in that case, if the Public Accounts Committee were to ask him to appear before it, would he then claim commercial confidentiality in revealing what public money has been spent for private advice to him on a public relations matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer for my right honourable friend to a committee of another place.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is it true that this firm is also the principal adviser to the Conservative Party?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I recognise the difficulties of the noble Viscount at this time, but will he convey to his right honourable friend the need for a statement to clarify the position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the exchange of remarks in your Lordships' House.

British Rail Engineering: Privatisation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What revenue was raised by the privatisation of British Rail Engineering in April 1989.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, British Rail's net proceeds were £13·6 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is the Minister aware that that was a realistic price in the interests of the taxpayers? Can he confirm that there were substantial lands included in this deal? Can the Minister also give an undertaking that if, on the sale of those lands by the present owners who purchased British Rail Engineering Limited, there are substantial profits the Government will consider implementing a clawback scheme in the interests of taxpayers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. The Government approved the sale since they were satisfied that this was in BR's best commercial interests. The price was the best that could be obtained, the market having been fully tested by open tender and genuine competition. My honourable friend Mr. Portillo told another place on 17th January 1989 that the contract of sale contains a clawback provision which ensures that British Rail will benefit from any short-term sale or development of BREL land.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the noble Viscount's reply. However, I have in my files the press notices of January 1989 from British Railways Board and also the Department of Transport. They refer to BRB accepting the consortium as the best bidder for the railway works; but no reference at all is made in either communication to the price. Can the Minister give a definite undertaking that no pledge was given at the time that the price would not be divulged, even though it may be in the accounts of BREL for the past year? Can he say exactly what are the conditions laid down for the clawback to which my noble friend refers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested to hear that i too have too those press cuttings in my file. As I said, the net sale price amounted to £13·6 million. That appears in BR's annual report and accounts for 1988–89. Any queries with regard to figures which appear in the 1989 accounts for the BREL group should be addressed to the group as it is a private company. However, I can tell both noble Lords that there is an element of land and buildings in the sale price. The BR figure of £ 13·6 million was made up as follows: net assets of BREL £·6million; sale of land and buildings for BREL £ 4·6million; sale of land and buildings for BREL £11·1 million. Net of BR costs that came to £13·6million.
The noble Lord asked about the clawback provisions. The sale involved a negotiated clawback provision which ensures that BR will receive a portion of any profit on the sale or development of BR land. The clawback provision applies for a period of seven years after the sale. I will write to the noble Lord giving further details.
Lord Parry: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the cost of a first-class ticket from Haverfordwest to Paddington this morning was in excess of £114 and that the train was late?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a question as far removed from the Question on the Order Paper as any I have ever known.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would the noble Viscount care to comment on reports that the land value of assets amounts to £217 million? How will it be ensured, when that land is sold, that the British Railways Board (if it then exists) gets its fair share?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is the purpose of the clawback provision which was agreed at the time of the sale. I can tell the noble Lord that no land has been sold as yet.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, who is to monitor it? That is my question.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Viscount's attention been drawn to page 21 of the Daily Telegraph of 1st February? It reports that at the time of this somewhat questionable disposal to Trafalgar House the net profits of this company for the year were £7·5 million.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have not read the Daily Telegraph of that particular date, but I can tell the noble Lord that the Office of Fair Trading examined the proposals and looked at any competition implications under the Fair Trading Act 1973. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted the advice of the Office of Fair Trading that there were no grounds for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The European commission was also notified formally of the terms of the sale and announced its clearance.

Premium Bond
3 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to encourage private savings, and if so, whether paying out only 6·5 per cent. on the average value of premium bonds is helping to achieve that objective.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage personal savings which investors will retain for some time. Longer term savings of this kind help to reduce the level of consumer spending in the economy. Premium bonds can be repaid virtually on demand, and therefore do not contribute to this aim.
Lord Ezra: My Lords,is the noble Lord aware that in July 1988, the average return on premium bonds was reduced from 7·75 per cent. to the present level of 6·5 per cent? The reason for that was the reduction in interest rates. Since then interest rates have very substantially increased. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering reviewing the position? Is the Minister also aware that people can invest in any building society and receive something like 11 per cent. interest, tax paid, for their money? If the Government are really serious about persuading people to hold their money in the long term, does not the Minister agree that the Government should move somewhat nearer to the market rate?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no fixed relationship with other interest rates in the economy. Premium bonds are not the kind of savings to which we attach the highest priority and the interest rate used to set the prize fund reflects that. It is entirely a matter for the individual where he wishes to invest his money.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord really believe that a potential return of 6·5 per cent. is fair and reasonable in the light of what has been happening to interest rates? No doubt the noble Lord himself is too sensible to put his own money into premium bonds, but does he not realise that our wives, however prudent they may be, insist on buying them? Does the noble Lord hold out any hope that the potential return on these investments of our wives might be a little better?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat the answer that I have just given. The noble Lord might offer some advice to his wife, but I am sure that she is perfectly capable of making up her own mind. Speaking for myself, I have not the first idea whether my wife has any money in premium bonds. It is a matter entirely for her to decide in the light of the circumstances at the time.
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Fisher, declared it to be a

1249
sin, I immediately bought the maximum number of premium bonds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for those remarks. At the time of the introduction of premium bonds by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1956, the then Shadow Chancellor described them as a squalid raffle.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government have now privatised the public sector borrowing requirement and transferred it to the private sector, which is now facing very severe liquidity problems, will the noble Lord explain what steps the Government propose to take in order to restore the savings ratio, which is now standing at about 4 per cent., to its former and more desirable level of between 14 and 16 per cent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord asked more or less the same question of my noble friend Lord Caithness on an earlier occasion when a Question of this kind was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I fail to see what this question has to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, surely the noble Lord cannot discard at this time this very popular form of saving because that, in effect, is what he has said. People other than wives like a little gamble. I remember Mr. Macmillan saying that to take a little gamble with the interest did not appear to him to be immoral. At that time the interest was set at a reasonable rate. Does not the Minister agree that for the Government actively to discourage this form of saving must be foolish?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. I merely said that the Government do not attach the highest priority to this form of investment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that women are much more skilful in handling money than any man? When we have a woman Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall have a proper budget and one that does not have a deficit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness. I remind her that we have a woman First Lord of the Treasury.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Do not remind us!
Earl Nelson: My Lords, would my noble friend care to comment on the reasons why the minimum purchase of premium bonds has risen tenfold over the past few months? Does the Minister agree that that measure is surely not one that will encourage saving? Will the Minister also comment on why the minimum period for which a person has to hold premium bonds is still three months, particularly in view of the high interest rates at the present moment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot comment on the second part of my noble friend's question. However, as regards the first part, the cost of processing claims is something of the order of
1250
£2. Therefore, we deemed it right to increase the minimum amount that can be invested from £10 to £100. I stress that I believe it is still possible to buy premium bonds in units of £10 for children under the age of 16.
3.5 p.m.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Skills Training Agency.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and possibly one-and-a-half hours. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill will be taken.

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiner.
Smith Kline French Laboratories Australia and Menley James Australia Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiner.
North Yorkshire County Council Bill [HI]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 17,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 18 to 23,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 24 to 27,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 28 to 31,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 32 to 38,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 39 and 40,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 41 to 52,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 53 to 61,

Schedules 9 and 10,

Clauses 62 to 81,

1251

Schedule 11,

Clauses 82 to 89,

Schedules 12 to 14,

The title. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair].
Clause 13 [Conditions of licences for treatment]:
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 6, leave out line 12 and insert ("(2) Information shall be recorded in such form as the Authority may specify in").
The noble Viscount said: This is a small but quite important drafting amendment in the interest of the strict regulation of the licences provided under this Bill. As drafted at present, the authority could specify that it required no information to be given under one or more of the headings in Clause 13(2)(a) to (e). The amendment makes clear that:
"Information shall be recorded in such form as the Authority may specify in directions".
I believe this is what was intended in the draftng of the Bill. It is certainly more precise. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment would have the effect of making it a condition of all licences that information had to be recorded, in a manner laid down by the authority, on treatment services set out in Clause 13(2): (a) the persons for whom treatment services are provided; (b) the treatment services provided for them; (c) the persons whose gametes are kept or used for the purpose of treatment services provided under licence or whose gametes have been used to create embryos kept or used for treatment services of this kind; (d) any child appearing to "the person responsible" to have been born as a result of licensed treatment; and (e) any mixing of egg and sperm, any taking of any embryo from a woman, and any other acquisition of any embryo.
The amendment would give the authority the power to prescribe the manner in which information was recorded, but it would remove from the authority the discretion to decide what information it wanted recorded. The Government accept that there may be good reasons for specifying the form in which information should be recorded, but would wish to assure themselves that this would not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy or remove flexibility and discretion from the authority.
1252
Therefore, if my noble friend is prepared to allow me this opportunity, I should like to study this amendment further with a view to bringing forward a government amendment at a later stage in the proceedings to deal with at least some of the matters covered in this amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert —
(", provided that the information specified by the Authority under this subsection is sufficient to identify unequivocally all of the persons mentioned in subsections (2)(a) to (2)(e) above.").
The noble Lady said: Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 87, 134, 136, 145 to 149, 151 and 153 are all ancillary to Amendments Nos. 138 to 141, the purpose of which is to clarify and strengthen Clause 28(3). This clause, the wording of which is taken from the Legitimacy Act 1976, is designed to prevent donor children from succeeding to hereditary dignities such as peerages, baronetcies, and so on, which were generally limited by the monarch who created them to heirs of the body and usually to heirs male of the body. It is unclear whether it would cover the inheritance of coats of arms or property limited to devolve with dignities or titles of honour. In any event, the Legitimacy Act 1976 is an English Act.
The Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 provides in Section 37(1) that;
"Nothing in this Act shall … apply to any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity".
It was clearly thought by the drafters of that Act that the words "title, honour or dignity" would not include coats of arms. That being so, and coats of arms having been specifically included in that Act, not to specify them in this Bill would possibly have the effect of excluding them, particularly in Scotland. At best there could be doubt as to whether they were or were not included until a judicial decision had clarified the position.
Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140 in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, are designed to remedy the situation in England and Wales by amending Clause 28(3). They have the approval of Garter King of Arms. Amendment No. 141 in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, is designed to do the same for Scotland by adding a new subsection (4) to the clause, and has the approval of the Lord Lyon King of Arms. Perhaps I may just say how sorry we all are that an accident has prevented the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, being here today and how glad we all are to hear that he and his wife are making a good recovery from their injuries.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The inheritance of coats of arms is important in any country, but in

1253
Scotland it has a very special importance because of the clan system. The chief of the clan is the person who is the holder of the plain arms of the name. The whole concept of the clan is that of an extended family all of whom are, theoretically at least, blood relations of the chief. It is this sense of kinship to him which binds the clan together. If the chief is a fraud and not himself of the blood it makes nonsense of the whole clan system.
I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of expatriate Scots there are in the world who at least once and sometimes frequently in their lives visit Scotland in order to meet their cousin, the chief, and discover their roots. A great many do so. Quite apart from that, the clan system is part of the social structure of Scotland and a very important part to the Scots who have historically been divided vertically into clans. I should hate to see this undermined, and many Scots in or out of Scotland would too.
In Scotland we have rather more hereditary offices of state than in England —five as opposed to two. We have the Lord High Constable (the Earl of Erroll); Hereditary Banner Bearer (the Earl of Dundee); Hereditary Bearer of St. Andrew's Flag (the Earl of Lauderdale); Hereditary Master of the Household (the Duke of Argyll) and Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyrood House (the Duke of Hamilton). It is doubtful whether the clause as worded at present would cover the succession to those offices, so that, for example, it could come to pass that the office of Lord High Constable became separated from the Earldom of Erroll. Similarly, in England, the office of Earl Marshal could become separated from the Dukedom of Norfolk. Perhaps the noble Duke himself will have something to say about that. I regret to say that I do not see the noble Earl, Lord Erroll in his place. I hope that this will have made the object of these amendments and the reasonng behind them clear to the Committee.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 87, 145 to 149, 151 and 153. Neither the amendments I have just explained nor Clause 28(3) as it stands can work unless adequate records are kept of children born as a result of eggs or sperm donation or both. Access to those records is available to persons who may have a genuine need to obtain it. Amendment No. 82 aims to ensure that the records kept on all such births after the Act comes into force are adequate. Amendment No. 87 aims to ensure that all existing records of such births as took place before the Act comes into force are preserved. Amendments No. 145 to 149, 151 and 153 are to ensure that persons with a genuine need to obtain access to the records can obtain them. Amendments Nos. 134 and 136 are paving amendments. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Teviot: It is my great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, whose amendments are mostly in our joint names, and to congratulate her on a most excellent, succinct and lucid speech in which she set out so eloquently our purpose in seeking to amend Clause 28(3), together with our enforcing ancillary amendments. In order to eliminate any confusion we have purposely split
1254
our amendments into two groupings. The first group contains those amendments based on Clause 28(3) which deal with hereditary titles, honours and coats of arms; and, secondly, those on Clauses 26 and 27 dealing with birth certificates. The issues are separate but closely interlinked and some apply to both points. It is my job to explain the finer points of those enforcing amendments. Without the main amendment they would not stand up on their own. I apologise to the Committee if I am less than brief, but the amendments have to be explained.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to amend Clause 13. As presently worded, Clause 13(2) fails to make clear how much information about the people involved the authority will insist upon having recorded. All it says is that the information to be recorded is such as the authority may specify. This leaves the authority the freedom to specify that only non-identifying information about the donors of sperm, eggs or gametes need be recorded. It should not have that freedom. The amendment is intended to make it quite clear that sufficient identifying particulars of all the participants involved, including the donor, must be maintained as a condition of the licences. The parties must be identified, as the amendment says, unequivocally, so there is not the slightest possibility of confusion; for example, with other persons of the same name.
Amendment No. 83 seeks to amend Clause 13(4). The present wording is not clear. It allows information to be destroyed, or at least removed from any records, after a specified period. On no account must that be allowed to happen, at least in those cases where activities under a licence have led to the birth of a child. The amendment therefore would prevent any information which identifies children and their genetic parents from being destroyed at any time. Indeed, so that there is no doubt that the records are preserved, the amendment goes beyond that and provides that they shall be retained for 115 years from the date of birth of the child. After that date it provides that they shall become public records. I should perhaps explain here that that period of 115 years has nothing to do with the Public Records Act. The Guinness Book of Records tells us what might be the age of the oldest male or female, but I think that 115 is the maximum lifespan.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Moses lived to be 120!
Lord Teviot: Therefore it seems only fair that at some point in time the organisations acquiring the licences should be relieved of their duty of looking after the records, and that the state should take up the duty in the interests of the community at large; but that that time should be postponed until all children born will have died. The effect of the transfer would enable the records to be open to inspection under the Public Records Act. Remote generations and descendants and interested historians would then have access to any of the information which has been recorded.
I turn now to Amendment No. 87 which introduces a new clause. Clause 13 only applies to

1255
licences for future activities after the Act has come into operation. However, there are said to be several thousand children already born by the techniques the licensing of which is covered by the Bill. It is vitally important that some effort should be made to record centrally and preserve for posterity details of the genetic parentage of those children, so that at the very least they too, and others born in recent years, will be able to apply for confirmation that they are not about to marry their brother or sister.
In Clause 29(3) and (4) the Government rightly recognise the need to reassure persons who fear that they may be committing incest, but exactly the same fear confronts anyone born as a result of sperm or embryo donation before the Act comes into operation. I appreciate that I may be accused of trying to introduce retrospective legislation. But the amendment has been framed so as to impose the minimum amount of retrospection in its attempt to gather information about at least some of these children. If the Government accept the principle that some records may be created and maintained about such children, but see some alternative means of doing so, I would not wish to insist upon the exact method envisaged by the amendment.
I move on now to the core amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 138 to 141 —where I have little to add to the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. As I said before, she made her points very clearly. However, I must emphasise that if we are to have hereditary titles then they must go to the right person. Perhaps I may take issue slightly with her where she says that the Scots are divided vertically into clans, whereas the English are divided horizontally into classes.
As regards my pedigree, without making too fine a point, I am probably at least between five-eighths and eleven-sixteenths Scottish. I must say that while I very much enjoy visiting Scotland, I have always lived in England. Moreover, while there is nothing like the clan sentiment in England, there is a very large growing family element in all walks of life all over the country. I shall return later to the increasing role of genealogy when we debate further amendments as regards Clauses 26 and 27.
I should warn Members of the Committee that it will be some while yet before I sit down. I should perhaps now explain further the need for amendments to Clause 29. Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 are self-explanatory and Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 are consequential and need little explanation. However, Amendments Nos. 146, 149, 151 and 153 require further explanation.
Amendment No. 146 seeks to extend the classes of people about whom an applicant can request information under the Act. The amendment first proposes that in all cases the children or more remote descendants of a person who may have been born as a result of sperm, egg or embryo donation will have the right to apply for information. Secondly, where a title or dignity is involved people who are in the line of succession will have that right in respect of persons earlier in the line of succession.
1256
There are, however, two important qualifications. In the second subsection applicants are prevented from asking for information about their living parents without their parents' consent. In the same way, those applicants who are not next in line of succession to a title may not apply for information about living persons earlier in the line of succession without their consent. The extension of the right to descendants of a person who may have been born as a result of such donation is intended to allow anyone who has, or may have, genes resulting from such donation to be able to inquire about them. That is important for medical reasons and also for those tracing their ancestry. The extension of the right to persons in line of succession to a title or dignity gives them an opportunity to contest the right of succession if they believe that it may not be passing or have passed to the rightful heir.
Amendment No. 151 deals with the information supplied to the next heir when it is a matter of succession to a title. It would seem that there is no need to indentify the genetic parents precisely to the next heir, but merely to say whether the apparent heir would be entitled to succeed to the title.
Amendment No. 153 allows for information to be supplied to two categories of persons other than the applicant. In the first instance (3A) where a title or dignity is involved that person would be the one charged to investigate the succession —a Crown Office official, or Garter, or Lord Lyon King of Arms. That is necessary to enable Clause 28(3) to be enforced, in the event that the person claiming to be the heir refuses to make an application under that clause.
In the second instance (3B), where medical problems are involved, that person would be a qualified doctor attending the applicant or a close relative, who needed the information for the medical care of the applicant or of the close relative. In such cases the person about whom the information is required may be quite unable to make the application. There are many illnesses which have a genetic cause, and there are instances where tissues are required for transplant and only a close genetic relative is able to provide them.
I think, perhaps, that I may have omitted to mention Amendment No. 149. I did have details with me to deal with the matter in regard to the next group of amendments. I must apologise to the Committee for this delay.
Lord Ennals: We cannot hear!
Lord Teviot: I am sorry about that. The situation reminds me of a similar one when Lord Elwyn-Jones said almost the same as has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He said that I was inaudible. At that time I was obliged to move my seat. However, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 149, if I can find my information. The order of my paperwork was changed because of the regrouping of the amendments. However, as I do not seem to have the relevant paperwork with me, perhaps I may use the information in connection with the next group of amendments. I think it is still apt in that respect. I see that my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton has

1257
found the information I need. I am most grateful to him and I apologise again to the Committee for delaying the proceedings.
Amendment No. 149 requires the authority to provide full identifying information about the genetic parent or parents and not the non-identifying information suggested at present. We believe that it is of paramount importance to every individual to be able to develop a proper sense of identity, and knowledge of his genetic parents is a vital factor in that development. One cannot limit the information to be made available to the adult offspring to information about the ethnic origin and genetic health of the donor, not even to a "pen picture" of the donor's social characteristics and family background. Information of that type is quite inadequate to enable the inquiring offspring to develop a sense of personal identity, which is why this is an important amendment. It is more likely to instil deep feeling over the lack of such identity.
It is now widely accepted that an adopted child needs to know that he or she is adopted. The adoption laws correctly give the adopted child the statutory right to discover the identity of its genetic parents. The children whom we are discussing, their children and the more remote descendants should have a statutory right. Such a right is what we propose here. The wording of the amendment limits the disclosure of information to the child itself and its direct descendants. It does not allow the disclosure to the brothers, sisters or other close relatives of the child, except in the sense of making inquiries, because such full disclosure will be made to the child at the age of 18. There is no need for the existing paragraph (b) of Clause 29(3) about the child's intended marriage partner.
I feel that noble Lords have listened to me long enough. The amendments have been explained in great detail and I look forward to the ensuing discussion.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 141 which stands in my name and two other amendments to which my noble friend Lady Saltoun has already referred. The purpose of Amendment No. 141 is simply to bring donor children into line with adopted children and those born out of wedlock in the law of succession in Scotland. The importance of succession to undifferenced coats of arms has already been stressed by my noble and learned friend. I only add to what she said that it is also important —
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; I am not "learned".
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: I have committed a solecism. I understand that I referred to the noble Lady as "learned" but she has demurred. I only add to what she said on undifferenced arms that they are of importance as well to the representors of great lowland families.
The importance of coats of arms to the law of Scotland has been recognised by the Government in
1258
1964 in the Succession (Scotland) Act in relation to adopted children where adopted children were excluded from succession to coats of arms of their adopted parents. It was recognised again in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 in relation to illegitimate children. It was recognised again in the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 in relation to children born out of wedlock. These Acts all conferred certain rights of succession upon such children in the estates of their adoptive parents or their natural parents; but they excluded titles, dignities, and honours as well as coats of arms.
The new subsection (4)(a) to Clause 28 proposed under Amendment No. 141 simply repeats verbatim the relevant provisions of the 1964 Act and the 1986 Act. It therefore seems to me that the proposed amendment would achieve uniformity. If no amendment is made to Clause 28, then in my view —and here I differ from my noble friend Lady Saltoun —there would not be doubt that the coats of arms might be included; it would be almost certain that they would be excluded. That is because Parliament having on two previous occasions in Scottish legislation seen fit to mention them specifically, the natural assumption would be that if they were omitted altogether they were omitted intentionally.
Logically, in the event of Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 being accepted by the Government or agreed to, it seems probable that the first part of Amendment No. 141, subsection (4)(a), would become unnecessary. The question of coats of arms would be dealt with in Clause 28(3). That would apply not only to Scotland but to England and Wales.
With reference to subsection (4)(b), again this repeats verbatim Section 9(1)(d) of the 1986 Act to which I have already referred. On reflection I am bound to say that I do not think that it achieves a great deal. However, although Clauses 26 to 28 apply only to children "carried" —whatever that may mean —whether born, conceived or implanted after the commencement of the sections, nevertheless Clause 28(1) appears to apply to deeds or instruments which were executed prior to the coming into force of the Act.
Perhaps I may give a simple example. If A, having two sons, chooses to leave certain land or family possessions in trust to B in life rent; and C, and his eldest son unnamed in fee, he having another younger son, and that trust deed was executed prior to the passing of the Act, then a donor child of B would take, in preference to a child of C, albeit the trustor, had he known the situation, might very well have preferred that the natural child of his own blood, the grandchild of his own blood, should take, rather than someone who would probably be a stranger in blood to him.
I therefore ask the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce some transitional provision here restricting the application of Clause 28(1) to deeds taking effect after the coming into force of the statute. Once again there is precedent for such a provision in the 1964 Succession of Scotland Act, Section 23(4). There is precedent in Section 5(3) of the Legitimation

1259
(Scotland) Act 1968. It may be that there are similar provisions in the corresponding English Acts. I invite the Government seriously to consider whether it would be desirable to have some such transitional provision.
Perhaps I may say a brief word on Amendment No. 140 which is designed, as I understand it, to include not only an honour or dignity but property which is destined to descend with it. Once again, although the words are not identical, there is a precedent for this at least in Scotland in Section 23 of the Succession (Scotland) Act which seems to me to achieve a similar provision. Once again, if it is thought appropriate in relation to adopted children, perhaps it might also be thought appropriate to introduce a similar provision in relation to children such as these.
Finally, Amendment No. 146 is clearly needed in order to make Clause 28(3) work, in whatever form it may be. I commend the spirit, so far as it is comprehensible. I very much hope that I never have to construe the precise words of Amendment No. 146.
Lord Kennet: Before the noble and learned Lord comes to reply to the amendment, perhaps he could say a word to help the English. I have in mind particularly Amendment No. 152 further down the Marshalled List. Roughly speaking, it would give the right to any person conceived by IVF to know as much about his or her own identity as the state knows. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, could help us, perhaps he would say whether this raft of amendments about Scottish peerages will have any effect on how we should consider Amendment No. 152 if the amendments we are discussing are passed. It would be extremely helpful. I have in mind the following question: is this perhaps the first occasion on which a basic human right has been urged in this House under the guise of an amendment to the law of succession to Scottish peerages, or is it only a small tidying up matter referring to Scottish Peerages?
Lord Prys-Davies: We have had a discussion on an odd mixture of about 16 amendments. There is not always a common theme among those 16 amendments. I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, got his papers mixed up at one stage.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 87. As regards Amendment No. 82, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would indicate in more precise terms the information to be specified in order to identify unequivocally the persons mentioned in the subsections referred to. I note that Amendment No. 143, tabled by the Government, refers to information about an identifiable individual whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, refers to information which is sufficient to identify persons unequivocally. Does anything turn on that distinction?
I had in my innocence assumed that Amendment No. 83 had something to do with the law of succession to hereditary titles. Having listened to the
1260
noble Lord and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I am clearly wrong on that point. However, if that is the case I should have thought that the discussion on Amendment No. 83 would tie up with the discussion on Amendment No. 124 was misconceived as the period of 50 years referred to in the Bill would only be triggered off if the licence-holder did not know whether or not a child had been born as a result of the treatment. If the 50-year period is confined to that situation it appears to me that the Bill is acceptable and that outside those circumstances it would be for the licensing authority to determine for how long records should be held.
There is a factual error in the last line of Amendment No. 87. The reference should be to Section 13 and not to Section 12. However, that is the only help I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on that amendment. The general rule, as I have always understood it, is that an Act of Parliament is not retrospective but prospective. Clearly, however, the object of this amendment is to make it retrospective.
I hope that the Committee will not go along with the amendment. It would impose a duty to supply and to disclose information about activities which may have been completed long before this legislation came into force and at a time when there was no duty to supply or disclose such information. The gametes may have been donated on the clear condition that they were given in secret and that that secret must remain a secret for life. Surely that is a fairly substantial right which should not be undermined by Amendment No. 87.
Amendment No. 150 addresses the issue of retrospectiveness. That amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. However, there is a profound difference between Amendment No. 150 and Amendment No. 87. Although both amendments concern retrospectiveness, Amendment No. 150 asks the Committee to confirm that retrospectiveness will not apply. Amendment No. 87, however, tries to ensure that the information is to be disclosed even though it was given before the implementation of the legislation.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: A number of issues are raised by these amendments. I should say at the outset that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is right to say that the amendments raise an important matter which goes far beyond any question about titles of honour or anything of that kind. I shall refer to that matter in the course of my remarks.
I shall try to deal with the amendments together to some extent. They seem to me to be founded on three main bases. First of all, they seek both in relation to the succession to titles and in relation to less exalted family circumstances to ensure that there is purity of the blood line and to ensure that there is full information about genetic parentage in relation to children born as a result of the techniques involving the donation of gametes which are to be licensed by the Bill. That is the important question which goes far beyond mere succession to titles.
Secondly, the amendments also seek to amend the provisions in Clauses 13, 29 and 31 of the Bill

1261
which deal with information which the authority is required to keep about licensed treatments. That information is to be made available to applicants under Clause 29 so that it shall be such as to identify the genetic origins of such a child. That is another aspect of that important generality. That is to be achieved through Amendments Nos. 126 and 129 by requiring that the social parents of the child shall be recorded as such in birth records which are to be maintained by the registrars general. In other words, on inspecting the register one will, according to these amendments, be able to see that the child whose birth is recorded in a particular entry was born as a result of one of the treatments.
Thirdly, the amendments seek to extend the exception already provided for in the Bill in Clause 28(3) which provides that the provisions in the Bill dealing with the status of parents, and children born as a result of infertility treatments regulated by the legislation, should not,
"affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour",
to include succession to a coat of arms. That is the special point which has to some extent motivated these amendments.
The Committee knows well the unflagging interest in genealogy and titles of honour and dignity which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Teviot have displayed. It would ill behove someone who is concerned with the administration of justice in England and Wales, and indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who have responsibility for these matters north of the Border, to tangle in this connection with the chief of the Fraser clan. I am reliably informed that the forebears of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, have a distinguished and warlike history and that one of them, Sir Simon Fraser, filius was put to death in London in September 1306 by King Edward I, the "Hammer of the Scots," and that another met a somewhat similar fate after the Battle of Culloden. Simon, the 11th Lord Lovat, is reported to have declared that there was nothing he placed in balance with his kindred. I am sure he would have been proud of his descendant, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I must tell the noble and learned Lord that I am not descended from that person and I do not think that anyone today is descended from him.
The Lord Chancellor: That illustrates the point I am seeking to make. In any event, whatever the history and the lineage aspects of this matter may be, I am sure that all of us appreciated the clarity with which the noble Lady has put this case. I think it would be right to say that this is extremely difficult territory. I am very much aware that there are strong arguments in relation to the welfare of children born as a result of donation. It is felt by some that a child born in these circumstances should be able to discover who his genetic parents were. I know this view is held by many organisations representing social work and adoption and fostering interests who make an analogy with the access to such information in the case of children who are adopted.
1262
The matter was dealt with in the consultation that the Government instituted in 1986. There was no unanimity on this important matter,. Only 22 per cent. of those responding felt that identifying information should be given to such children and 43 per cent. thought that the donor's name should not be given. Those included the main medical bodies who were concerned lest a provision of that kind would have a deleterious effect on the supply of donors who, in their strong opinion, would be unwilling to come forward because they would not wish 20 or more years later to be confronted with children who had been born as a result of their donation. The balance of 35 per cent. made no comment on the issue. As I said, this is a general issue of considerable importance. The Government have taken the view in the Bill that such identification should not be afforded. Information regarding genetic characteristics might be afforded but not information to identify the individual donor.
The Government have taken steps in the Family Law Reform Act 1987 and the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 to remove such discriminatory labels as illegitimacy. It would be a pity to replace one label with another. There is a strong argument that marking a child's genetic origins on its birth certificate would be far from conclusive proof as to who the child's genetic father might be. That might well introduce a new kind of label which would not be satisfactory. That is a very important question and is distinct from the question of succession to coats of arms.
So far as concerns coats of arms I should like to assure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lord Teviot and my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle that the Government take on board the questions that have been raised on that issue. In the light of the amendments that have been proposed and the discussion so far, it is our intention to bring forward amendments at Report stage to include what the noble Lady proposes in her amendments. The aim of the government amendments will be to bring the position regarding succession to coats of arms into line with the practice in illegitimacy and adoption cases in which changes to the normal descent of a coat of arms may be affected by a petition to the Sovereign for royal licence and authority.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141. The first is designed to ensure that property which is intended to devolve with a title of honour is not separated from it. As my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear in her closing speech in the Second Reading debate, that is not the Government's intention. I am therefore pleased to accept the spirit of the amendment in principle. We shall seek to bring forward government amendments at Report to deal with the matter.
I turn now to Amendment No. 141. Two issues are involved. The new subsection (4)(a) which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has proposed ensures in relation to Scotland that the general inclusion at Clause 28(3) covering succession to any dignity or title of honour includes coats of arms. The effect is to embrace Scottish chieftainships and certain heritable offices such as those to which the noble

1263
Lady referred. The amendment which the noble Lady has proposed is identical to that in the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986. I have consulted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for family law in Scotland. I understand that he is happy to accept the principle of that part of the amendment.
I turn now to paragraph (b) of the amendment. It is identical to the provision in Section 9(1)(d) of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986. I recognise that, as has been explained, the intention is to achieve uniformity in such matters with regard to adopted children, children whose parents are not married to each other, and children who have been born following those infertility treatments to be regulated under the Bill. The Government have given considerable and careful consideration to whether such a provision would be desirable in respect of children born as a result of those treatments. We have concluded that there is a distinction to be drawn between legislation in respect of children who are born as a result of the treatments and those who have been born to parents who are not married to each other or who have been adopted.
Such a distinction has already been made in legislation applying to England and Wales which deals with succession in cases of illegitimacy and in the case of children born following donor insemination. Provisions in Sections 18 and 19 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 in effect sweep aside the status of illegitimacy for the purpose of the law of succession and in a manner similar to Section 9(1)(d) of the Scottish Act of 1986.
The view taken was that it would have been unfair to apply the new law to wills made under the old system because there would be a risk that as a result of such change they would no longer reflect the testators' intentions regarding legitimacy, for example. However, no such qualification was made regarding children born following donor insemination where in effect a new status was being created. In that case the intention was to give children born to married couples as a result of AID the same succession rights as those enjoyed by children born as a result of natural conception, titles and the like being excepted. The section applied only to children born after the section came into force. To take the approach suggested in Amendment No. 141 would risk creating a situation in which a child born by natural conception stood to inherit from certain wills while his brother, born following donor insemination, did not. That would have raised questions of discrimination against children born by donor insemination, which that Act and this Bill seek to avoid.
I believe that there is an appropriate distinction to be made between children born as a result of infertility treatments, on the one hand, and children who are adopted or born to parents who are not married to each other, on the other.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, perhaps he can explain why
1264
anyone would need to have a child by donor insemination if they already had one by natural conception.
The Lord Chancellor: That may depend on the circumstances. For example, earlier in the Committee stage we discussed the situation in which parents knew that there was a possibility of their union resulting in children with a genetic disease. They might have a child who had a genetic disease. They might be afraid to incur the risk of a second child born by natural conception having that same disease. They might therefore prefer, in the light of the information that they could obtain about the embryo that would be produced by the in vitro fertilisation method, to proceed in that way in the belief that they would thereby eliminate the risk of producing a second child with the same defect. That is one example. I hope that I have made it clear. I think that I have not.
Baroness Phillips: The noble and learned Lord has made it clear but he has not convinced me.
The Lord Chancellor: I was not at the moment seeking to convince the noble Baroness; simply to answer her question. This is an important point. That is the reason for the distinction. It is not an oversight. It is based on a real distinction between the situation of a child born to parents who are not married, on the one hand, and the situation in which a child is born as a result of one of the treatments, on the other.
I have sought to deal with the principle of the amendments. So far as they relate to titles of honour and the like I hope to be able to put down amendments accepting them in principle.
On the much more general question which applies far outside that area, the situation is as I have described; namely, that the weight of opinion on consultation was in favour of preserving the anonymity of the donors. I appreciate that that situation might change in the light of circumstances, but I believe that the debate would probably be best conducted in a somewhat wider framework than the framework of amendments which were particularly directed to the question of titles of honour and the like.
As I said, I know that quite a number of organisations concerned with those matters take a different view from that which seemed to prevail on consultation. Noble Lords may think that we should seek to debate the subject on its own account at some stage during proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to say something about the question of retrospective effect in Amendment No. 87, which is also addressed in Amendment No. 150? This is a worrying question. If this is the right place to raise it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will answer the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The question concerns the extent to which the amendments would be

1265
retrospective in effect. The first step is to decide what one wants to do and whether the kind of distinction that I have drawn between the two types of case is valid. If it is and a will is already in existence and operating, the person who made the will having died, the question concerning a child born as a result of AID after the section comes into force is a perfectly reasonable question to pose and would not involve retrospective legislation. In a sense, it would involve an effect on the construction of the existing deed as from the date of that section coming into force. However, I believe that it would prevent a perhaps improper distinction being drawn between two types of children, a distinction which it is highly likely never entered the head of the original testator in the will in question.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question in relation to subsection 4(b) of Amendment No. 141 with which he has dealt and about which I hope I made it clear that I was not very wholehearted. My request to the Government to consider a transitional provision for deeds was not primarily intended to affect the succession of donor children to their parents, but rather to affect their ability to take under deeds which were executed at a time when they would not have fallen within the category of persons who could take. In short, A makes a deed for a certain class of persons when he knows that, because of this legislation, the effect will be that persons will be admitted to that class who would have been unable to take at the time the deed was executed. That was the concern which I expressed in general when speaking to Clause 4(1)(b).
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that I have understood the point. In effect, I am saying that, where an existing deed describes the beneficiaries as children of X, then, after the provision comes into force, I think it would be wrong —this is the policy of the Bill so far —to distinguish between those children of X who are born naturally and those children of X who might be born to X as a result of the treatments, on the assumption that the section was then operating. So, in a sense, my noble and learned friend is suggesting that the class of people in the deed as it stands would be, if I may put it this way, the natural children of X. I would extend that provision to include those children who are born as a result of the treatments. We suggest that it would not be right, when the section is in operation, to distinguish between children born naturally to their parents and children born as a result of treatment with those parents as their parents for the purposes of the law under the provisions of this section.
The Earl of Erroll: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that surely it is not the children that create the worry; it is the grandchildren. One may leave to the grandchildren of the natural children. The person who leaves the trust knows nothing about all those grandchildren who are not yet born, but they may be included in the class. I am a trustee of a trust which has experienced that situation and I envisage the provision including many people who were not
1266
intended by the people who left that property originally. It is the grandchildren, not the children, about whom I am concerned.
The Lord Chancellor: Assuming that I have understood the point, which is a considerable assumption, the distinction sought in subsection 4(b) of Amendment No. 141 is between children who are born naturally, whether grandchildren or not —grandchildren, like children, require to be born —and those children or grandchildren who are born as a result of treatment. The grandchildren may be born either as a result of parents having been born as a consequence of such treatment or as a result of themselves having been born as a result of such treatment.
The Earl of Erroll: The original trust was probably executed long before those grandchildren were born. The original trustee may be dead now, but has left to a class of people which includes grandchildren who are still possibly to be born. He did not know about the Act when he made the trust.
The Lord Chancellor: I quite understand that. The whole point is that, when a person talks about X's children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren, or children in a will which has already taken effect, to any degree, he may, if he thought about this at all, be thinking of children born by natural means. However, the Bill states that, for this purpose, children born by natural means and children born as a result of those treatments should be taken in the same way as children of their parents. That will apply to all degrees of children, grandchildren and the like.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that, as a consequence of the Government's policy on this matter, a child of a donor will be treated in exactly the same way as a natural child? Is that a guarantee for perpetuity of hereditary peers so that, through selection of gender, they will always be able to have male heirs?
The Lord Chancellor: The provision does not apply to titles of honour which certainly include hereditary peerages. The provision, which deals with the status of children born as a result of those treatments, does not apply to titles of honour.
Lord Kennet: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question about the future handling or discussion of the Bill in the Chamber. He said that he expected that we would come to the general question of the right of access to information at a later stage in the Bill. We now have a rather full Chamber and it would be interesting to know whether I am right in thinking that we shall come to that discussion under Amendment No. 152 which we plan to take today.
The Lord Chancellor: I am at the service of your Lordships as to when we should have that discussion. I must point out that it would perhaps be undesirable to treat it as if it arose only in connection with titles of honour. It is a much more fundamental and

1267
general question than that, as I think we all agree. It is for noble Lords to determine when we have that debate.
So far I have not seen as much of the briefing about this matter as might yet become available. Therefore I had the feeling that we might perhaps expect to have a fuller debate on this issue at a later stage in the Bill. That is the only reason that prompted me to take that view. So far as I am concerned it is entirely a matter for noble Lords. I have not much to add on that point other than what I have already said as a result of the consultation. I am sure that there are views taken about this matter in this Chamber. The only point of which I want to make sure is that we do not only think that this is a point related simply to titles to honour or Scottish clan chieftainships, important though they are.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I do not wish to prolong this general debate too much but I am a little worried. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor speaks of children "born by this treatment". It is not children "born by this treatment" that worries us; some of us are worried about children who are born by this treatment through AID. That is the distinction that concerns us.
I should like to declare a twofold interest in this matter. First, in 1885 your Lordships' House decided that a forebear of mine who was born out of wedlock in New York in 1775 in fact was legitimate by Scottish law, though not by English law. Happily the Scottish law prevailed. That is why I am here, as a Scot. That is how I come to be both the Chief of the Name and Arms of Maitland and also the Hereditary Bearer of the Scottish National Flag for the Sovereign.
I should like to dot the i's and cross the t's on some points made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Those of us who happen to be a chief find ourselves not only the head of a very extended family but of a family which consists of all kinds of people all over the world who want to know their origins and their pedigrees. Quite frequently I receive letters on this matter from Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand and from all parts of the world. Pedigree research depends now and will in future depend on the exact status of parents of a certain child at a particular time.
I appreciate the fact that when this Bill comes back on Report, my noble and learned friend will have looked at the whole issue. No doubt with his customary perspicacity he will find a way through these difficulties. However, I am very worried lest the business of knowing about a birth by donor is brushed aside. We all know that adopted children want to know their origins. It is only fair and right that such knowledge should extend to all children.
So whatever may happen to hereditary titles and honours in the future —there are some who would abolish them, and abolish me come to that —the desire to know about one's pedigree will survive. It will survive all over the world.
With regard to the related problems touched on by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun —the question of
1268
incest at some stage and the possibility of a brother marrying a sister or of cousins marrying one another without knowing their relationship—surely it is not enough to rely on the view expressed by the medical profession that, if the identification of donors were made, donors would not come forward. If anyone in this Chamber believes that, they will believe anything. Donors are easily obtained. We do not need to go into details.
I welcome my noble and learned friend's willingness to look at this whole matter. However, I implore him to take on board the point that children (and grandchildren or great grandchildren) of donor births should be entitled to have access to that information. I have given my reason: namely, that many people all over the world want to know their exact pedigree.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: We should all be extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who has very much clarified the issues. As he pointed out, the key distinction lies between those children conceived by artificial insemination through the husband and those children conceived through the aid of a donor. That is the key distinction which applies not only to peerage and other such questions; it also concerns the general population.
I should like to reinforce the noble Earl's remarks about the consultation period. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be too influenced by a narrow majority of those responding. It may well have been that the consultation was not sufficiently widely advertised in the first place.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like to say just a few words. I missed a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said. He may have been on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. If an adopted child, when it is of a certain age, has the right to know its parentage (who is its father), why in heaven's name should not the child of a donor father to an unknown embryo have the same right? It seems to me to be absolutely wrong—morally and legally wrong —to deny that.
All the matters concerning estates and titles may or may not be important. However the really important thing is that the child should have the same right as an adopted child who has the right to know its real parentage. I believe that that is important. It is no good brushing it aside and trying to pretend that we are creating a new kind of child which does not need to have the same right to know as other children. I shall leave the matter there.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he said about Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141 and I note that the Government will bring in amendments at Report stage to take care of our concerns. I am most grateful to him. When the time comes, I shall not move those amendments.
I had not thought that as drafted Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 made necessary the identification of

1269
the donor. Perhaps I was wrong and those amendments were not drafted so as to fulfil my intention. I believed that their object was to make possible identification of donor children so that Clause 28(3) could work. Perhaps I was wrong. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could clarify that point.
The Lord Chancellor: It is perhaps entirely easy for me to indicate the full effect of the noble Lady's amendment. However, I think it would be right to take it that Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 would have the effect of requiring the authority to keep information which would unequivocally identify people for whom licensed treatment services are provided and donors of gametes or embryos. Therefore, the result is that a person who donated sperm, for example, would require to be identified.
My noble friends Lord Lauderdale and Lord Mowbray and Stourton and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have pointed out that AID children are of particular importance in this connection. I entirely appreciate that point. That is why I linked this matter with the question of whether or not the identity of the donors was to be required. If one has specified the identity of the donors, then something along those lines is possible. This is a matter for your Lordships to consider, but the reason given for not identifying the donors is that which I gave earlier. That is why this question has a very general importance.
Lord Teviot: It might be a good idea to try to bring back some order and sense of purpose as regards the amendments and explain their original intention. I am most grateful to the Committee, but we have gone rather far and wide.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was asking about identifying information. It is information that one wants the authority to have. That does not mean to say it must be passed on to everybody. I agree that the anonymity of donors is paramount. Perhaps on later amendments we might have further discussion on the matter that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke of retrospective legislation on Amendment No. 87. That new clause is to be inserted as bridging a gap. I hope the Committee would agree that it is very important to have the register for it to be private, for the authority not to disclose—to prevent incest taking place. That was the whole point of the clause and the restrospection.
One is grateful to the Government for bringing forward at Report stage amendments concerning coats of arms and also the very important Scottish titles. That is splendid, but they cannot stand absolutely on their own.
My noble and learned friend has been asked to stand up and sit down at least six times, but I hope he will not mind doing so again before I withdraw the amendments. I shall not withdraw the amendments at this stage unless he tells me that the Government will produce back-up amendments to those amendments which deal with hereditary titles
1270
of honour, and will deal with records in some way or other, so that we can return to the matter. Perhaps my noble and learned friend could enlighten me.
The Lord Chancellor: At present I cannot accept any intention to put any kind of marking on the birth certificate. As regards records to be kept by the authority, that is a matter to be determined in the light of the general responsibilities of the authority. I think my noble friend Lord Teviot is asking that the authority should have records from which it can be determined whether a particular person has in fact been subject to one of these treatments at some time which might be related to the birth of a particular child. That is certainly something that one would want to consider.
However, I want to make it clear that I do not regard myself as committed in any way to bringing back amendments to put any marking of any kind on the ordinary birth certificate.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Is the noble and learned Lord saying that in those cases where a child is born from a donor there should simply be a blank about the name of his father? In that case it would suggest that they should go and ask the authority. If that is what he means it might be acceptable, but if he is saying that there is to be no indication to researchers that a particular birth has a peculiarity —to put it like that for the moment —I do not think that is satisfactory.
The Lord Chancellor: I quite appreciate the difficulties, but the same is true in relation to what occurs in what I might call nature. The precise circumstances in which children are born when couples are married is not the subject of disclosure on birth certificates. When someone applies for a title of honour —and my noble friend has indicated that he has had some experience of that particular test, as it were —there may be more detailed inquiries made into the circumstances of a particular birth than would normally arise in connection with its registration. This is the kind of material that might emerge in that situation. But as far as I am concerned I do not think it would be right to have a particular mark on a birth certificate in this connection, any more than it is right to require people to put particular marks on birth certificates in every other possible situation. That information would have to come in another way than from the ordinary birth certificate.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may briefly say that I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should be very concerned if he moved an inch in terms of writing anything on to a birth certificate which would give some indication concerning the actual nature of the birth. The child is born as the child of those parents, and anything which is sought to distinguish that child in any way at all could be very derogatory to the future of the child. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for withstanding any pressure.
Lord Teviot: In all fairness, humble as I am, I should like to bring back order into the proceedings.

1271
It is very interesting to hear my noble and learned friend's views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but those amendments about the birth certificate of the child will be discussed later in the proceedings. We shall be discussing those in their context, when it may be—though I think it is doubtful —that we can persuade the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. But these amendments are to do with hereditary titles. The Government are to come back with amendments on coats of arms, and it is hoped that there will be back-up amendments on records which we will look at on Report.
We have gone far and wide. I agree that these amendments are what one might call a pudding. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and I have tried to divide them, and I hope that we have explained them to your Lordships properly. We have had an extremely good discussion, and we look forward to coming back later with all kinds of ammunition and other points. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 82.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): This amendment was moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, so it is really up to her to withdraw it if she wishes.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 82.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Skills Training Agency
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place this afternoon about the future of the Skills Training Agency.
"The Skills Training Agency (STA) provides training through a network of 60 skillcentres. It has experienced considerable financial problems over the years. It has broken even only once in the last five years, with a trading loss of about £20 million in 1988–89. This was in spite of an arrangement, up to 1987, under which fixed amounts of training were purchased from the STA by the public sector. This arrangement was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, and ended in 1987.
"In March of last year my predecessor announced to the House that he had decided, on the basis of a feasibility study, that the STA should
1272
be offered for sale. Throughout the sale process it has been made plain that the Government's interest is in receiving bids from those who wish to run a training business.
"I have now received advice from Deloitte Corporate Finance on the final offers received. In the light of that advice, I have agreed terms of sale with two bidders. Their offers together cover 47 skillcentres, plus the STA's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges. The main successful bidder is Astra Training Services Limited, a company formed by a management buyout team in the STA head office. I am placing in the Vote Office full details as to which parts of the STA I propose to sell, and to whom, together with the Government's objectives for the sale.
"This is an extremely satisfactory outcome to the sale process. It enables the creation of a viable private sector network of training provision with good coverage of major centres of population in England, Scotland and Wales. Over three-quarters of the skillcentres will be sold on the basis that they will continue to provide training.
"This will also be the first successful management buyout bid in the Civil Service. The management buyout team knows the business, and has detailed plans, backed by professional advice, to develop training both for unemployed and for employed people in a way which responds to the needs of employers. Its plans include investment of over £11 million in the first three years, and opportunities for staff to participate more fully in the business through an employee share ownership scheme.
"The existing five regional offices, and 13 skillcentres, are not included in this sale package. The regional offices do not feature in the management structure envisaged by Astra, and were not part of its bid. The 13 skillcentres are poorly utilised, and at some, no training is currently taking place. I propose to close down the training businesses in these parts of the agency, and wherever possible the staff will be redeployed to other posts. Alternative arrangements will be made to allow trainees to complete training in progress.
"In addition to producing a substantial private sector training network, I expect the course of action I am announcing today to yield a positive return to the taxpayer. The sale of the training business will involve a payment from the Government to Astra of some £11 million. This is a price determined in the sale process after open competitive bids and subsequent negotiation. It reflects the costs of turning around a business which is currently unprofitable and creating training businesses with good prospects of viability.
"The sites of those offices and centres which are not included in the package to which I have referred will be offered for sale. Having obtained professional valuation, I expect the net proceeds from these sales to exceed by a significant margin the payments from the Government to the training business purchasers.

1273
"My officials will now consult STA staff and their trade union representatives on the implications of my statement for staff, including the measures I have taken to give effect to ministerial undertakings about pension and other arrangements for staff who transfer into the private sector. In due course I shall lay orders before the House to ensure that when the sales are concluded staff who transfer are protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
"In conclusion I would like to pay tribute to staff who have continued to work unstintingly for the STA's success through a potentially unsettling period. For them, for the agency's customers, and for the STA contribution to our national training effort, the uncertainty of the recent past is now over and there are sound prospects for the future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the clarity with which he did so. However, I am sure that he will not be surprised to learn that we on this side of the House find it less than satisfactory. It would appear that the Government are continuing their policy of distancing themselves from training and leaving it to other people. That is what is involved in the concept of employer-led training which we have discussed on innumerable occasions in the House.
The Statement indicates further steps in the privatisation of training about which we on this side of the House have expressed strong doubts. We did so when the last Employment Bill was before your Lordships' House when we said —and I say it again today —that industry training is an important enough matter to be the subject of its own Bill rather than to be tacked on to a Bill at a late stage in debate.
As we in the House already know, we lag far behind our EC neighbours when it comes to training. In Germany, for example, 70 per cent. of engineers have recognised qualifications compared with only 40 per cent. here. We train only one-third of the number of qualified electricians and technicians per head of population that they train in France. Only 15 per cent. of Britain's young people enter higher education compared with 45 per cent. in the United States and 38 per cent. in Japan. As everyone is aware, this country's managers generally have few professional qualifications. Moreover, we are in the process of dismantling or reorganising some of the structures that have worked.
We have discussed the Construction Industry Training Board and its future in the House recently, and its future is still obscure. The Engineering Industry Training Board has been superseded by another body which will be dominated by employers. I have still received no answers to the questions that I have asked about the future of special projects for women in engineering; nor do I know what will be the fate of future applications for money to the European Social Fund. The EITB obtained substantial assistance from that fund towards its special projects; but as I understand it the money is
1274
available only when there is some direct input of public money into training. The grant and levy system passed muster in that regard.
The Statement does nothing to allay the fears of those who believe that the Government are withdrawing their direct input into training. What is more, we appear to be paying public money to do so. We are selling the skillcentres but we are paying £11 million of taxpayers' money for them to be taken over. The withdrawal of government from responsibility for training has not worked in the past nor do I believe that it will work in the future.
What is to be the fate of the remaining centres? The Minister indicated that some of the centres will be sold. I should like to know more about what will happen to those centres which are being disposed of. Are they to be closed? What, if anything, is to take their place? Although the Minister has, rightly I believe, paid a tribute to the staff of the skillcentres, I should like to know a great deal more from him about what will happen to the highly trained staff in the skillcentres. What is to happen about their pension arrangements? They are being removed from Civil Service employment to the private sector. I should like to know more about that point. What support will there be for special projects when the skillcentres are transferred to the private agencies and pass into private ownership? What will happen about training for the disabled, women, the disadvantaged and ethnic groups? Privatisation is no answer to this country's skill problems and so I cannot welcome the Statement. I regret that the Government are moving further down the path of privatising training instead of making a much greater public investment in that important area.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I believe that I am on record as being as keen as anyone in your Lordships' House to see a much better level of training. However, on this occasion I do not go the whole way with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. My knowledge of what has gone on in the skillcentres suggests that for one reason or another —it may have been a lack of support and finance; I do not know the reason —they have not been as successful as they should have been. They have been under-utilised and occasionally they have undoubtedly not been up-to-date. I am not therefore surprised that the Government have decided not to continue with that form of training.
Of course I hope that there will be an increase and not a decrease in the overall amount of training after the change takes place. There are a number of questions about the Statement that I should like to put to the Minister. We are told, for example, that there were two bidders. Who was the other bidder? May we know? Were there bids from some of the successful and professional private training organisations? As I understand it, the sale is to the existing staff. As I said, the record of achievement of many of the skillcentres has not been especially outstanding. There may have been other bidders who would have done a better training job. The whole objective should be to obtain the best possible training available.

1275
Why have we paid £11 million of taxpayers' money? It seems very odd indeed having sold, in what is in fact a management buy-out, to the people who are at present running the organisation —so they will be the same people —because of the non-success of the concerns involved, and the fact that they need to put in £ 11 million over the next three years, to try to bring these centres up to any kind of modern standard of training. Are the Government providing them with all the capital they need to make good the inefficiencies which were there before? It seems an odd way of going about a management buy-out and getting rid of these resources.
Finally, there is another point. At one time —I have not checked whether this is still the case —there was a very successful unit which dealt with the training of trainers. If my memory serves me right, it was at Letchworth. The training of trainers is a matter of the greatest importance because training cannot be done properly except by people who are properly trained to do it; and one of the great weaknesses of modern training in many areas —I fear it will be a continuing weakness with the set-up the Government have supported through the techs —is if training is done by people who are inadequately trained to do it. That was an extremely useful unit. Can the Government tell us what has happened to it? For all I know it may have been closed down earlier, but if it has been we very much need another unit of the highest possible quality to provide the training for trainers which was provided by that Letchworth unit.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. I was not entirely surprised by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I was slightly more surprised by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I very much welcome her support for this change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, after 10 years of privatisation undertaken by this Government appears to be still not convinced that privatisation is sometimes the right course to adopt. The noble Baroness compared some statistics of the United Kingdom's record with our partners in the European Community and in the United States of America in training and education. I think that statistics in themselves are not necessarily enough: one has to look at the quality of the training and education on offer. That is of course exactly why we are going down this path —to galvanise employers to play a full part in training provision. We have done that through the techs, and the principle set up in the techs of employer-led bodies is continuing in this case of privatising the STA. I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would take some joy from the fact that this is a management buy-out and it is the people who are already involved in the industry who will be taking it on to even better things.
Both noble Baronesses asked whether the Government were paying to get the skillcentres taken off our hands. I think one has to look at that situation against the background of a continuing loss-making position over many years, with taxpayers' money
1276
being thrown away on an arrangement that was not entirely successful. What is happening now is that we are paying to keep our training going through the £11 million transfer to ensure that the investment by Astra is preserving and improving training. Preserving training must indeed be our first priority, but overall the taxpayer will benefit. The taxpayer will still gain because of the sale of the property of the 13 skillcentres which will close.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about the staff. The terms and conditions of the staff are of course protected, as I said in my original Statement, by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Government Actuary's Department has assessed the pension arrangements proposed by the purchasers and is satisfied that they compare with present Civil Service terms. In the coming weeks there will be a substantial amount of negotiation with STA staff and their unions on these proposals. In particular, they will look at pensions and possible redundancies, and these matters have been set out in the bidder's position papers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked who the other bidders were. There were over 100 expressions of interest. There was one other major private sector buyer for a number of the skillcentres, but they wanted only 26 centres, so that bid was considerably less favourable than the deal we have now, which I think is generally to be welcomed. I believe we should encourage the skillcentres to continue the work they have been doing.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I intervene? It seems rather odd when the noble Lord says he is getting rid of them because of their inadequacies and he mentions the figure of the loss, and then he says he wants to encourage the same people to go on. That seems very strange.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that one has to look at what happens when companies remain in the public sector and they are restricted by, for example, the Treasury. There are also numerous public sector restrictions and overheads. Those represent some of the reasons the skillcentres have been incapable of being a success while part of the public sector.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but is it not government policy —at least that is the way it seems to me —to run down enterprises that they would then want to privatise? This seems to be a typical example.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, shame on the noble Baroness for even suggesting that we have been running down the skillcentres in order to privatise them. That must be quite wrong.
Let me turn to the very important question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear: instructor training. Of course this is a very important issue. The instructor training colleges at Letchworth and at Hillington in Scotland are both being sold to Astra. As I have said, the training of trainers is essential to improve the nation's training provision.

1277
It is an important source of business for the company both in this country and overseas. Therefore, as centres of excellence in the training of trainers they will continue to provide that very valuable contribution.
4.47 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, while accepting that there is obviously a need for change in these organisations, is my noble friend aware of the importance of continuity in training and of the damage that has been done over the past years by so many changes in training schemes? We have had the community programme, the YTS, JTS, ET, and so many schemes. It is very difficult for agencies in this field to keep abreast of them and to work effectively and efficiently. May I ask my noble friend whether he will do everything possible to ensure that there is now a period of stability for training organisations, so as to help with the efficient training which is so very important to our industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think my noble friend is trying to be helpful there. He is absolutely right in saying that there has been an element of confusion as to how training should be provided by employers and by employer-led bodies through the government network. However, I really feel that we have come to the end of that confusion by setting up the training and enterprise councils, by privatising the Skills Training Agency and by continuing the good work that has been done by employment training and youth training. I sincerely hope that over the next 10 years we will continue to see these programmes grow and prosper.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, are not absolutely right when they describe the story of the skill centres as one of stability? It is the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in my view, who is giving an accurate description. That is not surprising because, unknown to my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Baroness has been involved in the work of the Manpower Services Commission for many years and she knows all about the saga of the skill centres.
Through the years it has been quite impossible to get those skill centres to run themselves on an economic and satisfactory basis and also to get them to provide the kind of training required. It has been very difficult for all sorts of reasons: I know some of them, but not all. It is an extremely sensible move. I am glad that those who have been at the head of the skills centres will have such an opportunity. One suspects that if they are the same people they will make the same mistakes as before. One suspected that in the case of the bus system, for example. However, when some of the employees in the nationalised bus system took over the services and eliminated all the problems of being in the public service they flourished. They are doing a marvellous job.
The move is excellent. If it costs £11 million of taxpayers' money in order to establish the centres —and the money will be raised by selling
1278
some of the old plant —it is not a matter about which noble Lords opposite should be roaring with laughter. It is a sound idea and I wish it well.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her remarks. They provided some useful information. She was correct in everything she said about the Skills Training Agency. I also hope that it will succeed in the future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it was a privilege to give way to the noble Baroness from Scotland, particularly in the presence of the Minister and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
First I apologise for not being in my seat when the Minister began the Statement. Secondly, I declare an interest in training because I am the president of the Mobile Radio Users' Association—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you so much, my Lords. Without qualification the mobile radio users' industry has been one of the most successful advancing industries in this country during the past five or six years—
Baroness Seear: What has that to do with it?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It has been successful not only in this country but also internationally. I have no idea what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is saying from a sedentary position, but if she would like me to give way I will gladly do so for another distinguished lady.
Having regard to what the Minister said today, what assistance can be given to the mobile radio users' industry because there is now a deficiency in the number of skilled employees? For instance, would the Minister be prepared to receive a deputation from our association indicating the importance of training in the industry and the importance of the industry to the economic position of this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is certainly interesting to learn that the noble Lord is the president of an organisation as distinguished as the Mobile Radio Users' Association. He has introduced a more general concept of overall training. I am sorry that he missed some of our recent debates on training at which his noble friend Lady Seear was present and on which she is an expert.
I shall try to be helpful to the noble Lord. I am always delighted to receive representations from him. However, I can be most helpful by pointing him in the direction of the training and enterprise councils which have a specific duty to be responsive and flexible to the needs of local indsutry, one of which he represents.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister although I did not understand his proposal. Nevertheless, it is a most important industry concerned with training.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I found the Minister's Statement quite disastrous. I have raised the subject here on many occasions. He is saying that the principle of privatisation is better than public enterprise. It may be that many of my noble friends believe that in certain circumstances that is the case. However, presumably the Minister cannot and will not accept the fact that people who will run the skills centres will be there primarily to make a profit. There can be no denying that.
It is important to note that the skills centres in particular, and to some extent the TECs, will be run by the same people, as has already been pointed out by my noble friends. Therefore, we wish to know why on earth the skills training centres will be as important as the Minister has said. He cannot get away with this kind of Statement.
The Government have been in power for almost 11 years. I believe that if they place so much importance on training —and, by heavens, it is important —they should have done something about it before now. At present 50 per cent. of the country is not covered by TECs. The Minister knows my view; that by June, the date he has promised, there will still be no TECs in operation and vast areas of the country will have no training of any kind. He should be addressing those problems and not giving the House the kind of information that he has given today.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we had a good debate until the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, rose and decided to dive in—
Lord Ennals: And a good contribution it was!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord made a dogmatic attack on privatisation and its issues. I do not remember his exact words but he implied that there was something wrong with profit. The past 11 years have shown that profit is most important—
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I did not say that and the Minister must not misquote me. In principle I believe in the mixed economy and there is nothing wrong with making profit. I said that this is not an appropriate field in which to be making profit.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong because skills centres, like anything else, must be in a position to charge the market rate for supplying the services that they provide, whether it is training or whatever. He said that TECs and skills training centres will be run by the same people. That is not necessarily so. There will be a contractual obligation between the skills centres and the training and enterprise councils. The skills centres will be competing with other private sector providers of training so that the TECs can obtain the best possible value for money.
The noble Lord also said that by the summer more than half the country will not be covered by TECs. As I have said to him before, we are two years ahead
1280
of schedule in the setting up of TECs. Already we have 55 TECs with development funding and we are delighted with the progress that has been made.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his dismissal of international comparisons. It has been shown by governmental and private investigation that in the matter of skills we are well behind our chief competitors, particularly our neighbours in Europe.
Why over a long period of time has no advantage been taken of their experience in order to ascertain why they do things better, why they obtain better results and why in consequence our industry suffers? I have a feeling that this country does not take industry and its training seriously. Clearly the Government do not; the Opposition pay lip service to it but have other priorities; clearly this House does not. This House is now relatively empty. Half an hour ago it was full in order to discuss antiquarian trivialities such as coats of arms and Scottish hereditary chieftaincies which matter not at all to the vast earning mass of the British people.
If this House does not take training seriously, if the Government do not take training seriously, if the Opposition do not take training seriously and, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, if industry does not take training seriously, what is our future?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A good Labour speech.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that during the past couple of minutes my noble friend Lord Beloff enjoyed himself. He appears to have a great interest in training but he has not played any part in our recent debates on the subject. I regret that because his views are extremely important and valid.
On the point about making international comparisons, I never said that they were bad. I said that bald statistics were not enough. That was the point I tried to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Two weeks ago we had a very good debate in this House about training and education when all these issues were brought to the fore. If my noble friend has not read that debate I believe that he should take an opportunity of doing so.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about disadvantaged persons and their training? If these outfits are to be profit-making, they will charge. Who will pay the fees or other expenses of those who are disadvantaged?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point about the provision for disadvantaged people —the disabled, ethnic minorities and, in some instances, women —who need to play a full part in our economy. That is one reason why the Government have chosen training as one of the major priorities in the 1990s.
As I have said, the main provision for training will be through the training and enterprise councils. They will have direct responsibility for the training of all those people whom I mentioned.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps on reflection the noble Lord may wish to withdraw one or two remarks which he made about his noble friend Lord Beloff. I have certainly heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speak on these subjects before, particularly with regard to the question of standards. Perhaps he will hear his noble friend speak on that subject again in the near future.
To return to the Statement, I believe that the noble Lord is doing the best he can with a rather appalling brief. He must not confuse privatisation with the selling off of those properties. The Government could have sold off those properties at any time if they were of no use to them. We are concerned about the sale of a going business. I ask the noble Lord to realise that the word "sell" normally means that you give something to someone else and they give you some money in exchange. The word "sell" is not normally used to mean that you give something to someone and you give them some money as well. That is called giving it away rather than selling.
I ask the noble Lord to reflect on that. Why did not the Government at least retain some sort of equity interest? If they believe that there are benefits in privatisation, they could have benefited and could have recouped something for the taxpayer if the enterprise is a success. However, I can see —and I am not the greatest entrepreneur in the world —that to give it way and then throw £11 million after it is a "give away" deal. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on what he thinks he is up to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Beloff if I implied in any way that he does not have a general interest in the subject. I was merely making the point that, since I have been employment Minister in this House and dealing with the Employment Bill, my noble friend regrettably did not take part in that debate and we all missed him then.
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has this matter completely wrong. We are not throwing good money after bad. That is what we were doing, because in 1988–89 the organisation had a trading loss of £20 million and in the current year has a projected loss of £30 million. We are giving £11 million to turn the organisation into a viable, economic and proper concern which will continue to prosper in the future and provide the sort of training which every single noble Lord who has spoken on this issue in this Chamber this afternoon agrees is very important.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said in his praise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I feel that I should resign my position as president of the Mobile Radio Users' Association and suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, should be appointed because, obviously, he would make better headway than I am able to do in dealing with the difficulties of appointing skilled personnel in that rapidly advancing industry.

The Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("1") and insert ("5,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment which is required to correct the references to paragraphs in Schedule 3 in this clause. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which deals with consent for the use of a person's gametes is paragraph (5) rather than paragraph (1), and that which deals with consent for the use of any embryo is paragraph (7) and not paragraph (3). I speak also to Amendment No. 85. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("3") and insert ("7").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge: moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert —
("( ) No woman shall be provided with treatment services unless the person responsible is satisfied that the woman does not intend to receive the treatment services with a view to becoming a surrogate mother for the purposes of section 1 of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: Surrogacy is of course where a woman carries a child in her womb and after it is born she hands it over to another woman or couple. This amendment seeks to ensure that those providing treatment under the Bill cannot be a party to surrogacy arrangements. Although surrogacy cannot be practised commercially —and this Bill helpfully states in Clause 32 that surrogacy arrangements cannot have the force of law —the practice has taken place and will probably continue to do so.
The Government have already recognised that surrogacy is an undesirable practice. It creates major difficulties if the mother who has carried the baby to full term wishes to retain it. Clause 26 makes it very clear that the woman who carries the baby will always be regarded in law as the mother. Therefore, adoption proceedings have to take place for another woman to be treated as the mother.
As the Bill stands there is a strong implication that medical centres providing treatment under this Bill should not assist surrogacy. This amendment would convert that strong implication into a clear directive. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government's policy on surrogacy is contained in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, to which this amendment

1283
refers. That Act prohibits the development of commercial surrogacy agencies and advertising of or for surrogacy services, but does not seek to ban private arrangements nor commercial arrangements between commissioning parents and the surrogate mother; that is, where no third party is involved. The Government opposes this amendment because it is considerably more restrictive than the Surrogacy Arrangements Act. It would appear to attempt to prohibit all forms of surrogacy and would, for instance, forbid a woman having placed in her any embryo created from her sister's egg and her sister's husband's sperm with a view to handing over the resulting child to them —an arrangement which we have seen to work.
It is the Government's opinion that the 1985 legislation has achieved its principal objectives of preventing the spread to this country of commercial surrogacy arrangements, particularly from the USA, where I understand such agencies operate in some states. It was no part of the policy of that Act to seek to outlaw altogether this practice, whose origins go back to the Old Testament. Indeed a provision of the kind proposed by this amendment, however much sympathy one might have with its objective, would be unenforceable. For some childless couples, surrogacy is a last resort. Effective guidance is in place to local authority social services departments to ensure that, in appropriate cases, children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements which come to light are made wards of court. In addition, Clause 26 of the Bill makes clear beyond doubt that the carrying mother is to be regarded in law as the child's mother. Clause 32 will ensure that surrogacy contracts are unenforceable in law.
It seems that we have to accept that surrogacy is a practice which it is impractical to prohibit. However, the 1985 Act has proved to be successful in its objective of preventing the exploitation of women who might be used by those wishing to make a profit out of the plight of the childless. The further restrictions that the noble Lord intends in his amendment are therefore in the Government's view both unnecessary and unenforceable. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Warnock: There is often confusion in discussions on the different kinds of surrogacy which exist. One kind is the result of artificial insemination by a man to a woman who is not his wife but who is to carry the baby on behalf of the couple. The child born of that arrangement is a child genetically connected with the husband but also with the woman. In some sense that has been referred to as the flip side of AID. The child is partly the child of the commissioning couple but partly the child of another woman.
In the United States, however, there is increasingly a use of what may be referred to as IVF surrogacy which is useful to certain couples where the wife of the commissioning couple can produce an egg and the husband sperm. The egg and the sperm of the commissioning couple are united and fertilised and the embryo is then placed in the womb of the
1284
surrogate mother. In that case the surrogate mother is simply a living incubator and is not in any sense the genetic mother of that child.
Perhaps not enough was made in our report and in the 1985 legislation of that very crucial distinction. If there are those who feel very strongly against AID surrogacy and not so strongly about IVF surrogacy, it would be mistaken as well as unenforceable to try to legislate against surrogacy in the manner proposed by this amendment. My own view, therefore, is that this amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Somers: I differ slightly from my noble friend. The amendment does not outlaw surrogacy as far as I can see. It places a discouragement on it but it does not outlaw it. My noble friend says that the practice is increasing in America. I might point out that many practices of a highly undesirable nature are increasing in America, as they are everywhere else as far as I can make out. It is bad enough surely not to know who your father was, but not to know who your mother was is even worse. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not withdraw his amendment.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his encouragement, but I am also grateful for the explanation by the Minister and the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. In the circumstances I think it is the wish of the Committee that I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Grant of licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("accompanied by the initial fee").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 90 standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 92 and 97. These three amendments concern the funding of the statutory licensing authority and although there are only a few Members in the Chamber I believe that these are issues of profound importance.
I and my colleagues who have joined me in moving this amendment believe that it is quite wrong that the statutory licensing authority should raise funds for is own maintenance from the clinics which it licenses. In our view the cost of the licensing authority should be borne in full by the public purse. That is what we seek to bring about.
The Bill as it stands proposes a new method of extracting payment for services from patients. The notification of infectious deseases and at-risk registers are paid for out of central funds and not charged to individual patients. The procedures

1285
relating to the Abortion Act 1967 require the completion of two certificates and inspection and licensing of private clinics, but none of the expenditure is passed on either to the clinics or to the patients.
Lack of central funding is discriminatory against those who are infertile. Much is done, quite rightly, for the fertile and services include pre-pregnancy counselling, ante-, intra- and post-partum care, neonatal paediatric services, conception, abortion and sterilisation where necessary. Certain contraceptive procedures and sterilisation operations even attract extra payment for medical staff out of central funds.
As was pointed out in the report by my noble friend Lady Warnock and frequently elsewhere, provision for the infertile in the National Health Service is poor due to the underfunding of the service. Failure to provide central funding for the proposed new authority would perpetuate this state of affairs.
Most of the patients affected by this Bill are in any case forced to resort to the private sector for treatment which the NHS fails to provide. Many small clinics, especially NHS and university-based clinics, cannot afford large licence fees and might have to stop work. These are precisely the clinics where services are available at minimal cost and the charges of licence fees would inevitably result in fewer patients being treated and a reduction in the service.
The proposal to finance the statutory licensing authority primarily from fees collected in connection with its licensing activities would probably mean an indirect tax of about £100 for each of the 10,000 patients who seek assisted conception treatment every year. As there are only two NHS-funded IVF centres in this country, the vast majority of patients seeking assisted conception by IVF, GIFT or AID already pay for their entire treatment. That is a heavy burden for most of them. Furthermore, since the take-home baby rate for in vitro fertilisation is only about 10 per cent., that charge could be levied on some poor unfortunate couples on a number of occasions. That will add further to the injustice between services provided for the fertile, (that is, abortion, contraception and sterilisation) and the services provided for those who are childless.
The requirement to have regulation of research and the use of gametes and embryos is one felt by government and society as a whole. The sub-fertile, who will be the ultimate consumer of most of these services, do not necessarily benefit from the statutory work of the statutory licensing authority. Nor are they the sole benefactors of the results of research work, which also requires a licence. Thus, to have to pay for the licensing activities of the statutory licensing authority would be a further injustice and amount, in effect, to a tax on the infertile. The cost of licensing, as I said earlier, should be borne in total by the public purse.
The White Paper of November 1987 said:
"provision will be made for contributing towards the costs of the SLA from public funds, although it will be expected to meet a large proportion of its expenditure from fees connected with its licensing activity".
The then Voluntary Licensing Authority, in its third report made in 1988, responded to that White Paper as follows:
"The VLA considers that it may be impracticable to attempt to meet a large proportion of the expenditure of the SLA from licence fees. From experience, to cover the costs of the SLA, such fees will have to be high, in the order of £5,000 pa. Implications are grave for clinics operating in academic or NHS departments, which might be unable to pass the costs on to patients. It is also unclear who would be expected to pay for project licences. Much research is carried out in University Departments with grant support. The (VL) Authority recommends that 'the running costs of the SLA should come primarily from public funds' ".
I agreed with them then, and I agree with them now.
Further comments on the funding of the proposed SLA were made in the fourth report of 1989, which says:
"We believe that the imposition of a licence fee would deter the expansion of NHS centres of which there are only two".
I can understand that those who do not wish to see these treatments extended and this research facilitated, may want to see some licence because they would look on it as a deterrent. Those who have supported continuation of research and the treatments which result from it would want to see that encouraged. They would want to remove any deterrent factor.
There is perhaps another argument which I have not deployed. I shall use it in conclusion. If the running costs of the authority which this Bill establishes are paid for by the clinics that it is policing, then at least there is a conflict or a potential conflict of interest. At worst a cosy relationship could develop where the authority will seek to please its paymasters rather than Parliament. I believe that there should be no element of paymaster in this provision and that running costs are the responsibility of central funds which should come from the Department of Health and not from a licensing system. That would create not only insecurity, uncertainty and discouragement, but also, as I have said, a relationship between the authority and the clinics which may be very unfortunate. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to add a very brief observation to what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said. I make two points and the first is in relation to Clause 15(7), which says:
"Different fees may be fixed for different circumstances and fees paid under this section are not repayable".
I very much deplore the fact that there may be fees; but if there are, then it appears that there will be discrimination between beneficiaries of the treatment. I find that strange. Secondly, I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply what precedents there are. I cannot think of any treatment under the National Health Service which demands payment from the client other than for teeth and spectacles. Perhaps there are others, but there cannot be very many. For instance, if treatment for abortion is available free under the National Health Service, then treatment of this nature should also be free. I would very much like to hear what are the precedents for justifying the imposition of fees in this case.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I wish to underline one point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made in moving the amendment. I refer to a quotation which he also used from the third report of the Voluntary Licensing Authority published in 1988. At page 43, paragraph 18, the authority states:
"The VLA considers that it may be impracticable to attempt to meet a large proportion of the expenditure of the SLA from licence fees".
The authority goes on to say that from experience it regards the proposal for licence fees as an impracticable method of finance.
When dealing with this amendment I hope that the noble Baroness will explain on what grounds, unless she is supporting the amendment, the Government believe that the authority, which is the only body that has experience in this field, is mistaken. There is a second point to be made as a footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has just said. There appears to be a conflict of principles being introduced by this Bill, as it now stands, were fees to be charged. Inevitably some patients will be charged. Is it not an anomalous situation that patients may be charged when they seek treatment for infertility but when they go to the GP for contraceptive advice, the GP is reimbursed for giving that advice by the Family Practitioners' Committee and not permitted to charge the patient for giving contraceptive advice?
Baroness Hooper: We recognise the concern about fees and in particular concerning the points raised in the course of this brief discussion. Nevertheless, we think it right that applicants for licences should meet not necessarily the whole cost, but a significant part of the cost of the process of licensing. Though references were made to examples of free services, I remind the Committee that fee-paying is an established practice in other fields, if not within the National Health Service. For example, there are planning applications and licences under the Medicines Act.
Perhaps I may distinguish one of the examples quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who referred to notifications of infectious diseases. The purpose of requiring cases of certain infectious diseases to be notified is for the protection of the health of the public generally. It is not for the benefit of the person whose case is the subject of a notification. In these cases the guiding principle is the general public interest. I realise that unsuccessful applicants may feel aggrieved to have to pay an initial fee or a differentiated fee to no purpose, but the authority will have been put to some work in dealing with their applications. Therefore it is only right that they meet some proportion of the cost.
Also, the initial fees and any additional ones would fall either on the private sector facilities, academic institutions or National Health Service hospitals. I also appreciate the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that the principle of the payment of fees is new in as much as the interim licensing authority does not charge fees. Its work is supported in relation to this part of its activities by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
1288
However, I believe that there is a different situation when a new statutory authority is set up. I repeat that the Government think it important that those wishing to be licensed should be required to meet a significant proportion of the costs of that system, and indeed of the other costs incurred by the authority. As I have indicated, there are precedents for statutory bodies charging fees for licences, and there is the general principle that people should be made aware of the cost of services they use.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that Clause 15(7) provides a measure of flexibility to the authority in that different fees can be charged in different circumstances. It will be for the new authority to decide on the level of fees and a fee structure which, under Clause 15(6), will need to be approved by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. This will enable the authority to design the arrangements it finds most appropriate. I do not want to speculate about what the authority's policy in relation to charging fees might be, but clearly there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it deciding to charge different rates of fees for different establishments. The Government will be paying their contribution to this treatment and there is a safeguard against the authority charging exorbitant levels of fees in that they must be set after the Secretary of State and the Treasury have approved them. Amendment No. 97 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 90 and 92 and therefore need not be spoken to individually.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that fees might give rise to a cosy relationship between the authority and the centres which will provide a significant part of the authority's funding. The Bill provides for the proper keeping of accounts by the authority and the proper audit of those accounts. It also provides for the authority to send a report to the Secretary of State annually, as was agreed on the first day of the Committee stage. The statement of accounts, as examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We can look to these and to the integrity of the authority and the persons appointed to it to ensure that a cosy relationship between centres and the authority does not develop. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will answer my specific question about treatments within the National Health Service which are not provided free. The noble Baroness gave me examples from outside the National Health Service, such as planning permissions. I do not see that that has anything to do with what is going on inside. If she can provide me with the precedents for charging within the National Health Service for treatments of this nature I shall be much obliged.
Baroness White: The noble Baroness will surely recognise that there is some difference between family planning and planning land development. It

1289
is a most incongruous argument, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that those who are concerned with negative family planning should have the arrangements free and those who are trying to secure the birth of a child should have to pay for this great privilege. This is a most astonishing situation in relation to the health service as a whole. The Government are trying to slip into the Bill a provision of payment which is not applicable in other circumstances. The noble Baroness has done the very best with her brief. We all sympathise with her. But I hope that my noble friend who moved the amendment and other noble Lords will at least press for the matter to be reconsidered between now and Report stage.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the Government are mindful of the fact that many couples who are desperate to have a child can ill afford to pay the fees. It is recorded that people who are not well-to-do have mortgaged their homes in order to pay for the treatment. The Government should bear in mind that in addition to the burden of infertility people often have to mortgage their homes in order to pay for the treatment.
Baroness Hooper: I should clarify one point. The examples that I quoted in relation to other areas where licence fees are applicable are more similar to this case than the other services within the National Health Service to which noble Lords have referred. In this case we are talking about fees payable not by the individuals who wish to go in for the IVF treatment but by institutions which wish to carry out that course of treatment and have to apply under the Bill to the authority for permission to do so. The exact analogy that I have been asked to give is not appropriate.
Lord Ennals: I must confess to being very disappointed by the Minister's reply. In the course of the debate she has given some able replies. By "able replies" I mean those replies with which I agree. In this case I found myself profoundly dissatisfied; so it was not an able reply.
I should like to refer to four points arising from the debate. The noble Baroness has just implied that, somehow or other, from resources unknown, clinics will be able to pay this licence fee and will not pass it on to patients. I do not believe that for a moment. If the clinics are obliged to pay something over and above what they are now paying for the cost of their work, they will have to find it in some other way. That is what the market-place is about. Who else can they turn to? They cannot apply for a government grant because the Government are to give some unspecified grant to the statutory licensing authority. They will have no alternative but to pass it on to the patients.
This was one of the points that I made when I moved the amendment. My calculation is that it will fall to the tune of about £100 per patient if it is levelled out over 10,000 patients. It may be that in the future the issue will become greater. This will be a blow to families. The thought that the service which we have rightly decided to provide should be
1290
made available on a means tested basis or be made available only to those who can afford it is deplorable.
Secondly, the research and the resultant treatment has as one of its objectives the reduction of the number of abortions. We hope that that argument will carry some weight with those who have their doubts about what we are debating. As has already been said, abortion is carried out by the National Health Service on a non-fee-paying basis. It would seem strange that that should apply to abortion but should not apply to the treatments which may help to reduce the regrettable number of abortions.
Thirdly, the Committee has witnessed an exchange concerning the planning application. Examples were given from the Medicines Act and reference was made to the fees paid by pharmaceutical companies. Those who pay for licences under the Medicines Act are pharmaceutical companies which are in the business not only for the sake of human welfare —they do great things for human welfare —but for reasons of profit. They are commercial companies. Therefore that is not in any way a valid comparison. I should hate to think that the work being approved by this Committee will be seen as some new form of commercial activity. It is not. We are dealing with human welfare, human research and the relief of hardship. We are dealing with concern among patients about the nature of children born to them.
My fourth point is perhaps the most serious. In her reply the Minister said that different situations arise when a new service is established. That is the slippery slope argument. We argued about that in earlier stages of the debate. I refer to what the Minister said. In an evolving health service —and all right, we are talking about a new service; but there will be other new services provided by the National Health Service —if the Minister is saying that, as new services become available, they will be charged for, then this is a process of privatisation of the National Health Service which her right honourable friend has insisted he has no intention of promoting. It is a dangerous philosophy for those who believe in a National Health Service, as her right honourable friend the Secretary of State says he does, paid for by public funds.
Therefore I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. First, what proportion does she consider the Government will pay of the cost of the licensing authority? Secondly, what sort of proportion of the costs of licence fees do the Government expect will be passed on to clinics? Thirdly, when those factors have been broken down, what sort of cost per patient does she think that will imply? She must have done those calculations, or her advisers must have made such assessments, before deciding to give a negative answer to the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise the antipathy of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to any charges in the National Health Service, even those imposed upon people who can well afford to pay them. Nevertheless, I think that it is important in this

1291
context to stress again a point I previously made: fees will be charged to the centres which are providing the service and will be charged at the time of application. As centres are likely to see a number of patients during the existence of a particular licence, and if indeed they are going to pass on the costs of the licence fee to the patients, it will be shared and spread among a great many people.
As regards any possible calculations at this stage in connection with the actual costs involved, it is my understanding that it is anticipated that the applicants for a licence will be expected to pay something in the region of two-thirds of the cost of the licensing authority. Moreover, as I said previously, the Government will be paying their share in more general costs, as well as in relation to work carried out in regard to the applications.
Lord Ennals: Can the Minister give us any figures in that respect?
Baroness Hooper: No, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord detailed figures at this point.
Lord Ennals: I think that the Minister needs time to bring forward the answers to my questions. I do not think that the Committee can be expected to take a decision on the matter when she is not prepared to say what sort of sum of money the Government are expecting to pay to the licensing authority; what sum of money the clinics are expected to pay as regards a licence; or how this is likely to fall upon patients. I hope, therefore, that between now and the Report stage the Minister will make those inquiries so that we may have a debate with adequate information to enable us to take a decision on the matter.
My view has in no way changed as a result of the Minister's answer. However, I do not propose to divide the Committee at this stage of the proceedings. But I hope that she will think seriously about the matter because it is my intention to return to the issue when we reach the Report stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 7, line 45, after ("individual") insert ("who is a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Act 1983").
The noble Duke said: The Bill requires that when a licence is applied for there must be a "person responsible" for the activities to be carried out under that licence. Such a person may or may not be the applicant. We can assume that in many cases he or she would not in fact be the applicant. I consider that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the "person responsible" genuinely is responsible for the said activities.
As it stands, it could happen that this person was merely an administrator of a particular private clinic, a member of a pharmaceutical company or some other non-medically qualified person. Some clinics might find it convenient to operate in that way. If that were to happen, responsibility would be a fiction and would exist only on paper.
By requiring such a person to be a medical practitioner, registered under the Medical Act 1983, we would ensure that the person responsible would genuinely be responsible. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: As a registered medical practitioner under the Act just referred to, and having had the privilege for seven years of presiding over the council which confers such registration, I naturally have some sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Duke. However, I think that is is important for the Committee to recall that licences under the Act, provided and conferred by the proposed licensing authority, will deal not just with treatment but also with storage and research.
For that reason it would be inappropriate in my view that the licences should be held only by registered medical practitioners because there are many distinguished scientists, Fellows of the Royal Society among them, who are concerned with the research which will fall within the ambit of this legislation. In my opinion the amendment would be entirely reasonable, or appropriate, if the following words were added:
"A practitioner registered under the Medical Act 1983, or a suitably qualified scientist".
It is very important to recognise that many scientists will be engaged in such research.
There is one other possibility which I think it is only right that the Committee should consider on Report. It concerns licences for treatment as set out under Schedule 2, which we have already considered. In my view it would be perfectly appropriate that that provision should require the designated supervisor to be a registered medical practitioner.
I am afraid that I must oppose the amendment as it stands, but trust that I have offered the noble Duke some suggestions which might perhaps, with modification, make what is proposed more acceptable.
Lord Renton: In order to decide the matter we need to consider what the licences are for. If noble Lords will look at Clause 11(1) (a) it will be seen, among other things, that the legislation is,
"authorising activities in the course of providing treatment services".
That seems to indicate the work of a medical practitioner. Moreover, that view is fortified if we refer to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, to which, incidentally, we are referred in Clause 11. There we find various examples of the work which is to be carried out under the licences, including,
"(d) practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose,
(e) placing any embryo in a woman,

1293
(f) testing the fertility of any human sperm by the penetration of the egg of another species of animal, but only where any resulting embryo is immediately destroyed, and,
(g) such other practices as may be specified"—
and, we do not know what they will be—
"in, or determined in accordance with, regulations".
Therefore, for an important part of this work under licence, it seems that the skill of a medical practitioner and the responsibility which he exercises will be required. That surely indicates that the amendment should be accepted.
Viscount Craigavon: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but perhaps this will assist the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I understood that the question of licences was not simply black or white—that a person is either given a licence or fails to be given a licence. I thought a person was licensed for a particular activity. When the noble Lord refers to treatment, I suggest that not all people applying for licences will do so for the purposes of treatment. They might be given licences for other reasons. So a diversity of people with different requirements might apply for licences.
Baroness Phillips: As the discussion progresses, my dislike for the Bill becomes more and more intense. I could almost have tolerated it if it concerned fertilisation, but it seems that the Bill starts with a total disregard for the dignity of human life.
Lord Ennals: No, it does not.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps my noble friends will wait a minute. They have had their turn. There is the comment in paragraph 1(1) (f) of Schedule 2:
"testing the fertility of any human sperm by the penetration of the egg of another species of animal, but only where any resulting embryo is immediately destroyed".
That is rather left in the hands of the person who will carry it out. Surely research in relation to human life should be carried out under a general practitioner. We all know that scientists are sometimes carried away by their enthusiasm for their experiments. It seems strange to me that anyone should object to this. At some stage we must bring in the medical profession if the legislation is to hold any validity at all.
Lord Swann: I am troubled because I do not think that noble Lords have picked up what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. Undoubtedly there are facets of the matter which require a qualified medical practitioner. But there are rather few medical practitioners who would be happy with, for instance, testing the fertility of human sperm and the storage and keeping of embryos. A number of such activities need highly skilled scientific treatment.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was absolutely right in saying, "Yes, of course it needs medically qualified practitioners but it is also necessary that before the medical practitioner can carry out his medical work some of the background activities should be carried out by skilled scientists". I feel strongly that that should be part of an amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support the argument of my noble friends Lord Walton and Lord Swann. Much of the activity will be group activities by firms and similar organisations, as they are called in hospitals. The act of fertilisation might well be under the control of biochemist or a biologist. Different parts of the procedure are conducted by different people. I understand that a person has to have a hypodermic inoculation with a luteinising hormone in order to induce superovulation. That might well be done by a medical technician who gives other types of injections.
The Bill leaves the situation quite open. It only insists that one person must take overall responsibility for seeing that the other persons are qualified. Why should not the biochemist engaged in fertilisation assure herself that the ovum will be extracted by a gynaecologist or whoever it may be? She should be in charge of the project as a whole. I think that the Bill should be allowed to stand as it is.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Walton, gave helpful guidance to the Committee; namely, that one should draw a distinction between a licence for treatment and a licence to undertake research. If the amendment had been in place, if this had been the law of the land, would Robert. Edwards of Cambridge and Anne McLaren of the MRC have been able to make the contribution they made?
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may say one word before the noble and learned Lord replies. One point has been overlooked by some noble Lords: whether the work is to be research or treatment. The preliminary operation must be carried out on the human body. Surely that is a case where a qualified medical practitioner is essential.
Lord Winstanley: I should like to make this point. The body which has responsibility for the overall control of the conduct of registered medical practitioners is the General Medical Council, of which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was such a distinguished president. The GMC would continue to be responsible for the conduct of such practitioners, ethical or otherwise.
On the other hand, the body responsible for the conduct of the work that comes under this Bill is to be the licensing authority. That authority will have to supervise with great care the conduct of each and every person working in that field. It will do so. The GMC will only be responsible for the conduct of registered medical practitioners. That is worthy of consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: The policy of the Bill is that licences will be granted either to individuals who will themselves control the premises where the activity to be licensed is to be carried on or to another person or body which manages the premises on which the activity is to be carried on. But —and this is the important point —each licence application must designate an individual under whose supervision the activities authorised by the licence will be carried on. So there must be a single person responsible for supervision of all the activities authorised by a

1295
particular licence. This person is described as "the person responsible" in Clause 16. The effect of the amendment would be that a licence could be granted only if the individual designated by the licence as the person responsible was a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Act 1983.
I appreciate that where research is to be done in respect of the human body, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has pointed out, it would be entirely appropriate that a properly qualified doctor would be in charge and responsible for it. But, as has already been pointed out, the Bill in its present form provides for the licensing of treatments, of storage and of research. It by no means follows, as the noble Lords, Lord Walton, Lord Swann and others have already pointed out, that a person who would be qualified to give treatment would be qualified properly to supervise research. These are quite different matters. Again, the specialities that one might need in order properly to arrange for storage might involve other qualifications.
How does the Bill deal with that? It takes the view that the supervisor should be a person appropriate to supervise. It provides that the activities regulated by the Bill should be carried on under the supervision of a person who is responsible —that is the requirement —and who is suitable in character, qualifications and experience. That is why paragraph (c) of Clause 15(2) requires the licence committee, before it may grant a licence, to be satisfied that the individual designated by the licence as the person responsible is suitable in character, qualifications and experience and that he or she will discharge the detailed duties of supervision set out in Clause 16.
In my submission that is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested. I think it meets what my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk desired in moving the amendment. He wished that where the necessary qualification is a medical one the supervisor should be medically qualified. I take it that he agrees that where the proper requirement or qualification necessary is scientific, the person should have the appropriate scientific qualifications. More than one of these activities might be carried on and we need to be sure that the appropriate qualifications for all activities carried on are held by the person responsible.
I suggest to the Committee that what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has proposed is already covered in the Bill, leaving it to the licensing authority to decide, in relation to any particular licence, what are the necessary qualifications. As I said, that may be quite a difficult matter of judgment. It would not surprise me, for example, if the authority thought that in licensing certain types of treatment the fact of merely being a medical practitioner might not be sufficient. The authority may require some other specialist qualification, such as a qualification granted by one of the Royal colleges or something of that kind. I do not believe the Committee will improve this matter by seeking to be too specific. The principle of this amendment is already covered appropriately in the provisions of Clause 15, to which I have drawn attention.
1296
I hope that my noble friend may feel that we have catered adequately for his concern, and if so that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the various matters to which she has referred emphasise how important it is for people involved in this kind of activity to have appropriate qualifications.
6 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: In view of what the noble and learned Lord and other speakers have said I am consoled. I pointed out that we did not wish to have a licence granted to someone who is purely, let us say, the director of a pharmaceutical company. We do not want that. However, if the people who will carry out this kind of activity will have appropriate qualifications, we shall be content with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 to 96 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Revocation and variation of licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("is not discharging") and insert ("has failed to discharge").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment alters the wording of Clause 17(1)(c) to make the reasons given in that clause for revoking a licence clearer and more clearly demonstrated, should the licence holder wish to appeal to the full authority against the licensing committee's decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("any directions") and insert ("directions given in connection with any licence").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is also designed to make it clear that the grounds for revoking a licence because the person responsible has failed to comply with directions given to him by the authority can include failure to comply with directions given to him in connection with a different licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Procedure for refusal, variation or revocation of licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 116 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Appeal to Authority against determinations of licence committee]:
[Amendment No. 117 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Appeals to High Court or Court of Session]:
[Amendment No. 118 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Temporary suspension of licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Directions: general]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 12, leave out line 7 and insert —
("(3) Anything clone by a person in pursuance of directions is to").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 122 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 123. These are drafting amendments designed to make clear the intention of Clause 22(3); that is, that anything done in pursuance of conditions set out in directions is, for the purpose of the Act, to be treated as if done in pursuance of a licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("authorised to do so by virtue") and insert ("done in pursuance").
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Directions as to particular meetings]:
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert —
("(1A) Directions may authorise that records maintained in pursuance of a licence may be transferred by the person responsible to the Authority for safe keeping after the expiry of ten years since their creation or of such longer period and with such conditions as may be specified by the Authority.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment, to attempt to clarify the position of the records which are mentioned in the Bill. I think I can guarantee that this amendment will not raise the blood pressure of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips.
In the Bill the records are described in Clause 13(2). Those are the records which will have to be kept by the licence holder. They are fairly detailed records. It appears under Clause 29(1) that the central authority also has to hold most of those records, although not the most detailed records which are mentioned in Clause 13(2)(e). This amendment might seem to be rather weak as I have used the word "may". However, the intention is to give the approval of Parliament to a specific minimum number of years as regards keeping records.
Clause 23(2) states that:
"Directions may authorise any person…".
As I said, I wish to clarify the matter of keeping records. My intention is to ensure that no unduly onerous or impractical conditions are laid upon licence holders and clinics. Attention is drawn to this possible problem by the mention in Clause 23(1) of a period of 50 years. That subsection requires certain records to be kept for 50 years. A possible solution is suggested by the wording in Clause 23(5)(a). The word "may" occurs again here. In the event of a licence being discontinued directions may:
"require anything kept or information held in pursuance of the old licence to be transferred to the Authority or any other person".
That suggests a possible procedure for successfully relieving licence holders of the need to keep records for long periods after those records have effectively become dormant. The provision may ensure safer conditions for the preservation of records against fire, flood or some computer mishap. Obviously, some clinics may prefer to hold on to all their past records, but for those for whom this would be an onerous requirement over a long period the stipulation of a minimum period of 10 years seems to be reasonable. After that period, under this amendment, detailed records could be transferred to the authority. It also happens, by coincidence, that the period of 10 years is the period stipulated in Clause 14(2) as the maximum period for storing gametes.
I mentioned the period of 50 years appearing in Clause 23(1). That relates only to records where it appears that no child resulted from treatment.That period of 50 years is not unreasonable if it is intended to cover a case where directly after the treatment, the outcome of which is unknown, a woman may disappear without trace, for example to Australia. It may be reasonable and useful for her or her child to know that records are being kept for 50 years. However, what is not quite so reasonable or even useful is for there to be a requirement that the individual clinic should have to keep those records. It would be much more sensible not only for those seeking information about past treatment to be able to find it centrally through the register, but also, for the reasons I have given, to allow clinics, if they wish, to be able to transfer their records after the period of 10 years to the central authority.
As I said at the beginning, the wording of this amendment may seem to be rather weak and at the end of the day it still leaves the final decision to the authority, but what it achieves in the same spirit as other parts of the clause is to tell the authority that Parliament has considered this matter and that it thinks 10 years is a reasonable minimum period of time in this context. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that the amendment is unnecessary since the information to which the noble Viscount referred is already held by the authority. The noble Viscount himself pointed out that the provisions of Clause 13(2) and Clause 14(1) require, as a condition of all licences, that all necessary information is recorded. In addition, under Clause 29, that information must be provided to the authority. Since the authority will already

1299
hold the information it requires the effect of the amendment would be to place an unnecessary burden upon the authority if it were to receive in addition the physical records kept in pursuance of a licence. Clause 13(4) specifies that there is no limit to the length of time that may be specified for keeping the information held by the authority.
For those reasons the Government oppose the amendment. I trust that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw it.
Viscount Craigavon: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee further. The Minister's explanation is useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 12, line 35, at end insert—
("Provided that —

(a) any person receiving gametes or embryos from outside the United Kingdom shall be required to obtain with the gametes or embryos such information and consent as would have been required if the gametes or embryos had been obtained in the United Kingdom under a licence from the Authority, and

(b) any person exporting gametes or embryos shall satisfy the Authority that the gametes or embryos shall be held under the same terms, conditions and restrictions (including restrictions on use and conditions for destruction) as would have applied thereto under this Act but for such exportation.").

The noble Baroness said: The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, cannot be present this evening for family reasons. He sends his apologies to the Committee. He joins me in supporting all the amendments in both our names. Regrettably I have not been able to discuss with the noble Lord the arguments that he would have deployed before the Committee. Therefore, I retain sole responsibility for the arguments that I put forward in support of this amendment and other amendments in our joint names.
Amendment No. 125 concerns an important aspect of the storage, keeping and other treatment of gametes and embryos which have not yet been covered by this Bill; namely, the possibility of their being exported to other countries where different legislation or no legislation applies. It also concerns the importing of embryos and gametes from other countries. We should like to see the same legislation applied to gametes and embryos coming into the country as covers those already in the country.
As Members of the Committee who are concerned with farming will know, there are already very strict health certification and licensing regulations concerning the export and import of, for example semen of bulls and embryos of cattle and other animals. We suggest that some form of corresponding regulations should apply to human gametes and embryos.
Regrettably, it is not impossible that in the future there may be the question of the sale of and trade in embryos and gametes. That may be carried out perfectly respectably and honourably with those countries undertaking embryo research but which
1300
do not have sufficient embryos. In this country there may not be sufficient embryos and there may be a demand for more. If that should happen I believe that such transfer of embryos from one country to another should be very carefully regulated, as in the case of animals. In that case gametes and embryos when first imported to this country go to an artificial insemination centre where they are recorded and tested before being sent to individual farms.
I hope that with that short explanation the Government will give their opinion and see fit either to accept the amendment or, if they cannot accept it in this form, to consider the implications behind the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: Am I alone in thinking "yuk" at the idea of trade in gametes and embryos? It is repellent and I am not sure that it should be allowed at all under any regulations.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment is concerned with the export and import of gametes or embryos. Trade is rather a different matter and I believe that the noble Earl's graphically expressed attitude to that will be widely shared.
On this particular matter the situation is that the Bill as drafted provides in Clause 23(2):
"Directions may authorise any person to whom a licence applies to receive gametes or embryos from outside the United Kingdom or to send gametes or embryos outside the United Kingdom in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions".
The intention is that that will be very closely controlled by the authority. The subsection continues:
"directions made by virtue of this subsection may provide for sections 12 to 14 of this Act to have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the directions".
The necessary framework exists. It is therefore a matter that we have addressed.
The subsection as drafted recognises two difficulties. First, there need to be strict controls so that the United Kingdom legislation which is the subject of the Bill cannot be circumvented by imports from abroad. Secondly, it makes no sense to attempt to legislate on what happens in foreign countries.
It is not anticipated that such movements of gametes and embryos will be at all commonplace, but it is important that we are able to deal with any that take place properly and reasonably. That is why the Bill proposes to enable the authority to give directions which will make it possible to attach particular condtiions to such movements. The precise conditions to be attached will depend to a great extent on the subject matter.
The clause as presently drafted provides for the authority to be able to impose by directions the very conditions which the amendment proposes. However, it is the Government's view that by seeking to incorporate those conditions into the body of the legislation the amendment would impose inflexibility and create considerable practical difficulties. The authority will recognise that not all the standards imposed by proposed licence

1301
conditions set out in the Bill will apply when gametes or embryos are exported for use in another country. It will also recognise and take full account of the possibility that high standards may not have applied in the countries from which it is proposed to import gametes or embryos. In either case it is hardly possible to lay down in United Kingdom legislation what shall happen in another sovereign jurisdiction.
We therefore consider that it makes more sense for the authority to treat such cases on their merits and impose on the import on the one hand or the export on the other the conditions that seem appropriate, taking into account the situation in the particular country at the time, the purpose for which the import or export is sought and any other factors which seem relevant.
Perhaps I may add in relation to what the noble Baroness has proposed that the authority would not only need to have the information required in this country, where there would be a supervised regime, but it would need to have effective methods of ensuring that the information it received was correct. Therefore the controls that would be required on import and export would have to be very closely geared to the circumstances. We are therefore catering for the very concerns that my noble friend has expressed but in a way that gives the authority very full discretion as to the precise method by which that result would be achieved.
I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment in the light of that explanation.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in relation to the remark of the noble Earl can he confirm that gametes and embryos would not be exported or imported for gain but that that is merely a phrase and the exchange would be between medical authorities?
The Lord Chancellor: The words "import" and "export" are used with what I believe is the correct meaning; namely, carried out of the country or carried in. Import means carried in and export means carried out. If those gametes or embryos are to be carried into the country, it is essential that proper protection is afforded because that could be an extremely delicate and dangerous matter, as I am sure all noble Lords appreciate. Similarly, for us to allow embryos to go out would offend most people unless we were satisfied that they would be used in the same way as noble Lords have in mind might be allowed here. However, the precise terms in which that provision should be expressed would relate closely to the situation. For example, it might be appropriate that a person should continue to be responsible for the embryo until an operation was carried out. A much more specific provision would be required than would be appropriate in the case of an ordinary licence which, in a licensed institution, was to run for some time in this country.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. Perhaps he will be kind enough to consider this point. My amendment refers to
"any person receiving gametes or embryos".
1302
Clause 23(2) states:
"Directions may authorise any person to whom a licence applies".
Would the phrase
"any person to whom a licence applies"
also cover employees working within the framework under a person to whom a licence has been given and —the point raised by my noble and learned friend —an individual woman residing outside the United Kingdom who wished to take embryos with her to continue the treatment? That point is perhaps not completely covered by Clause 23(2), although I accept my noble and learned friend's general explanation. Rather than take up the time of the Committee, perhaps he would be willing to agree to consider that point. I should then withdraw my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Before my noble friend sits down, it may be worth giving what I think is the answer; namely, that no person shall keep or use an embryo except in pursuance of a licence. That is the basic doctrine for this country. The only way in which a person could, therefore, lawfully either import or export an embryo or gamete would be under licence. That covers the point but, naturally, I shall be happy to consider it further.
Baroness Elles: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Procedure for approval of code]:
[Amendment No. 125A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 125ZA:
Page 14, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert —
("(4) If the Secretary of State does not approve a draft, he shall give reasons to the Authority.
(4A) If the Secretary of State approves a draft, he shall lay it before Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(4B) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (4A) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(4C) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (4B) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the code has been passed by either House of Parliament, the draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(4D) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (4A) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lady said: The object of the amendment is to ensure that the draft code of practice which the

1303
licensing authority will issue to the licensees can be amended as well as approved not only by the Secretary of State, but by both Houses of Parliament.
Although I was naturally sorry that the Committee did not agree with me over the question of the provision of AID to unmarried women, reports in the press that I intend to raise the matter again on Report are quite unfounded. Apart from anything else, it is against the rules of the House to do so. I took great comfort from the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at cols. 800 and 801 of Hansard of 6th February, about the emphasis that the code of practice would put on the welfare situation of any child to be born as a result of the treatments. I hope that I shall have the opportunity of reading the code when it has been drafted, and I have great confidence that it will be satisfactory.
However, governments and Secretaries of State change. Perhaps noble Lords will consider that in a matter of such importance —and it is a matter of great importance as it will give directions on the conduct of licensees in many other areas besides the welfare of children —Parliament should have a chance to amend, as well as approve, the code, both when it is first drafted and later on, should changes be made to it in the future. There is a precedent for that practice in Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Perhaps I may also suggest that whoever drafts the code should have his attention drawn to the recommendations of R. Snowden and G. Mitchell of the Institute of Population Studies at Exeter University, in Chapter 9 of their book Artificial Reproduction, a Social Investigation. They emphasise the importance of counselling and the greatest care as to the suitability of prospective parents as parents. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment, which ensures that the spirit of the amendment which the noble Lady moved and lost shall nonetheless receive due consideration when the regulations or code are drafted. It is an important point on which the Committee was narrowly divided. It is a matter which noble Lords may well think is best left to the code rather than to primary legislation. The status of the code is made clear in Clause 24(4). It is advisory and it does not constitute secondary legislation. The Committee is therefore in no way inhibited in praying against secondary legislation and the provisions of subsection 4(c) of the amendment in that regard are apt. I support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: Without saying a word for or against the amendment, as the noble Lady who moved it referred to the Mental Health Act, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who raised the issue a few weeks ago, knows, perhaps we may put on record the fact that it took from 1983 to 1990 to produce a satisfactory code of practice which was then debated and approved by both Houses. I hope that it will not take seven years for the operation to be completed. It should be said —and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm
1304
this —that there will be some encouragement that the process will be completed rather more speedily. Noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber, whichever position they take, want to see effective codes of practice. The sooner that they can be presented in a way that we can understand and debate them, the better.
The Lord Chancellor: First, I entirely agree that the code should be produced as rapidly as possible consistent with the subject matter with which it deals. Secondly, when I replied to the earlier amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to which she referred, I had in mind the possibility that statutory guidance —not just in the code, but a statutory provision dealing with the matter that she raised on the lines that I suggested —might go into primary legislation and control the code to some extent in that way. I am still considering whether I can bring forward such a proposal on Report, having regard to what happened to her amendment.
Clause 25 deals with the procedure which we have set out for the approval of the code. The Secretary of State would require to approve the draft. If he did not approve it, he must deal with the matter by requiring a further draft. The consultation must be wide, as subsection (3) requires. Subsection (4) is also important. It states:
"If the Secretary of State approves a draft, he shall lay it before Parliament and, if he does not approve it, he shall give reasons to the Authority."
Subsection (5) states:
"A draft approved by the Secretary of State shall come into force in accordance with directions."
The idea is that Parliament should see the code, but that the code should come into force immediately. If Parliament did not care for the code, that point could be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State responsible to Parliament and the result would be reconsideration of the code.
As the Committee knows, the purpose of the code will be to give guidance to licence holders and persons who apply for licences from the authority on matters such as counselling arrangements, to which the noble Lady referred, and which are extremely important in this area, procedures for obtaining consent, and qualifications and experience of staff—such as the matters that we dealt with earlier in answer to the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. The code will be drawn up by the authority and will have the benefit of the authority's own expertise and that of any persons or groups whom they may wish to consult. I have already mentioned the detailed specialist experience that the authority will have across a number of different fields. I believe that it will be more than qualified to draw up a code of practice to be followed by licence holders and applicants for licences.
A code of practice is not intended to be unchanging. It is expected to reflect the wisdom of the day concerning those issues that it covers. As the Committee is aware, the field of human fertilisation and embryology is still relatively new and we can expect further advances to be made. It would be unwise if we required each new draft of the code not only to be approved by the Secretary of State who

1305
is accountable to Parliament but also to be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before it could come into force. One would then have the difficulty of being able to take action by means of the code to deal with some new development which might well require practice directions to be given in respect of it.
In effect, we should be requiring the code to go through an elaborate two-stage process of approval before it could be brought into effect or any change at all could be made in it. I cannot believe that the affirmative resolution procedure, which is normally reserved for regulations which make significant alterations in the effect of principal legislation, is appropriate for a code of practice which does not carry the status of a statutory instrument.
I believe that this procedure takes as a model that set out in Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983. That provision required the Secretary of State to draw up a code of practice and lay it before Parliament on the same basis as these amendments propose for the code of practice to be prepared by the Human Fertilisation and Embroyology Authority. There are important differences between the Mental Health Act code and the one provided for in Clause 25. First, the Mental Health Act code is to be prepared by the Secretary of State and his department rather than a statutory body which, as I indicated in earlier debates about the role and functions of the new authority, is intended to be independent in its day-to-day operations of government.
Secondly, the Mental Health Act code deals with matters such as professional guidance and the admission to hospital of patients suffering from mental disorders and professional guidance about medical treatments which may be appropriate for such patients. Those matters include serious issues affecting that vulnerable group of patients, such as the detention under the powers provided in the mental health legislation. I do not therefore think that there is a direct analogy between the requirements in the Mental Health Act code and the matters to be dealt with in this new code with which we are now dealing.
Clearly in that situation Parliament felt it right to impose very careful safeguards in a code being prepared by central government themselves which, among other things, dealt with restricting the liberty of patients who, in the nature of their illnesses, were not in a position to defend themselves. The position with the code of practice in this Bill is altogether different. I believe that it would not be right to look to that as an appropriate model. As I said earlier, we shall look carefully at the issues raised in our debates in Committee to see whether some statutory directions in relation to the code are appropriate. I mentioned one in particular.
The code will not set out regulations but will give guidance which licence holders will be expected to follow. That guidance can be expected to change with advances in the field. Surely it would be inappropriate to make too cumbersome a procedure necessary to make an effective change in the code.
1306
I hope that the noble Lady will feel that we give effect to her concerns but that the way in which that is done in the basis of this legislation is appropriate for this particular code.
6.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that very helpful explanation and for his remarks about the possibility of guidance on certain matters in secondary legislation. On that account I shall withdraw this amendment. But before I do so perhaps the noble and learned Lord could possibly arrange that when the draft code has been prepared a copy of it is placed in the Library.
The Lord Chancellor: I see no difficulty in that. The authority will be consulting quite widely on the code and I should expect it to be very easy for noble Lords to have sight of it at that stage.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has just said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No.125B not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Meaning of "mother"]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 14, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) Where a woman is to be treated as the mother of a child by virtue of subsection (1) above, the prescribed particulars concerning the birth of the child required by the law governing the registration of births shall include an indication that the woman registered as the mother is so registered by virtue of this subsection..")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 129, 133, 135, 137 and 144. In previous discussions I mentioned that certain matters were applicable to all these amendments but my general introduction to this group of amendments is based on my genealogical interests. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will be discussing primarily the very important consequences to the family.
At the outset perhaps I may say how much I have appreciated the interest shown by the British agencies for adoption and fostering. Genealogy may still convey to many people an image of some body of people once called the upper classes who can trace their descent from ancestors who came over with William the Conqueror. However, even if that image was ever a fair one it has ceased to be so over the past 25 years. Since the 1960s the study of genealogy and family history has grown dramatically among people of all social origins who are interested in understanding the life and surroundings of their recent ancestors, many of whom would be termed as of humble status.
It has been estimated that in England alone 70,000 people are currently interested in tracing their

1307
ancestry and belonging to a family history society. More than 2,000 visitors a day use the records of the General Register Office and many are family historians. Drover's Dictionary of Psychology, 1953 edition, defines genealogy as:
"the investigation of the genetics of the ancestral descent of an individual".
One can therefore continue to say that the importance of genealogy in medical research, expecially research into the inheritance of genetic defects, grows every year as more and more illnesses, from colour blindness to fatal conditions, are found to be of an inherited nature.
Genealogists are very concerned that the Family Law Reform Act 1987 should have thrown into doubt the birth certificate and thus the genetic record of every child registered in England and Wales. As it stands this Bill does nothing to correct that matter. It is unfortunate that the Bill now drafted had to include this matter as it was discussed specifically by the Warnock Committee. For various reasons I personally declined to come into the discussion until we had this Bill before us.
The present Bill allows for the birth of a child following AID or as a result of any one of many modern techniques to be registered as if that child were a normal legitimate child. That is so not only where the legal father is not the genetic father or the legal mother is not the genetic mother but also where neither the legal father nor the legal mother is the genetic parent of the child. It is the view of genealogists and others that the birth certificate of such a child should indicate in some way the fact that it is not the genetic child of its legal parents. It should be done in a discreet manner. The amendment suggests that it would only be meaningful to informed people. However, we might mention that there is nothing discreet about the birth certificate of an illegitimate or adopted child. The facts are there for everyone to see. We believe that the facts should be indicated in those cases as well.
I visited a gynaecological clinic and spoke to an eminent professor who has been quoted and whose name I shall not mention. I put this point to him, and his feelings were that there should be no secrecy.
If we do not do anything to mark the certificates we are in effect abandoning any real claim that our birth certificates and birth registers show genetic relationships. In the past it was always an offence knowingly and wilfully to give wrong information to a registrar. It is one thing for an individual to give false information and to risk prosecution but quite another for a government to create a legal fiction. We believe that every adult has the fundamental right to information about his or her genetic parents. We also believe that this right is more important than the desires of genetic parents to keep the information secret.
As a genealogist one tends to see this problem from the point of view of the child. It is a point of view which has often been overlooked. One can obtain the consent of all the people concerned but one canot obtain the consent of the person ultimately the most concerned: that is, the resultant child. The
1308
desire for confidentiality and privacy by the parents is a natural one, but as the Warnock Report says in paragraph 4.12, in deceiving family and friends one also deceives the child. We have to be cautious about situations in which the whole of family life is built on deceit; whether it is a deceit about which any two people know or the other relatives know, the child is unaware of it.
My noble friend Lady Saltoun will go much further into that area. As a genealogist one is struck by the number of people interested in tracing the origins of their parenthood, not of their more remote descent. It is adopted children who want to find their real genetic parents, illegitimate children who want to trace their fathers, or mothers of children given up for adoption who want to trace those children. Children are often in great distress and will go to enormous lengths to trace the real truth about their origins, however unsavory the facts may be and however well disguised they have been in the past.
Those who enter into the kind of arrangement included in this Bill will no doubt do so after much painful discussion and lengthy counselling. In that process their eyes must be open to the long-term consequences of what they are doing and to the rights of the child they are creating. The donor must also realise the effect of what he is doing and realise that in later years he may be confronted with the children for whom he is genetically responsible. He should realise that he must be able with a clear conscience to explain these things to his own wife and children.
Here I shall depart from my brief because in general discussions there has been talk about donors being medical students. I have been told that they are not of an age to be generally suitable. We hope that the authority will look into this area most carefully. One believes that the best donors would be those in the mid to late thirties or early forties who have had their own family and who wish to provide others. It is a very serious matter. I believe there have already been consequences of donors wondering whether there are children of theirs around, and those donors have been in a rather upset condition.
Above all, however, problematic this may be, the children must be brought up in the knowledge that the circumstances and facts of their birth must be recorded for future generations, and the certificate must be marked in some way. The whole situation of births is clarified in the amendments we are proposing.
With regard to Clause 26, from the genetic and genealogical points of view we come to the crux of the amendments in Amendment No. 126. This amendment provides for marking of the birth certificate to identify the status of the mother. Until the advent of embryo transplantation any woman giving birth to a child was that child's genetic mother. The identity of the genetic mother, unlike the genetic father, was never in doubt and the birth certificate, except in cases of gross fraud, was a true record of the child's genetic mother. Adopted children's birth certificates on re-registration after adoption always made it clear that the child was adopted and not the genetic child.
Now an embryo deriving from an egg donated by one woman can be implanted in the womb of another woman, and a woman giving birth to a child is no longer necessarily the genetic mother of that child. This amendment seeks to mark the birth certificate of a child born as a result of such transplantation to show that he or she is not or may not be the genetic child of the woman described on the certificate as his or her mother. If the Bill is not amended, the accuracy of any birth certificate as a true record of a person's genetic mother will be suspect. As the genetic record of maternal descent the registration of birth will have been destroyed. Destruction of the record is an awesome responsibility.
I should also make it clear at once that the amendment is not intended to affect the legal status of the woman described on the certificate as mother. It retains her position for all purposes except those of Clause 28(3) and for other purposes which may be introduced if other amendments to this Bill are carried. It is right and proper that the woman who has become a mother by virtue of Clause 26 should be just as much a mother as one who, by adopting a child as with an adoption, lets the fact be mentioned on the certificate.
The amendment requires that the birth certificate of the child be annotated, as I have mentioned, in the most discreet manner. Against the mother's name on the certificate would appear the simple note that she was the mother by virtue of Clause 26(3) of the Bill. Such a notation would indicate to an informed person that the mother on the birth certificate was not the mother of the child. If the child does not wish it to be generally known, he or she can use the short form of the birth certificate which omits details of parentage altogether. That was a most satisfactory procedure brought in just after the last war.
I come now to the next and last amendment in the group which deals with the father—Amendment No. 129 to Clause 27 which follows the previous one in marking on the child's birth certificate the true status of the father. Instances in which the mother has her status by virtue of Clause 26 will always lead to the husband having status by virtue of Clause 27. The only exception is where the embryo is derived from the sperm of the legal mother's husband but the egg is that of another woman. However, the reverse is not true. Artificial insemination as mentioned in subsection (1) of Clause 27 affects the status of the father and not that of the mother.
What I have said about the previous amendments applies here. Every child has an undeniable right to know the truth about its genetic parents. The information about the father does not allow the brothers, sisters or other close relatives of the child to make inquiries. Because of such full information which is available to the child at the age of 18, there is no need for the existence of subsection (b) about the child's intended marriage partner.
I hope I have explained these amendments clearly and succinctly. In regard to what was discussed on previous amendments, if Members of the Committee had feelings that they should not move an inch, I hope they will listen to this argument. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely support all that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said about the marking of birth certificates of the donor children from the point of view of their descendants who may wish to trace their ancestry. The need to know one's roots is a very fundamental one, and it is a question of a person's sense of identity, a lack of which could even lead to mental instability.
Long ago, before the age of the train and the steamship, most people spent their whole lives in the same part of the country and they as well as their neighbours knew exactly who they were. Then there was the family bible in which all births, deaths and marriages were recorded. Nowadays it is probably rare to spend one's whole life in the same district. There are Britons scattered over the whole world, and Scots especially, who come over here desperate to discover from where their forebears who emigrated came and how they fit into the family. If there is no differentiating mark on the birth certificates of donor children in future they will never in their researches know that any person is not a donor child; and neither will any donor child ever know for certain that he or she is not a donor child unless he happens to have asked his parents in their lifetime or they have told him that he was or was not.
I do not think it necessary that the short birth certificate should be marked, but the long one and the entry in the register should record the fact that the child was born by donation. To put nothing in the register or on the birth certificate may or may not be telling a lie with regard to the identity of the legal father, but it can only be described as being exceedingly economical with the truth about the actual parentage of the child.
There is another reason why it is essential for the birth certificate to be marked, and for that reason it is necessary that the words "by donation" appear on the certificate. It is important to put all possible pressure on the parents of the donor child to tell him that he is a donor child so that he does not accidentally discover the fact later. There have been cases where donor children have discovered that fact and it has been a traumatic experience for them as it has been for adopted children. It is not something that should be risked, and attempts at secrecy will carry that risk. The parents may quarrel over the child and let the secret out, or someone may tell a third party in confidence and that confidence may be broken. It is now accepted that adopted children should be told that they are adopted while they are still young, so that they can grow up with the knowledge. The same should surely apply to donor children. It is more difficult to tell a young child, but there are ways of doing it, and it has been done.
If the birth certificate is marked, the parents will be under greater pressure to tell the child than if it is not. Snowden and Mitchell of the Institute of Population Studies at the University of Exeter in their book Artificial Reproduction, A Social Investigation which I mentioned earlier, maintained that where children are told when they are young they accept the fact happily. They stress the great importance of counselling.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Amendment No. 137 is grouped with the amendments that we are discussing, and so it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak to it now. In doing so, I am conscious that some fairly heavy 16-inch shells have been winging my way from the Government Front Bench as we have gone along this afternoon. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that by including the words "by donation" on the birth certificate children created through gamete donation would know the nature of their conception. That will enable them, if they so wish, to invoke the provisions of Clause 29 to discover at the appropriate time further information about their genetic parentage.
In line with the Family Law Reform Act 1987, the Bill would make it legally permissible to put inaccurate information on the birth certificate. The birth certificate would then show that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the birth and what led up to it, when in fact that was not the case. Although Clause 29 contains provisions to enable children to find out information about their parents, a child cannot seek such information unless it knows the method of its creation. Since we have no guarantee that the parents will tell their children —indeed, there may be some pressure not to tell them —the only way to ensure that the children know is to indicate on the birth certificate that there is something to find out. I suggest that the words "by donation" would do that. The children will then be able to seek further information and avoid all the unwitting problems of incest or potential hereditary disease.
I should think that in our time most of us have been asked by our doctor whether a particular disease had appeared in previous generations of our family. Perhaps I may emphasise that the provisions contained in Clause 29 are all very well, but they are not worth putting on paper if children do not know that there is a question to be asked.
When this place discussed the Family Law Reform Bill 1987, it was rightly pointed out that AID clinics encourage partners to maintain normal sexual relations while receiving treatment. It is therefore possible for children to be created naturally while AID treatment is being received. That problem would be avoided if the partners submitting to AID treatment agreed to a blood test for the child. That could be a condition of treatment. It would be sad if confidence in public records were undermined by Parliament ordaining that inaccurate information could legally be put on such records. Furthermore, it is wrong to put difficulties in the way of children to prevent them obtaining information about their creation which, by any standard, they are entitled to have.
The Earl of Lauderdale: We alluded to this subject earlier this afternoon. My noble and learned friend pointed out that existing birth certificates sometimes give information which is not historically accurate. Parents may conceal the fact that the father was someone else. That is sometimes innocently done. It might happen that a father does not know that
1312
he is not the father of the child. I remember a conversation with a Member of this place some years ago in which it was said that "We never know".
According to my noble and learned friend's earlier intervention, it is suggested that there should be no indication that such a procedure has been gone through. While one respects the need for privacy, something that we all agree is important, that need must be reconciled with the integrity of the records. If the records are going to be inaccurate that will be serious. It is difficult to believe that Parliament and my noble and learned friend would want anything to be done which would lead to official records being inaccurate. I beg my noble and learned friend to look at the matter sympathetically. It may not be necessary to have some indication on the birth certificate. The point could be covered in some other way. We must ensure that the integrity of the record is respected as well as the privacy of those concerned.
Lord Renton: The main principle should surely be, although there may be exceptions, that every birth certificate should contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are circumstances in which the truth with regard to the father's name is not always ascertainable. That is an exception into which we need not go. Another exception is made by Clause 26(1). For reasons which have already been given, I find it unsatisfacotry that we should create an exception in such wide terms as that subsection does.
I favour something along the lines of Amendments Nos. 126 and 129, which go together, or Amendment No. 137 which is an alternative as I see it. It would not be sensible to have all three amendments written into the Bill. They are consequential. I prefer Amendments Nos. 126 and 129 because Amendment No. 137 merely includes the words "by donation". I do not believe that that is specific enough in relation to the supposed mother or the supposed father.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will realise that this matter is important. It of course affects descent by blood and various things of which some families are proud. It is surely also important for medical reasons. There are times when the doctor needs to know whether an inherited characteristic has been transmitted. It may be essential to treatment to know. I greatly look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend will say because this is a matter which the Bill does not yet have right. It is something which, with the Committee's help, can somehow be rectified.
7 p.m.
Lord Ennals: It had not been my intention to rise before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because it is my earnest hope that he will discourage the acceptance of the amendments to the same extent as his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham did when dealing with similar amendments to the Family Law Reform Bill 1987. However, I have been a little disturbed by the trend of the debate so far and I wanted it to be known that there are at least some who are very strongly opposed to the amendments put forward and the concepts

1313
behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, proceeding with his arguments, the more he proceeded the more I became opposed to the case he was seeking to make. For his sake I was glad he did not proceed further; otherwise I might have leapt to my feet rather than try, as I am trying now, to be as reasonable as I can.
I believe that the direction in which these amendments take us is unfortunate and undesirable. The most important fact is that the child who will result from an embryo implant comes from the mother's womb and in that sense is the product of the mother. There are of course all sorts of questions as to whose sperm it was which fertilised the embryo and created the child. Those are all questions that arise, along with others, in the records that exist at the moment. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was reminding us of the situation, although perhaps he did not do it as specifically as the noble Baroness did when she was replying to an earlier amendment. I think she said that on the registration forms one in 20 of the fathers listed were not the fathers of the children appearing on the birth registration form.
I want to know why we should do all this. I believe that we are storing up, not for ourselves but for the children who result from the birth, a degree of trouble. A mother gives birth to a child, and that child has a life from that moment. I think that we are creating problems if we, as it were, encourage this rather macabre research into whose sperm it was.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Surely the medical argument is important. We have all been examined by a doctor at some time or other and the question has been asked: "Is there any madness in your family?" I have been asked that question many times. There is plenty now! Medical treatment may require knowledge of antecedents and if those antecedents are not known or are wrongly stated the treatment can be wrong as well. So from he child's point of view or that of the grandchild, surely the medical case is a very important one.
Lord Ennals: When we come to legislate we always have to balance one argument against another and of course the medical argument is one of them. I believe that the social argument against doing this is very much more powerful. It is not for us as legislators to tell parents what they should tell their children. I believe it is for parents to decide what they should tell their children. In many cases at a certain stage a mother may say to the child, "I want you to know the circumstances and how it was that mummy and daddy just were not able to produce you without a little bit of help from elsewhere". The parents might feel they wanted to tell the child that but I do not think they would ever want to add, "And Mr. So-and-So was the man from whom we managed to get the little bit of sperm that did the trick".
I do not believe that that is the right way for parents to behave; or perhaps what I really mean is that I do not think this is the right way for us as
1314
legislators to behave. It is most important that parents should have the responsibility for their children, with all the counselling and the social work backing that we can provide; but for us as legislators to decide to write on a child's birth certificate the words "by donation" to distinguish them from every other child is wrong. We do not now write the word "illegitimate" on a birth certificate concerning a child who is not born within marriage.
I see the noble Lord wishes to interrupt but may I just finish this and then I will sit down. I hope we shall not go down this line. I think that for elderly legislators to tell parents how they should look after the social problems involved with their children is not right.
Lord Teviot: The noble Lord talks about "illegitimate". The word is not used, but in the long birth certificate at the moment if the child is illegitimate a line is drawn straight across the space in column five referring to "father".
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I feel very strongly about this. Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, seems to be on the wrong foot. He gives great credit to the mother—and of course it is the mothers who give birth to the children —but he does not seem to think that the fathers matter at all. But very often they matter to the children as much as the mothers.
What is paramount is that children must be told the truth and they must be seen to know the truth if they want to. It is not likely that a child will want to see its birth certificate before perhaps the age of 14 or 15, and it would be able to do that at the age of 18, as is the case with children who are adopted. On that birth certificate the truth should be stated, the space should not be left blank. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, it can lead to terrible psychological problems if at the age of 18 or so you discover that nobody knows who your father is or where you came from. I believe the truth must be put on the birth certificate and must be told to the child as and when the child wants to know.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would take into consideration the case of a disease such as Huntington's chorea. Would it not be of the most considerable assistance and relief to the child to know that that particular disease, which he knows to be a horrible one, will not have been transmitted to him or her because it was all done by donation? The child would be able to prove to the family that he or she was not a carrier.
Lord Ennals: If I may just respond to that point immediately and then sit down, these are matters for decision by parents. That is the argument I am putting forward. I am not saying that children should never know, but I do not think it is for legislators to decide what children should know in these very intimate matters.
Viscount Craigavon: May I briefly follow up the line taken by the noble Earl and quote exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at Second

1315
Reading (at col. 1112) on 7th December 1989. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to this. She said:
"But perhaps we should remember in this context that the clinical geneticists tell us that about one in 20 of the population today have a father other than the one named in the birth certificate".
At that point the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, interrupted her and said he thought that was a myth. I should be interested to know whether he has had any further thoughts about that. It is a very interesting statistic. The noble Lord gave an impression of all these people interested in genealogy burrowing away in the records. I am not sure how they would take into account the fact that that might be the case. I find when discussing this very interesting statistic with others that women are very much more prepared to believe it than men. Perhaps we should not forget the words Oscar Wilde put into the mouth of one of his characters:
"You should study the Peerage, Gerald … It is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done".
Lord Redesdale: When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was saying that it was for the parents to decide, I think he meant it with the best possible heart. However, having had some knowledge of foster children and adoption, these children desperately need to know who their parents were down the line. I do not see why children born in this way should not have the same right of finding out. They need to know, and it will cause problems. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod said. I can assure the noble Lord that when the children come to the point of wanting to know, they desperately want to know.
Lord Ennals: Will the noble Lord recognise that there is a difference between adopted children and those born from their mother's womb? He shakes his head, but of course there is. The adopted child arrives in the family at a certain age, having been born elsewhere. Some have recollections of their early life. In this case we have children who were born from the womb of the person they know to be their mother and with a known father. These are not comparable situations.
Lord Redesdale: Although the mothers have given birth naturally without knowing the identity of the fathers, the children still desperately need to know.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There is one other instance in which a person badly needs to know at least whose son or daughter he or she is not. It is in applying for life insurance. One is then asked what one's mother and father died of. Therefore, it is just as well to know who one's father was not.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I briefly endorse the distinction which should be made between adoption and what is provided for in this legislation. They are not on all fours. The kindly laws of legitimacy should continue to be followed. They provide for the presumption of legitimacy of any child born to the wife of a marriage. That is a kindly and wise law of long standing and it should be preserved. By analogy, this Bill should follow that line.
1316
Secondly, the legitimacy of any child by a subsequent marriage of his or her parents is provided for by the law. Again, that is a kindly provision. We should continue to honour it when considering this legislation and not label children on their birth certificates with marks which could prove to be extremely distressing.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am certain that in such matters we should be guided by the truth. It is wrong to pretend by failing to tell the children. The truth will out; truth has the mastery.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The White Paper which we published in November 1987 made it clear that in the Government's view all adults over 18 should have a legal right to find out whether they were born as a result of sperm, egg or embryo donation and that those who were should be given right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor or donors of the genetic material; for example, about their medical or genetic history. This is reflected in Clause 29. The point about medical records is dealt with absolutely. I can do no better than remind the Committee of the reason which the Government had when indicating that this was their policy in paragraph 83 of the White Paper:
"While the Government has much sympathy with the view that children born following donation should be able to seek out their genetic parents if they wish to, it also recognises the differences between adoption and donation. Its present view is that all adults over the age of 18 should have legal right to find out whether they were born following gamete or embryo donation: and that those who were should have a right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor to be prescribed in regulations."
There is a balance to be struck here between the interests of children born through donation and others who may have an interest in tracing the genetic origins of such children and the importance of confidentiality of personal information. It is clear that many people believe that it is in the interests of children born following donation that they should be able to learn of that fact and, indeed, some think, also the identity of their genetic parents. If it were made a requirement that birth certificates should include the words "by donation" then, perhaps, it would be easier for children to trace their genetic origin. I realise that the Warnock Committee considered that it should be made possible, if the social parents so wanted, that birth certificates could indicate whether a birth has been by donation. However there was little support for the proposal for an optional "by donation" annotation of the birth register in the response to Warnock. That is not proposed in these amendments.
Certainly, it would alert a donation child looking at birth records to ask the authority for the information that he or she is entitled to under Clause 29. But it would also reveal to anyone seeing the certificate that the person had, or might have been, born following AID or IVF and that his or her parents had undergone treatment. This, I think, could be regarded as an invasion of the personal privacy of both the children concerned and their parents, as well as, possibly, a breach of confidence

1317
concerning the parents' personal medical information.
While I understand the argument made by the supporters of the amendment that it is important that the birth records contain truthful information about the actual circumstances of the birth, I believe that too much can be made of the argument. As I indicated in the earlier debate, in many cases where infertility treatment is not involved, the information about a child's father on the birth record may not reflect the true genetic position. That can arise for a number of reasons; for example, the mother may not know who the child's father is because she was having sexual intercourse with another man as well as her husband at the relevant time. After all, the birth register is a record and not a legal statement about the reality of who the child's father is. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that a doctor may ask what one's father died of. There is a chance that if one proceeds on the basis of what is shown on the birth certificate one may not give the correct answer. That is one of the problems.
In that connection, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, mentioned the figure of 5 per cent. I have had an opportunity to look at that matter more closely. It is misleading to believe that at present the information on a birth certificate necessarily contains the full facts about the birth of a child. Members of the Committee will remember the surprise which greeted the reply made by my noble friend Lady Hooper on Second Reading. She indicated that clinical geneticists tell us that about one in 20 of today's population has a father other than the one named on the birth certificate. "Wrong paternity", if I may describe it as such, is an important matter to such medical specialists because, for reasons that have been outlined, they must take account of it in their clinical practice.
I am not aware of any published research reports from which one can derive with certainty an estimate of the prevalence of this state of affairs. But, in an article published in Nature on 26th October 1989, mention was made of a figure of 10 per cent. I have discussed the question with Professor Marcus Pembery, Professor of Paediatric Genetics at the Institute of Child Health in London. From his experience, he believes that 10 per cent. may be a somewhat high estimate. In his view, research studies where wrong paternity is an incidental finding, and clinical experience of clinical geneticists up and down the country each of whom has a service covering a wide geographical area, point to a prevalence of at least 5 per cent.
The importance of the matter is stressed in at least one text book and it takes up the point that I made in relation to the comment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. An article written by Peter Harper, appearing on page 7 of Practical Genetic Counselling, 3rd edition, published in 1988, states:
"Illegitimacy must be borne in mind, especially in a puzzling situation. A family doctor or nurse may well, particularly in a small community, be able to clarify this possibility. Illegitimacy is not of course the problem, but mistaken paternity. New and definitive tests of paternity based on DNA will help to resolve those problems more easily, but may equally produce new difficulties by the more frequent detection of unsuspected non-paternity".
1318
A person investigating the incidence of a genetic disease may have genetic DNA records of more than one generation. It is possible for those who are skilled in the science to tell in some instances whether the genetic quality of a child is compatible with the parents. The result is that sometimes, quite incidentally and not as part of any deliberate study, that is apparent. Of course, if the treatment or diagnosis is based on the birth certificate, as is obvious, mistakes can be made. The science of genealogy, in so far as it rests on birth certificates, is not on completely secure foundations. Nevertheless, it is still an important subject.
The birth certificate as such is not necessarily a correct record of the situation. Of course, the birth certificate has always to be understood in the light of the existing law. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, referred to the kindly presumption of paternity, which exists, and has existed for many years, in respect of a child born in wedlock.
The important thing is to decide how this matter should be taken forward. I want to point out that Clause 29 provides for the policy which I indicated a moment ago. Clause 29(2) states:
"A person who has attained the age of eighteen … may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request under subsection (3) below, and the Authority shall do so"—
that is, shall give information about whether or not the parents of the child had those treatments—
"if the information contained in the register shows that the applicant was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services".
I need not remind the Committee that there may not be certainty in this matter depending on what else was happening at the same time as the treatment. Paragraph (b) states —and this is very important:
"the applicant has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of compliance with the request".
As has been pointed out, that may be a matter of crucial effect on the person asking for the information.
In this legislation we have a perfectly clear way in which a person who may think that he or she was born as a result of one of these treatments can require the authority, which shall have kept the necessary records, to indicate whether or not the parents who are shown on the certificate were involved in treatment of that kind. Therefore, the child can find out through records to which he has access. On the other hand, those records are not open to everyone and the public cannot find out that information. That matter of privacy is respected because the right to receive the information is fairly limited in terms of Clause 29, but the person himself can find that out.
The information given in Clause 29 does not go the full distance which some would like. It goes the distance which is required to indicate "by donation". That can be found out from those records. However, the identity of the genetic father is not indicated. The reason for that is, as I explained earlier, that this policy depends upon the view that the particular identity of the genetic father in an AID case requires to be protected for reasons of continued supply. That

1319
is a matter of general experience which this policy recognises. So far as the information is important for medical or genetic studies, all the information necessary is available in the records. Of course, the precise detail of the record will be settled by the authority.
In my submission to the Committee, the main aims sought by this amendment and the related amendment are achieved in a way which is more consistent with the privacy of the family arrangements and family life than the amendments themselves. They go as far as is reasonable in that respect. Of course, a genealogist would not be able to search the record, but a genealogist with the authority of an applicant —that is, with the authority of a child who wanted to know —would be able to obtain this information on the basis that the child was a qualified applicant who had been counselled before the information was sought.
I suggest to the Committee that most of the concerns —indeed, I hope, all the concerns —expressed are adequately catered for in an appropriate way by the provisions which we have made. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend Lord Teviot will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am not quite sure how a child, or indeed an adult if he has reached the age of 21, would know that he could apply to the authority or have any reason to do so if his mother had not told him that there was a donation.
The Lord Chancellor: If he was concerned about that, all he needs to do is to apply to the authority and that authority will tell him whether or not there are grounds for his fears. If a person is happy with his roots and does not wish to know anything more about them, then he can leave the matter as it is. However, if he wishes to find out, provided that he satisfies the condition of having been counselled, he need only apply to the authority which will be able to tell him whether or not his parents had been in receipt of treatment covered by the Bill at the appropriate time, although it cannot tell him exactly how he was born.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, does not everyone who writes to the authority have to receive counselling before an answer is given? Could that not mean a lot of counselling?
The Lord Chancellor: If Members of the Committee take the view, as I do, that it is an important matter to know what the likely effects will be, then I believe that that counselling is very well placed. I do not imagine that there will be a huge desire to resort to these applications. It may be that more people will have recourse to this process than may at first sight appear, although the total number affected by these procedures is likely to be rather small. Even so, the need for counselling is so important that it is right to make it a condition that a person should be counselled before he receives an answer to the query.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may say, if only for my own satisfaction, how deeply I agree with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. The world was not made for genealogists but was made for people. If you muck about with a birth certificate, you are labelling a child as a second class person.
The only legitimate point made by the supporters of the amendment has been the question of the potential desire of a child to know his origins. That point is met, as far as humanly possible, by Clause 29. I do not agree with them but I have always understood those who find that these practices are so inherently immoral that they should not be allowed at all. If anybody has studied the well known story of Oedipus, which I have seen re-enacted in real life more than once in some rather modified form, they will appreciate the catastrophic effects of labelling a child. They will also appreciate the high desirability of the long tradition of English law that there is a presumption of paternity in respect of a child who is born of a marriage and brought up as a child of the marriage. That is something which is based on humanity and not on the anfractuosities of the professional genealogist.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said with great interest. One point worries me. He said that if anyone was concerned about their origins they could apply under Clause 29. Putting "by donation" on the birth certificate is a pointer that someone should be concerned. There may be a less clumsy way of dealing with this problem than putting those words on a birth certificate, but if we do not have some pointer in view then the only solution is for everyone, when they reach the age of 18 —man or woman —to write to the authority and say, "Have you got anything for me?"
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: That is a solution for those who want to find out the information. The problem about putting anything on the birth certificate is, first, that it is public to everyone, whatever their interest or connection with the family. Secondly, if the Committee believe in counselling before this information is disclosed —which I hope and believe most Members of the Committee may do —if such information is put on the birth certificate the child may discover it completely by accident when he tries to get a copy of his birth certificate. He will not have any opportunity to have counselling; he will suddenly discover it. I believe this has happened in other circumstances, but this is a difficult problem. One of the disadvantages of putting this information on the birth certificate is that there cannot be an enforceable requirement for counselling before the information is disclosed.
Lord Teviot: This debate has been long and wide-ranging, but perhaps I may pick up one or two points. Coming back to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, integrity of records and accuracy are paramount. Also, I am glad my noble friend Lord Renton preferred my Amendments Nos. 126 and

1321
129 to Amendment No. 137. I will pick up the last point of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Not only the professional genealogist but also very much the British adoption, fostering and other family organisations feel the same as we do. This is not just something which will suit us.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke about the family consequences. My noble friend Lord Redesdale, with his great practical experience, whom I was delighted to hear, says that fathers need to know. All right, there is Clause 29, but that is not the easiest way round. As regards discovering that your birth certificate contains the words "by donation", it is important that the child should be told. I have seen people arrive at a general registry office for the first time and find their names not in the birth registers but in the adoption registers. That is horrifying. These things happen. It is important for everyone to know.
In view of the support one has had for these amendments, despite all that is going on, I believe that the Committee must decide. The truth should be paramount and I therefore press this amendment.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 126) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mersey, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Falmouth, V.

Peel, E.

Fortescue, E.

Phillips, B.

Halsbury, E.

Reading, M.

Harvington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hylton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Jakobovits, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Savile, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinfen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E.

Melville, V.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Airedale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigavon, V.

Alport, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Attlee, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Boardman, L.

Downshire, M.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brightman, L.

Ennals, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brookes, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Galpern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caithness, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hacking, L.

1322

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Molloy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mountevans, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Munster, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Nicol, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Northfield, L.

Henley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hives, L.

Onslow, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Orkney, E.

Hooper, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Parry, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rea, L.

Joseph, L.

Reay, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Lawrence, L.

Seebohm, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Shackleton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Stockton, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lothian, M.

Tranmire, L.

Lyell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Warnock, B.

Marshall of Goring, L.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Merrivale, L.

Mills, V.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.40 p.m.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: This may be a convenient moment to resume the House. In moving that the House be now resumed, I suggest that we reconvene the Committee stage on this Bill not before 8.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I understand from the speakers whose names appear on the speakers' list today that the controversial element in this Bill is Clause 4. I understand that almost every speaker will be speaking to this clause, so I shall restrict my remarks to that. As your Lordships know, the Second Reading of this Bill was on 15th February 1989, so that is almost a year ago. The controversial element is about the licensing of private hire vehicles and the effect that this might have on the London black cabs.
The taxis, or black cabs as we know them, are famous throughout the world. They are controlled by the Home Office in London. But there is no control whatsoever over private hire vehicles. The public always call them minicabs no matter what we call them technically. This Bill seeks to provide

1323
control over minicabs or private hire vehicles. Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 all vehicles must be licensed for hire. London was excluded and nothing was implemented in the London area.
I think we all recognise the unique role of the London taxi. This Bill proposes no changes whatsoever for the black cab. But it is clearly in the public interest to have some control over private hire vehicles. As a magistrate, I often hear cases where minicabs are involved in accidents. They have no insurance; the vehicles are unsafe and sometimes the driver has no driving licence. All too often he has a criminal conviction and is frequently driving as a minicab driver in order to earn money to pay off a court fine in connection with criminal activities.
Disabled people have advantage taken of them by unscrupulous drivers who overcharge them. I have heard that comment made in this House. RADAR originally had a degree of concern about the supposed threat to the black cab, but on the whole it is now thought that it would be to its advantage to have the minicabs licensed. There would be then more reliable drivers and they would also be identifiable.
There seems to be no pricing system at all. There is a dangerous criminal element such as was shown in a television programme last Friday. It was shown that there were drivers with no legitimate standard at all who posed as drivers in order to drive off women. Rape cases were reported on television. The black cab representatives who have discussed the matter with me are concerned that controls would be ineffective, unenforceable or not enforced.
That may be true, but in my view any control, however inadequate or poorly enforced, can be no worse than the present system of no control. It is estimated that there are about 40,000 private hire vehicles operating in London. Clearly, there is a need for them because if that need did not exist they would not be in business. The new licensing burden will be quite an added responsibility for local authorities, but it is necessary.
Women in particular are a section of the community quite dependent on private hire vehicles to enable them to go out at night. It should be possible for them to go out safely at night in such vehicles. The "London Programme" shown on television last Friday, to which I have already referred, was instructive and disturbing. It made the case for control more vividly than I can tonight. There were serious and alarming interviews with women who had been raped. There was another interview which I found lighter because I thought that the man, the subject of the interview, was probably not as bad as he made out. However, the interview showed how bad the situation can be.
The man concerned was a cowboy operator who had what appeared to be a car radio, in order, he said, to make people feel more confident. His radio was not connected. He explained that he spoke into it occasionally to make people feel that he was part of a bigger organisation. If a passenger remarked on the lack of a reply, the driver said that he must be out of radio range.
1324
I was impressed by a number of points made by the black cab representatives and I consider it important that local authorities should bear these in mind when they are considering matters of licensing. First, if meters are allowed in private hire vehicles there must be a maximum rate at which they can be set. It would be very wrong to have a meter charging six times as much as a black cab, a meter which appeared to be perfectly legitimate and yet it was really exploiting the unwary passenger.
I understand that at the moment this Bill will not give powers to implement such control over the meter. That may be a further stage to come. It may be that at this stage the local authorities would not allow meters because of the lack of control over them. That is an interesting point to be considered.
The second point is that vehicles must be subject to regular testing to standards above those for private vehicles. I am informed that the average minicab in London covers about 50,000 miles a year compared to a family car which travels about 15,000 miles a year. Thirdly, there must be no possibility of confusion between the hackney carriage driver and the private hire vehicle driver. Neither should the vehicles be the same; nor should there be any possibility of confusion.
The fourth point is that some thought must be given to the fitness of the driver. I do not know what restrictions apply to black cab drivers, but I believe that anyone driving other people should be subject to regular medical and eye tests. The hire car drivers fulfil a need in London. There would not be 40,000 of these vehicles in use if there was no need for them. How often have noble Lords or friends been told by a black cab driver that he does not go south of the river. I have been checking this out with everyone whom I have met in the past week. I have received that answer from pretty well everyone. Another answer is that the driver is on his way home and can only take a passenger if he is going in that direction.
For some reason all black cab drivers seem to live either in North or East London. The 1847 Act obliges a black cab to take a fare anywhere up to six miles from Charing Cross. That was as far as a horse could comfortably travel; that is where the six miles came from. Under the law a taxi should carry a bale of hay for the horse. That is not done any more, and neither are you taken unquestioningly the six miles in any direction from Charing Cross.
But the most difficult thing to value is The Knowledge —that is the official name —by which London cabbies have an intimate awareness of London, a knowledge of its streets and of the quickest and best ways to get to any destination. The black cab and its driver are unsurpassed anywhere in the world. They must remain clearly identifiable as most people prefer to use a black cab to any private hire vehicle, particularly if the passenger wishes to be sure of reaching the destination and if it is a difficult one.
I have heard from taxi drivers that they face the threat of extinction. I do not accept this. I spent some time last week with a representative of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association and on the following day I spent a similar amount of time with

1325
a minicab proprietor. When I put this point to him he gave me an interesting reply. He said:
"A lot of my drivers have been able to get the "knowledge" while they have been driving for me and they have gone on to become black cab drivers. I have never had a black cab driver wanting to come back to work for me. It must be better to be a taxi driver".
It must, my Lords. We wish to maintain and increase the number of black cabs and to see that they are not subject to unfair competition. But they are now subject to unfair competition. This Bill will help to control the situation and will be of benefit to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I am most encouraged by some of the remarks and sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. However, I have serious doubts and reservations concerning Clause 4 of the Bill. The promoters wish to use its proposals regarding the licensing of private hire vehicles to implement the adoption of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in London in line with the rest of England and Wales. But they fail to appreciate that, as concerns the licensing of private hire vehicles and hackney carriages, London is unique and cannot be lumped together with the provinces.
When the 1976 Act became law, Part II did not apply to London. In my opinion, nothing has changed since then to justify the changes which are now proposed. Indeed, I should like to quote a reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on 7th June 1989. He said:
"My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the statement by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport says that it is too early to propose new legislation, so no new legislation is proposed. As regards the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill, although technically neutral on private Bills, the department's Ministers have indicated that they do not welcome the proposals because the Bill would make each borough an independent licensing authority. Different approaches to licensing would cause confusion as so many journeys cross borough boundaries. I am told that the Bill is in some difficulty. As I have already indicated, although the Government are either benevolently or malevolently neutral on private Bills, on this occasion it is malevolently neutral". —[Official Report, 7/6/89; col. 852.]
The central proposal contained in Clause 4 affecting the licensing of private hire vehicles is that every participating London borough, at present consisting of 31 out of 32, should issue licences to applicants. The borough of Greenwich has refused to participate, so already the confusion starts. Why do these proposals pose direct and real threats to the licensed hackney carriages of London? They do so for the following reasons. First, there would be no enforceable controls exercised over the operations of minicabs in London after the introduction of Clause 4. Each participating borough council would be required to introduce controls and standards. In other words, it would be legislation on the hoof.
Secondly, even if tight and proper controls are in place before these proposals become law, who will
1326
enforce them? Will they be enforceable? Who is to police it all? Is it to be the Department of Transport and the Metropolitan Police, which already exercise strict controls over the licensed black taxis through the Public Carriage Office? Surely not, my Lords. The police already have their hands more than full with their many onerous duties and could not take on 35,000 minicab operators as well. If not the police, who then will do so? Will the London boroughs employ an army of enforcers to see that the yet to be initiated laws which it is hoped will control and limit the illegal activities of minicabs are enforced? Let us make no mistake about it: it will take an army.
In this context I should like to acquaint the House with an operation mounted in Birmingham in August 1989. Tired of massive illegal private hire operations in which hundreds of them were openly plying the streets for hire, Birmingham's principal consumer protection officer, in conjunction with Birmingham city police, mounted a round-up operation of some of these illegal and lethal cowboys. I was a part of that operation and spent most of one night in a police car observing what was going on. What I saw horrified me: ramshackle, broken-down vehicles offering themselves for hire almost invariably licensed from somewhere else —another authority — which invalidated their licence and their insurance. Most of the drivers when questioned by the police offered the excuse that they had been booked by telephone, but in no case could anyone be found who had made the booking. They were clearly cowboys.
My point is that those cowboys were under the controls of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and that clearly the Act was not working as it was intended. And why? The reason was that to enforce it required an army of enforcers. The two nights in August in Birmingham required 36 people and six policemen to mount the operation. If one multiplies that figure by the total number of London boroughs, adds in the differences in population between Birmingham and London and takes into account the differences in size between the two cities, one has a rough idea of the gigantic problems that would face the enforcers, even if they were to exist.
I come to my third point. If minicab operators were to be given badges, plates and taxi meters, the public, be they Londoners, other citizens of this country or visitors from overseas, would assume that these vehicles were licensed taxis and were available for hire. Fourthly, visitors to London who telephone for a taxi, or who ask their hotel for a taxi, would assume that the driver of the vehicle that arrived would have a working knowledge of London. That is not so. The only two requirements asked for by the Bill for private hire licence applicants is that they hold a clean, current driving licence and have one year's driving experience.
My fifth point is that the Bill would allow minicabs to install taxi meters. No restrictions would apply to the rate, which could be set at anything the operator wanted or thought he could get away with. In other words, giving him a licence would legalise customer rip-off. Do we really want this? This legislation

1327
changes nothing. Already more than 35,000 minicabs are running around London, a good many of them operating within the law. But a large number do not operate within the law, and they will not change their ways because of these proposals, which merely give legality to unscrupulous hotel staff and minicab operators.
My sixth point is that local authorities would not be given access to the criminal records of licence applicants. Therefore it would be easy for an applicant to fail to declare any previous convictions for serious crimes. My seventh point is that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 demands that both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles are maintained to the same high standards. That is wishful thinking, as I observed in Birmingham. How will this be achieved in London, and who will see to it? We are back again to that mythical army.
I come now to my eighth point. The method of licensing taxis in London was recently revised, allowing more applicants for licensing in the suburbs. Currently more than 900 drivers are passing through the knowledge test for London's suburbs in addition to those already operating with their yellow badges. Those 900 drivers will start to come on stream in April.
I move on now to point nine. Since 1985 the Metropolitan Police authorities have issued 3,964 new Hackney carriage licences in central London. Moreover, recent proposals submitted by the Association of Taxi Proprietors are designed to increase that number.
I turn now to point 10, and noble Lords will be relieved to know that I have nearly reached the end of my speech. The considerable investment made by the manufacturers of the black taxi, Carbodies of Coventry, in the wheelchair facility for disabled people would also be threatened by the legislation if minicabs were to be given licences. At present, all taxis coming off the assembly line in Coventry are required by law to provide that valuable facility. Who in their right economic minds will pay up to £20,000 for a new black taxi from Coventry when they can carry on their business operating from a second-hand car which they can buy from any local garage for a fraction of that price?
In conclusion, I should like to quote from a letter written by the Minister for Public Transport, Mr. Michael Portillo, to the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Cecil Parkinson. It is dated July 17th 1989. It reads:
"Government Ministers in the House of Lords, where the Bill"—
that is, the Bill which we are now discussing —
"currently rests, have expressed firmly severe doubts about the proposal's effectiveness and practicability. The Bill's promoters are currently considering how best to take matters forward given the problems encountered with a number of its proposals. My view is clear: while I am not opposed in principle to some form of regulatory system for London's minicabs I have yet to see a good case for introducing one now. Moreover I do not like the Boroughs' proposal for 32 licensing areas; it is over-complicated and will be a burden on businesses".
1328
I apologise to the House for the length of my speech tonight, but at stake is simply the finest licensed taxi service of anywhere in the world, bar none. It enjoys a hard-won reputation for its standards of excellence. The black, or whatever colour, London taxi cab is symbolic of this country. It is a symbol that is known, admired and respected the world over. In my opinion the proposed legislation would destroy that reputation at a stroke for the many reasons I have mentioned, and no doubt there will be further reasons put forward by other noble Lords.
I believe that the licensed taxi drivers are right to defend their trade. I for one stand by them and, in so doing, I ask the promoters of this Bill to withdraw Clause 4 for reconsideration by all interested and concerned parties.
I am not opposed to a licensed second-tier taxi service for London, nor are the licensed taxi drivers. However, what they and I are opposed to is that the second tier is licensed without the strict controls and regulations that govern the first tier.
8.3 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I start by saying that I am implacably opposed to Clause 4 and the adoption of Schedule 2 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, if I heard her correctly, that the average family car travels about 15,000 miles a year. I suggest to her that she has got the figure wrong and that the figure is about half that. The noble Earl who has just spoken has given the House facts and figures. I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating them. However, I shall recount just one or two true stories about black cabs.
A few weeks ago a letter written by an American tourist appeared in the Daily Mail. He explained how he had hailed a black cab and asked to be driven to his hotel. He subsequently arrived there, paid the black cab driver and went into the hotel. The taxi drove off and was ultimately flagged down by another person. However, on opening the door the driver saw a wallet sitting on the floor. He turned down the fare, drove back to the hotel and handed in the wallet. The tourist concluded his letter by asking, "Is there any other capital city in the world which has such honest cab drivers as those in London?".
On August 1st the year before last my wife and I were being driven towards the Royal Horseguards Hotel in a black cab. I think that what I have to say will embarrass my wife as she happens to be listening to me tonight. We had just got married. We were sitting in the back of the cab and, as newlyweds tend to be, we were fairly happy. When we arrived at our destination one of us said —I claim that I said it; but my wife claims that she did —to the cab driver that we were sorry, but that we had just got married. Whichever one of us it was asked how much the fare would be. The cab driver said, "It's all right, it's my wedding present to you". I ask noble Lords would a cab driver anywhere else in the world do that?
On another day I picked up a cab at Waterloo, although I normally travel by Underground. We

1329
went on our journey but instead of turning left the driver turned to the right and we went over the wrong bridge. The cab driver turned to me and said, "Sorry, guv', I went over the wrong bridge". I said "Yes, I know". He then said, "Don't worry, sir, I'll put it right". Eventually we arrived at your Lordships' House and he reduced the fare by 1.50. I said, "No way", and I paid him the full amount. I knew he was wrong and he knew he was wrong; but it was a genuine mistake.
I have a very good friend. As a young man he had to be taken to the dental hospital in Leicester Square. His mother hailed a cab and the cab driver asked, "Where to?" She asked, "Do you know the dental hospital in Leicester Square? He said, "Yes, why?" She thought to herself: "Oh, my God! I've got one of those". She explained that she had to take her son there for treatment. He said, "What's wrong with him?" She said, "Well, he's got an abcess on an impacted wisdom tooth". After that the taxi driver took them to the hospital.
When they left the hospital two hours later she heard a loud whistle —the kind of whistle I have never been able to do, though I only wish I could. It was the same cab driver. He said, "Here lady, how's the nipper now? Is he all right?" She explained that he was. He said, "I thought I'd better wait for you". At that point he pulled out a key ring with a little compass upon it and handed it to the boy. When we talk about big-heartedness, such an example is beautiful.
Ever since I realised that this matter was to be debated each time I have got into a black cab —or whatever colour it may be —I have asked the driver, "Have you ever heard of any black cab driver molesting, assaulting or doing anything to a woman passenger?" Each driver has said, "No, never". If you read the reports in newspapers you will see that it is in fact licensed or unlicensed minicab drivers, some of whom are just out of prison, who commit such offences.
I love my wife and I adore my mother-in-law. I would hate them to hire anything except a black cab in the capital city. I do not trust minicabs. Indeed, some of the vehicles are falling to pieces. Moreover, if they have an MOT certificate I cannot think why. I think that the situation is terrible.
There is much that is wrong with the Bill we are discussing. The length of time it takes to acquire The Knowledge has already been mentioned. Moreover, if you have a yellow badge you can pick up a passenger from central London and take him outside your area, but you are not allowed to pick up a return fare. That is most unfair. If we pass this particular clause we shall destroy the position of the black cabs in London.
Our cab service in London is the envy of the world. Let us forget about capital cities; there is no large city in the world which has such honest and logical people as our black cab drivers. If we allow that situation to change all of us in this House, our children and grandchildren will regret it for evermore.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I have the task of giving some explanation of the decision of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman regarding private hire vehicles. I had in mind to deal with this under three headings. The first relates to the need for the proposed legislation, the second to certain problems with the existing legislation and the third to the statement made on behalf of the government department.
As regards the first, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships that there are in London about 15,000 black cabs licensed by the Hackney Carriage Office and about 20,000 drivers so licensed. The number of private hire vehicles concerning which we heard evidence was 40,000, as stated by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Of the 40,000, many work part-time, whereas the black cab drivers generally work full-time.
There was evidence that in certain areas of the private hire trade throughout the country cowboy operators were at work and criminal elements were attracted. Apart from offences under the Road Traffic Act and illegal plying for hire, drugs, prostitution, indecent offences with children and burglaries were all mentioned. There was evidence that some of the vehicles were dirty or unroadworthy and on occasions that there were physically violent clashes with the regular taxi trade.
In a recent police strike in Birmingham —which must be the same as the one about which we have already heard —on a Friday night no fewer than 286 alleged offences were uncovered. This was a one-off operation. We had evidence that enforcement was a persistent problem with the legislation.
Regulations under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 were in force in the majority of areas throughout the country, including all the great conurbations other than London. The only petitioner against the proposals was the Transport and General Workers' Union representing the three London taxi drivers' associations, the proprietors and the large licensed taxi radio circuits.
The union's main concern was to avoid the establishment of another regulatory system. It hoped to increase the number of black cabs regulated through the Hackney Carriage Office. This would mean that applicants for licences would have to pass the daunting knowledge of London test. Although a system of less exacting tests has been devised for certain peripheral areas, it appeared unlikely that there would be a sufficient increase in black cabs to meet the demand for hire vehicles. In any case the basic cost of a black cab according to the evidence that we heard is about £16,000. They are fine vehicles, many of which have special facilities for the disabled. In these circumstances the committee had little difficulty in deciding that the need for some regulation in the field of private hire was established.
In relation to the second matter, the history of the present legislation may usefully be recalled. The Hindley Committee first recommended that there

1331
should be some regulation in the field of private hire as long ago as 1939; but with the disturbances of the war and its aftermath, nothing was done until the Maxwell Stamp Committee in 1970 recommended the licensing of minicabs. No action followed until the matter was picked up in local legislation by the Plymouth City Council Bill in 1975. The private hire provisions were subsequently lifted out of this Bill and inserted by amendment into the 1976 Act. Of course they only have effect if adopted by a local authority and within its area. The Act does not extend to London.
The geography of Plymouth, which is near my home, is such as not to present trans-boundary problems of significance, so it is not perhaps surprising that these problems have caused difficulty in other areas; and certainly they could be formidable in the case of the 31 London boroughs.
Perhaps I should explain that where there is control under the present legislation, a private hire vehicle can operate from a district where there are no, or only light, regulations and obtain custom in a neighbouring area which is stringently regulated but without complying with the regulations in force in that area.
This problem has been addressed by two amendments which were agreed prior to the hearing before the committee and which are now in the Bill. One of them provides for the Secretary of State to be consulted prior to the adoption of the private hire provisions by any borough, thus in practice enabling the department to exercise by persuasion, but only by persuasion, a co-ordinating role; and the other of which provides for the registration of a vehicle or driver in one borough to be effective in the other boroughs.
As regards the third and final matter, it will be remembered that at Second Reading on 15th February, 1989 my noble friend the Minister informed the House that the Government believed that there should be comprehensive legislation which would take the whole country into account. But subsequently the Government had second thoughts and on 11th May 1989 the Minister responsible in another place stated that the Government did not intend to change the present arrangements concerning the black cab or the knowledge of London test; nor did they intend to alter the distinction between the taxi and hire car trades. The reasons for this change of mind were not developed before the committee but the matter appeared to turn upon the desire of the Government to promote business opportunities by limiting restrictions upon entry into the trade.
The members of your Lordships' committee were not aware that the Government had changed their mind in this way until they were so informed by the departmental spokesman at the hearing on 13th October 1989. In reply to questions the departmental spokesman confirmed that the department would be ready to have consultations with each borough desiring to adopt a scheme in order to secure so far as possible a uniform system.
1332
In these circumstances the committee decided that the provisions relating to private hire, as amended, should proceed. In giving that decision I was asked to say that the committee had had regard to the fact that the Government had no plans for the introduction of general legislation for the regulation of private hire vehicles. I hope that this explanation will be of assistance to your Lordships.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty as the next speaker to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, on his excellent and well informed speech this evening. We have been friends for quite some time and since he is the Chief of the Clan Nicolson and we have been discussing clans a great deal this afternoon, this is for him an opportune day on which to have made his maiden speech. We hope that he will continue to give us his wisdom and knowledge in this sphere as well as others in the future. However, I do not think I can go all the way down the road that the noble Lord has traversed. From previous experience I favour enormously the system of black cab licensed drivers that we have in London. I understand that there are 19,000 licensed black cab drivers in London and that we are likely to have another 960.
As has been said so eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, in an excellent speech, our black taxi cab drivers are second to none in the world. They are trained, trusted and their cabs are clean. I believe that the families of the drivers are visited by representatives from Scotland Yard and references are taken up before licences are issued. After that drivers must undergo a long training.
I worry sometimes about the foreign visitors to our country. They are very welcome. Before they come they are told to take a black cab. Black cabs have a distinctive appearance. Those visitors are told that if they take a black cab they will receive good service and they will know within £1 or £2 what they will have to pay at the end of their journey. However, that does not happen, and will not happen, as regards unlicensed minicabs. Even if they are licensed I do not think that foreign visitors will be able to distinguish minicabs or trust their drivers. Standards will vary from borough to borough. There are 32 boroughs in London and they will each have different standards. Fares will probably be different in different boroughs, and the boroughs themselves will decide who to license and what companies to license. I cannot envisage any cohesion about the whole plan.
I know that this is a Private Member's Bill. It was moved so eloquently by my noble friend, but Clause 4 seems to me to be the wrong way of seeking to provide more hire cars within London. I am sure that a better way will be found of licensing ordinary cars. This is not the way to do it. I have rung round the country to one or two cities but I have yet to find a better system than that provided by the licensed black cabs that we have in London now. This Bill has started in this House and will therefore proceed to another place. I hope that due consideration will be given there to the weighty words that noble Lords have spoken tonight. I know

1333
several people who are much too frightened to ask a minicab driver to pick them up. I hope therefore that something will come of the discussions we have had tonight.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for years I have admired the patience and the stamina of my noble friend Lord Carnock. I have often seen him sitting where he is sitting now late at night, paying close attention to all our proceedings. I often wondered why he did not intervene in our debates on the Floor of the House. The reason was, of course, that he also did a lot of work on committees. We have now had the real advantage and pleasure of hearing him make his maiden speech on this Bill.
The committee of which he was chairman considered this Bill at great length and with great care and reached the conclusions that we have heard. I must say that I agree with those conclusions. I entirely share the admiration that has been expressed of London taxi cabs. Indeed, some 30 years ago it was part of my Home Office responsibilities to keep an eye on the way in which the commissioner licensed them. Occasionally interested parties would come to me and ask for more taxi cabs. Sometimes the taxi cab people themselves would have a point. I think they provide a wonderful service and have done so all my lifetime, which is a long time. However, I cannot agree with the assumption that if we licensed minicabs in London that would lead to any kind of deterioration in the quality of service given by the taxis, or that it would adversely affect their financial interests. Indeed, I take the opposite view.
I shall concede one thing. The administration of those parts of the 1976 Act which are referred to in the Bill has been very uneven throughout those parts of England and Wales where they apply. In some places the legislation has worked beneficially. I happen to live in a county which, I am happy to say, is still called Huntingdonshire because that is the name of the district council. In my county the minicabs are licensed. They play fair and the taxi operators get on well with them. Our system is an excellent way of allowing the public to have two kinds of cab service. The public can have cabs, like the London cabs, of a high standard and which ply for hire the whole time. The public also have access to minicabs which often work part-time but which have to be registered.
The fact that in London there would also be an uneven performance does not worry me at all, because I think that to the extent that it works in some boroughs it would be worth doing and would not adversely affect the interests of the taxi cabs. I think it is in the public interest that minicabs should be licensed. There are the wrongdoers among minicab operators but I think there would be fewer wrongdoers if they all had to be licensed. Then it would be possible for authorities to keep a closer eye on them. Therefore I support Clause 4 of this Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I support this Bill to a certain extent, but to license 40,000 minicab drivers
1334
would be rather a cumbersome process. I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Carnock on his most excellent speech. My noble friend Lord Renton remembers him sitting here for a long time, but I also remember the father of the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, sitting next to where the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, is now sitting. While licensing 40,000 minicab drivers might become rather a bureaucratic affair, nevertheless something has to be done.
There was a proposal to license minicab proprietors. It was proposed that minicab proprietors should be put on the same footing as a licensee of a public house or a licensee of a betting shop, whereby the barmaid or barman or counter clerk is not held responsible for the premises but the landlord and the betting shop manager are. Therefore the scheme that is proposed would mean that owners of minicab firms would be responsible for a higher standard of character on the part of their drivers. Perhaps owners would not have the same privileges as the Public Carriage Office has with regard to the police register. That matter may have to be considered. However, if one message has come over from this debate so far it is that people must be driven in a safe way.
Another salient point concerns vehicles. I believe my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes mentioned that the normal mileage for an ordinary private car was 15,000 miles a year whereas for the average minicab in London it was about 50,000 miles a year. Therefore minicab vehicles would have to be tested.
I do not believe that the point has been made this evening, but the charge has often been levelled that many of the 40,000 drivers are people who draw dole or they may work part time. We do not want any social security fraud. That matter must be looked at most carefully.
Either the Bill should go forward —and I do not believe that it is quite right at the moment —or the Government must bring forward legislation very soon. It is a great pity that that Green Paper came out when it did.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, as I believe all speakers have, in urging the promoters of the Bill to withdraw Clause 4.
At the outset I should declare an interest. I am adviser to the British Tourist Authority. The British Tourist Authority has a statutory duty under the Development of Tourism Act to advise the Government on matters relating to tourism. As the noble Earl reminded us, when the possibility of the liberalisation of the London plying for hire regime was considered by the department in 1988 the authority made a submission through the usual channels against any change and very much in favour of the black cab. We have talked a great deal about black cab drivers; perhaps we should have talked about drivers of black cabs.
The authority gave 12 reasons for preserving the status quo. I shall not quote all of them; I shall quote only four because I am in a sense the cheeseboard

1335
in the dinner break business, and I know that the House has other matters to deal with.
A major point in the British Tourist Authority's argument was the Knowledge, the cross-border knowledge —the requirement to achieve a qualification. After all, the noble Baroness had to achieve a qualification before she could practise as a dentist. She had to prove her competence to practise. The authority was in favour of the licensing of cabs under the present system by the department not least because the department had access to criminal records which, as has been said previously this evening, the London boroughs do not necessarily have.
In speaking of the department, I am surprised that no noble Lord has mentioned the work that the department has sponsored in that context in relation to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
A third argument related to the safety and appropriateness of the vehicle for the job in hand as reflected in the present inspection system. A fourth argument was cross-border fares. In the same way as the licensing system, the Knowledge and the quality of the vehicle were guarantees of the quality of the service provided; so is the present review system.
My noble friend Lord Underhill knows that I should also declare an interest on behalf of British Rail. Although it has no duty to do so, British Rail seeks to make sure that when it delivers passengers to a London terminus it hands them over to a black cab driver. Noble Lords will be aware of notices at termini and at airports, "Beware of the cowboy operator. Use only a black cab".
Lastly I should like to pray in aid somebody in whom I do not have an interest but I read his book with great interest. Some noble Lords will recall that Bernard Levin recently wrote and published a book about his experiences in New York. A different kind of Londoner it would be hard to imagine. He is a very committed Londoner in many respects. His columns in The Times remind us that he is also a human being with the interests of the world at heart. He pointed out in one of the excerpts from his book published in a newspaper that he had taken a yellow cab in New York. In New York there is licensing by the boroughs rather than by a collective authority. One takes a yellow cab in Newark into New York. As many of your Lordships will know, New York is a grid iron city. If one is in 42nd Street one ought to know where 47th Street is. Bernard Levin said that two experiences of yellow cabs in New York, particularly those licensed outside Manhattan, made him pray, and he felt that one of the things that would really improve New York was a good black cab system. I support the noble Earl.
8.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debate which has centered so far on Clause 4 of the Bill. It would not be appropriate for me to express a view on the merits of the clause but I should underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, in
1336
an admirable maiden speech that the arguments for and against the clause were considered very carefully by the Select Committee, and it decided unanimously that the clause should proceed. I hope that the House will give due weight to that fact.
I hope that those noble Lords who were critical of the clause do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. The Bill still has to go to another place. There it will be quite possible to petition against the clause if so desired. That was the wise advice given to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and I commend it to your Lordships. There is no amendment before us to delete Clause 4. If the Third Reading were to be refused, a number of other clauses which are unopposed would fall by the wayside.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking members of the Select Committee, under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, for giving up so much of their time to consideration of the Bill. The House is well served by those of your Lordships who agree to sit on Private Bill Committees. At the beginning of what is likely to be another very busy Session for such committees I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who serve on them.
The main reason why I wish to intervene in the debate is to make a general observation about the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Leaving aside the formal clauses, the Bill was introduced in November 1988 with six parts containing 55 clauses. This evening it will leave the House for another place with just one part containing five clauses. Two whole parts, together containing 31 clauses, and two further important clauses were withdrawn by the promoters before the Select Committee sat. A further part with 12 clauses was disallowed by the Select Committee. Finally, four clauses were either disallowed by the Unopposed Bill Committee or withdrawn with that committee's leave. That amounts to 50 clauses out of an original 55.
I am bound to say that when quite so many provisions fall by the wayside, whether in the face of opposition or at the instance of the promoters themselves, one is bound to question whether sufficient consideration was given to the provisions before they were included in a Bill introduced into Parliament. So far as concerns Private Bills, both this Session and last have been exceptionally busy ones and I know that promoters will appreciate that a Bill of this kind inevitably provokes a great deal of work on the part of the House. In addition of course there are those outside Parliament —organisations of one sort or another as well as individuals —who have to spend time, and in some cases money, considering the implications of the powers sought in the Bill and, if necessary, preparing petitions against it for deposit in Parliament.
I hope that the promoters of the Bill will bear those points in mind. I have no doubt that we shall see further London local authority Bills—indeed another has been introduced in the current Session —but I hope that on future occasions

1337
provisions are included only after careful consideration and, where appropriate, due consultation with interested parties.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate which has raised several interesting points. I want first to make it clear that we on this side of the House shall not oppose the Third Reading. It is not our policy to do so, but I shall have some comments to make in that regard before I close.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, for introducing the criticism of the Bill in such an excellent speech. I want to avoid covering the ground that he has covered. We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, as chairman of the committee, for explaining why the committee has taken certain decisions. That is helpful to the House. Having had them explained, I believe that the committee did its best, but it is not what is desirable.
It was noticeable that everyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, paid tribute to the London taxi trade, as happened on Second Reading. Everyone is fully complimentary of the work of the London taxi trade. I do not intend to knock the private hire trade and minicabs. I frequently use a minicab when I have an early appointment in the House or elsewhere to travel from my home in Essex or when I carry luggage to a London terminal station. I should make it clear that I do not charge the Treasury for that. I do not knock the minicab trade in general, but we should bear in mind certain points as a result of changes in the Bill. I agree that changes have been made. Some have been made because of what was said on Second Reading. I am certain that it was realised that the proposal for helicopter licences was nonsense. That point was made at length by a number of speakers on Second Reading.
On Second Reading I referred to the review conducted by the Government into the taxi and private hire industry. Noble Lords heard reference today to the statement by Mr. Portillo on 11th May 1989 when he referred to that review and made it clear that, so far as concerns London, there would be no change in the knowledge or in the present requirements and that he did not propose to change the position of taxi cabs and the minicab trade. However, it is generally agreed that the licensing provisions in the 1976 Act have not worked well throughout the country. Reference was made to the position in the city of Birmingham. I shall not repeat those comments save to say that Birmingham has had some unpleasant experiences with regard to illegal operations.
The Bill has been amended by removing Clause 49 and inserting Clause 4. I must make it clear that Clause 4 gives London boroughs the option of whether to license minicab vehicles, drivers and operators in their area. They may choose whether to do so. As distinct from the control over licensed taxi cabs by the Public Carriage Office, to which a number of noble Lords paid compliment on the way in which it exercises that control, a borough which decides to take up the option to license hire cars
1338
need not go through certain checks. I must emphasise the points that have been made. The borough need not check about criminal records. It need not set fares. It need not stipulate that there must be meters, but if a vehicle has a meter the fares must be declared, not controlled. The meters must operate properly. Different standards might therefore apply in each of the 32 London boroughs.
It is said that there will be consultation to encourage the boroughs to have civilised standards, but that is not what the Bill states. The Bill will enable each London borough to set separate standards if it should so desire. A borough has the option as to whether it wants to license. There will be no compulsion. If it decides to license minicabs, there will be no compulsion as to the standards set. If a borough takes up the option to license private hire cars or minicabs, such vehicles will be free to operate in all London boroughs.
Reference has been made to the Knowledge. I understand that it is now possible for knowledge of only the area of the licensing borough to be required. That need take only three to four months' work on the part of the applicant. Before a driver is licensed by the Public Carriage Office, he or she must acquire knowledge of the whole of London, which may take up to two years to complete.
Unless the Bill is amended, London may have a three-tier trade. The taxi cabs —the black cabs —would be licensed as at present through the Public Carriage Office. The private hire cars —minicabs —would work on different and less stringent conditions as applied by the 32 London boroughs. There would then be a third tier acting illegally, as has happened in the city of Birmingham. We are therefore likely to have inferior conditions for licensing of such vehicles which would be free to ply for hire using radio circuits, if so desired.
It is said that, before a borough decides to take up the option to license minicabs, there must be consultation with the Secretary of State. I note what the noble Baroness said; namely, that all the Secretary of State can do is to exercise persuasion as to the conditions which a London borough may decide to apply. The Secretary of State cannot compel all 32 London boroughs to have the same conditions. That is farcical if the vehicles are liable to travel in any part of London.
I also remind noble Lords that the Minister said that, if there are to be any changes, they should be comprehensive and apply to the country as a whole. In the light of the criticisms of the operation of the 1976 Act in various parts of the country, that would appear to be the correct policy.
With regard to the consultation which the Secretary of State will have before any London borough opts to have licences and minicabs, there is no reference as to whether there will be any consultation with the London Taxi Board, which represents taxi proprietors, private owners and taxi drivers. I remind noble Lords that I made it clear on Second Reading that the taxi section of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association were not consulted about the Bill. The taxi section of the TGWU only learnt about the Bill by chance. If there is to be consultation by

1339
the Secretary of State with any London borough which decides to take up the option of licensing, I hope that there will also be consultation with the London taxi trade.
In conclusion —I do not wish to cover the ground that has been covered so well by others who have criticised the Bill —as I have already said, by convention we do not vote against the Third Reading. The Bill will now go to the Commons, which I hope will take serious note not only of what was said in the Select Committee but what has been said in tonight's debate. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, were extremely helpful. We do not want a repeat of the situation in which a Bill which we discuss on Second Reading and which then goes to a Select Committee is mutilated, although it must be said that the Bill needed to be mutilated. That is not the way to carry on our business.
In view of the criticism that exists I wonder whether even at this stage the promoters of the Bill might not consider withdrawing this section either during the Commons stages or before then. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, other sections of the Bill that we should hate to see deleted. As it is at present, I believe that an attempt has been made to improve the situation, but I do not believe that it will work in the interests of the London cab trade.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the House an indication of the Government's views on the Bill, which was so ably brought to the House for Third Reading this evening by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and in particular on Clause 4. But before doing so I cannot resist the opportunity, as one clan chief to another, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Carnock on his unusual achievement in making a maiden speech as chairman of a Private Bill Committee reporting to this House and doing so in such an appropriate, sagacious and distinguished manner.
In general, the Government have no objection to the principle of London local authorities, as they are empowered to do by statute, seeking in promoting this Bill additional general powers for the London area. With one exception —namely, Clause 6 —all the provisions in the Bill to which government departments objected have been either withdrawn or disallowed by committees of your Lordships' House. On Clause 6, the Department of the Environment, while having no objection to the purpose of the clause, considers that the powers are too widely drawn. Negotiations are continuing with the promoters to provide a more tightly drawn provision. I hope that this issue can be resolved in due course.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Arran expressed the Government's view on what is now Clause 4, which provides for the introduction of licensing for London minicabs. He explained, first, that the Government were reviewing the need for comprehensive legislation on taxis and private hire
1340
cars on a nationwide basis; and secondly, that the provision as drafted seemed impractical.
Your Lordships may recall the Department of Transport's fundamental review of all taxi and private hire vehicle licensing which was completed in May of last year. During the course of the review reactions were obtained from the public, licensing authorities and those within the trades on the absence of minicab licensing in London, as well as on other aspects of licensing. Following the review, the Government announced that they had no present plans to legislate to change the position in London. I have to say that so far the case for licensing in London remains in our view uproven. Allegations of malpractice in the London minicab trade are often made, but are rarely supported by hard evidence which might justify new legislation.
Your Lordships may recall that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Public Transport recently announced in another place that the Government were providing funding to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust —as I believe was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans —which is conducting research into passenger experiences with the minicab trade. They will also look at the question of whether licensing of minicabs would be likely to have any impact on safety. The results of this research should be available in about 12 months' time, and should provide a useful contribution to the debate on the need for licensing.
The most frequent complaint made during the review was a lack of police record checks on drivers of taxis outside London and of private hire vehicles everywhere. Let me stress that this issue is not addressed by the licensing provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and therefore powers to make such checks would not be provided by Clause 4 of this Bill. The whole question of police record checks on drivers is a separate issue currently being examined by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.
The Government were also concerned that simply extending the private hire licensing provisions of the 1976 Act would create 31 separate licensing authorities, with consequent scope for cross-border hiring confusion such as sometimes exists outside the capital. However, I have to say that the amendment since tabled by the Bill's promoters making vehicle, driver and operator licences issued by one London council valid in any other participating borough should ease much of the cross-border problem. We are still concerned that the public may be confused not only about whether their council practises licensing at all but also about the level of stringency applied by their council compared, for example, with the neighbouring council. This could lead to confusion when ordering minicabs about the licensing regime under which they operate. It is also possible that licence applicants might migrate to particular boroughs where the most minimal standards required by the clause are applied but then concentrate operations in more restrictive boroughs. No doubt that problem could be overcome by the boroughs agreeing common licensing conditions but

1341
I think it is only right to point out that there are still potential practical difficulties with this provision.
London is served by a taxi trade which, largely because of its unique purpose-built vehicles, has long been famous worldwide. Standards are set by the Public Carriage Office and drivers must pass through rigorous testing, in particular of their knowledge of London. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, told some charming stories illustrating the standards of service and the esprit de corps, if I may use a French phrase to describe such a British institution, which may be found among taxi drivers. However, I take the same view as my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not think that the introduction of Clause 4 would undermine these benefits as much as some of the taxi trade seems to fear. Nor do I think that it would put taxis out of business. In areas where both taxis and private hire vehicles are licensed (that is to say, approximately 90 per cent. of district councils), taxis do not appear to have suffered. Where information is available, the number of licensed taxis increased by 37 per cent. between 1985 and 1989. Organisations representing the taxi trade have had an opportunity to present their case to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and, if they or others remain dissatisfied with the provisions of the Bill, there will be a further opportunity for them to petition against the Bill in another place, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just pointed out to us.
In conclusion, while the Government acknowledge that the amendment to Clause 4 tabled in Committee has improved the practicability of the Bill, we nevertheless remain unconvinced of the need for licensing in London and therefore are neutral on this clause. As I have already stated, subject to the successful resolution of the negotiations on Clause 6, the Government are content with the rest of the Bill.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those Members who have taken part in the debate on this Third Reading. However, I feel that every speech we have heard has made it more apparent that there is now no control whatever over minicabs and that some control is necessary. As I listened to people putting one case, I felt that they made exactly the opposite case.
The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, said that the problem was that people with criminal records might fail to declare them on their applications for licences. That is true, because it would have to be on a self-declaration basis. As has been said, the police would not provide criminal records. But in the event of an accident and someone being brought to court, it would then certainly come out should he have a criminal record. If he had made a wrong or false declaration on his application, it would be taken much more seriously.
As I said, we continually have cases in court of people who not only have criminal records but have no insurance whatever for car or passenger. A very important point to make, which I think was not clearly made in the noble Earl's speech, is that this
1342
provision would not allow minicabs to ply for hire in the streets. There would still have to be the same arrangement as now; namely, that a contract would be made between the hirer and the provider of the service. There would be no right to ply for hire. That is being done illegally and no doubt people will continue to act illegally but there is no suggestion of legalising that practice.
Like other speakers I very much enjoyed the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I accept what he said about average family car mileage being perhaps 7,500. I was given the figure by one of the car services. From my own experience I would not know about car mileage. However, the important point was the vast difference between the 50,000 miles travelled by a minicab in a year and the very much smaller mileage done by a private car.
I know that it is not traditional for all speakers to compliment a noble Lord on his maiden speech, but, under the very exceptional circumstances of his being chairman of the committee and his making such a marvellous summary of its proceedings, I must add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carnock. He pointed out that there are 50,000 black cabs and 40,000 minicabs in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, mentioned that there are 19,000 drivers of the black cabs. I have not yet put those figures together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said —and I think it is most important —that she would be much too frightened to ask a minicab to pick her up. That is a very real problem facing people now. They are frightened to ask for a minicab because they have no way of knowing whether it will be safe and its driver honest and reliable. The provision in the Bill to supervise and license such minicabs must be an advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, supported me, so I will not reply to any point that he made. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said he thought it was the proprietors who should be licensed. That is a very interesting idea which may have a lot to commend it but, like the views of the taxi drivers, it has come forward rather late.
I would emphasise that the Bill was deposited in November 1988. It was advertised correctly in all the papers and there was the opportunity to petition against it. Its Second Reading was a year ago in February 1989. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and yet tonight he said it was just by chance that they heard about it. Was it just by chance a year ago or was it just by chance a week ago? How is it that I have heard nothing from anyone in a year, and then last week I was asked to meet taxi drivers and minicab drivers, and even today motorbike couriers, who are concerned that somehow this may affect them.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I referred to the Second Reading debate. It was only then that, by chance, the Transport and General Workers' Union heard about the Bill. Of course, this time they have fully informed noble Lords of the position.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, and in the interim in this year they have presented their case to the committee on the Bill. This is what I cannot understand: if these people had so many points why were they not presented to the committee?
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said that as a dentist I had had to qualify before I could practise. That is absolutely true, and he made a comparison with the cab drivers. But in dentistry we now have dental hygienists, dental ancillaries and all sorts of other people as well. We no longer have a profession exclusive to dentists.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Of course we have dental hygienists and others, but they are not allowed to practise nationwide as dentists.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is exactly my point about minicabs. We are not suggesting that they should have the right to ply for hire or look or act like black cabs. They would be an ancillary service in the way that dental hygienists are.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also mentioned how British Rail liked one to take a black cab from the station. Of course we all like to do that, but how long have we waited in queues at stations? That demonstrates how short of black cabs we are. If there were no minicabs we could not cope at all, because there are 40,000 minicabs at the moment.
The Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that this Bill had been very much reduced; he said they had disallowed 12 clauses. I do not know exactly what that means and whether "disallowed" means that they just threw them out.
The Chairman of Committees: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, so on those 12 clauses I cannot claim responsibility in any way on behalf of the promoters for withdrawing them. It looks as though they were disallowed and rejected out of hand. But I appreciate the point made that others were withdrawn. The difficulty with this kind of Bill is that it represents a group of London boroughs each of which has its own specific problem, and it has been put together under the auspices of just one promoting authority acting on behalf of all the other London boroughs. I will pass his message on. I think it is important not to waste the time of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned that he frequently uses minicabs. I thought it very unfortunate that in his final sentence he said that he spoke "in the interests of the London cab trade". That was a shame because I thought he was speaking in the interests of the public. I believe that this Bill is in the public's interests and that there should be some proper licensing system. I believe that the whole question of enforcement is a legitimate one. Only when the enforcement is in practice will we see how well it works or does not work, but I believe that any degree of control must be better than the
1344
present situation of no control. I ask the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
9.5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 27 [Meaning of "father"]:
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 14, line 21, leave out ("unless it is shown that he did not consent") and insert ("if he consented in writing").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is clear. First, I think there should be clarification in the Bill that the husband must consent to the procedure as outlined in Clause 27(1) if he is to be considered the father of the child, as it is stated in Clause 27(3). Secondly, there must be evidence of the consent of the husband. In my view, and that of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, that evidence must be in writing. Thirdly, I must ask: how is it possible for somebody to show non-consent to a particular action?
As one can imagine, the husband may not even know that the treatment has taken place and that his wife has undergone AID. The wording of the provision does not reflect what we should like to see in the Bill. If the father is to be treated as the father of the child —when I refer to the "father" I mean the husband of the woman who has undergone the treatment —it must be clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has given his consent. I shall not go through all the arguments that could be adduced in support of the amendment. Its meaning and intention are clear. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider it and that, if he does not like the wording, he will consider the input that it is intended to make in the clause.
Lord Ashbourne: I am in favour of the amendment. It is another case of removing an ambiguity. I am always in favour of removing ambiguity from legislation, and on that basis I support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: The committee that considered the point spent a great deal of time on whether to ask for consent in writing. In the end it seemed that if consent in writing were required, especially in the case of artificial insemination, that might cause a great deal of hardship and a certain amount of confusion. The committee received a considerable body of evidence on the subject and the evidence that finally weighed with us was that there were a number of women for whom not having a child was a ground for divorce. Most of those women were Asian. Many women from that community wrote to us. In that community it is presumed that infertility is the woman's problem. It is not recognised that there is such a thing as male infertility, and so those women have to seek artificial insemination with the knowledge of their husbands.

1345
It was not that we approved of that practice, but it happens on a considerable scale because the penalty for not doing so is divorce and destitution for those women. That is one class of case that weighed with us when we decided that it was better to present the case in this rather negative way.
There could be some husbands who do not, and put into writing that they do not, want their wives to have artificial insemination. That would be evidence that the husband had not consented. It seemed to us that it would be proper to ensure that in the normal case the husband of the pregnant woman would be deemed to be the father and would take the responsibility of being the father of the resulting child. That was why in our report we recommended something similar to Clause 27. I hope that the amendment is not accepted.
Lord Kennet: I understand the reasoning behind the Bill as drafted, but will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us of any precedents there may be in English or British law for Parliament to direct a court to find that someone has done something unless he can prove that he has not?
Lord Prys-Davies: Initially I found the amendment attractive, but I ran into difficulties because I believe that there is a precedent for the clause in Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which deals with artificial insemination. For the sake of consistency therefore I would follow the wording of the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Snowden and Mitchell came down heavily on the side of requiring written consent from the father. I mention that fact although it is at variance with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, but I believe that it is important.
The Lord Chancellor: As the Committee has heard, the Bill, as drafted, provides in Clause 27(2):
"If, at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or of her insemination, the woman was a party to a marriage, the other party to the marriage shall be treated as the father of the child unless it is shown that he did not consent"
to the treatment. That provision continues and extends the rebuttable presumption under Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 in respect of children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor. That provision was of course accepted by Parliament in 1987 and, so far as I am aware, has not been thought to be problematical or ambigious. The clause as drafted extends the existing law relating to AID to the other techniques.
In the great majority of cases the issue of consent will be clear. It is already the usual practice of gynaecologists to withhold AID treatment unless the partner gives written consent. We can expect that practice to continue and, if it wishes to do so, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority could include such a requirement for all treatments in its code of practice, which will be subject to parliamentary approval.
There may, however, on rare occasions be some doubt about whether consent has been given, perhaps, for example, where AID is carried out at
1346
home: it is after all a fairly simple procedure. Where such doubt does arise, Section 27 of the 1987 Act and the clause as drafted guards against hardship to the child by, in effect, creating a presumption that the husband of a married woman has consented to the treatment and is therefore in law the child's father, with the corresponding responsibility for his upbringing and maintenance. In the Government's view, if there is any doubt about consent it should be determined in the child's favour rather than the husband's. This approach is in line with the common law which provides a presumption that the child born to a married woman is that of her husband. I would not wish to see the protection that those presumptions together provide for a child eroded or weakened.
So perhaps the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is, first of all, that Section 27 of the 1987 Act provides a precedent. However, perhaps more fundamental is the attitude that the common law takes to a child born in wedlock: unless the husband in effect establishes that the child is not his, it is presumed to be the child of the husband.
As to requiring the consent to be in writing, again we can expect that to be the general practice and again it could be dealt with in the code of practice. It would be perfectly reasonable for the doctor, the person in charge of the treatment, to require the consent to be in writing and it could well be dealt with in that way in the code of practice so as to avoid any doubt. However, to insist upon it as a matter of law, as this amendment would, would mean that, in the absence of writing, even where there was clear evidence that the husband had consented, he would not be treated as the father. In practice and law the child would be fatherless, with no rights of support against anyone other than his mother where there was an AID situation. That in the Government's view would not be right.
To summarise, as the Law Commission pointed out (page 175 of its Report on Illegitmacy, Law Com. No.118)
"it would be hard on a child whose paternity and status had been settled for some years if, in the course of his parents' marriage breaking down, his legal paternity depended on proof of consent to an operation years before or upon proof of a particular document".
That approach was endorsed by the Warnock Committee in paragraph 4.24 of its report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said. These are always somewhat difficult questions but I believe the balance is in favour of staying with the existing law. Therefore I would urge your Lordships that we should stay with the Bill as drafted.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I am afraid it goes back to the argument we had earlier today on the identity of the child and the child wanting to know who its true father is. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who has in fact come out with one of the reasons why this is not going to be possible. There may sadly be a group of Asian women who may carry on living with their husbands but may have AID; the husband may be living in a world

1347
of deception and deceit and may not know that he is not the father of the child thus produced. If that is the kind of Bill that the Committee wishes to produce, well and good. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 131
Page 14, line 33, leave out ("not")
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I would wish to take with this Amendment No. 132; they are dependent one upon the other. We have just discussed Clause 27(2) where the husband, not having given his consent but certainly not having refused it, would be deemed to be the father. However, in the case where the father does not give his consent, who would be the father of the child? Clause 27(4) states that where the sperm of a man who has given his consent to be used as a donor is used, he nevertheless is not to be treated as the father of the child. My amendment would remove the word "not". Where the husband had definitely refused to give his consent, the donor would be treated as the father of the child. Clearly, it seems to me that the direction in which this Bill is going would deny the child knowledge of its genetic father in any circumstances.
I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain the purposes of subsections (6) and (7) and tell the Committee whether that is the fact. Clause 27(2) is what one might call a blind because, although the husband may not give his consent, at the end of the day the child will remain that of the marriage in law. I should be grateful for an explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I too have difficulty in understanding Clause 27. Will the husband who has given consent for his sperm to be used in the assisted fathering of his own child by his wife be treated by the Bill as the father of the child? The clause appears to provide two different answers to that question. By virtue of Clause 27(2) he will be treated as the father. However, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, by virtue of Clause 27(4)(a) he will not be treated as the father.
If those two subsections are in conflict there is an inconsistency. Subsection (4)(a) should be amended so that it does not cover the situation where the man who has given his consent is the husband.
I would ask my noble and learned friend to expatiate upon this aspect —that subsections (6) and (7) are there precisely for cases where the father has refused to give his consent, but under common law presumably the child would still be treated as the child of the husband and wife in marriage.
Again, I am in difficulty about the way in which subsection (6) will affect the position, unless the key
1348
to resolving the conflict between Clause 27(2) and Clause 27(4)(a) lies in subsection (6). Subsection (6) will overreach subsection (2) and we may obtain the result that he is the father of the child. I should be grateful for guidance from the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: In amending subsection (4) of Clause 27 the amendment has two quite separate effects. First, as regards paragraph (a) of subsection (4), the clause as at present drafted ensures that a man who provides sperm through the statutory scheme for use by others is not to be treated as the father of any resulting child. In the Government's view it would be unfair to sperm donors if as the result of a public-spirited act aimed at helping infertile men and women they were to make them selves liable for the maintenance and upbringing of the child. Not only would such a result be unfair to donors but it would not in any way reflect the social reality and would carry the very grave risk of seriously reducing the number of donors and hence the supply of sperm.
The Government recognise that as drafted subsection (4) could have the result of producing a child who has no father where subsection (2) of the clause does not supply a substitute. The matter is one of balance but the Government consider that the scales come down clearly in favour of subsection (4) as presently drafted.
There is another objection to the amendment as it would affect paragraph (a) of subsection (4). It is not clear how this amendment would affect married couples who use AID. If the amended subsection (4) were to be construed as overriding subsections (2) and (3), it would mean that the sperm donor and not husband of a married woman would be treated as the child's father where AID was used. Presumably, that is not the intention of the amendment but the clause would need further amendment to make that clear were it to be carried into the Bill. I am not sure what my noble friend wishes to do about that matter.
I now turn to the second effect of the amendment; namely, that on paragraph (b) of subsection (4). As drafted, it provides that where the sperm of a man, or an embryo created with his sperm, is used after his death he is not to be treated as the child's father. This does not apply only to donations. It also applies to cases where a man's sperm is stored and after the man's death is used to treat his wife, or where an embryo is created in vitro using the gametes of a man and is implanted after his death.
The effect of the amendment would be that the man would be the child's legal father even if the sperm or the embryo were used after his death. It does not appear to me that that is a very desirable result. As the Warnock Committee pointed out, it is essential that there should be some finality for those administering the estates of deceased persons. Posthumous fertilisation could cause real problems of inheritance and succession. The Government agree strongly with those views and accordingly could not support this amendment.
The second amendment, which would leave out subsections (6) and (7), may be viewed as being

1349
consequential to the amendment designed to make sperm donors the fathers. But it would be quite wrong to underestimate the importance of those subsections.
In England and Wales and Northern Ireland there is a presumption at common law that a child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of that woman and her husband. In Scotland in the same circumstances there is a presumption of paternity. The presumptions can be displaced in a number of ways; for example, by showing that the husband and wife had not had sexual intercourse at the appropriate time or by showing that the husband and the child are not genetically related, such as by the techniques to which I referred earlier.
Where the common law or statutory provisions such as the adoption legislation provide a satisfactory answer to the question "Who is the father?", it is unnecessary for the clause to provide an answer. Indeed, it would be undesirable for it to do so, for that would place the children concerned in a special category. As the clause will give priority to the common law presumption, no purpose will be served by anyone showing that that presumption does not apply in the case of a Clause 27(2) child unless it can also be shown that the husband did not consent. Thus most Clause 27(2) children will be treated as the children of their "parents" in the same way as genetic children.
Subsections (6) and (7) are included in the Bill to ensure that the earlier provisions of the clause which determine who is to be the father of a child do not upset or cast doubt on common law or statutory arrangements which already in some cases provide a clear answer. I believe that I have shown that the amendment would cause a considerable degree of uncertainty and, therefore, I suggest that the Committee should not agree to it. Subsection (6) rules. One only needs to go beyond that if subsection (6) or the corresponding Scottish provision does not provide an answer.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. If I understood him correctly, subsection (6) fills in the gap where the husband has not given his consent under Clause 27(2), so that the child has a parent in law. Is that correct?
The Lord Chancellor: The subsection provides that presumption. Of course the presumption may be a rebuttal. Therefore, it is possible that the answer is not finally provided under the clause.
Baroness Elles: I was concerned that the child would be left without a father at all. I wanted clarification as to the legal position if under subsection (4) the donor is not to be treated as the father and under Clause 27(2) the father has not given his consent. I believe that my noble and learned friend has given that clarification.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may just clarify what I believe to be the correct position. If what I might call the social father —the woman's husband —has not given consent and can show that
1350
he is not the father of the child because he was absent for a long time or something like that, in that situation the child will not have a legal father because the donor's identity is not revealed. In I hat situation the child will have no father at law.
Baroness Elles: I am still fairly grateful to my noble and learned friend because this is clearly a difficult area. I should be grateful if he could look at the matter to clarify the position which he has just mentioned where a child may be left without a father at all. We cannot have that in the interests of the child. I do not believe that subsections (2), (4) and (6) are completely adequate. Of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could look at this matter in view of the situations which could arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 28 [Effect of sections 26 and 27]:
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 141 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 142 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [The Authority's register of information]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 15, line 22, leave out from ("register") to end of line 25 and insert ("which shall contain any information obtained by the Authority which falls within subsection (1A) below.
(1A) Information falls within this subsection if it relates to —

(a) the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual, or

(b) the keeping or use of the gametes of any identifiable individual or of an embryo taken from any identifiable woman,

or if it shows that any identifiable individual was, or may have been, born in consequence of treatment services.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 143 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 153A through to 153K.
Amendment No. 143 sets out clearly the information which the authority will be required to keep which it obtains from the licence holders. This information will be protected from disclosure by Clause 31. It is highly sensitive information, as we have already discussed, and I am sure it is right that we should do all we can to protect it from disclosure. The effect of the amendment is to provide that the authority must keep a register of the sort of information described in the new subsection (1A) outlined in the amendment; that is, in relation to the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual; or the keeping or use of the gametes of any identifiable individual or of an embryo taken from any identifiable woman; or which shows that an identifiable individual was born following treatment services.
The register will contain the information necessary to enable the authority to answer questions which

1351
may be put to it in terms of the later provisions of Clause 29 and Clause 30. In other words, questions will be asked of it by people wishing to ascertain if they were born as a result of one of the techniques to be licensed by the authority or by the registrar general to settle cases of disputed paternity.
The main purposes of Amendments Nos. 153A to 153K is to make the meaning of Clause 31 clearer and to provide for different exceptions to the general rule in Clause 31 which prohibits disclosure of confidential information which is obtained by members or employees of the authority. The purpose of the amendments is to provide for different exceptions from the general prohibitions depending on whether the information in question is contained in the register kept by the authority under Clause 29 or is other information obtained in confidence.
I trust that that information is adequate for the Committee and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): Amendment No. 144 is pre-empted by the acceptance of Amendment No. 143.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 149 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 15, line 42, after ("information") insert ("save that such information entered in the register before the date of implementation of this Act as would specifically identify the person concerned shall not be given").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 150 has to a certain extent been discussed when a large number of amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 82. The one I refer to in particular is Amendment No. 87.
This amendment is an attempt to deal with the concern that up until now sperm donations have been made on the understanding that the donor's identity will not be made known. When we were discussing Amendment No. 87 among others, I believe that somehow we got into the context of property. I am not concerned about property, but about the possible retrospective character of this legislation. We have heard from our earlier discussions that there was acceptance of the argument that the donor's identity should be made known. I do not need to rehearse the argument. It is much contested by those who think like myself and by, for instance, the National Association for the Childless.
I do not consider it acceptable that the conditions on which the donation has been made until now, or even as it is made now, should be betrayed by retrospective legislation, which seems to be the purport of these provisions. I am asking whether the provisions of Clause 29(3)(a) are retrospective or not. They seem to be so, but they may not be. I am heartened by some of the amendments which are to be moved in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I am referring to the block of amendments,
1352
Nos. 153A to 153K. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 153D and 153E.
All this makes for some complication, but we seem to be making some progress. It may be that the problem that worries me and some of my friends about retrospective legislation does not arise since Clause 29(1) refers to,
"recorded for the purposes of that licence in pursuance of … this Act".
In that case confidential information obtained prior to implementation of the Act ought not to be affected. I am puzzled, and it is because of this puzzlement that I am moving this amendment. I would like to know whether or not there is retrospective legislation which would invalidate an immunity which until now has been regarded as sacrosanct. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand it this amendment would prevent the authority from making information available to an applicant which would identify his or her genetic parents derived from information relating to the period before the legislation came into force. I do not think the amendment is necessary because, as the Bill is at present drafted, Clause 29 does not empower the authority to make such identifying information available to children born as a result of the techniques to be licensed under the Bill. Unless the Bill is subsequently amended to alter the policy that no identifying information is to be made available to children born as a result of donation, there is no need to specify that as this amendment does. The Bill does not allow that in any event.
In any case, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that to make a retrospective provision about identifying information when that information was not made available to the clinic or centre on that basis would not be a measure lightly to be entered into. As the noble Lord said, the donors have given their gametes on the basis that the information will not be made available. It would need a very strong measure indeed to overrule that retrospectively. I do not see any basis in the Bill for suggesting that that might happen.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very much reassured by what the noble and learned Lord has said. It is just that kind of statement that I was eliciting. I am very grateful to him and I shall look carefully at what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 15, line 46, at end insert —
("; or
(c) if the applicant so requires at the time of making his request, specifying by name any person who would or might, but for the said sections 26 to 28, be a parent of the applicant.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the anonymity of donors. It would allow

1353
children created through the donation of gametes to discover if they so wished and after they had reached the age of 18 the identity of their genetic parents. Following the previous debate, I hope that the amendment will not prove retrospective. If the amendment is agreed to, children created through AID will be placed on a par with adopted children who can ask for a copy of their original birth certificate once they reach the age of 18.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the arguments in favour or against allowing children to know the identity of their genetic parents. I believe it to be to their advantage to have that information. Much has been made of the position of donors. What has not been said is that disclosure would make them face up to the consequences of their action. This must be for the public good. In any case, the interests of the children concerned are infinitely more important than those of the donor. I beg to move.
Lord Ashbourne: I rise to support the amendment. The Committee has to decide whether it will put first the interests of the child or the interests of the sperm donor. I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should put first the interests of the child. Therefore I am in favour of giving a child who has reached the age of 18 access to the truth if he seeks it.
I should be grateful for help on one point. As I understand it, there has been legislation in Sweden to remove anonymity. I know that the Government were studying what has happened in other countries. Is there any information from Sweden concerning this issue which could help the Committee?
Lord Kennet: Before dinner we discussed an amendment which sought to put a "D" on birth certificates to show that the registered father was not the true biological father. The Committee rightly thought that that should not be pursued because it amounted to publishing the information and broadcasting it to the world. It would be thrust on the attention of the owner of the birth certificate. This amendment takes us into quite different territory. We are considering what is the correct response for the state to give to an adult who is asking for information which the state has.
Both noble Lords who have so far spoken in the debate have referred to the two parties concerned, the donor and the child generated by that donation. There is a third party in the deal envisaged by the amendment; that is, the state. We have to consider what effect the provision in the clause as drafted would have on relations between the individual and the state. The state possesses knowledge of the identity of the father, or even, in rarer circumstances, of the mother, of a citizen. The citizen goes to a representative of the state to ask whether there is any danger of incest if he marries. The representative of the state looks up the catalogue and says that there is no danger of incest. The citizen then asks, "You have the facts; who was my father?" The state says, "I have the facts and I know; but I refuse to tell you". That means that the state is in possession of information about the very identity of some of its citizens which it will not divulge.
1354
It seems to me that the clause as drafted takes us over a rather important threshold. If a threshold can have ramifications, as I would say this one has, then I would say that such ramifications go far wider than the Bill. If a precedent is set for the state refusing to divulge the identity of people to those people, for what would that precedent not serve? There can be no greater, more intimate or more ontological information about anyone than their identity. If that can be withheld, desite their pleas, surely any lesser information could henceforth be justifiably withheld.
I daresay that this is not the time for the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, to press the matter, but I hope that the subject will be further aired and that we may have an opportunity to return to it at a later stage of the procedings on the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading: I should like to speak in favour of the amendment standing in my name. I should especially like to say how concerned I am about the fact that the Bill appears to discriminate against the children. I understand the dangers outlined by the noble and learned Lord on placing the words "by donation" on the birth certificate. However, if the child is either suspicious or his parents advise him that he is a product of AID or of IVF, or if the child at the age of 18 wishes to know the identity, after counselling, I cannot understand why he should not be able to identify the donor. Perhaps we are in danger of discriminating against the child in favour of the donor.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He touched upon a completely new aspect; namely, the state having information about a person's identity and refusing to disclose it. It may seem a strange comparison, but in recent months we have witnessed extraordinary changes on the face of Europe, not least the revolution in Romania. This is a terribly dangerous power to leave in the hands of the state.
Of course, it is much too late to press the matter to a Division, so I can only hope that my noble and learned friend will look again at the matter, especially from the viewpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. In my view he made a serious and significant point which requires a thorough answer.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will clarify a matter which has puzzled me throughout all the discussions we have had about the disclosure of the identity of the donor. Most noble Lords who moved or spoke to the amendments have expressed their worry about doctors inquiring into the genetic properties of the donor because of the possibility of genetic disease. But, so far as I know —I may be quite wrong about this —there is no dossier about the genetic properties of the donor. Is that information in fact kept filed?
So far as I can see, if they knew the identity of the donor, people would not be any the wiser about what is to me the most important aspect of the matter;

1355
that is, whether he might pass on genetic disease. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify the position for me?
Lord Ennals: When the noble and learned Lord replies, will he comment on what effect this provision might have on donors? Would it not be a considerable deterrent to a potential donor coming forward if there was the danger that at some stage he might be accosted and accused of the responsibility of parenthood?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am a little worried about the whole question of incest. Young people today start living together from the age of 16 and may well already have had at least one child by the age of 18. That is the age by which it is suggested that the applicant could discover something about his or her genetic descent. It could then turn out that two young people who had been living together from the age of 16 and who had already had at least one child were half-brother and half-sister. What does one do then? I wonder how much this matters. The Pharoahs got by quite nicely marrying their brothers and their sisters.
Perhaps I may tell Members of the Committee a brief story. Centuries ago in Peru a family lived in a remote district—mother, father and two children. The parents died when the two children —a boy and a girl —were very young. With no guidance, the inevitable happened and children resulted. The bishop travelling through that district visited the house and discovered what had happened. He scratched his head and wondered what to do. Then he decided that the only possible course was to marry them.
I wonder whether we are making too much of a fuss, provided there is some limitation on the number of children a donor is allowed to father. Perhaps for the sake of these wretched young people we had better leave the matter of inadvertent incest alone.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may take up the last point that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made. In considering the terms of licences the authority may decide that it is wise to limit the number of donations by an individual for the reasons given. No doubt other precautions could be taken with regard to that and to the way in which sperm from a particular donor is used.
The amendment would extend the right of a person aged 18 or over to information about his genetic parents to include the right to know their names. As I explained earlier, the idea we have had so far is that genetic information about the parents should be available for the purpose of medical treatment and other such purposes. However, non-identifying information would be given to an applicant.
This amendment goes further and includes the right of the child to know the name of the donor. The first point is that with egg embryo or sperm donations the donor may not even be aware that a child has resulted from his or her donation. The
1356
Warnock Committee examined the matter and concluded that children should have access only to non-identifying information about the donor.
Some Members of the Committee have asked whether we support the child or the donor. Unless there is a donor in this situation there will be no child. In a sense, unless one gives such protection as the donor needs in order to become a donor, the interests of the child will not arise at all.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne mentioned Sweden, about which there is some information in the report by Jennifer Gunning to which I referred a week ago. I think that it is quite informative and I shall read an extract from the section dealing with Sweden, on page 39:
"In 1985 the Swedish Government passed a law on artificial insemination following the publication of a Report by a Government Committee set up in 1981 to look at issues related to assisted reproduction. This law restricted donor insemination to married couples, or those in a long-standing relationship. Treatment requires written consent from the husband or cohabitant who will be regarded as the legal father of the child. The most radical aspect of this law is the section relating to information about the donor which specifies that the child should have the right to obtain identifying information about the donor".
That is as my noble friend suggested.
The report continues:
"It had been the tradition in the past for non-identifying information only to be held.
The net effect of this change in the law was, firstly, to reduce and change the type of donors available—older married rather than younger single men offered themselves as donors—and, secondly, a reduction in the demand for donor insemination.
In fact, many Swedish couples seeking donor insemination are seeking treatment in other countries where donor anonymity is still guaranteed".
The practical effect of that measure appears to have been to reduce the availability of donors. That is the primary reason why the Warnock Committee does not support it.
I believe I have dealt with the matter of genetic diseases. The matter of genetic information will be relevant to that question. As I said in answer to earlier amendments, that information is much more reliable than particular information about the donor if there was any chance of that latter information being inaccurate. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale emphasised the point about the state having information which it withholds. Strictly speaking, in the system set up here, it is not an organ of the state but an authority which is independent of the executive government which will hold the information about donors and children born as a result of the techniques regulated by the Bill and people who have received one or more of the treatments.
Children born by donation will of course as a result of Clause 29(3) and (4) have access to non-identifying information about the donor. That is to be prescribed by regulations for the reason I have stated; namely, that information relevant to their medical situation might be important. However, the reason that the information is not provided is the one that I have given; namely, that the consideration of this matter by the Warnock Committee concluded that if there are to be donors in any substantial number anonymity is a necessary

1357
condition. The Government have no reason to differ from that conclusion. The experience in Sweden appears to lend considerable support to that view. As I said at the outset, this is not a question of children against donors. However, unless there are donors and anonymity for donors the chances are that this treatment of AID is unlikely to be available.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should mention that he referred to the matter of protecting the donor. Earlier he referred to protecting donors from any claims of responsibility as regards paternity and from any financial obligations towards the child. That is one thing, but if there is no such obligation and all the child obtains is the knowledge that a certain person was the donor but that the donor has no obligation whatsoever towards him, does that make any difference in the view of the noble and learned Lord?
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I mentioned responsibility particularly. I understand that it is the identification of the donor that is likely to discourage him from coming forward. One can see that the fewer consequences identification has for the donor, the less identification is likely to pose a disincentive. On the other hand, I suppose that once one's identity is known one's security against any other form of responsibility is apt to be diminished. Therefore in practical terms the result may be the same. The noble Baroness makes, as usual, an important point. However, I believe that, on balance, the Warnock Committee was right to hold that identification in itself is sufficient to make it unlikely that donors would come forward.
Lord Kennet: I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a moment. I do not want to lean on the point, for obvious reasons. However, I have seen reports—the validity of which I have not tested —that the Swedish experience was indeed as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, but that following the reduction in the number of donors immediately after the change in the law the number of donors coming forward has picked up. I have also seen it reported that there has been a similar experience in France. There was an immediate drop in the number of donors but it has since picked up again. I do not want to lean on the point because I do not have chapter and verse to quote which might seem to contradict the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's source. Perhaps there will be an opportunity on another occasion to go into the matter more fully.
1358
The noble and learned Lord pointed out that it would not be the state as such which would be concealing the knowledge of his identity from the citizen but rather the licensing authority. I do not believe that ordinary citizens will make much distinction in their minds and in their feelings between the state as such and a statutory authority set up by Parliament to have dominion over the matter. Their feelings will be the same in either case. It will be the res publica, the corporate body which everybody regards as "Them", "It", 'Big Brother", the state, which will be the subject of fear and hatred and the cause of pain when that knowledge is denied.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not wish to press the point about the distinction between the authority and the state, but the authority will be an independent body set up for that purpose.
So far as concerns the information that I gave about Sweden, when I first referred to the matter I mentioned when the report was compiled. I think that I am right in saying that the work was done last summer. The report is as up to date as that. I do not have in front of me the information about France. The report is available to all Members of the Committee, and no doubt some further study of it can be undertaken.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments on the amendment. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I should like to comment on something that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said about limiting the number of times a donor could donate. That was the subject of Amendment No. 30, which did not find favour with the Committee. However, it would have helped with the problem.
Although the amendment has received a great deal of support I do not believe that this is the time to divide the Committee. However, I should like to be free to come back to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 153A to 153K:
Page 16, line 30, leave out from ("employee") to end of line 31.
Page 16, line 35, after first ("any") insert ("other").
Page 16, leave out line 38 and insert —
("(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any disclosure of information mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above").
Page 16, line 42, at end insert—
("(bb) so that no individual to whom the information relates can be identified,").
Page 16, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any disclosure of information mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above —

(a) made to a person as a member or employee of the Authority,

(b) made with the consent of the person or persons whose confidence would otherwise be protected, or

(c) which has been lawfully made available to the public before the disclosure is made.").

Page 17, line 1, at end insert ("and no person to whom directions have been given").
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("mentioned in subsection (5) below") and insert ("falling within section 29(1A) of this Act").
Page 17, line 3, leave out from ("person") to end of line 10 and insert—
("(5) Subsection (4) above does not apply to any disclosure of information made").
Page 17, line 11, leave out ("or").
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("another") and insert ("a").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 153A to 153K en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert—
("(d) to a person for whom services are provided in pursuance of the licence but only in so far as such disclosure is permitted under regulations").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is moved on behalf of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. Its purpose is to enable the parents of a child born as a result of treatment services to give information to that child at appropriate stages of his or her development about his or her genetic parents if they were donors or gametes. The provisions as to confidentiality in Clause 31 as it stands are so rigidly drawn that it appears that the parents will not have access to that information.
Under the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 similar provision is made to that contained in Clause 31 of the Bill regarding confidentiality of adoption records. Nevertheless, an adoption agency is permitted to make disclosure of confidential case records as necessary for the purposes of carrying out its function. One of them specifically is to give to adoptive parents information about the child's personal history and background, partly in order, as the Department of Health, and then Social Services, circular on regulations (LAC) 84/3 makes clear, to enable them to pass the information on to the child.
Under the Bill, it is left to the authority to direct that information should be obtained about donors
1360
and to the Secretary of State by regulations to direct that certain information be disclosed to the child concerned on application. But the prohibitions on other disclosure contained in Clause 31 make it possible for the responsible authority to disclose any information about the donor or donors to the persons receiving treatment. While it is believed right that the Secretary of State should be able to insist that the identity of the donors is not disclosed at this stage, it is believed that it should be essential for the emotional well-being of the child as he or she grows up for the parents to be able to provide some information about the characteristics of its biological parent.
This is purely a probing amendment. I am interested to hear the comments of the Committee and particularly those of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I had judged the intention of Amendment No. 154 to be the same as that of the group with which we dealt earlier which had the aim of making identifying information available in respect of children born as a result of techniques to be licensed under the Bill. In that case the amendment would have the effect of making information defined in regulations available to those receiving services. I do not think, for the reasons that I have given in relation to other amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that it would be appropriate for us to agree to that extension of the policy in the White Paper and to make such information more widely available. Even with the safeguard which the amendment provides of regulations which would specify which categories of information would be available, I think it would be unfortunate if the confidentiality of data held by licence centres and by the authority about these sensitive treatments were to be breached.
Amendment No. 154A, the government amendment to Clause 31, seeks to provide for situations which are not covered in the current drafting of the Bill. It inserts paragraph (cc), which allows non-identifying information to be supplied, and paragraph (ccc) which makes provision for the case of a person to whom directions have been given who will need to be able to disclose permitted information to other persons. The inserted subsection (6) now provides that information may be released to the individual to whom it relates —for example, a donor or persons who are being treated —but that does not extend to any information showing that an identifiable individual was or may have been born in consequence of treatment services.
Given that the government amendment to Clause 31 will allow disclosure of non-identifying information to those receiving services, I hope that my noble friend Lord Teviot will feel that my comments have dealt with the substance of this amendment.
Lord Teviot: I shall certainly not press the amendment, but it was not in the group; it was a totally separate matter. I checked the grouping list.

1361
I note that there was a government amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hopper. I shall read carefully what has been said and hope that it will satisfy the points that have been made. If necessary, I shall return with another probing amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert—
("(cc) so that no individual to whom the information relates can be identified, or
(ccc) in pursuance of directions given by virtue of section 23(3) or (4) of this Act.
(6) This section does not apply to the disclosure to any individual of information which —

(a) falls within section 29(1A) of this Act by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, and

(b) relates only to that individual or, in the case of an individual treated together with another, only to that individual and that other.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 154A inserts paragraph (cc) which allows non-identifying information to be supplied and paragraph (ccc) which allows disclosure by persons to whom directions have been given who will need to be able to disclose permitted information to other persons.
The inserted subsection (6) now provides that information may be released to the individual to whom it relates —for example, a donor or persons who are being treated —but that does not extend to any information showing that an identifiable individual was or may have been born in consequence of treatment services. That sort of information would therefore be disclosable only in accordance with Clause 31(6). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 33 insert the following new clause —
("Inspection of premises
. —(1) The Authority shall ensure that every licensed premise is inspected at least annually.
(2) The Authority shall appoint to its staff competent inspectors in such numbers and with such qualifications as the Authority considers necessary to enforce the conditions of the licences granted to the premises and any other relevant provisions of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: During the course of these discussions in Committee several Members have stressed the importance of strict regulation and enforcement for the licences and other provisions of this Bill. Indeed, I think that was an understanding of many noble Lords who voted for research; namely, if there were to be research, the conditions under which it was carried out would be very strictly enforced.
There seem to be two serious omissions in the Bill. First, there is no reference to the frequency of inspection of licensed premises. I understand that the Interim Licensing Authority believes that premises should be inspected at least annually. That deals with the first part of the amendment.
Secondly, there is no obligation on the authority as the Bill is drafted at present to appoint a sufficient number of properly qualified inspectors to inspect licensed premises and generally to enforce the provisions of the Bill. That is in striking contrast to the Food Safety Bill wherein in Clause 27 every food authority is required to appoint public analysts with proper qualifications approved by the Minister.
submit that in this Bill it is at least equally important to put an obligation on the authority set up under the Bill to appoint an adequate number of properly qualified inspectors to enable the authority to carry out its regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. It is true that in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 (on page 24 of the Bill) there is a provision for the authority to:
"appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
But surely that is not sufficiently precise. I submit that it is of great importance to clarify and strengthen the duties of the authority as proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McGregor of Durris: As the noble Viscount said, many noble Lords voted for the continuance of research on the footing that the strict control established by the Voluntary Licensing Authority would be continued by the new statutory authority. As the noble Earl said, it is self-evident that if the new authority is to do its job effectively and fulfil the expectations of Members of this Chamber, it must at least establish annual inspections and do so on the basis of a fully qualified inspectorate. It is only on that basis that public confidence in the regulation of research of this nature can be fully established. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept the noble Viscount's amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: I strongly support this amendment. One cannot experiment on an animal without having a licence from the Home Office. It is difficult to imagine that one can experiment on a human embryo without being inspected, even if one has a licence. If one is experimenting on animals the Home Office inspector can descend at random and one does not know when he will come. I believe that the amendment of the noble Viscount is very welcome.
Lord Ennals: The noble Viscount has very well made his case, and I entirely support it. If the words are not entirely appropriate, the noble and learned Lord will say so, but I hope that the principle will be accepted.
Lord Harvington: I entirely support everything that has been said. I cannot resist the thrill of finding myself on the same side as Lord McGregor for once.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As we come towards the end of the Committee stage, it is very pleasant to feel an air of unanimity enveloping the Committee.
The Government take the view that efficient control of the licensing system is necessary. Whether it is quite wise to specify that every licensed premise,

1363
irrespective of the type of licensed premise, should be inspected at least once a year may be open to doubt. It ought to be for the authority to decide that. But I certainly understand the spirit of the amendment. It is clear that the confidence that the authority has in a particular area may have an effect on its decisions about inspection.
As has already been said, the unexpected inspection is obviously the most powerful weapon in the hands of an authority, and it may well be that more frequent than once a year inspections would be perfectly common. However, in view of the general response which has been given to this amendment, I think it would be right for me to consider the matter further.
Viscount Caldecote: I did not quite catch what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. Was it that he would accept this amendment or that an amendment would be brought forward at Report stage?
The Lord Chancellor: I said that if my noble friends were agreeable I should like to consider the matter further.
Viscount Caldecote: For the second time tonight, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend sincerely for his acceptance of the amendments I put forward. In view of his undertaking, I am very happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Offences]:
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert ("or
(c) exceeds any authorisation contained in a licence or fails or omits to observe or perform any condition contained in a licence granted to him or his employer").
The noble Baroness said: This Bill, in Clause 36, provides for certain sanctions in certain circumstances against persons who contravene provisions laid down in the Bill. Some acts are totally forbidden, as in Clause 3(2), or they may be prohibited unless a licence is granted. A licence may authorise certain acts within strict parameters, such as those set out in Clauses 12, 13 and 14 of the Bill, but there appears to be no provision to deal with the necessary safeguards which are needed against any excess of any authorisation allowed, or failure to observe any of the provisions which are required under the Bill, not only as far as concerns the person to whom the licence is granted, but also in face of employees who might exceed authorisation or fail to act in accordance with instructions laid down.
It is perfectly possible to imagine all sorts of situations where that could happen. I do not want to start being controversial or polemical, but one could imagine an extension of the 14 days; one could imagine an embryo being kept on with a hamster after the time laid down. There are all sorts of examples of which one could think which could
1364
happen, although I am not saying that they would happen. Nevertheless, there should be provision in the Bill for any excess of any authorisation. This amendment seeks to remedy that gap in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment would provide that a person who exceeds any authorisation contained in a licence, or who fails or omits to observe or perform any condition contained in a licence granted to him or his employer, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine or both.
The offence contained in Clause 36(1), and the corresponding penalties to which my noble friend referred, are provided in the Bill for the most severe offence with which the Bill deals and that offence is restricted to any person who:

(a) places in a woman an embryo or gametes which are not human,

(b) mixes human gametes with the gametes of any other species, except in accordance with a licence, or

(c) does anything which by virtue of Clause 3(3), such as placing any human embryo in any other animal species, may not be licensed under the Act.

The Government regards those matters as very serious, but while I can appreciate the spirit in which the amendment is moved, I do not believe that the activities with which it deals fall into quite the same category as those to which Clause 36(1) applies. The Government believe that appropriate sanctions for the activities the amendment describes are provided for elsewhere in the Bill. A person who exceeds any authorisation contained in a licence by bringing about the creation of, keeping, or using an embryo without being licensed to do so, or by storing any gametes or using donated gametes in the course of providing treatment services except in accordance with a licence would be guilty of an offence under Clause 36(2) and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. Clause 17 enables a licence committee to revoke a licence if it is satisfied that the person responsible is not discharging the duty under Clause 16 which provides that it shall be the duty of the person responsible to secure that the conditions of the licence are complied with.
For that reason I feel that the amendment puts the activities with which it deals, which are not already contained in Clause 36(1), into a more serious category than they should be put. We believe that offences under Clause 36(1) should be those which carry the severest penalties and that the other matters, which could amount to criminal offence, should be dealt with rather less severely.
It is important to focus on the severe matters and deal with them rather than provide for too vague an offence in Clause 36(1). That is why we have distinguished between the two levels of offences. I believe that adequate sanctions for the activities described in the amendment are provided for in the Bill elsewhere than in Clause 36(1).
Baroness Elks: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I understand his argument that Clause 36(1) is kept for severe offences; nevertheless, there could presumably be a severe offence where there is an excess of authorisation or where an employee or licensed person fails to act. However, in view of what my noble and learned friend has said and the lateness of the hour, I might come back to the point after considering carefully his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 19, line 29, at end insert ("otherwise than by doing something which, by virtue of section 3(3) of this Act, cannot be authorised by a licence").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 158 to 163. Amendment No. 157 provides for the severer penalties in Clause 36(1) to apply where people not only create, keep or use an embryo without a licence when one is required, but also do something that a licence cannot authorise under Clause 3(3).
The words suggested to be deleted by Amendment No. 158 are unnecessary. As currently drafted, Clause 36(2)(c) makes it an offence to fail to comply with any directions given by the authority. Amendment No. 159 therefore seeks to replace the excessively broad provision and would instead make it an offence to fail to comply with directions issued under Clause 23(5)(a). Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 are intended to extend the defence contained in Clause 36(9) to circumstances in which a person is not working under the immediate direction of the persons responsible under a licence. Amendment No. 162 is required merely to remove the word "of," so that it is clear that the directions refer to the directions in No. 161.
Amendment No. 163 is designed to extend the defence of due diligence to a person to whom directions have been given by the authority. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 158 to 163:
Page 19, line 31, leave out ("or regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) of that section").
Page 19, line 33, at end insert ("given by virtue of section 23(5)(a) of this Act").
Page 20, line 28, after ("time") insert—

("(i)").

Page 20, line 29, after ("licence") insert—

("(ii) a person designated by virtue of section 16(2)(b) of this Act as a person to whom a licence applied, or

(iii) a person to whom directions had been given by virtue of section 23(7) of this Act,").

Page 20, line 30, leave out ("of").
Page 20, line 34, after ("applied") insert ("or to whom directions had been given").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 158 to 163 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
("Consent to prosecution
. No proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Nothern Ireland.").

The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is that no proceedings can be brought under the Act in England, Wales or Northern Ireland without the consent of the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions. Scotland is not included because under Scottish law there is no provision for bringing private prosecutions except in highly restricted circumstances. The amendment is designed to ensure that only well-founded cases are brought before the courts so that they are not burdened with frivolous prosecutions. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: The effect of this clause would be to prevent prosecutions under the Bill when enacted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would make private prosecutions brought by ordinary members of the public impossible. This appears to me to be a serious erosion of the effectiveness of the Bill. The right of ordinary citizens to bring a case in law is of the greatest importance. This is indeed an issue which concerns many ordinary members of the public, as was indicated by the Gallup Poll which I mentioned on a previous occasion and which I fear was misunderstood by my noble friend Lord Craigavon. Outright majorities opposed the use of the human embryo for experiments to develop contraceptives or abortifacients.
On the first question of research into genetics and chromosomal abnormalities, 32 per cent. were opposed to research. The 58 per cent. who were in favour of research were then asked whether they would support it if the aim was to discard affected embryos. Twenty-nine per cent. of those people, which is 17 per cent. of the total, then opposed research. Thirty-two per cent. plus 17 per cent. equals 49 per cent. opposing research, with only 32 per cent. still supporting it, if the aim was to discard affected embryos; and 20 per cent. did not know.
These figures are always complicated, and I apologise to my noble friend if I failed to explain it earlier so that it could be understood. I have put the figures in the Library. I hope that your Lordships will take time to look at them because there are a number of other interesting results from the poll. I am making the point that this is a matter which the public are very concerned about. I think it would be wrong to make it impossible for us to act through the courts to see that the law is enforced. For this reason, I would oppose the amendment.
Lord Harvington: I must support my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk in opposing the amendment. We have a strange situation in British law where many Acts remain on the statute book which no one would wish to see enforced. For instance, a taxi driver who does not carry a bale of hay in his boot is breaking the law but no one would expect to see

1367
him feeding the hay to the horse which was towing him back to his garage. That is a matter of which we should take note.
Such a system has its dangers. The present Director of Public Prosecutions might decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute in respect of a certain matter when many people would like to see the law enforced. Such events now take place.
I apologise for introducing a new topic at this late hour but it is by way of example only. The Abortion Act provides a good example in practice. Most abortions are carried out on the grounds of the risk to the mental health of the mother. However, in its report on unplanned pregnancy published in 1972 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated:
"It is no such danger of injury to the majority of these cases as the indication is purely social".
That must mean that many illegal abortions are taking place but there are no prosecutions. How do we know that there will be prosecutions in this case? If the Director takes such a course in other cases, why not in this case? It is not a situation which anyone envisaged in 1967. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, did not, nor David Steel and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
A similar comment can be made about the time limit. Today many late abortions are those of children capable of being born alive, yet there are no prosecutions. I do not believe that we can have any confidence in the DPP to ensure that laws of this kind will be enforced. We must be most wary of preventing all other avenues of enforcement.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman: I must comment on the last observation made by the noble Lord. I do not have the statistics to hand but I assure him that extremely few abortions take place —in fact, none —of a child capable of being born alive, save exceptionally where the child is an encephalic or for some other reason it is impossible for it to survive.
I believe that it would be quite wrong in this highly sensitive area to permit private prosecutions. I wholly support the amendment.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: The right is not available in Scotland, but it is the basic right of the individual in England to take out private prosecutions, except where it is specifically declared to be the opposite. I can understand that in cases where national security is at stake there is a reason for limiting private prosecutions. However, merely because there may be frivolous prosecutions is no reason at all. I am sure that the courts have ways and means of dealing with frivolous prosecutions. I believe that Parliament should look closely each time this right of the individual is whittled away.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have listened with great care to the previous speakers. I was not aware that the amendment concerned abortions. Those Members of the Committee who listened to the "The Today Programme" on the radio this morning will have heard medical people from Romania talking about
1368
what was happening there under President Ceaucescu. Abortions were banned and those which took place were completely illegal. The maiming and crippling of young women, some with young families, was appalling. That situation would exist here if private prosecutions were introduced. The flood gates would be opened.
With my limited knowledge of the Bill I did not believe that abortion was relevant to the amendment. However, anyone who wants to talk in terms of turning back the clock on abortion would do well to listen to the tape of those interviews with medical people from Romania. They have sent a desperate appeal for medical equipment to allow the doctors in Romania to start performing abortions. I believe that Members of the Committee should consider that when they propose turning back the clock. It seems odd that a Communist and dictatorial country like Romania could behave in such a manner. One would expect such a country to be more liberal but it is a closed shop as regards abortion. Abortion is not available at any time for any reason. I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Lord Kennet: Perhaps I can bring the Committee back to the subject of the Bill and to the territory within which it will apply. No doubt frivolous prosecutions are a great danger in many spheres. For that reason we are all fairly accustomed to the institution of DPP only crimes. That is a special class of crimes which are considered so sensitive to somebody that the citizen must be deprived of his normal right of taking out a private prosecution. That right must in those cases be confined in the hands of the DPP.
No doubt there is readily available a list of offences which are DPP only. I believe that the judgment of the Committee on this fundamental amendment —which has come rather late in the day —would be better if the noble Baroness could tell us what the list is. Prosecutions in this field will be sent to stand beside other DPP only offences. I would not feel capable of making a rational decision without knowing the list of those offences beside which this will stand. I am now repeating myself for a reason that I believe the noble Baroness will understand.
Viscount Caldecote: I ask my noble friend what action is open to members of the public if they sincerely believe that the DPP is not prosecuting when he should be. Does that come within the duties of the ombudsman or is there some other recourse open to them?
Baroness Elles: I should like to add my voice to those who oppose this amendment, which has nothing to do with abortions or Romania but is to do with this country and the people who may feel that they have been ill treated or have had an offence committed against them through some action by the authority. Those of us who have had direct dealings with the electorate know of cases where women in particular have been totally frustrated and do not feel that they have been treated justly. I believe that putting the DPP between an individual and the courts is depriving that individual of a right to justice

1369
in this country. Therefore, I join those who oppose the amendment.
Viscount Craigavon: Before the Minister replies, I was mentioned by name by the noble Duke and perhaps I may just reply to what he said. It is relevant to the amendment in that he referred to public support for his point of view.
I stand by the statistics which I produced before. As the noble Duke said, a copy of this information is available in the Library. I referred to a final question in a series of questions which was put in a Gallup Poll on behalf of SPUC. The question asked whether human embryos should be used at all in experiments. Having first mentioned various purposes for which human embryos might be used, there was a general question. Thirty-seven per cent. said that embryos should not be allowed in experiments and 36 per cent. said that they should be allowed. There was a large number of "Don't knows" —27 per cent.
That corresponds closely with the MORI survey which appeared in the House magazine on 4th December and which also found a figure of 38 per cent. in favour of a total ban on live human cells. There were 11 per cent. "Don't knows", leaving a figure of 51 per cent. in favour of research up to 14 days and after 14 days.
The point I was making and to which the noble Duke has just referred —this is relevant to the amendment —is that the public gave a verdict also in his survey on the matter of research into genetics and chromosomal diseases. Only 32 per cent. said embryo research should not be allowed in that case but 58 per cent. said it should be allowed. What seemed to happen is that having obtained an unfavourable result the survey then recast the question in a much narrower form and tried to obtain, by a very loaded question, a different result. Those figures are available in the Library for inspection.
Baroness Hooper: I am aware of the statistics quoted by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk which he has so kindly placed in the Library, but I should like to make absolutely clear that this amendment does not make private prosecutions impossible, as my noble friend suggested. It simply requires the consent of the DPP before such a private prosecution can be brought.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Caldecote, who asked what recourse was available if the DPP refuses consent, my understanding is that the DPP operates under the superintendence of the Attorney-General who, in turn, is answerable to Parliament. As I said in presenting the amendment, it is designed to ensure that only well-founded cases are brought before the courts and is in no way intended to infringe an individual's right to attempt to bring a public prosecution.
While I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, by giving him a list of offences covered by the DPP, I can tell him that there is an identical provision in Clause 4(2) of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. That is all I can say to answer the points raised.
Lord Kennet: Knowing one other Act in which this provision exists seems to me to be an insufficient basis on which to ask the Committee to decide on this matter. As the noble Baroness said, she is sure there is a list. Might it not be advisable to withdraw the amendment for the moment and introduce it at a later stage when that list is before us? We shall then see in full the company which we are sending this Bill to join and see what status the Government intend the Bill to have.
Baroness Hooper: I do not feel it is necessary at this stage to withdraw the amendment, but I will inform the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of the additional cases, which I am not able to do spontaneously at the moment.
Lord Kennet: That will be too late.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say "content"?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, "not content"?
Noble Lords: Not content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think the "contents" have it.
Lord Kennet: Not content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think the "contents" have it.
Lord Kennet: Not content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The "contents" have it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Regulations]:
[Amendment No. 164A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 20, line 44, leave out ("3(3)(b)") and insert ("3(3)").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Railways Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  RABBIT CONTROL, TIDWORTH
  RABBIT CONTROL, TIDWORTH
  STUDENTS IN SCOTLAND: STATISTICS
  STUDENTS IN SCOTLAND: STATISTICS
  BSE: SLAUGHTER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  BSE: SLAUGHTER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  SALMONELLA: SLAUGHTER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  SALMONELLA: SLAUGHTER COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS