Sitting of 21 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Homelessness
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the extra funds announced recently to tackled homelessness will be made available directly to housing associations.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): This programme will amount to £250 million over the next two years. Of this, £73 million will be made available to housing associations. Local authorities may choose to channel some of the remainder to housing associations.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister gives us good information, because homelessness concerns all hon. Members. Will he go further and say what initiatives the Government might take to assist the homeless in general, particularly bearing it in mind that one of the major causes of homelessness is the break-up of marriages and family life?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the break-up of family life is one of the most significant reasons for homelessness. Therefore, part of the answer to the homelessness problem is to ensure that as many young people as possible stay close to the family home until they are sure of adequate alternative accommodation and have the financial means to support it. With the help of Shelter, SHAC—the sheltered housing advice centre—and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, I am today launching a homeless advice service at a cost of about £1 million. It will give advice about the dangers of leaving home and about the help available to those who become homeless. As a matter of urgency, we are considering what further comprehensive action we need to take to relieve the problem, especially for those sleeping rough on the streets.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that more hostels are required and that if voluntary organisations were given more cash, the problem would be somewhat relieved? At present, giving cash to housing associations does not house the young homeless, with whom we are concerned. Obviously, the associations house people and are doing a good job, hut, certainly, they will not be housing the people in real need.
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, one of the things that we are looking at is hostel accommodation. We shall make recommendations in the light of our considerations.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend's announcement is welcome. Does he agree that the problem would be much alleviated if five principal London Labour authorities were to collect the £58 million of outstanding rent owed and did not have 10,000 empty properties?
    Mr. Spicer: Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. It is largely the way in which Labour councils manage those estates that has caused some properties to be vacant. That is a national scandal.
    Mr. Soley: I am sure that the teenage children in their cardboard boxes will be fascinated by the Government's latest gimmick. Does not the Minister understand that £125 million over one year, followed by £125 million the next year, will not even cover the cost of the homelessness that has been brought about by the latest hike in mortgage interest rates? In addition, it will not cover the cost of giving homes to people who are evicted because they cannot pay the £15 a week rent rises in Conservative Redbridge or Tory Bournemouth. Those are the sort of problems that the Minister should address. One thing that he could do today that would have some weight—perhaps he will tell the House that he will do it—is to allow local authorities to start spending their capital receipts on housing the homeless.
    Mr. Spicer: One of the things that Labour spokesmen do not do when they shout their mouths off about this subject is actually to look at the causes. The Government are looking at one of the causes. This is an international problem. I have seen how serious it is in Copenhagen. One of the causes is the break-up of family life, so one of the good steps that we can take is to warn children against leaving their families prematurely. Of course, it then becomes a matter of responsibility for the Government to ensure that there is adequate accommodation for those who become homeless.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs are available in London and that employers find great difficulty filling those jobs, even when accommodation is offered? Does not that suggest that a number of the so-called homeless are, in fact, malingerers?
    Mr. Spicer: Not only is my hon. Friend right that there is high employment throughout the country, but it is often ignored by the Opposition that we have the most generous housing benefits for people who cannot afford accommodation of any country in the western world. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out some of the absurdities of some of the Labour party's propaganda on this matter.

    Nature Conservancy Council
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the proposed break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): My Department has received a number of representations recently about the proposals to strengthen the conservation and countryside agencies.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State agree that, following reorganisation, certain aspects of the NCC's work will need to be determined and handled on a United Kingdom basis—for example, the criteria for designating sites of special scientific interest? Will he tell us, first, what aspects will need to be handled in future on a United Kingdom basis; and secondly, which will be the body responsible for determining those aspects? Will it be the new bodies, or the joint co-ordinating committee, or will it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State himself?
    Mr. Patten: It will be primarily the responsibility of the joint statutory committee. I know that Professor Holliday, who will chair the committee, is considering these matters, and he will want to discuss the issue with the territorial organisations. I am sure that he will be able to produce a formula that will satisfy them and all concerned in nature conservancy. I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about, interest in and knowledge of the subject.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sites of special scientific interest in the Western Isles and the rest of Scotland will be much better served by a strong science-based establishment in Scotland looking after Scottish interests? Does he further agree with the strong opinion in the NCC that England, Scotland and Wales would be much better served by independent councils?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly accept what my hon. Friend says. As he will know, we have had letters of support from the territorial committees of the NCC. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point about the SSSIs is one that Magnus Magnusson and other members of the Scottish committee will want to take into full account in due course.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that tinkering with the structure may not, in itself, be enought to ensure real environmental protection? Will he therefore match the changes with ensuring that adequate funding and adequate powers are given to the appointed personnel? I welcome the appointment of Sir Magnus Magnusson to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the local territorial organisation in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Sir Magnus and his colleagues have a statutory right to be involved in planning issues, which are especially important in this matter?
    Mr. Patten: I should not want to cut across the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the hon. Lady is perfectly correct to say that we must ensure that all aspects of nature conservancy in Scotland, Wales and England have adequate resources. Unlike our predecessors, we shall increase those resources, not cut them.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received opposing the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We continue to receive a good many representations on the community charge, covering a wide range of views.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that the difference between the rates on our house in Coventry, at £619, and the poll tax for two people in Coventry, is £189, and that that is my family's fortnight's summer holiday? If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister think that they are taking my bairns' two weeks' holiday off them to pay for his bloody poll tax, he does not understand the determination of 1 million people in Scotland who have not paid and of 10 million in England and Wales who will be joining them in five weeks' time.
    Mr. Chope: Despite the hon. Gentleman's customary rant on the issue of the community charge, the House should congratulate him because his second home is in the London borough of Wandsworth. Contrary to his earlier protestations, he has registered there for the standard community charge thereby ensuring that his community charge will be about the lowest in the country.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to hear the rest of the Minister's answer, but, on a point of order, you should reflect on how the Minister knows where I live and where I have registered.
    Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so coy about his second home and where it is located. It would be particularly mean-minded of him to withhold payment of the community charge and encourage others to do so. Coventry has the third highest revenue support grant per adult in the west midlands, which is considerably above the national average.
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order,Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Gould: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's reply calls for an immediate explanation, because the House needs to know how the Minister knows who has registered on the poll tax register when that information is required to be kept confidential by the registrar.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter about the contents of an answer.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Chope: Treating that as a question, it was open to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to apply to have his name withheld. He did not do so and I can confirm that his name appears on the public extract of the register.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that hon. Members are taking up a great deal of time. What is the point of order?
    Mr. Madden: You, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair to protect the interests of all hon. Members and, with due respect, the Minister has revealed that he is aware of the home address of a Member of the House. That seems to be a clear breach of assurances given by Ministers that such information would not be revealed to third parties. Therefore——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could make his point much more briefly than that. Whether a Minister knows where an hon. Member lives is not a material matter for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is secret".] Order. It may not be a secret matter. It is a matter for the contents of the answer and not a matter for order in the Chamber. There are many more questions on the community charge.
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in his supplementary question the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) used unparliamentary language. I should be grateful if you would require him to withdraw it.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member used a word which is in current use today, but which I prefer not to hear in the Chamber.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many more questions to come on the community charge.
    Mr. Howarth rose——
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to control air pollution.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Current systems of air pollution control are being strengthened and extended by the Environmental Protection Bill. Additional processes will come under a robust new prior authorisation regime. The Bill enables the Clean Air Acts to be extended to control gaseous emissions from boilers or furnaces. It also streamlines the procedures for controlling air pollution that is a statutory nuisance.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I regret that at the moment the internal combustion engine is excluded from the Environmental Protection Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was never the Government's intention that steam locomotives should be included within the confines of the Bill? Will he confirm that amendment No. 608 to the Bill, tabled in his name and mine, will lift that dire threat from the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's interest in and support for steam locomotives is extremely well known and there are thousands upon thousands of people like him in the country, who share that interest. There is no question of preventing or curtailing the use of steam locomotives, and we have no intention of changing the law relating to them. We hope to carry forward in part III of the Environmental Protection Bill, the exemption contained in section 72 of the Public Health Act 1961, which excludes steam ejected by railway locomotives from the definition of statutory nuisance.
    Mr. John Garrett: What does the Minister think of the Department of Energy's decision to cut flue gas desulphurisation from power stations? Can he comment on reports of a disagreement between his Department and the Department of Energy? Unless that process goes ahead, we shall be unable to meet the European Community directive on clear air.
    Mr. Trippier: To talk about disagreements between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy is stretching credulity to breaking point. It is clear to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read the debate that took place in the House yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it perfectly clear that the United Kingdom is fully committed to implementing the large combustion plants directive. We signed it in 1988, and it commits us to a 60 per cent. cut in 1980 SO2 emissions from existing large plants by 2003. My right hon. Friend is not moving away from that position, and any talk or chatter in the press is purely speculative.
    Mr. Butler: Will my lion. Friend confirm that for the first time there will be an individual plant limit placed on Fiddler's Ferry power station for its emissions of sulphur dioxide? Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be very welcome news to the region?
    Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I confirm that that is part and parcel of the proposals introduced in the legislation that I referred to, and I am glad that he has welcomed it.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that diesel smoke is a major pollutant, especially in urban areas? It makes buildings dirty, fouls the atmosphere and is considered by some people to be potentially carcinogenic. Has the Minister discussed steps to control that form of air pollution with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport? Is this one of those areas where the Secretary of State's good intentions are being frustrated by his Cabinet colleagues, or does the Minister not have good intentions on this problem? Is there any Cabinet agreement on this or is this another area where we shall see no action from the Government to protect the environment?
    Mr. Trippier: I have never seen my right hon. Friend frustrated: he is not the type, nor indeed is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pressed the Commission to come forward with those proposals for heavy duty diesel vehicles at the last two Environment Councils. We took that initiative and we are now awaiting the Commission's proposals.

    Genetically Engineered Organisms
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of the release of genetically engineered organisms.
    Mr. Trippier: The environmental implications of such releases were considered in the consultation paper issued by the Department in June last year, and in the 13th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution published in July last year. Provisions to ensure the safety

    919
    of releases, and to control the conditions under which they occur are included in part VI of the Environmental Protection Bill.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a real danger that there will be a dramatic expansion of genetically modified organisms as a perceived means of solving some of our environmental problems? Does he accept that the idea of producing genetically modified animals and patenting them, as has been done with a mouse in the United States, is an absurd, unethical and abhorrent practice? There is an implication from the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office that the British Government would allow genetically created animals to be patented in this country. Does he agree that that should not happen, and that his Department should take responsibility for that, not the Home Office?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman suggests that such work may expand dramatically and get out of hand; in fact it is already expanding dramatically, which is why we have been pleased to take the advice of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. Most of the measures that it has proposed are incorporated in the Environmental Protection Bill. Part VI of the Bill sets up a flexible control regime, which will operate according to the degree of the risk to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Secretary of State will have the power to exercise control through consents, by notifications or by separate risk assessment. We shall address any wider issues at the appropriate time in the Standing Committee—as, no doubt, will the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of it.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the Department's assessment of the risk?
    Mr. Trippier: Obviously the Department accepts that there is a degree of risk, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the setting up of a specialist committee to which consents will be referred. If there were any accidents, for instance, we should prefer to be given the committee's expert opinion on how they should be dealt with. As I have said, the controls incorporated in part VI of the Bill are a result of advice given to us by the Royal Commission.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many county councils he proposes to poll tax cap in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: It would be quite wrong to speculate how many or which authorities would be charge-capped if we had to use our capping powers next year. If authorities insist on budgeting excessively, they will be capped; if they budget sensibly they have nothing to fear.
    Mr. Boyes: Before going further down that road, will the Secretary of State take into account the unanimous decision of the policy committee of the royal county of Berkshire to condemn the fairy-tale figures involved in the Government's estimates of the cost of running and maintaining its existing services? The county is taking legal advice about the possibility of a judicial review to seek redress. Does not that show that the Secretary of State has
    920
    got the figures wrong for every local authority in Britain? Is it not time that he did some recalculation and got them right?
    Mr. Patten: The spending increases that some councils are discussing would mean, on average, a 35 per cent. increase in domestic rates if the domestic rating system were still in operation next year. Even if we believed everything that every local authority said, there would be no conceivable argument for increases of that size.
    As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal county of Berkshire, I am wholly satisfied with the arguments that we have advanced in the past. I hope that charge payers will find that the county council sets a sensible budget, and does not ask for percentage income increases in the high teens or low 20s.
    Mr. Squire: While taking account of the Opposition's criticism of the community charge, has my right hon. Friend yet received formal notification from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that he is engaged in a modern version of the dance of the seven veils, and that the first veil has now dropped? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the dropping of the last veil will be a mutually rewarding experience?
    Mr. Patten: I always want to be entirely fair to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Undoubtedly he would like an opportunity to come down to the House of Commons and explain the many alleged benefits of the roof tax, but the Leader of the Opposition stops him from doing so.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State explain why a Labour-controlled authority such as mine in Salford—which, despite experiencing all the usual inner-city problems, has made very prudent assessments—is having to charge £100 above the limit set by the Secretary of State because of the conditions that have been laid down? How can such an authority face up to the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward?
    Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman's authority, like others—including some that are Labour-controlled—could allow for an increase in income next year below the rate of inflation. It would also be perfectly possible for his authority to set a charge, as have others—some of them Labour—lower than that implied by the standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Neale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is growing hope and expectation in Cornwall that he will cap the outrageous increase proposed by Cornwall county council, but that doubt about whether and when that may happen is causing considerable anxiety? The quicker my right hon. Friend can reach a decision, the sooner local and district authorities can plan for change, and the sooner local people will know what the new community charge will be.
    Mr. Patten: I recognise my responsibilities towards charge payers, some of whom face outrageous bills. I cannot make a final decision until all local authorities have proposed budgets. We shall then present to the House any proposals that may be necessary. I assure my hon. Friend that we have the interests of community charge payers very much in mind.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Secretary of State concede the overwhelming evidence, not least from Tory-controlled authorities and from many Conservative Members, that his projections of poll tax bills are complete and utter fiction? Does he agree that it would be better to make a clean breast of it and withdraw his figures than make vague threats about charge capping that can only confuse already hard-pressed local authority treasurers? If the Secretary of State must continue on his present course, will he at least publish the criteria on which he proposes to act, so that local authorities which have no confidence in the figures that he has presented so far may at least have some guidance on how they are expected to make their judgments?
    Mr. Patten: We shall certainly be publishing criteria on charge capping, if we need to do so, before the hon. Gentleman publishes any statistics or figures about the roof tax. The hon. Gentleman may wish to discuss this point with the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. If some of the rumoured figures for community charge turn out to be true, it will imply a £3 billion increase in spending over the sum that we regard as reasonable. Is it the Opposition's view that we should provide £3 billion additional grant to local authorities in the coming year? That is the question that the Opposition must answer—£3 billion or not?

    Tower of London
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people visited the Tower of London on Sunday mornings during 1989; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: The only part of the Tower of London currently open to the public on Sunday mornings is Tower wharf, for which admission is free. No statistics are compiled on visitors to the wharf, but it is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 visit the area on an average Sunday morning in summer, and a few hundred in winter. Many summer visitors go on to enter the main Tower precincts as paying visitors when it opens to the public at 2 pm.
    Mr. Gregory: Is not it a national scandal that the Tower of London—a national treasure trove—is effectively closed on Sundays in winter, and is open only on Sunday afternoons in summer? Is my hon. Friend aware that many British citizens and overseas visitors want to see the Crown jewels and other artefacts in the Tower of London? When will he unlock the Tower, or are its treasures to be seen on Sundays only by the ravens and beefeaters, while the Tower remains closed to citizens and visitors alike?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the practicalities and economics of earlier or all-day Sunday opening are currently under review. Sunday mornings have been regarded as providing, particularly in the summer, a much-needed break in the Tower's working routine—certainly for the warders and perhaps for the ravens, too. I confirm that the new chief executive of the royal agency is carefully examining the case for opening the Tower earlier on Sundays.
    Mr. Tony Banks: As the Tower of London is still a very secure place, and given the Prime Minister's interest in security—judging from the preposterous Nicolae
    922
    Ceausescu memorial gates that she has had erected at the end of Downing street—would not it be appropriate, if we are all concerned about the right hon. Lady's safety, to bang her up in the Tower and throw the key in the Thames?
    Mr. Trippier: I have a better idea. I recommend that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) be locked in the Tower. That would increase the number of visitors. It would not deny those hon. Members the right to speak in debates because, when they spoke in the Tower, we could hear them down here.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a pity to waste a question on that sort of thing.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimated cost for collecting the community charge and the uniform business rate.
    Mr. Chope: The estimates for these costs remain at approximately £400 million and £40 million a year respectively.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the cost of collecting the community charge is even more in excess of the original figure put forward by the Government than the poll tax is in excess of the Government's estimate? Is the collection cost more than double the cost of collecting the rates in 1988–89? In my local authority the implication of that massive burden for poll tax payers is that £1 in £5 of expenditure will go on collecting this unfair tax. Might not the Government remove at least that unnecessary burden for which poll tax payers never voted?
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The cost of collecting the community charge is 4p in the £1. Depending upon which local authority area people live in, the cost might be lower. The Government made available a generous amount of grant to help local authorities with the cost of collecting the community charge.
    Mr. Dunn: Is not it true that all significant political parties in the House are now committed to the abolition of the rating system? Should not the cost of collecting any alternative, especially the roof tax, be taken into account when debating the matter? Would not the roof tax be a very expensive burden on home owners, especially in the south-east, given the high capital values of properties there?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The roof tax would be an administrative nightmare and it would be incredibly unpopular. It would be a most unfair tax on home improvements.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the figures given a few moments ago by the Secretary of State, who said that the poll tax would amount to £3 billion more than the assumed level of spending? Does the Minister accept the professional advice that the Government underestimated actual spending by

    923
    £2·5 billion and that, had they taken into account the true level of inflation, their figures might have been more sensible?
    Will the Minister confirm that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), he showed that he disagreed with the Secretary of State in relation to poll tax capping by saying:
    "Local authorities decide the level of their charges, and are accountable directly to their residents for their decisions at the ballot box."—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 433.]
    Will he confirm that any plans for poll tax capping have been scrapped, or was his reply last Friday incorrect?
    Mr. Chope: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said on the subject. When the legislation was discussed in the House it was clear that we were taking a reserve power to cap high-spending authorities, particularly during the transitional period. In view of the spending plans of some local authorities, most hon. Members will agree that it is just as well that we included a capping power in the legislation. Nevertheless, it is for each local authority to decide in the first instance what its budgeted expenditure should be. The best local authorities, where there is a will to keep expenditure under control, are coming forward with low community charges and low increases in expenditure.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend believe that the cost of collecting the community charge would be any different if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment amended sections 100 and 101 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 so that district councils that intended to increase their expenditure excessively and tried to blame the Government for their profligacy could be capped if their expenditure was under £15 million a year?
    Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is frustration because a number of district councils whose expenditure threshold is less than £15 million have proposed substantial increases in expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be slow to condemn them.

    City Grants
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of city grants that have been made during the past two years for projects in West Yorkshire for each authority for (a) housing, (b) industrial and (c) commercial; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Since May 1988, grants totalling more than £1·5 million have been approved for three housing, one industrial and two commercial projects in West Yorkshire. I am placing details of each project in the Library.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister talk to the chairman of Leeds development corporation about the way in which the corporation spends city grants, and in particular about his authoritarian and arrogant attitude which has put at risk an important development in Leeds—the opening of a hotel on a crucial site in terms of the city's overall development? Will the Minister hold such a meeting and
    924
    ask the chairman of Leeds development corporation to talk yet again to Holiday Inn hotels about grants and allow that important development for the city to go ahead?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can do more than that. Apart from ensuring that the chairman of Leeds development corporation knows exactly what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that this morning we were in touch with the chairman's office. The chairman will be happy to have a meeting in person with the hon. Gentleman and any other colleagues who have an interest in the project.
    Mr. Batiste: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which demonstrates the Government's support for West Yorkshire, may I ask him to monitor carefully over the next two years the evidence for the take-up of grants across the region, particularly those that are designed to improve the housing stock? Is there evidence of home owners becoming reluctant to improve their homes as the horrendous implications of the Labour party's roof tax become more widely known?
    Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's latter point, I am confident that that will be the case. We shall continue to monitor closely the impact of city grants on the development of jobs and the number of new homes coming on to the market, both of which are key criteria when assessing any application for grant.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) about housing was abysmal. There is a dramatic shortage of rented accommodation in West Yorkshire in particular but throughout the country in general. That has been caused by high mortgage interest rates. If there have to be city grants, will the Minister ensure that more of the money is targeted on new housing for rent, at rents which people in West Yorkshire in particular but throughout the country in general can afford to pay? There is a great need for such housing. I hope that the Minister will address that serious problem.
    Mr. Moynihan: The record of city grants for housing is excellent, with 11,000 homes being built nationwide. I regret the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks. If he had concentrated on my answer, he would have heard that, of the six projects in West Yorkshire, two are commercial, one is industrial and three concentrate on housing.

    Pollution Inspectorate
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how many works each Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inspector is responsible.
    Mr. Trippier: There are some 10,750 works subject to control by HMIP and 76 field inspectors. Work programmes for field inspectors are set annually according to management's assessment of regulation requirements and priorites.
    Mr. Wardell: As the Minister will know, many of those registered works are highly dangerous in terms of potential emissions to air. He will know of the two Rechem plants at Pontypool and Southampton and the Cleanaway plant at Ellesmere Port. Will he make sure that HMIP is no longer under-resourced and that there is independent

    925
    monitoring at HMIP laboratories so that the public, industry and local authorities have confidence that materials such as polychlorinated biphenyls are incinerated by the correct temperature and that no dioxins are formed?
    Mr. Trippier: First, I have absolute confidence in HMIP. I am very proud that the Government set up that inspectorate and I find it deplorable that the Opposition lose no opportunity to talk it down and sell it short because of the work that it is trying to do. The integrated pollution control proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill will meet the concerns of the hon. Gentleman. They give additional responsibilities and duties to HMIP, and I know that the inspectorate is up to the task. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that a business such as Rechem, which is fully licensed and approved and regularly visited by HMIP inspectors, is not doing its job properly.
    Mr. Wardell: I did not say that.
    Mr. Trippier: No, but the hon. Gentleman gave that impression. As the company has been properly licensed and approved and regularly inspected, I can give that confidence to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
    Mr. Churchill: Following the environmental catastrophe involving the conflagration of millions of car tyres in Canada, will my hon. Friend issue instructions to Her Majesty's inspectors immediately to reassess critically any similar environmental disasters waiting to happen?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly draw that to the attention of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which I am sure has looked carefully at the appalling incident in Canada. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to that. The very tough measures in the Environmental Protection Bill will cover that contingency, but I am happy to draw my hon. Friend's specific point to the attention of the inspectorate.

    Pharmaceutical Waste
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received with regard to the disposal of pharmaceutical waste.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. Friend has received many representations about the disposal of clinical waste.
    Mr. Livsey: Why have the Government applied for a licence to dump pharmaceutical waste in the North sea in contravention of the 1987 agreement that dumping in the North sea would be phased out by December 1989? What does he think of the ad-hoc committee on dumping in the North sea voting by 13 to one against the British decision to dump in the North sea?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grants some licences for the disposal of liquid industrial waste in the North sea. That includes some waste arising from the production of pharmaceuticals. The waste is carefully monitored and is not toxic in the sea. We are pursuing land-based alternatives as an option in line with our obligations under the North sea conference.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to maximise the take-up of community charge rebates.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Government have recently mounted an effective public information campaign using television, radio, newspapers and magazines. This has been designed to ensure that all those entitled to benefit or transitional relief who need to apply for those reductions are aware of the action they need to take.
    Mr. Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best rebate that the residents of Bristol could have is a decision by Bristol and Avon councils not to impose a community charge 71 per cent. above the Government's estimated figure, producing probably the highest poll tax of any authority in the country? Should not it be rate-capped immediately?
    Mr. Patten: I very much sympathise with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It is intolerable for some Labour councils and councillors who purport to be concerned about their community charge payers to propose indefensible increases in spending and in community charges which will clobber those about whom they pretend to care.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Minister aware that however successful his campaign may be in spreading the word about the availability of rebates, many thousands of people will not get the rebates to which they are entitled, many thousands of those who get them will, in any event, be far worse off than they are now and many millions of people who are not entitled to rebates will suffer poverty and deprivation as a result of the poll tax? Will the Government give the poll tax the chop before they get the chop for introducing it?
    Mr. Patten: The community charge benefits are more generous than those that were available under domestic rates. That is a major reason why the initial research on the community charge in Scotland suggests that low-income households are paying a smaller proportion of their total incomes by way of community charge than they paid in domestic rates. The rebates now available are more generous than those available under domestic rates.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: As it is a main plank of our policy that as many people as possible should stand on their own two feet, how does the Minister square the fact that in 1939, 3 million people were in receipt of rates rebates, that today over 5 million people receive it and that when the community charge comes into operation, 11 million people will be deemed to be unable to pay the full charge?
    Mr. Patten: The main reason for those changes is that, thank heaven, we are more generous today than we were in 1939 at providing greater assistance to those in lower-income households. Another reason for the increase in the past three years is that the community charge will be paid by everybody. Everybody will make a contribution. That is fair.
    Mr. Cartwright: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the level of personal savings at which

    927
    entitlement to poll tax benefit is lost is exactly the same for a married couple as for a single person? How can that be fair?
    Mr. Patten: For the same reasons as apply to other benefits. The issue has been taken up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we are widely publicising community charge benefit eligibility, many people find difficulty in discovering whether they are eligible to be assessed? As they are also having trouble understanding the bureaucratic forms, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we deal with such matters early so that people's anxieties are reduced and they learn at an early stage whether they are eligible?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was with those objectives in mind that we launched the advertising campaign, which was criticised by some Opposition Members, although I think that even they now concede that it was effective. I hope that it results in take-up being increased and ensures that people understand the benefits system more clearly.

    Home Valuations
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the valuation assessments of homes which form part of, or house, commercial undertakings, both part time and full time.
    Mr. Chope: The basis of valuation of composite hereditaments under the new non-domestic rating system is set out in schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The rateable value is derived from the open market rent obtainable for that part of the property used for non-domestic purposes. The domestic accommodation is not valued.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that hotel and boarding house proprietors are concerned about their assessment because they will be paying not only the poll tax but the business tax? Is he aware that that is bound to affect tourism, especially in the north-west of England and particularly in my home town of Southport?
    Mr. Chope: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. In his part of the world, in Sefton, business rates on average will fall by about 20 per cent. as a result of the new system. In his constituency, each individual adult will have to pay a community charge. What is unfair about that? It is reasonable that every adult—guest house proprietors and others—should pay some contribution towards the cost of running local government services.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is not it strange for a Liberal Member to complain about valuation when it has long been Liberal policy to have capital valuation and a local income tax? Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) would have the worst of both worlds if we adopted Liberal policy?
    Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point, although I think that it is Liberal party policy to have just a local income tax. If there were just that tax in Southport, the bill for a single adult on average earnings would probably be about £600.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many proposals for opencast mining have been referred to his Department on appeal; and how many appeals have been upheld.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Since April 1987, the first date from which comprehensive data are available, 57 opencast mining appeals have been under consideration with the Secretary of State. During that time 21 appeals have been upheld and 19 dismissed. Seventeen appeals have yet to be decided.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that the British Coal Opencast Executive has submitted an application to mine 350 acres on a site in my constituency which is surrounded by housing and is a few hundred yards from the city centre of Stoke-on-Trent, the 13th largest city in the United Kingdom? Will the hon. Gentleman review the guidelines by which he judges appeals to take into account the green environment and the human environment as well as the impact of such proposals on constituents' lives?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a specific application. As one of those responsible for negotiating the present mineral guidelines when I was Minister with responsibility for coal, I am content with the fact that a balance is struck between environmental factors and the needs of coal mining. I should have thought that an environmental impact assessment would be bound to be requested as part of this and any similar application.

    Waste Incinerator Plants
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on proposals for new waste incinerator plants under consideration.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members, local planning authorities and members of the public concerning proposals for waste incinerators in north-east England.
    Mr. Steinberg: Incineration of waste is a useful means of disposal, especially in terms of combined heat and power, but environmental regulations must be carefully considered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree on the need for a national and regional strategy on the incineration of waste?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can go part way to help the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed to set up a linked public inquiry system to consider at least two outstanding applications for the construction of incinerators in the north-east. That will help the inspector and the public to gain a regional dimension. The inquiry will also be able to consider safety and technical competence.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not want regional indicators? This matter is far too important for that. We should have a national debate and national policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that to hive off this matter for adjudication by an inspector, rather than for the Government to come forward with proper proposals, is to shirk one's responsibility?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend will agree that, as this country produces 2 million tonnes of hazardous waste a year, we must find ways of disposing of it or treating it safely. I think that my hon. Friend's question strayed outside planning matters. I repeat that, for the part of the world that he represents, we shall take a regional view through a linked public inquiry.

    Housing Association (Rents)
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent increase for housing association properties in 1988–89.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The information is not available in the form required. Increases for housing association tenancies re-registered with rent officers during the first half of 1989 were equivalent to an annual rate of 8 per cent.
    Mr. Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, far from achieving the stated objectives of the Housing Act 1988, it costs the Government more to produce housing that is less affordable?
    Mr. Patten: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. We are able to produce more houses with the same amount of money because we have attracted private investment, too. I am delighted that one consequence is that the Housing Corporation programme is increasing substantially.

    River Pollution
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the National Rivers Authority is making in regulating the use of rivers and controlling pollution.
    Mr. Trippier: The National Rivers Authority has been active in all areas since it fully assumed its responsibilities on 1 September 1989. As part of its day-to-day work on pollution control, the authority has successfully prosecuted a number of offenders. The authority has embarked on a number of reviews of policy areas, including the discharge consent system, and it will carry out a national survey of river quality in 1990.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that that is an encouraging beginning for the National Rivers Authority? Is he aware, for example, that before the creation of the NRA, the Thames water authority authorised discharge from its sewage stations and polluted the River Gade in my constituency? Is not the NRA a good sign that at long last some action will be taken on those problems?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yes, it is encouraging. The most important measure introduced in the Water Act 1989 was the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper functions. We now have what I consider to be the strongest enforcement agency in Europe.
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the private notice question.
    Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order arising from questions, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the private notice question. Points of order come after Question Time.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the private notice question.
    Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) want to ask the private notice question?
    Mr. George Robertson rose——
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it. Back-Bench Members know perfectly well that I have allowed a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time. We have not finished Question Time. I have called the private notice question, and if it is not dealt with now it will be cancelled.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order. I call Mr. George Robertson. He should put his question now or not do it at all.
    Mr. Robertson rose——
    Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the five hon. Members who are standing to sit down.
    Mr. Allen: On a point of order arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it. I call Mr. George Robertson.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Bryan Gould.
    Mr. Gould rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. George Robertson.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was a mistake. I call the hon. Member for Hamilton. Does the hon. Member wish to ask his private notice question or not?

Foreign Affairs Council
3.33 pm
Mr. George Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Dublin yesterday.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented us at yesterday's meeting. Discussion focused mainly on Germany, the CSCE and South Africa.
On Germany, Minister Genscher gave a very detailed account of the prospects for German unification and gave assurances, which were widely welcomed, that the Federal Government were ready to consult their partners and allies on external aspects of the process.
Against the background of the dramatic changes in eastern Europe, the Ministers discussed the important role of the CSCE process, and in particular the summit meeting to be held later this year, in fostering co-operation throughout Europe. The Ministers issued a statement on this.
On South Africa, my right hon. Friend proposed that the Community should respond to the important steps taken by Mr. de Klerk by lifting the ban on new investment, which is implemented voluntarily in our case. As there was no agreement to take such a step collectively, the United Kingdom reserved its right to act nationally.
Statements on the following subjects were also issued: the code of conduct for Community companies operating in South Africa; Namibian independence; the worrying situation in the horn of Africa; the extension of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories; and progress towards a settlement of the Cambodia problem.
Copies of all statements issued are being placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance to cross-examine the Minister on this vitally important meeting. Whatever gloss the right hon. Gentleman may put on the other subjects at the Council meeting, does not the outcome represent a further miserable humiliation for Britain, leaving us yet again isolated and derided as the last friend of apartheid? At a time when united economic pressures have just begun to produce some movement towards reform in South Africa, what conceivable reason is there for Britain, alone among all our allies and partners, to relax those pressures before the real reform takes place?
Does the Prime Minister and those who are forced, against their own judgment, to speak for her not recognise the perversity of her position? She is reneging on her own commitments, freely entered into, to keep sanctions in place at least until the state of emergency is lifted, until all political prisoners are set free and, as the Commonwealth communiqué said, until "change is irreversibly secured".
If he can, will the Minister of State explain how, when the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that our investment sanctions would be lifted come what may, at the selfsame time in Dublin the Foreign Secretary was offering to delay the decision? Who actually speaks for Britain, or is it again the case of the messenger not getting the message?
932
Finally, yesterday the Prime Minister sought to bolster her feeble case on investment sanctions by quoting BMW South Africa. Will the Minister now confirm that that investment did not come from Germany?
Mr. Waldegrave: The last point is the most easily disposed of because the Prime Minister herself made it clear yesterday that internal profits were being reinvested. However, that makes the point that it is childish to talk about an investment ban when some companies are massively expanding their operations in South Africa.
Our argument seems extremely strong. I am not sure that the Opposition yet understand that the measures taken by the Community on 15 September 1986 were explicit. They reaffirmed the urgent need for national dialogue across the line of colour, politics and religion in South Africa. They urged that, since the South African Government were then taking no steps in that direction, certain measures should be undertaken until the dialogue was launched. The dialogue is now launched, as all sides in South Africa have made perfectly clear, and will begin soon. Therefore, the reason for those sanctions—not all sanctions, but those sanctions—has fallen. In the hon. Gentleman's terms, they have been successful. We are talking about the 1986 measures, which were under discussion yesterday.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who seldom makes silly points, he made a silly point about the alleged difference between the Prime Minister's position and that of the Foreign Secretary. There is no difference. The Foreign Secretary made the point yesterday to colleagues that if there was a will to consensus, we would be happy to find consensus around the strict letter of the law of what was agreed in 1986. However, there was clearly no will for that, except for Portugal, which has supported us throughout. Therefore, there was no purpose in pursuing that argument.
The argument remains the same. If the hon. Gentleman's party, which is committed to mandatory comprehensive sanctions now—that is its position in its policy document—believes that that is the way to respond to the steps that de Klerk has taken, it is totally out of touch with reality.
Mr. David Howell: Can my right hon. Friend explain or account for the sanctions nostalgia that seems to infect the Opposition Benches? Is it not now plain common sense to accept that South Africa has entered into a period of transition, and, we hope, negotiations leading to a proper democracy in that country and the rejection of the hated apartheid system? Does it not follow obviously from that that not less but more investment is needed—in particular, to help the black communities, which have had a very poor deal so far, to develop? Can my right hon. Friend explain why Opposition Members and others are so determined to do down efforts for reform and to do down the black community?
Mr. Waldegrave: I genuinely find it difficult to understand the Labour party's policy, which has nothing to do with trying to produce a particular outcome in South Africa. It has something to do with the internal politics of the Labour party. It is not an example of a sensible policy but a matter of declaratory emotional statement. Those of us who are committed to trying to produce change in South Africa should be providing incentives for that change. We are not saying, "Sweep away all sanctions."

933
We are saying, "Remove some sanctions to give an incentive for further progress." I agree with my right hon. Friend about the necessity to develop the economy of South Africa—the best way of dissolving the apartheid system which, among other things, rests on a great deal of state control of industry.
Sir David Steel: Will the Minister explain how it serves British interests for this country to be identified with the interests of the South African regime of the past rather than the South African regime of the future and to divide the European Community in the process?
Mr. Waldegrave: We are identified with the steps taken on both sides, first by Mr. de Klerk, which have been welcomed by a wide grouping of opinion in South Africa, and we welcome the steps that many African leaders, including Mr. Mandela and Mr. Sisulu, have taken to respond. We do not think that our policy should be dictated by one group in South Africa, any more than their policy should be dictated by us. We do, however, believe that it is rational to seek a response to the event.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Did my right hon. Friend discuss in Dublin with his European fellow Foreign Ministers whether they intended to invite Nelson Mandela to visit them? In particular, did he consider asking Nelson Mandela to visit England after his visit to Stockholm and his discussions with Mr. Tambo so that we can be certain that our policy is co-ordinated with his in dismantling apartheid?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is well known that Mr. Mandela has said in public that he has received an invitation and is considering it; he has said that an invitation from the British Prime Minister is a very serious matter. It is no news to Mr. Mandela and no news to us that we disagree on this point.
The House has yet to get an answer on the Labour party's policy, although I asked for it last week. We still do not know whether Labour Members believe that mandatory comprehensive sanctions are what is now required. If Labour Members believe that that is what is now required, as against a response to what Mr. de Klerk is doing, they are totally out of touch.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Minister realise that the unilateral decision by Britain on lifting sanctions will undoubtedly mean that the Prime Minister of Britain will again be seen as giving aid and comfort to the leaders of the South African regime at a time when the other European countries simply refuse to take the same step? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why we should disagree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that yesterday's decision will mean that Britain is once again isolated over sanctions? Was not the former Conservative Prime Minister speaking the truth? Perhaps the Minister would be saying the same if he was not the Foreign Office apologist for the occupant of No. 10.
Mr. Waldegrave: There are plenty of examples of countries in the European Community taking what they believe to be their national position over matters. It will be within the memory of the House that during the Falklands
934
war the Republic of Ireland chose to end unilaterally its sanctions against Argentina. There are plenty of precedents.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that mandatory sanctions remain in place and that voluntary sanctions are entirely a matter for companies—that it is for companies to decide whether they wish to trade in South Africa? If that is so, why do we need to say anything at all?
Mr. Waldegrave: The reason why we need to say something is that we issued guidance. Thankfully, we have no legal capacity to direct the investment of British companies, although I expect that the Labour party regrets that. We agreed to draw to the attention of companies our wish that they should not invest, and it seems a suitable step to take to revise that guidance, and, after my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reported yesterday's discussions to the Cabinet, that is what we are likely to do.
Dr. David Owen: The Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot mislead the House.
Dr. Owen: Surely the Minister accepts that the decision taken in the Council on 27 October 1986 is binding on Her Majesty's Government. It is voluntary in respect of companies because, under British law, they cannot be bound by a decision—and that was always made clear. However, the British Government are bound and cannot unilaterally disavow a decision taken by the Council of Ministers. It is equally unusual for the British Government to do so when the Prime Minister, on 22 October last year, made it clear in Kuala Lumpur that she accepted that the first steps required the unbanning of all political parties—which has been done—but also the lifting of the state of emergency and the freeing of political prisoners. She made it quite clear that only when those necessary steps had been taken would it be right to lift some of the measures imposed by the international community. Surely the Government are acting unlawfully.
Mr. Waldegrave: There are two separate matters involved here. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful in his use of language. He has failed to understand the position, which is a little surprising for a former Foreign Secretary. There is no question but that we are within the law of the Community in choosing, after consultation with our colleagues—that is our obligation—to follow our national interests. I can ask my officials to help to educate the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The issue of the Commonwealth measures is not at present under question. We are talking about the 1986 measures that were specifically aimed at producing national dialogue. We believe, and Opposition Members do not deny it, that national dialogue is about to begin. That means that those measures fall.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this country do not need to take any lessons from the European Community on economic sanctions? Is it not a fact that since 1986, when the agreement was reached, France has doubled its imports from South Africa and its exports have gone up by 20 per cent., Germany has trebled its imports from South Africa

935
and its exports have doubled? Do not those countries agree with us that if we are to defeat apartheid it will be by economic growth, not by economic sanctions?
Mr. Waldegrave: What my hon. Friend says is correct. All South Africa's principal trading partners have increased their trade to South Africa in recent years. In the words of the Times leader of today, there is a great deal of humbug about this subject.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Even when he tries to respond today, the Minister is in an uncomfortable position. He knows that, rather than greeting the release of Mandela with some sort of humility, because she played very little part in it, the Prime Minister over-reacted and immediately sought to reward the people who had imprisoned that man for 27 years. It is rather perverse that we are again isolated from not only our European partners, but the rest of the world.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman, who has such a fine record in trying to bring the parties in the middle east to the table, would surely not want to argue against us now when we seek to reward not the people who imprisoned Mandela, but those who let him out and are producing new policies in South Africa. They have said that they will put the building blocks and pillars of apartheid into the negotiations and are willing to enter into constitutional talks to bring about fundamental change in South Africa. If we are not to reward those steps by taking a step-by-step approach, the hon. Gentleman's approach in the middle east is completely forgotten.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions are no more likely to help Mr. de Klerk in his quest than they would help Mr. Gorbachev in his?
Mr. Waldegrave: The parallel with Mr. Gorbachev two or three years ago is fair, I think. Little had changed constitutionally by then; indeed, little has changed even now, but we were right to respond to what he was trying to do. As well as welcoming the statesmanlike and sensible remarks that Mr. Mandela and other leaders are making in South Africa, we should try to add power to those on the white side who are leading the way towards dialogue.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I shall allow two more questions from either side, and then move on. We are to have a Standing Order No. 20 application and an important debate.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that yesterday the Prime Minister sought to justify her position by saying that new investment was going into South Africa to BMW? Is he aware that her economic advisers have seriously misled her, that that investment was internally generated and that, in any event, it began in 1983? Since the right hon. Lady is getting such bad economic advice—and it is clear that she is getting bad political advice—would she not do better to take the advice of Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison and had many hours of discussion with Mr. de Klerk before being released, instead of listening to the wild men on the Conservative Back Benches?
Mr. Waldegrave: The disagreement with the ANC over sanctions has been long-standing. I suspect that Mr. Mandela would be as astonished if we reversed our position on these matters overnight as we would be if he reversed his. The disagreement is not crucial; we are discussing tactics. I think that I can persuade any open-minded person—there seem to be few such people among the Opposition—of the need to make a symbolic but practical response to the brave steps that Mr. de Klerk has taken.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government's reversal of their policy on new investment in South Africa is a welcome and positive response to the positive moves in South Africa to bring about the reforms that we all want? When the state of emergency has gone, and when the Group Areas Act and the Population Registrations Act—the twin pillars of apartheid—have been repealed, will my right hon. Friend speculate on whether the rest of the sanctions now imposed by Britain on South Africa will also be removed?
Mr. Waldegrave: When the day for which we are all working—that of the total destruction of apartheid—comes, we hope that there will be unanimous agreement to do away with all sanctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right—as long, that is, as the Labour party is not still stuck in some 1968 position paper.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Minister agree that the reason why there has been change in South Africa is that sanctions have worked?
Mr. Waldegrave: The underlying pressures for change in South Africa are far more formidable than the largely symbolic sanctions that are now in place—as witness the Labour party, which has argued again and again that they are minor. I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is an honest man, agrees. So it cannot be argued that those sanctions brought about fundamental change, which is presumably why the Labour party still wants comprehensive and mandatory sanctions.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Did the Foreign Secretary tell his European counterparts that it was pure hypocrisy on their part to refuse to pull out from sanctions, given that sanctions are being widely ignored in at least five other EEC member states? Will he invite M. Jacques Delors to initiate a special inquiry to find out exactly why West Germany has emerged as the largest trading partner of South Africa, despite the German Foreign Minister's appeal to us to boycott trade with South Africa? Is not that a typical example of Ministers agreeing to a policy that they are blatently ignoring in their own selfish interests?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there is a big difference between those in the Community and elsewhere whose main policy on this matter seems declaratory—they pass motions, but that is about all—and those who are trying to engage in practical action to help to bring about change in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is a diplomatic and tactful man and did not use the language that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure that the facts were made clear.

Social Fund (High Court Judgment)
3.54 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications of the High Court judgment this morning regarding the budget limit of the social fund."
This is an important matter, because the court has ruled that the Government's budget limit on the relief of poverty is unlawful. The court has thus invalidated the centrepiece of the Fowler reviews of 1988. That is very important, because it is clear that tens of thousands of some of the poorest and most vulnerable families in the country have now been illegally denied their essential entitlements because of the unreasonable rigidity and inflexibility of the Government's approach.
It is a specific matter, because the court's judgment concerns specific cases. A family with seven children who moved from a three-bedroomed to a five-bedroomed council house when the parents were reconciled after separation were illegally refused a grant which forced their daughter aged 15 to share a single bed with their five-year-old girl. A 19-year-old who was forced to leave home by his father's violence was illegally refused a grant to buy furniture for a council flat.
The matter demands urgent consideration for two reasons. First, the High Court made it clear that the Government's power to withhold payments because the budget is exhausted is illegal. The Government must now immediately remove the budget cap that they have
938
wrongly placed on the essential needs payments for families in poverty. Those payments were running at £400 million a year in 1987. They were cut under the social fund to only £140 million last year, and there has been only a paltry £3 million increase this year. That is why the social fund refusal rates are now running at an iniquitous 50 to 60 per cent. and why the court found that a restrictive budget is incompatible with the proper exercise of discretion.
Secondly, the Government must now undertake to recompense retrospectively all those families whom the judgment shows have been illegally cheated out of their entitlements in the past.
For these precise and fair reasons, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House so that what is now shown to be a fundamental flaw in the Government's social security policy can be fully debated and an injustice put right.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications of the High Court judgment this morning regarding the budget limit of the social fund."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirement of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.58 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during Environment Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), revealed in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that he knew that my hon. Friend had registered a second home in Wandsworth on the poll tax register. That raises two important questions: how did the Minister come by that information; and, in the light of possible security implications, was the Minister wise or justified in divulging that information to the House?
On the first question, it is worth bearing in mind that my hon. Friend's Wandsworth address is not published in any public directory; it is simply not on the public record. The only way in which the Minister could have known that the address on the poll tax register was a second home was by having access to information that is specifically excluded from the public register. Practice note No. 6 specifically makes it clear that the register will use the name and initial and the address, but no courtesy titles or Christian or other names and will not indicate the type or amount of community charge or show any other information.
We need to ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, first to explain how he came by that information. Did he scour the poll tax register, and on what basis did he believe that my hon. Friend had an address in that borough? If that is not the case, was the information drawn to his attention, and, if so, by whom? Were civil servants involved in looking for the information and in drawing it to his attention? How did he know information which was specifically excluded from the public register? How did he know that my hon. Friend has registered a second home when he has not registered a first?
On the second matter——
Mr. Speaker: I urge the hon. Member to be brief—[Interruption.] Order. This is a point of order to me, but it does not seem to have anything to do with me.
Mr. Gould: I shall proceed to the second matter and I shall deal with it briefly, Mr. Speaker.
We need to know from the Minister what concern he showed for security when he decided to divulge that information to the House. I think that we are all aware that we are under constant instruction from the Serjeant at Arms to be very careful about the way in which we reveal information about our private addresses and movements. I think that the House has been left with the uneasy suspicion that the Minister paid no heed to those considerations, and that he wanted to use the information simply to make a cheap party-political point.
We need to know whether this was an instance of irresponsible free enterprise on the part of a junior Minister, or whether it was part of the responsible consideration of a Minister, taking into account all the factors that I have mentioned. I ask you to rule on the question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps to persuade the Minister to enlighten the House and to explain his actions.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on such matters. I do not think that any of those questions was directed at me.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can respond, albeit more briefly. As the House will know—and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was entirely right to make this point—there is no public access to the full register. There is, on the other hand, public access to extracts from the register, which give addresses, names and initials of those who have registered, street by street. That information is available for Wandsworth—a borough in which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is well known and widely celebrated.
Secondly, it is open to every hon. Member to apply for confidentiality, just as every citizen may apply. There is a box on the form in which we can place a tick and so apply for it. I understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) did not do that—[interruption.] In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument is with the community charge registration officer in Wandsworth. He—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Patten: Thirdly, my hon. Friend did not give the hon. Gentleman's address. He said that he lived in Wandsworth.
Fourthly, although it is true that my hon. Friend referred to the hon. Gentleman having a second home in Wandsworth, that was not a difficult thing to deduce because the hon. Gentleman said, in his question, that he was subject to the community charge in Coventry, where I understand that his name appears, whether or not with security advice, in the telephone directory. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very heavy day ahead of us, and I hope that this will not go on too long.
Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is lucky to live in Wandsworth and to be registered there; and instead of being cross about it he should have expressed his gratitude.
Finally, the hon. Member for Dagenham expressed concern about security. Next time that newspapers print details of the community charges paid by Ministers, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, in comparison with the rates, as they have already done, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman making a fuss about security.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to reflect on whether there is any possibility of a point of order on which I can rule. The matter that has been raised is not one for me to consider; the House could deal with it properly by means of a motion. I will hear points of order on any other subject.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reconsider—and this is a matter for you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that it is not a matter for me. It relates to the content of an answer to a question about which an explanation has been given. I will hear points of order on a different matter.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you will not make a ruling now, may I ask you to consider the matter later today? The central issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) does not concern me; it is reasonably well known that my name is in the Coventry telephone book, and that I live in the area that I represent. The central issue is the fact that the former leader of Wandsworth borough council—now a junior Minister at the Department of the Environment—can come to the Chamber and announce the details of where any hon. Member lives.
You are responsible for order in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I think that you should give serious consideration to where the information has come from. Has it come from the Fees Office? Has it come from civil servants at the Department of the Environment? Is it the result of a leak from Wandsworth borough council, in which the Minister still has some associates? Hon. Members should not worry about me: I shall manage. They should think about the principle that is at stake.
Mr. Speaker: I do not deny that this is a matter of concern, but it is not a point of order for me. I frequently may not agree personally with what is said at Question Time.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I trust that it is on a different matter.
Mr. MacKay: It is on a different matter, Mr. Speaker—one on which I believe that you can guide us, and with which you can deal directly. Can you confirm that points of order arising from Question Time should not be taken then but should be raised immediately after Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: We have been over this ground many times. Let me repeat, in case the hon. Gentleman was not here on those occasions, that if a matter requiring the attention of the Chair is raised at any time, it is dealt with at that time. That may happen during a debate, at Question Time or at any other time. I always take points of order if they require urgent attention, but most do not.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that it relates to what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). Are you able to give any guidance about his proper course of action? It strikes me as unfair that he should be picked out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Should not my hon. Friend disclose the names of all Opposition Members who are living in Wandsworth? Personally, I thought that they were a bunch of dumbos who did not care what the local authority——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to continue discussion on the same subject. I will take points of order only on different matters.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find it extraordinary that the Secretary of State should speak on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State. Surely it would be simplest for the Under-Secretary to go to the Dispatch Box, say that he has made an error, withdraw what he has said about my hon. Friend the
942
Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—and whatever he may have said about anyone else in this regard—and apologise to the House. The Under-Secretary could clear up the matter in two minutes: I appeal to him to make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Clearly that is not a point of order for me.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I make it clear that I shall not take any more points of order on that matter. I will take a point of order on a different matter.
Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know of my great concern about the Register of Members' Interests and Labour Members. When a Labour Member chooses to——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take no further points of order on the earlier matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a point of order on a different subject to draw to my attention.
Mr. Ashby: My point of order concerns the Register of Members' Interests, Mr. Speaker. I have been most concerned for some time about Labour Members and the Register of Members' Interests. When an hon. Member chooses to live in the lowest-rated borough in London——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is cheating. He must not do that.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall only take a point of order on a different matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order., Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it concerns a matter of privilege, the hon. Gentleman must write to me.
Mr. Ewing: But I want to raise the matter on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different matter?
Mr. EwingNo, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Then I will not take it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who are on their feet please to sit down. I will not take any further points of order on the earlier matter.
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that it concerns an entirely different matter. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a cowardly bomb attack was made on two members of the armed forces in Leicester yesterday afternoon. I am sure that you share with me an immense sense of relief that neither of those individuals, nor any others in the city of Leicester was injured. The incident highlights the continuing bombing campaign by the IRA on the mainland of Britain and the need for continuing vigilance on the part of all members of the public to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.

943
I am concerned, as is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), that the Secretary of State for Defence did not think it necessary to come to the House today to make a statement. Have any inquiries been made of you, Mr. Speaker, with a view to facilitating such a statement being made to the House this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House regrets such incidents, but the question of a statement is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. Earlier the hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I am sure—misled me. I would rather move on to the next business.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED

    CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Robert Hicks, Dr. John Marek, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr Peter Rost, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Mark Wolfson, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
    Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute rule motion.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is the point of order that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants to raise on a totally different matter?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Yes. As a result of events earlier this afternoon, it now appears that there is no protection for right hon. and hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not do that. He must not rise to his feet and, when asked whether
    944
    he is raising a different matter, say yes but then proceed with the matter that he wanted to raise before. That is not honourable conduct.
    Mr. Hughes rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order, unless it is on a different matter.
    Mr. Hughes: My point of order goes far wider, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not mind; I am not taking it. The hon. Gentleman has not given me any confidence that he will stick to his word. I am sorry.
    Mr. Hughes rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I ask hon. Gentlemen to resume their seats.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I order the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: One more chance. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, otherwise I shall be forced to take action which I shall regret.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must sit down.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, I order the hon. Member—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours resumed his seat.

Rape in Marriage (Offence)
4.14 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make rape in marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales.
Rape within marriage is already a crime within case law in Scotland, as was recently confirmed by a judge there. My Bill seeks to extend that to England and Wales. There is an anomaly in the law in England and Wales dating back to the 1650s. The law is outdated. It does not reflect the present reality of marriage where a wife is not a husband's chattel; nor does it reflect society's attitude to rape, which is viewed as a crime to be punished without exception because it is a brutal sexual assault.
I want to give the House a couple of examples. This week I received a letter from a woman who wrote:
"This is the man whose wife knows everything there is to know about him, including how hard he can punch."
The other letter was published in a national newspaper earlier this week:
"accusations thrown at me nightly … This did not hinder my husband from forcing me to have sex which I did not want. It isn't long before love turns to fear."
John Tilley, a former Member for Lambeth, Central, raised the issue in the House in 1983 when he said:
"The circumstances in which rape is legal occur when the victim is the wife of her assailant. However unwilling the woman is, however fierce her resistance,"—
I might add, however brutal the advances—
"her assailant has only to produce a marriage certificate to escape all legal blame or punishment."—[Official Report, 29 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 185.]
That cannot be right. A wife is not her husband's property. She has rights over her own body. Just because at one time she says, "I do," that should not deny her the legal protection later to say, "I do not wish to."
The legal anomaly applies particularly to women who are separated but not yet divorced. Their husbands, soon to be ex-husbands, can rape them without legal penalty. A survey of 1,000 women by Middlesex polytechnic showed that one in eight women were forced to have sex with their husbands despite clearly refusing. Another survey by Women Against Rape in London showed that one in seven were raped within marriage. A "World in Action" survey produced similar results.
Other countries, as well as Scotland, have abolished a husband's immunity from penalty. Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Israel, 18 states of the United States and three territories in Australia have decided that immunity is no longer appropriate.
The Government are stalling on the issue. Following the announcement that I was to present a Bill on the subject, they responded by saying that they were referring the matter to the Law Commission. In the Home Office Minister's statement of 12 February, he said that the Law Commission would produce
"a working paper for consultation early next year. The Government will consider the conclusions most carefully."
"Consider most carefully" is parliamentary jargon for saying that it will be two or three years before they legislate. That means that many women will be unprotected by the law in the meantime.
The Government have three reasons for not acting immediately. The Minister said in the statement:
946
"The question raises issues about the nature of marriage, and about violence in the domestic context, beyond the scope of the criminal law."
I cannot believe that violence in the domestic context is beyond the scope of the criminal law. Is the Minister saying that violence is acceptable in marriage? Surely not. I think that he is saying that the criminal law should not intervene in family cases. But it already does. To quote just two examples, it intervenes in cases of incest and wife battering. Why, therefore, should not the criminal law intervene in rape cases?
The Government are also trying to put off dealing with the matter because of the attendant cost. More women would probably live in hostels for battered women while their cases were being dealt with. The Government should not be mean; they should provide more money for the hostels. The fact that more money would be involved ought not to affect the principle that rape should be a crime.
The Government also say that rape would be difficult to prove in court. I acknowledge that, but that applies to all rape cases. It would be difficult to obtain corroborative evidence, but it would be for the courts to decide. The fact that a crime is difficult to prove is no reason for saying that it is not a crime.
A simple moral decision has to he made. I and many others believe that rape is unacceptable, regardless of where, when and against whom it is committed. Other people do not believe that, so they equivocate, as the Government seem to be doing.
There is immense popular support for this proposed change in the law. According to the Middlesex polytechnic survey, 96 per cent. of the women who replied supported a change in the law of this kind. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is one of the sponsors of my Bill. She is the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Labour party on this issue. The Labour party is therefore committed to changing the law if the Government insist on pussyfooting around. The Government ought to welcome the Bill. There should be no further delay.
4.22 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I oppose the measure with some trepidation. The time of day has probably passed when much publicity will be given to the proceedings of the House. If it has not, I dare say that hatpins and needles will be sharpened against me and the views that I propose to put forward.
No one doubts that many men behave violently towards their wives. No one doubts, either, that many women behave badly towards their husbands. However, remedies exist—those of separation, injunctions against molestation and other court procedures—to protect women. Assault of husband on wife, or assault of wife on husband, is a crime and can already be dealt with by the courts.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand his reasons for introducing the measure. However, I believe that it is absurd. It is an example of hard cases seeking to make bad law. It is motivated by a combination of some distressed and unfortunate women, who need our help and support and whose problems probably need to be addressed further, and those whom Private Eye calls "wimmin"—the ghastly feminist lobby who seem to think that all men are evil and

947
that some are more evil than others, that men are made of slugs, snails and puppy dogs' tails and that women are made of sugar, spice and all things nice.
Whatever may be the hon. Gentleman's motive, I believe that his measure would lead to a gross abuse of the institution of marriage, for two reasons. The far lesser reason is that it would create two tiers of marriage. There would be the church wedding, where the wife would promise "to love, honour and obey until death us do part." Under those circumstances, lawyers would advise that rape was legally impossible until the courts had intervened. There would also be the register office wedding, after which rape would be possible, if the law were changed. We should avoid the creation of two different tiers of marriage.
The far greater reason is that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be unenforceable. The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered the matter. For a while, it thought that it was worth pursuing for parties who are not cohabiting. However, the committee could not define "cohabiting". Therefore it threw up its hands in horror.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, the man knowing that consent has been withheld. How on earth can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape has occurred between a cohabiting husband and wife? Where on earth would one get the corroborating evidence?
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In the same way as in other cases.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Lady says that it could be proved in the same way as other cases. It is notoriously difficult to prove rape when people have a relationship. The law would become unenforceable. The law would become an ass. Put flippantly, if the good lady has "a headache" it would be inconsiderate for the husband to proceed. If she had a bad headache, would it be rape? Where do we draw the line and how could it be proved?
Undoubtedly there are evil men: equally there are a number of evil women. What impact would the changed law have on a manipulative wife seeking to humiliate her husband? Rape has to be reported to the police who are obliged to investigate. What would be the impact of such a police investigation on a relationship that would otherwise survive? What would be the effect on the children of a marriage of a police investigation on a charge that had been levelled in the heat of the moment and which on cooler reflection would be withdrawn?
What would happen, for example, if the wife succumbed and then regretted it and her husband in the hiatus of emotional confusion persisted when his wife said no? Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Would we define that as rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members should address the position of the arranged bride who says no on her wedding night but whose husband is deaf to her pleas. Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] What would the burners of "The Satanic Verses" say about such a law?
It is well known that some women accuse their husbands of child sex abuse when they are seeking custody of their children. How much easier it would be to cry rape.
The hon. Gentleman called on other jurisdictions in support of his Bill. We believe that the laws of England are superior to those of other parliaments. If he wishes to call
948
the laws of other countries in support of his argument, does he favour the death penalty and would he support it because it exists in other countries?
The law provides most of the necessary protection for wives who are subjected to violence. The law quite rightly allows women and men to nullify unsatisfactory marriages. More law would not help marriage; it would damage it.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill?
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: To the contrary?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must pursue his objection at least to the point of saying no. I shall put the Question again. Does the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] To the contrary? [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules. It is not in order to oppose the Bill, to make what is effectively a free speech, and then not to pursue the matter.
Mr. Marlow: No.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: The Ayes have it.

RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE)
Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Paul Boateng and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn presented a Bill to make rape in marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am taking a certain interest in the matter because next Wednesday I have a ten-minue Bill to extend the powers of the Security Commission to cases such as that of Colin Wallace. Is it possible for a Conservative Member to oppose the extension of the Security Commission and then not to pursue that by vote? Is that a new possibility?
Mr. Speaker: The rules are well defined on this matter. Any hon. Member who seeks to oppose a Bill must carry his objection to the point of saying no. It is not absolutely essential to call a Division on the matter or to put in Tellers, although that is generally done. But it certainly is not in order in effect to steal a speech and then get away with it.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you agree that what we have just witnessed was as close to a flagrant abuse of the procedures of the House as one could get? Indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) had to be induced to say no. He then said no in a quiet tone, and he did not afterwards pursue the matter. I suggest, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that what he did deserves at least a reprimand from you.
Mr. Speaker: I took the charitable view—that it was ignorance.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not appreciate that it was required of me afterwards to say no. When you made the position plain to me, I was more than happy to do so.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You made it clear that you wanted the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to carry through his opposition. It was not clear to many of my hon. Friends seated towards the back of the Opposition Back Benches that he had said anything, your having requested him to say no. I should have thought that he deserved some reprimand for his behaviour.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House just heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) say that he did not appreciate what the rules were.

Business of the House
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
4.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to Private Members' Motions, Public Petitions and New Writs may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock; and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Questions on such of the remaining Motions as may then be made, including the Questions on any Amendments thereto which he may have selected.
As the House will realise, the effect of the motion is to allow us to debate together the three procedural motions standing in my name before allowing the House to reach a decision on them. Before tabling the motion I had carefully considered the matter. I am anxious for the House to have full opportunity to consider the motions, to which some time has already been devoted. I therefore proceeded on the basis that it makes sense for all three to be taken together, because they arose from the same report of the Procedure Committee, which regarded and, indeed, designed the various proposals as a package which, taken together, would protect private Members' time for proper use. That is the essential purpose of the package.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that this position arises from your suggestion, recorded in paragraph 4 of the second report of the Procedure Committee for the 1988–89 Session:
"On Friday 20 January 1989, the date of the most recent such occurrence, Mr. Speaker observed during points of order at the end of the day's business:'I … hope that we shall not go through this kind of thing again. It is for the Leader of the House … to put his proposals to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will consider them and I hope that it will'."
As a result of that suggestion, the Procedure Committee has put this package of measures before the House. They have already been debated, as I say, for some time. So it is reasonable, and for the convenience of the House as a whole, that we should seek to reach a decision on all three motions by the time proposed this evening.
This is far from being a move sponsored or inspired by the Executive. It is sponsored as the result of the most wise authority—your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and the Procedure Committee. The arrangements for the debate are reasonable because if we can dispose of the motion in the next few minutes, we shall have another two and a half hours' further debate on the substance.
We shall then have had some four hours' debate on the motions, and I think that that will have been more than sufficient to deal properly and fully with them. Indeed, some hon. Members have expressed the view that we should have proceeded to dispose of them at the end of the one and a half hours we had last time. I have provided this additional time. I propose that we proceed on the basis that we dispose of the business motion with all speed and then proceed with the main debate, as I am sure the House would wish.
4.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I support the comments of the Leader of the House. I hope that we can use most of the time available to the House to debate, albeit for the second time, the substance of the procedural changes in the motions. We debated them for about one and a half hours a couple of weeks ago. With luck, we could have more than two hours' futher debate on them today. If we did, we would be approaching the time that is often set aside for the House to debate Second Readings of controversial Bills, when dozens, if not hundreds, of Members want to speak. Set in that context, it is not unreasonable for the House to be asked to come to a conclusion on this matter by 7 o'clock. I certainly have no objection to the proposal that we proceed in that way.
4.35 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
'provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the Questions as aforesaid, interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned.'.
The motion and my amendment give us the opportunity to invite the Leader of the House once again to consider whether he wants to proceed with the other motions on the Order Paper, which would be subject to them.
I formed the impression earlier that many hon. Members wished to debate other matters this afternoon rather than these motions. An application was made under Standing Order No. 20 and, without giving reasons for not accepting it, Mr. Speaker, you said that there were many important matters before the House.
If the Leader of the House took the opportunity of this debate on whether the timing should be as set out and on whether the motion should be amended, he could get this nonsense off the Order Paper quickly and allow us to proceed with other matters. Even second Adjournments could be taken later on some of the issues that have arisen during the day. I know how much Ministers would dislike the idea of having second Adjournments about the arrangements in the Department of the Environment for vetting where hon. Members live and about the poverty fund issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). That possibility would be open to us if the Leader of the House did not proceed with the second motion.
There are other reasons why it would be wise for the Leader of the House not to proceed with the series of motions relating to private Members' business and with voting at 7 o'clock. There is no doubt that the Government found the motions very acceptable. Seven o'clock is laid down because it is a convenient time at which a great many Ministers—Members on the payroll—will be in the building and able to vote. It is the Government's intention, as shown by the choice of the time designated in the motion, that all those Ministers shall be encouraged to vote in favour of the line taken by the Leader of the House.
It is no use the Leader of the House saying with an air of wide-eyed innocence, as he did a few moments ago, that this is nothing to do with the Government and that he is just doing the House a service by tabling these motions and having a timing motion to ensure that the matter is dispensed with at 7 o'clock. That is absolute nonsense.
We all know that the Procedure Committee has had many reports, some of which have not been debated and
952
others of which have been debated, and rejected, at the instance of the Government and sometimes of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) knows that major, radical, far-reaching reforms proposed by the Procedure Committee, which could have given us some control over the timetabling of Bills and not left it all in the hands of the Executive, were not proceeded with. He knows that recommendations enacted as a result of the Procedure Committee's proposals on Special Standing Committees have not been pursued by the Government.
The Government pick and choose the reports that they like and put their weight behind them, and sometimes they get a little help from other quarters. That is what the Government have done on this occasion. They have put these motions before the House twice and have sought in this instance to protect them by the business motion.
If hon. Members doubt that the business motion illustrates the Government's desire to get these motions passed, let them recall the earlier debate to which the Leader of the House referred. In it, we did not merely debate these motions; we debated a proposal that it should no longer be possible for a ten-minute Bill to be moved on Budget day. I ask hon. Members to look at the Division list for that debate. They will see that the apparently innocuous, innocent, far-sighted, detached proposal of the Procedure Committee had the support of many members of the Government. It had the payroll vote and the loyalist vote to help it along. That is the intention again tonight.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not true that on that occasion the proposal was approved in order to remove the inconvenience to which the Tory Whips were subject because they had to sit upstairs for up to a fortnight before the Budget day ten-minute Bill was due to be chosen to make sure that a Tory Member got it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been disposed of.
Mr. Cryer: I am just making the point that the hon. Gentleman made, which is that the arrangement is not for the convenience of Back-Bench Members but entirely for the convenience of the Government machine.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I shall not stray into the areas which you, Mr. Speaker, say go beyond the debate. It is clear that, whatever the original intentions of the Procedure Committee about any of the motions, one can measure the Government's enthusiasm for them by the way in which they take them up, put them on the Order Paper and surround them with the necessary motions to make sure that they are passed.
I reiterated what happened to remind hon. Members that Back-Bench Members were in effect frozen out by the use of the payroll vote. Clearly, that is the intention tonight. Time and again, hon. Members will find that their rights are being chipped away by the Government who have the means to do so.
On some occasions hon. Members may feel that an individual right does not matter very much. But they will find when they add up the sum total that the practice has brought about a huge shift in the balance between the Executive and Parliament, between Government and Back Benchers and, indeed, sometimes between Front Benchers and Back Benchers.

953
We must think about the balance between Front Benchers and Back Benchers sometimes. I am just trying to remember when I last heard a private notice question asked by a Back-Bench Member from any party. In all sorts of ways, the House is becoming dominated by Front-Bench Members. Back Benchers in all parties must reflect on the importance of that.
There is a second reason why we must consider the business motion——
Mr. David WinnickIf there is a conspiracy against Back-Bench Members—I am all for defending the rights of Back-Bench Members—can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Member on the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), did not vote against any of the proposals, to the best of my knowledge? The Chairman of the Committee will be aware that the proposals were carried unanimously. If there is a conspiracy, if not against all Back-Bench Members but perhaps against the hon. Gentleman's party—if that is his argument—why did his hon. Friend not vote against the proposals in the Committee?
Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend was much attracted to and voted for the proposals put forward—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must be quiet if he wants me to answer his intervention.
Mr. Winnick: I was not talking to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend voted for the addition to the package proposed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who is a member of the party of the hon. Member for Walsall, North. The proposal was a compromise that would have given private Members the opportunity, not on a Friday but on a Monday, in limited circumstances, to propose additional time for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Members could be defeated or outwitted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or others in their party, but at least they would have had the right to additional time for the Bill. My hon. Friend voted for that proposal in the belief that, with the addition, it would be a reasonable package. His vote is on record in the proceedings of the Committee.
I was about to adduce a second reason why the business motion is important. It shows that the Government proceed day by day with motions that vary the effects of Standing Orders. What is this motion? It is a motion to vary the effect of Standing Orders to determine that a debate will end at a particular time and that questions will be put in a particular way.
Why do the Government insist that they alone should have access to that mechanism, while no other hon. Member has access to it in any circumstances? It is like an addict preaching abstinence. It is like a 20-a-day or 60-a-day man saying, "Don't smoke." Every day the Order Paper contains Government motions to vary the effect of Standing Orders. Often they are resisted, but frequently they are allowed through because they have become part of the fabric of the place.
If the motions are important and necessary to the Government, why are there no circumstances in which a private Member is entitled to seek the approval of the House to vary the effect of a Standing Order or to change Standing Orders? I remind hon. Members that the motion that we shall discuss later does not merely stop private
954
Members extending the amount of time available for a Bill. It prevents them from effecting on any occasion a change in Standing Orders by placing a motion before the House and having it carried. That relates not only to Standing Orders about private Members' Bills but to any Standing Order.
I do not know who drafted the motion. It may have been the Leader of the House. If so, I do not know where he obtained his advice. If he has any dealings with the Foreign Office know-how fund to explain to Parliaments in eastern Europe how to conduct their proceedings democratically, I hope that he does not draw attention to this device. It effectively puts the entire control of Standing Orders in the hands of the Government. That is how many Government business managers like it. They want the Government to have complete control.
The history of the House over the centuries has been one of the steadily advancing power of Governments over the House. The motion is just another stage in that process. Hon. Members may say, "Well, we do not mind this time because it involves something that some of us do not like, and do not want to happen, so we will allow it to go through." But one must assess every time the effect on the balance between the Executive and Parliament.
Sir Peter Emery: As the hon. Gentleman is making such play of that point, will he tell the House how many times or on what occasion a private Member's motion altered the Standing Orders of the House in recent times, in connection with private Members' legislation?
Mr. Beith: So what are we doing? Here is a crime that no one has committed. We are looking for a penalty for it and a way to proscribe it. A more compelling argument for not embarking on this nonsense in the first place would be hard to find. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure cannot find any instance of the crime having been committed, not to the disadvantage of the House but at all. Yet he feels it necessary to proscribe it entirely, out of the blue. I simply do not understand the reasoning.
Sir Peter Emery: Therefore, is it not obvious to the hon. Gentleman that on the two occasions when it was attempted, people found other ways of stopping the matter and wasting an entire two days of private Members' time? That is what the Committee is trying to stop. We do not wish to alter the great factors which the hon. Member for Leith suggests that we wish to change.
Mr. Beith: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop confusing me with the hon. Member for Leith. It is a confusion that I should not wish to encourage. Perhaps it was a slight slip of the tongue. I am the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I was addressing the fact that the motion that we shall go on to debate does not merely proscribe what happened on the two occasions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It proscribes hon. Members from making any change in Standing Orders whatever. If hon. Members wanted to change the rule whereby hon. Members must wear a hat to be seated and covered to raise a point of order during a Division, they could not do so even if they invited the House to make the change, had the time available to do so and carried the proposal. Not only would the change never he made, the motion would never be discussed, because the Table Office would be instructed not to receive such a motion.

955
In a democratic assembly, we tell our Clerks that notices of motions shall not be received. That is an extraordinary thing in any democratic assembly. It is a rule under which hon. Members cannot even put a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. His arguments will be more appropriate when we come to the motions. At present we are simply discussing the business of the House motion, which is a narrow motion.
Mr. Beith: I shall have more to say later. I was drawn onto that ground by an intervention. Just imagine if there had been a Standing Order that said that motions such as the one that we are debating shall not be received. I sometimes think that it would be useful if certain motions that the Government favoured tabling were subject to just such an instruction.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that he will find it difficult to try to produce an argument about the time limits without explaining—at some length, in my view—why the three motions have all been lumped together, and why they should be dealt with by, say, 7 o'clock. I have no doubt that it could well be argued by Clerks and others that in order for him to explain it to the House more fully, he would have to tell me and other hon. Members why the three motions are important and why the limited number of hours is not enough time in which to debate the matter. To put it in Derbyshire pit language, the hon. Gentleman is in a good seam of coal.
Mr. Beith: I should not want to hew too heavily at the seam that the hon. Gentleman may himself wish to hew a little later in our proceedings. However, he is right to point out that the lumping of the motions together, the time made available, and all the rest of it, are relevant considerations.
I have not yet come to that point in my speech, because I wanted the House, and you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how illustrative this motion is of the Government's addiction to what they tell others that they must never do. That is what that is all about.
We have a Government who cannot let a day go by without changing the effects of the Standing Orders. It is unhealthy for the House to find that every day the Government are tabling motions such as this. They table 10 o'clock motions and other motions which are described as "Business of the House" motions. That is the category that I am talking about. Such motions are scattered so frequently like confetti on the Order Paper that they suggest that the Government cannot manage their voluminous business without occasionally varying the effect of the Standing Orders.
That may mean that there is something wrong with our Standing Orders and that we should revise them. Private Members should address these issues. The corollary is that private Members must at least have their case for having access to such mechanisms considered. Several different aspects of this arise in the various motions.
It is timely and poignant that the Government should have tabled a motion to start the debate which shows exactly how prone they are to do what they are inviting
956
private Members not to do. The Government increasingly show a lack of concern for the powers that you, Mr. Speaker, enjoy—perhaps "enjoy" is the wrong word because the powers are sometimes uncomfortable to use—to protect the rights and interests of Members. That is why I have tabled an amendment to the motion.
I remind the House that the motion would be a precedent for many more like it and that it follows various precedents. As it stands, the motion would mean that, if we had had a series of statements this afternoon, with private notice questions, and many more points of order than you had to address this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the debate might not have begun until half-past 6. You would then have had absolutely no option but to put the Question on all those matters even though they had not been reasonably debated. That is why it seemed right to table the amendment and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting it so that we can establish the precedent that the Government should not casually take away our powers in their motion.
There is a significant lack of respect for any coherent protection for the rights of Members. If just one result of this short debate was that we could ensure that the Government cannot table future motions without including words such as those in the amendment, we would have taken a step forward. It might happen that, through no fault of the Government, you, Mr. Speaker, might be placed in the position that I have described, and that a matter might be debated far too briefly to allow any serious consideration of its implications.
In such a case, Mr. Speaker, you should have the power that you would have if the Government were asking you for a closure, when you would have the discretion to refuse it. However, in this instance, you would have no such discretion unless the motion were to give you that discretion. The words in which I have framed the amendment come from the Standing Orders. They are used in another context in motions after 10 o'clock when, if the debate starts late, you have the opportunity to decide whether the debate should stand adjourned.
Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the amendment would prevent Mr. Speaker from being, in effect, a pawn of the Government? Is not it therefore important that the amendment is passed, to maintain the strict neutrality and separation from the Government which successive Speakers have enjoyed?
Mr. Beith: That is immensely desirable. Indeed, that was my reason for tabling the amendment. I have thought about Mr. Speaker Lenthall this afternoon. Into my mind flooded what Mr. Speaker Lenthall said:
"I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House shall direct me."
He might have been being asked to identify where hon. Members had gone or perhaps even where they lived, but he refused to do so. There are many occasions on which it is important that Mr. Speaker's position should be protected, and this is one of them. Therefore, I hope that the Government will heed my pleas, accept the amendment, and leave the power to protect hon. Members in the hands of the Chair.
Governments are prone to the temptation to grab any lever of power and to pull on it as hard as possible. If they are given the opportunity to push things through, they are but human and fallible, and they will do so. Even genial characters such as the Leader of the House——
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to my geniality for a second and acknowledge that the entire foundation of the debate and of the proceedings on which we have already spent a lot of time is a report that was devoted to private Members' time, and was prepared by Back Benchers. This is a debate about Back Benchers' rights, promoted by Back Benchers, for Back Benchers. The measures that are set out had the support of hon. Members of all parties, including the hon. Gentleman's party, and are designed to present the right balance, as they recommend it. The Government have brought them forward with that objective in mind. The hon. Gentleman cannot caricature the Government in this context for doing other than promoting the rights of Back Benchers.
Mr. Beith: I most certainly can, but I shall refrain from doing so because I thought that that was the subject of the subsequent debate.
One must conclude something from the way in which the Government have picked up the ball and run with it. That is perhaps an odd thing to say to a Welshman after last Saturday, but that is what happened. In this instance, when the proposals came forward from the Select Committee on Procedure, the Government said, with a glint in their eyes, "This is good. This is helpful to us. We shall ensure that we get it through because it stops the inconvenience of private Members' time which causes members of the Government to have to be in the House when they do not want to be and extending the time"—[Interruption.] No, I have taken some trouble to look at this issue and I am making the judgment that I believe that the motions will reduce—not add to—the rights of private Members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, this is the substance of the subsequent debate. The business of the House motion is narrow. The hon. Gentleman is moving his amendment and he must stick to that.
Mr. Beith: I am trying to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I keep being sidetracked by the Leader of the House and others into discussing the merits of the main motion. I am asking the House to consider that the package has been sewn up in a way that happens to suit the Leader of the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not drawn and attracted to it, I think that he would have concluded that the proposals should go back for further discussion and consideration, rather than being sewn up in a package of votes at 7 o'clock on a Wednesday night when he hopes that he can get the maximum number of payroll votes into the Lobby to support it. I shall seek to argue that the package that has been stitched together should be unstitched.
The lumping together of this series of motions, including private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs, conceals the damaging nature of the wide restriction on the rights of private Members to alter the Standing Orders of the House. I cannot think of a council chamber in the country in which such a procedure would he regarded as acceptable or desirable. I cannot think of any debating body in which so enormous a restriction would be placed on the ability of its members to raise matters in the time that is supposed to be available to them.
We are talking about private Members' time. Why should not private Members decide what to do with it? We
958
are now debating this matter in Government time, and it is to the Government's attitude and their tying up of the measures in one set of votes to which I am now directing my attention.
I plead with hon. Members to recognise that, whatever their views on the issues in question, to allow the Government to secure this neat, payroll-supported vote on all the motions, will yet again greatly shift the balance away from private Members. The day will come when those private Members want to table a motion that affects some matter of Standing Orders, and they will find that, unlike the Government when they tabled this motion, somebody in the Table Office will say to them. "I am sorry, sir, but as a result of the motion that the House has passed, I cannot receive this motion." That was not the case with this business of the House motion. Nobody in the Table Office said to the Government's representative, "I cannot receive this motion," but that will be said to private Members if we proceed along these lines. It will be said about motions that hon. Members table in the future, in their time, on the day for which they have won the ballot.
I stress that such motions are balloted for and that an hon. Member is lucky to have the opportunity of a private Member's motion. Instead of being in the Government's happy position of being able to put anything that they like on the Order Paper whenever and however they want, hon. Members will not even be able to get past the door of the Table Office. That is why I believe that we should not take all these motions together in one vote at 7 o'clock.
4.59 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief, because I wish to speak only to the motion and not about matters concerning the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
I remind the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that when he was a member of the Procedure Committee he often pressed the Government to provide time for the recommendations and reports of the Committee to be brought to the Floor of the House, and to give the House the opportunity to vote on those matters. That is exactly what is happening today.
We have had nearly two hours of debate on this matter, yet the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Leader of the House has been dictatorial. In response to an appeal from the hon. Gentleman and other Back Bench Members, my right hon. and learned Friend did not move the motions, to ensure that we could have a fuller debate. The Government and the Leader of the House have now provided that fuller debate, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been delighted, given the desire that he has expressed to ensure that these matters are fully debated and that we can proceed to vote on them.
All too often, the Government have been accused of arranging matters so that such recommendations have been debated on a take-note or similar motion that has not allowed the House to reach a formal decision. In this case, the Government are giving the House the opportunity to make such a decision and no one should complain if that decision is taken after nearly five hours of debate. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one should praise the Government rather than damn them for it.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the Government have no real interest in this matter; it is entirely a question of private

959
Members' time and has nothing to do with Government or Opposition time. We are talking about time allocated to private Members, and many Leaders of the House and Governments have not given a tinker's cuss what has happened in private Members' time. They have allowed Members to do what they wanted: if private Members' time was wasted, that was a matter for Members.
The Government are now trying to ensure that that does not happen. They are giving the House the opportunity to decide on this matter, and to try to suggest that this is a package stitched for the benefit of the Government and to assist them is to mislead the House considerably.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are providing time, and I do not deny that. But would it not be a good idea if the House made up its mind that we should allocate the time ourselves? It is Members of the House who should determine the allocation of time; the matter should not be left in the hands of Government or Opposition Front-Bench Members.
Sir Peter Emery: I like the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he has been a Minister and he will know that there is never enough time for the Government to get their business through the House or for the Opposition to criticise the Government. Although it is an immensely attractive suggestion that the allocation of time should be decided openly by Back-Bench Members, the chances of that happening are about as slim as the chances of a steel mill being built on the north or south pole.
I return to the motion. We need to decide on the motion so that we can move immediately to the debate. We should move to a proper and full debate on the three motions and reach a proper decision after four and a half or five hours debate. The Government are being most sensible, and those who oppose this motion are trying to waste time to stop us reaching the procedural motions, which they may or may not support. It would be much more sensible for them to speak on the procedural motions than to speak on whether we should or should not vote.
5.4 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a curious set of circumstances. A number of hon. Members are disclaiming responsibility and denying any sort of Government intervention in this affair. As I recall, the business motion and the amendment were down for debate last Monday. A relatively small data protection order was also down for debate, and it was expected to go through quickly; only two hon. Members were present. I had checked before 10 o'clock that the business motion was a debatable motion. It was not debatable after 10 o'clock, but there was plenty of time available.
As it happens, I was not here for the main debate, which lasted about two hours, because I was attending a lengthy sitting of a Select Committee dealing with a lot of evidence that had just been produced about an hon. Member. I shall not go further down that road, except to say that it took a long time and that was what kept me from the Chamber.
Mr. Skinner: You mean Browne.
Mr. Cryer: I do indeed.
960
I wanted to debate this issue but I was prevented from doing so by the Government's Deputy Chief Whip. He and his colleagues went out and found some Conservative Back-Bench Members to speak at length on the data protection order so that we reached 10 o'clock and were effectively denied the time to debate the motion. Why should the Government do that if they are not——
Mr. Skinner: Up to summat.
Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend says, if they are not up to something—if they are not concerned to exclude the possibility of our debating the motion.
It struck me as curious and interesting, to say the least, that the Government should get up to such tricks when there was no pressure on them and nothing crucial about the affair. They simply wanted to stop the business motion being debated, and possibly voted on because with the few hon. Members about at the time, they might have lost the vote. So far from being disinterested, on Monday the Government planned to prolong a debate so that the motion could not be discussed at a time when they may not have had sufficient numbers present. The Government were involved in supporting the business of the House motion. There is no doubt about it.
The Whips then told me that the motion would be on the Order Paper today. Why today, and why at this time? Because they know that they have the troops here and that they can get the motions through in a neat and businesslike manner, so that by 7 o'clock the whole thing is polished and finished. That is their aim and purpose and it makes me very suspicious.
I am not too keen on consensus business motions or consensus motions affecting the Standing Orders of the House. I remember the last time this happened. At one time, the House had genuine Consolidated Fund motions. I say this, Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation of my attitude to the business motion and of my support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We used to have a proper Consolidated Fund debate, and the House disciplined itself well. If a group of Back Bench Members wanted to speak on a topic, they could. Up to 20 Members might have a good debate on a subject that was important to them. The debate went all through the night.
But there was an inconvenience—the Government had to have 100 Members present for the closure motion the following morning. It was getting difficult to phone round and get people here at 9 o'clock, so the Government thought, "Tut, tut, let's get rid of that inconvenience and get a series of timed Adjournment debates that finish at 9 o'clock—or 8 o'clock if a suitable business motion is tabled—then we will have no difficulties." In 1981, the Opposition were foolish enough to go along with that. They said, "When we are in government it will be terribly inconvenient for us, so we shall make sure that we do not have to telephone round."
The Opposition lost a tactical advantage. One of the few occasions since 1979 when we had wrung real concessions from the Government was when we took the Consolidated Fund through the night and won concessions on housing legislation to exclude old people's dwellings. Therefore, it was a loss all round. It is relatively easy for the Government to get a majority of 100, and private Members lost significantly.

961
The business motion affects not only private Members' motions, but public petitions and new writs.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I can reinforce my hon. Friend's argument about the Consolidated Fund. There was a time when the Consolidated Fund debate started no later than 4 pm, possibly after a ten-minute Bill, but even that was discouraged. We are now lucky if the Consolidated Fund debate starts before 10 pm. That is because it is thought that the motion for the recess Adjournment should be spatchcocked in with the Consolidated Fund. I accept entirely that this is a cross-party matter, in the sense that the late John Silkin agreed to it without consultation. It is no good our standing up and saying that the Tory Government are doing this because, in fairness, an agreement was made between those on the Front Benches, but it is a serious erosion of rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realize that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) gave the Consolidated Fund as an analogy, but I am sure that he will now come back to the business of the House motion, which deals with the length of time for which the later motions can be discussed.
Mr. Cryer: I was just about to come to another analogy, the three-hour Adjournment debate. It used to be open ended, but now it lasts for three hours. That is also for convenience——
Mr. Dalyell: It used to be on a different day.
Mr. Cryer: It is on a different day generally, but not necessarily.
The amendment provides:
"if Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the Questions as aforesaid, interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned."
What is wrong with that? It allows Mr. Speaker some discretion. Mr. Speaker tends to take careful notice of any representations that the Government or the Opposition make about proceedings in the House, as he is bound to do. Under the amendment, he could use his discretion. As I said earlier, the amendment prevents Mr. Speaker from becoming the Government's pawn. Under the business of the House motion, Mr. Speaker does not have any discretion, but must put the motion at 7 o'clock. He is not allowed to make a judgment about the length of time that has been taken for the debate.
I shall make another analogy. If Mr. Speaker was not allowed any discretion and a Standing Order stated that, after a debate had been under way for a minimum of one hour, Mr. Speaker had to accept a closure motion, it would weaken and seriously change the procedures in the House. At present, Mr. Speaker has some discretion.
It is generally calculated that, after two or two and a half hours Mr. Speaker will take a closure motion. That depends on the nature of the amendment, but Mr. Speaker has some discretion. The occupant of the Chair should not be able to say, "It is 7 o'clock and time that the debate was finished. Let us put the Question." Mr. Speaker should have some discretion.
Some people take a different view; they say that Speakers are part of the establishment and do not do anything out of line. I do not entirely share that view. There have been occasions when a Speaker has taken a position that the Government do not like because he has
962
decided not to accept either a closure motion or a business motion. The amendment will give greater discretion and will maintain, enhance and improve the independence of Mr. Speaker and his deputies. That is an important element.
Why this amendment to this motion? It is because the business motion relates to three items: private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs. If we pass this motion—I have no doubt that, if it were put to the vote, the payroll vote would be in the Aye Lobby—we would be debating three important subjects wrapped into one in under two hours.
The Government might say, "But you are taking time now to debate this issue. Surely the best thing to do is to stop talking and get on with debating the motion." But why was not that discretion allowed to me last Monday night? If the Government are so keen about debating the motions, why on Monday night did the Government Deputy Chief Whip organise a debate to exclude any business of the House from being debated? I am seizing the only opportunity that I have had to raise the issues and reservations that I consider important.
It has already been said that the Select Committee produced a recommendation and that, as it has about a dozen Back Benchers, and a former Minister chairing it, its recommendation should be accepted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said at the time, Select Committee recommendations are not accepted in this place simply on the nod.
I can well remember a Select Committee that spent many months examining Albert Roberts and Reggie Maudling. It heard a great deal of evidence and took enormous care, and the recommendations were rejected. Therefore, I do not entirely accept the idea that because a Select Committee makes a recommendation, we must of necessity follow it. The business motion, putting the private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs together, would confine Back-Benchers, not expand then. opportunities.
I was out of the House for four years, as hon. Members know. In those four years, Back-Benchers' rights have unquestionably been eroded in all sorts of ways. Cynicism has developed because of the way the Government try to dominate the Order Paper and there is greater organisation of procedure. The initiative, which could have been usefully deployed, has been taken away.
I do not want to sound like a 19th-century constitutionalist, but I have been in a modern assembly—the Common Market. I shall touch on the analogy only briefly. In that assembly everything—including the chairs of the various political groupings—is planned by committee and everyone works well together. It is amazing how Le Pen gets on with all the chairmen of the other groups inside the Common Market assembly. It is all stitched up. In the European legislature there are no opportunities to raise subjects in the wide variety of ways that we have in this place. Some may say that my position is rooted in the 19th century, but I disagree. This Parliament gives Back-Benchers the chance to use procedure to raise issues, and that is important. I am unhappy with the business motion because it will restrict Back-Benchers' opportunities to discuss matters.
Three important issues are covered in these motions—private Members' motions, public petitions and new writs. Public petitions and new writs have been discussed in the House in recent months. Some Back Benchers

963
brought in petitions on Friday mornings, possibly to delay the business set down for the day. Anyone can use that technique. I remember discussing the Sessional Orders of the House, when people said that I was playing to the cameras. But anyone could have discussed them, just as anyone could have presented petitions on a Friday. Some say that large numbers of petitions are presented on Fridays to delay business, and that that is an abuse. It is not. Groups of hon. Members or an individual Member may want to delay private Members' legislation at any time, and this is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the later debate.
Mr. Cryer: I am trying to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will take a great deal of time to discuss this important subject in detail. The business motion tabled by the Leader of the House—I am glad to see that he is still awake—imposes an important new restriction. We cannot encompass the subject of public petitions by 7 pm. I know that the business motion is not identical to the three motions following it, but we must be able to touch briefly on subjects the time for which the business motion seeks to restrict.
New writs are also significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the most recent exponent of the art of moving a new writ, would need at least half an hour in which to explain his views on moving new writs. The House is starting to fill up with Members interested in this subject—[Laughter.] There are still a few empty seats left should other hon. Members want to participate quickly in the next 40 minutes——
Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises, as a Committee Chairman, that an awful lot of Select Committees are meeting in the Corridor upstairs, as many of them do at this time on Wednesday afternoons. Those attending them may want to take part in the debate, too.
Mr. Cryer: I could not take part in the original debate because I was serving on a Select Committee——
Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recollect how important it was, before the writ for the Richmond, Yorks by-election was moved, to hear in detail about the role of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the protégé of the Leader of the House who, I notice, is burying his head deeper and deeper in his documents because he does not like this subject? It was important to explain in some detail the improper use of a Law Officer's letter, as it was subsequently proved—after all, we have Sir Leon Brittan's word for it—that he would not have acted as he did had not Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it impossible to relate that intervention to the motion.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has pointed out the intricate detail involved in debating new writs. Moving the new writ in question took up a great deal of time; my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke on it for about three hours——
Mr. Skinner: I was never out of order once.
Mr. Cryer: Unusually for my hon. Friend, he has just commented from a sedentary position that he was never out of order. He had prepared extremely carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has emphasised the value of the new writ procedure. It is important to bear that in mind when assessing the fourth motion today. Without enough time we cannot do justice to new writ motions——
Sir Peter Emery: None of these rights is being taken away from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or any other hon. Member, except in as much as these procedures should not take place in private Members' time. It is good of the Government to say that these procedures shall not interfere with private Members' time and to stipulate that they must be carried out in Government time. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted with that.
Mr. Cryer: Motion No. 4 refers to private Members' Bills being given precedence. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is now providing us with a snapshot of the sort of views that he is going to express—but he cannot express them all in an hour and a half. Judging from the thickness of his pile of notes——
Sir Peter Emery indicated dissent.
Mr. Skinner: He has got it all in his head.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has spent hours in the Select Committee and he wants to give the House a great deal of information on this subject.
My point is that the Government are going to restrict the time available to Back Benchers. New writs can be moved, first, because an hon. Member wants to bring one to the attention of the House; or, secondly, because a Back Bencher wants to use up a certain amount of time because he does not like a Bill that is coming up for consideration.
In any debate we need to consider the conventions of the constitution——
Mr. Skinner: May I put my hon. Friend right? On neither occasion when I moved a writ—before the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill or before the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—did I stop anyone moving a Bill. I prevented people from queue jumping. Enoch Powell was trying to jump the queue with his Unborn Children (Protection) Bill and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was trying to do the same with another Bill. It was not a question of trying to stop the Bills, but of an attempt being made to jump the queue and move ahead of other private Members' Bills.
Mr. Cryer: That fits in with what I am about to say. By rushing the motion through, there will not be time to examine the subtleties of the way in which the House operates. Those subtleties have developed over many years, but some people question their value and say that we should start with a shining new constitution. The experience of procedures and the reality of the way in which people work together have developed rules of thumb that are very helpful.
Perhaps I could give an example to illustrate the point. An hon. Member who wishes to raise a point of order during a Division has to put something on his head. At first sight, that seems daft and hon. Members feel foolish putting a hat on. People start to sing songs such as "Give Me the Moonlight" and we all make a joke about it. Its

965
purpose is to reduce the possibility of people raising points of order during a Division because that is an awkward time. The wearing of a hat is a hurdle for a Member who wishes to raise a point of order. It seems simple, but it works rather well.
En passant, I shall elaborate on our voting system. People ask me why we cannot have an electronic voting system which would be slicker and more efficient; hon. Members would not have to move from their places and we could get more votes through more quickly. People say that, if we had very long-range telephones hon. Members who were scattered all over the world on fact-finding missions on behalf of Select Committees could telephone their votes to the House. But the voting system that we have is simple and effective and works well. It also makes it difficult to cheat. We cannot discard all those ideas—throw them out of the window—without long and serious discussion. That is why the business motion is less than adequate. We have to consider the conventions of the constitution.
Our Standing Orders are varied by the motions. "Erskine May" gives us written opinions that have been accumulated over hundreds of years, and we also have the conventions of the constitution. If we are properly to consider the business motions, we should have to consider those matters too. I shall give a couple of examples about how we could include those in the discussion.
There is a convention that private Members' Bills brought before the House on Fridays will get through, as long as they are not extremely controversial. If they attempt to remedy a relatively minor matter, something that people accept as a matter of urgency, they will get through. There must be 100 hon. Members present to ensure that such a Bill gets a Second Reading, but by and large, it will reach that stage.
It is a different matter in the case of highly controversial subjects that split all the parties in the House. Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members have different views on abortion. The difficulties of using the private Member's Bill procedure properly and within the rules are manifold. I am not speaking specifically about abortion proposals that have been presented to the House over many years, but about any major matter of great controversy. The private Member's Bill procedure is not designed for that.
Mr. Helfer: What about hare coursing?
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend gives a good example. Hare coursing is controversial and some people, mainly Tory Members, do not like any attempt to interfere with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton has tried to promote legislation on the matter on at least one occasion.
Mr. Heller: I have tried three times.
Mr. Cryer: In such cases, Tory Members organise petitions or new writs, although I do not think that there were any new writs in relation to hare coursing. Certainly they used the measures available to them in this place, and that reinforces the conventions of the constitution. We need a Labour Government committed to a programme in support of animals to eradicate hare coursing and all other examples of cruelty to animals. We could try a private Member's Bill but we know the obstacles and hurdles that exist. Therefore, it is vital to discuss the conventions of the constitution, those unwritten areas that make it difficult to define what sort of Bill will get through the House. The
966
motions try to say that we must have a path for private Members' legislation that is free from any attempt to delay or obstruct it.
As I said, the Opposition used to have the opportunity to delay and obstruct on the Consolidated Fund. The Opposition can do that to Government legislation, although we do not do it often. On one glorious occasion, we used that opportunity and as a result, the compulsory sale of old people's dwellings was removed from legislation to sell council dwellings. We have lost such opportunities and the Consolidated Fund is a pale shadow of what it used to be. That is why I am concerned that Back Benchers should not give up something that they could use in this place as part of the to-ing and fro-ing in the production of legislation.
The production of legislation should never be easy. It should always be subject to hurdles because it affects thousands of people. I chair the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because I am concerned to see that the powers that are given to Ministers are not used in an arbitrary or unfair manner. The same applies to the business motion. I guarantee that the business motion will be supported by the payroll vote. There may be some diffident Tory Members, but I do not think that there are many.
Mr. Skinner: It is not as easy as my hon. Friend makes out, because some of the payroll vote have gone to the Savoy, to the big spree of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Some of them have been told not to stop for long, and some of them do not want to stop for very long, including the Prime Minister. We are now reaching the hour when it is conceivable that the Government have the necessary 100 Members to close the debate. I rather suspect that the presence of the Chief Whip means that he might shortly move the closure now that the junketing is about to finish.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend shocks me. I am fairly cynical about this place, but I cannot believe that the Government are manoeuvring. I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), kneeling at the feet of the Leader of the House. Is that in order? He should know the rules of this place. I thought that somebody was about to use a sword on a delicate spot.
If what my hon. Friend says is true, it appears that the Government are preparing to muster 100 Members for the closure. That shows that our fears are very real. This is a Government-inspired manoeuvre. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said—the Government Chief Whip was not here at the time and missed the comments—there are a lot of Select Committee reports on procedure. We have not had an explanation of why this report has been put forward today. I know that the Leader of the House is not used to the job but he gave a paltry speech.
I know that the Chief Whip desperately wants to hear what I am saying, and does not want to plot any more to bring about the downfall of yet another Back-Bench comment on the matter in hand.
The Leader of the House hardly gave us an explanation, but he gave the excuse that this has been done before. The Government took out the ten-minute Bill slot on Budget day. Three years ago they took it out by convention, and on the other occasion by practicality. This issue merited a

967
longer speech from the Leader of the House, not simply to soak up time, but to explain why the Government have chosen this report out of the rich variety of Select Committee reports on procedure. They are lined up on the shelves, gathering dust, awaiting their time on the Floor of the House.
It is not as though the motion says that we will finish at 7 o'clock so that we can deal with more Procedure Committee reports. We are finishing them so that we can get items 2, 3 and 4 on the Order Paper through as rapidly as possible—like a dose of salts. I think that I am right to mention my reservations and suspicions about why this is going on.
Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) may have served on the Select Committee on Procedure and perhaps they have come to an agreement. I wonder whether the Government have put down such a motion to get this business speeded through using a Select Committee report. Not only this Select Committee report but all the others need debating time, but they are not getting the time allocated to them. It is a conundrum.
I suspect that the reason for the motion is not that the Government want to help private Members but that they want to make things easier for themselves. That is what Governments generally wish to do. Therefore, they have moved motions which will exclude private Members from participating in the procedure of private Members' motions, which will reduce private Members' rights to present public petitions—they will have to choose other items and there will be a time limit—and which will affect the operation of new writs. Ordinary Back-Benchers can use their ingenuity to bring subjects to the attention of the House, through debate on motions for new writs. It gives them an opportunity that would otherwise have been put to one side. When a new writ is moved, it is for the benefit of the House but probably for the inconvenience of the Government.
Mr. Beith: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member's train of thought, but sometimes when new writs are moved—as on this occasion when we are discussing the new business motion at some length—they are a sign that the Government are not listening to the general anxieties of some hon. Members. New writs are one of the means by which those anxieties can be expressed. The hon. Member's experience, and my own, shows that if one does not inconvenience a Government they will never listen.
Mr. Cryer: That is absolutely right. This——
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 94.

Division No. 88]

[5.44 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Atkins, Robert

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Alison, Rt Mon Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Amos, Alan

Bendall, Vivian

Arbuthnot, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Benyon, W.

Ashby, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

968

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Harris, David

Blunkett, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bottomley, Peter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bowis, John

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

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brazier, Julian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bright, Graham

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Irvine, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Irving, Sir Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Jack, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Jackson, Robert

Burns, Simon

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Chris

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Butterfill, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Key, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Kilfedder, James

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Carrington, Matthew

Knapman, Roger

Cash, William

Knowles, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Lang, Ian

Chapman, Sydney

Latham, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Lawrence, Ivan

Churchill, Mr

Lee, John (Pendle)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Colvin, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lilley, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Couchman, James

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Critchley, Julian

Lord, Michael

Cunningham, Dr John

McAvoy, Thomas

Curry, David

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

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

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Day, Stephen

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Devlin, Tim

Maclean, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dixon, Don

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Malins, Humfrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mans, Keith

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maples, John

Dunn, Bob

Marek, Dr John

Durant, Tony

Marland, Paul

Eggar, Tim

Marlow, Tony

Emery, Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Evennett, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Mellor, David

Favell, Tony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Miller, Sir Hal

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Mills, lain

Fishburn, John Dudley

Miscampbell, Norman

Flynn, Paul

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mitchell, Sir David

Forth, Eric

Moate, Roger

Foster, Derek

Monro, Sir Hector

Franks, Cecil

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Freeman, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fry, Peter

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gale, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Gill, Christopher

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mudd, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Neale, Gerrard

Goodlad, Alastair

Needham, Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Gorst, John

Neubert, Michael

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nicholls, Patrick

Gregory, Conal

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Grist, Ian

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ground, Patrick

O'Brien, William

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Page, Richard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Paice, James

Hanley, Jeremy

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

969

Patnick, Irvine

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Pawsey, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Portillo, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Rhodes James, Robert

Thurnham, Peter

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Trippier, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Viggers, Peter

Rost, Peter

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Ryder, Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sackville, Hon Tom

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Waller, Gary

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ward, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Watts, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wells, Bowen

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wheeler, Sir John

Shersby, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Sims, Roger

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Winterton, Nicholas

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wood, Timothy

Speller, Tony

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Stanbrook, Ivor

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stern, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stevens, Lewis

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Fallon.

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

NOES

Allen, Graham

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Anderson, Donald

Howells, Geraint

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Beith, A. J.

Johnston, Sir Russell

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

Lamond, James

Bradley, Keith

Leadbitter, Ted

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Leighton, Ron

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Buckley, George J.

Livingstone, Ken

Callaghan, Jim

Livsey, Richard

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Maclennan, Robert

Cartwright, John

McWilliam, John

Clay, Bob

Madden, Max

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Corbett, Robin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Martlew, Eric

Dalyell, Tarn

Meale, Alan

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Eadie, Alexander

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mullin, Chris

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Nellist, Dave

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fearn, Ronald

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Patchett, Terry

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

Pendry, Tom

Fisher, Mark

Pike, Peter L.

Flannery, Martin

Prescott, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Richardson, Jo

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Rooker, Jeff

George, Bruce

Salmond, Alex

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sheerman, Barry

Hardy, Peter

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Heffer, Eric S.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hinchliffe, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hood, Jimmy

Spearing, Nigel

970

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Steinberg, Gerry

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Turner, Dennis

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendent be made:-
The House divided: Ayes 84,Noes 233.

Division No. 89]

[5.56 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Johnston, Sir Russell

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Kennedy, Charles

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lamond, James

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Leadbitter, Ted

Battle, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Beith, A. J.

Livingstone, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Maclennan, Robert

Bradley, Keith

Madden, Max

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Callaghan, Jim

Marek, Dr John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meale, Alan

Cartwright, John

Michael, Alun

Clay, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Cryer, Bob

Mullin, Chris

Dalyell, Tam

Nellist, Dave

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

Patchett, Terry

Day, Stephen

Pike, Peter L.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Eadie, Alexander

Primarolo, Dawn

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Richardson, Jo

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Rooker, Jeff

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Salmond, Alex

Fearn, Ronald

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Skinner, Dennis

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

Soley, Clive

Flannery, Martin

Spearing, Nigel

Flynn, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Fyfe, Maria

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Gale, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Heffer, Eric S.

Worthington, Tony

Hinchliffe, David

Howells, Geraint

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Richard Livsey and Mr. Alex Carlile.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bowis, John

Allen, Graham

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Amos, Alan

Bright, Graham

Arbuthnot, James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Atkins, Robert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buckley, George J.

Beckett, Margaret

Budgen, Nicholas

Bendall, Vivian

Burns, Simon

Benyon, W.

Burt, Alistair

Bevan, David Gilroy

Butler, Chris

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Butterfill, John

Blunkett, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Carrington, Matthew

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Boswell, Tim

Chapman, Sydney

Bottomley, Peter

Chope, Christopher

971

Churchill, Mr

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Couchman, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Critchley, Julian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Curry, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Irvine, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Irving, Sir Charles

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jack, Michael

Dixon, Don

Jackson, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Kilfedder, James

Durant, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Eastham, Ken

Kirkhope, Timothy

Eggar, Tim

Knapman, Roger

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evennett, David

Lang, Ian

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Fallon, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Favell, Tony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lilley, Peter

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Forth, Eric

Lord, Michael

Foster, Derek

McAvoy, Thomas

Franks, Cecil

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Freeman, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fry, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gardiner, George

Maclean, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McLoughlin, Patrick

George, Bruce

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Malins, Humfrey

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Alastair

Maples, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gregory, Conal

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grist, Ian

Maxton, John

Ground, Patrick

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mellor, David

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Miller, Sir Hal

Hanley, Jeremy

Mills, lain

Hardy, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Harris, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, Sir David

Haynes, Frank

Moate, Roger

972

Monro, Sir Hector

Sims, Roger

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Speed, Keith

Morrison, Sir Charles

Speller, Tony

Mowlam, Marjorie

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mudd, David

Stern, Michael:

Needham, Richard

Stevens, Lewis

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Neubert, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Page, Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thorne, Neil

Patnick, Irvine

Thornton, Malcolm

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Thurnham, Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

Pawsey, James

Trippier, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trotter, Neville

Portillo, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Viggers, Peter

Prescott, John

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Watts, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wheeler, Sir John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wiggin, Jerry

Rost, Peter

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Ryder, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to Private Members' Motions, Public Petitions and New Writs may be proceeded with until Seven o'clock; and at that hour, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall put successively the Question already proposed from the Chair and the Questions on such of the remaining Motions as may then be made, including the Questions on any Amendments thereto which he may have selected.

Private Members' Motions
6.8 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall vote on the three procedure motions at 7 o'clock. I propose to speak briefly on all three now. The House will recall that on 1 February we dealt with the third report of the Procedure Committee
974
on ten-minute Bills. The debate on that day also covered the second report of the Committee, dealing with private Members' time. We did not bring it to a conclusion, following a request by hon. Members, and the matter was held over to a subsequent occasion. That is the purpose of today's debate.
Since the previous debate I have reflected on the speeches made, and I remain convinced of the need and justification for the three motions. As this is, in effect, a continuation of the previous debate, I do not intend to repeat my speech.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Leader of the House. I should have informed the House before he rose that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to leave out paragraph (d). I selected the amendment on the previous occasion that the matter was debated. I have not selected the other amendments.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had dealt with that amendment in my previous intervention.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I asked the Leader of the House to make sure that he addressed the issue raised by the amendment. The motion covers not only matters that went to the Procedure Committee but any attempt by any hon. Member ever to use private Members' time to make a substantive decision about any Standing Order.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me reiterate the central point of our position. I believe that the three motions, taken with the additional day for private Members' business in the Sessional Order to amend Standing Order No. 13 which I moved on 22 November, provide a fair and reasonable deal for the House as a whole and for Back Benchers. Indeed, they were so regarded by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and many other hon. Members in the previous debate.
If the way is to be cleared for private Members' business to be considered largely unobstructed—that is, through the motions on new writs and petitions, motions 4 and 3—an additional day having already been provided for that business, I do not think it unreasonable to expect hon. Members to operate within the parameters of the agreed procedures and within the time available within the system, and to preclude them from doing otherwise. That is the central purpose of the motion on private Members' motions.
Any hon. Member who introduces a private Members' Bill which is long, complex or controversial should be aware of the risks of failure arising from the inherent nature of the Bill and should not blame the system if the Bill fails to get through.
In the earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) emphasised what she called the will of the House. It has also been raised tonight. She suggested that if a private Member's motion were passed to give precedence or some other advantage to a private Member's Bill, so be it. That was the very question addressed by the Procedure Committee. I explained previously that if we allowed that to be the position, that would itself destroy the balance of the accepted convention for dealing with private Members' business.
It could nullify the effect of the ballot for private Members' Bills if a Member successful in obtaining a high

975
place in the ballot found his Bill being upstaged by a Bill lower down that had a stronger lobby behind it. I do not think that that prospect is made more acceptable by the amendment on the Order Paper in my hon. Friend's name. Although the intention might be to secure favourable treatment for a Bill, such a procedure could be used to hinder other Bills. That is one feature we would not want.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as he is anxious to be identified—I understand why—the procedure of the House has been used on previous occasions in a way which was never intended. The Procedure Committee addressed itself to that, at the invitation of Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that hard cases make bad law and that we should think carefully before changing procedures in response to one or two incidents.
We have thought about it carefully, and so has the Procedure Committee. When the procedures of the House have been used in a way that was never intended, it is reasonable to plug the gaps and to eliminate the weaknesses that are exposed by such unintended use. I add to that the hope expressed by you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not go through this kind of thing again.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend made consistent reference to motions being used in a way that was not intended. May I refer him to the ruling of the Speaker in 1927 on which our privileges have been based ever since? That ruling specifically said that altering time and seeking extra time was not solely within the competence of the Government but was rightly also within the province of private Members. How is it an abuse if that was what the Speaker ruled?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The target of the report that we are debating was not the impact of decisions or wishes of the Government on anything but the potential impact of one set of private Members' rights on another set of private Members' rights. It is that balance which the report carefully seeks to maintain. In paragraph 5 the Committee said:
"Our fundamental approach in tackling this problem has been to seek to preserve and strengthen the balance between, on the one hand, the rights of private Members to have their balloted Motions debated without disruption, and, on the other, the legitimate expectations of Members with Bills in the first six allotted places".
So it is not a matter between the Executive and private Members. It is an attempt to implement a recommendation made by private Members for private Members for the better management of the business of the House.
I believe that the three motions, with the others that were debated, make a sensible package. They have been debated in prime time already for about one and a half hours. We had a substantial debate on the substance earlier this afternoon. We have a further opportunity of debating the motions for the remainder of the hour. On that basis, we shall have debated them for more than enough time to bring the matter to a conclusion at 7 o'clock. I commend the motions to the House.
6.17 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I speak for the second time in support of the motions. Before I come to their merits, although I do not want to repeat at length
976
what I said on the previous occasion, I want to deal with the argument which has been put to us again today that there has been a great conspiracy on the part of the Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Between the two Front Benches.
Dr. Cunningham: I should remind my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of what I said in the previous debate. I consulted Back-Bench Members of the parliamentary Labour party in public at a meeting which was advertised on the Whip. My hon. Friend was probably doing something important, but he did not come to that meeting.
Mr. Skinner: I was probably in the Chamber——
Dr. Cunningham: He probably was.
Mr. Skinner: —doing the job for which I am paid.
Dr. Cunningham: There has been every opportunity on this side of the House for consultation and discussion, and there is to be a free vote. I shall list my hon. Friends who served on the Committee: the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is in his place, and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who was here earlier. They are not the kind of people to join any conspiracy with the Treasury Bench or, in many cases, with this Front Bench. I do not think there is a shred of evidence to sustain the conspiracy argument.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for whom I have a high personal regard—[Interruption.] I have a high personal regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover too, but I do not agree with him on this matter.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot sustain his argument; there is no validity in it. He has not a shred of evidence to support his argument.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is serving on a Select Committee at this moment. He told me that if he had been able to take part in the debate he would have wanted to draw attention to the fact that in the Procedure Committee he moved and voted on an amendment that was a much better compromise than that which is being offered to us today.
Dr. Cunningham: We should have argued about the merits of the proposed changes. I do not suggest for a moment that all my hon. Friends agree with the view that I have expressed about the proposed changes. However, I believe that they disagree with those who say that in bringing the recommendations before the House in this way they have somehow been involved in a behind-the-scenes deal with the Government. That is not true. That is not true in my case, either.
We are trying to protect Back Benchers from the depredations of other Back Benchers. That is the force of the argument for change. Back-Bench Members' time is not being dramatically changed by the proposals, except in one instance. It is unacceptable that, with the shortest period of notice, a Back Bencher can move a motion in the Chamber to change our Standing Orders. The proper way to change Standing Orders is for the House to set up a Select Committee of Back Benchers to take evidence and

977
to come back to the House with recommendations. That is the orderly way to change our procedures, and that is the proposal. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not accept the argument that, willy-nilly, at short notice, Back Benchers should have the right to come into the Chamber, move a motion and turn the procedures of the House upside down.
Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, want to make it clear that a motion would have to be on the Order Paper before it could be moved. Hon. Members, therefore, would be notified. Furthermore, there would have to be a majority for the motion. Surely those are two enormous safeguards.
Dr. Cunningham: That is a statement of fact, so it has to be right. However, I do not accept that that is the best way to examine the procedures of the House. It would be better to appoint a Select Committee of Back Benchers to consider the matter thoroughly. Interested though I was in my hon. Friend's amusing speech earlier today, it was nevertheless an attempt to prevent the House from reaching a decision today. I am in favour of the House reaching a decision on these matters.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for the fact that, because of official business with a Select Committee, I was unable to be here for the earlier debate. I can attest to the consultation procedures to which my hon. Friend properly referred. However, does he not agree that he is now dealing with two distinct, albeit connected, issues? I agree with my hon. Friend and the Leader of the House about the first—the use of private Members' motions to change the Standing Orders relating to private Members' Bills. However, my hon. Friend has introduced another element: that the House can change any Standing Order with or without notice. I take his point that there is a connection in this instance, but are they not two separate issues that ought to be debated separately instead of together?
Dr. Cunningham: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not agree with it. That would be another means to cause delay. All hon. Members who are in the Chamber know what the issues are. The report has been before us for many months. We had an opportunity to debate it on an earlier occasion. There can be no confusion about what the House is being asked to decide. My hon. Friend may have made a pedantic point, but it is not a point of major substance, or one with which I can agree.
I intend to support the motion in the Lobby.
6.24 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I spoke earlier only on the procedural motion. I wish to make three specific points. The Procedure Committee attempted to ensure fairness for those who are successful in the ballot for private Members' motions and for those who are successful in the ballot to introduce private Members' Bills. They have little enough time. If hon. Members were advocating more time, it would be a different matter. We should thank the Government for providing an additional day.
The Procedure Committee has tried to safeguard the rights of hon. Members who are successful in the ballots so that their motions can be properly debated. Neither writs nor petitions should curtail their time. The Procedure Committee has not limited the time in which hon.
978
Members who are successful in the ballots can discuss these matters; they can be discussed at other times. Writs could be discussed in Government time. I should have thought that that would be an advantage for BackBenchers; writs would not be dealt with in private Members' time. The Procedure Committee suggests that petitions should be dealt with at the end of the day instead of the beginning.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argued that an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) altered the package. That is not correct. The amendment would have provided additional time—it would not have altered the package—for private Members' Bills. The Government have met that point to some extent by providing an additional day.
Whenever there is a request for Standing Orders to be changed, the Procedure Committee is asked to examine the request and make recommendations. Hon. Members who are against the motion believe that they will lose their special rights, or privilege, to introduce Bills. They want to be granted special rights to introduce a motion, thus taking precedence over other hon. Members who have been successful in the ballot. That is unfair and should be stopped. It was seen by the House to be unfair. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke for three hours on one occasion to prevent a Bill from being debated. We want to save the hon. Member for Bolsover the trouble of having to speak for three hours to prevent queue jumping.
The Procedure Committee heard a great deal of evidence on the subject and has provided a complete package. The evidence is printed at the back of the Committee's report. The Procedure Committee wants to safeguard Back Benchers' rights. The rights of Opposition Front-Bench and Treasury Bench Members are unaffected; they have nothing to gain or lose by this. The fact that the Government have found so much time to debate the matter—twice in prime time—is excellent.
Mr. Cryer: Suspicious.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman says that it is suspicious. Is not that what hon. Members want? Do they not keep pressing the Government for more time? Is that not what Back Benchers keep asking the Leader of the House to do? The moment that it is done it is called suspicious. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. It has been done for the benefit of Back Benchers. We should thank the Government and not be bloody-minded about it.
6.29 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out paragraph (d).
I shall be very brief as other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not repeat my arguments on the main issue although I remain of the view that it is hard to tell Back Benchers that they should never do what the Government do every day—seek more time for Bills. I wish to concentrate on my amendment to leave out paragraph (d).
The motion has a far wider effect than the Chairman of the Procedure Committee or the Leader of the House have admitted. It precludes private Members from ever using private Members' time to bring about a change in the Standing Orders. I am not sure whether the hon. Member

979
for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) followed that point. I agree with him that the most desirable way to change the Standing Orders, if there is a problem, is to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, get a report and act on that report. But what happens if the Government do not provide time for the report? My experience is that they choose to provide time for those reports which, for one reason or another, they wish to bring forward.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will be the first to realise the many occasions when I served on that Committee on which we could not get some of our proposals before the House. If, in those circumstances, he and other hon. Members decided that enough was enough—that one of us has won the ballot, so we shall bring forward the changes and not be fobbed off by the Government any longer because they do not like the changes—we would be unable to table a motion to give effect to the Procedure Committee's recommendations because it would not be receivable in the Table Office. All that we can do is table a take-note motion which does not have any effect. The Government are off the hook again because they do not have to proceed with the matter.
Sir Peter Emery: It would be quite possible for the Procedure Committee to move a motion asking for time, but any report of the Procedure Committee should be approved by the House and then acted upon by the Government. We could pass that quite easily.
Mr. Beith: Any motion to give effect to changes in the Standing Orders, which is what is required to change Standing Orders, would be precluded at the Table Office. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I nor anyone else could get past the Table Office clerks, who would be bound by the motion to say that amending or varying any Standing Order is prohibited by the motion. I do not understand why the Leader of the House included that prohibition in the motion. It widens it far beyond its original purpose.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will accept my amendment even if they do not agree that it is also legitimate for hon. Members to seek the approval of the House for further time for private Members' Bills. That is a separate issue. Why it has been wrapped up in this motion, I do not know, but the effect is to place a clear limitation on hon. Members. Perhaps the Leader of the House is not in a conspiracy; perhaps he is as innocent as he so often looks and does not realise that that is the effect of the motion. That is a possible explanation.
Mr. Spearing: Without taking any view on the timetable motion, suspicions or anything else, I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the Leader of the House included paragraph (d). I understand that there was a procedural motion without notice. Would not the whole matter be resolved at a subsequent stage, if it is not acceptable to the Leader of the House tonight, by stating that any procedural motion must have so many days' notice? The question of Back Benchers' rights would remain open and everyone would be protected by the notice required.
Mr. Beith: I agree with that observation and I am in favour of requirements of notice being laid on individual Members and the Government. Both should have to give notice of changes in Standing Orders.
Dr. Cunningham: I want to get the record straight. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that he understood why the Leader of the House and I had included that change. I make it absolutely clear that I had nothing to do with the drafting of the motions on the Order Paper. Of course, I studied them and agreed to support them, as I have made clear, but I was not involved in drafting them. I must say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it is not that I do not understand what he is saying; I simply do not agree with him.
Mr. Beith: I think that the hon. Gentleman should agree with me. I tell many of my constituents in many cases, "If only you had looked at the small print." At some time in the future, hon. Members will say, "If only we had looked at the small print because we are precluded from bringing about changes which the Procedure Committee has recommended and the Government do not like, or in some other way acting in a perfectly proper manner to serve the interests of our constituents and the House." For the moment hon. Members should forget whatever views they may have had on a controversial instance in the past, look at the merits of the argument and read the small print.
6.34 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I shall be brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The motion is utterly disgraceful. It proposes to remove from Back Benchers the last shreds of their rights to influence the business of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has not addressed himself to the principal issue that I raised last time—the difference between obstructive activity and that which seeks the will of the House.
Only one hon. Member has to decide to move a by-election writ and talk for three hours. Some hon. Members can present petitions all morning but there is no way in which the House can give precedence or extra time to any Bill or have a Standing Order changed without the will of the House. The first motion means that an hon. Member cannot ask the House to decide whether we shall change a Standing Order or give a Bill extra time.
I have been very restrained about answering this allegation in the past, but in view of the fact that yet again reference has been made to queue jumping, I should like to point out to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that the Bill for which I was seeking time came up after the six Bills that were ahead of it in the ballot. I did not seek immediate consideration of all stages; I sought Second Reading only, so it stayed very firmly in its place in the queue and there was no queue jumping. Had there been queue jumping the queue could not have been jumped without the will of the House and that is crucial.
The motion says that Back Benchers may not seek the will of the House. My amendment, which you quite properly did not call, Mr. Speaker, tried to meet the case that was put last time that a Back Bencher could take up a great deal of time on the Floor of the House in discussing a Bill that did not have much support and then try to push

981
something through on a small vote. My amendment was trying to make certain that there was substantial support across the House before any such motion could be tabled and I am sorry that you did not call it.
It really is a question of protecting our last rights. If those rights go, there will be no other way than by lottery that an hon. Member can come to the House and ask for any change in Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was quite right to say that, if the Government of the day do not want to do something, the Procedure Committee, Select Committees or anyone else will not be able to ask individual hon. Members to use their place in the ballot to propose respectable recommendations. If we pass the motion, we shall be totally at the mercy of the Executive. That is why there is agreement between the two Front Benches. There will simply be nothing left. We have had those rights for years. I regret that tonight's debate is not better attended so that people can hear the arguments.
6.37 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, you had a request under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate on an important matter that was urgent and specific. I do not know and I am not asking you why you turned down that application, but we could have been debating that issue had a different decision been made.
We would have been debating the social fund and the fact that according to the courts in some circumstances people can claim money that the Government have deprived them of in the past few years. Nearly all Opposition Members would have preferred to discuss the social fund, and those poor people who do not have two ha'pennies to rub together, instead of messing about with a motion which has come from the belly of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). He spawned it and he did not know what he was doing when he produced it.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has shown that the hon. Member for Honiton has gone a bridge too far—he is taking away powers without even knowing that he is doing it. The Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have not explained the answers to the charges that have been made on three separate occasions by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
It is shabby that we should be spending our time attempting to stop Members moving writs. Some might regard it as fantasy land, but imagine what would happen if the Government did not want to move a writ for the Mid-Staffordshire by-election. Suppose the Government thought that because of public attitudes to the poll tax, high interest and mortgage rates and so on, they would not, despite their 150 majority over Labour, go ahead with the Mid-Staffordshire writ. Indeed, suppose the Government went against an earlier decision and moved an amendment stating that the by-election must be held within, say, three months.
Suppose that the initiative of an Opposition Member was required to tell the people of Mid-Staffordshire, "You will have the chance of a by-election." The Government might vote that down, but at least the voters of Mid-Staffordshire would have been alerted to the fact that the Labour party, through one of its Back Benchers, was
982
prepared to try to secure a by-election. That type of scenario might be remote, but the opportunity that now exists for a Back Bencher to take the initiative is being taken from us.
Sir Peter Emery: In private Members' time.
Mr. Skinner: Private Members raise issues that the Government dare not touch. There have been many occasions when private Members have brought forward on a Friday issues that the Government would not raise. Indeed, the hon. Member for Honiton brought forward a private Member's Bill recently and managed to obtain a Second Reading.
Dr. Cunningham: The effect of what is before the House would not prevent any Opposition Member from moving a writ for a by-election. It would simply prevent it happening in private Members' time. We would not be giving up the right to move a writ for a by-election if we decided to move a writ. A danger of moving a writ for a by-election against the Government's desire is that, if it is voted down, there cannot be a by-election in that Session of Parliament.
Mr. Skinner: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is telling me and I do not need to be educated on the subject. I fear, however, that he is wrong. Such matters on a Friday come up as first business. From Monday to Thursday they come up at the commencement of the sitting, before Question Time, and, as Government business, they are held over. From then on the Government are in control. We had an example of that once this Session.
That is why I say that a different set of circumstances applies on Fridays. Why does my hon. Friend think that the proposed prohibitions and bans have arisen? On Friday the Government do not always have 120 Members present. They do not want to be burdened every Friday with having to contend with a Back-Bench adventure. On Fridays, the Government are not always in control of the activities of Back Benchers.
The Government do not want to be bothered every Friday with such matters. Ministers and others on the Government Benches want to be elsewhere. They do not want to have to keep sufficient supporters here to control the House. The hon. Member for Honiton will recall that when, on a recent Friday, he secured a Second Reading for his Bill, only 53 Members voted for the closure motion. That is how the Government like it. They love it because it enables Ministers to trot around the country on photo opportunities, on fact-finding tours and doing whatever else they want to do.
Let us deal with the nitty-gritty of the matter. It is nonsense to say that the Government are worried about the business of Back Benchers on Fridays. It is being suggested that the Government are telling us, "We are doing this only because we are trying to look after you on Fridays." Who believes that? After all, the Leader of the House has spent most of his time swanning around the world, at the United Nations and elsewhere, meeting Foreign Ministers and others. Also, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has two houses to visit on Fridays.
Is it really suggested that he is anxious to accommodate Opposition Back Benchers in what they wish to achieve on Fridays? Of course he is not. In the television age he wants to tell the moguls who run the networks, "Here is the business for Friday. We can tell you spot on what will

983
happen next Friday." Every day on programmes about Parliament we read the details of what business will take place here.
From Monday to Thursday the Government can be sure of being right about that—because they are in control of the business, knowing that certain items will be raised, finishing with the Adjournment—but they are never too sure of what will happen on Fridays. Indeed, five or six Bills might be down for discussion on a Friday. Had the hon. Member for Honiton not listened to the advice of the Tory Whip, my hon. Friends and I might have slipped two more Bills through. A Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) nearly got through. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Honiton had his elbow jerked by the Government Whip on duty.
Sir Peter Emery: Keep talking.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman tells me to keep talking. He knows as well as anyone what happens on a Friday. On that day there is always an opportunity for Back Benchers to get something through. Ministers may not be in evidence. So let us put an end to the suggestion that the Leader of the House is worried about Back Benchers and is anxious to make life smooth for us on Fridays.
If that were the case, we would not have occasional Government statements made on Fridays. I am not against the Government making statements on a Friday, when there are not many Members present. In those circumstances I may be called by Mr. Speaker to put a question. That happened last Friday when we discussed Hong Kong.
But it is a bit cheeky for the Government, who may wish to make statements on a Friday for their own benefit, thereby disrupting private Members' time, to say that they are anxious to protect Fridays for Back Benchers. It has been suggested that Government statements have been made deliberately to reduce the time that would otherwise be available on a Friday for a private Member's measure that the Government do not like.
If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wanted to do something good for Back Benchers, he could have advised the Leader of the House to allocate 10 more Fridays for private Members. The Government occupy the time on some Fridays. Why did not the hon. Member for Honiton have the guts to tell his right hon. and learned Friend that his Committee recommends that Back Benchers should have more time for Adjournments, motions and private Members' Bills? There might not be any queue jumping if more days were allocated for private Members' Bills. That would have been far preferable to the paltry little concession that is being made.
Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the kindness of reading the report.
Mr. Skinner: I have read it.
Sir Peter Emery: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must have overlooked, which is often the case with the hon. Gentleman, the recommendation that extra time should be given twice a week to Back Benchers for Adjournment debates. He should not make the sort of allegations that he is making without knowing the facts, which is often the case with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Skinner: I said that the concession was paltry. Indeed, the Leader of the House even forgot that it was in the report. If the hon. Member for Honiton were sensible, he would have said that, in anticipation of the proposals being passed by the House, 10 more Fridays should be provided for private Members' Bills and motions.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will be aware that, if it is the wish of the House that a Member shall not jump the queue, that is the end of the matter. If a Back Bencher wishes to move a writ, he or she can do that. Although there may have been a majority on Second Reading for the Bill that she introduced, the fact remains that the will of the House on that occasion—and in 1985 when Enoch Powell moved a Bill on the same issue—was to the effect that so-called queue jumping should not occur.
Miss Widdecombe: I cannot quite equate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with the will of the House. If he wished to move a by-election writ, he did not have to seek the will of the House; he could go ahead and do it. But I could not get extra time for my Bill unless the House agreed to my having more time. That is the difference between the two.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Lady could not have had her ear close enough to the ground. I assure her that, in the days prior to that Friday, scores of her hon. Friends, some of whom were prepared to support her Bill on Second Reading, told me, "I hope to goodness that you manage to stop it on Friday, Dennis." Certainly Government Members did not want to spend the weekend here; they had had enough having to stay for the Friday—[Interruption.] There were a greater number of Members supporting me on the two Fridays when the hon. Lady presented her Bill than I had experienced in 20 years.
I shall tell the Leader of the House what he should do. Why not take the motions one at a time? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the request of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and if he accepts the amendment, he will do the House and himself a favour. By the time the Prime Minister has finished with the Leader of the House, he could well be a Back Bencher, and he might want to do some of these things on a Friday. He will not always have two houses to sweep and clean with Lady Quango on Friday when we are battling here.
If the Procedure Committee wants to do something decent, I shall give it some ideas. Why not take up the matter of starting our proceedings at 9 am? Why not take up the question of having full-time Members of Parliament? Why not consider ensuring that every Member has one job as a Member of Parliament, and one job only? Why not take up the idea of clocking on, like millions of our constituents have to do? Why not do all those things? A report on those issues would be controversial, and this place would be full to debate it.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about Back Benchers' rights, why did he not take up the matter of the Labour Front Bench using the time for ten-minute Bills, as happened the other day?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter should be discussed on another occasion. It does not concern the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Skinner: I must answer that question, Mr. Speaker. One of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench passed the Bill to another Front Bencher. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has not been a Member long. He is a bit wet behind the ears and he probably did not realise that it had been passed by one Front Bencher to another.
Many improvements could be made for Back Benchers. We are in the so-called television age. If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wants to do something useful, such as consider those matters that I have suggested—perhaps he and other hon. Members could present a multitude of other issues—he might get some support from those of us who want to take some power from the Executive and hand it to Back Benchers. Over the past 20 years during which I have been a Member, there have been six occasions—many of which have been alluded to—when powers have been taken from Back Benchers, and they have never been restored. It is time that we took some of those powers back.
6.52 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: I am sure that we all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We have discovered what he does in the rare moments when he is not in the Chamber—he has obviously started writing his autobiography. Many of us will look forward to reading it.
There are many arguments about whether there should be more or less time for private Members' business. In a previous incarnation, I sometimes wished that there were no time for that business. Nothing gives a Government Chief Whip more nightmares than the prospect of private Members' business on Friday. It is an art of its own in terms of parliamentary procedure. Over the years, I probably lost more nights' sleep over private business than over everything else put together.
We should not give more time to private Members' business. If the Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that more time should be allocated, I would strongly oppose that view. However, we must strenuously protect the time already given. I have grieved when the time granted has been abused by hon. Members using a number of devices. In the past year or so—I cannot remember the exact time—I unsuspectingly applied to present a petition to the House on a Friday morning. To my horror, I found that there were many other petitions, which were clearly to be presented to block private Members' business. Consequently, I said to the House that I did not intend to present my petition, because I did not think that my constituents would wish to have their petition mixed up in a blocking procedure.
The motions are thoroughly worthy in that their aim is not to remove Members' rights to move writs or present petitions, but solely to protect private Members' time. I hope that the House will support that worthy and laudable aim.
6.54 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: We have been debating a number of different issues more or less simultaneously which may be confusing to those hearing or watching these proceedings. The first part of the debate on these matters was spent deciding how long we should
986
debate them and whether an amendment should be made. In that debate, matters were rehearsed relating to the substance of the motions on the Order Paper.
In the past three quarters of an hour, we have discussed one motion which relates to a well-founded attempt by the Leader of the House, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham), to stop a gap which was ingeniously discovered by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and her hon. Friends in pursuit of a controversial private Member's Bill. A gap in the procedures was found by which to extend, through private Members' motions, the opportunity for debate on private Members' Bills, which were otherwise limited in time. None of us would deny the hon. Lady's right to attempt that.
The main question is whether, in the balance of the private Members' time available, that facility should be used and whether it is desirable. Although I agree that the hon. Member for Maidstone had the right to make that attempt, the balance of private Members' time should be retained as it is, and that path should be closed. I disagree in some measure with the motion because of the method used to close it. I am concerned with paragraph (d). I fully understand why it was inserted.
It would seem necessary and common sense to deal with the situation precipitated by the hon. Member for Maidstone. I understand that the motion was tabled without much notice. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that, perhaps inadvertently, the inclusion of paragraph (d) precludes any Member from tabling a motion to amend Standing Orders at any time, however much notice is given—whether it has been promoted by the Procedure Committee or otherwise. That encroachment on private Members' rights may need to be considered again.
I ask the Leader of the House, who takes these matters seriously and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland to consider the motion again, if it is passed, so that Members' rights are maintained without allowing the route taken by the hon. Member for Maidstone to be followed. I hope that, even if the Leader of the House cannot accept an amendment—I hope that he will—the motion will be ameliorated.
6.58 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The motions do not touch on the subjects on which the hon. Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner) spoke—the power a Back Benchers and the right of the legislature to curb the Executive. In the two minutes that are left I simply wish to say that I hope that the House will do something to redress the balance between the power of the legislature and the power of the Executive.
The House should be a curb on the Executive which scrutinises properly. Instead we have become a tool of the Executive. That has distorted the balance of power in this country. It is time for another Dunning's motion that the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 218.

Division No. 90]

[7 pm

AYES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

987

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

Lawrence, Ivan

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Livingstone, Ken

Bermingham, Gerald

Livsey, Richard

Bradley, Keith

McAvoy, Thomas

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maclennan, Robert

Callaghan, Jim

Madden, Max

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Marion, Mrs Alice

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Marek, Dr John

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Marlow, Tony

Clay, Bob

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Martlew, Eric

Cryer, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dalyell, Tam

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Day, Stephen

Mills, Iain

Dover, Den

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Eadie, Alexander

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Nellist, Dave

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Patchett, Terry

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fearn, Ronald

Pike, Peter L.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

Primarolo, Dawn

Flannery, Martin

Shersby, Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Skinner, Dennis

Gill, Christopher

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gordon, Mildred

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Summerson, Hugo

Gregory, Conal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Waller, Gary

Heffer, Eric S.

Watts, John

Hinchliffe, David

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hood, Jimmy

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Howells, Geraint

Widdecombe, Ann

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Jessel, Toby

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Kennedy, Charles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Alan Beith and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

Knowles, Michael

Lamond, James

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Buckley, George J.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burns, Simon

Allen, Graham

Burt, Alistair

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butler, Chris

Amess, David

Butterfill, John

Amos, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ashby, David

Churchill, Mr

Aspinwall, Jack

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Atkins, Robert

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baldry, Tony

Couchman, James

Batiste, Spencer

Cox, Tom

Battle, John

Critchley, Julian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cummings, John

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Benyon, W.

Curry, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

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

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Blunkett, David

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

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dickens, Geoffrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dixon, Don

Boswell, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bowis, John

Dunn, Bob

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Brazier, Julian

Durant, Tony

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Eastham, Ken

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

Eggar, Tim

Browne, John (Winchester)

Emery, Sir Peter

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fallon, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Favell, Tony

988

Fishburn, John Dudley

Morrison, Sir Charles

Flynn, Paul

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mowlam, Marjorie

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Forth, Eric

Mudd, David

Foster, Derek

Needham, Richard

Franks, Cecil

Nelson, Anthony

Freeman, Roger

Neubert, Michael

Fry, Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Fyfe, Maria

Nicholls, Patrick

Galloway, George

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gardiner, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Oppenheim, Phillip

Golding, Mrs Llin

Page, Richard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Paice, James

Goodlad, Alastair

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Patnick, Irvine

Grist, Ian

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Ground, Patrick

Patten, Rt Hon John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pawsey, James

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hanley, Jeremy

Portillo, Michael

Harris, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Price, Sir David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

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

Richardson, Jo

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hunter, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

Irvine, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Irving, Sir Charles

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jack, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sims, Roger

Key, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Speed, Keith

Lang, Ian

Speller, Tony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Steen, Anthony

Lightbown, David

Stern, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Sumberg, David

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Thurnham, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Tredinnick, David

Maclean, David

Turner, Dennis

McLoughlin, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Viggers, Peter

Mans, Keith

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Maples, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Marland, Paul

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Wells, Bowen

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wheeler, Sir John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Wiggin, Jerry

Meale, Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Michael, Alun

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Miller, Sir Hal

Yeo, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mitchell, Sir David

Tellers for the Noes:

Morley, Elliot

Mr. John D. Taylor

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Mr. Sidney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded,pursuant to the Order this day, to put successively the Question already proposed and the Question on such of the remaining motions as might then be made.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 73.

Division No. 91]

[7.12 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Favell, Tony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fishburn, John Dudley

Allen, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Amess, David

Forth, Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Foster, Derek

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Franks, Cecil

Ashby, David

Freeman, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkins, Robert

Fry, Peter

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fyfe, Maria

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gardiner, George

Baldry, Tony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Batiste, Spencer

George, Bruce

Battle, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Beckett, Margaret

Goodlad, Alastair

Benyon, W.

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bermingham, Gerald

Grist, Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Ground, Patrick

Blunkett, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Boswell, Tim

Hanley, Jeremy

Bottomley, Peter

Harris, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bowis, John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bright, Graham

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

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hunter, Andrew

Buck, Sir Antony

Irvine, Michael

Buckley, George J.

Jack, Michael

Burns, Simon

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Chris

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Butterfill, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Key, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

King. Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Churchill, Mr

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lang, Ian

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lawrence, Ivan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Couchman, James

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Cox, Tom

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Cummings, John

Lightbown, David

Cunningham, Dr John

Lilley, Peter

Curry, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dalyell, Tarn

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

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

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Davis, David (Boothferry)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

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

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Dixon, Don

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Dorrell, Stephen

Maclean, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McWilliam, John

Dunn, Bob

Matins, Humfrey

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mans, Keith

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Maples, John

Durant, Tony

Marek, Dr John

Dykes, Hugh

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Eadie, Alexander

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Eggar, Tim

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Emery, Sir Peter

Maxton, John

Fallon, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

990

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Sackville, Hon Tom

Michael, Alun

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Miller, Sir Hal

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mills, Iain

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Morrison, Sir Charles

Sims, Roger

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mowlam, Marjorie

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Smith, Tim (Beaconslield)

Mudd, David

Speller, Tony

Needham, Richard

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Nelson, Anthony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stern, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Stevens, Lewis

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sumberg, David

Page, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paice, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thurnham, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Trippier, David

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Portillo, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Powell, William (Corby)

Wheeler, Sir John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wiggin, Jerry

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Rhodes James, Robert

Winnick, David

Richardson, Jo

Wood, Timothy

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Younger, Rt Hon George

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rogers, Allan

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ryder, Richard

NOES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knowles, Michael

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Livingstone, Ken

Beith, A. J.

Livsey, Richard

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lord, Michael

Bradley, Keith

McAvoy, Thomas

Brazier, Julian

Maclennan, Robert

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Callaghan, Jim

Marlow, Tony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Meale, Alan

Clay, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Cryer, Bob

Mitchell, Sir David

Day, Stephen

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Devlin, Tim

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Dover, Den

Nellist, Dave

Duffy, A. E. P.

Patchett, Terry

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Pike, Peter L.

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Primarolo, Dawn

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Soley, Clive

Galloway, George

Speed, Keith

Gill, Christopher

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Gordon, Mildred

Summerson, Hugo

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Gregory, Conal

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Watts, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Heffer, Eric S.

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hood, Jimmy

Widdecombe, Ann

Howells, Geraint

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Jessel, Toby

Johnston, Sir Russell

Tellers for the Noes:

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Gary Waller.

Kilfedder, James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That—

Private Members' Motions

  Private Members' Motions ( Business of the House)
  Unless the House otherwise orders, Private Members' notices of motions shall not be received for any day other than an early day, if—

  (a) with respect to any private Members' bill, they would have an effect similar to that of motions of which notice may be given under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business);

  (b) they would have the effect of varying the practice of the House or the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) or Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) so far as concerns the precedence, arrangement or timing of business;

  (c) they would have the effect of allocating time to any proceedings;

  (d) they would have the effect of amending or varying any Standing Order; or

  (e) they would have the effect, whether by amendment or by the making of a new Order, of dispensing with or varying the effect of, this Order.

  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House has already suggested that, with this, we may discuss the other two procedure motions:
  That Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of Petition) be repealed and the following Standing Order be made—

  Time and manner of presenting petitions
  (1)—Every petition presented under Standing Order No. 132 (Presentation of petitions) not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, shall be brought to the Table—

  (a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, after a Member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion, or after a Minister of the Crown shall have signified his intention to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) 'That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended', and

  (b) on Fridays, at the commencement of public business; provided that petitions remaining to be presented at Ten o'clock on a Friday on which private Members' bills or Motions have precedence under Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall stand over and may be brought to the Table after a member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.

  (2) Proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this Order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock or at half past Two o'clock respectively.
  (3) Mr. Speaker shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk if required.
  That if a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member is proposed to be made or is made after prayers on any day on which private Members' bills or notices of motion have precedence, and is opposed, proceedings thereon shall lapse.
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

  Private Members Motions (Business of the House)
  Unless the House otherwise orders, Private Members' notices of motions shall not be received for any day other than an early day, if—

  (a) with respect to any private Member's bill, they would have an effect similar to that of motions of which notice may be given under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business);

  (b) they would have the effect of varying the practice of the House or the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) or Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) so far as concerns the precedence, arrangement or timing of business;

  (c) they would have the effect of allocating time to any proceedings;

  (d) they would have the effect of amending or varying any Standing Order; or

  (e) they would have the effect, whether by amendment or by the making of a new Order, of dispensing with or varying the effect of, this Order.

  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Standing Order No. 133 (No debate on presentation of Petition) be repealed and the following Standing Order be made—

  PUBLIC PETITIONS

    Time and manner of presenting petitions
    (1)—Every petition presented under Standing Order No. 132 (Presentation of petitions) not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, shall be brought to the Table—

    (a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, after a Member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion, or after a Minister of the Crown shall have signified his intention to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) 'That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended', and

    (b) on Fridays, at the commencement of public business; provided that petitions remaining to be presented at Ten o'clock on a Friday on which private Members' bills or Motions have precedence under Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall stand over and may be brought to the Table after a member of the government shall have signified his intention to move 'That this House do now adjourn', for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.

    (2) Proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this Order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock or at half past Two o'clock respectively.
    (3) Mr. Speaker shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition; but it may be read by the Clerk if required.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 35.

    Division No. 92]

    [7.24 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Batiste, Spencer

    Allen, Graham

    Battle, John

    Amess, David

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Anderson, Donald

    Beckett, Margaret

    Arbuthnot, James

    Beith, A. J.

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Benyon, W.

    Ashby, David

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Blunkett, David

    Atkins, Robert

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Boswell, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    992

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Bright, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Irvine, Michael

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

    Jack, Michael

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Jessel, Toby

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Buckley, George J.

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Burns, Simon

    Kennedy, Charles

    Butler, Chris

    Key, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Knowles, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lang, Ian

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Chope, Christopher

    Lightbown, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Lilley, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Livsey, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Couchman, James

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cox, Tom

    Lord, Michael

    Cummings, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Curry, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Day, Stephen

    Maclean, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Malins, Humfrey

    Dixon, Don

    Mans, Keith

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maples, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Marek, Dr John

    Dover, Den

    Marlow, Tony

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Dunn, Bob

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Durant, Tony

    Maxton, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Eggar, Tim

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fallon, Michael

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Favell, Tony

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Flynn, Paul

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Forth, Eric

    Needham, Richard

    Foster, Derek

    Neubert, Michael

    Franks, Cecil

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Freeman, Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fry, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Fyfe, Maria

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Galloway, George

    Paice, James

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    George, Bruce

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gill, Christopher

    Pawsey, James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Portillo, Michael

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Grist, Ian

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Rogers, Allan

    Harris, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Ryder, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

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

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    993

    Spearing, Nigel

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Speed, Keith

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Speller, Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Watts, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stevens, Lewis

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Summerson, Hugo

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Trippier, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Kilfedder, James

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Livingstone, Ken

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

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Meale, Alan

    Callaghan, Jim

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Clay, Bob

    Patchett, Terry

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Pike, Peter L.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Richardson, Jo

    Eadie, Alexander

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

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Soley, Clive

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Flannery, Martin

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    NEW WRITS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That if a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member is proposed to be made or is made after prayers on any day on which private Members' bills or notices of motion have precedence, and is opposed, proceedings thereon shall lapse.
    That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 40.

    Division No. 93]

    [7.35 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Boswell, Tim

    Allen, Graham

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bright, Graham

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Ashby, David

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

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Atkins, Robert

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Batiste, Spencer

    Buckley, George J.

    Battle, John

    Burns, Simon

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Burl, Alistair

    Beckett, Margaret

    Butler, Chris

    Beith, A. J.

    Butterfill, John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Benyon, W.

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Carrington, Matthew

    994

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Lord, Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Churchill, Mr

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Couchman, James

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Cox, Tom

    Maclean, David

    Cummings, John

    McWilliam, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Curry, David

    Maples, John

    Darling, Alistair

    Marek, Dr John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Marlow, Tony

    Day, Stephen

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Devlin, Tim

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dixon, Don

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Dover, Den

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Dunn, Bob

    Mills, Iain

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Durant, Tony

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Eastham, Ken

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Eggar, Tim

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Fallon, Michael

    Needham, Richard

    Favell, Tony

    Neubert, Michael

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Flynn, Paul

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Forth, Eric

    Paice, James

    Foster, Derek

    Patnick, Irvine

    Franks, Cecil

    Pawsey, James

    Freeman, Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Fry, Peter

    Portillo, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Powell, William (Corby)

    George, Bruce

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Gill, Christopher

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Ryder, Richard

    Grist, Ian

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Ground, Patrick

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Harris, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Speed, Keith

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

    Speller, Tony

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Steen, Anthony

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Stern, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Stevens, Lewis

    Irvine, Michael

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Jack, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Sumberg, David

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Summerson, Hugo

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Key, Robert

    Thurnham, Peter

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Trippier, David

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lang, Ian

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Waller, Gary

    Lightbown, David

    Ward, John

    Lilley, Peter

    Watts, John

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Wells, Bowen

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    995

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Yeo, Tim

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Wood, Timothy

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Kilfedder, James

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

    Knowles, Michael

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Callaghan, Jim

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Clay, Bob

    Meale, Alan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Patchett, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Pike, Peter L.

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

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Richardson, Jo

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

    Rogers, Allan

    Flannery, Martin

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

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Soley, Clive

    Fyfe, Maria

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Galloway, George

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Gordon, Mildred

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Hood, Jimmy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Howells, Geraint

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Orders of the Day
    Government Trading Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Government Trading Bill
      New clause 2

        MAINTENANCE OF STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CIVIL SERVANT'S
        'All Civil Servants working within an area of work within a department where a Government Trading Fund is in operation shall be subject to the same general conditions of appointment, service and promotion as exist in the Civil Service generally. Where it is deemed to be necessary to vary those conditions a ballot must first be held of all staff affected and the result of the ballot must show a majority of votes cast for the changes contemplated.'.—[Dr. Mureki]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        7.47 pm
        Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Opposition tabled the new clause because there is some anxiety about the conditions of service, appointment and promotion in the Civil Service. The service is likely to undergo quite a change in organisation, management and accountability to Parliament, and the new clause seeks to ensure that the same general conditions of appointment, service and promotion as exist in the Civil Service generally will obtain in any agency in which a Government trading fund is, or will be, in operation.
        When those conditions are varied, we seek to establish a necessary condition before such variation. It is that a ballot must first be held among affected staff, and its result must show a majority of votes cast in favour of the contemplated changes.
        Governments should be able to do certain things; certain changes should not be subject to negotiation with Civil Service unions or employees. For instance, a party might give a clear manifesto commitment to setting up a Ministry of Justice. If it won the general election on that manifesto, civil servants could be separated from, say, the Home Office and sent to work in the new Ministry. Any Government must have a right to do that.
        It is difficult for the Opposition to draft new clauses, because they lack the expertise of parliamentary draftsmen. It could be said that there are some imperfections in the new clause, but the spirit of it is clear. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on some of the questions asked by the Opposition.
        Other conditions such as local pay, bonus schemes and promotion procedures could be varied. There is a clear case for making changes only after consultation with the staff, and some should be made only after the agreement of the staff. I am not suggesting that that must be the case, but if, for example, a Government proposed that the number of days of annual leave should be reduced for no good reason, the staff would have to agree to that and receive extra pay or other benefits. If the country becomes wealthier, a Government may never need to do such a thing. Staff should be consulted on a large range of matters and, of course, they should be consulted through the

        997
        recognised channels, and that means through the recognised Civil Service trade unions. I shall say no more about that because it is only by way of explanation.
        The meat of the new clause is in the first part. Promotion procedures, terms and general conditions of appointment that exist in the service now should exist in agencies. In future, better conditions could obtain in agencies, but we certainly do not want to see worse conditions.
        There are persistent rumours about moves away from the traditional trade union negotiating machinery. Those rumours have not been substantiated. The framework agreement for the proposed Employment Services Agency does not mention any recognised procedures of Civil Service unions. That worries the Opposition. Civil servants who have an interest in these matters and certainly some people in Civil Service trade unions and people who hold office in those unions have the feeling that there will be changes. They are not spoken about at present, but there is a feeling that perhaps the traditional trade union negotiating machinery will not continue if the Conservatives win the next general election and are in power in the 1990s. Coupled with that, there is a feeling that there is in progress a gradual derecognition of trade unions.
        Before going into those matters in some detail, I shall give some good news about Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The staff there are currently negotiating a new pay grading package and I understand from talking to civil servants that the negotiations are going well. I commend HMSO on its approach. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether such negotiations are envisaged for any other agency with a Government trading fund. If it is, many people will be much happier and will sleep much better tonight.
        HMSO was initially set a financial objective of a return of 5 per cent. on net assets in the form of a current cost operating surplus. The framework document said that progressively more demanding financial objectives would be laid down by the Treasury. That has proved to be the case and the return of 5 per cent. has been increased to 8 per cent. Opposition Members are familiar with that process because it is similar to the one applied to health authorities which have to find efficiency savings every year, those savings being added on by the Department of Health as real increases in money available to the National Health Service. Only so much can be squeezed out of an orange or out of HMSO. It clearly can effect savings by producing Acts of Parliament with smaller print. No doubt that will be one of the options considered by the chief executive. It may go outside and perhaps print Jeffrey Archer's books so that it can make a profit to enable it to carry on with the standards of service that we have been used to. If it tried to get the contract for printing the Prime Minister's memoirs, that would be a retrograde step.
        HMSO provides a quick and efficient service and prints on reasonable paper in a reasonable format because that is necessary for the public. I do not argue that no financial considerations should be applied, but one can push such considerations until they have a negative effect upon the well-being of the country. Similarly, the Central Office of Information is to have trading fund status if the Bill becomes an Act. We are worried about the exact conditions and procedures for the COI when it operates a trading fund. The cheapest way to disseminate public information is not to disseminate it at all. Questions will be
        998
        asked and certainly the chief executive of the COI will ask whether it is worth publishing so much information. He will ask whether it will cost too much. The price of paper might rise. Will that mean staff cuts because at least some information must be published on paper?
        There are other problems. The COI provides information for other Governments and shows visiting Ministers around the country and provides briefings for them. Hon. Members take part in that valuable exercise. Does that mean that, if the COI is short of money in February or March and has to make a 5 or 8 per cent. return on assets employed, it will think that perhaps if it charges too much the Department sponsoring the visit—the Treasury or the Department of the Environment—might not accept its offer? It might think, "We will not show the visiting Minister Cardiff or Swansea, but we shall make him put up with visiting Coulsdon or Surbiton." I do not know the answer to those questions, but they must be addressed. There are reservations about the operation of trading funds and clarity is necessary.
        There are other management problems. Companies house in Cardiff had a strike for about one day last year after an employee was suspended for five weeks. The dispute was eventually settled, but it should not have occurred in the first place. My understanding, such as it is from reading about the matter in the papers and talking to some of the civil servants who were involved, is that it was a problem not of new prodecures but possibly of macho management and the breaching of existing procedures.
        If a civil servant or other employee does something wrong that merits suspension, surely the proper procedure is for that employee to be asked for an explanation and to be accompanied by a representative when the explanation is considered. After that, management has the right to take action and, if it thinks fit, to suspend the employee. I understand that in the case that I have mentioned that was not done and that there was a hasty recourse to suspension. The staff felt that the existing well-tried and constituted procedures were not being used and, as a result, I regret that over-hasty industrial action occurred. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Government have to make sure that only the best management practices are used and the best managers employed to be chief executives of agencies. We do not want any macho men.
        I have some specific questions for the Minister, and they are topical because they relate to the Employment Services Agency that will be created on 1 April. Is it intended that the agency will have a trading fund? I suspect that it will, and that raises questions about how the agency will operate. There is much concern about that. If it has a trading fund, how will it operate so that it commands the respect of the Civil Service and of those people who are seeking jobs through the various organisations that will depend on the agency?
        8 pm
        Secondly, the first draft of the employment services framework agreement was received by the Civil Service trade unions on 16 February. I am told that management will want all discussions and consultations—the whole package—wrapped up and ready to be implemented by 16 March.
        I know that the Financial Secretary gave a fair commitment in Committee that there would be meaningful negotiations at departmental level with management and the recognised Civil Service unions. However, a month is

        999
        too short, because there is no time for the unions to circulate papers for discussion. Perhaps all this was in the pipeline, well before we had the debate on the Bill. Perhaps a slot in the timetable for all the various processes had already been made and management were reticent to extend that timetable. I do not know whether that is right, and I do not know whether trade unions are able to have meaningful discussions in a month. I hope that they will try and, equally, I hope that the Civil Service management will pay attention to what the Financial Secretary has said and will co-operate.
        I hope that there will be no problems as a result of the timetable, and that there will be no complaints from the trade unions that they have been unduly stampeded and that they have been unable to consult properly about the framework agreement. Can the Financial Secretary assure me that adequate time will be given for those discussions?
        Thirdly, there is no reference in the framework document to existing trade unions, or to existing negotiating structures. That is somewhat upsetting, and it gives concern to Opposition Members. The previous framework documents had references to existing Civil Service unions and negotiation structures. I do not know why the proposed framework document does not have such references. I should have thought that it would be sensible to continue to have them. Is there any reason for this? If it is an oversight, it ought to be put right, because it would help squash the rumours that there is a move away from the traditional negotiating structure, which is well tried and tested and has worked very well in the Civil Service. It would also squash rumours that perhaps there is a move to derecognise Civil Service trade unions. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
        Fourthly, if the Minister says, "Don't worry," and that the management of the Civil Service will consider the problems after the agency is set up on 1 April, my supplementary question is: if there is no reference to existing trade unions or negotiating structures in the present framework agreement, how will problems be patched up after April if the agreement is changed in the meantime?
        It is important that there is some reference to those structures and I hope—perhaps as a result of discussions with Civil Service trade unions—that we can get this agreement right. I do not believe that previous framework agreements have been broadly right. I am not objecting to their content and coverage, but the new agreement seems to be a slight departure. For example, the same time has not been taken over discussions—some of the previous agreements took about a year. I know that we have had about three previous framework documents, so perhaps this one should be a little quicker. However, there has been a departure from the previous agreements, and hon. Members are worried about the change.
        At present staff in agencies have remained civil servants, employed by the appropriate Department, and they are broadly subject to the existing terms and conditions that civil servants are subject to elsewhere. There are some changes. There are delegated personnel management functions, such as those at Companies house, Cardiff. There are performance bonus schemes on the horizon as well as salary grading structures and variations on those.
        Another problem is that the management at Companies house, Cardiff sought to exclude the employees from a bonus scheme if they had more than 24 days sick leave.
        1000
        Women tend to take more sick leave than men, for various reasons. Clearly if one applies that 24-day policy it will be unfair and will discriminate against women. I suspect that we need to think about the type of management at Companies house, Cardiff, at the moment. I hope that they are learning, because we do not want that sort of upset to be continually reported in the newspapers, as has been the case with the problems at Companies house.
        Certain principles need to be adhered to and they have been clearly put down by the Council of Civil Service Unions. I have here a document from the CPSA which lists seven points, saying that staff in agencies should
        "(a) remain civil servants"—
        I do not think that there is any dispute between Members on the Front Benches about that, unless the agencies are eventually privatised, and I add that as a caveat—
        "(b) remain available for transfer to other parts of the Civil Service;"—
        I must confess that the Financial Secretary, in Committee, gave a useful assurance on that matter—
        "(c) remain covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme;
        (d) continue to enjoy the best possible promotion prospects by the continued limiting of direct recruitment;
        (e) remain subject to pay rates determined by National pay arrangements and agreements;
        (f) retain the protection of National rules governing recruitment, probation and dismissal procedures;
        (g) continue to be covered by National terms and Conditions of Service."
        I do not think that any hon. Member wants to see people on low pay in the north of England simply because there is higher unemployment there. I do not think that any hon. Member wants to see difficulties for civil servants in certain agencies because the management feel that they can employ staff on lower pay or lower conditions of service than management in other agencies.
        We have a national Civil Service. We should be proud of it, and we should pay for it. I hope that the Minister accepts that that is an entirely reasonable demand, and that he can see his way, if not to accept the new clause, to give an assurance that the Government accept the intent of what we seek to achieve.
        Mr. Bill Michie: The debate on new clause 2 is slightly different from the discussion in Committee not so long ago. However, I think that it is worth reiterating the fears and worries of Opposition Members about what will happen to the professional conditions of service and the value of the Civil Service. We can be given assurances that everything will be all right, but I and my hon. Friends believe that we need those assurances in writing. We hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government will honour the assurances and pledges that they have given in the House tonight.
        We are discussing conditions of service, which are valuable to people in all walks of life, no matter what their profession, training or job. It is important that we ensure that we do not leave any uncertainties about what the future holds for the staff concerned. It is essential for professional civil servants to have the opportunity to enhance their careers and conditions of employment by being able to transfer to another division, which, as has already been pointed out, may be impossible if they are working in smaller units.
        When staff are placed in separate units and individual funding is introduced, there is a danger of isolation and a

        1001
        "divide and rule" mentality. People who are now working in a large professional group in which the structures and financing are generally understood may find that, once they are working in small, isolated units, they are not only vulnerable for reasons of costing and funding, but isolated from colleagues in similar professions all over the country. Such financial pressures could worsen the conditions of staff gradually, group by group.
        I have worked for large corporations—including the British Steel Corporation, before it showed me the door—and remember similar financial arrangements. Staff were organised into groups with their own operating plans, which they had to abide by in order to survive. I was working in research. My colleagues and I found ourselves in a financial straitjacket which, eventually, made us less efficient and less professional; as a result, the confidence and morale of the whole department became lower and lower. The agencies and funding organisations for which the Bill provides must not be isolated and forced to make decisions that will be detrimental not only to staff conditions but, eventually, to the entire service.
        Many of us criticise some of the actions of the Civil Service, but it is still seen throughout the world as perhaps the most professional service anywhere. That did not happen by accident; it is the result of years of experience. Governments of all persuasions have used and appreciated the service in the past, and, we hope, will be able to do the same in future. I do not see the point of changing the system, but the Government are plainly determined to do so. All that we can do is to ensure that professionalism, efficiency and, of course, the work force are protected.
        New clause 2 would ensure that that protection was provided through some form of national agreement. The Government do not have a very good record on trade union relations, and I hope that their aim is not to break down the organisations and then pick them up one by one, thereby lowering not only wages but professional standards.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I sympathise with the objectives of the new clause. It is designed to reassure civil servants who are involved in new and, in some respects, experimental developments in Departments in which many have worked for years, and to ensure that major changes are made only in consultation with them.
        It is inevitable that the trading fund approach will—as it should—invite greater inventiveness by both management and staff in regard to how jobs can be done most effectively. In some circumstances, that is bound to mean larger rewards being ofered to attract staff to difficult jobs, or to give more recognition to effective performance than traditional Civil Service systems have tended to allow.
        Anyone who doubts the need for such action should consider the experience of the tax inspectorate, which—as has been revealed in successive tranches of evidence to Committees of the House—has found it difficult to retain staff in the present competitive environment. Although the tax inspectorate is not a "next steps" agency, its experience demonstrates the difficulty of holding qualified staff with marketable skills when plenty of other employers are prepared to pay much more for those skills.
        8.15 pm
        I was surprised and concerned to find that Civil Service management had been so hamstrung in the past: a private operator has to act as a matter of urgency to avoid losing
        1002
        trained staff. If the training agencies do their job, there is bound to be more diversity. Like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I do not want whole areas of the country to be designated low-pay areas, and to become centres of primarily part-time employment, just because the Government suddenly see the possibility of a quick cost saving. Much could be lost, especially in the more sensitive spheres. Many of the bodies concerned are either dealing directly with the public on matters of great individual concern involving constitutional rights, or dealing with security matters or confidential information held by Government Departments about individuals. We do not want to lose the valuable concept of a public service.
        The question is, can we marry two concepts? I should like to believe that we can obtain greater efficiency in every sense—not just economic efficiency, but an efficient service for the consumer. That may mean a Government Department—and hence the generality of taxpayers—or an individual obtaining a licence, a service, information, a map or a charter from the Government agency. It is essential to carry public sector workers with us, and the new clause is directed to that end. Whether it is slightly too cumbersome to achieve its object, or should be incorporated immediately in the Bill, is a matter for discussion, but I strongly support its general aims and hope that the Minister will find some way of meeting them.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke of the need for assurances in line with the seven points cited by the CPSA which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I feel that those assurances are likely to be required in legislation.
        I, too, would like an assurance: that the Government, if they do not accept the new clause because of drafting problems, will be willing to introduce suitable amendments later. I do not really trust general statements that this, that and the other will be protected when they are not written down in statute. Statute applies to the future and, although a future Labour Government may change a good deal of it, much will undoubtedly remain for a long time. There is nothing wrong with getting things right now.
        I also hope that the specific assurances that we require will apply to all grades in the Civil Service, and not just to executive grades. Let me stress that the new clause requires a ballot on any planned variation in the conditions of civil servants. The Government are keen to introduce ballots, often of a peculiar nature, in certain circumstances—when they feel that it will benefit them to do so. If there are to be ballots, they should allow civil servants some say in, and control of, transfer arrangements as a consequence of any change in the agency in which they happen to work. It would be a healthy development if such provisions were added to assist the membership of Civil Service unions, by contrast with the kind of ballot provisions that are often brought before the House with the purpose of hemming in organised workers and restricting the development of their collective interests.
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I shall respond first to the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and in doing so, hope to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), before referring to other contributions.

        1003
        The establishment of a trading fund will not in itself affect the terms and conditions under which civil servants are employed. Departments and agencies are increasingly tailoring their arrangements for personnel to meet their business needs. That process must include the possible introduction of changes in conditions other than those that apply to the Civil Service generally. I stated in Committee that Departments, like all good employers, should, and do, take every step to consult their employees when considering any changes that could have significant implications for them.
        Announcing the next steps initiative, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
        "The Civil Service unions will be consulted about the setting up of particular agencies. They will also be consulted if any change in terms and conditions of civil servants is contemplated."—[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1149.]
        I reinforce my right hon. Friend's comments by confirming that we shall consult and seek consultations with Civil Service trade unions in sufficient time to allow for meaningful discussions before the introduction of any new agency or trading fund status.
        I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham welcomes the developments and negotiations in respect of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and its employee representatives. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will serve as a model for other agencies and trading funds. Clearly it will be up to their managements to make their own proposals. They will not share the same specific problems, situations and opportunities as have arisen in respect of HMSO, but I am sure that the spirit manifest in respect of the negotiations for that body will—in particular because of the warm response that it has received from the Opposition—be emulated by other managers. I am delighted that things have gone well for HMSO, for which I was responsible when it became an agency.
        The views and comments of staff and trade unions are an important component in considering change—but ultimately management must take the decisions on how that challenge is met.
        The hon. Member for Wrexham asked a number of specific questions, particularly about the Employment Services Agency. He inquired whether it will be transformed into or have a trading fund. At present, it does not fall within the powers of the existing legislation, or as it will be modified by the Bill. Therefore, it will not be possible for the ESA, as it currently operates, to have a trading fund.
        The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will he sufficient time for consultation with the unions on the framework document that is the precursor to the establishment of an agency for the employment services group. There have been several discussions with the trade unions since February 1988 on the intention to establish an agency. I am confident that there will be further consultation in line with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in time for the completion of the framework document.
        The hon. Member for Wrexham asked why the framework agreement does not mention trade union consultation. The Employment Services Agency and the framework document are matters for my right hon. and
        1004
        learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Although I acknowledge that the framework document does not refer specifically to trade unions, it makes the chief executive responsible for conducting "effective employee relations". I expect the hon. Gentleman to agree that that includes consulting staff and trade unions.
        Dr. Marek: It will be helpful if the framework document refers specifically to that aspect. The problem is that it does not. If the Government's intention is as the Minister says, they will save themselves a lot of problems, and dispel many rumours, if they will state it clearly.
        Mr. Lilley: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The important point is that the framework document spells out the chief executive's responsibility for ensuring "effective employee relations", which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see. Discussions are continuing between management and trade unions on the consultation document, and I am sure that the remarks made during today's debate will be considered in the course of them.
        Dr. Marek: Unless a specific reference to trade union consultation is made in the framework document, after April no structure will exist for it. I repeat that it will be useful if that aspect is included in the finalised document.
        Mr. Lilley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the absence of a specific reference to trade union consultation does not alter the substantive position and the natural relationship between management, employees and trade unions in any Department, which I hope will continue in a constructive and co-operative way.
        The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that we have the finest Civil Service in the world and that we do not want to undermine it in any way—I entirely agree. My experience as a Minister has revealed and confirmed that we have a very good Civil Service, of which we as a country can be proud. I cannot agree that it should necessarily be petrified and not be subject to change to take advantage of the best management thinking and practice. I am sure that the Civil Service would not wish to be fossilised. The development of agencies is entirely compatible with the Civil Service's fine traditions.
        The hon. Member for Heeley asked whether the Government are planning to erode the conditions under which civil servants work. We want the management of agencies and trading funds to enjoy flexibility. It is not our intention that that should be used to lower standards but to make standards and conditions more appropriate, where necessary. In many circumstances, change may not be necessary. In others, such as with HMSO, it may be desirable to make conditions more relevant to the type of agency and its function.
        The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) supports the general objective of new clause 2, even if he thinks it is a little heavy-handed. I sympathise with the underlying principles that motivate the Opposition in tabling the new clause, but I have even stronger reservations about its effectiveness in achieving the Opposition's objectives and about its desirability. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the House accepts new clause 2.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: I apologise to the House because, although I was put on the Standing Committee, for reasons that the Government Whip understands, it took place at the same time as the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, so I did not attend the Committee. The House should understand that if an hon. Member has been extremely active, and has taken up two thirds of the time in Committee, as I did on the PSA Bill, one cannot absent oneself.
        I was curious as to what answer the Minister would give to the pertinent questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I want to ask two short questions and a long question. First, may we have clarification as to why the measure, like so many others, is being dealt with by the Treasury? What has become of the Minister for the Civil Service? It is not my nature to complain about the discourtesy of not being here. I am not in any way sniping or getting at the Minister for the Civil Service, who is one of the most courteous Members in the House, but I am curious about what has become of the Civil Service Department.
        Am I right in assuming that, by degrees, control of all matters in relation to the Civil Service has gone back to the Treasury, that the Minister for the Civil Service is a Minister only in name on Monday afternoons to answer parliamentary questions, and that his real function and role are as Minister for the Arts? [Laughter.] Because of the ministerial mirth, I suspect that is about right. We should have explained to us why, over the months and years, the Civil Service Department has been eroded and, as so often before, power has returned whence it came and whence it always will come, the Treasury. Incidentally, I do not say that it is a bad thing, but I think it should be clarified.
        Mr. Lilley: If I may clarify it briefly, the Bill is a trading funds Bill, although you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have allowed us to range more widely and to talk about agencies. That is only an indirect aspect of the Bill. The Bill is about Government accounting and trading funds. It has much to do with accounts and accountability. That is why the Treasury has taken the lead. I would have been only too delighted to hand the matter over to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.
        Mr. Dalyell: I take that with a pinch of salt. I do not think that the Treasury is ever delighted to hand over power, but we shall let that pass.
        My second question is a gentle one. The Minister has said that every reasonable step is taken to consult, and I have no doubt that he meant it, but he also talked about consultation in sufficient time. One lesson that I have learnt from the saga, if I may put it that way, of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is that consultation, where it has taken place, has been rather sudden.
        Is the Minister sure that there is sufficient time for proper consultation on decisions that affect the lives of individuals? Trade unions do not complain for fun about not having time properly to consult. There are great difficulties for people who have to move, often in groups, from one part of the country to another. People have mortgages and children at school. Human problems arise. May we have the absolute assurance that there is sufficient time for consultation?
        1006
        My third question was prompted by Professor Peter Hennessy, a professor at Strathclyde. On 9 February, when referring to the Public Accounts Committee and the performance of Parliament, he told a large audience in Glasgow:
        "performance is very patchy and, in one case, that of the Public Accounts Committee, is invariably far superior to the rest. Why? Because the PAC has superb back up in the shape of the National Audit Office and the rest do not. I think it was the former MP for Canterbury, David Crouch, who said the difference between the PAC and a standard department-shadowing select committee was the difference between a management consultancy and a pressure group. He's exactly right. I hope the Procedure Committee under Sir Peter Emery, which is currently looking at the power and the back-up of select committees, will have something robust to say about this when they report—and about the ludicrously restrictive 'Osmotherly Rules' which give civil servant witnesses 60 ways of saying 'I can't answer that' when they appear before select committees."
        I want to take the opportunity to ask about the protection of civil servants appearing before Select Committees of the House.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the new clause before us. I do not think that it relates to that. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of licence.
        Mr. Dalyell: I just hoped, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would give me even more rope. I was straying into a question that interests me greatly. I suspect that I shall have to write a letter, drawing the attention of the Minister to the guidelines for giving evidence to departmental Select Committees.
        Without going over paragraph 4 of the guidelines, I want to ask the Minister one question. Is he sure that civil servants, from agencies or anything covered by the Bill, have the protection that they should be given? The Osmotherly rules came at a time when Select Committees were less developed. There is a problem. I am not persuaded that the Opposition or I have a better answer because there is a question of flexibility. Has the Treasury given any thought to allowing civil servants to be more forthcoming and not to take refuge in those rules? I am not thinking particularly of the Select Committee on Defence and Westland, in which I am particularly interested. I am concerned about general flexibility for civil servants to answer questions as candidly as they would wish.
        I see help coming to the Minister from the Officials' Box. I hope that the Parliamentary Private Secretary is fleet of foot. I suspect that the House may learn something interesting on the subject. As the PPS has arrived, I can sit down and await those words of wisdom.
        Mr. Lilley: In response to the question about sufficient time for consultation, obviously the time needed will vary from case to case, but there would be no point in consulting if there were not time to carry out the consultation. Therefore, it is in everybody's interest to ensure that there is sufficient time for consultation.
        As for the second point about evidence to Select Committees, I fear that my response to that is the mirror image to the first question put by the hon. Gentleman about whether I should be the Minister responding to the debate. I am not equipped to respond to questions about the accountability of civil servants to Select Committees.
        Dr. Marek: We have had an interesting debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr.

        1007
        Michie) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for the pertinent points they raised, which demonstrate the Opposition's concern about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made some intriguing points. When he writes to the Minister, perhaps he will send me a copy of the letter, because I should like to see what points he has in mind. I am sure that they are pertinent and should be considered carefully by the Government. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his support for the principle of the new clause.
        We fear the Prime Minister's heavy hand and the Conservative dogma of cutting public expenditure and privatisation. There are some good points, however. The negotiations with HMSO are a case in point. The Minister gave useful assurances in Committee about consulting the Civil Service trade unions and about the movement of civil servants between agencies and other parts of the Civil Service. It would therefore be wrong for the Opposition to divide the House on the new clause. There is still concern, but in view of the assurances that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 4

        PROHIBITION OF PRIVATISATION (No. 2)
        'No part of a government department where a Government Trading l-und has been established shall be privatised within five years of the establishment of the fund.'.—[Mr. Battle.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. John Battle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Our main concern about the next steps programme is that Government trading funds should not become a simple and quick staging post for privatisation. I hope that the Government will allay our fears by accepting that there should be a period of five years after the establishment of a trading fund within which it cannot be privatised. The eighth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in July 1988 says:
        "We confess to being slightly confused by the relationship between the Next Steps and the Government's privatisation policy."
        I remind the House that privatisation is still a hallmark of the Government's policy. In his speech to the Audit Commission in June 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
        "Privatisation will continue as an essential part of our policy. There is a major programme in the pipeline and other parts of the public sector will become candidates as they develop a more commercial approach."
        The phrase
        "as they develop a more commercial approach"
        is crucial to the setting up of Government trading funds and agencies. We wonder what the Government mean by "a more commercial approach."
        In the White Paper published in December 1989—"The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies"—we read:
        "Next steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. But it cannot be ruled out that after a period of years, agencies, like other Government
        1008
        activities, may be suitable for privatisation where there is a firm intention of privatisation. When an agency is being set up, this will be made clear."
        I hope that the Financial Secretary will make that absolutely clear tonight. He ought to specifiy the period that is suggested in new clause 4.
        The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report also said:
        "The essential thing in any individual case is to avoid uncertainty. If an announcement that part of a department is to become an agency is greeted with the suspicion that it might be privatised, such uncertainty could well damage efforts to improve efficiency and the quality of service. If the organisation is to be privatised, it should be made clear at the outset that this is so."
        We must ensure that the damaging effects of uncertainty do not devalue the quality of service that is provided. Therefore, the Bill ought to be amended to specify a clear period within which privatisation cannot take place. We owe it to civil servants to give them a clear reassurance.
        In the Standing Committee, the Financial Secretary made the interesting remark, "We certainly do not dig up the roots the day after planting." That is a wholesome image which is in tune with current green thinking, but there is evidence in other policy areas that the day after planting, the Secretary of State for the Environment, for example, as a result of pressure from certain parts of the country, came to believe that the poll tax ought to be uprooted, or looked at, root and branch, for next year. I know that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to pursue the Financial Secretary's analogy any further. However, it appears that what is set down one day as a policy is uprooted the next. We want the Financial Secretary to assure us that in this case that will not happen.
        8.45 pm
        More pertinent to the debate is the comment of Sir Peter Middleton, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, in the evidence that he gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
        "As part of the process of seeing whether these organisations should be agencies, it is perfectly natural to look at the three things I suggested: privatisation, contracting out and simply dropping the activity. Secondly, becoming an agency may be a step to privatisation later; it is all part of getting a more commercial attitude. I think this is particularly true of the various trading funds. It is very difficult to privatise things that do not charge for their output. That is the basic problem."
        I suggest that that is exactly at the heart of the debate. We must examine that statement about developing a more commercial attitude, particularly as we are dealing with publicly divided services.
        In the 1980s, the Government embarked on a great economic experiment. The policy watchword for nearly a decade has been "Privatise". There has been total addiction to what some people would describe as the myth of the arithmetic of the workings of the perfect free market model. During our consideration of the Bill, the Government have moved the emphasis slightly, but it still does not contain the limited guarantees that would make clear to civil servants where they stand, or would make clear to the public that we are talking about preserving, extending and improving the efficiency and quality of services.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referred in the debate on new clause 2 to the Government having isolated people into units. The word "units" is

        1009
        interesting. It is not a question of looking at people as individuals. The word "units" leads us directly into the accountancy language of economic management. Great claims are made for the "next steps" initiative. We are told that it will lead to improved services. However, all the emphasis is placed on financial performance. That emphasis masks the shift in Government thinking from quality to quantity. How can efficiency and improved quality of service be accurately measured? It is difficult to devise objectives and empirical tests for service industries that prove that the service has been delivered.
        I recollect that the Treasury instructed local government to implement a programme called urban programme monitoring initiatives. Although spending on the urban programme for the inner cities was less than 1 per cent. of the total budget, the Government instructed local authorities to monitor those programmes in such detail that, when the planting of trees took place, council officers or voluntary groups were instructed to count the number of trees that had been planted and to return to the site six months later and count them again to find out whether they were still there. They were also instructed to measure the distance travelled when vans or minibuses took elderly people to their luncheon clubs. The accuracy of the figures was all that mattered, regardless of the fact that that might damage the services provided.
        Documents have been submitted while the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is being considered in Committee, and emphasis is placed in the medical audit documents on input, output, throughput and episodes of patient care. The emphasis is on quantity measures that have been lifted from accountancy models, using target indicators. However, such models have a habit of cutting out those parts of the service that cannot be measured in detail by mathematical models, although they provide a crucial service to people.
        Paragraph 3.19 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" under the heading "Impact on Agency financial management" states:
        "The general framework for providing and managing Civil Service resources described above will give a range of choices. These include—whether an Agency's running costs current expenditure is allocated and monitored gross or net and thus whether its receipts influence or determine the amount it can spend".
        That reminded me that the rationale behind the critique of state-planned economies was precisely that gross output measures did not exactly work. It reminded me of the story of electric lamp factories where the plans were to measure only in aggregate watt power, so they could not produce any low-power lamps. It also reminds me of the story of women unloading bricks from a truck and smashing many of them because if the unloading were done more carefully they would produce less and be paid less, the driver of the truck would make fewer runs in the day and finally, his enterprise would clock up fewer tonne-kilometres. Those are recorded episodes of what happened under state-planned economies.
        In an article on industrial management in "The Soviet Economic System" Alec Nove writes:
        "In every case the essence of the problem is that the centre is trying to set up an incentive system designed to achieve more efficiency, but, because it does not and cannot know the specific circumstances, its instructions frequently contradict what those on the spot know to be the sensible thing to do." Yet that is precisely what the Government are doing.
        The great irony of our time is that, precisely when the Soviet and other planned economies are moving away
        1010
        from that model, our Government are insisting that it should be the model for the public sector. I hope that there is still time to say that it might not be the best one. It seems strange that the Government are turning to such evaluations precisely when the Soviet Union is desperately struggling to move away from the straitjacket approach. It is not sufficient simply to mimic the organisation and methods of private business, because they may not be appropriate to the circumstances.
        It would be unfair to put to the Financial Secretary all the recorded cases of the Government urging Labour and Conservative local authorities to contract out street cleaning to the private sector only to find that the job was not done properly and the on-cost had to be taken on board again. In Leeds, the local authority contracted out the laundry services only to discover that they ran at a loss when previously they had been fine.
        More recently, the Government have been obsessed with pushing various services into the private sector. That is mirrored by the community care proposals put before the House which demonstrate precisely the problem. The London borough of Barnet contracted out its services for the mentally handicapped to an agency and then had to rescue the agency because it was running into insurmountable financial problems as it could not cope with the capital costs of running the services. In other words, some of the costs have to be absorbed by larger organisations and shared around.
        The Government know precisely that the proposals a re an attempt to control costs from the centre while disowning responsibility for the quality of the service provided once the fund is set up and we move towards the agencies. What will be the Minister's overriding concern when he sets the performance targets? We suspect that it will be to control the costs from the centre with a view to reducing them. The measures that will be used are those that can be most easily measured but which will drive out vital unmeasurable considerations.
        We are entitled to ask to whom the public will complain when they feel that the services are not adequately delivered. An interesting phrase is used in the White Paper when it refers to the Minister and his Department as
        "the owner of the service".
        It is ironic that the service is being handed to the agency chief executive who is being made responsible and the Government will disown the service and take no responsibility for its functions.
        Paragraph 4.3 of "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" stated:
        "Parliamentary control is maintained through—the affirmative Order establishing each fund—the scrutiny of statutory annual accounts, and the power to examine the fund Accounting Officer."
        Paragraph 4.5 continues:
        "Because a fund's detailed cashflow is removed from normal Parliamentary Supply controls, Parliamentary approval is required, by affirmative resolution Order, to the setting up of each fund and the overall limit on its borrowing."
        Once they are set up, they are then disowned and passed to the responsibility of those agency chief executives.
        In some areas of public policy, we have been there before. We have only to look at the organisation of the health authorities, the development companies and the authorities that deal with water. It will not be sufficient for

        1011
        the Financial Secretary to reply to the debate by saying that in three years' time there will be monitoring to see how it is working out.
        We cannot leave the Bill and the proposals for the trading funds as if there were a bonded warehouse or a holding operation—holding the functions for privatisation in the near future. The threat of privatisation continues to hang over those functions that have been assigned for agency status. One way in which the Government could allay those fears would be to accept the new clause and remove that threat once and for all by removing the ambiguity and by making it absolutely plain to the Civil Service staff and to the public who need the services where the Government stand.
        Mr. Beith: I do not want to go into detail on performance indicators, on which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made some comments, because I have tabled a new clause on that subject.
        New clause 4 bears directly on whether the trading funds are a bonded warehouse on the trade route to privatisation. That is a perfectly legitimate concern. The Government have the reputation of being the privatising Government. When a similar allegation was made on another occasion, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there was a grain of truth in that. Obviously there are probably candidates for trading fund status which might also be on the list as candidates for privatisation.
        The Government must have realised by now that privatisation is rather unpopular, and the experience with water and electricity should convince them of that. Some of the merits of the more commercial approaches to some aspects of the work of the organisations involved are lost in the general sense on the part of the public that they are being done—that their assets are being taken away from them and that they are losing any control that they had over services that are important to them.
        They would certainly have that feeling if that threat were to hang over some of the key services that are possible candidates for trading funds. I am thinking of services such as passports, the licensing of patents, and other matters where people's basic right to do something is at stake. It is important for the Government to dispel the impression, if it be false—of course, it may not be false—that trading funds are a halfway house to privatisation.
        It will not do the business of setting up trading funds any good if they are seen in that light, because it will not be a route to ensuring that we can have an effective operation going on within the public service. What is the motivation that we need to give the staff involved? We want them to know that it is possible to be a public servant providing a public service. but doing so in a way that is more cost-effective and more conscious of the member of the public as a customer of the service than some of the traditional methods may have been. If those two factors are to be married, the last action to achieve it will be for the staff involved, and some of the public, to feel that the Government are preparing the way for privatisation.
        It seems that the purpose of the amendment is almost met by the reality that it is almost inconceivable that the Government could get a privatisation off the ground within five years of setting up a trading fund. So it would not hurt the Government to make it clear that they have no intention of seeking to do so, and thus avoid the necessity for the amendment.
        1012
        It would help even more if the Government would say that in most areas of the public service—particularly in those areas in which the Government are a monopoly provider of some right, opportunity or privilege which, if withheld, would be a great disadvantage to a member of the public—they do not contemplate privatisation. If they did that, they would give a fairer wind to the trading fund proposals and the next steps initiative, which are all about providing a service to the general public or, in some cases, to Government Departments in a more efficient way.
        9 pm
        Mr. Dalyell: I preface my remarks—I am sure that I shall be in order in doing so—by saying that in my Scottish constituency experience, the civil servants with whom I deal, including those in the Inland Revenue at East Kilbride, are people of high quality who are obliging. I wish, as the constituency Member, to register my view that overwhelmingly they do an excellent job in my constituency. I believe that civil servants are caring people who, when asked properly, go to infinite trouble, especially where there is a good case to be answered.
        But there is a problem to which I draw the attention of the Minister. In Scotland—and, I suspect, elsewhere outside London—to get promotion, often civil servants are expected to move to London. The Civil Service unions which have been considering the measure say that too many promotions have involved moves to London and that such moves are increasingly unpopular, for obvious reasons, with civil servants from Wales, Scotland and the English regions. The unions say:
        "To management's credit, after many years of union pressure"—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I wonder whether he is dealing with the clause that is before the House, which is entitled "Prohibition of privatisation".
        Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made an interesting speech in which he concentrated on the subject of centralisation. I am on precisely the same point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bluntly, if he was in order, I believe that I am in order——
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not challenging the Chair. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who spoke pertinently to the new clause. I am wondering where the hon. Member's argument is leading us in relation to privatisation. Perhaps it will become clear if I give him another minute in which to develop his theme.
        Mr. Dalyell: It certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The unions say:
        "To management's credit, after many years of union pressure, cautious moves are now being made to develop a coherent regional career development policy (the `Eight Cities Initiative'). Yet this promising beginning will be completely undermined if the agencies are allowed to build miniature Berlin walls around their own mutually exclusive personnel and pay systems."
        It all comes back to what will happen to centralisation if agencies are allowed to go their own way.
        The unions say:
        "One of the 'advantages' of an agency system identified by the Ibbs report was the gradual erosion of national bargaining. Clearly, this threat is of major concern to the union, given the likelihood that decentralised bargaining will

        1013
        be used to drive down pay and worsen conditions of service in certain areas (particularly outside the South East of England)."
        I think that I am absolutely on target and in order in asking about the Government's thinking on promotion and centralisation. Under the developments which we are considering, will there be any easing of the pressure to move to this city, whether from Edinburgh, Leeds, Wrexham or elsewhere? Will structures be developed to provide a regional promotion ladder so that people do not feel bound to turn down jobs necessary to their career because housing in London is beyond their pocket? It is a matter of mortgages, housing and schooling for young families. Those factors should not rule out upward mobility in a career. Under the agency set-up, how do the Government envisage that this problem will be alleviated, if not solved?
        Mr. Bill Michie: This is a major part of the debate. There are genuine fears that the Bill has nothing to do with efficiency or with whether the service will be better for the Government and the nation but is the first step towards privatisation. In Committee, we spent a considerable time discussing what was meant by a three-year review. I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I thought that the three-year review started after three years, but the Minister confirmed that the review will take place within the first three years, and then we will know what is what. I understand that every Government Department, like every department in the private sector, must be watched, reviewed and changed, but we are suspicious about why this is being done.
        We spent a considerable time talking about what the review was all about, and I found some of the Minister's comments ominous, to say the least. Even now, I am not sure whether it is a review or an evaluation. I suspect that the intention is to fatten up one of these units, as has happened in the past, or to slim down some of the operations to make them more attractive for privatisation. Either way, as we know from what is happening in other sectors of industry, the financial restraints or management edicts can be such that the business or unit is no longer attractive to anyone.
        That is a good excuse for the Government to say that it does not work at present but would work much better in the private sector. All these tactics have been used, and I see no reason why the Government will change their spots and not use those techniques as they see fit. By the time that happens, most of the damage will have been done to the professions and agencies, so it will be difficult for the Opposition to argue against some change taking place.
        There is just cause for concern. The Minister stated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, that he is not likely to dig up the trees or the roots the day after planting. Everyone accepts that. I make the point that he would probably start scratching at the roots the day after planting to see how the tree was getting on. I presume that that is what the evaluation and review are all about. Having said that he would not dig up the trees, the Minister said in Committee:
        "The hon. Gentleman seeks to put an unduly gloomy interpretation on the period of review. It is normal to provide for a review period."
        At the beginning I accepted that. He went on to say:
        The purpose of the review is to consider the progress made during the review period."
        1014
        I am not sure what he meant by that. What worries me is what the Minister went on to say:
        "As I have said, the vast bulk of the agencies are by their nature unsuitable for privatisation. However, one cannot rule it out absolutely across the board because in certain cases it will be appropriate,"
        It is clear that in certain cases there is more than a possibility of privatisation. We may breathe a sigh of relief and say that most of the agencies will remain as they are. But let us read on. The Minister said:
        "circumstances may change so that some agencies fall into that category"—
        those agencies which in the previous sentence he said were not the right sort of agencies for privatization—
        which were not there initially."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1990; c. 30.]
        We have every just cause to move the new clause and press it to a vote. The Minister gave assurances that there would be stability for at least three years and that the Government were not thinking about privatisation. However, in his summing up it was obvious that privatisation was very much in the minds of the Government. We need a categorical assurance that, at least for the first five years, none of the agencies, as spelt out in new clause 4, will be privatised. That is not simply because of our political arguments against privatisation. It is because of the argument that we advanced at the beginning of the debate—that we have a good, professional Civil Service and that the changes in the Bill are already causing anxiety among Civil Service staff and Opposition Members.
        All that we need is a period of stability. It is not unreasonable to ask for a guarantee from the Government that, for at least five years after the installation of the agencies, there will be no privatisation. I hope that the Minister will come up with a positive answer to that point.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: This is an important new clause and I am pleased to hear that we shall vote on it. Our views should be registered in the Lobbies.
        We need the new clause to protect us from the Government's general ideology. They have learnt that they can privatise anything. The new contribution that they have made to political thought in capitalist terms is that privatisation knows no bounds. They have learnt to develop tactics to achieve privatisation. The measure can be applied within the Civil Service as well as many other public services, such as the National Health Service. We should protect ourselves against that.
        In many ways, the new clause is modest. It says:
        "No part of a Government department where a Government Trading Fund has been established shall be privatised",
        and it might have stopped there but it goes on
        "within five years of the establishment of the fund."
        If it had stopped at "privatised", it would have meant that if the Government wished to privatise one of the agencies they would have needed primary legislation. Possibly that is the type of amendment that should have been tabled. I realise that in politics there is a need to be practical and to press the Government as much as possible within reasonable bounds to make them accept at least the amendments and new clauses that they may have half conceded against some of their instincts and interests. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heely (Mr. Michie) has said, at least that would provide some time for reflection before making any move.

        1015
        In the past, Socialists have been used to ideological disputes. There has always been an argument about public ownership and about whether we should have nationalised industries or other forms of ownership in which there is greater worker participation, for instance. There has also been a continual debate about the bounds to which Socialism should go in relation to ownership. Should it be to the "commanding heights" of the economy, as Nye Bevan described it in terms of public provision, or should it extend to the lot, as some people, on some occasions, have engaged in advocating when on an ideological bent that they could not stop?
        9.15 pm
        In fact, we have the mirror image of what has happened in the Conservative party. Conservatives have now become the people who want the lot. In the end, there are no bounds to the areas to which their ideology can take them, irrespective of questions such as the nature and running of society, the power forces that exist in society, and problems of exploitation. Conservatives have come to the view that the Government can privatise everything. That has always been obvious in relation to industry. We have had big battles in the House about the steel industry and about whether it should be part of public or private provision.
        Under a Right-wing Conservative Government, we could have expected that the public utilities, such as water and gas, would be added to the list and that there would be major debates about them. We feel that privatisation is inappropriate because those areas should be within the public responsibility and be surrounded by democratic organisation. However, the extra consideration that the Government now have in mind is that all public services, including local government, the Health Service, the Civil Service, and the prisons—as can be adduced from their ideological tracts—are open for privatisation. All that is needed is a command Government, holding the reins, dishing out the contracts and the public money that can be used in those areas. But that is not what we should have.
        Hon. Members have said how grand the Civil Service is and have referred to the good tradition of the Civil Service in this country. Part of what is good about the Civil Service is its tradition of public service and the fact that it does not have to believe that it must make ends meet or do things as cheaply as possible and run according to the market guide. The people involved in it are not there just for themselves; they are associated with the work that they are doing and are concerned about the services that they provide.
        The House itself seems to have become a body in which there is too much interest in oneself. This applies especially to Conservative Members. They have too much interest in their own commercial values, and are less concerned about the fact that they are here to provide a public service. They should be willing to act to provide a public service and, to some extent, to sacrifice their own individual interests, promotion, concerns and advancement to achieve that end. Although there are obviously counter-forces in the Civil Service, in that people are interested in their own promotion, we should nevertheless nurture that spirit in the Civil Service.
        The new clause at least tries to protect something that has existed in the past and would allow us to try to hold
        1016
        on to the spirit of the Civil Service even though we are talking about Government trading funds and agencies and all the problems that they will create before we can absorb the people concerned back into a proper public service. That spirit should then be reflected in all the other public services to which I have referred. Perhaps we can then enter into discussions about how far that spirit of public service and social provision should be extended into areas such as the public utilities and our industries, at least as far as the "commanding heights" are concerned.
        Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a vigorous and intellectually stimulating speech. I shall try to resist the temptation to follow all the intellectual hares that he started, much as I should like to do so.
        The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said that "next steps" was primarily about those operations that are to remain within Government control. Where there is a firm intention to privatise, this will be made clear when the agency is being set up.
        Before agencies are set up, all other options, including abolition and privatisation, are examined. In most cases, this examination leads to the conclusion that the nature of services provided by the agencies does not make privatisation a feasible or realistic option. That is particularly true of bodies such as the planning inspectorate. That is not to say that some activities might not be contracted out, but generally our expectation is that most mainstream activities of next steps agencies will continue to remain within central Government for the foreseeable future.
        We cannot rule out the possibility that in a few cases circumstances might change. But even if they did, privatisation is not likely in practice to take place until five years have elapsed. A major review of options is not likely to take place until the framework document is reviewed, usually about three years after agency status has been conferred. Experience suggests that primary legislation would almost certainly be required, so five years is likely to be a minimum time-scale. I think that I said in Committee that the chances of any privatisation occurring before five years had elapsed was "vanishingly small".
        It is one thing to give assurances; it is another to set up an absolute legislative barrier. I cannot foresee all possible circumstances, and I therefore cannot absolutely rule out privatisation in less than five years. Moreover, as Conservative Members see major benefits arising from privatization—for staff as well as for taxpayer and customer—I should not wish to do so either.
        Opposition Members seem to suggest that we might be concealing an intention to privatise. I assure them that there is a clear difference between us on the question of privatisation. We on the Conservative Benches are proud of our belief in privatisation. We believe that it is a valuable and essentially popular policy. If we intend to privatise, we make it clear; we boast about it and do not hide our light under a bushel.
        Mr. Bill Michie: We are getting more worried. The Minister seems to be saying, "We are not likely to privatise for five years, but we may." All this dithering is not helping the profession or the Departments that we wish to protect. It would be much easier, fairer and more honest to allow

        1017
        a five-year cooling-off period. That would be no skin off the Government's nose—unless they intend to do something but are not prepared to say so.
        Mr. Lilley: I think that I have made it clear that it is extremely unlikely that there would be privatisation in under five years after the agency was set up. That is why the sort of ban that Opposition Members seek is unnecessary. But it is conceivable that, in some remote circumstances, it would be desirable to privatise an agency in a shorter timescale, so it would be foolish to rule it out. It is foolish to close off options—even remote options— ahead of the game.
        The hon. Member for Leeds, West said that our privatisation programme was the consequence of an obsession with the theory of the perfect market. That was a hare that I was tempted to follow because, in a book that I wrote with Samuel Brittan, one chapter demolished the myth of the perfect market. It is a silly idea. We work on the basis of an acknowledgment of the imperfections of life and one of the responses to those imperfections is to acknowledge that private ownership works much better than public ownership. The hon. Gentleman went on to describe some of the absurdities that follow from state planning, centralised control and public ownership. The lesson to be learnt from that is: "Privatise where you can, and where you cannot, decentralise or commercialise."
        It is bizarre to suggest that the creation of agencies is a centralising measure, still less the creation of trading funds. They are both decentralising measures that give greater managerial flexibility to those bodies remaining firmly within the public sector. That is a desirable thing to do.
        Mr. Battle: Is it not the case that, although managerial responsibilities will be given to the chief executive of the agency, the financial purse strings will still be held by the Minister?
        Mr. Lilley: They will be given greater commercial freedom within the discipline and accountability of the trading fund, which is desirable. That is why Governments of both parties have successfully operated trading funds. Neither party is ideologically opposed to trading funds in principle.
        The hon. Member for Leeds, West suggested that we were in some way disowning quality of service when we set up agencies or trading funds. That is not so. The Minister will remain responsible to the House for the quality of service of agencies which remain part of his Department. The report on the next steps programme said that agencies would be required to report not just on efficiency but on "quality of service targets" over the previous year, "set against previous trends". They will be responsible for quality and they will be given targets for quality and be expected to report on whether they met them.
        Mr. Dalyell: The interesting book that the Minister wrote with Sam Brittan is well worth reading.
        I want to ask the Minister about the mechanics of parliamentary questioning. As I understand it, it will be much more difficult, via the Table Office, to table questions under the new policy, although I concede that there is a general report back. Have the Government asked the Clerks what will happen in relation to parliamentary questions?
        Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on my book. He is one of a rare and select breed, but I did not realise he was of such a rare and select breed to have read my book. That puts him in a very narrow and refined coterie.
        The accountability of agencies to the House, and their responsiveness to questions, will be unaltered by the establishment of an agency. I am happy to confirm that. It is only nationalised industries that are not properly accountable to the House which is a good reason for privatising them.
        The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he thought that privatisation was unpopular. I hope that he and his party will come out firmly against it at the next election, because that will considerably undermine his party's standing and improve the Government's. I am glad for his hints about that. He thought that we should go along with the amendment and give a five-year guarantee. I do not agree with him.
        The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell ) spoke of promotion and centralisation, and their inter-relationship. I could respond that he was asking the wrong question under the wrong clause to the wrong Minister, because that is a matter for the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service. However, I shall endeavour to be helpful: the establishment of agencies is not a centralising measure, but a decentralising one.
        We believe that there should be interchanges of staff at all levels between Departments and agencies. In particular, we think that it is important that all who aspire to rise in the Civil Service should have experience of management and, where practicable, that should include a successful period in an agency. I hope that my explanation meets some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
        The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that he found my statements in the Standing Committee ominous when I referred to reviews. However, he did not complete the quotation that he read out, the last few words of which were:
        "But that will be … rare."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1990; c. 30.]
        I reiterate that and say that it will be very rare.
        Mr. Michie: "Comparatively rare."
        Mr. Lilley: Right—"comparatively rare." I reiterate the word "rare": I am even prepared to drop the word "comparatively". However, the interesting logic of the hon Gentleman's remarks and of those of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) rests in the presumption that many of these bodies are, in principle, privatisable. There is an interesting reversal of roles in this. We do not think that there is scope in most of these cases for privatisation; we do not even think that it would be meaningful to envisage it. So to fear it, or to suggest that agencies are all prime candidates for privatisation and that it requires only restraint or legislative prohibition to stop the Government privatising them, seems a little bizarre.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Barnes: Unfortunately, the Minister is not the only Conservative writing books on this subject. The general thrust of Government policy in recent years, especially since the third electoral victory, has been in the direction of privatisation. One does not need to be a crystal ball gazer to see the trend.
        Mr. Lilley: Apart from being a distinguished author with at least one reader, I am also the Minister responsible for privatisation. I do not have the grand title of my counterpart in Poland—the Plenipotentiary for Privatisation—but I am supposed to be looking for opportunities to privatise. Be that as it may, in most of the areas that we are discussing today it is not a runner. Opposition Members are unduly concerned.
        I do not want to prolong the debate; I believe that I have answered the main points. I have confirmed that those who are worried about privatisation have nothing to fear in the context of most of the agencies. The chances of any of them being privatised within five years are vanishingly small, and in my view the new clause is unnecessary.
        Mr. Dalyell: I have had a quick word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and have discovered that we both thought that it has not been made clear that those who have a spell in an agency will somehow improve their promotion prospects or earn brownie points. I am not saying that that is wrong; I am saying that it is an interesting statement.
        Have guidelines been issued to this effect? Do civil servants know that this is now policy?
        Mr. Lilley: I have made this point in a letter to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It will apply increasingly as more agencies exist in which civil servants can become successful. I can, however, confirm that the idea is more widely known than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. The document "Developments in the Next steps Programme" states:
        "The Government agrees there must be genuine interchangeability between policy and executive functions. Therefore, while there is no question of a mechanistic approach to career planning, the Government will aim to ensure that as part of their career development key staff can gain experience of both management and policy work."
        So the basic notion has been spelt out in public, even though some hon. Members found it novel.
        Dr. Marek: The quotation in the Minister's document is rather different from what he said before. I am sure that it would surprise most civil servants to learn that their promotion prospects will not be as good if they have not worked in an agency. Of course I know that it is the Government's intention that up to three quarters of the Civil Service will eventually be part of agencies.
        For the life of me I cannot understand why the Financial Secretary is not prepared to accept our new clause. It is sensible and talks about no privatisation within five years. The Financial Secretary has said that there is only a remote possibility of any agency being privatised before five years. If it is remote that is a good reason to accept the new clause. He did not say that accepting the new clause would be good management policy because it would be good for the morale of civil servants working in the agencies. We have had a good debate apart from that point which did not come across from the Government.
        Any civil servant who works in an agency or who suddenly finds himself in an agency will be unsure of his future even though it is not the immediate intention to privatise that agency. If our new clause and the guarantee that it contains were accepted, at least civil servants would have five years during which they would continue to be part of the Civil Service and there would be no question of
        1020
        people being compulsorily hived off, made redundant or moved from one area to another. That would be good for the morale of civil servants and that would be reflected in their work. Of course that would also be good for the public. It is a pity that that matter was not mentioned by the Government.
        The other fears have been well illustrated by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seems to share our worries about this matter and I am happy to have his support.
        The new clause is important and simple. It was not difficult to draft and did not require the expertise of a parliamentary draftsman. The Government could have accepted it, but they have not. Could one of the reasons be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech to the Audit Commission on 21 June 1989? At that time, he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and he said:
        "Privatisation will continue as an essential part of our policy. There is a major programme in the pipeline and other parts of the public sector will become candidates as they develop a more commercial approach."
        It worries the Opposition that, as parts of the public sector develop a commercial approach, they will be candidates for privatisation.
        Five or ten minutes ago, the Financial Secretary said that the Government will privatise where they can and commercialise where they cannot. If we add to that what the present Chancellor said on 21 June last year, it is clear to me and to my hon. Friends that eventually there will be plans for privatisation of substantial parts of the Civil Service. The Government say that that is not true, but they will have to do more than they have been doing up to now to convince us of that.
        This has been a good debate and the arguments have been well advanced. There is a clear division of opinion between the Opposition and the Government and I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 148.

        Division No. 94]

        [9.38 pm

        AYES

        Allen, Graham

        Eastham, Ken

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Battle, John

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Beckett, Margaret

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

        Beith, A. J.

        Flynn, Paul

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Boateng, Paul

        Foster, Derek

        Bradley, Keith

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Galloway, George

        Buckley, George J.

        George, Bruce

        Callaghan, Jim

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Gordon, Mildred

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Clay, Bob

        Hood, Jimmy

        Clelland, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howells, Geraint

        Cox, Tom

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Cryer, Bob

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cummings, John

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Lamond, James

        Darling, Alistair

        Leadbitter, Ted

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

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Dewar, Donald

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Dixon, Don

        McWilliam, John

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Eadie, Alexander

        Marek, Dr John

        1021

        Maxton, John

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Meale, Alan

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Mullin, Chris

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Nellist, Dave

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Patchett, Terry

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Pike, Peter L.

        Worthington, Tony

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Robertson, George

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Rogers, Allan

        Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Jessel, Toby

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Amess, David

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Ashby, David

        Kilfedder, James

        Aspinwall, Jack

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Atkins, Robert

        Knapman, Roger

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Knowles, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Lang, Ian

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Benyon, W.

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Lilley, Peter

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Boswell, Tim

        Lord, Michael

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Brazier, Julian

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Bright, Graham

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Maclean, David

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Mans, Keith

        Burns, Simon

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Burt, Alistair

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Butler, Chris

        May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Butterfill, John

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Mills, Iain

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Carrington, Matthew

        Moate, Roger

        Carttiss, Michael

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Churchill, Mr

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Couchman, James

        Needham, Richard

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

        Nelson, Anthony

        Day, Stephen

        Neubert, Michael

        Devlin, Tim

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Dover, Den

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Dunn, Bob

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Paice, James

        Favell, Tony

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Forman, Nigel

        Patnick, Irvine

        Forth, Eric

        Pawsey, James

        Franks, Cecil

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Fry, Peter

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Rathbone, Tim

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Ryder, Richard

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Harris, David

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Speller, Tony

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Stern, Michael

        Hunter, Andrew

        Stevens, Lewis

        Irvine, Michael

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Jack, Michael

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        1022

        Summerson, Hugo

        Wells, Bowen

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Yeo, Tim

        Thorne, Neil

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Waller, Gary

        Ward, John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Lightbown.

        Watts, John

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New clause 5

        ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADING FUNDS: NECESSARY CONDITIONS
        '.—(1) No order establishing a trading fund shall be made until the responsible Minister has published—

        (a) details of the performance indicators against which he intends the record of the trading fund in terms of quality of service to be measured and judged; and

        (b) clear guidelines as to what information the accounts and reports of the trading fund will have to include.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause requires that no trading fund shall be established until the Minister responsible has published details of the performance indicators against which he intends the record of the trading fund to be judged, and clear guidelines as to the information that the fund's reports and accounts must include.
        It is generally agreed that proper performance indicators must be set for trading funds. That was stressed by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which stated:
        "We consider it important that departments and Agencies aim to be fully aware of the types, levels and standards of service their customers are looking for."
        The Committee insisted that agencies should ascertain their customers' views, as should Departments before they became agencies. The report added, in paragraph (xii):
        "we consider it necessary that Agencies should be required to demonstrate the relative success with which their activities are carried out …"
        It is equally important that the performance indicators are known in advance, otherwise the danger is that a trading fund will be established that has as its explicit objective the provision of a service more cheaply without regard to the quality of that service or to the interests of the community as a whole.
        I stress both considerations, because many of the activities undertaken in the public service by organisations that might be turned into trading funds relate to the granting of a licence or permission to an individual that has important indications for the community. Such licences or permissions can be provided much more cheaply if the public service does not examine carefully whether an individual is a fit person to hold a particular licence, a vehicle is fit to be licensed, or a passport granted—which, in the absence of adequate security, might be issued against forged documents.
        In many areas, there is public interest in the job being done extremely thoroughly and carefully. There is also public interest in ensuring that the individual customer enjoys a quick response. To achieve both is frequently

        1023
        expensive. If performance indicators do not allow for that, there will be serious repercussions for the individuals and for the community as a whole.
        Another powerful argument for knowing the performance indicators is that so many of the services involved have no competition. The benefits of a trading fund and of running part of the public service on a more commercial basis may include greater efficiency, more self-reliance, and greater autonomy for the individual civil servant. Many advantages could flow from people providing a service on an efficient basis that they have organised rather than having to conform to a centralised model.
        One of the main gains to be derived from a commercial style of operation will arise only if there is competition. In many cases, that will be impossible. The list included in next steps includes the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, HMSO, and the weights and measures laboratory. It is inconceivable that they could face any competition. There could not really be two organisations producing rival copies of Acts of Parliament to see which was cheaper. However, I am bound to say that they are now so expensive that someone should be able to produce them more cheaply. The other day I was reminded by the Clerk of the House that the daily part of Hansard, which now costs £5, cost only sixpence when he entered the service of the House. That is a pretty staggering rate of inflation, even for the Governments of both parties that have been in power over that period.
        In a great many of the services listed, it is impossible to imagine competition—the Department of the Registers of Scotland, the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Directorate, the Driving Standards Agency, the Employment Service, the Passport Office, the Patent Office, and the radio communication division in the Department of Trade and Industry which gives approval for the use of certain kinds of radio equipment which might interfere with the network. In none of those services can there be a competitor. Therefore, it is open to the agency to charge what it likes and to provide indifferent service.
        One reason for considering the trading fund approach has been the experience in many parts of the public service that the lack of the spur of competition makes it likely that inefficiency will persist. I have been a strong critic of the passport offices on that account. We are talking about areas of work in which there cannot, by definition, be competition. That makes them particularly inappropriate for privatisation. It also makes it all the more important that we have clear performance indicators which are discussed in advance so that we know that they will be concerned not solely with cutting the cost of the service, but also with the level of service the customer can expect—for example, how quickly he can get his passport.
        The performance indicators should be concerned with the general public interest and should ensure that, where regulation, public protection or security are involved, they are attended to thoroughly and carefully. No agency should be created unless we know in advance what the criteria are. That is one aspect of the new clause.
        The other aspect is that we should know what will be in the published accounts of the agency, and what an agency will be required to make available by way of information to the public. In Committee I questioned the Minister about what appeared to be a hole in the legislation which
        1024
        seemed to give the Treasury the ability to tell a trading fund that it did not need to publish accounts or to direct it, indeed, not to publish accounts. As the question was difficult to answer at the time, the Minister has since written to me, setting out why he believes that it would not be necessary to amend the Bill in this respect. I am grateful to him.
        Having studied the matter carefully, the Minister asserts that, because section 4(6) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 is not being repealed, all trading funds will be required to prepare statements of account and lay them before Parliament. He says that that obligation has not disappeared. What he was concerned about in the part of the Bill to which I referred in Committee was the timing of other forms of account which the Treasury may require agencies to provide. That is all well and good, but I still think that we should know at the point when an agency is set up whether the information which the public and Parliament will get about it will be adequate to measure its performance.
        Those seem to be reasonable objectives to which the Minister should agree. I see no reason why they should not be incorporated in the Bill.
        Mr. Lilley: I welcome the emphasis that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has placed on the importance of quality of service to the customer. I have great sympathy with that aspect of the new clause that could be regarded as an attempt to put into statute the Government's intentions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our general intention is that all agencies will be set performance targets, including quality of service targets. In general, I hope that it will be possible to give some indication of what the targets will be when the order establishing a trading fund is debated, but it may not always be possible to provide full details, as the new clause would require, because there will inevitably be a time lag between publishing the order establishing the trading fund and the date on which the fund comes into being.
        We also think it important to encourage the development of better measures of output and performance over a period. I therefore do not think that it would be appropriate to limit such measures in every case to those that were published before the publication of the order establishing the trading fund.
        The second part of the amendment would require the responsible Minister to issue clear guidelines as to what information the accounts and report will include. The hon. Member may not be aware that in December the Treasury published guidance on the coverage of trading funds accounts in a bookled entitled "Trading Accounts: A Guide for Government Departments and Non-Departmental Public Bodies". I can recommend it to hon. Members as a delightful read if they ever suffer from insomnia. Copies have been placed in the Library.
        We envisage that proper guidelines and quality standards will be set for each trading fund. We shall want details of how they have performed. We shall also want to compare targets and previous performance.
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Government Trading Bill, the Ways and Means Motions relating to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sackville.]

      Government Trading Bill
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Lilley: It would be inappropriate to enshrine such a provision in rigid statutory form, as the new clause attempts to do. However, I sympathise with the spirit that underlies it.
      Question put and negatived.

      New clause 6

        CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER
        'Within one year of the coming into effect of this Act, the Treasury shall lay before Parliament proposals for the establishment of a Civil Service Commissioner (Ombudsman) who shall have power to set minimum standards of service for Civil Service agencies providing a service to the public and financed by means of a trading fund, and to look into, and recommend appropriate remedies and compensation for, complaints made by members of the public with regard to the operation of any such government agency or trading fund.'.—[Marek.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Dr. Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 6 is related to new clause 5, but goes a little further. It would give the public a little more confidence in the quality standards that are to be set by agencies and trading funds. It provides for an ombudsman who would have control over quality standards. It would not be left just to the Government.
        The Government and the Civil Service have not done much work on establishing how agencies could measure the quality of services provided. Certainly very little work has been done on providing the mechanisms for consumer or staff input into quality control.
        Mr. Peter Kemp, the "next steps" projects manager, gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee which is recorded in the Committee's 38th report, published in October 1989. He said:
        "The word 'customer' is a very dangerous and difficult word to use in the context of public service."
        That leads me to believe that those who are organising agencies and Government trading funds do not like the word "customer" and therefore do not use it. They are more concerned with administration and saving public money.
        A better quotation is again to be found in the Public Accounts Committee's October 1989 report. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) asked:
        "How do they know what the taxpayers and customers who use the DSS want and think of their present service?"
        The matter under discussion was the introduction of agency status for the Department of Social Security. My hon. Friend said:
        1026
        "If you do not know it how can you set up an agency system designed to meet their requirements efficiently and effectively? I am asking what specific plans you have to consult them."
        Mr. Kemp replied:
        "I do not know what specific plans the DSS have, nor am I quite sure how the DSS would set out specifically consulting claimants or claimants' representatives."
        That is the problem. Therefore, we have tabled the new clauses. The work has not been done. The introduction of trading agencies and trading funds has more to do with the Government's wish to save public money and to improve administration. They want to introduce even more commercialisation, with a view to eventual privatisation.
        It is possible to consider the consumer and staff input. To make a constituency point, Wrexham has a DSS consumer committee. I wonder how many DSS consumer committees there are up and down the country. That is one way of getting more consumer input into quality control. The DSS office in Wrexham works very well, but that is certainly not always the case in other parts of the country.
        I shall quote two documents about civil servants, their contact with journalists and their use of official information. My first quote has some lessons for Government trading funds. The new draft code of conduct was published following the Official Secrets Act 1989. Paragraph 9904 states:
        "Civil servants must exercise care in handling the information that has come into their possession in the course of their official duties and should not forget that they arc employed for the purposes of the Department in which they are now serving. They owe duties of confidentiality and loyal service to the Crown. Since constitutionally the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers who are answerable for their Departments in Parliament, these duties are for all practical purposes only to the Government of the day."
        Of course there is no question of looking after arty concerns of the consumer or the public—some people might say, quite rightly—but the Government exist for the benefit of the public and the consumer and it should be absolutely clear what rights consumers have and what quality standards Ministers set for their civil servants in various Departments so that they can perform their services for the benefit of the public.
        If the ethos behind the new draft of the code of conduct were enlarged, quality standards would not be made available for the public. Something would be said so that the public thought that there were quality standards, but they would not have full access to information about exactly what they meant, how they operated and what redress the public would have in any instance where they thought that the standard of quality fell short.
        I shall also quote a document dated November 1989 which has been circulated quite widely in the Civil Service. It is from the office of the Minister for the Civil Service and is entitled, "Relations with Journalists". Paragraph 11 states:
        "In cases of doubt or disagreement, the final approval for appearances in these as in other current affairs programmes rests with the Prime Minister,"—
        the Prime Minister's heavy hand is appearing again—
        "who will wish to take account of recommendations by Ministerial colleagues and, as Minister for the Civil Service, of any views put forward by the Head of the Home Civil Service, as to the propriety of participation by civil servants. The main considerations will be whether the final result is likely to be of value to the Government, the Civil Service and to the Department concerned."
        It says nothing about whether it will be of any value to the public or whether quality standards will be maintained.

        1027
        I know that the document deals with relations with journalists, but it is pertinent to say that that paragraph says nothing about objectivity, truth or benefit to the public. It simply says that the final result is likely to be of value to the Government; whether it is right or wrong or whether it is meritorious is not mentioned. It is concerned only with
        "the Civil Service and … the Department concerned; whether Ministers and civil servants can be seen to be behaving naturally, or forced in a play-acting situation by 'fly on the wall' techniques; and whether the discussions can be recorded without damage to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Any submission to No. 10 should deal specifically with these points."
        If the relations that the Government have or would like civil servants to have with the media and the press and their code of conduct are anything to go by I do not have much confidence in what the Government say about quality standards to the public, being understood by the public and having the general confidence of the public.
        I tabled a written question about the passport office and how it would improve its quality standards. I was told in reply:
        "The passport department will be aiming in 1990 to process all straightforward, non-urgent passport applications within a maximum of 30 working days during the peak period between January and June, and within 20 working days at other times. Urgent cases will receive priority and should not normally be subject to delay".—[Official Report, 25 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 882.]
        I am confused about what
        "should not normally be subject to delay"
        means when the first part of the answer refers to 20 days and the latter to 30 days. It is not good enough to have passport offices with quality standards of 20 days for half of the year and 30 days for the other half. That is not good enough and the public will not put up with it. The Government must do better. The new clause seeks to do something about it, and it would be a step in the right direction.
        The Opposition are the party of the consumer. The Conservatives are for bureaucracy and administration and it is time they realised that if they are to do better—and they must do better if they are to come within sight of the Labour party at the next general election—they should consider the consumer more.
        Mr. Lilley: I can appreciate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) showing interest in, and having views about, the draft code of conduct, but it concerns only relationships between the Crown as employer and civil servants as employees of the Crown, so it is not strictly relevant to quality of service. Nor is it distinctly related to agencies and trading funds.
        I have some sympathy for the intentions of the new clause. Next steps agencies fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, and he can investigate complaints of maladministration made against them. The ombudsman proposed by the amendment would unnecessarily duplicate the existing investigative powers of the parliamentary commissioner.
        The new clause also proposes that the ombudsman should have statutory powers to set minimum standards. That would clearly conflict with the exercise of ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament. The Minister in charge of a Department is responsible for
        1028
        setting standards for quality of service. That remains just as true in the context of agencies. He may be called to account by Parliament for his decisions.
        It would, at the least, cause confusion to superimpose on those established and well-understood arrangements a separate statutory authority for an ombudsman to set standards. I therefore cannot advise the House to accept the new clause.
        Mr. Bill Michie: I listened to the Minister carefully, having listened even more carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It seems strange that the Government should feel that there is no need to protect public interests by means of an ombudsman to whom people can bring complaints and queries.
        I recall long debates on social security legislation involving the establishment of new regulations by which people would get money from the DSS. The system of appeal was changed. My hon. Friends and I complained that instead of having the normal independent tribunal, the Government were removing from the public their ordinary rights should they feel aggrieved about their treatment by Government Departments or other organs of the establishment.
        In that case, the Government of the day took away the right of appeal to an independent tribunal and announced that should there be anomalies or complaints, complainants should appeal to an officer in the department concerned. If, after that officer had made his judgment—saying, perhaps, " I am sorry, but you are not entitled to a grant"—the person still felt aggrieved, he or she could appeal to the next senior officer. As we pointed out at the time, the junior officer concerned would be in the same department as the senior officer and would, of course, take instructions from his superior. In that case there was no genuine appeals system. Although we pointed that out, the Government were not prepared to listen to our pleas.
        We are anxious to have in position a genuine ombudsman so that if a person feels that he or she has not had a fair deal from, say, a DSS office, application can be made to the ombudsman. It seems that the existing ombudsman is not all that busy, due, no doubt, to the existing mechanism for appeal. The Government say that we do not need an ombudsman and that the work can be done through the Secretary of State, yet they have set up an ombudsman mechanism that is additional to the Secretary of State to deal with social security benefits. Goodness knows, the Secretary of State has enough power already.
        An anomaly exists. For some strange reason, the Government are afraid of having someone who is independent of the Government and Departments and who can protect the interests of ordinary people who come across misdeeds or misunderstandings in Departments. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will reconsider and at least be consistent with Government philosophy in the past.
        10.15 pm
        Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary's reply was unconvincing. We must stand up for the consumer, who has a vital interest in these matters. The new clause goes some way towards securing that interest, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 133.

        Division No. 95]

        [10–15 pm

        AYES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Battle, John

        McWilliam, John

        Beith, A. J.

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Boateng, Paul

        Marek, Dr John

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Meale, Alan

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Clay, Bob

        Nellist, Dave

        Clelland, David

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Cryer, Bob

        Patchett, Terry

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Pike, Peter L.

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

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Dewar, Donald

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Dixon, Don

        Robertson, George

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Flynn, Paul

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Foster, Derek

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Fyfe, Maria

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Worthington, Tony

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Howells, Geraint

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        NOES

        Alexander, Richard

        Butterfill, John

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Amess, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Arbuthnot, James

        Carrington, Matthew

        Ashby, David

        Carttiss, Michael

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Batiste, Spencer

        Chope, Christopher

        Bendall, Vivian

        Churchill, Mr

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

        Benyon, W.

        Day, Stephen

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Devlin, Tim

        Boswell, Tim

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Bottom ley, Peter

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Brazier, Julian

        Dover, Den

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Dunn, Bob

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Fallon, Michael

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Favell, Tony

        Burns, Simon

        Forman, Nigel

        Burt, Alistair

        Forth, Eric

        Butler, Chris

        Franks, Cecil

        1030

        Fry, Peter

        Neubert, Michael

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Paice, James

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Pawsey, James

        Harris, David

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Rathbone, Tim

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Irvine, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Jack, Michael

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Jessel, Toby

        Speller, Tony

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        Kilfedder, James

        Stern, Michael

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Stevens, Lewis

        Knapman, Roger

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Summerson, Hugo

        Knowles, Michael

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Lang, Ian

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Lightbown, David

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Lilley, Peter

        Thorne, Neil

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Lord, Michael

        Trippier, David

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Walden, George

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Waller, Gary

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Ward, John

        Maclean, David

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Watts, John

        Malins, Humfrey

        Wells, Bowen

        Mans, Keith

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Wood, Timothy

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Yeo, Tim

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Moate, Roger

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Bill reported, with an amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money] (No. 2)
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified——
    10.27 pm
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State—

    (a) for paying sums to Scottish Enterprise, in so far as not already authorised by the Resolution (Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money]) of 9th January, in respect of the exercise of its functions and in respect of its administrative expenses;

    (b) for making loans to Scottish Enterprise for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions; and

    (c) for fulfilling guarantees given by him in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Enterprise from persons other than the Secretary of State or given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Scottish Development Agency from such persons,

    so long as the relevant aggregate amount outstanding shall not exceed £3,000 million.
    In this Resolution—
    "general external borrowing" has the same meaning as in the Act;
    "relevant aggregate amount outstanding" means the aggregate amount outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of—

    (a) the general external borrowing of—

    (i) Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries; and

    (ii) the Scottish Development Agency,

    (b) sums issued by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under the Act or by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under Schedule 2 to the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, being sums which have not been repaid;

    (c) sums paid (other than by way of lending) to Scottish Enterprise by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament but with there being deducted—

    (i) any such sums repaid to the Secretary of State by the body; and

    (ii) any such sums paid in respect of the administrative expenses of Scottish Enterprise; and

    (d) loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise and by any of its subsidiaries; and

    "subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
    The new money resolution has had to be introduced because of the extensive amendments that the Government have tabled to the financial arrangements that are to apply to Scottish Enterprise. I hope that we shall have an opportunity in Committee tomorrow to debate the various amendments substantively and I look forward to explaining the purpose behind them and their effects at more length then.
    On this occasion, I hope that it may suffice if I simply sketch out, first, the objectives behind our amendments;secondly, the technical means by which the objectives will be achieved; and, thirdly, the implications for the money resolution. Our objectives can be expressed briefly—they are to simplify and to make more flexible the financial arrangements for Scottish Enterprise. I hope that
    1032
    Opposition Members will share those objectives. They will be achieved primarily by doing away with both public dividend capital and national loans fund lending, both of which have proved complicated and inflexible, and replacing them with voted loans.
    Voted loans will allow far more flexibility in comparison with the limitations of public dividend capital and national loans fund lending. I expect that to be widely welcomed by those who operate the financial arrangements. Because the loans will be voted, there will be no diminution of parliamentary oversight—indeed, quite the reverse. Our intention is to use voted loans only for those functions funded at present from public dividend capital or national loans fund lending. However, the provisions that we propose would in principle allow the flexibility of using grant in aid and/or voted loans for the full range of Scottish Enterprise functions, with the single exception of administrative expenses which are to be limited to grant in aid only. That will allow the maximum scope for responding to future circumstances.
    The amendments that the Government have tabled in Committee, as well as deleting powers in relation to public dividend capital and national loans fund lending and inserting instead new powers in relation to voted loans, also make two other consequential changes. They make explicit provision to allow a special payment of grant in aid to the Scottish Development Agency to extinguish the outstanding PDC and NLF obligations and they make provision to recover to the Consolidated Fund the future receipts relating to those investments made with PDC or NLF resources that remain in being when the PDC and NLF regimes disappear.
    A further modest but useful amendment gives the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than the Treasury, the power to guarantee external borrowing.
    This supplementary money resolution provides the necessary supporting framework for the amendments. It supplements the original money resolution by referring to the new funding mechanism of voted loans and by authorising the payment of grant for all Scottish Enterprise's functions. It also gives authority to the Secretary of State to use money provided by Parliament to fulfil guarantees given by him in respect of borrowing by Scottish Enterprise.
    Finally, the supplementary resolution provides that the total financial resources available to Scottish Enterprise are not to exceed £3 billion. That is in line with the amendment to clause 23 that the Government have tabled. The revised limit now includes the full range of programmes and activities for which Scottish Enterprise will be responsible, whereas the limit published in the Bill was not so comprehensive. I can, however, assure the House that there has been no change in the underlying figures; it is simply that now all funding items, except administrative items, have been brought into account.
    I hope that I have explained the rationale for, and effect of, our financial amendments and the consequential need for this supplementary money resolution, and I commend it to the House.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Tony Worthington: We shall have the opportunity tomorrow to discuss the money resolution in detail in Committee if we wish to do so, but this is a useful opportunity to debate the question of

    1033
    money. During the six weeks of the Bill's passage through the House, it has become increasingly obvious that the Government face major problems—not in this detailed technical financial material but in the availability of money to Scottish Enterprise. It has been an illuminating few weeks, during which all that we seem to have got from the Minister is talk of flexible enterprise or enterprising flexibility. We need to go into more detail on the question of money.
    The funding seems to be disappearing. Week by week we move further away from the intention in the explanatory and financial memorandum:
    "It is intended that the resources made available by the Secretary of State to the two new bodies should initially be broadly equivalent to that which would have been provided for their predecessor bodies combined."
    We have said that that is about £500 million, but that money seems to be disappearing. The grant in aid, which is the main source of money for the SDA, was cut in real terms by £3 million last year, while the grant to the Welsh Development Agency rose by £6 million. The SDA seems to be chronically strapped for cash. People are not even proposing projects any more, because they know that there is no chance of their being accepted.
    I should be more likely to believe the commitment in the Bill if it came from the Secretary of State for Wales but the Secretary of State for Scotland has a credibility gap in respect of the resources to be provided for Scottish Enterprise. I am told by Welsh Members that the Ebbw Vale garden festival and the valleys initiative are both going ahead. When the Glasgow garden festival went ahead, everything else seemed to stop because of the problems of financing. The Welsh Development Agency had 510 staff in 1988–89 and 580 in 1989–90—an increase of 70 in a year. The contrast with the SDA's staff, who are seeking every opportunity to leave, is considerable.
    It is not only the grant-in-aid money that is in doubt; the Scottish Development Agency has also been told to sell its property portfolio. Last year the surplus on the property portfolio was £13·6 million. That is being sold off, and the proceeds will go to the Treasury. Where is that surplus—the income—to come from in future to fund Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise? Parts of the equity portfolio are also being sold off, which will give a short-term return to the Treasury, but not to Scottish Enterprise.
    When we look at what has happened to training, we see that the money absolutely disappears. Expenditure in Britain on training has been substantially cut, and not just in absolute terms. The cut per trainee is falling; for a youth training scheme trainee it is planned that expenditure should fall from £50 to £33 per week by 1992–93. Employment training expenditure will be cut from £1,040 in real terms in 1989–90 to £1,002 in 1990–91. The expenditure per filled place per week will fall from £97 to £90. Technical and vocational education initiative expenditure for participating students will fall from £229 in 1989 to £90 in 1992. As the number of educational compacts increases, the amount of money to spend on each compact falls from £143,000 to £100,000.
    The Confederation of British Industry says that we need a skills revolution, but in Scotland the Training Agency's budget is being cut. In Scotland the budget for next year, comparing like with like, is nearly £30 million down, without allowing for inflation. If we allow for inflation, the budget is nearly £50 million down. The
    1034
    budget for Scottish Enterprise will be much closer to £400 million than £500 million. By next year there is likely to be about £50 million off the training budget, and about £10 million—we cannot be exact—off the property income, and some more money off the equity income. Goodness knows what will happen to the grant in aid.
    In addition, the local enterprise companies are likely to need extra staff for decentralisation. A calculation was made by the Training Agency that it would need about 540 extra staff for Britain. If Scotland needs an extra 50 staff, how will they be paid for? It is likely that a decentralised Scottish Development Agency will also need extra staff. It looks as though we shall be about £60 million to £100 million short.
    A few weeks ago the Secretary of State was bouncing around with his new toy, Scottish Enterprise. He was buoyant about it, but the dream is coming to an end because he is now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side he has Bill Hughes and the Prime Minister——
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Not him again.
    Mr. Worthington: Yes, I am sorry. I find it essential to mention Mr. Bill Hughes because it causes great embarrassment to the Government, and that is what we are here for.
    On the one hand there are the problems of Mr. Bill Hughes and the Prime Minister, who seem to be addicted to strong local enterprise companies; on the other hand there is a commitment to strong, central core funding. Today's Glasgow Herald has the headline "Losing the SDA" and talks of a European development agency being set up just when we in Scotland are about to do away with the SDA. It is a careless article, but the flavour of it is that Scottish Enterprise is not seen as positive, but as a loss. We must challenge the Government to say from where the money is to come. I mentioned the Training Agency, the property portfolio and the grant in aid. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to talk during the debate about their fears over the loss of money to the new towns.
    The Government have a major credibility problem—which they will have to face within the next few weeks—of how to fund the organisation. Tens of millions of pounds have to be found and there is no sign yet of where the money will come from.
    10.39 pm
    Mr. Norman Hogg: I had not intended to speak in the debate, until I arrived at 9.30 this morning and was confronted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who asked me to speak for five minutes tonight. Perhaps it was a mistake to agree, but it is my duty to do so. After all, the issue is important.
    I did not understand a word of the Minister's speech, but I think I share that predicament with most of humanity who have been attempting to follow his remarks in the Standing Committee. I notice, incidentally, that he has filled up the Order Paper with hundreds of technical amendments—at least, I suppose he will say that they are technical; if they are not, we shall be here until Christmas. The amendments will cost a great deal of money, which necessitates tonight's money resolution.

    1035
    About £150 million a year is spent, from the public purse, on the Scottish Development Agency. We spend about £100 million a year on the development corporations. That is a great deal of money, and it has been spent, year in, year out, ever since we set up the new town development corporations.
    The Minister has always agreed with me that the new town development corporations have played an important part in bringing inward investment to Scotland. They have worked in support of Locate in Scotland, and their recent achievements have been considerable. I pay tribute to their work. They have brought employment to Cumbernauld new town and to other new towns, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
    If we are spending £100 million a year on the new towns, what will we spend on them after the corporations have been wound up by the Bill? Will money on the same scale still be spent on the new towns, with the express purpose of achieving inward investment and of keeping the new towns attractive to outside industry? I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that, even though, strictly speaking, the money resolution does not touch on that matter. At this time of night one does not have to be, strictly speaking, in order but I hope, in any case, that the Minister will reply to my important point.
    10.43 pm
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) was candid enough to admit that he had not understood what I said, and so much was plain from his contribution, which, although extremely interesting in the context of a matter that we shall debate in depth when we discuss the new town clauses in the Bill, was not relevant to the resolution, which is a supplementary money resolution relating to Scottish Enterprise.
    The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that the money was disappearing. He will see, if he reads the resolution, that the total financial resources available rise from £1·2 billion to £3 billion—so the money can hardly be said to be disappearing. The hon. Gentleman also talked nonsense about net grant in aid and the SDA's budget. He knows perfectly well that what matters to the agency is the money that it has to spend, and that is covered by its gross expenditure budget. Anyone who looks at the record over the last decade will see that, at constant 1988–89 prices, the budget has gone up from £140·7 million in 1978–79 to £160·2 million in 1990–91. That is an increase in real terms of some £20 million and reflects the resources that the Government are putting into the agency and the increasing success of the agency's economic activities. It is nonsense to talk of a reducing budget.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales. If he looks at his own favourite measure, that of Government provision for Wales, he will see that in 1979–80 the Welsh Development Agency received Government provision of £48·4 million compared with Government provision for the Scottish Development Agency of £64·9 million—a difference of about 30 per cent. In 1988–89, the difference had risen to almost 40 per cent. from a Government
    1036
    provision of £66·6 million for Wales to £91 million for the Scottish Development Agency. The hon. Gentleman is on weak ground in trying to compare us with Wales.
    The sale of the agency's property portfolio will not adversely affect the funding of the agency and in due course Scottish Enterprise. The Government have determined provision for next year and the following two years—the first two years of Scottish Enterprise—to maintain a constant level of gross expenditure. If receipts fluctuate we will take that into account in fixing the Government's direct contribution. The Training Agency budget is £9 million lower for 1989–90 than for last year, although it is still substantially up on the figure of £120 million in 1988–89.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister says that it is £9 million down, but that applies only if the Minister counts in this year's figures which were centrally counted last year. If the Minister compares like with like, the amount in the budget this year and what was spent last year under the same headings in the Scottish budget, he will see that the gap is nearly £30 million.
    Mr. Lang: The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman of £267·3 million for 1990–91 compare with £210 million in 1988–89. That is a substantial increase. If he looks at individual programmes he will see that expenditure in Scotland on the youth training scheme had an outturn in 1986–87 of £85·1 million while the estimate for the current year is £104·6 million. The figure for training unemployed adults was £23·5 million in 1986–87 and the estimate for 1989–90 is £131·4 million. Those figures are a credit to the Government and show that we are providing the necessary resources to meet the needs of our programmes. Those programmes are increasingly effective in delivering results. We are anxious to make provision for the future of Scottish Enterprise in a flexible way that is relevant to its needs. The supplementary money resolution does that, and I commend it to the House.
    10.47 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: It is worth rising briefly to express some disquiet and dissatisfaction at the way in which the Minister gabbled through his rather unconvincing brief in an attempt to allay the substantial doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
    I appreciate that this is a supplementary resolution and that we are dealing with the finances of Scottish Enterprise. I certainly do not wish to stray beyond that. I am aware of the figures on the face of the resolution. They are megabucks. Much money is talked about, but my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was trying to establish exactly how much will be available on the ground in real spending terms for the first financial year of the new organisation. In that context the Minister was less than helpful.
    I recognise that we can argue interminably about the record of the Scottish Development Agency and Government expenditure, but the commitment of the Government in the past few years has been anything but whole-hearted. I detect the Government's sleight of hand. When it is convenient Ministers talk about net Government contributions, but when it is not convenient

    1037
    they talk about gross spending, knowing that much of that comes from the sale of assets. On many occasions the record of the agency has been inhibited by difficulties.
    At one time people in the SDA said that there was no financial problem, but that the trouble was in getting forward schemes that were suitable for expenditure and which the agency wanted to support. There is no doubt that in recent years it has been a different picture. We have repeatedly been told that there are good projects that the SDA would like to support, but that it is not in a financial position to help. That has increasingly been illustrated by some discontent with the performance of the SDA, when its budget was squeezed during the successful Glasgow garden festival.
    I do not want to bandy words about the performance in Wales, but I think that the financing of the Welsh Development Agency has been more generous in the past year or two. I do not think that the 30 to 40 per cent. gap that the Minister was talking about was conclusive. It was interesting to note, as we have remarked before, that the Welsh Development Agency is going to survive, and that a very different structure from that picked for Scottish Enterprise has found favour with the Secretary of State for Wales.
    The real issue—the one that we have never got to the bottom of—is exactly what will be available to Scottish Enterprise for training and for the traditional role of the SDA.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talked about the training budget. Of course, the expenditure figures that were being used by the Minister of State included a number of items for 1990–91 that did not appear in the expenditure for 1989–90. The enterprise allowance scheme, with £40·7 million, is an obvious example, and there are a number of others. If I wished maliciously to delay the House, I would run through them, but I will not on this occasion.
    The figure is due to drop by some £9 million. It is not clear whether there is to be additional money for all the imaginative new schemes that we are assured will emerge from the local enterprise companies, once Scottish Enterprise is up and running.
    I remember that I said one or two somewhat doubting things during the exchanges, when the Secretary of State made a statement on the Floor of the House about public expenditure in Scotland during the coming two or three years. I pointed out at that stage—I think, with some justification—that there was concern about the way that the industry budget of the Scottish Office was going to decline in cash terms. I questioned whether that was a wise decision at a time when the Scottish economy undoubtedly faces problems with investment, and when the cold wind of recession is undoubtedly beginning to blow. I also asked what that meant for Scottish Enterprise, because, if the industry budget is cut, it does not seem to augur well for the atmosphere of the new launch of Scottish Enterprise or for the kind of funding available to it.
    I was told, somewhat tartly, by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) that I should know my business better than that, and that that was not the time to make an announcement about that particular matter. I took that rebuke as bravely as I could, but I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister when will be the right time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to the fact that the memorandum on
    1038
    the front of the legislation, to which the money resolution is attached, predicts that the spending power of Scottish Enterprise will be broadly equivalent—I think that was the phrase used—to the existing budget. I presume that the existing budget is index-linked, although even that is not made entirely clear. Presumably there will be some allowance for inflation. If that is so, I am sure that you will be the first to understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I know that I cannot ask you to agree, as that would be improper—that that would be a sad anti-climax after the kind of expectations for Scottish Enterprise that Ministers raise in their more optimistic moods.
    I remember one Sunday when I gritted my teeth to sit in front of my television set to watch the Secretary of State for Scotland on "On the Record". It was not a particularly stimulating hour, but one of its more interesting features was the distinct hint dropped by the Secretary of State that he was going to win his battle with the Treasury and that there would be substantially more cash for Scottish Enterprise than was outlined in the broadly equivalent standstill budget referred to in the memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill.
    I do not suppose that the Minister of State will want to announce actual figures. That might be asking him to do too much and he might not be in a position to do so—I can readily accept that. He may not be able to be as flexible as that, although "flexible" seems to be the fashionable adjective of the night. I think, however, that we are entitled to say a word about the budget, and to ask when the amount—which we hope will be an increase, going beyond the principle of "broad equivalence"—will become public knowledge. That is not an unreasonable request, particularly when we are considering a supplementary resolution dealing with the finance of Scottish Enterprise.
    There is no doubt that the rather superficial support that was marshalled for the idea of the one-door approach when Scottish Enterprise was first launched is now beginning to evaporate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to an article in the Glasgow Herald, but there are many other illustrations of the diversity of view about how the organisation should be organised, the basis on which it is founded, the likelihood of obtaining the proper talent and whether the structure is sufficiently—what is the right word?—flexible to do the job as it is advertised.
    That argument will continue. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may well read press reports of further crisis meetings of representatives of the Prime Minister's office. which Mr. Bill Hughes—as author and progenitor of the scheme—will attend to complain about the way in which it is progressing, and the bureacracy that he believes is choking it. Others will claim that it is not so much being choked as running out of control, with friction and confrontation built in almost by definition.
    Above all, however, the concern about resources will continue. I do not expect the Minister to put us out of our misery today—I fear that he will have to leave us in a state of anticipation—but it would help me, at least, if he could say a word about when the long-awaited announcement about additional finance will be made. I have never been in office, and I have not his knowledge of the financial timetables involved in legislation such as this.
    We are now running up to the start line. Chairmen are being appointed and boards are being formed; yet the Minister has told us—no doubt honestly—that there are not even any draft agreements between the existing SDA

    1039
    and Training Agency and the local enterprise companies. There are not even any draft memos and articles of association to be made available to those of us who are following events closely in Committee. That is rather mysterious: it suggests a certain hand-to-mouth, make and-mend approach to important parts of what we are told is the flagship legislation of the decade for the Government. I can remember when that term was applied to the poll tax, but it seems that there have been second thoughts.
    Many details have not been filled in, and the financial details should take pride of place. I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Minister will be able to speak again, and that he will tell us when we shall know what the budget of Scottish Enterprise will be. Presumably the budget will be "divvied up"—if I may use a Scottish colloquialism—among the local enterprise companies very shortly. They will be out of the development stage and up and running within months, and the necessary decisions cannot be delayed for long. It will take some time to make arrangements for the division, the assessment of bids and the final allocation for each company; the timetable must therefore be fairly tight. No doubt it is already well defined in the Minister's mind, and I do not think it is too pressing or improvident of me to ask him to say a word about it.
    10.59 pm
    Mr. Lang: I had already replied to the debate when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) chose to rise to his feet, which was somewhat surprising. Nevertheless, I shall repeat some of the points that I made.
    The Scottish Development Agency has never suggested to us that its budget was insufficient for its needs. It has increased in real terms compared with when Labour was in power, and it is fulfilling a far more effective role than it was 10 years ago.
    As to the Glasgow garden festival, I have not heard it suggested that there were insufficient resources available from the SDA for that venture. The general opinion is that it was a triumphant success.
    The hon. Gentleman tried to draw unfavourable comparisons with Wales. I do not know whether he believes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales should have the say-so over apportioning the Scottish Office's resources, but that seems to be an undesirable undevelopment.
    The Training Agency's programmes and resources have varied, as has its resources. But that variation reflects changing circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that unemployment has been falling, that there have been demographic changes, and that more and more young people leaving school are entering higher and further education. It would be wholly inconsistent with the Government's responsible approach to the handling of resources not to take account of such changes. For those reasons, the budgets of the SDA and the Training Agency are more than adequate.
    As to the Scottish Enterprise budget for 1991–92, the hon. Gentleman has held his present post long enough to
    1040
    know the calandar of events in which budgets are spelt out. This year will be no exception. I commend the order to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State—

    (a) for paying sums to Scottish Enterprise, in so far as not already authorised by the Resolution (Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money]) of 9th January, in respect of the exercise of its functions and in respect of its administrative expenses;

    (b) for making loans to Scottish Enterprise for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions; and

    (c) for fulfilling guarantees given by him in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Enterprise from persons other than the Secretary of State or given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Scottish Development Agency from such persons,

    so long as the relevant aggregate amount outstanding shall not exceed £3,000 million.
    In this Resolution—
    "general external borrowing" has the same meaning as in the Act;
    "relevant aggregate amount outstanding" means the aggregate amount outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of—

    (a) the general external borrowing of—

    (i) Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries; and

    (ii) the Scottish Development Agency,

    (b) sums issued by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under the Act or by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in fulfilment of guarantees under Schedule 2 to the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, being sums which have not been repaid;

    (c) sums paid (other than by way of lending) to Scottish Enterprise by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament but with there being deducted—

    (i) any such sums repaid to the Secretary of State by the body; and

    (ii) any such sums paid in respect of the administrative expenses of Scottish Enterprise; and

    (d) loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise and by any of its subsidiaries; and

    "subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.

    Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill [Money] (No. 2)

      ENTERPRISE AND NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS] (No. 2)
      Ordered,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise any payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums falling to be paid into that Fund by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

      SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
      Ordered,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of charges towards expenditure under the Act in connection with provisions relating to—

      (a) the investigation and determination of complaints and disputes relating to occupational and personal pension schemes;

      (b) the compilation and maintenance of a register of occupational and personal pension schemes; and

      (c) the making of grants by the Occupational Pensions Board.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

    PETITION

      Local Government Finance
      11.1 pm
      Mr. David Amess: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by a considerable number of my constituents. They draw attention to the fact that last year Socialist-controlled Basildon district council imposed the largest rate increase in the country, of 57·2 per cent. My constituents are filled with considerable disquiet because of the vast sums of money that the local authority has been spending ever since.
      The petitioners draw particular attention to the council's spending on area management and leisure facilities, and to the fact that the Tower gate theatre is to be further subsidised to the tune of £1·6 million, or otherwise it will go into liquidation.
      Huge sums of money have been spent on the new civic centre, and last Wednesday Valentine's day cards were sent to everyone in Basildon at a cost of £46,000. The petition reads:
      "Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to use his powers of influence to ensure that local authorities such as Basildon do not set excessively high rates of community charge, the average of which should be no more than £278, and if they do, that he should cap the community charge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".
      To lie upon the Table.

  Sub-post Offices
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  11.3 pm
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about the future of sub-post offices. I do so because of representations that have been made to me about the commercial pressures under which sub-post offices are operating, and because I am conscious that they are a valuable adjunct to any village store, enabling many villagers to sustain a local shop against the massive competition from supermarkets and hypermarkets.
  In effect, the sub-post office allows a local community to retain a retail outlet that might otherwise disappear, to the disadvantage of village people. It does more than that. The village store is not just a place where local people shop. It is a social centre where local people meet each other, where village gossip is exchanged and where, according to the length of time the storekeeper has been in possession, information about local services is disseminated. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that a village without a church, a school and a local shop is no village at all. As I said, the viability of the shop will depend to a great extent on whether it contains a sub-post office.
  Thus, the future of sub-post offices is of great importance to every locality which has one, particularly villages; their future must also be important to the Post Office. Yet today a shadow lies across their future. Four years ago, there were 20,000 sub-post offices. Today, there are 18,500. In the past 12 months, well in excess of 100 sub-post offices have closed, mainly because they or the village shops had lost their commercial viability. In 1985, for example, it is estimated that the sub-post office network lost 4 per cent. of its business.
  The new uniform business rate will impose an additional financial burden from which commercial pressures will prevent sub-post offices from seeking relief. Thus, it seems more than ever necessary for the Government, in their own right and as the effective owner of the Post Office, to consider whether they are making the maximum use of sub-post offices and whether section 7 of the Post Office Act 1969, amended by section 58 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981, is too restrictive.
  As the Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated in its report last year:
  "In 1986 the Government recognised the case for wider powers and indicated that it would seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation to extend the Post Office's powers."
  It added:
  "No legislation has emerged: nor have Ministers granted wider powers."
  The Select Committee recommended that the Government should take steps to grant wider powers; so do I. The reason is simple; 10,000 of the smallest sub-post offices operate at a loss of between £20 million and £30 million each year. They transact 14 per cent. of total sub-post office business and represent 21 per cent. of total sub-post office costs. Without more business, they will cease to exist.
  The profitability of other sub-post offices is threatened by changes that the Post Office has introduced recently, and particularly by its willingness to let other retail outlets sell stamps and, speaking locally, to allow a sub-post office to open in a hypermarket at Theale on the edge of my

  1043
  constituency. That approach undermines any security that a sub-postmaster may think he has as an agent of Post Office Counters.
  No doubt the Minister will tell me that Post Office Counters allows sub-post offices to provide banking and money transmission services, and certain services for central and local government, public corporations and some former nationalised industries, and that, since 1984, it has allowed sub-post offices to sell milk tokens and British Telecom phonecards and to provide facilities for cashing cheques drawn on banks other than Girobank and the payment of family credit. All these are to be welcomed, as is the intention to allow the community charge to be paid at sub-post offices. In no way do I complain about the number of Government-funded services that sub-post offices can provide.
  What I am asking is whether sub-post offices could be allowed to do more, and how I should respond to those sub-postmasters in west Berkshire who have told me that their contract with the Post Office is too heavily loaded in favour of the Post Office, which effectively lays down what a sub-postmaster can or cannot do without proper negotiation. It may be argued that that is reasonable, since the sub-postmaster is the agent of the Post Office and has had to pay the first quarter of his remuneration to take over the office in the first place. Perhaps, but when he gives up his sub-post office, he will receive no pension or gratuity; he must provide that for himself that out of whatever savings he has been able to accumulate. Therefore, the profit of his sub-post office will be crucial.
  I find myself in agreement with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which asked Post Office Counters to enable sub-post offices to offer a wider range of services than the Post Office or the Government have hitherto considered. As the federation said, the more people use the sub-post office, the more Post Office business will be done, which is good for the postmaster, good for the Post Office and good for the continuing viability of the village shop.
  In evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters put it succinctly:
  "To make sub-post offices more viable, we need more work."
  In conclusion, therefore, I ask my hon. Friend what discussions have taken place to encourage the Department of Transport to increase the number of post offices that can issue vehicle excise licences over the current 3,610—including Crown offices—that so far are allowed to do so. Bearing in mind the fact that there are 18,500 sub-post offices, one may ask why the Department of Transport does not use those additional outlets to provide such a service to the ordinary citizen.
  Has it been suggested to the Post Office that if it intends to use other retail outlets to sell its services, it cannot, in equity, deny that freedom to sub-postmasters? Also, are discussions taking place with representatives of district councils in England and Wales to enable all sub-post offices to handle payment of the community charge? I understand that that matter has been under negotiation. I should be grateful if I could be told whether it has been finalised.
  These three measures could all help to improve the viability of sub-post offices. There are others, such as allowing them to provide financial advice, or to act as
  1044
  agents for TNT parcels, to name but two. I do not ask that sub-post offices should be granted a privileged status. However, I want my hon. Friend to consider what other services sub-post offices could be allowed to handle to improve their viability. In effect, I am asking him to underline the Government's commitment to the future of the sub-post office network and, indirectly, to the future of the village shop and village life.
  11.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on having raised a subject which I know is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. It is a tribute to the strength of his feelings and his commitment to sub-post offices, not just in his constituency but throughout the land, that he has taken the opportunity to raise the subject in an Adjournment debate.
  I recognise the special place that the Post Office occupies in our society. It has been in existence for a long time. Its connections with the Crown make the Post Office a national institution. Everyone makes some use of the local post office and is very much aware of its place in our society. However, I intend to spend a few minutes on trying to put in context the work of the Post Office.
  It is easy enough to focus, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently done, on the problems that arise from time to time and to overlook the success story that the Post Office represents today. Since it ceased to be a Government Department and became a public corporation—as long as 20 years ago—the Post Office has transformed itself into a profitable organisation which is run very much on commercial lines. It has had a sustained run of profitability for at least 10 years.
  In the past, the Post Office tended to operate as a monolithic, single business, though covering a number of distinct activities—letters, parcels, counters and Girobank. During the past few years there has been an increasing separation of the different businesses, which has provided the Post Office with a much more commercial incentive to make the best possible use of its assets and to develop its own businesses that deal at arm's length with other parts of the Post Office.
  Post Office Counters was incorporated in 1987 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office. Since then, Post Office Counters has managed to make a small, though, I think, significant, operating profit on its turnover of some £800 million per annum.
  It is also true to say that quality of service has been improved at the same time. The Post Office management certainly recognises that there is still scope for further improvement. Many of us might ask about the long queues in post offices. Research has shown that, despite such factors, customers generally have a high regard for the service that is provided by their local post office, particularly the sub-post offices. Customers believe that they offer a much more direct and personal service. As my hon. Friend rightly observed, they are regarded as an essential part of the local community. In rural areas, post offices may even be regarded as social centres.
  Recent research by the Post Office Users' National Council, an independent body which is the Post Office's statutory watchdog, found that in general queuing times are shorter in post offices—particularly in sub-post offices

  1045
  —than in banks, building societies or supermarkets. A new chapter on quality of service was introduced into the sub-postmasters' contract in 1989 setting out the standards of quality of service required nationally. We welcome that statement of a continuing commitment to improved quality.
  We should also remember that the Post Office operates the largest retail network in the country. It has a network of about 20,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom—considerably larger than any bank or building society and more per head of population than in France, Germany, Japan or the United States. In the United Kingdom, post offices are easily accessible to all but those in the very remotest areas. In urban areas, the aim is to have offices distributed so that no one is more than a mile from a post office, and in rural areas no more than two miles. Only a small proportion of offices—1,385 out of over 20,000 at the end of 1989—are directly owned and operated by Post Office Counters.
  The vast majority of offices are sub-post offices, with which this debate is immediately concerned. They are franchised by Post Office Counters to self-employed agents, the vast majority of whom operate a private business alongside their post office counter—I shall return to that in a few moments. The post office provides a nucleus of business and brings in regular customers to buy stamps, post parcels and collect benefits and pensions; and the sub-postmaster needs to capitalise on that custom and understand and meet the needs of his local community in his private business. The range of private business is wide, and encompasses general stores, confectioners and newsagents, tea rooms, haberdashery and even laundry and dry cleaning.
  Post offices—particularly those in rural areas, which account for just under half the network—therefore serve an important social function as my hon. Friend so rightly and eloquently pointed out. That was clearly recognised in the Act establishing the Post Office as a public corporation, which imposes on the Post Office a statutory duty to have regard to the social as well as industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom in exercising its powers. The Government have repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to a network of post offices adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty—and I am happy to do so again at the Dispatch Box this evening. I gladly take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work both of Post Office Counters and the sub-postmasters; post offices have an important part to play in maintaining local communities.
  Decisions about the day-to-day running of the Post Office's business, such as the type and level of service provision in particular areas, are rightly operational matters for the Post Office Board. The Government's role is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control. The Post Office is fully committed to maintaining an extensive national network, and in particular to keeping the rural network as close to its current size as possible. In recent years, closures in rural areas have occurred only as a result of force majeure—in most cases because it has proved impossible to find a suitable candidate willing to take on the business.
  For smaller offices, the opening hours laid down by the Post Office were not always justified by the levels of business and could prove a disincentive to potential candidates. To overcome these problems in its smallest offices, the Post Office has introduced what are known as
  1046
  community offices. These may be open for only a few hours a week—there is no fixed minimum—at times agreed with the district manager. They may be run from someone's home so that they can offer a very flexible alternative.
  Larger rural offices may also operate on a part-time basis with flexible opening hours where it is difficult to keep them open full time. These innovations, my hon. Friend will be glad to hear, have helped to minimise closures and have led to the reopening of 70 offices which had previously been closed. There are now some 1,350 of these community offices.
  There is a fairly general perception that the Post Office network is shrinking and that rural offices in particular are fast disappearing. That impression was given by my hon. Friend. In fact, changes in the size of the network have been relatively limited. In 1909, there were 22,100 sub-post offices; 80 years later there are still 19,300. Furthermore, over the last year the sub-office network has been strengthened as some 110 directly run Crown offices have been converted into sub or agency offices.
  I do not want to fall out with my hon. Friend over figures, but mine suggest that the net loss of sub-post offices at present is about 100 per annum out of that 19,300 total. I do not say that that is a good figure, but it puts in context the sort of performance that we are seeing from the Post Office in attempting to maintain its network, and that is a more encouraging figure than many believe.
  The picture I have drawn hardly seems to be that of a dying business. Indeed, in many ways the business is being expanded. My hon. Friend referred to many of the factors involved. The Crown post offices tend generally to be more expensive to run than the sub-offices, and that, again, is acknowledged by the Post Office in the changes it is making, in a sense switching the concentration to sub-post offices which have a greater variety of business and, therefore, I believe, for the future, this can be regarded as being more encouraging.
  The Post Office has power to provide services for central an local government, for public corporations and for some of the formerly nationalised industries. It also has a general power to provide money transmission services
  My hon. Friend suggested that the Post Office should be allowed to undertake new business. As he rightly pointed out, this issue was addressed in the recent Trade and Industry Select Committee report on the Post Office. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), said in 1986 that we in the Department of Trade and Industry accepted the argument for extending the Post Office's powers, an argument put forcefully tonight by my hon. Friend. The difficulty is to decide in what areas that would be appropriate.
  We see difficulty in allowing the Post Office to extend its business into areas where the private sector already provides or could provide a service. That sort of direct competition between the private and public sectors would, we believe, inevitably and understandably attract accusations of unfair competition. I do not suggest that Post Office Counters is either uncommercial or insulated from all effects of competition. It is not. But as a public corporation it is not in quite the same position as a private business.
  One of the areas where it has often been suggested that the Post Office's powers should be widenend to cover, as my hon. Friend suggested, is that of financial services. The

  1047
  Post Office already has some expertise in this area through its work for Girobank and the Department of National Savings. It seems to me that the sale of financial services, such as insurance and stock market investments, in post offices could raise serious difficulties. In this case, there is a clear danger that the Post Office label could be seen as implied Government backing for the products. Consumers would be likely to take the view that buying a financial product from a post office was somehow safer than buying it from an independent business. In that sense we would not be providing a level playing field or a fair competitive environment.
  My hon. Friend will understand that this is a difficult area for us to justify allowing an extension of powers into those spheres, despite the eloquent case that he made. While I wish to continue to look at the issue, I hope that everyone will appreciate the difficulties that would be caused if we allowed post offices, with the sort of financial arrangements that they have, to encroach into areas provided by the private sector which could put small local private businesses in some jeopardy as a result of the competition that would be provided by the Post Office in that new way.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I reinforce the point I made? If, as it is, the Post Office is now using other retail outlets to sell, say, stamps, it is effectively taking business from the sub-post office, and thereby it is undermining the security of the sub-post office and the confidence that the sub-postmaster has in being a servant of the Post Office. It seems that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If the Post Office wants to use other retail outlets, can it reasonably deny the sub-postmaster the same right to see what he can attract into his sub-post office to maintain viability?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair and interesting point, which I shall consider. I do not want to be drawn into criticising the Post Office for its recent bold initiatives—for example, in selling postage stamps through other outlets, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. I want to find ways of dealing with those issues, but I remain conscious
  1048
  of the accusation that could be made that, by allowing the Post Office to extend its activities, we would endanger established small, private businesses.
  It is fair to reinforce something that my hon. Friend pointed out—over the past few years, the Post Office has considerably extended its business through the sale of milk, gas and electricity tokens and British Telecom phonecards, by cashing other banks' cheques, through family credit payments and community charge stamps, by accepting community charge payments and by processing E111 forms for health cover in other European countries. That is a considerable step forward in extending the range of activities without necessarily competing in the financial services sector about which I have expressed concern. We must recognise the difficulties. I hope that my hon. Friend will be patient as we try to find the best way through them while emphasising the role of the sub-post offices.
  When it comes to the relationship between the sub-post offices, the Post Office, other Government Departments—my hon. Friend mentioned the Department of Transport—and, in a different context, local authorities, we would look to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to make cases on behalf of its members and, where appropriate, for the Post Office to support it. I shall look at the relationship between the sub-post offices, the Post Office and other Government Departments. As a constituency Member, I have argued for extending the activities of my sub-post office in, for example, providing licences. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend's view.
  I want to strike a balance in paying great tribute to the work that the sub-post offices already do and to the extension of their activities in the community. I reassure my hon. Friend that we give this matter the highest possible priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are aware of the need to maintain the rural sub-post office network in particular. I do not want to over-stress the difficulties, but we recognise those involved in going down the route suggested by my hon. Friend. I intend to keep the issue alive and to try to find the best way forward. We all want the best possible future for our sub-post offices, particularly our rural network.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land in public ownership are currently on the register; and how many have been removed as a result of privatisation of statutory undertakings and nationalised industries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A total of 82,400 acres of unused and underused land were on the register at 30 September 1989, including 1,900 acres owned by the water authorities; 5,000 acres had been removed from the register earlier as a result of privatisation of other bodies.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of derelict land policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department is currently considering responses to the derelict land policy review which was published for consultation in September 1989 and any policy changes will be announced later in the year. It is also planned to issue further consultation papers on proposed measures to prevent land from becoming derelict and on alternative financing arrangements for the payment of derelict land grant.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to abolish controls on the letting of private property in the residential sector.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We made important changes to the controls on rent and security of tenure in the private sector in the Housing Act 1988, and we have no plans for further legislation in this area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the introduction of the poll tax in England and Wales in the current year.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) earlier today.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of representations that he has received from Devon and Cornwall concerning the application of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  On 6 November my right hon. Friend announced to Parliament his proposals for the amount of revenue support grant to be paid to receiving authorities 746
  and specified bodies. As well as a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) I received representations from Cornwall and Devon county councils and from four district councils in those counties. In addition I met a deputation from Torbay on 5 December.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of the community charge to be set in Basildon.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update to 1990–91 the answer given to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett),Official Report, 2 February 1989, columns 359–60, showing the distributional effect of the community y charge in comparison with domestic rates.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not at present available.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update to 1990–91 the answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle),Official Report, 2 February 1989, columns 359–60, showing the numbers of gainers and losers by family type and income band from the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not at present available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how, with reference to paragraph 3.36 of his revenue support grant distribution report (England), the figure of(a) £18·55, (b) £4·77 and (c) £5·21 are arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures referred to in the revenue support grant distribution report (England) were determined by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority representatives. Together they account for £27 per adult of Great Grimsby's SSA.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes were made to the indicator data for calculating revenue support grant for local authorities between 16 November 1989 and 12 January 1990; why they were made; and what was the effect of the changes on the standard spending assessment for local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  The two main changes to the indicator data were that credit approvals reflected more up-to-date information on each authority's actual credit approvals for 1990–91; and that the adult population for the area was based on information from authorities' community charge registers. In addition, a number of minor changes were made as a result of further checking and correspondence with local authorities, particularly with respect to the information on traffic flows. SSAs were calculated according to the formulae set out in the revenue support grant distribution report (England) approved by the House on 18 January using the indicator data as specified in annex A to that report.
  747
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to cap Wolverhampton council's community charge in response to that council's proposal to set a community charge in excess of the Government's guideline.

  Mr. Chope
  We have made it clear that if authorities budget excessively for 1990–91 we shall not hesitate to cap them, but it would not be right for me to speculate on the detailed operation of any capping scheme we might need to introduce or on which authorities would be capped were we to introduce such a scheme.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much he estimates the level of poll tax in Lambeth to be on the assumption that the current levels of expenditure including expenditure on education remain unchanged in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The exemplifications that the Department issued on 11 January show that if Lambeth borough council and the London fire and civil defence authority budget in line with our assumptions consistent with authorities broadly maintaining current policies, the community charge in Lambeth next year will be £308. The level of the actual charge set in Lambeth in 1990–91 is a matter for the council.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils on the introduction of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Over the last four years the Association of District Councils has been invited to comment on all aspects of the implementation of the community charge and has made many representations and suggestions.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the criteria for assessing rate support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to consider new evidence relating to the standard spending assessments on which the distribution of revenue support grant is based. Any new evidence that comes to light will be taken into account before he issues his proposals for the 1991–92 RSG settlement.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the rate capping ceiling for local authorities spending less than £15 million.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no power to reduce the £15 million budget threshold in section 101 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, below which local authorities are exempt from charge capping.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation of the community charge by local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department issued a questionnaire to all charging authorities in May 1989 which gave us a clear picture of how authorities were progressing with implementing the charge. A copy of the results of the survey were placed in the Library of the House on 6 December. The Department keeps in constant touch with 748
  local authorities and their software suppliers and has just completed a further series of visits to a number of authorities to monitor preparations for billing and collection of the charge later this year.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in favour of replacing the community charge with a tax on home improvement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of any such representations. Financing local expenditure through a charge linked to the capital value of people's homes would, however, amount to a tax on home improvement. The Government have no intention of introducing such a system.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of the proposed community charge on the outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  If local authorities in outer London spend in line with our spending assumption, the average charge will be £320.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the community charge.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the standard community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  We continue to receive a good many representations on all aspects of the community charge, including detailed aspects of how the standard charge may affect the owners of domestic property which is not used as a sole or main residence.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has had with private landlords on the implementation of the community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  So far as England is concerned, no such meetings have been sought by landlords or their representatives. The implementation of the community charge in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received urging him to replace the community charge with a system of local income tax.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the introduction of a tax on home ownership in place of the community charge.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking replacement of the community charge with a system of local government finance based on property values.

  Mr. Chope
  While we continue to receive a good many representations on all aspects of the community charge, very few correspondents suggest that this should be replaced by a system of local income tax and none that I am aware of are in favour of any form of roof tax. My hon.
  749
  Friends' questions might be more appropriately directed to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who is reported to be wrestling with a policy that combines both types of tax in ways that have yet to be explained.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of local authorities setting a poll tax figure of £278 in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet in a position to assess the amount of increased spending by county councils in the forthcoming year.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his best estimates of the average level of poll tax in England in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have indicated an intention to levy a community charge at or below the Government's projected poll tax figure for their area.

  Mr. Chope
  Charging authorities are not required to set their amounts for the personal community charge until 1 April, and little firm information about charges set is yet available to the Department. Local authorities have recently been asked to report to the Department basic information about their spending plans and where appropriate the average charge set.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he intends to use in deciding which local authorities will be poll tax capped in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 February to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any fresh proposals to assist first-time house buyers.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to extend the opportunities for home ownership.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We will continue the policies which have enabled around 6 million people to buy a home for the first time since April 1979.

  North Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution entering the North sea comes from rivers; and what proportion comes from British rivers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Rivers are the most important source of North sea pollution, but not all other inputs can be reliably quantified. The combined effect of all United Kingdom rivers flowing into the North sea is to contribute about 20 per cent. of riverborne pollutants.

  Methane Gas
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of sites in England and Wales that may be emitting methane gas in quantities likely to present hazards to personal health and the local environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Reliable and complete information on these sites is not held centrally. This is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities which have co-operated in studies made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I expect to receive a report on this shortly.

  Bellwin Formula
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to revise the operation of the Bellwin formula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government will be making revisions to the Bellwin scheme from 1 April 1990 following consultation with the local authority associations. These will reflect the changes to the local government finance system generally.

  Capital Controls
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will finalise the new system of capital controls to be brought in under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which provides for the new local authority capital finance system, came into force on 16 January 1990. Consultation on a draft of the main capital finance regulations ends on 23 February. We expect to lay the regulations before Parliament shortly thereafter.

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to help elderly people obtain housing improvement grants.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 we are introducing a new system of house renovation grants which will allow local authorities to help the poorest households, including the elderly, with grants of up to 100 per cent. to repair and improve their homes. Minor works assistance of up to £1,000 will be available to help elderly people stay in their own homes or move in with relatives.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of funds the Government provide for the United Nations environment programme; and what are the comparable levels from other countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1989 the Government contributed £3 million ($4,705,500) to the United Nations environment programme. This was the third largest contribution, with only the United States and Japan donating more. Contributions from other countries in 1989 were as follows (where over $100,000):—
  751

  ($000)

  Australia

  273

  Canada

  940

  China

  129

  Denmark

  487

  Finland

  1,292

  France

  1,077

  FRG

  2,565

  GDR

  211

  Italy

  664

  Japan

  5,000

  Kuwait

  200

  Netherlands

  791

  Norway

  1,338

  South Arabia

  250

  Spain

  505

  Sweden

  2,591

  Switzerland

  900

  USSR

  4,224

  United States of America

  9,500

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in recent months concerning the import and incineration of toxic wastes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department has received a variety of representations revealing public concern about the import of toxic waste for incineration and other methods of disposal under the operations of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations. The Department intends to review the operation of these regulations with disposal authorities and industry.

  We are already seeking to persuade developed countries that they should be self-sufficient in dealing with wastes. Meanwhile, those transfrontier movements that continue are well controlled under international transport regulations and disposal in the United Kingdom takes place at properly regulated facilities. We also have proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill for powers for the Secretary of State to control imports where this is necessary to prevent risk of pollution or harm to human health.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss the management of toxic waste tips with the leadership of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has arranged to meet the AMA, ACC and ADC on 26 February to discuss all aspects of environmental protection policy.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods he regards as acceptable for disposal of toxic wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Landfill, chemical treatment and incineration are all suitable methods in appropriate circumstances.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will launch a comprehensive assessment on the state of toxic tips in the United Kingdom and their effect on ground water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  A specific review of waste disposal sites is not required. A 1988 assessment by independent 752
  consultants concluded that the quality of groundwater used for public supply in England and Wales was generally good, although a number of detailed recommendations concerning monitoring and research are being followed up by the Department. Waste disposal authorities are required to consult the National Rivers Authority over all applications for waste disposal licences. The National Rivers Authority already has extensive programmes for monitoring ground and surface waters which it is reviewing; these will cover, inter alia, the possible effects of disposal sites that predate licensing controls.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress Britain has made towards meeting the terms of the Montreal protocol on chlorofluorocarbons use.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in Britain towards meeting the international commitment under the Montreal protocol to reduce chlorofluorocarbon emissions.

  Mr. Trippier
  Action taken already, especially by the aerosol industry to remove CFCs from 90 per cent. of its products, means the United Kingdom met the 1999 requirement of the protocol by the end of 1989. The Government believe that the protocol should be strengthened to require a full phase-out of CFCs within 10 years.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost to London local authorities of placing homeless families with private landlords.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects information on the cost to local authorities of using bed and breakfast hotels as temporary housing for homeless families. In 1987–88, the last year for which estimates are available, the gross cost to London boroughs of using this type of temporary accommodation was £127 million. Housing subsidy claim forms provide some further information on the cost to local authorities in London of leasing (which includes accommodating homeless families). The provisional figure for 1988–89 was £20·25 million. The Department also takes full note of data available from time to time through other sources.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will carry out a survey of the level of homelessness caused by the number of mortgage repossessions by companies other than building societies.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities already make quarterly returns of the numbers of households for which they had accepted responsibility for securing accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. These provide a breakdown of the total number of households accepted by main immediate reason for homelessness including mortgage arrears; although it does not distinguish households which were actually subject to repossession or between those which were building society or other types of borrower.
  753
  Latest estimates appear in table 2 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to cut homelessness in Leicester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The review of the homelessness legislation, published in November 1989 sets out the Government's proposals for tackling homelessness. Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the number of homeless people in England.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the number of homeless people in London.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest estimates of households accepted as homeless in England appear in table 1(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the most rapidly growing cause of homelessness for families seeking emergency accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In percentage terms there has been no significant change over recent years in the reasons why those for whom local authorities accept responsibility to secure accommodation are homeless.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with companies and societies providing mortgages about the effects of their policies on repossession on the problem of homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment frequently meet representatives from institutions which provide mortgages and discuss a range of issues, including possessions.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest estimates of households temporarily resident in bed and breakfast accommodation in England appear in table 4(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  For information about Wales I refer the right hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to combat homelessness.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any new proposals for combating homelessness.
  754
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 17 January at column 249.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will carry out a survey of homelessness in rural areas in England.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department publishes quarterly statistics, based on returns from local authorities, which show the numbers of households accepted as homeless in each district and the numbers in bed and breakfast and other temporary accommodation. Copies are in the Library.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of placing homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of keeping homeless families temporarily in bed and breakfast accommodation is £143 million (£104 million net of offsetting income such as DSS allowances) for 1987–88.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for homeless households in temporary accommodation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest estimates of households resident in temporary accommodation in England appear in tables 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary tables", which is in the Library.

  For information about Wales I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's most recent estimate of the number of households accepted as homeless for Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Latest estimates of households accepted as homeless in Greater London appear in table 1(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary tables", which is in the Library.

  Farm Buildings
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue further guidelines to planning authorities regarding the change of use of redundant agricultural buildings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The re-use of rural buildings is one of the subjects covered in the draft planning policy guidance note "The Countryside and the Rural Economy" issued by the Department on 13 December. The closing date for comments on this document was 19 February, and all comments received are now being considered.

  Association of County Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.
  755
  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met representatives of the Association of County Councils informally at a dinner on 10 January. Matters of mutual interest were discussed.

  Rural Deprivation
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken in response to the McLaughlin report on rural deprivation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken by his Department of rural deprivation since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take on the McLaughlin report on rural deprivation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been made by his Department of rural deprivation and of the variation in housing standards in the rural communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken on the problems identified in the McLaughlin study commissioned by his Department on rural deprivation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A research report "Deprivation in rural areas" was completed in 1985. An analysis of the need for and supply of affordable rural housing has recently been completed by Action with Communities in Rural England for the Rural Development Commission. The commission, which is the Government's principal agency for carrying forward the Government's policy on the rural economy, is developing and implementing a wide range of initiatives which deal with economic and social problems in the countryside, including those identified in the report.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received about anti-competitive practices by councils; and what action he is taking to eliminate the problem.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department has to date received just over 200 representations alleging anticompetitive practices by local authorities in respect of services put out to tender under the terms of the Local 756
  Government Act 1988 and about 35 relating to services put out to tender under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Each case is investigated and appraised on its merits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers of sanction under the legislation and is prepared to use them where necessary.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the practice of council house tenants being offered discounts on the price of their home if they wish to purchase it.

  Mr. Chope
  Council tenants exercising the right to buy are normally entitled to a discount. Local authorities may also sell housing by agreement at a discount to sitting tenants and to purchasers in priority categories such as homeless people and first-time buyers, but are under no duty to do so.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many extra homes he plans for housing associations to build over the next three years.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the increase in the provision of the Housing Corporation to provide new homes through housing associations over the next three years.

  Mr. Chope
  In his Autumn Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that provision for the Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure programme would increase from £815 million in the current year to £1,185 million in 1990–91 and to £1,736 million in 1992–93, doubling over a period of three years. On 30 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced at column 175 that £120 million would be brought forward from next year's provision to this year's. On the basis of these plans, we expect housing associations, with funds from the Housing Corporation, to be able to provide about 93,000 homes by new build, rehabilitation and acquisition over the next three years.

  Environment White Paper
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what groups he consults before publishing an environment White Paper.

  Mr. Trippier
  We welcome the constructive input to our White Paper preparation from many interested groups and individuals, in response to our general invitations to contribute.

  Litter
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in response to the Government's proposals for tackling litter contained in the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  We received over 800 representations from local authorities and other interested parties in response to the consultation on the Government's proposals for litter legislation. These were considered in drawing up the provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Bill. In general, we receive a great deal of correspondence about litter demonstrating the high level of national concern about the problem.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities keep the streets free from litter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside gave on 4 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter),Official Report, column 44. As my hon. Friend will be aware, those proposals are now contained in the Environmental Protection Bill currently under consideration by Standing Committee H. Additionally, a draft code of practice will be published shortly for consultation with local authorities and other interested parties.

  Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to increase the supply of affordable accommodation for rent and sale.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to increase the supply of low-cost housing(a) for sale and (b) for rent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have taken a variety of measures to encourage the supply of low-cost housing, including the deregulation of the private rented sector and the encouragement of private investment in housing associations. In addition, planned public funding for the Housing Corporation is being more than doubled, from £818 million originally planned for this year to £1,736 million by 1992–93, for the development of new housing for rent by housing associations and the promotion of low-cost home ownership, including shared ownership.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates his Department has made of total local authority capital expenditure on housing in the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 by(a) all local authorities in England and Wales and (b) London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  The latest estimated outturn for gross capital expenditure by English local authorities in 1989–90, based on payments made in the first half of the year, is £3,990 million, some £680 million in excess of planned provision of £3,303 million. Under the new capital finance system the Government do not plan the amount of expenditure by authorities which is financed from the receipts remaining after debt redemption or from revenue. The figure of £3,131 million for 1990–91 in the latest expenditure plans (Cm. 1008) is therefore only illustrative 758
  and reflects the changing role of local housing authorities, away from being direct providers of subsidised rented housing, while the capital resources available to housing associations are substantially increased.

  Equivalent estimates for London boroughs are not readily available. For information about Wales I refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the allocation of funds to Leicester city council for the building of new houses.

  Mr. Chope
  Leicester city council was informed on 21 December 1989 that its housing investment programme allocation for 1990–91 was £18·320 million. This compares favourably with allocations to other authorities of a similar size. In addition, up to a further £2·5 million is available for new Estate Action schemes. It is for the council to decide how much of its HIP allocation should be spent on a new build programme.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to increase the supply of low-cost housing for sale or rent in rural areas.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have more than doubled public funding through the Housing Corporation for new investment by housing associations, so enabling the corporation to increase the target for development of new subsidised rented housing under its special rural programme to 1,500 a year by 1992–93 and to identify a rural element within its low-cost home ownership programme. We have also made changes to the planning rules, to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing, and introduced a repurchase scheme to ensure that shared ownership housing in rural areas remains available for local people.

  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, during his meeting in Auckland with other Commonwealth Ministers of Sport, sporting links with South Africa were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Sporting links with South Africa were briefly raised at the informal meeting of Commonwealth Sports Ministers. Ministers confirmed their continued support for the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport (the Gleneagles agreement) and the Commonwealth games code of conduct (the Brisbane code).

  River Pollution
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has implemented to tighten controls of river pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Water Act 1989 extended the range of controls over water pollution in several significant respects, and established the National Rivers Authority in England and Wales. The National Rivers Authority has extensive powers to control pollution, and wide discretion over the use of those powers.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for sales of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Trippier
  Unleaded petrol now accounts for over 29 per cent. of the United Kingdom market.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government have any plans to introduce legislation on housing action trust areas.

  Mr. Chope
  The legislation that provides for the designation, establishment and operation of housing action trusts is contained in part III of the Housing Act 1988.

  Local Authorities (Politically Restricted Posts)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many posts are on the lists of politically restricted posts lodged by English and Welsh local authorities with the independent adjudicator appointed under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has no power to require the independent adjudicator to provide him with information. I have therefore drawn the hon. Member's question to the independent adjudicator's attention: he will no doubt write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the regulations to be made under section 1(5) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As soon as possible.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has submitted to the intergovernmental panel on climate change about projections of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions for 2000 and 2005; and if he will indicate broadly what those projections are.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom under a wide range of scenarios has been submitted to the IPCC by the Department of Energy. The study was placed in the Library of the House on 30 November 1989.

  Debt Charges (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the outstanding debt charges on properties owned by Liverpool city council which have been demolished or are to be demolished.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department does not have this information. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask Liverpool city council.

  Bathing Waters
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in the number of beaches conforming with the EC bathing waters directive over the last year.
  760
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the 1988 bathing season, 267 of the 403 of the bathing waters then identified in the United Kingdom under the EEC bathing water directive met the directive's mandatory coliform standards. In the 1989 bathing season 336 out of 440 identified waters in the United Kingdom met the mandatory coliform standards. This is an increase in compliance from 66 to 76 per cent.

  Environmental Protection Commission
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for an environmental protection commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  Institutional aspects of environmental protection policy will be reviewed in the preparation of the Government's White Paper on the environment this autumn.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what processes he is proposing to be subject to local authority controls over air pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside tabled at the first Committee sitting on the Environmental Protection Bill on 23 January a draft list of processes proposed for local authority air pollution control. I have arranged for copies of the list to be place in the House Libraries.

  Further revisions will be needed if any of the processes are instead scheduled for integrated pollution control because they generate significant quantities of special waste.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum currently paid to local authorities in clean air grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  Clean air grant reimburses four sevenths of grants made by local authorities to private householders for the necessary conversion of heating and cooking appliances to smokeless fuel, and two fifths of the costs of this work in respect of public sector housing. In 1988–89 the total amount of clean air grant paid to local authorities was £1·3 million.

  Commonwealth Sports Ministers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what subjects were discussed at the meeting of Commonwealth Sports Ministers at the Commonwealth games in Auckland.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The informal meeting of Commonwealth Sports Ministers in Auckland on 4 February discussed a broad range of issues affecting Commonwealth sport and the Commonwealth games. These included the International Olympic Committee charter on anti-doping in sport and the Commonwealth working party being set up to look at ways of strengthening the Commonwealth games.

  European Community Environment Ministers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met Environment Ministers and their equivalents from other member states of the European Community; and what was discussed.
  761
  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend last met his European Community counterparts at the Environment Council on 28 November. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on 30 November at column 370.

  Refuse Contracts
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have had section 13 notices served against them for uncompetitive tendering of refuse contracts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Four. Notices have been served on Bristol city council, Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council, Knowsley metropolitan borough council and Charnwood borough council seeking their response to inquiries about the decisions they have taken to assign their refuse collection work to their own DSOs.

  Fly-Tipping
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is proposing to tackle the problem of fly-tipping.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains a number of measures to tackle the problem of fly-tipping. The Bill carries forward from the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the offence of depositing waste without a licence. The Bill extends the provision through the duty of care on all producers, carriers and other holders of waste who must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their waste is not illegally disposed of by any other person. To this end, they would be responsible for ensuring that waste is handed over to an authorised person and is packaged and described in a way which allows that other person to take care of it safely.

  There is also provision in the Bill for a person controlling the use of a vehicle that has been used for fly-tipping to be prosecuted unless he can show that he used due diligence to prevent an offence being committed. This is aimed at organised fly-tipping where it is particularly difficult to prosecute the owner of a vehicle who may benefit from the crime but not actually drive the vehicle.

  North Sea
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to attend the next North sea conference.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will he attending the third North sea conference which takes place in The Hague on 7 and 8 March and looks forward to joining with colleagues from other North sea states in achieving a successful conference.

  Planning Applications (Compensation)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the past six months concerning compensation for people and communities adversely affected by major planning applications for infrastructure projects.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have received 60 responses to our consultation paper on land compensation and compulsory 762
  purchase legislation which was issued on 7 March 1989. In addition, my Department regularly receives letters and inquiries about the land compensation provisions.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Environment what proposals he has to cover industrial sites by integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Trippier
  Part I of the Environmental Protection Bill sets out proposals for a system of integrated pollution control (IPC) for the major industrial sites in Great Britain. We are the first country in Europe to legislate for such a sophisticated system of pollution control. We shall be consulting interested bodies on the categories of industrial processes which will be prescribed for integrated pollution control.

  Canned Spray Paint
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had recently with the manufacturers of canned spray paint regarding its effects on the environment and its misuse for graffitti.

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

  Sellafield
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of radioactive liquid discharges entering the Irish sea from the British Nuclear Fuels plc reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and what was the level in 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on radioactive discharges from British Nuclear Fuels plc Sellafield works can be found in the company's annual reports "Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Landfill Sites
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds the Government intend to make available to local authorities to help offset the costs of locating and making safe former waste landfill sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authority costs in monitoring their areas—including landfill sites—for public health purposes. and in taking remedial action where necessary, are reflected in standard spending assessments and annual capital guidelines provided by my Department. For 1990–91 we have also earmarked a £33 million allocation for capital expenditure on landfill gas remedial work and the revenue costs of monitoring activity will be supported through the revenue support grant system.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the potential total savings across local government as a whole through competitive tendering and other cost-efficient practices.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Audit Commission's annual report for the financial year ended 31 March 1989 identified total achievable financial savings or added value
  763
  (arising from service improvements) of £920 million for projects undertaken by local authorities between 1983 and 1989 but concluded that at 31 March 1989 savings of only £372 million had been fulfilled. The report notes, however, that the rate of improvement by authorities in implementing achievable savings has increased steadily.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total allocation of funds for the Estate Action programme being made available in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  The Estate Action budget for 1989–90 is £190 million.

  Disabled People (Public Toilets)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of organisations dealing with the needs of the disabled he intends to consult on the question of access to public toilets.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department intends shortly to commission a programme of research on access to public toilets for people with special needs, the primary purpose being to provide information on the needs of disabled people. To ensure that this research addresses all relevant practical issues, my Department will be consulting representatives of the Access Committee for England, the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Spastics Society, Arthritis Care, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain, the Spinal Injuries Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new parliamentary building will be finished and ready for occupation.

  Mr. Chope
  I advised the House on 25 January 1990 that, subject to there being no further slippage in the contractor's programme, the building should be fitted out and ready for occupation around Easter 1991. I regret to say that the contractor has now reported further slippage which suggests that it would be unrealistic to expect the building to be available for occupation before mid-1991.

  The New Building Sub-Committee is currently investigating this project and I understand that it expects to report to the House before the Easter recess.

  Helicopters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice his Department makes available to local planning authorities in respect of helicopter stations on(a) the storage of fuel, (b) the prevention of nuisance from noise and (c) general safety; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what matters are included in general planning guidance to local authorities on helicopter operation areas; and if he will make a statement.
  764
  (3) what representations he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority on the planning and layout of helicopter ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Planning applications for development associated with helicopter operations must be determined having regard to the local development plan and to any other material considerations. My Department has issued no specific guidance to local planning authorities on such development, although DOE circular 10/73 "Planning and Noise" contains advice on the development control implications of aircraft noise.

  The safety aspects of fuel storage and of helicopter operations are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority respectively. My right hon. Friend has received no representations from the CAA on the planning and layout of helicopter ports.

  Chemicals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those chemicals or chemical compounds that are classed as toxic in the United States of America, but which are classed as non-toxic in England and Wales;

  (2) if he will list those chemicals or chemical compounds that are shipped from the United States of America to England and Wales that are classed as non-toxic waste in the United States of America, but which are classed as toxic waste in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department does not hold sufficient information to allow a list of toxic and non-toxic chemicals or chemical compounds, as defined under United States legislation, to be prepared. It is, therefore, not possible to list those chemicals, or chemical compounds, classed as toxic in the United States of America which are classed as non-toxic in England and Wales, or vice versa.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many opencast planning inquiries his inspectors have attended in the last 10 years; and how many appeals against planning refusal have been allowed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is available only in respect of planning appeals decided since 1 April 1987 and is as follows:

  Year

  Appeals Decided

  Appeals allowed after Inquiry

  Appeals allowed by Written procedure

  Inquiries Held

  1987–88

  15

  6

  1

  12

  1988–89

  16

  8

  —

  14

  11989–90

  9

  4

  2

  7

  1 To 31 December 1989.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on the levels of alpha activity in becquerels per kilogram of fly ash from Blyth coal-fired power station; and whether this exceeds the lower limit for low-level waste from a nuclear installation;
  765
  (2) what information he has on the levels of alpha activity, in becquerels per kilogram in fly ash from all major coal-fired generating plants in the United Kingdom with a capacity exceeding 500 MW.

  Mr. Trippier
  The levels of alpha activity in fly ash from the major coal-fired generating plants in the United Kingdom would be typically in the range 1,000 to 2,000 bec/kg. The ash from Blyth power station is likely to contain similar concentrations of alpha activity. These levels are lower than the thresholds set out in schedule 3 to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, below which certain naturally occurring substances are not considered to be radioactive material for the purposes of control under this Act.

  High-level Radioactive Wastes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been held between his Department and (i) Nirex and (ii) the radioactive waste producing agencies on future inclusion of high-level radioactive wastes into the deep repository being investigated by Nirex.

  Mr. Trippier
  No discussions have been held with Nirex or the nuclear industry on this subject.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals there are to allow the inclusion of high-level radioactive wastes in the deep repository, currently being investigated by Nirex.

  Mr. Trippier
  UK Nirex Ltd. has responsibility for providing disposal services for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. There are no proposals for Nirex to assume responsibility for the disposal of heat-generating or high-level radioactive waste.

  Norwich and Norfolk Councils
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out for each year since 1985–86 in a table the expenditure of Norwich city council(a) in cash terms and (b) in constant price terms;

  (2) if he will set out for each year since 1985–86 in a table the expenditure of Norfolk county council (a) in cash terms and (b) in constant price terms.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Net Current Expenditure

  Cash Terms (£ million)

  Real Terms—1989–90 Prices(£ million)1

  Norfolk County Council

  1985–86

  234·656

  293·132

  1986–87

  254·034

  307·000

  1987–88

  281·686

  323·263

  1988–89

  312·355

  334·220

  1989–90

  335·435

  335·435

  Norwich City Council

  1985–86

  7,599

  9·493

  1986–87

  6,343

  7·666

  1987–88

  8·567

  9·831

  1988–89

  9·670

  10·347

  1989–90

  10·858

  10·858

  1 Using the GDP deflator to convert from cash values to constant prices.

  766
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of people employed by(a) Norfolk county council and (b) Norwich city council for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Staffing Levels at June

  Norfolk County Council

  Norwich City Council

  1985

  23,985

  2,189

  1986

  24,378

  2,250

  1987

  25,176

  2,221

  1988

  25,447

  2,259

  1989

  26,293

  2,180

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the new infrastructure charges on water and sewerage being introduced by each water plc in England and Wales as from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The infrastructure charges limits which the Secretaries of State for England and Wales have determined for the 10 water service companies and 27 of the statutory water companies, together with the proposed limits for Mid Kent and Mid Sussex Water Companies, are listed in the tables:

  Water Services Companies: Water and Sewerage infrastructure charges (at 1990–91 prices)

  Water

  Sewerage

  £

  £

  Anglian Water Services Limited

  479

  597

  Southern Water Services Limited

  365

  485

  Thames Water Utilities Limited

  43

  337

  Yorkshire Water Services Limited

  529

  626

  Northumbrian Water Limited

  111

  240

  North West Water Limited

  198

  338

  Severn Trent Water Limited

  498

  356

  South West Water Services Limited

  654

  557

  Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig

  259

  332

  Wessex Water Services Limited

  551

  983

  Statutory water companies: water infrastructure charges (at 1990–91 prices)

  £

  Bournemouth

  1,000

  Bristol

  439

  Cambridge

  1,000

  Cholderton

  201

  Colne Valley

  435

  East Anglian

  1,000

  Eastbourne

  1,000

  East Surrey

  251

  East Worcestershire

  576

  Essex

  404

  Folkestone

  998

  Hartlepool

  252

  Lee Valley

  808

  Mid Kent

  11,000

  Mid Sussex

  1392

  Mid Southern

  700

  Newcastle

  216

  North Surrey

  392

  Portsmouth

  358

  Rickmansworth

  395

  South Staffs

  606

  Sunderland

  485

  Sutton

  254

  Tendring Hundred

  1,000

  767

  £

  West Hampshire

  868

  West Kent

  834

  York

  222

  Chester

  758

  Wrexham

  390

  Average

  593

  1 Proposed.

  Infrastructure Charges
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Water Act 1989 to remove multi-occupancy, self-contained, charitable developments from the requirements of section 79 of that Act.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. It is for each water and sewerage undertaker to decide what infrastructure charge, if any, to make in specific cases, provided the charge does not exceed the limit specified in its instrument of appointment and is in accordance with its charges scheme.

  Housing Completions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the housing completion figure in(a) 1960 to 1970, (b) 1970 to 1980 and (c) 1979–89.

  Mr. Chope
  Total new housebuilding completions in England for these periods were 3·303 million, 2·779 million and 1·963 million dwellings, respectively.

  Airborne Lead
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the level of airborne lead has changed since 1985.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The report by the Warren Spring laboratory on airborne lead concentrations in the United Kingdom 1984–88 shows a decrease from 408 nanogrammes of lead per cubic metre of air (ng/m) in 1985 to 190 ng/m in 1988—a decrease of 53 per cent.

  Land Register
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to increase the rate at which land in public ownership currently on the land register is being disposed of.

  UDC and designation date

  Estimated total number of permanent jobs in area

  Estimated total1 number of construction jobs 1988–89

  At designation

  At March 1989

  London Docklands—July 1981

  225,200

  48,000

  25,000

  Merseyside: original area—March 1981

  1,500

  2,900

  1,110

  Black Country—May 1987

  70,500

  75,100

  n.a.

  Teesside—May 1987

  9,500

  10,900

  366

  Trafford Park—February 1987

  24,500

  26,000

  3736

  Tyne and Wear—May 1987

  40,200

  41,500

  3249

  1 Pre designation figures are only available for LDDC.

  2 LDDC figures:

  —the permanent job figures are not directly comparable. 1981 data was derived from the Census of Employment which included only jobs with a pay point in the UDA. The 1989 data includes all jobs in the UDA.

  —the construction job figures are similarly not comparable. The 1981 Census gave a total of 1,964 construction jobs with a pay point in the UDA.

  3Information is only available in terms of man-years, not actual numbers of jobs.

  768
  Mr. Moynihan
  The new codes of practice requiring owners to publish their own registers of unused and underused land place the responsibility clearly on them to ensure that such land is brought into use. Members of the public can use our PROD (Public Request to Order Disposal') scheme to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention cases where the use of his powers to require disposal might be appropriate; these powers have been used in relation to 81 sites since 1984. Overall half the land entered on the register since 1981 has subsequently been removed.

  Internal Delivery Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to move the internal delivery service from its current Ponton road site.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: New premises for the IDS are being sought, but no commitment will be made prior to sale as it is possible that the purchaser may be able to provide premises.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs(a) in construction and (b) in all other categories in the area administered by the London Docklands development corporation; and what were the equivalent numbers of jobs in the same area or the nearest area for which statistics are available in the last full year before London Docklands development corporation was set up;

  (2) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs currently in the area of the Merseyside development corporation in (a) construction and (b) all other categories; and what were the equivalent number of jobs in the same area or the nearest area for which statistics are available in the last full year for which statistics are available;

  (3) what is the most up-to-date estimate available to him of the total number of jobs in (a) construction and (b) all other categories for areas administered by urban development corporations; and what were the nearest equivalent figures for the same areas in the last full year before those urban development corporations were set up.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The information available is as follows:
  769
  The UDCs in Bristol, central Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and Merseyside's extended area, were established during 1988–89. They had therefore not been in existence long enough, by March 1989, for the total number of jobs in their areas to have altered significantly.

  Denham Court
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the application by Buckinghamshire county council for consent under the London and Home Counties (Green Belt) Act 1938, to grant a lease of the land at Denham court, Denham.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: A decision is being announced today.

  Audible Bird Scarers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations from which he has received written representations concerning the use of audible bird scarers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: The following organisations submitted comments on the draft code of practice on audible bird scarers issued for public consultation by the Department in December 1988:

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Noise Consultants

  Birdscarers Anti-Nuisance Group

  The British Horse Society

  Country Landowners Association

  The Environment Council

  The Law Society

  National Society for Clean Air

  National Farmers Union

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Noise Abatement Society

  The Noise Council

  National Physical Laboratory

  The Ramblers Association

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  The working party that drafted the code included the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the National Farmers Union.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisatons with which he has met to discuss the future use of audible bird scarers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: None.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet with representatives of the birdscarers' anti-nuisance group.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: None at the moment.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a further draft code of practice relating to the use of audible bird scarers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: By the end of March 1990.

  Chipboard Factories
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to require chipboard factories to be fitted with electrified filter bed equipment;

  (2) what analysis has been made of the emissions from chipboard factories in England; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what controls exist on emissions to the air from chipboard factories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: Emissions to the air from chipboard factories are subject to control by local authorities under the statutory nuisance provisions of part III of the Public Health Act 1936. I understand that analyses of emissions from three major chipboard factories have been undertaken by, or on behalf of, local authorities.

  Under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill it is proposed to give local authorities powers of prior authorisation over air pollution from certain categories of timber processes including chipboard factories. These processes will not be scheduled under the Bill until national guidance on appropriate air pollution controls has been issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Different pollution abatement technologies including electrified filter bed equipment are currently being considered in drawing up this guidance.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations, which came into effect in 1986, his Department has considered with respect to the waste recycling plant at Wath-on-Dearne, where toxic and dangerous chemicals are stored.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The waste recycling installation at Wath-on-Dearne is a site licensed under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and as such is excluded from the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 by virtue of regulation 3(1)(e).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ambulance Union
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have been held with officials of the ambulance union in Northern Ireland about proposed salary increases and a pay review formula.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met officials of the trade union representing ambulance drivers and associated paramedic staff in Northern Ireland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Needham
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not met these officials.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the ambulance service dispute in Northern Ireland and(a) salary increases and (b) a pay review formula.
  771
  Mr. Needham
  Representations have been received from six district councils supporting the request of staff side of the ambulance Whitley council to have the dispute referred to arbitration. One council also recommended that the ambulance service should be treated no differently from the emergency services for the purpose of determining pay.

  Bomb Explosions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bomb explosions there have been at the premises of Short Bros. since 25 May 1989; and if he is giving this firm security advice about future employees.

  Mr. Cope
  Since May 1989, there have been three separate incidents of terrorist attack against property belonging to Short Bros. plc, during which a total of seven bombs exploded. The security of Shorts' property is kept under review and, in line with longstanding Government policy on such matters, I know the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to elaborate further on the measures being taken to safeguard this firm's property.

  School Rolls
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are at each primary school in the constituency of Newry and Armagh.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Enrolment1

  Aghavilly

  85

  Ahorey

  37

  Anamar

  84

  Annaghmore

  85

  Armagh Christian Bros

  459

  Armstrong

  441

  Ballynaclosha

  75

  Bessbrook

  125

  Cabra

  32

  Carrickrovaddy

  38

  Clady (St. Michael's)

  36

  Clare

  67

  Clay

  74

  Clonalig

  167

  Cloughoge

  333

  Collegeland

  40

  Collone

  123

  Corttamlet

  40

  Darkely

  86

  Derryhale

  86

  Drelincourt Infants

  45

  Dromintee

  138

  Drumhillery

  91

  Drumsallen

  46

  Foley

  82

  Glassdrummond

  72

  Hamiltonsbawn

  102

  Hardy Memorial

  496

  Jonesborough

  139

  Keedy

  57

  Killeen

  95

  Killylea

  82

  Kingsmills

  31

  Kinnego

  28

  Lisdrumchor

  23

  Lislea

  12

  Lisnadill

  52

  Lissummon

  54

  Loughgall

  48

  772

  Enrolment1

  Markethill

  235

  Middletown Boys'

  49

  Mount St. Catherine's Convent

  484

  Mountnorris

  86

  Mullaghglass

  69

  Mullavilly

  50

  Newry Model

  48

  Newtownhamilton (St. Michael's)

  97

  Newtownhamilton

  125

  Poyntzpass

  77

  Salters Grange

  18

  St. Brigid's, Crossmaglen

  49

  St. Brigid's, Drumilly

  87

  St. Clare's Convent, Keady

  272

  St. Clare's Convent, Newry

  695

  St. Colman's Abbey, Newry

  777

  St. Colmcille's, Armagh

  27

  St. James's, Markethill

  49

  St. James's, Tandragee

  69

  St. Jarlath's, Blackwaterstown

  168

  St. Joseph's Convent, Newry

  448

  St. Joseph's, Armagh

  113

  St. Joseph's, Poyntzpass

  90

  St. Joseph's, Killeavy

  178

  St. Joseph's, Bessbrook

  376

  St. Lawrence's, Belleek

  53

  St. Louis Convent, Middletown

  42

  St. Malachy's, Whitecross

  92

  St. Malachy's, Armagh

  195

  St. Malachy's, Camlough

  311

  St. Malachy's, Carnagat

  427

  St. Mary's Boys', Keady

  250

  St. Mary's, Granemore

  61

  St. Mary's (Barr)

  58

  St. Mary's, Mullaghbawn

  237

  St. Mochua's, Derrynoose

  87

  St. Oliver Plunkett, Forkhill

  74

  St. Oliver Plunket, Loughall

  99

  St. Patrick's Boys', Newry

  377

  St. Patrick's, Crossmaglen

  313

  St. Patrick's, Armagh

  505

  St. Patrick's, Cullyhanna

  291

  St. Peter's, Cloughreagh

  286

  Tandragee

  349

  The Cope

  91

  Tullyheron

  52

  Tullymore

  67

  Tullyroan

  37

  Tullysaran

  74

  Tynan

  24

  Windsor Hill

  242

  1 At January 1989.

  Benefits
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the latest figures of how many people are dependent upon(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit, broken down into claimants, dependants and children.

  Mr. Needham
  The latest available figures are:

  Claimants

  Dependent partners

  Children

  (a) Income support (May 1988)1

  184,140

  44,940

  118,240

  (b) Family credit (February 1990)

  14,524

  11,118

  236,000

  (c) Housing benefit (February 1990)

  164,754

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Source: 5 per cent, sample.

  2 Approximate.

  Stalker Inquiry
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 12 February, whether any aspect of the Stalker inquiry was on the agenda at the meeting held on 12 June 1986.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not the practice to divulge the content of discussions within Government, but the hon. Member will note that by that date Mr. Sampson had been appointed to head the Northern Ireland inquiry.

  Housing
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were (i) the number and type of houses, (ii) the date of contract, (iii) the contract price and (iv) the final cost of Northern Ireland Housing Executive schemes(a) phase 6 RDA 1 project 2610263, (b) phase 1 RDA 89 project 2610376, and (c) phase 3 RDA 89 project 2610430.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. We have been advised by the chief executive that project Nos. 2710376 and 2610430 relate to phases 1 and 3 in RDA 87 not RDA 89. On this basis the information requested is as follows:(a) Project 2610263 RDA 1 Phase 6: (i) 56 dwellings comprising five 3-person bungalows, eight 3-person houses, ten 3-person flats, twenty-four 5-person houses and nine 7-person houses; (ii) 9 February 1987; (iii) £1,314,551·51; (iv) not yet available but anticipated to be £1,349,298.
  (b) Project 2610376 RDA 87 Phase 1: (i) 60 dwellings comprising five 3-person bungalows, fifteen 3-person houses, ten 3-person flats, fifteen 4-person houses, eight 5-person houses, six 6-person houses and one 7-person house; (ii) 18 March 1985; (iii) £1,442,279 (Fluctuating Price Contract); (iv) not yet available but anticipated to be £1,742,754.
  (c)Project 2610430 RDA 87 Phase 3: (i) 41 dwellings comprising one 3-person bungalow, nine 3-person houses, fourteen 3-person flats, ten 4-person houses, and seven 5-person houses; (ii) 26 May 1987; (iii) £1,028,050; (iv) not yet available but anticipated to be £1,150,000.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the number of civil servants in Northern Ireland who(a) have made applications for and (b) are in receipt of (i) family credit and (ii) housing benefit.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret that no such information is available

  Income Support
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate what the overall cost in Northern Ireland would be of increasing the rate of income support for all single people under 25 years to the same rate as for those over 25 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The estimated weekly cost would be £265,000.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate what the overall cost in Northern Ireland would be of extending entitlement to full income support to all those under 18 years of age in receipt of bridging allowance and special hardship allowance in Northern Ireland.
  774
  Mr. Needham
  The estimated weekly cost for those getting bridging allowance would be an extra £1,500. Young people entitled on severe hardship grounds already receive the full rate of income support.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number and cost of student claims for housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support/ supplementary benefit in the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is available only for income support, and is as follows:

  Summer vacation (1989)

  Number of claims

  Amount paid £ million

  12,720

  2·15

  Note:—Excludes claims from lone parent and disabled students.

  Source: 20 per cent. sample.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland prisons are serving a life sentence for(a) murder and (b) other crimes; and of these how many are admitted members of (1) the Ulster Defence Association, (2) the Ulster Freedom Fighters, (3) the Ulster Volunteer Force, (4) the Red Hand Commando, (5) other Protestant paramilitary groups, (6) the Official Irish Republican Army, (7) the Provisional Irish Republican Army, (8) the Irish National Liberation Army, (9) other Roman Catholic paramilitary groups and (10) none of these, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 379 prisoners are serving life sentences in Northern Ireland; of these, 350 were convicted for murder and 29 for other very serious crimes. It is not possible to list the current paramilitary affiliation of these prisoners but at the time of conviction it was as follows:

  Numbers

  UDA

  64

  UFF

  5

  UVF

  107

  RHC

  1

  Other Loyalist

  14

  OIRA

  Nil

  PIRA

  136

  INLA

  15

  Other Republican

  Nil

  None

  37

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total number of life sentences received for crimes committed in Northern Ireland since 1974; and what was the average length of imprisonment served.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, between 1974 and 1989, a total of 467 individuals were sentenced to life imprisonment (which were not subsequently quashed on appeal) by the courts in

  775
  Northern Ireland. Of these, 63 had been released on licence at 31 December 1989 after serving an average of 13 years and eight months in prison.

  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show by organisation and date the number of persons who have been members of a proscribed organisation and have been extradited from the Irish Republic in each year since 1968, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  Statistical material about extradition from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland has been collected by the RUC since 1971. The information is not available precisely in the form requested: records differentiate only between terrorist and non-terrorist cases. The information available is summarised in the table:

  Persons extradited

  Year of return

  Terrorist offences

  Non-terrorist offences

  1971

  —

  7

  1972

  —

  —

  1973

  —

  3

  1974

  —

  9

  1975

  —

  1

  1976

  —

  7

  1977

  1

  8

  1978

  —

  15

  1979

  —

  8

  1980

  —

  12

  1981

  —

  5

  1982

  —

  18

  1983

  —

  10

  1984

  2

  1

  1985

  —

  5

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  1988

  2

  1

  1989

  1

  —

  DHSS Offices
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of(a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestants in each of the following grades (i) administrative assistants, (ii) administrative officers, (iii) executive officers grade 2, (iv) executive officers grade 1, (v) staff officers in each of the following Department of Health and Social Services offices: (1) Strabane, (2) Omagh, (3) Londonderry, (4) Lisnakelly, (5) Limavady, (6) Coleraine and (7) Magherafelt.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The Northern Ireland Civil Service has an equal opportunities monitoring system which contains information on the sex, religious affiliation and disability of its staff. Disclosure of information on the religious affiliation of Northern Ireland Civil Service staff is governed by a code of practice which stipulates that no statistical summaries will be produced which fall outside the categories of analyses agreed with the equal opportunities Whitley committee.

  The most recent agreed analyses were published in October 1989 in the third report of the Northern Ireland Civil Service equal opportunities unit; a copy of that report was placed in the Library.

  Terrorist Offences
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people charged with terrorist-type offences were employed in Government offices and in the SPED dwellings department of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 14 February 1990]: I am not aware of anyone employed in Government offices being charged with terrorist-type offences. Under both the Northern Ireland and Home Civil Service codes, a civil servant is required to report to his Department if he is arrested and refused bail or if he is convicted. He is not required to report that he has been charged.

  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that no person employed in the Executive's SPED department has been charged with terrorist-type offences.

  Fishermen (Financial Aid)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial aid package will be provided by the Government to the fishermen on the County Down coast as a consequence of the inclement weather combined with the effect of the social security regulations introduced on 10 December 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Social security legislation provides for the payment of unemployment benefit in respect of weeks throughout which fishermen are unable to work because of inclement weather. Where fishermen are able to work only on certain days of a week, unemployment benefit is payable for the remaining days provided that the earnings for that week do not equal or exceed the lower earnings level for national insurance contribution liability. This is currently £43 a week. Income support may also be available to fishermen who work for less than 24 hours a week subject to the normal rules regarding income and capital.

  While I would sympathise with the difficulties caused by the recent adverse weather the Government have no plans to introduce special assistance for fishermen on the County Down coast.

  Housing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dwellings or percentages of dwellings in Northern Ireland are at present (1) owned outright by the occupant, (2) have owners with a mortgage, (3) are rented from a private owner, (4) are rented from a public body and (5) other types of tenure; and what were the percentages five, 10 and 15 years ago.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: The information is not available in the form required. Details of housing stock by tenure are given in tables 2.2A and 2.2C of "Housing Statistics 88" published by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland). Copies of this publication are available in the Library.

  The figures are given in the table for 1988, 1983 and 1978.
  777

  Percentage of dwellings by tenure

  1988

  1983

  1978

  Owner Occupied

  62

  57

  51

  Rented from Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  33

  36

  39

  Rented from Registered Housing Association

  1

  1

  —

  Private rented and other

  4

  6

  10

  Figures available from the Northern Ireland continuous household survey published in the "Northern Ireland Annual Abstract of Statistics No. 7" which is available in the Library show 30 per cent. of dwellings were owned outright in 1987 compared with 32 per cent. in 1983.

  Supplies and Services Boycott
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list in the Official Report those firms which have made it known by advertisement or statement in the press that they will not provide material to any firm which carries out work for the security forces in Northern Ireland and the date on which such advertisements or statements were published or as much of such information as is available to him.

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report those firms which have made it known by advertisement or statement in the press that they will not carry out work for the security forces in Northern Ireland and the date on which such advertisements or statements were published or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: No.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the boundary commission for Northern Ireland intends to conduct any interim reviews of the Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: I understand that the commission has not yet decided its future programme of work.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Departments (Accounts)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), of 22 January,Official Report, column 540, when the format of commercial-style accounts produced by certain Government Departments will comply with the requirements of the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Ryder
  Government Departments which produce commercial-style accounts are as a general rule directed to meet the accounting and disclosure requirements set out in the Companies Acts, except where it would be impracticable to do so—for example, the disclosure of called-up share capital which has no counterpart in the central Government sector.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements will be made for customs checks on the passengers using the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs' overall approach has been to devise arrangements which best suit the different types of train while observing the need for economy in the use of public sector staff. There will be three types of passenger train using the tunnel:

  (a) shuttle services carrying private cars, coaches and ro-ro vehicles between Coquelles and Cheriton. For these, customs checks will be done at Coquelles before vehicles join the train, allowing them a free exit on arrival in the United Kingdom;

  (b) through trains bound for points beyond London. In accordance with the Channel Tunnel Act, Customs are planning for all checks to be performed on the train during the journey, subject to the operators providing satisfactory facilities and to the payment of any fees or charges that may be imposed;

  (c) capital-to-capital services terminating at Waterloo. Customs checks will be done at Waterloo station using the familiar airport-style red/green system.

  Customs checks are highly selective in green channel systems, and only a very small percentage of passengers on the trains bound for Waterloo will experience any delay in their journey.

PRIME MINISTER

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 18 January.Official Report, column 382, she will state the proportion of people with AIDS who are eligible for payments from the Macfarlane trust; and if she will make a further statement.

  The Prime Minister
  At 31 December 1989, approximately 6 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom reported to have AIDS were haemophiliacs who may qualify for payments from the Macfarlane trust. The trust was set up with an ex-gratia payment from the Government in recognition of the wholly exceptional circumstances of people with haemophilia and HIV.

ENERGY

  Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the non-fossil levy on electricity prices to(a) industrial and (b) domestic consumers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The fossil fuel levy will be charged to licensed electricity suppliers as a percentage of their total leviable electricity sales revenue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 February that the rate for 1990–91 would be 10·6 per cent.

  Nuclear Fuels (Disposal)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department has carried out to compare the costs of dry storage with the costs of reprocessing and ultimate disposal of spent fuel from(a)

  779
  Magnox, (b) advanced gas-cooled reactors and (c) pressurised water reactors and nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has carried out no such studies. However, in May 1988, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, deposited in the Library of the House studies by the generating boards and by Ove Arup and Partners into the storage and disposal of spent Magnox fuel. The decision to reprocess spent fuel is taken by the owners of the fuel on safety, technical and economic grounds.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas Tanks
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the Government have any plans to give grant aid for the removal of liquid petroleum gas tanks.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether under its contract to provide public relations and marketing advice to his Department, Lowe Bell has direct dealings with the news media.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Contact with the news media is an integral part of the marketing of the forthcoming offers for sale in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Lowe Bell Communications will, if required, be in contact with the news media in its role as special marketing and public relations adviser to my Department.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, under its contract to provide public relations and marketing advice to his Department and the electricity supply industry, Dewe Rogerson has direct dealings with the news media.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Contact with the news media is an integral part of the marketing of the forthcoming offers for sale in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Dewe Rogerson will be in contact with the news media in its role as joint marketing and public relations adviser to my Department and the electricity industry.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the percentage of the energy research budget in each of the OECD countries that is devoted to the development and application of renewable energy techniques.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No figures are available for private sector expenditure on renewable energy in OECD countries. Statistics on Government expenditure on energy R and D are collected for member countries by the International Energy Agency. The percentages requested for such countries, given in the 1988 lEA review, are as follows:
  780

  Percentage of Energy R and D Budget (which in some cases includes expenditure on Nuclear R and D) committed to Renewable Energy Research and Development (1988)

  Country

  Percentage

  Austria

  16·63

  Belgium

  4·09

  Canada

  4·23

  Germany

  17·61

  Greece

  61·46

  Italy

  6·51

  Japan

  5·95

  Netherlands

  13·39

  Norway

  6·95

  Portugal

  26·07

  Spain

  33·71

  Sweden

  21·06

  Switzerland

  14·19

  United Kingdom

  5·40

  United States

  6·08

  The United Kingdom percentage is rising and, in 1989, was about 6·5 per cent. Care must be exercised in using such international statistics since countries differ in their definitions. The figures are also influenced by the extent to which countries have nuclear programmes which, of their nature, involve large expenditure.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total output of British nuclear power plants as a percentage of total power generation for each month in 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total output of electricity generated by nuclear power plants as a percentage of total generation in the United Kingdom public electricity supply industry for each month in 1989 was:

  Percentage

  January

  24·4

  February

  22·5

  March

  21·9

  April

  21·9

  May

  27·4

  June

  26·5

  July

  23·8

  August

  23·9

  September

  24·8

  October

  21·1

  November

  19·4

  December

  119·1

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Energy Trends, Table 15.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the load factors for the advanced gas-cooled reactors at(a) Hartlepool, (b) Heysham and (c) Dungeness, for each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list any projects in the Eastwood constituency which have received more than £100,000 in assistance from the Scottish Development Agency in the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  No projects in the Eastwood constituency have received over £100,000 in assistance from the Scottish Development Agency in the last five years. However, in the period 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1989, agency expenditure in Eastwood has amounted to £457,000.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the potential economic consequences of the removal of the present limitations on increases in non-domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The fact that the increases in non-domestic rates in Scotland have been held to inflation during the current year has already benefited industry and commerce. They will benefit further next year by my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to reduce

  Statutory Instrument

  Statutory Instrument number

  Date of coming into force

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 Commencement Order 1987

  1987/1489

  18 August 1987

  The Non-Domestic Rates and Community Charges (Timetable) (Scotland) Regulations 1987

  1987/2167

  07 January-1988

  The Non-Domestic Rates and Community Charges (Timetable) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—these amend SI 1987/ 2167 and revoke part of Schedule 2 to those regulations

  1989/2436

  22-January 1990

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1987—now revoked

  1987/2179

  08 January 1988

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—these revoke and replace SI 1987/2179

  1988/1477

  15 September 1988

  The Housing Benefit (Social Security Act 1986 Modification) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1483

  21 September 1988

  The Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 —now revoked

  1988/157

  26 February 1988

  The Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1988—these revoke and replace SI 1988/157

  1988/1539

  1 October 1988

  The Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulations 1988—these correct mistakes in regulation 7 of and Schedule 3 to SI 1988/1539

  1988/1611

  1 October 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/631

  20 April 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1988—these amended regulations 2 and 3 of SI 1988/631, and are now revoked

  1988/1540

  01 October 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—these amended regulations 3 of SI 1988/631, and are now revoked

  1989/1004

  01 July 1989

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989—these revoke regulation 4 of SI 1988/631

  1989/1476

  04 September 1989

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/1477

  04 September 1989

  782
  poundages by 6·25 per cent. below indexation as the first step towards a common business rate with England. The Labour party's proposal to return to local authorities freedom to set rate poundages would on the basis of experience inflict a significantly higher rate burden on Scottish business than borne by its competitors south of the border and would consequently damage Scotland's economic prospects. It would also remove any prospect of harmonisation of business rates in Great Britain, a prospect which has been welcomed both by the business community and the general public in Scotland.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list all the orders made under the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, including any subsequently revoked;

  (2) if he will list all the paragraphs of orders made under the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, including any subsequently revoked, which have been the subject of later amendment, substitution or insertion; and if he will provide the derivation and the date of the coming into force of each alteration listed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  783

  Statutory Instrument

  Statutory Instrument number

  Date of coming into force

  The Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoke and replace regulation 3 of SI 1988/631, SI 1988/1540 and SI 1989/1004

  1989/2437

  22 January 1990

  The Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/632

  20 April 1988

  The Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoke and replace SI 1988/632

  1989/32

  03 February 1989

  The Community Water Charges (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1538

  01 October 1988

  The Community Water Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—these amend paragraphs 3 and 4 of SI 1988/1538

  1989/2362

  15 January 1990

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/1541

  01 October 1988

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoke and replace SI 1988/1541

  1989/63

  09 February 1989

  The Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1880

  22 November 1988

  The Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—these will lapse on 31 March 1990

  1988/1889

  23 November 1988

  The Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these will replace SI 1988/1889 on 1 April 1990

  1989/476

  01 April 1990

  The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1904

  24 November 1988

  The Local Government (Non-Domestic District Rates and District Community Charge (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1963

  02 December 1988

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988—now revoked

  1989/69

  12 January 1989

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989—these revoke and replace SI 1989/69

  1990/130

  26 January 1990

  Housing Benefit (Social Security Act 1986 Modifications) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1483

  21 September 1988

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/241

  20 March 1989

  The Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/507

  08 April 1989

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/2234

  29 December 1989

  The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/2462

  24 January 1990

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990

  1990/131

  26 January 1990

  Funerals
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the 1989 Office of Fair Trading report entitled "Funerals"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received no such representations.

  Library Services
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recent report on public library provision in rural Scotland; and if he will introduce a rural public library incentive scheme to help local authorities to develop the service and meet new demands.

  Mr. Lang
  My officials recently met representatives of the Scottish Library Association and the Library and Information Services Committee (Scotland) for which the report was prepared. I shall consider the report's recommendation for a rural public library incentive scheme in the light of an evaluation of a comparable 784
  initiative in England, and other relevant factors. The report also calls for action by rural library authorities to improve services to meet the needs of rural communities.

  North East River Purification Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the detail of the letter his Department received from the clerk to the board of the North East river purification board, in October 1989, which intimated the board's intention to restructure its management organisation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have nothing useful to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 9 February 1990.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the acute hospitals with fewer than 600 beds.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There are 149 NHS hospitals with fewer than 600 beds providing inpatient services in the acute, supra-area and special categories speciality groups. These
  785
  are listed in the table. Fourteen hospitals which provide maternity services but no other inpatient acute services are excluded.

  Average available staffed beds

  Argyll and Clyde

  Calton Hospital

  33

  Oban County Hospital

  41

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  103

  Islay Hospital

  27

  McKelvie Hospital

  17

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  48

  Campbeltown Cottage Hospital

  19

  Victoria Hospital

  23

  West Highland Hospital

  33

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  353

  Victoria Infirmary Helensburgh

  24

  Rankin Memorial Hospital

  57

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  424

  Paisley Maternity Hospital

  118

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Isle of Arran War Memorial Hospital

  24

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  390

  Lady Margaret Hospital

  14

  Ayr County Hospital

  104

  Heathfield Hospital

  117

  Seafield Sick Children's Hospital

  47

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  28

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  321

  Borders

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  12

  Knoll Hospital

  36

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  26

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  20

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  7

  Hay Lodge Hospital

  50

  Borders General Hospital

  401

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Castle Douglas and District Hospital

  30

  Cresswell Maternity Hospital

  69

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  405

  Nithbank Hospital

  77

  Kirkcudbright and District Cottage Hospital

  14

  Moffat Cottage Hospital

  18

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  27

  Garrick Hospital

  42

  Dalrymple Hospital

  56

  Fife

  Cameron Hospital

  298

  Forth Park Hospital

  143

  Hunter Hospital

  27

  Adamson Hospital

  53

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  37

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  75

  Glenrothes Hospital

  72

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  121

  Milesmark Hospital

  187

  Dunfermline Maternity Hospital

  62

  Forth Valley

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  543

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  415

  Clackmannan County Hospital

  23

  Woodend General hospital

  505

  City hospital

  228

  Hyperbaric Centre

  1

  Royal Aberdeen Children's hospital

  132

  Arduthie hospital

  21

  Aboyne hospital

  26

  Aberdeen Maternity hospital

  128

  Kincardine O'Neill War Memorial hospital

  9

  Glen O'Dee hospital

  60

  Tor-na-Dee hospital

  61

  786

  Average available staffed beds

  Roxburghe house

  21

  Jubilee hospital

  46

  Chalmers hospital

  75

  Dr. Gray's hospital

  113

  Greater Glasgow

  Belvidere hospital

  312

  Canniesburn hospital

  328

  Glasgow Royal Maternity hospital

  128

  Ruchill hospital

  217

  Mearnskirk General hospital

  308

  Philipshill hospital

  124

  Royal Samaritan hospital

  53

  Rutherglen Maternity hospital

  107

  Duntocher hospital

  25

  Gartnavel General hospital

  533

  Glasgow Homeopathic hospital

  20

  Knightswood hospital

  219

  Royal Beatson Memorial hospital

  6

  RHSC Drumchapel

  22

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  294

  Queen Mother's hospital

  134

  Glasgow Western infirmary

  590

  Children's Home hospital

  25

  Highland

  Dunbar hospital

  16

  Caithness General hospital

  121

  Lawson Memorial hospital

  16

  Culduthel hospital

  28

  Town and County hospital Nairn

  26

  Ian Charles hospital

  14

  Belford hospital

  73

  Mackinnon Memorial hospital

  28

  Portree hospital

  13

  Ross Memorial hospital

  31

  Nicolson Mackenzie hospital

  15

  Lanarkshire

  Bellshill Maternity hospital

  161

  Victoria Cottage hospital

  16

  Monklands District General hospital

  534

  Kello hospital

  16

  Lady Home hospital

  21

  Lockhart hospital

  30

  William Smellie Maternity hospital

  64

  Hairmyres hospital

  420

  Stonehouse hospital

  292

  Beechmount hospital

  19

  Belhaven hospital

  57

  Eastern General hospital

  350

  East Fortune hospital

  97

  Edenhall hospital

  157

  Edington Cottage hospital

  9

  Northern General hospital

  144

  Roodlands General hospital

  74

  Western General hospital

  597

  Astley Ainlie hospital

  257

  Bruntsfield hospital

  12

  Chalmers hospital

  80

  City hospital

  418

  Elsie Inglis Maternity hospital

  3

  Liberton hospital

  230

  Longmore hospital

  107

  Princess Margaret Rose hospital

  261

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  158

  Simpson Memorial Maternity pavilion

  161

  Douglas House Annexe of RHSC

  22

  Bangour General hospital

  453

  Orkney

  Balfour hospital

  69

  Eastbank hospital

  62

  Shetland

  Gilbert Bain hospital

  73

  787

  Average available staffed beds

  Tayside

  Dundee Royal infirmary

  311

  Kings Cross hospital

  194

  Royal Victoria hospital

  206

  Dundee limb fitting centre

  17

  Bridge of Earn hospital

  173

  Perth Royal infirmary

  329

  St. Margarets hospital

  16

  Crieff cottage hospital

  21

  Aberfeldy cottage hospital

  20

  Irvine Memorial hospital

  23

  Blairgowrie cottage hospital

  55

  Meigle cottage hospital

  12

  Arbroath infirmary

  70

  Brechin infirmary

  68

  Forfar infirmary

  65

  Montrose Royal infirmary

  47

  Sunnyside Royal hospital

  327

  Stracathro hospital

  312

  Western Isles

  Lewis hospital

  85

  Daliburgh hospital

  21

  Lochmaddy hospital

  25

  St. Brendan's hospital

  5

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give details of the effects of the recently announced increases in hill livestock compensatory allowances, for eligible sheep and cattle, paid to farmers in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have made a scheme under the powers contained in section 4 of the Congested Districts Act 1987 which will increase the HLCA supplement on hill sheep within the HIDB area in line with those awarded in the less-favoured areas generally. The new rate of HLCA supplement will be raised to 64p. The rate for cows maintained on C grade farms within the HIDB area is increased by £1·18 to £70·36 to take account of recent devaluations in the green pound. The increases will apply from 1 January 1990 and their cost will be covered by the provisions already made for such supplements within the vote for agricultural support in Scotland (class XVI, vote 1).

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any further changes to the cash limits for 1989–90 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 22, revenue and rate support grants, Scotland will be increased by £9,481,000 from £2,336,800,000 to £2,346,281,000 to cover adjustments in rate support grant payments for 19860–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 5 February, if he will now give the 788
  detailed terms of reference of the inquiry into the finances of Lothian health board; amd when he will publish the report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The independent inquiry into the financial position of Lothian health board is complete and the chief executive, NHS in Scotland is now working with the board to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to rectify the board's problems. I would be unhappy about publishing the report without the agreement of the health board.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid in housing benefit to tenants in the private sector in Scotland in 1988–89 to cover domestic rate bills.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that actual expenditure information is not collected in the detail requested. It is estimated on the basis of the average weekly value of rate rebate in payment to private tenants on 31 May 1988 that the overall cost was about £13·75 million. This includes both cases where the tenant paid rates directly to the local authority and those where rates were included in the rent.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on measures implemented by the Hungarian Government to establish a law of contract and property rights and on further measures planned by the Governments of Poland and Hungary.

  Mr. Redwood
  Hungarian law on contract and property rights is embodied in the 1959 civil code (as amended). Other relevant economic and legislative measures recently adopted in Hungary include the law on economic associations, the law on foreign investment, the transformation law and the law on the protection of state assets. As far as we are aware, no fresh legislation in this field is currently planned. Ministers recognise the need to make long leases available to inward investors.

  We understand that Poland is currently drafting new legislation on the law of contract and on property rights in conjunction with a privatisation bill. But the process is at an early stage. The present law of contract is, we understand, governed by the civil code of 23 April 1964 (as amended). Expropriation of property is governed by a special act, published in 1985 in the state gazette. We are led to believe that this will shortly be amended.

  Companies considering investment in Poland and Hungary are welcome to consult my Department's east European branch or the commercial sections of our embassies to obtain fuller details of relevant legislation.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total cost to United Kingdom taxpayers of all forms of grant and subsidy paid to encourage inward investment by Japanese industry in the United Kingdom since 1979.
  789
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Around £190 million was paid in investment incentives to Japanese-owned companies in the United Kingdom in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1989 under the main schemes of regional and national assistance for industrial development.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what means are open to an investor to discover whether the auditors of his company have been criticised by his Department's inspectors or any disciplinary committee of the profession.

  Mr. Redwood
  Apart from writing direct to the auditors, or raising the matter at the company's general meeting, an investor may as appropriate consult my Department's investigations division or the professional accountancy body to which the firm of auditors belongs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to ensure that sole practitioners and partnerships which are permitted to carry out statutory audits will be required to file annual accounts and reports with the appropriate supervisory body.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on the information which company auditors should furnish to recognised supervisory bodies have yet to be made.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to require companies to supplement their accounts-based financial statements with cash flow statements.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Such supplementary information is best dealt with by means of accounting standards.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any accountancy firm was criticised by his Department's inspectors in their report on Orbit Holdings.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. I regret that no reference was made to this report or the inspectors' report on Burnholme and Forder Limited and Brayhead Limited in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 19 December 1989,Official Report, column 139.

  Name of company

  Date of publication of report

  Name of accountants

  Burnholme and Forder Limited

  17 July 1979

  Josolyne Layton Bennett and Co.

  Brayhead Limited

  Orbit Holdings Limited

  23 December 1981

  C. T. Moore and Co. Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to require companies to publish profit forecasts.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the names and business connections of the 13 non-departmental inspectors appointed by him in 1988–89;

  (2) if he will list the names and business connections of the non-departmental inspectors appointed by him in 1989–90.
  790
  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  1988–89

  L. D. Ziman of Messrs. Nabarro Nathanson, Solicitors

  W. M. Hoffman of Messrs. Baker Tilley and Co., Chartered Accountants

  A. Evans QC

  B. L. Worth of Messrs. Clark Whitehill, Chartered Accountants

  Miss M. H. Arden QC

  G. N. Lane of Messrs. Chantrey Vellacott, Chartered Accountants

  G. W. Staple of Messrs. Clifford Chance, Solicitors

  T. G. J. Tress of Messrs Hays Allen, Chartered Accountants

  P. L. Heslop QC

  R. P. G. Lewis of Messrs. Kidsons, Chartered Accountants

  M. Crystal QC

  D. L. Spence of Messrs Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  E. L. Lawson QC

  D. Anton of Messrs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Chartered Accountants

  1989–90

  Miss H. Heilbron QC

  M. D. Boohan of Messrs. Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  G. S. Moss QC

  J. R. Venning of Messrs. Robson Rhodes, Chartered Accountants

  R. M. Owen QC

  P. D. Powell of Messrs. Moore Stephens, Chartered Accountants

  C. J. Brougham QC

  R. T. Turner of Messrs. Neville Russell, Chartered Accountants.

  Textiles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that the ban on sectoral aid schemes for the textile industry has been adhered to by all member states of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement concerning the results of his monitoring of this agreement and the effects on the British textile industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is the responsibility of the European Commission to maintain the regulation of sectoral aid schemes for the textile industry, and the Government are confident that it vigorously enforces the rules in an even-handed way.

  The United Kingdom closely monitors the Commission's work to ensure a level playing field for British industry and we are satisfied that it is not having an adverse effect on the industry.

  Advertising
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his advertising budget for each of the next three years; and on what basis it is to be allocated.

  Mr. Ridley
  Individual allocations within the publicity budget beyond the current year have yet to be decided, but the Department's central publicity budget will fall in real terms over the next three years. I expect the majority of next year's publicity spend to go towards information materials other than paid advertising. Expenditure is decided according to need, and on a case-by-case basis.

  Brand Valuations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department will issue guidance on the inclusion of brands valuations in the balance sheet.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Accounting Standards Committee has already issued guidance on this subject, which will be included in an exposure draft due to be published later this year.

  Newtech, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit Newtech, Deeside industrial park, Clywd, to see the one-stop shop for business advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no present plans to visit Newtech.

  Departmental Structure
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future structure of his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  The organisation of DTI was changed in 1988 at the time of the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278). One of the main changes then was the replacement of "industry" divisions by "market" divisions, organised by sector and covering a wide range of activities for each sector including collaborative projects, technology transfer, standards, market information, international trade issues and the promotion and presentation of policies for which other DTI divisions were responsible, such as the single market, deregulation and business/education links. My predecessor as Secretary of State decided last year that these organisational arrangements should be reviewed; the review has now been completed and I have decided to make some modifications to this part of DTI's organisation.

  There are key priorities spanning all industrial sectors, on which the industrial side of my Department needs to concentrate. They include policies and programmes for collaborative research projects, technology transfer and standards; and there are other important issues for my Department, such as the response of business to environmental issues. I intend to bring together DTI expertise to provide a more concentrated focus on these long-term issues.

  The present activities of "market" divisions will be better managed by a different structure of divisions each concentrating on a set of policies or programmes; expertise will then be focused on information technology, on manufacturing technology, on the environment and business, and on market assessment. Divisions with policy responsibilities for matters such as international trade, the single market, business/education links and deregulation will be responsible for communicating with business direct, rather than through the "market" divisions as at present. The focus of responsibility, and lines of communication, will both be clearer and more direct.

  Where there are continuing Government responsibilities towards specific industrial sectors—such as aerospace, shipbuilding, vehicles, industrial materials and steel—these responsibilities will be handled, so long as they are
  792
  required, by task forces which focus on the sectors in question. The task force approach will also provide a capability for responding flexibly to specific but temporary issues affecting industry and commerce.

  For other sectors of the Department's work, I intend to continue my predecessor's policy of setting up entities such as the Patent Office, Companies House, the Insolvency Service and the research establishments as Next Steps agencies. Good progress is being made.

  As I said in my letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 26 January, I intend no changes in the arrangements for the regulatory divisions of the DTI—other than to make sure they continue to be adequately staffed to pursue their important functions. More widely, I am continuing to study how best industry and commerce should be provided with other DTI services.

  The changes in the organisation of the market divisions will be implemented over the next few months. This process will lead to a reduction in the number of posts in the Department, of probably about 100 to 150 posts. I do not expect there to be any redundancies.

  Military Equipment Exports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for the export of military equipment were made in(a) 1988 and (b) 1989; and in each case how many of these applications were successful.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: The number of licence applications submitted, and licences granted, in 1988 and 1989 to export goods classified as military equipment or technology defined as falling within group 1 of part II of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 is as follows:

  Applications

  Licences granted

  1988

  10,756

  11,020

  1989

  10,099

  9,952

  The statistics of licence applications received and licences granted in the same calendar year are not strictly comparable because the processing of some applications carries over into the following year.

  Car Phones
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on east and west European countries that have regulations banning or affecting the temporary importation and use of cars equipped with permanently fixed telephones that can be operated only within the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans to make bilateral or international arrangements to reduce this problem.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: My Department does not collect such information on a systematic basis. However, I am aware that many countries make arrangements to prevent the operation of mobile radio equipment installed in cars which because of differing frequency allocations or equipment standards cannot be lawfully used in those countries, either through sealing up the radio equipment or preventing its importation entirely.
  793
  As international radio networks develop, arrangements are being put in place to permit the temporary importation and operation of this type of equipment. Eighteen member nations of CEPT, the organisation of European telecommunications operators, including the United Kingdom, have signed a memorandum of understanding for the introduction of a pan-European cellular radio network which will, among other things, allow for the free circulation of the relevant equipment in these countries. Similar moves are contemplated by the European Commission, both with regard to equipment standards and free circulation, although discussions on the latter are at an early stage.

  I believe that these moves will go a considerable way towards alleviating this problem where it occurs.

  Footwear Imports
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total value of imports of both leather and synthetic footwear from(a) the Republic of Korea and (b) Taiwan, in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: The available figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of footwear by country of origin

  Leather uppers £000l

  Rubber-plastic uppers £0002

  (a) Republic of Korea

  1987

  16,862

  2,807

  1988

  42,931

  4,367

  1989

  47,236

  6,076

  (b) Taiwan

  1987

  22,239

  29,099

  1988

  34,648

  27,975

  1989

  44,038

  21,662

  Source: Customs and Excise-British Footwear Manufacturers Federation.

  1 All men's women's and children's footwear with leather uppers, including sports and safety footwear, but excluding slippers.

  2 Waterproof and non-waterproof footwear with rubber or plastic uppers, but excluding footwear with textile uppers.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investments have been made by his Department into research into electrically powered vehicles for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: Assistance given by my Department towards research into electrically powered vehicles for each year since 1980 is as follows:

  Year

  Assistance

  (£)

  1980

  763,740

  1981

  658,223

  1982

  1,317,449

  1983

  1,541,799

  1984

  2,111,109

  1985

  2,169,772

  1986

  1,737,317

  1987

  816,995

  1988

  184,469

  1989

  Nil

  Total

  11,300,873

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) at whose instigation companies have submitted proposals to his Department in relation to the privatisation of Post Office Letters;

  (2) if the Post Office has been involved in consideration of proposals from companies in relation to the privatisation of Post Office Letters;

  (3) what was the nature of the proposals sent by companies to his Department in relation to the privatisation of Post Office Letters; and on what basis they have been rejected;

  (4) which companies have approached his Department in relation to the privatisation of Post Office Letters;

  (5) if, in relation to the privatisation of the Post Office, he will indicate which companies were approached by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: As I said on 14 February 1990, Official Report, column 260, my right hon. Friend has met a number of parties some of whom have put forward proposals in relation to letters delivery, and some of whom have not. My right hon. Friend requested these meetings in order to hear all points of view, but the discussions were on a basis of confidentiality.

  1992
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what manpower in his Department is devoted to providing advice and briefing to industry, commerce and the general public on the 1992 proposals; and what expenditure is devoted to this area of policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: My Department's "Europe Open for Business" campaign, which is dedicated to providing factual information to business on single market proposals, is run by a unit of 13 staff, supported as required by officials elsewhere in the Department, including regional offices. Expenditure on the campaign since its launch in March 1988 has been £4·7 million, excluding advertising to alert firms to the challenges and opportunities.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  County Courts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the county courts in England and Wales and the current backlog in unopened mail at each county court.

  The Attorney-General
  I am informed that there is no unopened mail at any of the 275 county courts in England and Wales. At Manchester county court mail was not opened for the period 29 January to 1 February 1990 when the court was closed and moved to new premises. The backlog of unopened mail was dealt with by 11 February 1990.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on closer scrutiny of the human rights situation in Guatemala by the United Nations human rights commission;

  (2) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on Afghanistan;

  (3) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on Romania;

  (4) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on Chile;

  (5) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran;

  (6) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on El Salvador.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We strongly support the United Nations system of special rapporteurs and special advisers on human rights. We shall be studying their recommendations to this year's commission on human rights and, in the light of these recommendations, shall make a decision on each of their mandates.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government will raise human rights violations in Burma in the United Nations human rights commission;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will raise the human rights situation in Sri Lanka in the current session of the United Nations human rights commission;

  (3) whether Her Majesty's Government will raise the human rights situation in Peru at the forthcoming session of the United nations human rights commission;

  (4) whether Her Majesty's Government will raise the torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners in Turkey at the forthcoming session of the United Nations human rights commission.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At this year's commission on human rights, for the first time, the 12 members of the European Community agreed to make a common statement on item 12 (country situations). In view of this development, national statements will not be made. The common statement was delivered by the Irish Presidency on 21 February. It raised our concerns about human rights in a wide range of countries including Burma and Sri Lanka. It did not raise Peru or Turkey. A copy of the statement is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his recent visit to Washington DC, he discussed with his counterpart progress in arrangements for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  796
  Mr. Waldegrave
  This subject was not discussed. However, there is regular contact at official level with United States representatives.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the European Foreign Affairs Council on 5 February, he discussed the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his meeting in Bonn on 6 February wih Chancellor Kohl and Foreign Minister Genscher, he raised the matter of the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. We do, however, have regular contact on this subject at official level.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current annual expenditure on schemes funded by all Government agencies to teach English to adults around the world.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  About £30·7 million in 1988–89, of which £23 million was on direct teaching by the British Council, covered by income generated. The remainder was made up of FCO scholarships, ODA schemes and BBC World Service English programmes. Expenditure in the current financial year is expected to be about 5 per cent. higher.

  Ivory
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any evidence of breaches of the worldwide ban on ivory trade involving elephants slaughtered in Kenya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have seen no evidence of breaches of the ban on international commercial trade in ivory introduced by CITES on 18 January. Infractions of CITES rules are in the first instance a matter for the CITES secretariat.

  South Africa
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have put to European Community Governments for the lifting of sanctions against South Africa: and which sanctions were involved.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At the European political co-operation meeting on 20 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pointed out to EC partners that for all practical purposes President de Klerk has taken the steps demanded by EC Foreign Ministers in 1986 when they imposed restrictive measures on South Africa and that it would be logical therefore to respond by lifting those measures. The measures concerned are a ban on new investment in South Africa, a ban on the import of gold coins and a ban on the import of iron and steel. My right honourable Friend urged our European Community colleagues to begin this process by lifting the ban on new investment in South Africa.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his supplementary answer of 16 February.Official Report, column 581, he will state the occasions on which the Chinese Government publicly expressed a preference for direct elections in Hong Kong to start with 10 directly elected seats.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are not aware that the Chinese Government have publicly expressed a view on the precise number of directly elected seats before 1997.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Employment Credit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the disability employment credit will be available to previous recipients of severe disablement allowance who have completed a youth training course; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  It is our intention that people who have completed a youth training course and who were previously receiving severe disablement allowance will be eligible to claim the disability employment credit.

  Civil Servants (Benefits)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to collect information on the number of staff in each Government Department who(a) have made applications and (b) are in receipt of (i) family credit and (ii) housing benefit and (1) are likely to receive from April or (2) are already in receipt of community charge rebate; and if he will give as much information as is already available to him.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of families receiving family credit where the main earner is a civil servant is 6,000. The number of families receiving family credit where the main earner is a member of staff of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Health is 835. We have no plans to collect any more detailed information on a routine basis. The numbers within DSS/DH are known only because the cases concerned are held separately for reasons of confidentiality.

  Since these considerations do not apply to housing benefit or community charge benefit, separate figures are not recorded to show the number of claims from staff in Government Departments.

  Relocation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends(a) to publish the results of the further study of the options for relocating some headquarters work and (b) to make a decision regarding relocation of further offices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14 November 1989, concerning relocation of headquarters work, to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) at column 170. A copy of the review team's report was placed in the Library.
  798
  There are no further central plans to relocate work from any social security local offices other than the 21 local offices in London, the details of which were announced to the House by the then Secretary of State for Social Security on 16 January 1989 at column 46–47.

  All regions are currently reviewing their network of local offices in consultation with local management to take account of the changes flowing from the introduction of the operational strategy, the creation of the Contributions Unit/Agency, the creation of the Benefits Agency, and other related issues. Regions will be producing proposals for consideration at the end of March 1990. Any proposals for further relocation of work will be considered on their merits as part of this exercise.

  Sick Pay
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government will amend the relevant statutory provisions so that women can apply for payment of statutory sick pay over the age of 60 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. Statutory sick pay (SSP) is not payable to women (or men) employees whose sickness begins after reaching state retirement pension age. Instead such people receive sickness benefit based on the rate of retirement pension which would have been payable if they had retired. We could not expect employers to know about their employees' entitlement to retirement pension. However, an employee whose period of entitlement to SSP begins shortly before minimum pension age can continue to get SSP after that age for as long as that period of entitlement lasts, subject to a maximum of three years.

  Benefits (Child Rates)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table in the Official Report giving the child rates of national assistance, supplementary benefit, income support (a) as a percentage of the adult rate and (b) in real terms for each year 1960–1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: The information requested is in the tables.

  Ordinary child rates

  £

  As percentage of adult rate1

  Adjusted to December 1989 prices2

  September 1959

  16–17 years

  1·50

  60·0

  13·10

  11–15 years

  1·15

  46·0

  10·05

  5–10 years

  0·95

  38·0

  8·30

  0–4 years

  0·80

  32·0

  6·99

  April 1961

  16–17 years

  1·60

  59·8

  13·45

  11–15 years

  1·20

  44·9

  10·09

  5–10 years

  1·00

  37·4

  8·41

  0–4 years

  0·85

  31·8

  7·15

  September 1962

  16–17 years

  1·70

  59·1

  13·61

  11–15 years

  1·28

  44·3

  10·25

  5–10 years

  1·05

  36·5

  8·40

  0–4 years

  0·90

  31·3

  7·20

  May 1963

  16–17 years

  1·85

  58·3

  14·47

  11–15 years

  1·40

  44·1

  10·95

  5–10 years

  1·18

  37·0

  9·23

  799

  £

  As percentage of adult rate1

  Adjusted to December 1989 prices2

  0–4 years

  0·98

  30·7

  7·66

  March 1965

  16–17 years

  2·23

  58·6

  16·54

  11–15 years

  1·68

  44·1

  12·46

  5–10 years

  1·35

  35·5

  10·01

  0–4 years

  1·13

  29·6

  8·38

  November 1966

  16–17 years

  2·35

  58·0

  16·31

  11–15 years

  1·75

  43·2

  12·15

  5–10 years

  1·40

  34·6

  9·72

  0–4 years

  1·18

  29·1

  8·19

  October 1967

  16–17 years

  2·50

  58·1

  17·19

  11–15 years

  1·85

  43·0

  12·72

  5–10 years

  1·50

  34·9

  10·31

  0–4 years

  1·25

  29·1

  8·59

  October 1968

  16–17 years

  2·65

  58·2

  17·23

  13–15 years

  2·05

  45·0

  13·33

  11–12 years

  1·95

  42·9

  12·68

  5–10 years

  1·60

  35·2

  10·40

  0–4 years

  1·35

  29·7

  8·78

  November 1969

  16–17 years

  2·80

  58·3

  17·22

  13–15 years

  2·20

  45·8

  13·53

  11–12 years

  2·05

  42·7

  12·61

  5–10 years

  1·65

  34·4

  10·15

  0–4 years

  1·40

  29·2

  8·61

  November 1970

  16–17 years

  3·50

  67·3

  19·99

  13–15 years

  2·40

  46·1

  13·71

  11–12 years

  2·20

  42·3

  12·56

  5–10 years

  1·80

  34·6

  10·28

  0–4 years

  1·50

  28·8

  8·57

  September 1971

  16–17 years

  3·60

  62·1

  19·02

  13–15 years

  3·00

  51·7

  15·85

  11–12 years

  2·45

  42·2

  12·94

  5–10 years

  2·00

  34·5

  10·57

  0–4 years

  1·70

  29·3

  8·98

  October 1972

  16–17 years

  4·05

  61·8

  19·89

  13–15 years

  3·40

  51·9

  16·70

  11–12 years

  2·75

  42·0

  13·50

  5–10 years

  2·25

  34·3

  11·05

  0–4 years

  1·90

  29·0

  9·33

  October 1973

  16–17 years

  4·40

  61·5

  19·64

  13–15 years

  3·70

  51·7

  16·52

  11–12 years

  3·00

  42·0

  13·39

  5–10 years

  2·45

  34·3

  10·94

  0–4 years

  2·05

  28·7

  9·15

  July 1974

  16–17 years

  5·15

  61·3

  20·16

  13–15 years

  4·35

  51·8

  17·03

  11–12 years

  3·55

  42·3

  13·90

  5–10 years

  2·90

  34·5

  11·35

  0–4 years

  2·40

  28·6

  9·40

  April 1975

  16–17 years

  5·90

  61·5

  19·61

  13–15 years

  4·95

  51·6

  16·45

  11–12 years

  4·05

  42·2

  13·46

  5–10 years

  3·30

  34·4

  10·97

  0–4 years

  2·75

  28·6

  9·14

  800

  £

  As percentage of adult rate1

  Adjusted to December 1989 prices2

  November 1975

  16–17 years

  6·70

  61·5

  19·81

  13–15 years

  5·60

  51·4

  16·55

  11–12 years

  4·60

  42·2

  13·60

  5–10 years

  3·75

  34·4

  11·09

  0–4 years

  3·10

  28·4

  9·16

  November 1976

  16–17 years

  7·80

  61·4

  19·96

  13–15 years

  6·50

  51·2

  16·63

  11–12 years

  5·35

  42·1

  13·69

  5–10 years

  4·35

  34·3

  11·13

  0–4 years

  3·60

  28·3

  9·21

  November 1977

  16–17 years

  8·90

  61·4

  20·09

  13–15 years

  7·40

  51·0

  16·70

  11–12 years

  6·10

  42·1

  13·77

  5–10 years

  4·95

  34·1

  11·17

  0–4 years

  4·10

  28·3

  9·25

  November 1978

  16–17 years

  9·55

  61·4

  20·02

  13–15 years

  7·95

  51·1

  16·67

  11–12 years

  6·55

  42·1

  13·73

  5–10 years

  5·30

  34·1

  11·11

  0–4 years

  4·40

  28·3

  9·23

  November 1979

  16–17 years

  11·25

  61·5

  20·20

  13–15 years

  9·35

  51·1

  16·79

  11–12 years

  7·70

  42·1

  13·82

  5–10 years

  6·25

  34·2

  11·22

  0–4 years

  5·20

  28·4

  9·34

  November 1980

  16–17 years

  13·10

  61·5

  20·74

  11–15 years

  10·90

  51·2

  17·26

  0–10 years

  7·30

  34·3

  11·56

  November 1981

  16–17 years

  14·30

  61·5

  20·48

  11–15 years

  11·90

  51·2

  17·04

  0–10 years

  7·90

  34·0

  11·31

  November 1982

  16–17 years

  15·80

  61·5

  21·23

  11–15 years

  13·15

  51·2

  17·67

  0–10 years

  8·75

  34·0

  11·76

  November 1983

  16–17 years

  16·50

  61·6

  21·18

  11–15 years

  13·70

  51·1

  17·58

  0–10 years

  9·15

  34·1

  11·74

  November 1984

  16–17 years

  17·30

  61·7

  21·38

  11–15 years

  14·35

  51·2

  17·73

  0–10 years

  9·60

  34·2

  11·86

  November 1985

  16–17 years

  18·20

  61·7

  21·45

  11–15 years

  15·10

  51·2

  17·79

  0–10 years

  10·10

  34·2

  11·90

  July 1986

  16–17 years

  18·40

  61·7

  21·37

  11–15 years

  15·30

  51·3

  17·77

  0–10 years

  10·20

  34·2

  11·85

  April 1987

  16–17 years

  18·75

  61·7

  21·12

  11–15 years

  15·60

  51·3

  17·57

  0–10 years

  10·40

  34·2

  11·72

  April 1988

  801

  £

  As percentage of adult rate1

  Adjusted to December 1989 prices2

  16–17years

  19·40

  58·1

  21·06

  11–15 years

  16·10

  48·2

  17·48

  0–10 years

  10·75

  32·2

  11·67

  April 1989

  16–17 years

  20·80

  59·6

  21·44

  11–15 years

  17·35

  49·7

  17·88

  0–10 years

  11·75

  33·7

  12·11

  April 1990

  16–17 years

  21·90

  59·7

  —

  11–15 years

  18·25

  49·7

  —

  0–10 years

  12·35

  33·6

  —

  1 Based on the ordinary single householder scale rates until 1987 and the Income Support personal allowance for single people aged 25 or over.

  2 Based on movement in the Index of Retail Prices less housing costs.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Secretaries and Clerical Assistants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the pay of school secretaries and clerical assistants.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The pay of non-teaching staff in schools is a matter for their employers.

  GCSE
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the percentage increase in GCSE A-grades in each of the past two years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following figures relate to attempts made by 14 and 15-year-olds. In 1988, 8·6 per cent. of GCSE attempts resulted in a grade A. Grade A results at O-level in 1987 constituted 13·9 per cent. of all O-level attempts and 5·3 per cent. of all O-level and CSE attempts. Comparable figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), of 30 January,Official Report, column 148, when he expects to complete his consideration for improving co-ordination between the AFRC and the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on 1 February at columns 289–90.

  Standards of Attainment
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty's inspectors in relation to standards of attainment in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Her Majesty's inspectorate makes an important contribution to the standards of education in schools by reporting impartially on the existing state of 802
  education across the country; by providing the Secretary of State and the Department with advice on policy matters; and by evaluating the impact of Government policy on schools.

  Workers Education Association
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet the general secretary of the Workers Education Association; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. A working party composed of representatives of the workers educational associations, the local authority associations and the Department is currently discussing the practical arrangements for the funding of the WEA districts in England over the next four years.

  Tertiary Colleges (Outer London)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the quality and effectiveness of the educational services offered in the tertiary colleges of the outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Two outer London boroughs, Harrow and Richmond, provide maintained education for those over the age of 16 through tertiary colleges. The colleges in Harrow were the subject of a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate last October, entitled "Aspects of Tertiary Education in the London Borough of Harrow". I am placing a copy in the Library. The inspectorate found that the quality of teaching and learning was generally sound, with good work leading to satisfactory examination results in many cases. There is no recent information available for Richmond.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking in respect of the disciplinary record of the city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is not taking any steps, and sees no need for a statement.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allowances for special needs or handicapped children are being made under LMS in respect of the greater expense of welfare and ancillary help for these children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In line with the Government's statutory guidance on LMS, all LEAs have taken into account in their resource allocation formulae the variations between schools in the incidence of pupils with special educational needs.

  Teachers (Financial Incentives)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a chart or table showing, for each academic year since their introduction the percentage of each category of financial incentive, A, B, C, D or E,
  803
  offered to teachers in (a) infant schools, age range five to seven years, (b) junior schools, age range seven to 10 years, (c) middle schools, age range eight to 12 or nine to 13 years, and (d) secondary schools, age range 11 to 16 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available.

  Non-contact Time
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has regarding Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools' recommendations in respect of non-contact time for primary school teachers; whether the Government plan to act upon any of the recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The organisation of the school day and the duties to be undertaken by individual teachers in their 1,265 hours of directed time are matters for head teachers. The interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions has recently drawn attention to the scope that exists for LEAs and governing bodies to develop policies to increase teachers' non-contact time.

  Geography
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teaching of geography in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum geography working group was established last May to make recommendations about the geography to be taught to 5 to 16-year-olds in maintained schools. Its final report is due to be submitted by 30 April 1990.

  Teacher Unions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings he has planned with teacher unions' representatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet the teacher unions shortly to discuss their response to the recommendations of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions and to his proposal for implementation.

  Capital Allocations, London
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what elements are taken into account to reflect the higher London costs in the capital allocations made to schools and colleges in London.

  Number of full-time staff employed by the Workers Education Association in England listed by district and category of staff

  Districts

  District secretaries

  Tutor/Organisers

  Development officers

  Administration and clerical staff

  Eastern

  1

  5

  —

  5

  East Midlands

  1

  10

  1

  5

  London

  1

  4

  2

  4

  Northern

  1

  8

  —

  2

  North Western

  1

  8

  3

  4

  Southern

  1

  6

  —

  2

  South Eastern

  1

  4

  —

  1

  South Western

  1

  5

  —

  2

  Thames Valley

  1

  5

  1

  3

  804
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  When local education authorities submitted their cash plans for education for 1990–91, these reflected regional differences in costs. In setting annual capital guidelines for education for 1990–91 the Department took into account local authority plans, and where the component of the annual capital guideline relating to a genuine need for additional school places was based on a standard building cost multiplier it was adjusted to reflect regional differences in building costs.

  Further Education
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the proportion of children aged 16 to 18 years who attended schools or colleges of further education in each education authority in England and Wales(a) in 1980–81 and (b) for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to Department of Education and Science statistical bulletin 9/86 tables 1 and 2 and Department of Education and Science statistical bulletin 3/89 tables 4 and 8, copies of which can be found in the Library. Statistics for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the rate of implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The full national curriculum will be implemented as soon as practicable to raise standards of education as quickly as possible. Implementation is proceeding in phases to make it manageable for schools. To ease pressure on secondary schools, my right hon. Friend recently announced that the requirement to teach 14 to 16-year-olds the foundation subjects outside the core subjects of maths, science and English would be introduced no earlier than autumn 1993.

  Workers Education Association
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) district secretaries and national officers, (b) tutor organisers, (c) development officers and (d) clerical/administrative staff, are employed full-time by the Workers Education Association in England (i) in total and (ii) by district.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information provided by the Workers Education Association is set out in the following table:
  805

  Districts

  District secretaries

  Tutor/Organisers

  Development officers

  Administration and clerical staff

  Western

  1

  8

  1

  2

  West Lancashire and Cheshire

  1

  6

  1

  2

  West Mercia

  1

  8

  —

  2

  Yorkshire North

  1

  8

  —

  5

  Yorkshire South

  1

  4

  —

  2

  National officers

  National Office1

  3

  6

  Total

  17

  89

  9

  47

  1 National officers serve the whole of the Association including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Medical Research Council
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to suspend the funding of the Medical Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  No.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has concerning the amount of money spent by the Medical Research Council on the dissemination to Members of both Houses of Parliament of information concerning experimentation upon the human embryo.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that, since the beginning of 1989, the Medical Research Council spent a total of £3,530 in dissemination to Members of both Houses of Parliament of information concerning human fertilisation and embryology.

  Study Vouchers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has any intention of introducing study vouchers for the 16 to 18-year-old age group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has any intention of introducing study vouchers for the 16 to 18-year-old age group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government believe that all young people leaving full-time education at 16 or 17 should have the opportunity to pursue good-quality part-time education and training leading to nationally recognised qualifications. It is essential that our work force has the skills necessary to compete in the 1990s. The Government are giving serious consideration to the CBI's proposals for credits as a possible means of achieving this.

  Assessment
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the objective criteria for assessment at seven, 11, 14 and 16 years are now in place; and by when he expects the balance to be in place.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Criteria for assessment at seven, 11, 14 and 16 years are embodied in national curriculum attainment targets for key stages I to 4. Attainment targets have already been laid down in maths and science for all four key stages and in English for key stage 1. My right hon. Friend expects to make orders shortly laying down attainment targets in English for key stages 2 to 4 and in 806
  technology for all key stages. He intends to lay down attainment targets for the remaining foundation subjects by 1992.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received concerning the Government's pay policy for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently consulting the interested parties on his proposals in response to the interim advisory committee's recommendations for teachers' pay for 1990–91. He has received representations from three of the bodies concerned so far.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list recent reports from Her Majesty's inspector of schools on the provision of physical education in schools; and if he intends to publish these reports.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is Government policy to publish all Her Majesty's inspectorate inspection reports. Some assessment of physical education provision would be included in all full inspection reports of primary and secondary schools. The most recent published Her Majesty's inspectorate documents which deal specifically with PE are as follows:A Survey of Work in Physical Education in 16 Secondary Schools
  A Survey of Some Aspects of Dance in a Sample of Secondary Schools
  Curriculum Matters No. 16—Physical Education from 5–16

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those schools which have been(a) given grant-maintained status, (b) refused grant-maintained status and (c) await a decision on an application for grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Schools which have been approved for grant-maintained status

  Schools

  Area

  Hendon School

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained School for Boys

  Barnet

  Wilson School

  Sutton

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  Birmingham

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  807

  Schools

  Area

  Old Swinford Hospital

  Dudley

  St. James' Church of England School, Bolton

  Bolton

  Audenshaw High School

  Tameside

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  Kirklees

  London Oratory School

  ILEA

  Queensbury School

  Bedfordshire

  Colyton Grammar School

  Devon

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  Kent

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Skegness Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained School

  Lincolnshire

  The Kings School, Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Liverpool

  Bankfield High School

  Cheshire

  Claremont High School

  Brent

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  ILEA

  London Nautical School

  ILEA

  Beechen Cliff School

  Avon

  Southlands School

  Berkshire

  Netherthorpe School

  Derbyshire

  Ribston Hall High School

  Gloucestershire

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Southfield School for Girls

  Northamptonshire

  Long Field High School

  Leicestershire

  Guildford County School

  Surrey

  Schools which the Secretary of State is minded to approve for grant-maintained status

  School

  Area

  Bishopshalt School

  Hillingdon

  Marling School

  Gloucestershire

  Stroud Girls High School

  Gloucestershire

  Rickmansworth School

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  Hertfordshire

  Schools which have been refused grant-maintained status

  School

  Area

  Ramsden School for Girls

  Bromley

  The Longlands School

  Dudley

  Simon Digby Comprehensive School

  Solihull

  Hindley Park High School

  Wigan

  Sir James Altham School

  Hertfordshire

  Castlemount School

  Kent

  Blessed Hugh More Roman Catholic Secondary School

  Lincolnshire

  Southpark High School

  Lincolnshire

  Kettering Boys School

  Northamptonshire

  Other schools where the parents have voted in favour of an application for grant-maintaind status but where a decision has yet to be made

  School

  Area

  North Halifax High School

  Calderdale

  Wolverhampton High School for Girls

  Wolverhampton

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Buckinghamshire

  Brindley Hall School

  Buckinghamshire

  Foster's Grammar School for Boys

  Dorset

  Lord Digby's Grammar School for Girls

  Dorset

  Highwood School

  Gloucestershire

  Pate's Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  Francis Bacon School

  Hertfordshire

  Adam's Grammar School

  Shropshire

  Stratford School, Newham

  Newham

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Birmingham

  Crossley Heath School

  Calderdale

  Carre's Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Teachers (Employment Costs)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest available figures for the annual cost of employing(a) a primary teacher, (b) a secondary teacher and (c) a teacher in further education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In April 1989 the estimated average cost, including employers' on-costs, of employing a primary teacher outside London was £16,190 per annum. The comparable figure for a secondary teacher is £17,490 per annum. The estimated average cost of employing a further education lecturer, including those in London, was £18,400 per annum.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television Signal Feed
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to provide a feed of the television signal from the Chamber to offices and facilities used by Members in the vicinity of the Chamber.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The report of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, agreed to by the House last June, did not envisage the provision, for the direct use of Members, of monitors carrying the live feed from the Chamber, with the exception of two sets in the Division Lobbies. The Committee has since approved the installation of monitors to meet the special requirements of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. So far as the rest of the House is concerned, the Committee has so far taken the view that the presence of monitors in Members' rooms could be intrusive and might constitute a distraction from the Chamber, leaving aside the question of cost. The Committee will, however, keep the matter under review during the course of the experiment.

  Bleepers
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the regulations governing the use of radio pagers and other bleeping machines within the precincts; and what steps he is taking to prevent their use in areas used by other hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: The use of radio pagers by right hon. and hon. Members is a personal matter and no regulations exist governing their use within the precincts of the House. I am aware that such devices can cause annoyance and I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to remind Members that pagers should be switched off while they are present in the Chamber or in Committees of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Duchy of Lancaster has a small staff and there are no formal arrangements for paternity leave. Requests for paternity leave would be considered as and when they arose.

WALES

  Cataract Treatment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing, for the latest available date, and for 12 months earlier, the number of people in each district health authority area, or at each district general hospital, as convenient, awaiting treatment for eye cataracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Waiting list information on individual types of treatment is not collected centrally on a routine basis. However, information on patients waiting for treatment in the specialty of ophthalmology is published in Welsh hospital waiting list bulletin: 1988, Vol. 2 and 1989, Vol. 2, copies of which are in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made, in deciding on community charge relief for certain community council areas in Wales, of the adequacy and comprehensiveness with which the last rate revaluation throughout each such community was completed.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Entitlements to community charge relief have been calculated on a uniform basis, using information on domestic rateable values supplied by Welsh charging authorities (district councils), and duly certified by the principal finance officers of those authorities.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what paternity leave is allowed to staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  At present paternity leave is not available to civil servants. The Treasury is, however, finalising arrangements for the introduction of an entitlement to two days' paid paternity leave.

  Transport Policies
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish details of the current and relevant transport policy and programme submissions of Gwent, South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan county councils;

  (2) what are the delays on progress in the current transport policy and programmes submitted by the Gwent, South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan county councils.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  County councils in Wales are no longer required to submit transport policy and programme statements to me though a number of counties continue to produce them for their own use. The outcome of the transport grant submissions for 1990–91 from all Welsh counties and the submission from Mid Glamorgan for acceptance of the second phase of the valleys rail strategy as a project of regional or national importance was announced on 29 November 1989.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans have been initiated for restructuring the organisation of certain hospitals in Gwent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Gwent health authority is formulating proposals for revised management arrangements for the South Gwent health unit, which include organisation of hospitals in the unit's area.

  I understand that after further local consultation the authority will submit the proposals to the Welsh Office for approval.

  Fishguard Bypass
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans for a bypass at Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, on the suggested route 6 from the A40 to A487 during the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Such a scheme might be a possibility in the longer term.

  "Wales: Land of Quality"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many companies are currently licensed to use the "Wales: Land of Quality" identity; and what is their turnover and number of employees;

  (2) what income has been gained from licence fees for using the "Wales: Land of Quality" identity for selling the labels;

  (3) what were the itemised costs for the design and development of the "Wales: Land of Quality" identity;

  (4) what were the itemised costs of producing, distributing and promoting the "Wales: Land of Quality" identity in terms of product labels, promotional material and advertisements.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The cost of producing the "Wales: Land of Quality" emblem was £60,000 resulting from a competitive tender between three firms, which represented professional fees for design and production by outside consultants and transfer of copyright to the Welsh Office.

  The emblem and the positive image it conveys has been used as part of a wider strategy to help develop the Welsh economy by reinforcing the growing perception of the high quality of Welsh firms and their products. The costs incurred so far in promoting its use have been limited to the cost of writing to eligible Welsh companies (principally those awarded quality certification under BS 5750, BS 9000, MoD allied quality assurance procedure quality marks), to appropriate public agencies and to local authorities, urging them to use the emblem.

  Eligible organisations are issued with a licence, for use of the emblem, and sample artwork, for which no fee is charged. Currently 72 companies and 12 agencies are licensed to use the emblem. A further 100 companies and agencies have recently been approached with a view to their adopting the emblem. (No details are available of turnover and number of employees).

  GCSE Cources
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many courses were offered by the Welsh joint education committee(a) at the start of the GCSE programme and (b) at the current time.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Fifty-three courses were offered by the WJEC at the start of the GCSE programme, and 57 courses are offered at the present time.

  Craft Initiative
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many extra jobs and sales have been achieved following the setting up of the craft initiative; and what were the original targets set for(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d)

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The craft initiative was launched in early 1988 with the overall aim of boosting sales and jobs in the Welsh craft industry by at least 50 per cent. within three years of the start of the initiative (April 1988). An evaluation of the campaign's impact on the industry will be carried out once the final year, which starts on 1 April 1990, is complete.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the consultants and consultancies involved in the initial review of the craft industry have subsequently had contracts with or provided services to(a) his Department, (b) the Welsh Development Agency and (c) the Development Board for Rural Wales; and what is the worth of these contracts or services.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The craft initiative review was carried out by Tony Ball Associates. Since the review was completed in 1988, Mr. Ball and his company have undertaken no paid work in connection with the craft initiative for my Department.

  I am not responsible for or consulted on contracts placed by the WDA or the DBRW and have therefore asked them to provide the hon. Gentleman with the information he is seeking.

  £ million (gross)

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  11981–82

  24

  20

  30

  8

  7

  7

  6

  6

  11982–83

  45

  15

  7

  23

  11

  5

  5

  8

  21983–84

  53

  20

  6

  23

  27

  5

  9

  6

  21984–85

  33

  13

  6

  15

  22

  5

  8

  3

  21985–86

  27

  13

  16

  16

  13

  6

  4

  4

  21986–87

  28

  20

  12

  27

  11

  5

  6

  3

  21987–88

  19

  17

  7

  63

  8

  5

  3

  7

  Source:

  1Digest of Welsh Statistics.

  2Welsh Transport Statistics.

  Comparable information for expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 is not yet available.

  Opencast Mining, Buckley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a public inquiry to enable local residents to put their case concerning the application by British Coal to begin opencast mining operations at Bannel Bridge, Buckley, Clwyd.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road improvement schemes costing over £1 million have been developed in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Forty-one major road improvement schemes have been completed since 1980. Completions up to January 1989 are given in table 4 of "Roads in Wales; Progress and Plans for the 1990s." Since then the following have been completed:

  Opening Date

  A55 Northop by-pass

  June 1989

  A55 Penmaenbach-Dwygyfylchi

  June 1989

  A55 Penmaenmawr by-pass

  October 1989

  A55 Llanfairfechan by-pass

  October 1989

  Nine schemes are under construction as follows:

  A55 Conwy Crossing

  A483 Newbridge by-pass and Whitehurst Link

  A55 Travellers Inn

  A483 Chirk by-pass

  A48 Nant-y-Caws-Coed Hirion

  A470 Llanidloes by-pass

  A487 Cardigan by-pass

  A40 Haverfordwest Eastern by-pass II

  A55 Pen-y-Clip

  Fifty schemes listed in table 6 of "Roads in Wales" are in preparation; and the addition to the programme of schemes for the A5 on Anglesey has been announced.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total spending on road improvement schemes within his Department's responsibilities in the areas of(a) each district borough or city council and (b) each county council area in Wales, for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on trunk roads and motorway expenditure, for which the Welsh Office is the responsible highway authority, is not readily available analysed by district borough or city council area, or by county prior to April 1981. The available information by county is shown in the table:

  Mr. Grist
  The application is before Clwyd county council as minerals planning authority. On the information available to him my right hon. Friend sees no reason why an application of this nature, which does not appear to raise planning issues of more than local importance, should not be decided by the council. He is unable, therefore, to agree to the hon. Gentleman's request.

  Primary School Classes
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of primary classes in each of the Welsh counties now contains more than 40 children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proportion of registered ordinary classes in maintained primary schools containing more than 40 pupils at September 1988 is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  0·2

  Dyfed

  0·1

  Gwent

  0·1

  Gwynedd

  0·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  Powys

  —

  South Glamorgan

  0·1

  West Glamorgan

  0·1

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made with water companies in Wales to ensure that water supplies are readily accessible and available to the emergency services in Wales to deal with fires and other emergencies.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the fire authorities concerned. Section 47 of the Water Act 1989 places a duty on a water undertaker to allow any person to take water for extinguishing fires from any of its water mains or other pipes on which a water hydrant is fixed. Section 51 places a duty on a water undertaker to cause the water in such of its water mains and other pipes that have fire hydrants fixed on them to be laid on constantly and at such a pressure as will cause the water to reach to the top of the topmost storey of every building within the undertaker's area. The obligations of a water undertaker under both sections are enforceable under section 20 by the Secretary of State; and in addition, where a water undertaker is in breach of a duty under this section, the undertaker shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine.

  Llandudno Centre
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reconsider the application by Aberconwy borough council to spend £11 million on an arts, leisure and conference centre for Llandudno.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 15 January 1990.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will widen the remit of the Welsh Development Agency in line with that of the Development Board for Rural Wales to include social improvements and tourism facilities.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Adequate provision already exists for aiding social and tourism facilities in areas which are not served by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Teachers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of vacant teaching places in each of the education authorities in Wales; and what is the number of teachers leaving the profession in Wales each year from 1985.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The number of vacant teaching places in each of the education authorities is shown in the table:

  Number1

  Clwyd

  26

  Dyfed

  7

  Gwent

  61

  Gwynedd

  24

  Mid Glamorgan

  125

  Powys

  16

  South Glamorgan

  15

  West Glamorgan

  12

  Total Wales

  286

  1 Source: Form 618G, supplied by local education authorities at 19 January 1989 relating to full-time teacher vacancies.

  Information on the number of teachers leaving the profession in Wales is not available. The number of teachers who ceased full-time teaching in the maintained schools sector for any one of a number of reasons including retirement is as follows:

  Year ending

  Number

  31 March 1986

  1,971

  31 March 1987

  1,879

  Rural Wales
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to urge the Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales to give special attention to areas of rural Dyfed and Gwynedd in the drive to revitalise the economy of rural Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The distribution of WDA and DBRW resources to particular areas is largely a matter for the bodies themselves. Government policies are, of course, directed towards the establishment of a thriving and self-sustaining rural economy. The WDA's recently launched rural strategy and the DBRW's strategy for the 1990s and its western initiative provide clear evidence of those bodies' commitment to those policies. Dyfed and Gwynedd, along with the rest of rural Wales, will continue to benefit from the activities of the agency and the board.

  Monitoring Officers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to allow adequate time for consultation with bodies representing local authorities in Wales on the draft subsidiary legislation bringing into effect the provisions of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question on 8 February I will provide local authority associations in Wales with an advance draft of the order, bringing into effect the regulations on companies, for comment.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the acute hospitals with fewer than 600 beds.

  Mr. Grist
  The information, as at 31 December 1988, is shown as follows:

  ACUTE HOSPITALS

  Clwyd

  Catherine Gladstone

  Colwyn Bay Community

  Denbighsire Infirmary

  Flint Cottage

  Holywell Cottage

  Llangollen

  Mold

  Prestatyn Community

  Ruthin

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Cardigan and District

  Llandovery Cottage

  Llanelli

  Gwent

  Blaenavon Health Care Unit

  Monmouth General

  Nevill Hall

  Gwynedd

  Caernarvonshire Eye and Cottage

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  Madoc Memorial

  Stanley Sailors

  St. Davids

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend General

  East Glamorgan General

  Llynfi

  Maesteg General

  Mountain Ash

  Pontypridd and District

  Porth and District

  Prince Charles

  Princess of Wales

  Treherbert

  Pembrokeshire

  Tenby Cottage

  Powys

  Brecon War Memorial

  Builth Cottage

  Machynlleth and District

  South Glamorgan

  Barry Community

  West Glamorgan

  Neath General

  Port Talbot

  Singleton

  MAINLY ACUTE HOSPITALS

  Clwyd

  Abergele

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais General

  West Wales General

  Gwent

  County

  Gwynedd

  Dolgellau and District

  Llandudno General

  Towyn and District

  816

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Aberdare and District

  Caerphilly District Miners

  Llwynpia

  Pentwyn Cottage

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  Powys

  Machynlleth Chest

  Montgomery County Infirmary

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  Llandough

  Rookwood

  PARTLY ACUTE HOSPITALS

  Clwyd

  HM Stanley

  Royal Alexandra

  East Dyfed

  Amman Valley

  Gwent

  Abertillery and District

  St. Woolos

  Gwynedd

  Bryn Beryl

  Mid Glamorgan

  Aberbargoed and District

  Mardy

  Redwood Memorial

  Tonteg

  Powys

  Llandrindod Wells War Memorial

  Llanidloes and District

  Victoria Memorial

  South Glamorgan

  St. Davids

  West Glamorgan

  Hill House

  State Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the state primary and secondary schools he has visited in Wales, by county, since June 1987.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Since 1 June 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I have visited maintained schools as follows:

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  —

  2

  Dyfed

  1

  2

  Gwent

  —

  2

  Gwynedd

  2

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  3

  Powys

  3

  —

  South Glamorgan

  3

  1

  West Glamorgan

  1

  1

  I hope to visit a further eight maintained schools later in this school year.

  Psychiatric Units
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the development of medium secure psychiatric units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Efforts to make the substantive progress in this area which I believe is necessary have been hampered by the difficulty of recruiting the necessary expert advisory staff. Now that appointments have been made of the consultant forensic psychiatrist (who is also co-ordinator of forensic psychiatric services and adviser to the chief medical officer) and the senior nurse adviser to the chief nursing officer of the Welsh Office, I propose to set up an all-Wales advisory group to determine a comprehensive policy for forensic psychiatric services in the Principality and to report as speedily as possible.

  The remit of the group will be as follows:
  In the context of the document "Mental Illness Services—A Strategy for Wales" to develop an operational framework for the provision of a comprehensive forensic psychiatric service in Wales in the light of the needs of patients and the experience of health authorities in England of setting up similar services: identifying in particular the appropriate district and regional elements of the service, an operational policy and development programme for medium secure psychiatric units and the future role and functioning of Garth Angharad Hospital.

  I shall shortly announce the membership of the group, which is to he chaired by an official of the Welsh Office NHS directorate, once consultations have been concluded.

  I intend that the group should undertake its work quickly, but it is clear that it will be some time before its agreed recommendations can be implemented. I accept that further delay in providing facilities for mentally abnormal offenders in Wales is undesirable. I also note the recommendation in the third biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission that interim arrangements should be established in Wales. This has also been recommended by the Department's specialist advisers. As a consequence, I propose that interim secure facilities should be established in north and south Wales and Clwyd and Mid Glamorgan health authorities have been invited to prepare proposals to that end. They will be assisted by the Department's specialist advisers and their proposals will be considered by the all-Wales advisory group. I have asked that, the practical arrangements including recruitment of staff permitting, efforts be made to admit the first patients in 1990–91. I do not propose to initiate any further work on the development of individual substantive medium secure psychiatric units, including a decision on provision in west Wales, or on the development of Garth Angharad hospital until the all-Wales advisory group's report is to hand.

  It is my expectation, subject to consultation on the report of the all-Wales advisory group, that these interim secure arrangements will be subsumed within the framework of the comprehensive forensic psychiatric services which will be formulated by the advisory group and thereby enable us to provide in the Principality as speedily as possible a service of excellence based on the experience of best practice gained in other parts of the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Community Service
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stricter elements he will be introducing into community service orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We introduced the National Standards for Community Service Orders on 1 April 1989. These were designed to ensure that offenders in all areas do work which is demanding and seen to be of use to the community and that the discipline of the order is maintained. The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" contains proposals for combining community service and probation orders, and for requiring offenders on community service to report to their supervisor at any time when the supervisor considers this necessary to secure compliance with the order.

  Police Officers (Ports)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the manning of ports by police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Waddington
  There are continuing discussions on the policing of ports between the Home Office and the police forces and authorities concerned.

  EC Nationals (Right of Residence)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EEC nationals and their dependants will have the right of residence in the United Kingdom in consequence of the right of residence directive; and if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom of the minute of the Council relating to the further extension of the definitions of relative.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to predict with any precision the numbers of people who will benefit from the proposed right of residence directives. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the numbers seeking to take advantage of them will be very large.

  The Government have not agreed to any widening of the definition of dependants. As revised by the Council, in the light of concerns expressed by the United Kingdom and a number of other member states, the proposed directives will specify precisely to which family members they apply and will not be linked to the definition in other Community legislation dealing with the family members of other groups such as workers.

  The Council and the Commission have agreed that the definition of family members in the new right of residence directives may be reviewed in the light of the proposal for a regulation amending article 10 of regulation 1612/68. The position of the United Kingdom and of a number of other member states in relation to that proposal is, however, reserved.

  If a change were nevertheless made to regulation 1612/68, it is likely that a corresponding change would be sought to the new right of residence directives. The Council minute does not, however, commit any member state to accepting any such change, and any proposal to that effect would be for separate negotiation.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will meet representatives of the Pensioners Association to discuss the question of free television licences for all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 7 December 1989 at column 470. As he knows, the question has been raised many times before, and I doubt whether further discussion would serve any strong purpose.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the concessionary television licence regulations.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Basildon Courthouse
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new courthouse in Basildon will be opened.

  Mr. John Patten
  The courthouse is due to be completed and ready for use in October 1990, and the official opening will take place in November 1990.

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of juveniles arrested for drug-related offences in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not held centrally on the number of arrests by age of offender. However, in England and Wales in 1988, 731 juveniles were cautioned for drug offences and 234 juveniles were prosecuted: of those prosecuted 181 were found guilty.

  Information for 1989 will not be available until the autumn of 1990.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department will make to the NATO exercises due to be held in Norway during March.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the individuals identified in the unpublished part II of the war crimes report are currently alive and resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The war crimes inquiry set out in chapter 9 of its published report (Cm 744) its information about whether individuals in respect of whom it had received allegations were alive and resident in this country.

  "How You Can Help the Police"
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the pamphlet "How You Can Help the Police" have been distributed; and what percentage of those distributed elicited a written or telephoned response.
  820
  Mr. John Patten
  Between May 1988 and February 1990 1·1 million copies of the leaflet "Victims of Crime—how you can help the police to help you" were issued. The Home Office does not have statistics on the responses.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have left the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory, other than for normal retirement, in each year of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that since 1982 (the earliest year for which the information is available) the following staff of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory have left for reasons other than normal retirement, and, in the case of administrative staff, career transfer to other parts of the Metropolitan police:

  Scientists

  Administrative staff

  1982

  7

  14

  1983

  17

  4

  1984

  213

  7

  1985

  311

  15

  1986

  8

  411

  1987

  12

  15

  1988

  12

  9

  1989

  18

  510

  1990

  1

  —

  Note:

  The figures for scientists include those who have transferred to other Government Departments on promotion.

  1 Includes one officer who died.

  2 Includes one officer who retired on medical grounds and one who died.

  3 Includes one officer who left at the end of a one-year contract.

  4 Includes one officer whose employment was terminated.

  5 Includes one officer who died.

  National Association of Probation Officers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The last such meeting with the Home Secretary took place on 3 August 1987, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) met representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss the document "Probation—The Next Five Years". I last met NAPO on 4 July 1988 to discuss the forthcoming Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community". It has not requested a meeting since that date. Home Office officials have frequent meetings with NAPO.

  West Midlands Police
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 304, concerning Detective Sergeant Morton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The answers I gave on 25 January and 1 February referred only to those officers who conducted interviews with those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the progress of his electronic tagging programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to questions from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 9 February at column 823.

  Charities
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many charities registered with the Charity Commission have failed to submit accounts for the last financial year; and if he will express this figure as a percentage of the total number of charities registered with the commission;

  (2) how many of the charities registered with the Charity Commission have submitted annual accounts that have been professionally audited.

  Mr. John Patten
  Some 12 per cent. of registered charities submitted accounts to the commission in 1989, However, under the Charities Act 1960 only charities possessing a permanent endowment are required to submit accounts annually without request. In addition, some of these are excepted by order or regulations from the need to submit accounts. In the circumstances it is not possible to say how many charities obliged to submit accounts yearly failed to do so.

  Information about the number of registered charities which have submitted annual accounts that have been professionally audited is not readily available. There is at present no general statutory obligation for the accounts of a charity to be professionally audited, although those charities which are companies have to be audited under companies' legislation. In addition, some charities are required to have their accounts audited by their own governing instruments; and the Charity Commissioners may, at their own expense, order an audit of a charity's accounts.

  Our proposals for reforming the law on the submission and auditing of charity accounts are contained in chapter 4 of the White Paper "Charities: A Framework for the Future" published in May last year. Our main proposals are that in future all registered charities should be required to submit proper accounts annually to the Commission; that trustees should be obliged to make copies of their charity's statement of account available to the public on request; and that large charities should be required to have their accounts professionally audited.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what immigration control arrangements will be made for the Channel tunnel when it opens.

  Mr. Waddington
  For Eurotunnel shuttle train journeys ending at Cheriton, inward controls are planned at Coquelles. For through trains proceeding beyond London the Channel Tunnel Act provides for immigration controls to be carried out on train subject to the provision of satisfactory facilities to enable the controls to be exercised on those trains and to the payment of any fees or charges that may be imposed. For trains terminating in London I have now decided that passport checks should normally 822
  take place on the trains subject to the payment by British Rail of the additional costs involved and to the pro vision of satisfactory accommodation and control arrangements on board the trains and at the stations. These matters are being discussed with the train operators.

  Refugees, Azad Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure those from Azad Kashmir who seek political asylum in the United Kingdom are interviewed before decisions are taken on such applications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question of 5 December 1989 at column 182. With the exception of those whose applications are based solely on links with the Pakistan People's party, asylum applicants from Azad Kashmir would be interviewed before a refusal decision was taken.

  Underground (Fire Inspections)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what routine fire inspections of underground system railways stations are required by the relevant statutory authorities in respect of London Regional Transport, the Paris Metro and RER and the Berlin U-Bahn.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Fire precautions on the London Underground are controlled by regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which are enforced by the London fire and civil defence authority.

  The regulations themselves do not specify what fire inspections should take place. London Underground Ltd. has, however, applied to the authority for temporary exemption from certain provisions of the regulations which came into force on 1 January 1990. As a condition of granting the exemptions, the LFCDA has required LUL to carry out regular inspections of high-risk areas in particular Underground stations. These inspections will continue until LUL complies with regulations and the exemptions can be lifted.

  I have no information on the routine inspections required by the relevant statutory authorities in respect of the Paris Metro and RER, or the Berlin U-Bahn.

  Batons
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in the United Kingdom are at present conducting field trials of martial-arts type batons for the control of civilians.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: I understand that the West Midlands police have acquired 100 batons which are inflexible cylindrical rods about 6 in long and five eighths of an inch in diameter. These are being made available to trained officers in a pilot scheme running until the end of March. As with any other piece of equipment these batons may be used only in accordance with the principle of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which requires the use of no more force than is reasonable in the circumstances.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of civil defence grant aid for(a) staff costs, (b) building work and (c) other costs in the financial years from 1983–84 to 1988–89 and projected for 1989–90, received by each London borough.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 January, c. 471–74]: I am sorry to say that there was an error of transposition in the table headed "Civil Defence Grant Aid Received by London Boroughs 1986–87". The sums of £29,279 and £94,582 shown in the "Staff" column for Richmond and Waltham Forest respectively should have appeared in the "Building" column. The amended table reads as follows:

  Civil Defence Grant Aid Received by London Boroughs 1986–87

  Borough

  Staff

  Building

  Other

  £

  £

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,061

  —

  3,364

  Barnet

  —

  —

  2,230

  Bexley

  —

  —

  4,143

  Brent

  —

  —

  1,894

  Bromley

  3,402

  —

  4,249

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,393

  City of London

  —

  146,656

  14,453

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2,076

  Ealing

  224

  —

  198

  Enfield

  —

  —

  45

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,737

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1,900

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  3,330

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,370

  Harrow

  —

  —

  5,724

  Havering

  1,530

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  5,565

  Hounslow

  1,218

  —

  1,351

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,579

  Kensington and Chelsea

  648

  —

  2,405

  Kingston

  —

  —

  2,675

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  6,922

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  2,492

  Merton

  3,552

  —

  3,015

  Newham

  —

  —

  1,173

  Redbridge

  644

  —

  2,027

  Richmond

  —

  29,279

  4,418

  Southwark

  —

  —

  4,193

  Sutton

  —

  —

  3,616

  Tower Hamlets

  1,363

  —

  3,473

  Waltham Forest

  —

  94,582

  1,964

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  5,886

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,362

TRANSPORT

  London Taxis
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many registered London black cabs there are; what this number is as a percentage of the population of London; and what information he has on the comparable figures in capital cities of other industrial countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statistics on foreign taxi operations are not kept by the Department. However, I have obtained the following information:
  824

  City

  Number of licensed taxis

  Population

  Taxis as a percentage of population

  London

  15,800

  7,200,000

  0·22

  Washington

  7,000

  3,100,000

  0·23

  Paris

  14,300

  5,500,000

  0·26

  Tokyo

  50,300

  11,900,000

  0·42

  Figures may not be on a comparable basis.

  Road-building
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many acres of land in public ownership have been utilised for the building of motorways and trunk roads; and what is his estimate of such building over the next five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I regret that the information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the steps he intends to take to ensure that the drivers' hours and rest period regulations, vehicle weights and dimensions are conformed to by foreign international hauliers within the United Kingdom, following elimination of frontier checks.

  Mr. Atkins
  Traffic examiners will continue to carry out selective checks on United Kingdom and foreign heavy goods vehicles at ports and inland sites. Checks will be carried out without discrimination of vehicles or drivers. Vehicles will be weighed in the ports using more automated weighing systems being installed for this purpose.

  Drivers' tachograph charts will be checked to ensure that drivers are complying with the legal requirements for driving limits and rest. Vehicle dimensions will also be checked to ensure that they conform with the requirements of United Kingdom law.

  Single Market
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to ensure that the introduction of the single European market does not have an adverse effect on the environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  All member states of the European Community and the Commission itself are mindful of the need to protect the environment and are taking account of environmental aspects in all proposals for new Community measures. A number of specific measures to protect the environment have already been agreed, in particular controls on vehicle emisions. In so far as the introduction of the single European market will encourage greater efficiency in the use of transport, it will have a beneficial effect on the environment.

  British Rail
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the income from the sale of British Rail land and property in 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  The income for the 1988–89 financial year was £263·5 million.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the planned expenditure for the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  £ million (cash)

  Year

  Capital expenditure

  Current expenditure

  1985–86

  164

  77

  1986–87

  218

  93

  1987–88

  264

  84

  1988–89

  190

  102

  1989–90

  337

  99

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for national roads, England.

  2. 1985–86 to 1988–89 are outturn figures; 1989–90 revised vote provision.

  3. Capital expenditure comprises renewal of roads, and renewal and strengthening of bridges including the Severn Bridge.

  4. Current expenditure is net of receipts (tolls, damage claims, administration and hire charges and VAT refunds).

  Outturn expenditure was close to or above original planned targets in each year except 1988–89, when it was necessary to transfer some capital maintenance resources to new construction to avoid an overspend on the roads vote as a whole in the face of increased construction prices and faster progress with some new road schemes.

  Traffic Flow
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to improve traffic flow from all directions by removing the traffic lights recently installed at the junction of St. George's road and Garden way, London; at what level the decision to instal them was taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The decision to instal the traffic lights was taken by Southwark borough council following consultation with the traffic control systems unit. The Department of Transport was notified of the council's intention. The traffic lights and pelican crossings installed by the council are designed to improve safety for pedestrians. I see no reason to intervene.

  Vehicle Excise Tax
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports of vehicle excise tax evasion were processed during 1989; and how many summonses for non-payment were issued.

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1989, 875,639 vehicle excise duty evasion reports were actioned by the Department. Summonses were issued against 192,813 evaders. In addition, 184,131 out-of-court settlements were paid by evaders.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants are currently employed to detect vehicle excise duty offenders.

  Mr. Atkins
  Outside London, vehicle excise duty enforcement is conducted from the Department's network of vehicle registration offices, where staff also deal with vehicle licensing and registration. A total of 984 man-years 826
  was allocated to enforcement in 1989–90, taking those offices, the London enforcement office, and staff at DVLC together.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which geographical areas publicity campaigns were mounted to encourage vehicle owners to tax their vehicles during 1989; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1989 vehicle excise duty enforcement campaigns were held in the following geographical areas:

  Devon and Cornwall

  Kent

  Leicestershire

  London

  Sussex

  Central Scotland

  Humberside

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  West Mercia

  Hertfordshire

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dorset

  Derbyshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Surrey

  Fife

  Essex

  West Yorkshire

  Northern (Highlands)

  West Midlands

  Bedfordshire

  Thames Valley

  The publicity costs of the 1989 campaign programme were £776,180. In addition the Department's staff costs, including the prosecution of evaders caught during campaigns, totalled £170,000. Police costs are not available.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost to public funds of prosecuting non-payment of vehicle excise duty in 1989; and how much was recovered by orders of courts to prosecution costs.

  Mr. Atkins
  The estimated average cost to public funds of prosecuting a vehicle excise duty evader in 1989 was £21·78. The amount ordered by courts in finds, back duty orders and costs amounted to £17·5 million.

  Docks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned or undertaken into(a) employment prospects on the clocks and (b) company liquidations before arriving at his estimate that the Dock Work Act 1989 will lead to 1,500 to 2,000 redundancies and cost £25 million over the full period, Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 May 1989, column 537.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The estimate of redundancies among registered dock workers was the best that could be made in all the circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised to the Standing Committee, no one could tell with any precision what would happen when the dock labour scheme ended; the figures were between an estimate and a guess.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, 11 December 1989,Official Report, column 486, what further negotiations his Department has had on additional transatlantic flights to and from Manchester airport since 1 December 1989; what has been the outcome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A round of talks was held in London on 29 November to 1 December 1989. My right hon. Friend went himself to Washington to meet the US Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Skinner, on 11 and 12 January. Negotiations continue, and my right hon. Friend hopes to welcome Mr. Skinner here soon for further talks.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he intends to discuss transatlantic flights from Glasgow airport with the United States Secretary of Transportation; and when he next intends to meet the United States Secretary of Transportation;

  (2) if he will list the flights from United Kingdom airports outside London which his Department expects to discuss at the next meeting with the United States Secretary of Transportation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend hopes to welcome the United States Secretary of Transportation here soon, but no date or agenda has been settled. However, it is perhaps unlikely that the United States side will wish to raise the question of services from Glasgow, since it already has extensive unused rights to that airport.

  Scottish Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which calendar month he expects to announce his decision on the review of Scottish airports policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce his decision next month.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about the minimum period of time needed to manufacture the trains necessary for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a commercial matter for the railways concerned. I understand that BR is planning for through trains to be in operation when the Channel tunnel opens.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Rail has sought approval for investment in the trains necessary for the direct link from the Channel tunnel to the north of England and Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. British Rail has published its proposals for through services but has not yet submitted the application to make the necessary investment.

DEFENCE

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discretion is given to the co-ordinating centre at RAF Pitreavie to disregard the restriction on night-time flying search and rescue operations from RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The operating procedures of the rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Pitreavie state that the RAF Leuchars flight will operate at night only if the rescue operation in question began during daylight hours, or in the event of a major disaster.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to review the current restriction on night-flying operations on search and rescue helicopters operating from RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) at what time on Monday 12 February the request from Ninewells hospital, Dundee, for the assistance of a search and rescue helicopter, was received by the co-ordinating centre at RAF Pitreavie;

  (2) why a search and rescue helicopter from RAF Leuchars was not scrambled on Monday 12 February in response to the request for assistance from Ninewells hospital, Dundee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At 7.42 pm on Monday 12 February 1990, the rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Pitreavie received a request for a helicopter to airlift a man suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning from Ninewells hospital in Dundee to a specialist medical unit in Aberdeen. By this time of day RAF Leuchers had ceased operations. The duty controller informed the hospital that any helicopter would have to come from one of three bases; RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Boulmer or HMS Gannett. The request for assistance was therefore withdrawn and the patient was transferred by road.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry to establish whether there is an abnormal level of childhood leukaemia among the children of nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the national radiological protection board is examining the possibility of a nationwide study of leukaemia in 0 to 25-year-olds in th United Kingdom, in which the children of nuclear test veterans might be included.

EMPLOYMENT

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of accountancy firms that have failed to meet statutory quotas on the recruitment of disabled persons.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory premises are registered with the factory inspectorate in each of the Health and Safety Executive's geographical areas and were registered with the factory inspectorate in each of the last five years; and for each Health and Safety Executive area, how many trained factory inspectors were employed in each area in each of the last five years.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  HSE Geographical area

  Number of fixed premises1

  Number of trained inspectors (May)2

  Number of fixed premises1

  Number of trained inspectors (April)

  Number of fixed premises

  Number of trained inspectors (April)

  Number of fixed premises

  Number of trained inspectors (April)

  Number of fixed premises

  Number of trained inspectors (April)

  South West

  —

  25·0

  —

  22·0

  21,281

  22·0

  20,788

  21·5

  20,759

  21·0

  South

  —

  24·0

  —

  23·5

  27,342

  24·5

  27,028

  22·5

  27,113

  22·0

  South East

  —

  22·0

  —

  19·0

  25,312

  22·5

  25,506

  23·0

  25,404

  22·5

  London North

  —

  32·5

  —

  32·5

  30,962

  32·0

  31,197

  29·0

  30,869

  28·5

  London South

  —

  32·5

  —

  29·0

  19,271

  29·0

  19,003

  31·0

  18,747

  32·0

  East Anglia

  —

  23·5

  —

  22·0

  20,610

  18·5

  20,550

  19·5

  20,123

  19·5

  North Home Counties

  —

  19·0

  —

  20·0

  17,964

  21·5

  18,166

  19·5

  17,887

  18·5

  East Midlands

  —

  22·0

  —

  22·0

  19,277

  22·0

  19,542

  21·5

  19,857

  21·0

  West Midlands

  —

  29·0

  —

  26·0

  19,948

  27·0

  19,308

  29·0

  18,502

  24·0

  Wales

  —

  21·0

  —

  19·0

  18,378

  20·0

  18,544

  21·5

  18,957

  21·0

  Marches

  —

  22·0

  —

  22·5

  15,886

  19·5

  16,074

  21·0

  16,165

  20·5

  North Midlands

  —

  24·0

  —

  20·0

  16,245

  20·0

  16,095

  17·0

  16,608

  190

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  23·5

  —

  22·5

  17,260

  21·5

  16,632

  21·0

  16,058

  24·0

  West and North Yorkshire

  —

  32·5

  —

  30·5

  23,973

  28·5

  24,067

  27·0

  24,107

  28·0

  Greater Manchester

  —

  30·5

  —

  25·5

  16,404

  24·5

  16,902

  22·0

  17,345

  22·5

  Merseyside

  —

  23·0

  —

  22·0

  16,503

  19·0

  17,003

  23·5

  16,912

  21·0

  North West

  —

  26·0

  —

  21·0

  18,208

  21·0

  18,453

  21·0

  18,718

  22·5

  North East

  —

  31·0

  —

  28·0

  16,416

  26·0

  16,580

  20·5

  16,814

  23·5

  Scotland East

  —

  25·0

  —

  22·0

  20,192

  20·0

  20,357

  18·5

  20,302

  20·5

  Scotland West

  —

  26·0

  —

  23·0

  20,383

  21·0

  20,128

  23·0

  19,757

  19·5

  Totals

  395,860

  514·0

  399,885

  472·0

  401,815

  460·0

  401,923

  452·5

  401,004

  451·0

  1 Information by Area not readily available.

  2 May 1985 is the earliest date on which trained and trainee inspector numbers can be split by area.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is successfully meeting its objective of helping large numbers of unemployed people to get the skills and experience they need to obtain jobs. Its success will be further reinforced through the introduction of training and enterprise councils (TECs) which will have the flexibility to make the programme even more responsive to the training needs of both individuals and employers within local labour markets.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of unemployed entering employment training for each of the categories(a) six months to 12 months, (b) one year to two years, (c) two years to three years, (d) three years to four years, (e) four years to five years and (f) over five years between September 1988 and December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested. Of those people entering employment training between September 1988 and December 1989, 169,000 had been unemployed for between six and 12 months, 72,000 for between one and two years and 186,000 for over two years.
  830
  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table gives details of fixed premises (including factories) registered with the factory inspectorate in each of the Health and Safety Executive's areas at 31 March for the last three years. Information for March 1990 is not yet available. Other information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Numbers of trained factory inspectors employed in each area for the last five years are included in the table.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications for British legislation of the European Court of Justice decision in Rinner-Kuhn v. FWW Spezial-Gebaudereinigung GmbH and Co. of 13 July 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This is a decision which arises from German domestic legislation on the payment of sick pay. Ministers will have to consider whether it has any implications for the law in this country.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to ensure that at least one person on each training and enterprise council has experience of working with young people with special needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are independent companies which will appoint their own board members subject to the criteria laid down by my Department.

  However, to be effective and credible TECs will need to establish local partnerships and collaborate with a wide range of local interests and organisations including bodies representing young people with special needs.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the contracts with training and enterprise councils will include national targets to guarantee the
  831
  quality of training for young people with special needs under the new arrangements for youth training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each training and enterprise council (TEC) will be set an agreed performance-related target for the number of people with special needs who start training. Each TEC will in addition need to set out in its business plan proposals for ensuring that those young people in its area with special needs are properly identified and assessed and given access to quality training leading to qualifications appropriate to their individual levels of ability.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the funding arrangements for youth training will include incentives to ensure quality training for young people with special needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Youth training funding arrangements will include incentives to ensure quality training for young people with special needs.

  Each young person identified as having special training needs will have an endorsement certificate which will be lodged with the training provider. The provider will then be obliged by contract to provide appropriate training and the Training Agency's area office or the training and enterprise council (local enterprise company in Scotland) will have regard to that in determining the appropriate funding levels.

  In addition, at least 10 per cent. of each TEC's youth training budget will be paid on qualifications achieved. Those who gain national vocational qualifications (NVQs) at level II (or equivalent as determined by the Training Agency) will count towards TECs' output-related funding. In addition, level I (or equivalent) NVQs gained by young people with particularly severe special training needs will also count.

  TECs will also be eligible for a 2 per cent. performance bonus. Criteria for earning this will include NVQs as for output-related funding, the percentage of starts on youth training of young people with disabilities, members of ethnic minority groups and, where appropriate, people from the inner cities.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements will be made to ensure that the interests and views of organisations and agencies providing training for young people with special needs are represented on training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each training and enterprise council (TEC) will be expected to consult and work closely with appropriate organisations and agencies to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged young people in their area are met. A number of TECs are establishing sub-groups to take account of different interests in the community.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from Barnardo's about employment and training of young people with a mental handicap; what reply he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department received representations from Barnardos last year raising a number of issues about 832
  the employment and training of young people with special needs, particularly in relation to the setting up of training and enterprise councils (TECs).

  My Department gave assurances that TECs will be expected to set out in their plans proposals on how they intend to provide for young people with special needs. These proposals will be looked at very carefully before plans are approved.

  Employment Centres
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) employment rehabilitation centres and (b) asset centres nationally; and if he will list the services they provide.

  Mr. Eggar
  A list of the employment rehabilitation service's employment rehabilitation centres and asset centres is given in the table.

  The employment rehabilitation service offers a wide range of services including assessment, rehabilitation and preparatory training, practical experience with employers or in workshops, help in finding jobs and access to open learning materials. Employment rehabilitation centres offer the full range of services. Asset centres are similar but do not operate workshops.

  (a) Employment Rehabilitation Centres

  Bellshill

  Leeds

  Bristol

  Long Eaton

  Croydon

  Plymouth

  Egham

  Preston

  Humberside

  Birmingham

  Liverpool

  Coventry

  North Staffs

  Edinburgh

  Portsmouth

  Glasgow

  South Gosforth

  Leicester

  Billingham

  Manchester

  Cardiff

  Port Talbot

  Dundee

  Sheffield

  Garston Manor

  (b) Asset Centres

  East Ham

  West London

  Birtley

  Medway

  Exeter

  Wrexham

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stretford of 14 February, if he will identify on whose initiative the employment of two occupational psychologists by Grand Metropolitan community services at Exeter asset centre was undertaken.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment of two occupational psychologists at Exeter asset centre was a joint initiative by the Training Agency and Grand Metropolitan community services.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the actual and percentage fall in unemployment in the Birkenhead constituency for 1981; and what is the comparable figure overall in other inner city areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployment figures for parliamentary constituencies and the 57 local authority districts in England within which the Government target inner city aid are not available before June 1983. The following table shows the number of unemployed claimants at that date compared with the latest available figures.
  833

  Unemployed claimants (unadjusted)

  June 1983

  January 1990

  Change

  Percentage change

  UPAs1

  1,130,512

  658,947

  -471,565

  -41·7

  Birkenhead parliamentary constituency

  8,726

  6,479

  -2,247

  -25·8

  Note:

  Comparisons over time are affected by changes to the count over the period as well as seasonal influences.

  1 Urban Programme Areas, the 57 local authority districts in which the Government targets inner city aid.

  Deptford Skillcentre
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the development value of the site of the Deptford skillcentre now that the sale of the Skills Training Agency is completed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Terms for the sale of the training business at Deptford skillcentre have been agreed with Astra Training Services Limited, the management buy-out team. Astra plans to lease part of the site, and my right hon. and learned Friend intends to offer the property for sale via open market competition subject to that lease. My right hon. and learned Friend has taken professional advice on the value of the site; the sale of the site has not yet been completed and it would be inappropriate to reveal a valuation.

  Disabled People (Employment Quotas)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list how many firms received quota exemption permits under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for the latest date for which information is available; and how many of these firms held quota exemption permits for longer than two years, five years and 10 years, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: On 1 June 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the number of firms issued with quota permits was 18,530. Permits are issued for a maximum period of six months. information on the length of time for which individual employers have held a continuous series of such permits is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 13 February to the hon. Member for Stretford, he will list(a) the number of firms not meeting their quota obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 for every year since 1979 to the latest available date and (b) the number of firms not meeting their quota obligations and without permits, for each year from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 February 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year ending

  Firms not employing the quota of 3 per cent, people with disabilities

  Firms not employing the quota of 3 per cent, people with disabilities and which are without permits

  1 June 1979

  31,234

  8,822

  1 June 1980

  30,226

  8,225

  1 June 1981

  29,073

  7,890

  1 June 1982

  28,828

  9,032

  1 June 1983

  25,681

  7,145

  1 June 1984

  25,550

  6,781

  834

  Year ending

  Firms not employing the quota of 3 per cent. people with disabilities

  Firms not employing the quota of 3 per cent. people with disabilities and which are without permits

  1 June 1985

  25,501

  6,820

  1 June 1986

  24,643

  5,803

  1 June 1987

  24,593

  6,016

  1 June 1988

  24,705

  6,111

  1 June 1989

  24,700

  6,170

  Employers who are below quota and without permits have not necessarily committed an offence unless they have engaged people who were not registered as disabled when a suitable registered disabled person was available.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will identify the revenue costs of alternative arrangements for each Thames regional health authority of the ambulance dispute to date.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  These costs have not yet been assessed by the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the cost of using the army, police and voluntary bodies on ambulance duties on(a) a daily basis, (b) a weekly basis and (c) total cost;

  (2) what has been the cost to date of using the Army and police in each health authority in which the Army or police began performing ambulance duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 January 1990]: It is too soon for all these costs to have been assessed. The total cost for the provision of military assistance up to the end of December 1989 was £1·8 million. Figures for the costs of police assistance have not yet been assessed by all the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to date of(a) the police and (b) the Army doing ambulance duties; and what is the estimated daily cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Costs have not yet all been assessed. The total cost for the provision of military assistance up to the end of December 1989 was £1·8 million. There are some offsetting savings from the normal service. The cost of police assistance has not yet been assessed by all the authorities concerned.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the normal weekly cost of the emergency service(a) to Coventry district health authority and (b) to each county.
  835
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not collect this detailed local information centrally.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the weekly cost of(a) police assistance, (b) Army assistance, and (c) the emergency ambulance service that is still being incurred in each county.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is not available. However, the cost for the provision of military assistance to the end of December 1989 was £1·8 million. The cost of police assistance has not yet been assessed by all the authorities concerned.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is considering making tests on blood donations to ensure that they are not contaminated by Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no blood test to detect the causative agent of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. However, there is no evidence that this rare disease can be transmitted via blood.

  Babies (Abduction)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year and by regional health authority for the last 10 years the number of cases of babies that have been abducted while in hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not hold information on such incidents centrally.

  The Department has commended to all health authorities a security manual prepared by NAHA. Copies were distributed to the NHS in 1984. The manual includes advice on the issue of personal identification badges to all members of staff.

  In the maternity field, the health building note on maternity departments refers specifically to the need to consider the safety of babies temporarily unattended in postnatal areas or neonatal units. The design briefing states that accommodation for babies must be sited so as to be easily visible from the staff base.

  Nurses
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals of nurses concerning their clinical grading(a) have been submitted, (b) have been heard and (c) await decision; and how many have been upgraded for each district health authority in the west midlands area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how self-governing trusts will be asked to alter employees' contracts, conditions of service and superannuation rights;

  (2) whether self-governing trusts will be allowed to opt out of the Whitley system;

  (3) whether the employment conditions and employment protection rights for self-governing hospital trusts will differ from the present arrangements in the National Health Service.
  836
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Staff who transfer from health authority to NHS trust employment will retain their existing contracts and all rights arising from them, subject to the substitution of the new employer for the old and any consequential technical changes. It will be open to the NHS trusts to seek to introduce changes in existing contracts at any time after transfer. In doing so, they will be free to decide whether to continue to adopt Whitley council conditions or to make alternative arrangements if they so wish.

  Employees of NHS trusts will be eligible to stay in or to join the NHS superannuation scheme. However, subject to the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, trusts will have the power to establish their own arrangements for providing pensions if they wish.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce any change to the ratio of trained nurses coupled with untrained nurses in the National Health Service; and whether self-governing trusts will be under any obligation to maintain any given ratio.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not lay down any ratio of qualified to other nursing staff in the National Health Service. The planning and setting of staffing establishments is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities. National Health Service trusts will be free to determine the number, skill and grade mix of nurses they employ.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if self-governing hospital trusts may decide to give up self-governing status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there will be any changes to the skill and grade mix of nurses who work in the self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will be free to determine the number, skill and grade mix of nurses they employ.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are planned for the education and training of nurses; what requirements of education and training he intends to impose on self-governing trusts; and whether he intends to allow competition in training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to ensure that NHS trusts participate in the training of key professional staff, including nurses. Detailed proposals for dealing with the education and training implications of the White Paper "Working for Patients" are set out in working paper 10, a copy of which is in the Library. This document has been the subject of a widespread consultation exercise, which ended on 31 January 1990. The comments which we have received are being carefully studied: we shall announce decisions as soon as possible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what control his Department will exercise over the accounts of self-governing hospital trusts; what will be the position should self-governing trusts go bankrupt; and who will be accountable to Government for providing continuity of health service in this eventuality.
  837
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will be required to keep proper accounting records and to draw up accounts each year as directed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.

  Should a trust become financially unsound and the services which it provides still be needed, it might be necessary to transfer responsibility for managing those services to another trust or to a health authority. In the event of the financial failure of any provider unit, district health authorities will be responsible for securing continued provision of health care for their residents.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what industrial relations rights Royal College of Nursing stewards will have in the self-governing trusts; and what structure of industrial relations he intends to propose for them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will be free to make their own arrangements for union representation for their employees.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information systems need to be installed to set up self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will be expected to have information systems which are adequate for the effective and efficient management of the trust.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights staff will have to opt out of self-governing trusts and to safeguard their employment, pension and other rights in this event.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Staff of a hospital which is to become an NHS trust will transfer to employment by the trust unless other arrangements have been individually agreed with them beforehand. A member of staff who is transferred to trust employment will retain the right to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change to his detriment in his working conditions is brought about by the transfer; no such right will arise solely by reason of the change in employer on transfer.

  Number of abortions performed in England and Wales, 1988 by statutory grounds: 2 (alone) and 3 (with or without 2), by (a) age of mother, (b) marital status, (c) number of previous children, (d) number of previous abortions, and (e) category of premises, for residents and also non-residents, at 18 weeks and over gestation.

  Residents Statutory grounds

  Non-Residents Statutory grounds

  2 (alone)

  3 (with or without 2)

  2 (alone)

  3 (with or without 2)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  (a) Age of Mother

  All ages

  5,343

  82·90

  394

  6·11

  3,208

  98·22

  40

  1·22

  Under 16

  301

  98·69

  4

  1·31

  120

  100·00

  —

  —

  16 to 19

  2,085

  95·38

  56

  2·56

  882

  99·66

  3

  0·34

  20 to 44

  2,948

  74·92

  331

  8·41

  2,190

  97·59

  37

  1·65

  45 and over

  8

  44·44

  3

  16·67

  16

  94·12

  —

  —

  Unknown

  1

  100·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Marital Status

  Single

  4,446

  92·99

  199

  4·16

  2,544

  99·18

  16

  0·62

  Married

  468

  42·24

  106

  9·57

  355

  92·93

  16

  4·19

  Widowed/divorced/separated

  322

  75·94

  75

  17·69

  236

  96·72

  7

  2·87

  Not stated

  107

  81·06

  14

  10·61

  73

  97·33

  1

  1·33

  (c) Number of Previous Children

  0

  4,084

  93·73

  23

  0·53

  2,325

  99·53

  5

  0·21

  1

  660

  63·04

  165

  15·76

  468

  95·90

  14

  2·87

  2

  348

  57·81

  127

  21·10

  242

  96·03

  7

  2·78

  3

  149

  55·39

  55

  20·45

  95

  88·79

  11

  10·28

  838
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all staff affected by the establishment of a self-governing trust will be eventually transferred to the self-governing trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All staff who were employed at a unit which is to become an NHS trust will transfer to employment by the trust from the date when it becomes fully operational unless other arrangements have been individually agreed beforehand. Special arrangements will be made for splitting the contracts of employees who work partly in a unit which is to become a trust but will continue to work partly in other units.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) trade unions, (b) local government, (c) local business, (d) medical representatives and (e) nursing representatives will be represented on the boards of self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All NHS trusts which are established to manage hospital or community health services will have executive medical and nursing directors on their boards. The non-executive directors on NHS trust boards will be chosen for the personal contribution they can make to the effective management of the trust and not to represent any interest group. In the case of trusts with a significant teaching commitment one of the non-executive directors will be drawn from the relevant university or medical or dental school.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the numbers and percentages of abortions performed on pregnancies of 18 weeks' or more gestation under the statutory grounds 2 (alone) and 3 (with or without 2) by(a) age of mother, (b) marital status, (c) numbers of previous children, (d) number of previous abortions and (e) whether performed in the public or private sectors, distinguishing in each category between residents and non-residents.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table:
  839

  Residents Statutory grounds

  Non-Residents Statutory grounds

  2 (alone)

  3 (with or without 2)

  2 (alone)

  3 (with or without 2)

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  4

  64

  64·65

  16

  16·16

  50

  94·34

  2

  3·77

  5 and over

  24

  48·98

  8

  16·33

  27

  93·10

  1

  3·45

  Unknown

  14

  63·64

  —

  —

  1

  100·00

  —

  —

  (d) Number of Previous Abortions

  Legal terminations

  0

  4,460

  83·21

  300

  5·60

  2,725

  98·20

  33

  1·19

  1

  755

  82·15

  80

  8·71

  418

  98·12

  7

  1·64

  2

  91

  77·12

  13

  11·02

  50

  100·00

  —

  —

  3

  20

  86·96

  1

  4·35

  11

  100·00

  —

  —

  41

  3

  100·00

  —

  —

  3

  100·00

  —

  —

  Spontaneous miscarriages

  0

  5,077

  85·20

  343

  5·76

  3,120

  98·36

  37

  1·17

  1

  203

  56·23

  42

  11·63

  78

  93·98

  2

  2·41

  2

  37

  49·33

  6

  8·00

  7

  87·50

  1

  12·50

  3

  5

  38·46

  —

  —

  1

  100·00

  —

  —

  41

  7

  46·67

  3

  20·00

  1

  100·00

  —

  —

  (e) Category of Premises

  NHS

  579

  43·21

  69

  5·15

  1

  20·00

  —

  —

  Non-NHS

  4,764

  93·32

  325

  6·37

  3,207

  98·34

  40

  1·23

  Non-NHS Agency

  459

  90·89

  43

  8·51

  1

  100·00

  —

  —

  1 Statutory Grounds:

  1. The continuance of pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  2. The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  3. The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) in the family of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  4. There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  5. To save the life of the pregnant mother.

  6. To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the child.

  Note:—The notification form for abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 requires information about previous abortions to the woman concerned to be recorded, distinguishing between spontaneous miscarriages and legal terminations.

  Notifications having at least one previous spontaneous miscarriage and also at least one previous legal termination, and women having more than one abortion under the Act in 1988 will be counted more than once in the statistics.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of abortions performed on pregnancies of 18 weeks' and more gestation under statutory grounds 2 (alone) and 3 (with or without 2) which were done by(a) prostaglandins and (b) D and E, distinguishing in each category between residents and non-residents.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  The number of abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 on pregnancies of 18 weeks and more gestation under statutory grounds 2 (alone) and 3 (with or without 2) which were performed by (a) prostaglandins and (b) D and E for residents and non-residents of England and Wales for 1988

  Residents

  Non-residents

  Ground 2 (alone)

  Prostaglandins

  3,063

  623

  D and E

  501

  748

  Ground 3 (with or without 2)

  Prostaglandins

  307

  23

  D and E

  3

  3

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the Government have to promote child care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The range and level of day care services for pre-school children and after school and 840
  holiday schemes for school-age children is best decided locally by parents, voluntary bodies, employers, local authorities and the private sector.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria are being used for establishing asset management and capital charging within the National Health Service;

  (2) what progress there has been in establishing efficient asset management and capital charging in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The intention to introduce a system of capital charges was announced in the White Paper, "Working for Patients". Each hospital will be required to calculate and pay capital charges to its regional health authority from April 1991. The capital charge represents depreciation and interest calculated on the value of assets held. In order to facilitate the introduction of this scheme health authorities are being required to compile, value and maintain asset registers with effect from April 1990. This will enable the capital charging scheme to operate on a shadow basis during 1990–91. Managers will begin to understand the value of assets held and will, under the full scheme, have direct incentives to make best use of assets in order to minimise capital charges. In this way the capital charge scheme will be an impetus to good asset management, which the Government have been encouraging in the NHS in recent years.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to fund research into the costs and benefits of hormone replacement therapy and of screening techniques for detecting osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of Health is funding two research projects at a total cost of around £128,000, which will examine the costs and benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and screening techniques for detecting osteoporosis before it is severe enough to cause symptoms.

  Professor Martin Vessey of Oxford University will be examining the cost-effectiveness of HRT in relation to the menopause. HRT, which is already available on the NHS, has a role to play in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and the prevention of osteoporosis.

  Dr. John Kanis of Sheffield university will be conducting a critical review of screening techniques for detecting osteoporosis—a disease of the weakening of the bones which primarily, but not exclusively, affects women after the menopause—before it is severe enough to give rise to symptoms.

  The Department will be meeting the full costs of both studies. Professor Vessey's two-year project and Dr. Kanis' one-year project are expected to be completed by 31 January 1992 and 31 March 1991 respectively.

  Menopausal symptoms or the development, later, of severe osteoporosis cause misery to many women in this country. For some of the symptoms can be very severe. We hope that these studies will enable us to find ways to improve the quality of life for women.

  Opticians
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the dates of the ophthalmic service committee hearings referred to in the Minister's written answer of 5 July 1988,Official Report, column 506; and what were the dates of the endorsements of the ophthalmic committee's decisions by Manchester family practitioner committee.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The ophthalmic service committee of the Manchester family practitioner committee considered the complaints without a hearing at its meeting on 20 April 1988. The FPC endorsed its recommendations on 25 May 1988.

  Number of notifications of food poisoning for each London borough in each of the last 10 years and the percentage increase of such cases over this 10 year period (1979–1988)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase 1979–88

  Greater London

  1,525

  1,442

  1,335

  1,581

  1,793

  1,857

  1,888

  2,280

  2,919

  3,723

  144·13

  City of London

  7

  10

  7

  9

  4

  8

  4

  7

  11

  9

  28·57

  Barking and Dagenham

  22

  30

  10

  27

  17

  21

  30

  30

  31

  41

  86·36

  Barnet

  103

  122

  81

  115

  173

  191

  204

  222

  305

  292

  183·50

  Bexley

  27

  22

  26

  46

  73

  51

  64

  75

  188

  231

  755·56

  Brent

  45

  50

  89

  115

  95

  75

  82

  82

  87

  96

  113·33

  Bromley

  33

  53

  23

  29

  41

  37

  35

  52

  70

  91

  175·76

  Camden

  33

  37

  38

  72

  90

  79

  77

  89

  106

  81

  145·45

  Croydon

  58

  81

  53

  58

  38

  49

  83

  117

  135

  161

  177·59

  Ealing

  32

  57

  48

  37

  57

  36

  42

  51

  49

  67

  109·38

  Enfield

  130

  56

  25

  53

  25

  122

  49

  48

  57

  81

  -37·69

  Leukaemia
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, following the announcement of 15 February about possible leukaemia and lymphoma links between those working at Sellafield and their children, when he expects the consideration of the case control study by COMARE at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield to be completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health funded the case control study in west Berkshire and north Hampshire in 1987 for three years; we therefore expect it to be completed by the end of this year. The results of the study should be available shortly after completion.

  Food Imports (Holland)
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are generally applied to food imported from Holland.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present all foods imported to the United Kingdom, regardless of the country of origin, are subject to the Imported Food Regulations 1984, which require food to be sound, wholesome and fit for human consumption. Examinations, as appropriate, to ensure that food meet these criteria are carried out by local enforcement authorities, including port health authorities.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for the results of a cervical smear test.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. Health authorities must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests to the doctor who undertook them within one month. As at December 1989, the latest available date, around 80 per cent. of health authorities were meeting this target. The average processing time of those districts which were failing to meet this target was 6·2 weeks.

  Food Poisoning, London
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify for each London borough in each of the last 10 years(a) the number of cases of food poisoning and (b) the percentage increase of such cases over this 10-year period.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table:
  843

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase 1979–88

  Greenwich

  43

  38

  42

  32

  49

  53

  59

  48

  144

  173

  302·33

  Hackney

  31

  27

  29

  26

  27

  38

  29

  45

  79

  70

  125·81

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  22

  24

  53

  25

  50

  61

  41

  25

  22

  47

  113·64

  Haringey

  64

  32

  30

  36

  45

  77

  72

  93

  106

  120

  87·50

  Harrow

  23

  44

  54

  54

  90

  70

  110

  159

  218

  233

  913·04

  Havering

  34

  15

  43

  46

  71

  28

  32

  74

  104

  106

  211·76

  Hillingdon

  58

  51

  35

  44

  56

  33

  38

  54

  86

  148

  155·17

  Hounslow

  12

  17

  20

  20

  28

  52

  32

  39

  47

  69

  475·00

  Islington

  83

  82

  92

  58

  71

  59

  97

  115

  160

  193

  132·53

  Kensington and Chelsea

  51

  45

  41

  44

  61

  60

  54

  35

  59

  83

  62·75

  Kingston Upon Thames

  32

  30

  14

  22

  26

  23

  38

  45

  39

  58

  81·25

  Lambeth

  47

  34

  47

  44

  53

  106

  65

  110

  106

  142

  202·13

  Lewisham

  53

  46

  48

  42

  76

  145

  98

  79

  93

  172

  224·53

  Merton

  19

  15

  14

  31

  22

  38

  67

  73

  51

  87

  357·89

  Newham

  81

  38

  30

  39

  41

  25

  58

  104

  74

  105

  29·63

  Redbridge

  78

  75

  37

  50

  20

  23

  23

  58

  39

  95

  21·79

  Richmond Upon Thames

  22

  20

  19

  27

  26

  26

  26

  22

  50

  59

  168·18

  Southwark

  46

  44

  45

  75

  58

  83

  90

  80

  78

  156

  239·13

  Sutton

  41

  39

  43

  65

  48

  19

  12

  22

  26

  79

  92·68

  Tower Hamlets

  27

  68

  30

  57

  38

  41

  34

  53

  82

  93

  244·44

  Waltham Forest

  50

  20

  25

  25

  15

  16

  18

  1

  3

  46

  -8·00

  Wandsworth

  62

  72

  77

  64

  121

  43

  63

  90

  117

  131

  111·29

  Westminster, City of

  56

  48

  67

  94

  88

  69

  62

  83

  97

  108

  92·86

  In addition, since 1982, cases of food poisoning ascertained by means other than formal notification have been reported to OPCS.

  Ambulance Services (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per day to each of the health authorities operating in south Yorkshire for the ambulance services being provided by the police, armed services and voluntary organisations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The cost of military assistance in individual regional health authorities has not yet been assessed. The cost of assistance by police and voluntary organisations in individual district health authorities is not available centrally. I would refer the hon. Member to the Trent regional health authority.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made in the cash limits and running costs limit of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 29 January 1990, c. 42–43]: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England, will be increased by £87,000 (from £697,307,000 to £697,394,000) reflecting a transfer from class XV, vote 7, Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services as a contribution to the cost of grants to voluntary organisations and local authorities towards the cost of providing temporary accommodation for homeless people during periods of severe weather. The running cost limit for the Department remains unchanged at £244,259,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are to reduce the fishing effort in the North sea; what are the implications for fishing in the western waters of the United Kingdom; whether he has any proposals to reduce the overall size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement about the displacement of part of the United Kingdom fleets in the North sea to the Irish sea.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope to make an announcement soon on arrangements to reduce North sea haddock fishing in 1990. Access to pressure stocks and non-pressure stocks in other sea areas will remain restricted to those vessels holding appropriate licences. I also hope shortly to announce new quota management arrangements which will begin the process of bringing the size of the fleet into line with the available fishing opportunities.

  Poultry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has carried out into salmonella levels in poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is currently funding a comprehensive programme of research on aspects of salmonella amounting to £2·4 million in 1989–90. The projects listed in the table fall into two main categories—food safety and animal health—and cover external contamination and vertical transmission, which are the two sources of infection. The programme includes epidemiological studies on the distribution of salmonella enteritidis in the laying flock.
  845

  R and D on salmonella currently funded by MAFF

  Project

  Location

  Amount of funding in 1989–90 £'000

  1.

  Modelling of growth of pathogenic micro-organisms in food systems

  British food Manufacturing Industries Research Association (BFMIRA) Leatherhead

  150

  2.

  Detection and quantification of micro-organisms in foods by novel lectin-based assays

  BFMIRA

  57

  3.

  Separation: an important aid to rapid microbiological analysis

  BFMIRA

  40

  4.

  Thermal destruction of salmonella in foods made with eggs

  BFMIRA

  4

  5.

  Destruction of Salmonella enteritidis in egg albumen

  BFMIRA

  30

  6.

  Mathematical prediction of growth of micro-organisms in food systems

  Campden Food and Drink Research Association (CFDRA), Chipping Campden

  200

  7.

  Guidelines for pasteurisation

  CFDRA

  25

  8.

  Investigation into the use of biosorbants for the concentration, separation and detection of low levels of food contaminants with special reference to pathogenic micro-organisms such as salmonella

  CFDRA

  70

  9.

  Database and expert system development for microbiology modelling initiative

  CFDRA

  88

  10.

  Survival and growth of salmonella and Bacillus subtilis in bakery ingredients, products or fillings

  Flour Milling and Baking Research Association (FMBRA), Chorleywood

  86

  11.

  Modelling micobial growth effects of processing and storage on survival and growth of pathogenic bacteria

  AFRC Institute of Food Research, Bristol (IFR(B))

  59

  12.

  Modelling microbial growth: develop predictive models for food safety

  IFR(B)

  59

  13.

  Modelling microbial growth: optimise poultry processing conditions to reduce occurrence of pathogenic bacteria

  IFR(B)

  59

  14.

  Optimisation of spray washing of poultry carcases

  IFR(B)

  30

  15.

  Modelling microbial growth: safety of foods and beverages

  IFR, Reading

  100

  16.

  Develop and investigate novel methods to separate and concentrate micro-organisms from foods to enhance rapid microbiological methods

  IFR, Reading

  127

  17.

  Enzyme-linked immunological biosensors for the detection of pathogenic bacteria in food

  IFR, Reading

  40

  18.

  Development of improved diagnostic tests to study epidemiology

  AFRC Institute of Animal Health (IAH), Compton

  75

  19.

  Intestinal colonisation of salmonella in poultry

  IAH

  61

  20.

  Basis of virulence in salmonellas (in relation to poultry)

  IAH

  61

  21.

  Virulence in salmonellas (in relation to calves)

  IAH

  94

  22.

  The genetic basis for virulence

  IAH

  95

  23.

  Use of non-radioactive DNA probes for the detection and identification of food borne pathogens

  University of Nottingham

  12

  24.

  Risk assessment of salmonella in eggs

  University of Bath

  19

  25.

  Salmonella infection in the egg

  University of Bath

  15

  26.

  Salmonella infection in the laying hen

  University of Bristol

  76

  27.

  The influence of shell quality on the ease of translocation of salmonella into the egg

  Glasgow University Veterinary School

  26

  28.

  The influence of storage conditions on the survival of salmonellas

  Public Health Laboratory Service, Exeter

  19

  29.

  Development of diagnostic tests and vaccines

  MAFF Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL)

  316

  30.

  Epidemiological studies in laying flocks

  CVL

  50

  31.

  Salmonella in feeds: recontamination and isolation

  CVL

  88

  846 847

  Project

  Location

  Amount of funding in 1989–90 £'000

  32.

  Pathogenesis in chickens

  CVL

  171

  Total

  2,402

  33.

  Egg products and human salmonellas

  University of Bath

  1—

  34.

  Microbial growth and survival on food contact surfaces pertinent to food poisoning spoilage and hygiene

  University of Warwick and CFDRA

  1—

  35.

  Theoretical approaches to minimal methods of food preservation

  University of Reading

  1—

  1 Work being carried out under the MAFF Post-Graduate Studentship Scheme.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the resistance levels to disease among poultry as a consequence of the continual use of antibiotics.

  Mr. Maclean
  All salmonella from animals and their environment have been monitored for antibiotic resistance continuously since 1971.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of feedstuffs for poultry is subject to prior heat treatment; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of heat-treating feedingstuffs in reducing the incidence of salmonella in poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details are not available on the percentage of poultry feedstuffs subject to heat treatment. Most broiler and turkey feeds, however, are heat-treated as part of the pelleting process. There is also a growing trend towards use of pelleted feeds for laying flocks. Published work indicates that whilst heat treatment of feedstuffs can be effective in tackling salmonella contamination, it cannot be guaranteed to eliminate salmonella completely. My Department issued last year five codes of practice which set out a range of measures to be taken by the feedstuffs industry to reduce salmonella contamination.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the process of stripping animal hones to obtain mechanically recovered meat entails no risk of spinal tissue being included in the final product.

  Mr. Maclean
  As an ultra-precautionary measure my Department introduced the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, which prohibit the use of spinal cord and other specified bovine offals in food for sale for human consumption. In practice the spinal cord would be removed before recovery of M RM. Animals displaying symptoms of BSE are required to be slaughtered and disposed of so that they do not enter the human food chain.

  Irradiation
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he has had, or proposes to have, with(a) consumer organisations, (b) retailers, (c) trade unions, (d) manufacturers and (e) others on the question of the irradiation of foodstuffs.
  848
  Mr. Maclean
  In accordance with long-established practice in the food sector, there will be full consultation of all the relevant interests when the regulations have been prepared.

  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he proposes to make available to customers of restaurants, cafes and public houses as to whether the food they have purchased there has been irradiated.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have already announced my intention to ensure that customers of restaurants, cafes and public houses are given clear information to enable them to choose whether or not they wish to buy irradiated food. Recently agreed European Community food legislation already provides for clear labelling of irradiated food and listed ingredients for prepacked sales. Additional requirements are needed for non-prepacked retail sales and food sold by caterers and I am currently consulting interested parties on the most effective and practical way of presenting this information to consumers.

  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and other organisations with regard to the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of letters from interested organisations on aspects of food irradiation. The views of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers are set out in its evidence to the recent inquiry by the House of Lords European Communities Committee, the report of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research is being conducted by his Department on the irradiation of food;

  (2) what tests his Department recommends to discover whether food has been irradiated.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is currently carrying out research aimed at identifying and developing suitable tests for detecting irradiated foods. We are also investigating the effects of irradiation on plastic food packaging materials.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter
Geoffrey Hewlett, Lord Bishop of Exeter—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Newcastle and the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Personal Statement
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal Statement. In my reply yesterday to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referring to the annual report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, I said:
"It may be appropriate for me to point out that the quote in the Question asked by the noble Baroness comes from paragraph 13. It does not refer to the youth and community service at all".—[Official Report, 20/2/90; col. 145.]
That was wrong. The quotation used by the noble Baroness came from paragraph 15 and did refer to the youth and adult education service. I was mistaken. I am sorry for this and I should like to apologise unreservedly both to the House and to the noble Baroness.

Insider Dealing
2.40 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to prevent insider dealing.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, this Government brought forward the first law making insider dealing illegal: the Companies Act 1980. We also brought forward the Financial Services Act 1986, enabling the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors with wide-ranging powers. From today, the Secretary of State can consent to the Stock Exchange prosecuting insider dealers, and he can also investigate on behalf of overseas regulators. We have recently published a consultative document proposing further changes.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and the additional information which it contains. However, I believe that of the relatively few people charged under the two Acts, comfortably over a half have been acquitted. Bearing that in mind, are the Government and the Minister satisfied with the battle against insider dealing? Do we not need changes in the law, or further changes in the
272
prosecuting agencies, or perhaps more commercially-minded judges? Does the recent EC directive on insider trading give an opportunity for even further examination of the situation and tightening of the procedures?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government certainly agree that there may be scope for further changes to the relevant legislation. That is why we have brought forward the consultative document which deals with that point. I dare say that the noble Lord has seen it. We look forward to hearing the views of relevant people on the proposals and to taking the matter forward in due course.
On the Government's enforcement record, the figures I have relate to 19 recent cases decided. The convictions were 10, there was one acquittal where the judge's interpretation of the law was subsequently reversed in favour of the prosecution. I am told that a total of 17 people have been prosecuted since the end of 1986 and four more are awaiting trial. Sixteen inspections are taking place at present.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be interested in the news that the noble Lord has given us about the possibility of the Stock Exchange mounting prosecutions. Does he recognise, however, that, from anecdotal evidence—and I agree that the evidence is difficult to prove in a court of law—insider dealing is believed to be widespread? Wherever there is a merger or takeover or a proposed merger or takeover, strange movements in shares frequently seem to occur. Are the Government serious about their ambitions to stamp out this iniquitous offence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that our record shows that we are. As for the Stock Exchange, which now has power, with the Secretary of State's permission, to carry out prosecutions of its own, that power was contained in the Companies Act 1989 which the noble Lord and I had a little to do with. That power comes into effect today, as ever is. I dare say that the Stock Exchange will wish to take account of it. It is important that we should have an adequate legal framework to govern this difficulty which would have the result of making prosecutions more effective. I hope that it will also have a deterrent effect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I wonder whether I could press the noble Lord a little further. There has been a great deal of discussion about whether the Securities and Investments Board should be given the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting these offences. What is the Government's position on that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have not formed a final position on what further legislative changes may be necessary. That is why we have brought forward the consultative document to which I have referred, and upon which we look forward to receiving the views of interested parties. We shall form our view thereafter.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I seek information on this subject, as I was directed to do yesterday by the noble Lord the Leader of the House? It concerns the training of judges and whether judges have sufficient know-how in commercial activities to give a good judgment on these cases.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my own view is that we have a most distinguished body of judges in this country whose intellectual capacity seems to be equal to almost any of the problems with which they are confronted.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many would be concerned if we went down the route suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, that the SIB should be both the investigating authority and the prosecuting authority in these types of offence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am interested to hear the views of my noble friend. If he wishes to convey his views formally on the consultative document, they will be fully taken into account.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Government advise on whether the prosecutions liable to be brought by the Stock Exchange will be of a civil nature or will be criminal prosecutions? If they are to be criminal prosecutions, does this indicate a departure from previous practice whereby the state or the Executive, if I may put it that way, was responsible for criminal actions and private prosecutions were brought on the civil side?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not know the answer to that question. I shall rapidly find it out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, when the Minister made his flattering remarks about the judges of England was he not aware that there are some judges who have made rude remarks about their superiors and have had to be brought to heel because of their vulgar behaviour? Will the Minister exclude those judges from his generous remarks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall stand by the general observations that I made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord on the matter of Stock Exchange prosecutions. Is it not the case that those prosecutions must be criminal prosecutions? There is no such thing as a civil prosecution in that area. If the Stock Exchange is to bring to bear powers under legislation it must bring to bear powers of criminal prosecution.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord in these matters. If he is correct, as I daresay he is, I shall hasten to confirm that fact.

Homelessness
2.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of people who are sleeping rough in London and what they are doing to alleviate the situation.
Lord Reay: My Lords, reliable, firm estimates are not available, but the most recent count was carried out in 1989 by Surrey University for the Salvation Army. It reported 753 people sleeping rough in 17 boroughs. The measures announced last November by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will help relieve homelessness in the pressure areas like London but we are looking further at the way responsibilities of different government departments work and further announcements will be made in due course.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and optimistic Answer. Does he not agree however that the programme "Newsnight" last night highlighted the fact that many of those who are sleeping rough are young people or children? Of those, 61 per cent, are estimated to have disappeared from any lists. Will the Minister therefore reassure us that among the resources which the Government are making available there will be personnel to help those people get back on lists so that they can receive the benefits to which they are entitled? Will the Minister also ensure that a computer is provided so we may know how many young people are missing at any given time?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate puts his finger on a problem which is also causing the Government concern. I take careful note of the pertinent points he made. The Government are looking at how existing services measure up to the needs of the problem of the young homeless and hope to be in a position to make announcements in the not too distant future. The right reverend Prelate referred to children. That is a field in which good work is being carried out by the Children's Society among other organisations. The Department of Health provided £115,000 towards the establishment of a Children's Society London refuge and is currently considering a request for a second related project. The right reverend Prelate also asked me about a computer. I understand that the Home Office is considering whether a national bureau with standardised referral criteria and procedures should be established.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not a disgrace that £450,000 of official funds are reported to be ready and available should the temperature drop so low that people are in danger of dying of cold? Should those funds not be spent now, regardless of the temperature, to help not only the young people to whom the right reverend Prelate referred but also other vulnerable groups such as ex-psychiatric patients and ex-prisoners?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hooper replied to a Question on Monday which concerned the mentally ill. She gave some figures with regard to spending on hospital and community health services. That spending grew by 20 per cent, in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that apart from the young homeless people there are a great number of middle-aged people, especially men, who are living rough as a result of broken marriages? Is he aware that that number unfortunately is increasing all the time? Those men are on the streets because they have no fixed abode. They are therefore unable to obtain jobs. That position is serious at this moment.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that problem. The problem of the homeless is a complex one. It does not of course concern only the young single homeless.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this problem is not merely confined to London but is stretching out to major cities throughout the country? Is he not therefore prepared to seek consultation with the police, who know a great deal about this matter, and with the Salvation Army and the social services of local authorities? They together could paint the full picture which would then enable the Government to take appropriate action.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the problem is not confined to London. However, the Question on the Order Paper is confined to London. There are of course a great number of departments involved in this matter and the Government recognise the need for all departments to be consulted. Following that consultation announcements will be made.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend refer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, from the Cross-Benches? This is not surely a matter of temperature; it is a matter of principle. Many of us are anxious that the Government should be prepared to look at the whole matter not simply in terms of a cold winter or a colder winter but of getting the homeless resettled and under control.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are looking seriously at this problem and will make an announcement shortly.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the forbidding statistic which arose in a programme last night that the right reverend Prelate referred to; namely, that the Children's Society which carries out such a large amount of work in looking after children who run away from home and from care is in the red to the tune of £ 1 million? Does not the Minister think that is a serious situation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I saw the programme to which the noble Baroness refers. It painted a disturbing picture. It is difficult to get a true picture when dealing with what is a mobile population, which includes, sadly, children who may have run away from home and who may be trying to avoid being taken into care. Therefore, they are trying to avoid being discovered at all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we must be grateful to the Salvation Army for initiating the university inquiry, what is disquieting is the lack of precise information which the noble Lord on behalf of the department is able to produce to the House. Is he aware that the problem, as my noble friend has said, is not concentrated in London but exists also in other major cities and rural areas? Will he give the House an assurance that his department will look into the matter rather more carefully and ensure that it can produce a more comprehensive picture of the problem which is growing worse at the present time?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have given the only firm figures that are available. The 1991 census will include a full count of those who are sleeping rough and will produce information on age, sex and location. There are other estimates and I have commented on how difficult it is to be sure what the figures are for the reasons I gave. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Government are treating this problem seriously.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the considerable amount of residential accommodation over shops that is unused. What steps are Her Majesty's Governments taking or considering taking to bring that unused residential accommodation back into use?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the homeless initiative which the Government took in November when they agreed to provide £250 million over two years for schemes to help the homeless in London and the South-East was especially designed to provide up to 15,000 new lettings, mainly as a result of bringing into use properties which are currently unoccupied.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am sure the House will welcome the concern that the right reverend Prelate has shown in this matter. Will the Government approach the Church of England Estates Commissioners to make sure that the substantial property interests of the Church of England are being fully utilised to help solve this problem?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that the Church has a role to play in the matter.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that in looking at the problem the Government will also consider its causes, which must surely include the instability of marriage, the instability of so-called stable relationships and the fashion for single-parent homes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend has raised some very important and relevant issues. It is extremely important that the Government should not do anything to encourage young people to leave home and to discourage them from taking up work or full-time training.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful for the fact that the Government are to make a Statement about the homeless young. Will they see that the authorities do not prosecute the older people who are sleeping rough under the Vagrancy Act 1824?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to look into that point.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, would the Government be prepared to consider the appointment of somebody who could act as an overseer or co-ordinating officer? Various organisations are involved in the relief of the homeless and the Church is a major participant in that work. It has clergymen in all those areas working in that field. However, from what has been said today does it not appear that there should be a co-ordinator, that an officer should be appointed or a small department set up temporarily to co-ordinate the work to relieve the desperate situation of the homeless in the cities of our country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is an important role for the voluntary organisations. I have referred to the role of the Church and of the Children's Society. Following the homelessness review last year the Government are tripling their grants to voluntary groups assisting the homeless from £680,000 in 1989–90 to £2 million next year.

Education: Children with Special Needs
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the Education Act 1988 provides the necessary resources and support for children with assessed special needs who are placed in maintstream schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is for local education authorities to provide the necessary resources in the light of the annual local authority grant settlements and within the statutory framework, and in particular in the context of pupils with special educational needs, the Education Act 1981 and the Education Reform Act 1988.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, she will see on page 1 of the annual report of HM Inspector of Schools that large numbers of pupils and students are getting a raw deal. Furthermore, and sadly, less able pupils and students are much more likely to experience the poor and shoddy than are the more
278
able. The reply that I received from the noble Baroness was not very satisfactory. Does she not agree that those are the more vulnerable children? Does she not also agree that if they are not given the help and experience of qualified teachers, they will be the ones playing truant and, as the right reverend Prelate said, they will be the ones who will be homeless and walking the streets in the future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand if I resist the temptation to quote from that particular document in my reply today. The point that the noble Baroness has raised is very important. I see that report as a management tool not only for the Government in considering its policies and determining whether they need to be modified but also for the local authorities. It will allow them to examine how they provide for children with special needs and to decide if and when to make modifications in that provision.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the quotation which my noble friend has just given from the HMI report represents the biggest condemnation yet of the. inaction of the Government in implementing the Education Act 1981, which is specifically related to the issue of assessment of special needs? Is she further aware that the 1981 Act had the total support of the government of the day, of parents, of LEAs, of administrators, teachers and everybody concerned, and yet the Government have done virtually nothing about it? Does she accept that that is confirmed and condemned again in the report?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that I would resist the temptation to go back to the document. However, I believe that the noble Lord overstates the case. If the document as a whole is taken into account, he will find many positive indications that a great deal is being done. This group of children is vulnerable in our schools and it is very important that the 1981 Act is implemented. There is reference in the document to the fact that some local authorities have not given that matter the highest priority. The importance of the document is that it highlights the need to ensure that everyone looks at the way in which they set policies and that not only the 1981 Act but also the 1988 Act is properly implemented so that those children will be less vulnerable in the future.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend give me, as a one-time sufferer, any information about what is being done for children needing speech therapy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to answer the point specifically. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who is not present today, was responsible for a report which identified some 20 per cent, of our children as being in need of special education. Of those, 2 per cent, were severely in need of special help. Speech therapy is a very important part of serving the needs of some of the other 18 per cent, and I know that it is part of the provision. However, I am afraid that at present I am not able to answer that specific question.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the Question poses for the whole House as well as for her a dilemma regarding the British education system at present? Does she accept that the general standard of education, which has been criticised for a long time, is so low in the mainstream schools that the only hope for children in separate education is the maintenance of the schools where they are presently taught? Does the policy not threaten to put back into schools which are under-equipped to deal with their present responsibilities the quite impossible task of looking after mentally and physically handicapped children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am prepared to take a more positive view of the state of the education system. It is quite true that, far from just talking about the state of the education system, this Government recognised, as the previous government recognised, that something had to be done. This Goverment have acted. The Government also recognise that there is a long way to go. In the area of shortage of teachers, the problem is being tackled. In the area of pay, the problem is being tackled. In the area of buildings, allocations are greater than they were. In the area of standards, the national curriculum with assessment testing will go a very long way to improving the state of education in our country.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Baroness will probably accept that I tried to make an apolitical point. In doing so will she accept that when the concept of returning mentally and physically handicapped and socially deprived children into the mainstream of education was developed in Scandinavia it presupposed that the schools were prepared to take the children and preparations were made accordingly?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I still believe that the noble Lord has taken a rather negative view. It disregards the enormous amount of excellent work that is going on in our schools for the more vulnerable children. The importance of the report is that it highlights areas where there could be improvement. I hope that both the Government and local education authorities will look at the way in which they provide for vulnerable children and improve their service.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Question is about providing the necessary resources for children who are placed in mainstream schools. Does my noble friend agree that since the recent Education Reform Act gave local authorities the ability to devolve responsibility for budgets to schools, noble Lords opposite will have to develop the habit of addressing local authorities about how resources are deployed in individual schools? They should not perpetually address their questions to the Government who have devolved the responsibility and given local authorities in turn the ability to devolve that responsibility to the schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy is absolutely right when she refers to the
280
greater flexibility which local management of budgets will allow when implemented in our schools. That will free resources, and the deployment of those resources is very much a matter for local education authorities. In that respect I am in agreement with my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg your pardon. Occasionally I am allowed to ask a question. Will the noble Baroness think again about the answer that she has just given? Is it not the case that, in introducing local management of schools, the Government have to agree the formulae which local education authorities use in that management? Therefore, is it not the case that the Government have at least a modicum of leverage in accepting only formulae which will pay specific attention to children with special needs? Perhaps I may add that I regard that point as non-political; it concerns children with special needs, not politics.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point which is entirely apolitical. When formulae are presented to government for approval, it is a requirement to take into account the special needs of children. He is therefore absolutely right. The Government will have a view about how local education authorities provide that service; so too will the local education authorities when individual schools exercise local management of their budgets. I look forward to the day when special schools enjoy that facility to have some control over their own budgets.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in the city of Manchester an estimated £30 million is required for capital expenditure to ensure adequate provision of educational establishments? Is she further aware that the Government have allocated about one-tenth of that amount—less than £3 million—for capital expenditure on our educational establishments? Given the introduction of local management of schools, there is grave concern about the provision for special educational needs. Will the Government look into that matter and where necessary make extra provision for that important subject?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have made extra provision. It is up to Manchester to improve its management of the resources that it has to deploy. The Government are concerned about that issue, as can be seen in most of the answers that I have given to previous questions.

Education: HMI Report
3.11 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to comply with the annual report of HM Senior Chief Inspector of Schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the senior chief inspector's report is a survey of the state of the education service in 1988–89. It has many positive things to say, particularly about progress with the education reforms. The Government are already acting to tackle many of the weaknesses revealed, in particular to raise standards of achievement and reduce teacher shortages. My right honourable friend will of course take into account the report's findings in the future development of the Government's education policies. He looks to the other partners in the education service to consider the messages addressed to them.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, after 10 years of Conservative rule, four Conservative Secretaries of State and all kinds of new legislation imposed upon local authorities without the means of carrying out the job that they are asked to do, does she not think that it is now timely and proper that a greater financial allocation should be made to the education service so that it can carry out the tasks mentioned in the previous Question with regard to special needs, accommodation, shortage of teachers and so on? The list goes on but in view of the time I shall stop there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my answer is something of a repetition of a previous answer. The value of the report is that it is a tool in the hands of the managers. They must look at and build on the strengths. They must look at and address the weaknesses. It is difficult not to take a political view on this Question, but if one compares the record of the present Government on any of the aspects of service mentioned by the noble Lord with that of the last Labour Government, one sees that this Government's record is favourable. Teachers' pay rose considerably under the present Government; it rose under the Labour Government by only 6 per cent. Spending on schools fell by 11–5 per cent, under Labour and rose under the Conservative Government. Total expenditure on schools in real terms over the period of the Labour Government fell and rose under the Conservative Government. The number of children in full-time nursery education fell under the Labour Government and rose under the Conservative Government.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us twice today that more is being spent on those matters. That is no doubt entirely right, but does she not realise that we want to know not whether more is being spent but whether enough is being spent to meet essential requirements?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the best point that I can make in response to that question is that it is not just a matter of money. It is very much about the way in which money is deployed and the attitude of everyone working in the education service. All the reforms in the Education Reform Act are designed to achieve the objective of a better education service for our children.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, when the great debate on education was
282
launched during the premiership of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, he reflected a serious discontent within the education service and that discontent was not political? It was not about which government were spending most on what; it was about whether Britain's education service measured up to the opportunities of the nation at the time. Will the noble Baroness then allow me to say that part of my concern as someone who has spent 32 years in British education, including special education, is that the special education schools attract special budgets, that they are often well supported by the community and that they have a privileged advantage in some cases which they will lose when they go into the main stream?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that this should not be a political debate, bul: the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I am constantly attracted to the Dispatch Box to answer questions which relate purely to resources. It is a question of how people behave in the education service. It is right that the special needs of children should attract special resources. Those resources are provided by the Government to local education authorities in order to provide the service to our children.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am certainly not in the mood this afternoon for a political wrangle and I shall not be tempted by what the noble Baroness has started. She referred to the document as a management tool which I found extremely intriguing. However, the document states—I shall give the noble Baroness the exact reference; it is to be found in the preface:
"This is the second annual report from the Senior Chief Inspector to the Secretary of State for Education and Science".
If the document is a management tool, does it not at least imply that the Secretary of State should do some of the things referred to in the document?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again the noble Lord makes an important point and I cannot disagree with him. Perhaps I may draw his attention to a press release on 5th February from the Secretary of State, who on the first page makes some positive comments about the good work going on in our schools. However, on the second page he goes on to say that at the same time the report shows areas in which we have a long way to go. He refers to the inspectorate's concerns about the state of schools, teacher supply and other points. The Secretary of State has noted those points and it is very much the responsibility of his department, in collaboration and partnership with local education authorities and schools, to ensure that the document is used as a management tool in order to achieve a better education for our children.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name

283
of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should not exceed 13 minutes.

Spitfire Quay (Southampton) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Manufacturing Industry and the Economy
3.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the role of manufacturing industry in creating a sustainable balance in the economy, and to the case for policies to achieve that end; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and that I do not propose to apologise to noble Lords for returning to the theme of the role of manufacturing industry in our economic future. Noble Lords may remember that two weeks ago today we debated a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, on the role of the free market economy. At that time in my winding up speech from the Dispatch Box I advised noble Lords that we would debate such matters further when we came to the Motion today. Today is our riposte.
This is part of a continuing argument which will no doubt become sharper as certain electoral events approach. That is no bad thing as, although there may be a measure of agreement among noble Lords about the diagnosis of our problem, there are fundamental divisions between us about the nature of the desired prescription. Noble Lords opposite believe, as they made perfectly clear two weeks ago, in the untrammelled operation of the free market. Our view is not only that that is in itself a false god but that the practical application of that belief has had destructive effects over the past decade which, with a more sensible economic philosophy, we could have avoided.
I am not concerned today to argue philosophically. We return to the theme of manufacturing industry for the simple reason that in our view it is absolutely fundamental to any strategy designed to secure the future economic success of this country. I cannot say that too strongly. I recognise that this is not a particularly original thought. It has been argued repeatedly over the past few years by many, including a long list of noble Lords from all sides of this House. But that does not make it the less valid. After all, the Sermon on the Mount, to quote an instance, was delivered some 2,000 years ago and has been repeated many times since. I am not aware that its message has suffered as a result of repetition or indeed that it is less relevant today than when it was delivered by its author.
I suppose that the most striking statement of the argument in favour of a resurgence of manufacturing industry came in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Like that Select Committee, in my Motion I am concerned not just with the immediate action that is needed to clear up whatever mess we may be in, bad as that may be. The debate today is not about short-term palliatives to correct the imbalances that we observe in the present economic situation. The Motion specifically and deliberately uses the word "sustainable".
This afternoon I propose to argue three points. First, I shall try to show that the economy is badly out of balance both in the short term and the long term and that we should do well to recognise that reality. Secondly, a sustainable balance in the long term will be achieved only with a thriving manufacturing base which is sufficiently broad and deep to be the real engine room of the economy. Thirdly, there are great opportunities open to our manufacturers but there are also great difficulties confronting them and therefore the Government —indeed any government —should even now be taking measures to maximise the chances of seizing the opportunities and minimise the chances of being tripped up by the difficulties.
I imagine that no noble Lord would seriously deny that the economy is out of balance in the short term. Indeed the Chancellor has admitted as much and even the Prime Minister accepted that part of the fault certainly lies with the Government. Inflation is stubbornly pushing up towards 8 per cent, and with a number of price increases in the pipeline it could go well above that. The private sector savings ratio is derisory. Growth has virtually ceased and in some sectors is indeed negative. Productivity improvements are becoming progressively harder to achieve yet earnings continue to rise. Unemployment is still too high on any method of counting and may well turn up again during the year. The balance of payments is still badly in the red and, although exports have shown a welcome strength in the past few months, it is on the back of a sterling devaluation since this time last year of some 10 per cent, against other currencies on a trade-weighted basis and over 13 per cent, against the deutschemark and also healthy growth in the economy of many of our trading partners.
That is a combination which, frankly, we cannot expect to continue indefinitely. Nevertheless it is still possible to imagine those short-term balances being corrected. By inflicting further doses of pain, which is the Chancellor's own prescription, the Government could ensure that domestic demand is reduced to the point at which inflation is brought down and the growth in imports brought to a halt. Equally, they could engineer further devaluations to allow exports to continue to take advantage of other countries' growth. It could happen and it might easily have to happen, since the policy options in the short term are rapidly narrowing. So I should expect a Budget that will add an extra twist to an already painful thumbscrew, with all the consequences for unemployment and the misery that that will bring.
I may appear to be cynical but I think that we have learned now how these things work. The timing of pain and its relief is dictated by one factor only: the electoral cycle. At least it worked that way in 1986. A successful devaluation, then tax cuts, credit expansion, and reduction in unemployment—and hey presto! we are told that we have an economic miracle, which even now has just been revealed to our admiring eyes.
Quite clearly the Chancellor's appointed task is to try to repeat the same trick to restore his party's electoral fortunes. We now know that there was no economic miracle. During the 1986–88 boom imports grew at over two and a half times the rate of growth in domestic demand, which is very significantly higher than in any previous boom. On the other hand, exports were deeply disappointing. No wonder it all ended in tears. In fact, the great supply side revolution that was alleged to have taken place simply did not happen. It was all a puff of smoke and we now have to grapple with the consequences.
We have had and still have a continuing and serious structural problem. It is the recognition of that fact that must be the starting point for a serious attempt to formulate a strategy for the future. But I am afraid that it is recognition of that fact which at the moment is so patently missing. I doubt whether we shall hear anything today from the Minister to indicate that the Government have woken up to what is happening in the real world.
Let me give your Lordships an example. We are constantly being told that the fastest growing category of imports has been capital goods and that British industry has been re-equipping. Leaving aside the question of what in fact is a capital good, the real question is: why is Britain importing goods that she previously made herself? Until 1980 we had a surplus on trade in capital goods. Why do we now have to import goods that appear to be in general demand? Sadly the answer is that that industry too has been wiped out over the past decade. We just do not make the right products. A free market made a short-term decision with long-term consequences.
Let me give your Lordships another example. For all that the Minister most certainly has in store for us today about investment in manufacturing industry, the truth is that net fixed capital formation
286
in real terms in manufacturing was negative from 1981 to 1986, bar the special circumstances of 1985; and, although it was positive from 1987 to 1989, the decline that was inherent in 1981 to 1986 has not been made up. Therefore our real investment in manufacturing industry is lower now than it was in 1979. That is the truth. That has been the story of the past decade.
The real lesson is that it is easier to destroy than to create. Destruction is a matter of weeks or months; creation is a matter of years. We must recognise that reality now, starting today.
While that whole destructive process has led to an imbalance in our international accounts, wiping out several industries has led directly to a growing regional imbalance. In the South the growth in services has taken up the slack. That is very welcome. However, in many parts of the North, Scotland, Wales and the Midlands that has not happened. Nobody has created a financial services industry in Llandrindod Wells and there is no reason why they should do so. The result has been a widening of the income gap between North and South and differential in unemployment rates of quite unjustifiable severity.
If the regional imbalance is a matter of serious concern—because if there is a recession you can bet for sure that it is the regions that will suffer first—there is a further, and in the long term even most serious, imbalance to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. We do not appear to be doing well in precisely those sectors where we need desperately to do well. We seem to be falling behind in the area of high technology. The nature of the problem is illustrated by a simple look at the world's largest industrial companies.
If we take the top 800 or so companies, classify them by country of parent and principal industrial activity, and then by the proportion of turnover devoted to research and development, some depressing results emerge. For instance, the high research intensity group, which spends upwards of 2–8 per cent, of turnover on R&D, has been the fastest growing internationally over the past 20 years. The return on capital has been the highest. But the United Kingdom is worse off than any of our major competitors precisely in that group. In the low research intensity group, we are better represented —if that is the proper expression —than any of our major competitors.
Our conclusion therefore is that all the imbalances that have characterised the British economy have not in any way disappeared. Far from it—they have intensified in the past decade but have been masked by North Sea oil. We enter the 1990s with very serious structural problems which need addressing, and for which the policies so far pursued by government have been wholly inadequate.
Let me now turn to the essential role of manufacturing industry. I can best illustrate this by returning to the prevailing balance of payments problem. I can do no more that assert to your Lordships as a matter of absolutely straight arithmetic—as I and my noble friend have asserted before—that the balance of payments problem will

287
be solved only if there is a resurgence of the manufacturing sector of the economy.
At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, I must say that this factor should now be quite obvious. Let me rehearse the figures yet again. In 1988, our balance of payments on current account, before the balancing item, showed inflows of £168 billion and outflows at £182 billion. Of these totals, visible trade accounted for roughly £81 billion in exports and £101 billion in imports. Of those totals, £65 billion on the export side and £80 billion on the import side were in manufactured or semi-manufactured goods. In other words, exports of manufactures account for nearly 40 per cent, for current balance of payments inflows, and manufactured imports for some 44 per cent, of outflows. I say again that there is quite simply no way that any remotely conceivable surplus on services or dividends or interest on foreign balances or on income from foreign tourists coming to this country can possibly make up the manufacuring deficit. The magnitudes are just too great.
I therefore simply do not see that any noble Lord opposite, or any noble Lord on any side of the House, can dispute our major proposition that Britain's economic prospects in the 1990s will depend heavily on manufacturing success. We go into the decade with an external deficit of around 4 per cent, of gross domestic product, and to have any chance of closing that deficit domestic supply will have to grow faster than domestic demand, with an increasing proportion of our production being devoted to exports and import substitution. To achieve this, we must make products that will sell internationally, and these products must be at the top end of the high research, high value added range. All that seems to me to be wholly obvious.
There is no doubt that the opportunities are there. The European Market is becoming more open, providing us with the opportunities both for development of the single market and with the breakdown of the command systems in Eastern Europe. The countries of the Pacific rim will continue to experience high growth rates. There will be some developing countries which will be important markets for high technology products by the end of the century.
However, equally there are difficulties. Growth in the world economy looks as though it may be slowing down. The United States will sooner or later have to grasp the nettle of its external deficit and our exports to the United States could suffer as a result. Newly industrialised countries will be very competitive, in particular in those products in which at the moment we are best placed. There will be fewer school leavers available. Manufacturing is already attracting too few graduates, and both our management and workforce are poorly trained—in some cases not trained at all.
So what is needed by way of action, my Lords? First and foremost, manufacturers must be encouraged to invest in skills, in innovation as well as in plant and machinery. It is the worst possible policy in present circumstances to choke off
288
investment by a policy of high interest rates. But that is exactly what is happening today and looks like continuing right through the Budget, well into the autumn and possibly to the end of the year. Secondly, we must recreate the notion of partnership between industry and government. Markets cannot do everything on their own. They cannot ensure the continuing system of high quality training that we need. They do not allocate adequate resources to long term research and development or to major infrastructure projects or to patient export promotion. Those are all areas of market failure and government must step in to help.
Lastly, we must recognise that the future of our manufacturing effort is in the hands of our major companies. We must remember that the largest 100 companies are responsible for half of our manufacturing exports and are the leaders of our research effort. Small businesses should not be overlooked, but it is the heavyweights that carry the punch. We can no longer allow ourselves the luxury of seeing these companies "put into play", as the current City expression puts it. In other words, whatever the merits of the company and its management, some clever market operator can make it look as though the company is a takeover target, so making himself the odd million or so, and throwing the management into a prolonged defensive campaign. That really is no way to create an atmosphere conducive to long term industrial prosperity.
We need a new set of policies to achieve the right substainable balance. We cannot go on dithering around as we are at present. I should like to think that this Government could make the policy change, but I fear the task is not within their power. Imagine this, my Lords. Their latest policy novelty is to give the Department of Trade and Industry a strong shot, not of adrenalin but of anaesthetic. It is to be put to sleep. The Department for Enterprise is to become the Department for Euthanasia. That is no way to go. We must change. We must start with a change of government; and the sooner the better. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, at six o'clock I have a long standing meeting arranged in this Palace with a very busy Minister. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if I absent myself briefly from the debate at that time.
Your Lordships may be slightly surprised to hear me start my speech on this subject by saying that in one dimension I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has understated the problem. I do not agree with his particular solutions but we agree that there is a problem. The decline of our business in this country and in particular of our manufacturing business, is not just a matter of decades; it goes back a century or more. In sector after sector, and subsector after subsector, we have found ourselves driven out of markets, our home market as well as overseas. If noble Lords want a vivid demonstration of how that affected our desperate plight during the Second World War, my counsel is to read, if they have not done so, Corelli Barnett's Audit of War.

289
The £20 billion deficit is not the result of a sudden deterioration of a long-standing decline. It represents a failure to restrain the boom at the right time in the mid-1980s. The only people entitled to criticise that failure are those who bellowed at the time. I did not. Nor did the representatives of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. In fact they wanted a more relaxed monetary framework still.
So who is to blame for a century-old decline? I believe that noble Lords must accept that the blame has to be shared between governments, managements, owners of business and unions. We cannot put the decline of a century right in a decade. The problem is a serious one. There was no golden past for British business once international competition began, though individual British sectors and subsectors have been and are world leaders.
I believe that the Select Committee was quite right to focus on this problem. My quarrel with its report is about its failure, in my view, to analyse the problem adequately or to follow through its analysis. The recommendations of the Select Committee were mainly exhortatory, with some assorted suggestions for extra government spending and fantasies, if I may say so, about stable exchange and interest rates. As for its emphasis on education and training, we certainly all want better education for the millions of children who have done without it in this country. But we want it for their own sakes, though incidentally, of course, they will no doubt be able to be more prosperous themselves and to contribute more effectively to national prosperity.
The report of the Select Committee indulges in what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, calls the national vice of looking primarily to the Government for solutions. Indeed the speakers in all the debates on the Select Committee report seem to have ignored powerful criticisms of it by the noble Lords, Lord Hanson, Lord Marsh, Lord Bauer, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Bruce-Gardyne.
Let there be no doubt that on one factor there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and me. The Government certainly have a decisive role to play in providing the framework necessary for business. But that role is to provide a framework that encourages business to be internationally profitable because it is internationally competitive.
It is the Government's job —and no one else can do it —to provide the framework, which must include minimal inflation, sensible trade union law, the enforcement of competition, no penal taxation, safety nets—but safety nets that do not demotivate—no price/pay dividend or exchange controls and nationalisation only when really justified. By and large, though with a big blot at the moment on inflation and interest rates, most of those necessary components for the needed framework have been provided. A start has been made on improving schools and training and on increasing the availability of private rented housing. Most of these elements are taken for granted in other industrial countries. Governments will always have to update the framework, as noble Lords will know to their cost in regard to all the legislation coming
290
before us on such matters as food safety and the environment. But, provided the framework is there—and I quote the words of the Select Committee—
"It is surely for industry itself to improve its own efficiency".
I hope that noble Lords will not think me arrogant if I talk now about good and bad management. To be a good manager or a good entrepreneur is intensely hard. I could not do it, but I recognise its importance.
At the heart of our problem, as has been the case over the century, is good entrepreneurship and good management. We have both in substantial quantities. We need much more. That is the problem. The dynamics of motivating good entrepreneurs and good managers by creating conditions which lead them where they are most needed is what the Select Committee should have discussed. Instead it came forward with a few paragraphs about the desirability of good management, without discussing where it could come from.
I do not lightly take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, whom I see in his place. He has a towering reputation in business for his transforming work in our economy. But I was concerned to see him approving the Select Committee report in his speech of 3rd December 1985. His arguments seemed to support not more government intervention—I do not believe he favours that in general—but precisely what I am arguing for: the importance of getting good managers and entrepreneurs into the right place. One of his principal examples was the fact that between certain years and under similar conditions the export of manufactured products was exceeded by a factor of four by the import of manufactured products. Where was our management that we lost our home market on such a large scale?
I suggest that entrepreneurs and good managers are magic wands. It seems that standards of management in this country have risen over the past decade, but there are probably companies both public and private which are not vigorously and effectively managed. Many of these ill-managed companies will go out of existence sooner or later, as so many overmanned and badly managed companies vanished in the early 1980s.
How can better management be achieved? In theory, competition should improve management throughout the economy, but there are snags. Some boards are shortsighted. They want their salaries, they want their perks and they want their pensions, but they do not ensure that the company is competitive. Their shareholders, because they are indifferent, ineffective or simply sell their shares, do not make the management do their job properly nor do they sack them. What happens then? Sooner or later the company goes bankrupt. Jobs are lost, our relative prosperity dwindles, resources for public and social services decline, hands are wrung and Select Committees are set up to ask what should be done and by whom.
Sometimes good managers will make a takeover bid for a badly managed company. Sometimes the bid is successful, the turn-round succeeds and an

291
additional part of the economy is made internationally competitive and profitable.
But must the answer always be the takeover? Cannot the owners perceive and replace bad managers? Who are the owners these days? They are overwhelmingly the institutions; the insurance companies, the pension funds, the investment trusts and the unit trusts. They hold the savings of almost 100 per cent, of the population. Are not they in an ideal position to monitor performance and to secure a change of management where necessary?
If an investment underperforms as a result of bad management, the institutional shareholders can either sell the investment in the market place or attempt to reverse the underperformance by replacing the management. Given that the institutions are investors of other people's money and that their primary skill is one of investment judgment, it would be understandable if they chose the former course of action and sold. However, institutions with longer time horizons accept that changing the management is often a more effective alternative. Although it is not realistic to expect the individual shareholders or the institutional ones to possess the requisite industrial expertise to make operational appointments, they can influence company affairs for the better by ensuring that strong, independent non-executive directors are appointed with whom they can consult when difficulties arise concerning management.
I hope that more and more the institutions will, in their differing groups—insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts and unit trusts—consider strengthening their capacity to monitor management and sometimes, perhaps a bit more often than now, to act rather than to sell.
I believe that there are hundreds of the less large public companies and medium-sized private companies which, for one reason or another, are not internationally competitive and whose managements are not carrying out the changes necessary to become so in future. Such companies are drifting. Sooner or later they will close and jobs and markets will be lost at home and abroad.
Mercifully, at the same time I believe that there are mature experienced entrepreneurs and managers eager to try to rescue such companies for their own profit and satisfaction. Who knows how many there are? However, my question is at the heart of the problem which I believe the Select Committee should have considered; namely, what is the existing machinery for getting those people into the right places?
I turn to another group of agencies which the Select Committee neglected; that is, the venture capital world, which seeks to finance potential entrepreneurs and managers and which ranges from the long established ICFC—now 3i's—to the new breed. We must not judge those sober agencies by the excesses of frenetic leverages and junk bonds across the Atlantic, with all their ill consequences. Here, firms like 3i's, Electra and Candover—and I only mention a few—serve and can serve just the purpose we all have.
292
However, we should understand the dynamics involved. Where are the good managers whom we should like to see rescuing uncompetitive companies? Many such good managers are in large, generally competitive companies and yet feel ready to set up on their own to reverse the decline in another company or to set up one of their own. The venture capital world and head hunters know many of them.
Such managers would take risks if they made a move. They would give up their salaries, company cars and pension rights and would no doubt have to take a salary cut. They would give up relative security and have to persuade their families to share the risks with them. Silver and golden chains tie them to their present employment and yet those people are the magic wands which could help us achieve what we all want.
We need to consider, and in my view the Select Committee should have considered, whether we unwittingly put obstacles in the way of such people; for example, details of tax and pension. We need to understand the human dynamics which lie behind the problem of getting the magic wands into failing companies and into the empty economic sectors which our past failures have left.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am saying that good boards insisting on good management can transform companies, even in difficult sectors, even in those with adverse conditions across the world. That is especially true in the last decade when the framework which has encouraged good management has been coming into place. However, circumstances for such companies can be very difficult indeed. Our Government and the Commission sometimes quell some of the unfair practices. However, in nearly every sector of complaint some managements have succeeded, and I believe that with proper management more could do so.
We do not need to make everything in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, gaps mean opportunities. Already some are being filled and, given the right framework, I believe that more and more can be filled. I for one strongly welcome the incoming Japanese companies, which will not only fill some of the gaps but will insist upon nil defects from their British suppliers. I hope that improved practices will spread throughout the country.
Of one thing I am sure: the Government will not fill those gaps. Good entrepreneurs and good managers may. I wish that the Select Committee had considered those subjects.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that our important debate today has got off to a very good start with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in introducing the debate and the speech which we have just heard by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. Although they approached these problems from different points of view, I believe that there is common ground on two aspects of the matter which we are discussing. First, both noble Lords agree that there is a serious problem in regard to manufacturing industry; secondly, they both agree that the

293
Government's role is to provide the right framework. Therefore, the debate is all about the nature of the problem and the sort of framework. I believe that that gives us a good basis for continuing the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred extensively to the report of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in which I had the honour to participate. He expressed some doubts about some of the conclusions reached. Of course, I concurred with them because I was involved in the preparation of those conclusions.
However, I imagine that the noble Lord would not criticise the report in any way for its analysis of the problem and for drawing attention to it. The report was about alerting us to the fact that there has been a major change in regard to our manufacturing industry. For the first time since the Industrial Revolution we have moved into a deficit on the balance of payments and that is likely to grow unless certain remedies are taken.
Particular concern was expressed about what would happen when oil revenues diminished. I remember the major argument which we had with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury who consistently and vigorously took the view that when oil revenues diminished, there would be an automatic adjustment. Their view was that that would happen through the exchange rates, that there would then be greater opportunity for manufacturing industry which would rise in consequence, would earn more and, hey presto! the balance of payments problem would be resolved.
I believe that if the Aldington Report has achieved one thing, it has completely knocked on the head that theory of automatic adjustment. Far from an automatic adjustment taking place, the actual results of our balance of payments until the end of the past decade have turned out to be even worse than the figures intimated in the report, which were greatly decried at the time.
I continue on the question of oil. When we look ahead to the end of the current decade, on all the forecasts which I have examined we are likely to be more or less in balance as between the amount of oil produced in the North Sea and the oil which we need for our own consumption. As we move into the next century, we could start getting out of balance, and have to import again.
In that situation with the oil revenues on overseas account diminishing, what will take their place? Will it be invisible earnings? That was substantially contended at the time of our inquiries. However, we heard from the chairman of the Invisible Trade Committee that he did not consider that invisible earnings could continue to rise and progressively take the place either of diminished oil earnings or of diminished manufacturing earnings. Indeed he emphasised the point which we considered to be totally valid that, generally speaking, services go hand in hand with manufacturing and that if your manufacturing side does not thrive, your services also diminish.
Perhaps we can look at the figures for invisible earnings in 1986. We earned £6.6 billion net on our
294
invisible account. In 1988 that had fallen to £4–2 billion and the preliminary figures for 1989, which we had only the other day, show £2–7 billion. It may be that the final figures for 1989 will turn out to be somewhat better because they usually do, but the trend is there. The fact is that invisibles will not fill that gap and therefore we are inevitably back to the question of manufacturing.
Manufacturing industry will play an increasingly crucial part in our affairs during the 1990s, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, so effectively emphasised. There is no alternative to that. It is appropriate therefore to look at what has happened to our manufacturing industry over the years. There is no doubt that there has been a progressive decline in the share of manufacturing industry in the total activity of the economy. In 1970, for example—not to go back any further—manufacturing industry represented 29 per cent, of GDP whereas in 1987 it fell to 24 per cent. It is perfectly true that there were similar falls in other countries. What, however, disturbed the Select Committee and is disturbing to us now, with even more knowledge of what has happened, is that the build-up of our manufacturing base has been slower than others.
Since the recession of 1979–81 when our manufacturing activities were cut back (as was the case with other countries) we have built up much more slowly. We did not reach the 1979 level again until 1987. Our manufacturing output is now some 10 to 12 per cent, above that for 1979, but in Germany and France it is over 30 per cent. more. In other words, we have fallen behind in expanding our manufacturing base from that very seriously declining situation in 1979–81.
It will be said that in the meantime there has been a quite remarkable improvement in productivity. Indeed there has. That is a great success story. Much tribute is due to British industry and what it has done in the period since 1981 to improve productivity. However, the question is: were those productivity increases in that period on a sustainable basis? All the indications are that they arose because of a massive shakeout of labour and very substantial closures of inefficient plants. I do not say those things should not all have happened—maybe they should; maybe they should not—but that is why productivity improved. We cannot go on doing that. We can only have this shakeout once and for all. Inefficient plants can only be closed once. The fact remains that if we want to maintain anything like the level of productivity we had in the latter part of the last decade, we will need to source it in a different way. It will inevitably have to come from much greater investment. That is the only way it can be done.
Let us look therefore at investment. Investment in manufacturing industry is best measured as a proportion of total output in order to make comparisons with other countries. In the last five years our investment has been around 10 per cent, of the total value of the output in manufacturing. That compares with 15 per cent, in 1970; but what is worse is that with that 10 per cent, level we were bottom of the OECD league. In other words, over the past five years all other major manufacturing

295
countries in the OECD area have been investing in manufacturing industry at a higher relative rate than we have.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is not only the quantity of investment which matters, but it is the use to which it is put? In this country, thanks largely to union problems, we have the lowest output per unit of investment of any of our competitors. That has been improving in the past 10 years, but it has been a great clog on our economy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I entirely agree. Many excellent things have been done in the past decade, but we are concerned with the springboard for the next decade. I am merely suggesting that our level of investment has been too low so far. What is worse is that if we depend on that level of investment in order to maintain and sustain productivity, we will be woefully behind. That is a conclusion one inevitably comes to.
How then do we tackle this? Is it something that we can leave entirely to market forces? That comes back to the debate introduced recently by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Can this be put right entirely by market forces? Market forces of course have a very important role to play, but generally speaking market forces operate most effectively in the short term. Market forces are effective in establishing a price relationship between goods which are actually produced at any given time and the demand for those goods. However, where market forces tend to fail is in the long term allocation of resources. Our market forces in Britain are very much dominated by the analysts' reports, Mr. Lawson's "teenage scribblers". I do not know how many of your Lordships are familiar with these reports, but they are excessively short term in their view. The fund managers—all the worthy funds like the National Coal Board fund, of which I am a beneficiary, so good luck to it—compete on a quarterly basis for their success. From the market point of view there is no long-term approach in the way we are organised in Britain. Therefore one of the essential elements of this framework about which we are talking is to provide the basis for a long-term investment approach. That seems to me to come inevitably out of the present situation.
I should like to suggest ways in which we might tackle that and essentially the question of investment. Not only should we be working out a long-term investment strategy but, in the short term, with the much reduced investment intentions of the CBI and others, I believe the opportunity should be seized in the next Budget to do something fiscally to counteract the declining trend in short-term investment to act as a springboard for longer-term investment. I think something like investment allowances and depreciation allowances should be looked at to put that right.
I conclude by saying that here is a crucial problem. Inevitably manufacturing will play a more important role in our future developments. What we have to do is catch up at double the rate that we were previously doing in order to solve the problem.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given to me on my arrival at this House. I trust that your Lordships will not think that I am being controversial if I seek to extend the term "manufacturing" from the factory and out into the open air.
I believe manufacturing industry ought to be taken to embrace civil engineering and construction industries, of which I have been a part. For most of my working life I have been a member of a firm of consulting engineers. Our industry is responsible for the manufacture and repair of the infrastructure—drainage, reservoirs, water supply tunnels, roads and ports; all mundane, unglamorous objects which we very much take for granted. However, by its activities at home and on account of the exports that it makes, I believe that our industry may certainly claim to help create a balance in the economy, even though we may have to use a predominance of foreign plant and equipment so to do.
The design of major projects requires insight into the lives of those who will be directly affected by them. I realise that objection is so often raised about the mess and inconvenience which is caused when, for example, a motorway has to be driven across the countryside with loss of property and dislocation of rural activity. We do not take pleasure in inflicting that upset, and in designing works we try to do our best to minimise public inconvenience.
Each project is special to itself. It requires innovation and the application of wide-ranging techniques by a multi-disciplinary team that should be directed by engineers having considerable breadth of experience and management skills. Putting together such a group represents a significant capital investment and it follows that the economy must stem from having some degree of continuity of employment between one job and another for these various design teams; a stability that can be helped by having a stable home market and the willing acceptance by that market of novel solutions to old problems.
The export markets expect that innovation will have been proved in the home market before being employed on their jobs. They do not wish to be guinea pigs for our experiments. The clients in export markets insist on seeing for themselves before buying. So again it is the home market which must encourage new ideas for the construction industry for the benefit of home economics and for exports.
As regards policies, central government control road building, and road building proposals are now emerging. It will be interesting to learn a little more of what is proposed. Equally, the newly-privatised water companies will have to spend copiously to bring sewerage and water supply up to modern standards. It is hoped that before long there will be some indication of the nature of these works. Each of these two sectors of activities has the potential to be the shop window for what the construction industry can achieve.
This afternoon we have had the Second Reading of two Bills for the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid

297
Transit System). Elsewhere in the world even quite modest cities are finding it worthwhile to avoid the growing cost of providing highways and parking spaces by building such schemes both above and below ground, so that people can travel more conveniently from outside to their places of work or for their shopping.
Such systems of transportation must surely be appropriate to our smaller cities too. It would be far too controversial if I were to make suggestions as to how such schemes might be initiated, financed and operated. But come they will, and many sectors of industry will have a part to play in seeing that these schemes are brought to fruition. It is to be hoped that British firms will play a major role. However, the fear must be that Continental firms, hungry for further work and having evident competence, will take over our market, unless the home industry has had the opportunity to demonstrate that it has skills in these matters.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I know that all of your Lordships will wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crook, on an excellent maiden speech. I can assure him that many of us in this House do not regard the building of tunnels, roads and similar projects as mundane affairs, which is what he said. Indeed, many of us would welcome more of such construction in our own areas. Making one's first speech in this House usually presents certain problems but the noble Lord has overcome them without the slightest difficulty. His speech was informative and presented in a most persuasive manner. There is no doubt that the noble Lord will be a most valuable Member of your Lordships' House, and we look forward greatly to further contributions from him.
Whenever we on this side of the House ask for evidence concerning what the Government persist in calling the economic miracle, we are given statistics which are almost always at odds with those provided by the recognised independent authorities in these matters. Nowhere has this been more evident than in dealing with the theme of this debate today; namely, the manufacturing base of this country and its progress, or lack of progress, during the nearly 11 years of unbridled power of this Government.
Therefore, it was with very great interest that I read the answer given in December last in another place to a question asked by a Tory Member about the rise in manufacturing output in the leading European economies between 1973 and 1988. The figures given show the following: there were increases of 33–5 per cent, for Italy; 17–5 per cent, for West Germany; 13–26 per cent, for France and for the United Kingdom there was an increase of 3–26 per cent. So much for the economic miracle from the Government's own figures.
In talking about the supply side of our economy, it is not just that the savage early deflationary years of Thatcherite monetarism, already referred to by previous speakers, wiped out huge sections of manufacturing industry which were so widespread that the economy has barely recovered from it, but
298
equally disastrous were the Lawsonite policies which have exacerbated the position. The Lawson horse bolted, completely out of control, down the same old reflationary cul-de-sac. Now, at the far end of that cul-de-sac, we come up against the high wall of a 15 per cent, interest rate and an adverse balance of trade of about £20 billion.
Ministers keep whistling in the dark to bolster their spirits, and they whistle even louder when they are confronted with the figure of 3–26 per cent, which I have just given. But there is never any mention of the loss of nearly 2 million manufacturing jobs during this decade —indeed, it is more than a decade now —of Tory government in which no fewer than 141,000 jobs were lost in the northern region, my own area. I shall say more about that later.
When the Minister comes to wind up the debate I challenge him to deny that it is only in recent months that manufacturing output has exceeded the level of 1979, almost 11 years ago, when Labour left office. All of this—we shall keep repeating it from these Benches; my noble friend Lord Williams said it when opening this debate—against the massive economic cushion of North Sea oil.
I believe that what the Government have done in the past decade was aptly summed up in a recent comment by a professor of applied economics who said:
"This is like jumping off a cliff and then congratulating yourself on having climbed back to the top".
If our manufacturing base is to achieve the level it should, and that includes being able to compete with the rest of the world and in particular with our fellow members of the EC, it will be necessary for vast improvements to be made in two respects: in training and in research and development. I have raised both these matters on many occasions in your Lordships' House and today I shall not repeat the details. What I do say is that the Government are tackling training in the wrong way by making it the entire responsibility of the private sector. We shall pay a high price for that mistake, quite apart from the fact that spending on training programmes this year is £190 million less than the Government originally planned, and by 1992 that figure will have fallen even further. That really is eating the seedcorn.
I hope that no one will deny that research and development are essential to satisfactory economic progress, yet Government spending on civil research and development has been reduced in real terms by 2 per cent, since 1985. From my reading of the recent White Paper it appears that it will be cut by a further 8 per cent, between 1992–93. In a recent debate and in reponse to my request, the Minister promised to issue the findings of the Government's investigations into research and development carried out by the industry itself. As the Minister knows, and I am sure your Lordships know, that is an exercise which is carried out every four or five years. I shall be grateful if the Minister will not only confirm that promise but also give some indication as to when the report will be made available.
On Teesside, where I have the pleasure to be deputy chairman of the urban development corporation, I am glad to say that when I proposed a

299
research and development centre for our own area I found that I was pushing against an open door. We consulted the different types of industries there, largely manufacturing, and the project has made an excellent start.
In opening the debate, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel referred to the importance of the regions. I turn now to the effect of these and related policies on the regions, and in particular to the northern region, although much of what I have to say will no doubt apply to other regions.
When I raise the problems of the North in this House, I am regaled with a string of statistics purporting to show how much things have improved in the five northern counties which constitute the northern region. It would be wrong to deny that matters have improved, but they have done so with only minimal help from the Government. Surely it is a basic truth of economics that in an industrial economy the standard of living improves anyway because of innovation and invention.
We on this side believe that in areas like the North of England government help and intervention are essential because of the acute imbalance between different parts of the country. It may well be that the kind of thing I am talking about is what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to when he spoke of setting the framework, although he would probably agree there might be a difference of opinion on what constitutes the framework.
Surely the most important criterion is unemployment. The national figure in December 1989 was 6–4 per cent. The figure for the northern region was almost exactly 50 per cent, higher, at 98 per cent. Even that figure is somewhat misleading because it includes areas of the highest unemployment in the country. For example, when a pit closes there is simply no other work available and it is not unusual for a local community to have 50 per cent, unemployment. When I first became a Member of another place there were 14 pits in my constituency. When I left four only remained. Whole communities were devastated. That is still happening.
Regional aid for the North and the Midlands in 1986 was £350 million. That sum has been reduced every year since then, and in 1992 it will be £190 million. Perhaps the most devastating statistic, particuarly in the context of this debate, is that manufacturing investment in the northern region fell by no less than 43 per cent, during the period 1979 to 1987. That fall caused a 12 per cent, increase in unemployment. (Perhaps I may say to the Minister that those are government figures taken from the recent issue of Social Trends.) That figure is quite astonishing, and there will have been a number of causes for it, but its sheer size demonstrates the indifference of the Government to what has long been the hardest hit region in the country.
In the autumn Statement the Secretary of State said that regional aid would be cut further. He also said that aid to English Industrial Estates would be further reduced. One of the worst industrial bottlenecks in the North is created by the lack of
300
advance factories, and English Estates have for some time been the main provider of those factories. They are a great incentive to potential investors in the region and it is lunacy to reduce the number being built.
Perhaps I may give a few more figures. In 1987–88, 71 advance factories were built in the region. In 1988–89, 10 were built, and in the current year, 1989–90, 37 will be built. I say to the Government that a return to the 1987–88 figure is of the utmost importance.
There is great scope for improvement in the infrastructure. Here again I confirm what the noble Lord has just said in his excellent maiden speech. I need not tell your Lordships that this is one of the most important kinds of investment because of the multiplier effect. When I asked a Question a few weeks ago on aid to the northern region a Member from the Government Benches said the following in referring to the North:
"The Government can legitimately play a useful part in the restoration of areas in which employment is rendered difficult by the reason of the closures of various industries, namely, infrastructure. There are communications, airfields and ports, there are fields of higher and further education, and there is housing. There are many areas which can properly be made the subject of a survey and can be used as a source of further employment".
That was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I assume that he still has some influence with the Government and I hope the Minister will today take note of those remarks, particularly because, as the Minister will recall, Lord Hailsham was for some time the Minister for the North. It also happens that his son, Douglas Hogg, MP, has recently been given responsibility for the North, so I hope that he will listen to that fatherly advice.
On another aspect of regional aid, can the Government honestly say that the abolition of regional development grants has been a success? The main case in favour of RD grants was their certainty and the stability which they gave to companies. When the Government contemplate changes of this magnitude, I wonder whom they consult and talk to. I always found in talking to industrialists that RD grants rated as one of the major incentives when considering a move to the North.
The North is sometimes accused of holding out the begging bowl. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that we help ourselves. I call in aid the statements the Government have made. They have heaped praise on the formation and progress of the Northern Development Company. I would remind the Minister and your Lordships that that company was set up by local business, local government and local trade unions. The Government were rather hesitant at first about helping and gave what is now looked upon as a token grant. I hope that the Minister will recognise the splendid work which has been done and that this is something which will continue to be supported.
The regional problem has become one of the most spectacular blemishes on the Government's already devastatingly weak manufacturing record. The regions have felt and still bear the burden of government policies, not least those allowing the

301
branch plant economy to develop during their long period of office. The branch plants are the first to close, and that will continue over the next two or three years.
When the Government talk about the economy being overheated, it is because certain regions are overheated. The northern region and other regions have never in my lifetime been overheated, and the basic requirement is a regional strategy which will encourage manufacturing industry to move to the underheated areas. This Government with their blinkered market forces orientations have signally failed to recognise the fundamental needs of a strategy which has to be seen as part of a comprehensive whole. In benefiting those areas which are hardest hit, the North and others to which I referred, it will contribute to the success and prosperity of the whole nation.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for a very interesting and, if one may say so, relevant maiden speech. He need make no apology for talking about the construction industry in a debate on manufacturing. We listened with great respect to what he said and he will discover, as no doubt he already has, that people who come with a long experience of an outside industry—and the noble Lord is a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers—will always be listened to with respect in this House.
I make the point about manufacturing industry simply in order to raise one matter. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is not here because in the demonology of the Labour Party the construction industry is part of services; it is not part of manufacturing. It was charged with SET and had various other impositions put upon it until those discriminatory taxes were removed.
The construction industry is an important part of manufacturing industry. It contributes enormously to our capital investment and it is a major foreign exchange earner. Many of our leading construction companies are among the world leaders in their fields. It well behoves any government to look carefully to the health of the construction industry. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, made a number of valid points on the industry.
The noble Lord referred to the outdoor industry. I shall turn to the indoor industry. There is a great deal of common ground in the House on that subject. There is rather more common ground than some of the more partisan speeches may have indicated. It is no help towards trying to analyse the problems —there undoubtedly are problems —if we try to pretend that all evil started in 1979. It is now widely recognised that the decline, as my noble friend Lord Joseph said, of this country's manufacturing industry goes back a long time and owes at least something to some deep-seated cultural characteristics of our society, which in some respects seems to have taken a wrong turning—it has been well chronicled in a number of important
302
books—somewhere about the middle of the last century. It is proving extraordinarily difficult to try to reverse those cultural obstacles to the recognition of the importance of manufacturing industry.
I hope that I can stand before your Lordships as an acknowledged convert. There may be some in your Lordships' House who may remember speeches that I made to the CBI, the Chemical Industries Association and the annual dinners when I was Secretary of State for Industry. I quoted figures to scotch the idea that this country could hope to survive solely as a service economy. At that time we had something like 10 per cent, of the world's trade in services—a big percentage—but if we were to seek to do without manufacturing industry we would have had to increase that figure to 50 per cent, of the world's trade in services, which one has to say is totally ludicrous. It is beyond the realms of possibility.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Joseph were right when they said that we must of course have a strong, thriving and growing manufacturing base. They were right when they said that it has declined dramatically, not just over the past 10 years —on the contrary, as I hope to show, the decline has been reversed —but for a long period. Being in a weakened state towards the end of the 1970s, when the world downturn hit British industry in the first two years of this decade, it suffered badly. Many businesses were not able to weather the storm. Those which did often did so only by some drastic and painful surgery.
It is important to recognise that there has been a reversal of that trend. Anyone who seeks to deny that fact is establishing a false base upon which to examine what are the continuing serious problems, because no one will stand here, least of all I, and try to say, "It is all right. We have done enough. We do not need to worry". On the contrary, much more needs to be done. I saw some interesting figures the other day which were based on OECD statistics, which are sometimes called the "Dutch disease", and which related the proportion of the GDP represented by manufacturing to the economy's overall growth rate. There is a remarkable correlation. The chart took the period 1979 to 1986, and the two fastest growing economies are, as we recognise, Japan and Germany. Germany has 32 per cent, of its GDP in manufacturing and Japan has just over 30 per cent. At the other end of the scale, the country with the lowest growth was the Netherlands, with only 18 per cent, in manufacturing. The United States and the United Kingdom were (dose together with a faster growth rate than the Netherlands and France. We have about 22 per cent.; but 22 per cent, of GDP for a country that depends as much as we do on trade is not enough. It has to be increased.
I attended a gathering the other day of industrialists and financiers. We agreed that we should perhaps aim at raising the proportion of our GDP represented by manufacturing industry to something approaching 30 per cent, by the end of the century.
It would be in no sense returning to prescriptive planning and the kind of interference which did such damage to industry if the Government were to set

303
out as part of their economic objectives the objective of raising the proportion of our GDP represented by manufacturing to something approaching 30 per cent. It would be of enormous encouragement to manufacturing industry. It would give the lie, as it were, to the people who still go around saying that it does not matter: "The service industries are all absolutely splendid. Look at all the marvellous leisure parks we are building in disused quarries". They may be of value to tourism —I am the last to decry tourism—and they may be a valuable reclamation of waste land, but they will not earn this country the balance of payments surplus that we would want to see over a period. That will come from manufacturing industry.
I shall not dream of quoting it at any length, but there was an important book written recently by the distinguished Japanese industrialist, Mr Akio Morita, the head of Sony, in which he hammers home the importance of a modern industrial economy being based on manufacturing.
Many of the services which are part of the service sector depend on manufacturing. Shipping, insurance, finance and the myriad of supporting services depend upon a healthy manufacturing base. Part of the problem with statistics is that many manufacturing companies have been contracting out an increasing amount of their service activities. Most companies do not now provide their own catering. They have specialist caterers. Does that reduce the proportion of GDP in manufacturing and increase it in services? Some of the figures need to be looked at carefully. There is the provision of protective clothing and a whole range of matters, including planned maintenance, which are put out to service companies but which are nevertheless dependent upon manufacturing. The distinction between manufacturing and services is sometimes gravely overdone.
I take issue with the main thrust of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I wrote down his words. He said that the fault lay with the Government. If one looks at the record of the past few years and compares it with the previous 10, 20 or 30 years, the contrast is stark and encouraging. I am not for one moment saying that we have gone far enough but we have now succeeded in stabilising our share of the world trade in manufactures after a long period of decline. We have now stabilised our proportion of manufacturing output after a long period of decline. Manufacturing industry has recovered sharply.
I shall turn to the words of someone who speaks on behalf of a large sector of manufacturing industry, the president of the CBI Sir Trevor Holdsworth, who wrote in The Times last month:
"The 1980s have been the best decade I have known —after 40 years in industry—for managing business. The two previous decades were dominated by policies more akin to the Eastern bloc … so the 1980s have been very refreshing. We had been a nation that had gone downhill but that has been reversed —something which has not occurred before, except for the effect of wars."
Anyone who knows about British industry knows —and, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made this point most effectively—that productivity in
304
manufacturing industry has risen sharply. Indeed, according to figures I saw recently the average employee in British manufacturing industry now produces 50 per cent, more than he did in 1980. That is a better record of productivity growth than in any other major industrialised country. Moreover, it is certainly better than all our European competitors. Of course it is not good enough, but it is no help to the cause of trying to decide what more needs to be done if one seeks to deny those basic facts.
I have just two further points to make regarding where I think we can look for help. The first is already happening and happening very successfully. I refer to the fact that we are welcoming foreign investment into this country. Indeed, not only are we welcoming it but we are also recognising that the decision of one major international company after another to come and locate major manufacturing plants in Britain is in itself a recognition that this country is regarded as a hospitable climate, a good place to do business and a place where companies can expect to operate successfully.
However, it is more than that recognition; it brings with it all the improvements in technology and —this point was mentioned by another noble Lord—the demand for higher quality. That is the great contribution which the Japanese companies have made to this country. They have demanded new products and higher quality from their suppliers. That in turn has a knock-on effect and improves the whole quality of British industry.
I had the privilege of reading a speech made the other day by Sir Ronald Halstead. He is deputy chairman of British Steel. He made the point about the very positive impact of the introduction of the Japanese automotive industry to this country. He mentioned the quality of steel which the company had to produce for making those cars. He quoted Nissan's demands on British Steel for special coatings on steel for car bodies. He went on to say that success in meeting Nissan's demands led to similar requirements from Ford and so on, raising the whole quality of car body manufacture in the UK. He also said that technology-sharing with Nippon Steel led to the development of new steel alloy car wheels and a grant to Dunlop to put in an automated line. He continued thereafter to say that some of the company's main plant providers were now able to export steel plant to Korea.
We very much welcome that development. It is encouraging to see that almost every week a major new company is establishing manufacturing in this country. It is important for employment and for different regions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, made this point. However, it is equally important for technology and quality and for the other things we need to do.
The only other point I wish to take up is one made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I do not think that the short-term analysts are "teenage scribblers"; I think that they represent a serious problem. I can see this aspect from both sides. I am chairman of a major life insurance company with a very large portfolio of investments. I am also the chairman of

305
a medium-sized electronics company. My experiences as chairman of the latter company in going around and talking to fund managers who hold shares in my company was a very salutary and rather dispiriting performance. The first question I was asked was, "Why are you here? Are you going to be taken over? Do you want to make a rights issue?" I answered, "No. We are here because the City and the CBI have said that British industry must get closer to its institutional investors". They said, "That is interesting, but what are you going to tell us?" I then proceeded to tell them. I must say that some of the young people who come along to carry out this work really do not begin to have an inkling of what it is that industrialists are trying to talk about. However, some of them are very good.
Looking at the matter from the other point of view, what does a big institution actually want when it talks to the major industrial companies in which it holds shares? It wants to see senior people—whether it is the chairman, the managing director, the director of a particular sector or whoever it may be—on a one-to-one basis and hold a detailed discussion. It is only then that we shall have long-term shareholding. That will help the situation. In my view that is a real problem. The City and industry really need to sort out that relationship because it is not yet right.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for launching the debate and for the quality of his contribution. I should also like to thank the House for the standard of the debate up to this point, to which the maiden speaker contributed as substantially as anyone. I wish immediately to take up a point which was made at some length by the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It should be noted in this House, even in the context of this excellent debate, that the only occasions in our history over the past hundred years when we have enjoyed a balance of payments surplus have always been when the service sector of the economy has been riding high and making up the gap which has been left by the manufacturing sector of the economy. It is a tradition of our adversarial politics that we re-write history every time we rise to our feet. But that is a fact, it is traceable and it should be understood. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, wishes to intervene and accordingly I give way.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I must point out to him that he is wrong. One of the achievements of the Labour Government from 1945 onwards was to build up a manufacturing surplus to replace a then invisible deficit.
Lord Parry: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is quite right on that point. Indeed, I am delighted that he is paying tribute to the work of the Labour Government over that period. In fact, he is absolutely right because on the few occasions when this happened I said that the service sector of the
306
economy was riding high. I shall not be put down on that point because it is a fact.
May I also draw the attention of the House to those very matters about which we are talking today. We are not talking about the past 10 years. Indeed, life in British manufacturing and in British politics did not begin 10 years ago; it began a long time earlier. We are really talking about recognition of the realities of what has happened to Great Britain since the decline of its empire and since it had to re-align practically every strategy it had for earning its living.
Therefore, let us begin at that point. I do not wish to be in any way contradictory in what I have to say. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when, in 1945, the Labour Government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, made reference, found themselves facing the situation which is closely akin to the situation now being faced in Eastern Europe by those countries which are coming out of difficulty into the challenge of this period of government, they produced a manifesto for Britain called Let us Face the Future. In facing that future they took unpalatable decisions which perhaps took them out of office much earlier than might have been the case. However, they took decisions which set a new base and a new attitude to the reviving of the British economy in the post-imperial period.
I have in my hand a book which I drew from the Library a short time ago. Incidentally, I really rose to speak —despite what happened at Twickenham on Saturday between 2 and 5 o'clock—with confidence about Wales and what has been happening there since I have lived in the Principality. In July 1967 a White Paper was published entitled, Wales: The Way Ahead. It was in fact a crystallisation of facing the future and represented the experience of the governments between 1945 and 1967. It was an attempt to draw up a strategy for the redevelopment and the rebalancing of the economy in Wales in which a diminishing manufacturing base, rapidly declining, would be replaced by a reviving and encouraged service sector of the economy, while retaining and strengthening manufacture and development. I have never seen conflict in this respect.
While I served on the Welsh Development Agency as a charter member and while I was chairman of the Wales Tourist Board I was doing exactly the same job. We were trying to earn our living in the 20th century by balancing the economy. As for manufacturing industry, what we had to do was to recognise the realities of a declining manufacturing industry and say to the service sector, "We will help you make a greater contribution to the general economy".
On that very point the White Paper analysed the prospective employment situation in Wales; it described the great natural attractions of Wales to new industry and the ways in which the Government could increase those attractions. I have a point to make in this respect and I honestly believe that I am making it in an apolitical sense. The fact that the Japanese manufacturers are attracted to Wales today is because an attractive investment and a social

307
environment were created due to the three main thrusts of the redevelopment policy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is present. He directed British Nylon Spinners to Mamhilad as the beginning of the basis of a manufacturing base in the light industrial sector when heavy manufacturing industry was declining. That was not a bad initiative.
The report, Wales: The Way Ahead, was the last effective strategy and plan for the re-aligning of the Welsh economy. As well as being the First, it was the last. I make the point that today might be the time when we should have another strategy, not simply for Wales but for the regions of England. It should be an effective analysis of what needs to be done. Instead of wasting time exchanging trivialities across the Floor of the House, we should contribute to the general change in the climate of opinion in order to make it possible to redevelop more quickly.
The report is signed "Cledwyn Hughes". My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition produced this document. It is literate in Welsh and English and I have great pride in drawing attention to it. The reason that I do so is because it was the basis from which grew the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Should there be any doubt in the minds of the purists in private industry that government have a role, let this debate today kill the idea that it is possible for governments in the 20th century to leave everything to the good will of private enterprise. It is not possible. We know that.
However, it is possible that if we assess all that we have to do through these various organisations, we can build a strategy and make it national. The Development Board for Rural Wales, created in 1977, intended to promote economic and social development in mid-Wales. That comprises the district of Ceredigion in Dyfed, Merionnydd and Gwynedd and the districts of Brecknock, Montgomery, Radnor and Powys. I say that so that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have the pleasure as a Welshman of repeating those words if he wishes.
The purpose of that board was to encourage the growth of jobs in a wide range of manufacturing industries. It has been very successful. The Development Board for Rural Wales covers only a section of Wales: mid-Wales and district, Llandrindod Wells, etc. But there are areas of rural Wales that could well do with the support that the middle of Wales receives from the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Welsh Development Agency would rightly claim that it is doing a great deal, through its own policies, to make up for the deficiences in that organisation. I have here the latest report of the Welsh Development Agency.
If we are tempted into partisanship for a moment, let us look at the situation. It is interesting that when the new Government were elected 10 years ago, they carried out an assessment of the so-called quangos. That examined how they were working, and today the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales are strongly supported by the Government because
308
they recognise that these boards are integral to the policies that they themselves will have to follow.
It is interesting that when we examine the history we find that our rewritten history is not so valid as the actual history concerning how matters developed. I have here the report of the Wales Tourist Board. When I was chairman of that board I used to be jealous of the systems that were available to the manufacturing sector of the economy. One of the most successful tools that I had at my disposal as chairman of the board was Section 4 of the Act setting up the Wales Tourist Board. That section gave us the ability to pin-point the area that most needed development. Up to a good limit of £200,000 we were able to intervene when our people had examined the situation in association with the entrepreneurs who were basic to the development of tourism. When our people had done that we were able to provide the money.
Because we could do that, we were able to attract a multiplier. For the period of my service with the Wales Tourist Board I can show you this, and my colleague and chairman, Prince Edward, could show you from his period the same fact. It is that for every pound of public money invested under Section 4 in the development of tourism to the point where it made a major contribution to the economy of Wales —out of all proportion to what its detractors might think—we were able to attract a multiplier of as much as 11 or sometimes 12 times the investment from the private sector of the economy. I read to my amazement that Section 4 has been taken out of the Act so far as it applies to some regions. I hope that the Government have no intention of suggesting that in relation to the continuing problems of Wales.
Despite the difficulties and the fact that the decline started from a long way back, it was not recognised early enough that the heavy industrial sector had disappeared. My noble friend Lord Dormand has pointed to the declining coal mines in his area. There has been an even more startling decline in the number of coal mines in Wales. We purchased some for the Wales Tourist Board and we keep them open now. I believe that there are now only two or three coal mines left in the whole of Wales. That is historical.
Re-fighting those battles is no part of our mandate here, but what is vital is that the good efforts, the good work and the good achievements should not be thrown out of gear and out of kilter because some new man moving into office has accepted a brief which does not understand the entire history. This man may be motivated by saving money at this point —in itself a valuable and satisfactory attribute for a Minister —rather than the overall strategy that has for 60 years been making some difference to our capacity to earn our living in a difficult world.
We have an opportunity this afternoon to say that the manufacturing sector of Great Britain is vital. It should be redeveloped in every way. However, the redevelopment of the service sector, particularly of tourism, creates an environment into which come entrepreneurs from other nations with capacities, skills and investment money that we ourselves cannot give. Why do we think that the Japanese have the largest concentration of factories and companies

309
in the whole of Europe situated in Wales? Not because we have a rugby team that was beaten by England. It is because we have some of the best golf courses in Europe, some of the best schools and a good cultural environment. It is because the record of work of the Welsh workers who came from heavy industry is as good as any that the Japanese have discovered anywhere. I make the point seriously.
Sometimes we malign our own workers while the people whom we describe as reviving our economy go round the world saying how good they are. In this debate we are all on the same side: to create a full capacity for Britain, for people to earn their living in a world which owes us nothing.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to join previous speakers in praising the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook. I particularly look forward to his contributions in the area of roads and tunnels, where delays and disasters are bound to face us.
As others have said, this debate is a familiar course and we have run round it before. We know that. However, it does not mean that the debate lacks interest. It is worth going over the ground again and again because, sadly, the Government have never given a satisfactory response either verbally to the House or to the country in policy terms. Basically the Government do not have a policy for industry and deep down they do not believe in industrial policy. Every month the economic and industrial statistics reflect that failure. Every month the doubts and the concerns that have been expressed in this House on previous occasions are confirmed. The basic and depressing situation in manufacturing industry has already been outlined. I begin by agreeing completely, as is so often the case, with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that this is indeed a 100-year problem. There are no particular guilty men or guilty parties. However, I assert that the past decade has made a special contribution to the decline. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if we criticise excessively it is because the Government have too often trumpeted excessively. We also criticise because it is necessary to counter with stark figures the hype of the alleged economic miracle.
The fact is that our manufacturing industry has been savagely reduced in the past decade. Production took nine years to reach again the level attained under the previous Labour government at that much derided period of the late 1970s. It is now declining again and has little prospect of improvement in the coming year. The deficit on manufacturing trade which has been referred to is one of the unique but less publicised achievements of the past decade. It stood at £17 billion in 1989. Import penetration in manufactures has increased by nearly 50 per cent, in the past decade. UK manufacturing exports as a percentage of world manufacturing exports have declined from around 10 per cent, to around 8 per cent, over the past 10 years.
I shall make some observations about that manufacturing deficit. I should first make the basic point that it arises because, as many noble Lords predicted five years ago, our manufacturing base is
310
now simply too small. Manufacturing may be more efficient now—I am sure it is—and it may be leaner and fitter and have better labour productivity and better profit margins. That is all to be welcomed, as we shall not have a successful manufacturing industry in the future without those factors. Manufacturing industry must have those factors. However, the rump of manufacturing which remains after the Darwinian massacres of the early 1980s is simply too small. The volume of its capacity for international trade is totally inadequate to the needs of Britain. Consequently we are and shall be vulnerable to huge trade and payments deficits unless and until we strengthen and expand our manufacturing base.
Without such expansion the only way to reduce those trade deficits, as we are now discovering—they will be reduced during the coming year —will be to dampen demand in the economy. The Government choose high interest rates as the instrument to do that. However, in fact that policy causes further damage to industry. It damages industry's technological competitiveness by reducing investment and it damages its price competitiveness by raising the exchange rate. So the manufacturing situation is not a happy one. Its plight affects us all, including those of us in cushy, protected services.
The reasons for the deficiencies in manufacturing are not hard to identify. They have often been analysed. They also point to the directions in which solutions and improvements may be found. At the top of the list, as has been stressed, must be investment. I ask the Government, and certainly the Minister who is to reply, to be precise in any figures they give about manufacturing investment and to bear in mind that it is not sufficient to talk of business investment, as we have heard before, which includes the massive investments in recent years in estate agents, hairdressers, building societies, leisure parks and clapped out stockbrokers and jobbers. I am not against those services. They add to the pleasure and the leisure of life and they employ some of my best friends. However, we are discussing manufacturing investment. Manufacturing investment fell in real terms in the 1980s. It accounted for 3–3 per cent, of GDP in that terrible year of 1979 and it now accounts for only 2–5 per cent. It will fall again in real terms in 1990, as the CBI has forecast. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give his figures in real terms.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have been supplied with figures by the CBI, although the time restriction did not allow me to quote them. The figures show that between 1982 and 1989 manufacturing investment grew by 7.1 per cent, a year, reaching a new record level of 11 per cent, above its 1979 peak. It does not seem to me that those figures square with what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords, they do not square with what I have been saying. I, too, received that brief. I should like to check whether its figures are given in real terms. I know that the figures were given from 1982. A characteristic of the present

311
Government is that all but the old would believe that the Government and the figures began in 1982 because we are never given the figures from 1979. If one considers the figures from 1979 one finds that they are as I have recounted them.
Manufacturing investment must be increased in quantity and improved in quality. That is not happening. Quite the reverse is happening. Noble Lords may have seen a fascinating article in the Financial Times of this Monday which reported on the research being carried out at Nuffield College into the direction of investment in this country. The report concludes, sadly, that investment is not going into those areas which trade internationally. It is basically going into the sheltered domestic services and sheltered industries which have recently fed on the credit boom and which do not compete and generate export earnings in the international markets. That is a serious and basic fact to which a department of industry interested in industrial policy would devote much attention.
What we need is more investment to support our exporting industries. The Chancellor might help by looking favourably at the CBI proposal to increase depreciation allowances on plant and machinery from 25 per cent, to 40 per cent, in the coming year when we are entering a recessionary period. That seems to me a sensible suggestion. Linked to the inadequacies of investment are, of course deficiencies in the provisions for industrial training and industrial research. My noble friend Lord Dormand rightly referred to that, having made a commendable crusade in that area. The extent to which we fall below our main competitors in these areas has been documented impeccably and depressingly in earlier debates. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating those remarks. However, I shall point out that industrial research expenditure has been cut by 30 per cent, in real terms in the past decade and is scheduled to be cut again in 1990. Expenditure on industrial training is scheduled to be cut in real terms by over £100 million in 1990 and by £200 million in 1991 according to the recent autumn Statement.
It is clear that the support system for industry must be improved. That is the role of industrial policy. More research is needed, as are more training, export promotion and better transport. The infrastructure was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. That is crucial. We also need to create a climate in which industrial managers can take a longer term view to plan their investment and marketing strategies with a reasonable hope that they will have time to see them fructify. "Short-termism" has been mentioned. That is a horrible phrase but short-termism is an important factor. It has been imposed by the City, where I work. It is simply bad for industry. For that reason alone we need to look again at the rules governing takeovers.
I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in his central point concerning entrepreneurship and managership. This House has representatives from each of those fields. I should point out to the other side of the House that the Opposition contains representatives from both those
312
fields. There is no monopoly of experience in that area. Some of the predators in the take-over game are not good managers and are not good entrepreneurs. They may simply be greedy pirates manipulating junk finance in order to strip valuable assets. Therefore we must look again seriously at the take-over rules and code.
I start from a basic proposition. That is that a high level of trade in manufactured goods is crucial to the economic future of this country. Sadly, I have to conclude that the Government do not have an industrial policy to achieve that objective. They have a free market instinct that high profit margins will solve everything. I state again that without high profit margins we shall not solve everything, but they are not enough. The Government then pursue a policy of high interest rates which damage profits and damage investments. That is not good enough. They have been neglectful of our old industrial base and shown no interest in modernising and refurbishing our manufacturing industry to enable it to expand in the new industrial age.
Having no industrial policy, the Government seem to have only a dogmatic hostility to offering any support to industry. That is as sterile and damaging as the other side of the extremist political coin which believes in total government interference.
I believe that there is a constructive middle way. It is very encouraging that this debate, as did the earlier debate on the free economy, begins to demonstrate that there is an emerging consensus for a middle way. That is reflected in this House. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Joseph, are within that consensus and make possible that middle way. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Industry is within that consensus and whether the Prime Minister supports that middle way.
The middle way is based on a healthy market economy operating as a partnership between the state and industry in areas where such a co-ordinating role is appropriate. It provides, as many have said, the framework. It need not mean massive interference by rigid bureaucracies. There are successful examples elsewhere, including the world's most successful industrial nation, Japan. That is the basis on which we can still rescue and restore Britain's manufacturing industry.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Crook, on his most informative maiden speech, I would say only that the more people we have in this House who know what they are talking about the better it is for all of us.
The main single reason why manufacturing is important is surely that it is the British public's insatiable demand for manufactured goods, including cars, which is the cause of our huge import of manufactures. Indeed, our manufacturing trade deficit with the rest of the world is also the main cause of the payments deficit. Another reason why manufacturing is important is employment. Of course service employment will increase from now on, but you will never employ the whole population of the Rhondda Valley, or Tyneside or Merseyside in selling share certificates or junk bonds to one another.

313
In view of some of the exercises in the modern art of rewriting history which we have heard from the Benches opposite, even today, I shall revert for one moment to putting the record straight. In 1945, this country's main problem was to restore our balance of payments with the rest of the world after all the damage caused by the war. It is a sobering thought to reflect today that we achieved a surplus on our balance of payments in 1948 and in 1950. From 1950 until 1970 we achieved a surplus in two out of every three years. That was achieved partly by a trade policy of somewhat restraining our manufactured imports and buying our food and raw materials as cheaply as we could anywhere in the world. As late as 1969 and 1970 we achieved major current balance of payments surpluses.
In 1973 and afterwards we abandoned those trade policies. We removed restraints on manufactured imports from the continental EC. It was from that period that the balance in visible trade turned against us and, incidentally, that the rise in manufacturing output since 1945 began to slow down. Nevertheless, in the years from 1977 to 1979 we achieved the rather remarkable feat, which many people seem to have forgotten, of reducing unemployment and inflation (as it is now called) at the same time for two years together.
However, from 1979 to 1981 we suffered a violent bout of deflation. It is usually politely called "recession" in the press but it was a violent deflation enforced through interest rates, budget and exchange rate policies. As a result manufacturing production fell between 10 and 15 per cent, in two years, and up to 15 per cent, of manufacturing capacity, at a conservative estimate, was permanently lost. Unemployment rose 60 per cent, in 18 months and the rise in unemployment lasted for seven years, from 1979 to 1986. That was the first time that unemployment rose for seven consecutive years in this country since the 1870s. The fall in production in the two years from 1979 to 1981 was the largest this century, with the single exception of 1929 to 1932.
It is instructive to note that the recovery in production only occurred when two things happened. In 1985 the Government abandoned altogether its obsession —which some of us have now forgotten—with the money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement, which had previously been their totems. More important, the sterling exchange rate fell markedly in 1985 and 1986. That was a prime example of how important the exchange rate can be. However, after that long gloomy period the recovery lasted only two years. By 1988 we were sailing fast back into payments deficit, and by 1989 that had reached £20 billion, which we all know is much the largest payments deficit in our history.
Incidentally, the previous Chancellor, who invented the theory that manufacturing does not matter only when he had got us into a manufacturing deficit in the early 1980s, characteristically invented the theory that payments deficits do not matter only when he had produced the biggest deficit that we had ever seen. We are now reduced to the position of congratulating ourselves that our deficit is running at the rate of only £12 billion a year. The truth is that
314
the basic growing visible trade deficit throughout the 1980s was hidden by the oil earnings. That is why it emerged in 1988 as our oil earnings dwindled.
As I see it, on the evidence, the deficit is not a temporary blip generated by a reckless give-away Budget in 1988. It is a long-term structural deficit caused largely, but not wholly, by the mistakes of the 1970s. Whether or not that is true, the deficit will not be conjured away be mere manipulation of interest rates and budget policies, although those could make it worse.
That the visible deficit was caused by the policies followed since 1972 can be seen—it is worth looking at the figures—from the fact that, of the £20 billion deficit in 1989, about £18 billion was accounted for by our visible trade deficit with the EC; in other words, virtually the whole of it. On the present evidence, the 1992 single market will simply intensify that trend into deficit.
However, that visible trade deficit has been made more serious by something which almost no one has mentioned today; namely, the collapse of the net invisible surplus in the last two years. The net invisible surplus only three years ago was running at £600 million a month. It fell last year to £200 million and is now, according to the official figures, running at only £100 million a month. That remarkable change in the situation appears to have two causes.
The first cause is the steady rise in our annual payment to the EC budget, approaching £2 billion in 1989, although the figures are never so easy to discover as those for our own Budget. The second more serious drain is the interest payments that we must make on our huge borrowings overseas in the last two years. Allowing for some fall in our reserves, last year we borrowed from overseas almost £20 billion, mainly in short-term bank deposits. Interestingly enough, in 1989 we borrowed in that form every two months as much as we borrowed from the IMF in the whole of 1976. Some people have not perhaps noticed that point.
Those short-term borrowings are the most risky form of borrowing from overseas because they can be withdrawn at 24 hours' notice. It is estimated that there are £35 billion of such funds in London at present. Unhappily, if one borrows £20 billion at 15 per cent., one increases one's future outpayments by about another £3 billion a year, if my arithmetic is correct. Those outpayments now extinguish our previous net invisible surplus. The high interest rates which that situation forces on us make the balance of payments prospect even worse by holding up the exchange rate above what its economic level would have been.
In the short term therefore we now have only one effective remedy left to avoid an even worse balance of payments situation; namely, to let the exchange rate fall before too long to the level at which the gap would begin to shrink. The moral of that is that we should avoid at present any proposal, whatever fancy name we give to it, for a system of fixed exchange rates with the sterling rate anything like the level at which it stands now.
However, with regard to the longer term, both looking back and looking forward —here I have in

315
mind what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said—I have long felt that, whatever was true about all those issues, there has been another basic factor working economically against the UK for many years. There is no longer much serious doubt about what it is, in view of the overwhelming evidence which has been collected recently and to which some noble Lords have referred. It must be our failure to educate and train our working population in the technology and ideas of the modern world, as we debated in this House on 31 st January.
Perhaps I may give an example. It is apparently true that some 85 per cent, of 16 and 17 year-old students now remain in full-time education or high grade apprenticeships in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Germany and South Korea, while fewer than 50 per cent, do so in this country. Any country thus handicapped in the modern industrial world must surely be expected gradually to lose ground to its competitors in comparative industrial efficiency and innovation. That is exactly what has happened over a long period to the UK. The main task of the next government will therefore be a massive expansion of public investment in education and technological skills for the whole population.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I should like to apologise that, because of a previous engagement, I might have to leave before the debate finishes. I hope that noble Lords will accept my apologies.
It was heartening to hear so much consensus and agreement on all sides of the House and noble Lords expressed it exceedingly well. We need more of that. Outside the House there is far too little of it. When American and German politicians are at home they pursue party politics, but when they reach a frontier and go abroad they are national representatives and pursue national policies.
Our decline from being the fourth largest industrial power in the world in the late 1940s to our present position was predictable and not accidental. As the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, pointed out, British industry is largely financed by pension funds and unit trust investors. In order to attract investment in pension funds, spectacular and quick results must be achieved. Management is aware of that point. It cannot always afford to take decisions which will show long-term results. It certainly cannot afford to depress immediate profits by well justified expenditure on research which will take a long time.
That is not the situation in Germany. German industry is financed by the banks, which are not only willing to offer short-term finance for turnover capital, but are willing to accept, when offered, participation in the shares of the companies. Very often they appoint their directors and representatives to the boards. They share in decisions and, because, by the nature of things they have broad shoulders, they can make long-term decisions and judgments. In Japan, the banks not only finance but in many cases own businesses outright. That is why they are in a position to take long-term decisions with regard to research and development.
316
Our system takes a short-term approach, but, about all else, acquisition—buying and selling a business—can generate more profit than operating and developing it. If noble Lords will permit me, perhaps I may give an example. There is a story about two crofters who lamented their financial problems in a pub. The barman informed them that the pub made a 100 per cent, profit on every tot of whisky, so one crofter said to the other, "I've got the answer. Go to the local pawnshop, pledge our crofts, buy two crates of whisky and go home. I sell you one, you sell me one, and by the time we have drunk it, we have made a fortune." That is how a large part of British industry obtains capital.
In Germany management does not work harder but it works in greater harmony. By statute there are on the German boards directors representing the workforce. They call that Mitbestimmung; but with it they also have Mitverantwortlichkeit which means that they have co-determination and also co-accountability with their workforce.
Some time ago I was involved in a company which had very largely declined. In bringing it around I suggested that the unions should appoint a director to the board, because there were a lot of restrictive practices and so on. When the union negotiators questioned why that was wanted, I explained to them that if it were successful they would share the credit, but that if it were to collapse their signature would be on the balance sheet. That worked.
The German worker does not work harder, but he works more harmoniously. He is not cleverer, but he is better trained. He does not love the job any more than does his British counterpart, but he is better adjusted to it. Above all, he trusts the management because he is better informed. He identifies with his workplace. Frankly, I am mystified as to why British companies resist the approach of appointing a worker-director who has loyalty to his labour force rather than to union headquarters somewhere far away.
We are in a very self-congratulatory and euphoric mood about our democracy. We look with amazement at what has happened in the East and at the economic collapse of the despotic dictatorships. However, we risk falling into a state of dangerous complacency. We must bring home the message that economic defeat in a competitive world is socially and politically dangerous—almost as dangerous as a military defeat would be —because it leads to loss of independence.
Can that message be brought home? It cannot be brought home on a party political basis but it can be brought home on a national basis. Scoring points is not a substitute for finding solutions. If one can reach Sid to persuade him to buy shares, one should be able to reach Sid in order to alert him not only to the opportunities but also to the perils.
I may sound pessimistic, but in 1814 it was said by John Adams: "Democracy never lasts long. It can waste. It exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide". I think that we should take heed.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, as previous speakers have said, for too long the Government have complacently underestimated the damaging consequences of their failure to adopt an effective policy for the revitalisation of the British manufacturing industry. The figures already given by noble Lords prove beyond doubt the large trade gap that has arisen as a result of government policies. If, once again, the country is to pay its way in the world and compete at all in Europe, we must adopt a coherent and effective industrial strategy for the 1990s.
I should like for a moment to speak quite briefly about the motor manufacturing industry in the Birmingham area. I knew it very well because when he was alive my husband was employed at the Austin factory (as it was then known) at Longbridge. I lived within a 20 minutes' walk of that very large factory. The Austin Motor Company was very special to Birmingham. The name of Herbert Austin links with the name of Henry Ford of America. Members on the Front Bench opposite may find that amusing and smile. However, the Austin Motor Company was the biggest industrial combine in the whole of the Birmingham area. It employed 15,000 workers and there were spin-offs with other component works such as GKN (Guest, Keen and Nettlefold) and companies which produced motor accessories. With the downfall of British Leyland and the Austin Motor Company, all that was lost unfortunately to the city of Birmingham. The huge factories of Lucas's and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold's have moved out of Birmingham. They are now manufacturing in Brazil, Spain and other countries. They send back to us components and parts when we want them.
The folly of the Austin Motor Company was placed on the backs of the workers who had nothing at all to do with it. When one reads the Longbridge newspapers, it is clear that the real culprits behind the failure of the Austin Motor Company were the various managers in the various places of motor production, whether they were building the shells or the engines. There was a fight for supremacy among the higher management there. So we found that Austin became British Leyland. That did not go down very well in the city of Birmingham. But that did not last very long. The Government put in to run it someone who was very eminent and who intended to put it back on its tracks very soon. But that did not last very long either. The company then moved over to Rover. Again that did not last long because the Government again put someone eminent in charge of Rover. Recently Rover has become part of British Aerospace, at a sell-off price which we all know is a national scandal. Not only did we lose all that, but also we lost the quality car production when the Government decided to sell Jaguar—the flagship of motor manufacture.
Employment in the West Midlands is concentrated in manufacturing. The majority of the people who work in the West Midlands are employed in manufacturing. It is the single most important activity in the region and accounts for around 30 per cent, of all jobs in the West Midlands, and 35
318
per cent, of the country's GDP compared with a national average of 25 per cent.
As a manufacturing base the West Midlands is important for the national economy of the country. In addition to the 30 per cent, of workers who are directly involved in manufacturing, there is another 30 per cent, in that region of employment which indirectly services the main industrial plants. As I said, it is clear from those figures that manufacturing is very important for the West Midlands and for the national economy. It will be tragic if the West Midlands, having just got off its knees, is again hit by a depression due to the damage of i:he monetarist policies of the Government between 1979 and 1981. At that time a depression went all over the West Midlands, the like of which was not apparent even in the years around 1929.
My noble friend Lord Williams made the point about the more recent slow down in the economy, which suggests that the jobless total is poised to rise within the next few months. On television this morning I heard the Prime Minister give some figures about unemployment rates. Obviously, she gave the national average. However, the figures supplied to me only this weekend show male unemployment in the West Midlands at 7 per cent. The worst figure in the West Midlands relates to Wolverhampton. It indicates 10 per cent. unemployment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, when one has averages one has to look at the different regions to see the way in which unemployment is affecting them and not compare those figures with the South-East.
Birmingham earned the name "The workshop of the world" during the Industrial Revolution. I am proud that I was born in and grew up in that city. It was also surrounded by the Black Country which comprises Dudley, Wolverhampton, West Bromwich and Sandwell. It was called the Black Country not because of any racism at that time but because of the smoke and grime in the air. The air was polluted from the ironmaking, the steelworks and the manufacture of metals. Unfortunately during the period of this Government, with the closing of the steelworks the Black Country suffered complete devastation. I understand from the figures given to me that throughout the area, because of the closing of the steelworks and the domino effect on all the other metal manufacturing in the area, in a period of three months 13,000 jobs were lost. The Black Country was not so fortunate as Corby when Corby lost its steel production. Perhaps we have to say good luck to Corby.
The Government tried to do something. In the Black Country three years ago they set up the Black Country Development Corporation which was charged with the task of industrial regeneration. I know full well that local feeling is that its pace of development is very often slow and expectations of jobs in the near future are not high. When the Minister replies to the debate I shall be pleased to hear what progress has been made by the Black Country Development Corporation. How many industrial units have already been built on the sites? How many building projects are in the pipeline? How many jobs are already in operation? How many will be forthcoming within the next two years?

319
The East Midlands is also feeling the draft at the present moment. Textiles and hosiery firms are having to lay off hundreds of women workers. Although they are in highly mechanised modernised factories, the firms are putting it down to high interest rates and the failure to be able to compete.
We have to consider the important and far-reaching changes in East-West relations and the sudden cessation of the cold war. An arms industry conversion policy will have to be considered seriously. If one looks globally at the change in East-West relations, one can see that it will take place not only in this country but throughout the East and West. In this country the defence industry employs over a million people and has become Britain's largest manufacturing industry. They are our largest single manufacturing export. It behoves the Government to consider ways of transferring production, investment and skills from military use to civil use over the next few years. It is important for us to keep the scientific, research and development teams that operate in the arms industry so that they can move forward to a massive civil expansion.
If one considers investment generally, one has to follow the path of which my noble friend Lord Donoughue spoke. When one puts investment into manufacturing industry, it is important that the Government protect that investment instead of supporting the massive takeover bids that have been such a feature of the City of London in the past few months.
Other noble Lords have referred to training. I accept that managers, directors and such people in manufacturing industry need training too. They also need to be kept fully informed of changes in management styles. However, if we consider the training for workers, the Government abolished the 16 training boards in 1982. We are left only with the construction industry training board and the engineering construction part of the training board. The number of apprentices and related trainees fell from 266,000 to 55,000 between 1979 and 1989. Training is therefore not taking place.
What have the Government put in its place? They have had YTS, jobstart, job release, the enterprise allowance and community industry schemes. The latest is the training and enterprise councils. Those are a hotchpotch of propaganda schemes which have done nothing to enable further training for employment. If one were cynical one would say that they were simply massaged figures to keep the unemployment statistics down.
With regard to the Training and Enterprise Council, perhaps I may tell noble Lords a little story that I think is rather fun. Walsall in the West Midlands has a training and enterprise council. It has lovely posters all around—that is generally how the Government put their propaganda over—which say "What the heck is TEC?" Some very clever lad has written across the bottom, "I don't know, Why don't you ask Sid?" He must have remembered the Gas Board and government slogan.
Manufacturing industry is not simply about people with dirty hands. It is not about people like me with funny accents. It is not about people who tend to
320
vote Labour. It is much more fundamental than that. I hope that the debate today will show that the Government need to look very seriously at rebuilding our manufacturing industry because it is the only sure way to future economic prosperity.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I agree with much that speakers have said in the debate. However, there is general agreement and a recognition that problems in manufacturing industry are very significant. I should like to touch on three slightly different aspects that have been raised this afternoon.
I shall talk about three specific imbalances in our national life in relation to manufacturing industry. The first is the imbalance between the North and the South; the second is the imbalance between employers and employees and their unions; and the third is the imbalance between the civil and military sectors. As many noble Lords have said, the imbalance in manufacturing industry has been with us for some years. There is an argument over whether we are talking about the past 10 years or the past 100 years.
My feeling is that we cannot do much about what has happened over the past 100 years but that we should consider very seriously what has happened over the past 10 years. In that respect the economic policies implemented by the Tory Government between 1979 and 1982 did enormous damage to our manufacturing capacity. This hit the North of this country far harder than the South. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has just explained how those policies affected the Midlands and the West Midlands. I should like to explain from my own personal experience how those policies affected the North-West of England.
The company for which I worked for 20 years weathered the storms of the early 1970s, with the increase in the price of oil and the enormous dislocation which that caused to economic circumstances around the world. We weathered the terrific inflation of the mid-1970s. But we could not weather the storm of 1979. The net effect on our company was the closure of one factory out of two in the North-West and the making of one-third of the employees—550 people—redundant at a stroke. That created not only enormous human misery but also damage to our manufacturing capacity. We were told at the time that we were being made leaner and fitter. In fact the factory that was closed had been opened in 1970 by the Prime Minister of the time, Harold Wilson, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. Within 10 years it had opened, grown successfully during the 1970s, and then closed precipitately because of the Government's economic policies.
I can remember suggesting to the managing director of the company that he should go to the Government and explain our situation. He said that he had been to the Government and had spoken to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. At that time the post was held by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who is not in his place at the moment. The managing director informed me that it was like talking to a brick wall. The Secretary of State just

321
did not understand the problems faced by our company and by other manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom.
Again in 1989, as a result of government policies and the effect of high interest rates on the economy, the company had to make redundancies. I was one of 98 employees made redundant towards the end of last year. It does not stop there. Only on Thursday I learnt that the company had had to make another 34 people redundant. Those are the consequences of the Government's economic policies, with their continual attacks on our manufacturing capability.
I want now to touch on the aspect of national defence. Manufacturing industry provides the sinews of war that we need to defend ourselves in times of conflict. Our civil industry has been decimated. On the military side it is rather like a reflection of the short-termism that affects the British economy generally. British investors, the bankers and so on are so keen on short-term profits that they drive down the long-term future of our economy. So it is with the military. To defend ourselves against some precipitate attack that has been daily expected from across the Iron Curtain for the past 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, we have expended enormous sums of money on providing a miltiary war machine. But at the same time our ability to sustain that military effort over a longer period has been steadily eroded. That makes this country vulnerable. It is usually said that the war will be over by Christmas, but it is usually Christmas four of five years hence that is being referred to. We desperately need a strong manufacturing industry to ensure our national defence.
I should like to touch on the relationship between employers and employees and their unions. The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, mentioned the differences in experience between German manufacturing industry and manufacturing industry in this country. We have a great vulnerability. The Government and a good many employers seem to think of the working people of this country and their collective institutions, the trade unions, as the enemy. How can we survive as a nation if the people who govern us consider the people they are governing as the enemy? It is impossible to think of a sensible future on that basis. We have only to look at the record of achievement of the trade unions. I refer not only to individual trade unions but to the trade union movement generally. I should like to quote from a booklet produced jointly by my own union MSF and the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is entitled Making the Future—Manufacturing in the 1990s. I should like to quote one passage:
"We have always been progressive, looking for change by agreement and not dislocation by government or employer diktat. This pamphlet analyses the problems and indicates solutions. It is a contribution to the ongoing debate and stresses the importance of developing an industrial policy which meets the national interest".
That comes from the foreword of the pamphlet signed by Ron Todd and Ken Gill. I shall place a copy in the Library so that noble Lords can read the contents.
I should also like to cite some of the things trade unions have done over the past few years. It was the
322
trade unions within British Leyland which argued that for that company to succeed it had to aim for production of 1 million motor cars a year. That was effectively denied by the Government. We have seen over the past 10 years the fruits of that denial. What is left of British Leyland has been cut back, carved up and sold off. We have only a rump of a British-owned motor industry.
One of the success stories was the campaign waged by the trade unions within the British Aerospace combine to ensure the success of the HS146. The board of the company wanted to kill it off. The board thought that it was costing too much to develop and did not see a future for it. And yet that aircraft is now in successful commercial operation and only this week we have learned that it has achieved the ability to fly night flights out of Manchester Airport because it is so quiet. It is the only aircraft which has that capability. It was my union which fought long and hard to ensure the continuation of the European fighter aircraft. We are now seeing that being developed.
We campaigned unsuccessfully against the closure of the shipyards and the shipbuilding industry of this country. In the 1970s the Labour Government nationalised British shipyards around the country and built an organisation which could have developed to compete worldwide in the shipbuilding industry. Again, that industry has been cut back, cut up and virtually closed down.
Shipbuilding around the world is experiencing somewhat of a resurgence and I think that over the next 10 years there will be a demand for shipping. We as a maritime nation should have a strong fleet and the ability to build modern ships. We no longer have that capability because it has been virtually destroyed.
Trade unions have continued to press for new technology and better training. We have compaigned for investment in civil manufacturing industry. We need this Government and future governments over a long-term period to invest in research and development, in training and to support the procurement of machinery and plant and the introduction of information technology. That will form an essential bedrock for our national defence.
Let us build factories to make the ploughshares for the betterment of all our people, not just the British but people from around the world. Let us know that if necessary those ploughshare factories can be turned into sword factories. Let us make war on poverty, hunger, ignorance, disease and pestilence rather than making war on our own people.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in rising to make my contribution to this very interesting debate, I first add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Crook on his very informative and interesting maiden speech. I am sure that we all look forward to his further contributions in your Lordships' House.
During the course of the debate my noble friend Lord Jay made an observation that one of the qualities of this House is the number of experts we have to speak on matters being debated. This is a debate on the economy and I am about to redress

323
the balance of that observation because I do not present myself to your Lordships as an economist in any way whatever. That may become even clearer from my remarks. However, I come to your Lordships' House as an ordinary individual living in Scotland and affected by what is happening there.
Because of this debate I took an interest to see what was really happening in Scotland in manufacturing industry because, quite frankly, I did not know. I am not very pleased at what I found and, indeed, I am alarmed at what the future may hold for Scotland.
In Scotland manufacturing industries have always had a vital role to play. They form an integral part of the Scottish economy which requires to be expanded. It takes its place among the service and financial industries, the remaining heavy industries such as coal and shipbuilding, tourism and so on, and they are a balancing factor in the general overall economic picture.
The ever-changing face of the world political map, the advances in technology and the potential for new and lucrative markets in the new Europe, Asia, America, Japan and elsewhere mean that the manufacturing element in our economy must be ever vigilant and innovative to get into those markets as soon as possible. They must do that to take advantage of the demand for manufactured goods and, in particular, those involving high technology and engineering products in which Scotland has always enjoyed and still enjoys a worldwide reputation.
Engineering has always been at the forefront of Scottish industrial life and it continues to export its products. However, unfortunately, at present it also exports its skilled manpower in fairly large numbers out of Scotland south into England and Wales and, even more regrettably, outwith the United Kingdom to the rest of the world. Very few of those people make the return trip during the course of their useful working life as there is no meaningful employment for them in Scotland. Efforts must be made to create the industrial atmosphere to keep those skilled people in Scotland.
It is the quality of the product, whatever it may be, which determines the success or otherwise of manufacturing industries. We require all possible knowledge of an area where we have in general a badly trained workforce and not much enthusiasm on the part of many firms to undertake training initiatives to improve the quality, skill and knowledge of the workforce. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jay that there must be a massive investment in training, research and development and that that must be encouraged and rewarded.
In Scotland we have witnessed the gradual disappearance of our heavy industries such as shipbuilding. Basically at present there remains only one large yard and a smaller one. Also the coal industry now employs only 3,000 men. Accordingly, we have had to recast our economic map on the manufacturing basis with new targets to take account of that. Not without difficulty, we have managed to make considerable progress, but the overall picture—and that is what is important in looking
324
to the future—is not particularly bright taking the economy as a whole and the manufacturing industry as part of that whole economy.
Much has been said in another place about a paper produced by the Scottish Development Agency. It is said to be a discussion paper. It is marked "for discussion". It is called The Scottish Economy: The Challenge of Opportunity. It basically deals with the position up until 1988 and makes some very pessimistic forecasts about the future of manufacturing industry. It has not been well received and I understand that someone has asked that it should be rewritten. To carry on the biblical analogy of my noble friend Lord Williams, it looked as if when the Government got the Old Testment they did not like it and sent someone away to write the New Testament in the hope that that might be more acceptable.
I use that document for what it is worth, not as an authoritative document in any way but as a document which at least gives us some considered information about what is happening in Scottish industry and where the economy as a whole is going. The paper indicates that Scotland is in relative decline in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish share of UK output at the time covered by the paper had declined from 9.1 per cent, in 1955 to 8.2 per cent, in 1988. Its share of employment had similarly declined.
The paper also suggests that had Scotland maintained its share of the United Kingdom employment, there would be another 200,000 jobs in Scotland. I am not sure whether that is a rather optimistic projection, but there it is for what it is worth. However, it is interesting to note from the paper that in the period covered manufacturing productivity had remained ahead of the UK average, but unfortunately that did not mean very much because it had not surpassed the 1973 peak figure.
In Scotland we have slightly different problems because we have the advantage of electronic and instrument engineering production which gives a fairly sound base for manufacturing exports. Those have risen dramatically but few other sectors have performed as well and the document concludes that the future for Scottish manufacturing industry is not too bright.
In an effort to bring the matter up to date I refer to the December letter from the Scottish Council Development and Industry which is an entirely neutral body. In that letter it states:
"The recovery in Scottish manufacturing industry continues to slow down. The index stood at June 1989 at 113–7 (1985=100), representing a 5–6% increase in the latest four quarters over the preceding four quarters, with a comparable increase for the UK of 6–6%".
Therefore that indicates that Scottish manufacturing industry is trailing behind.
It will be suggested by the Minister in due course that these figures do not truly reflect the position and that the true figure for manufacturing industry is 4–5 per cent, as against the UK figure of 2–2 per cent. That may be one interpretation of one quarter's figure, but does it really represent what the future holds for the Scottish manufacturing industry?

325
It is right to say, as has been observed by other noble Lords, that these statistics are only there for what they are worth—I do not refer purely to the Scottish SDA paper—and do not have the stamp of infallibility; that interpretation of them can vary from quarter to quarter. They are interesting as being indicative of the place that manufacturing industry has in Scotland. It is fair to say that 1988 and 1989 have shown signs of progress. However, I make this plea to the Government: if there is a momentum towards continued recovery, will they please do something to encourage that momentum by becoming involved in the planning and training courses and, in addition, in an export-led sector in Scotland? Manufacturing industry represents 22 per cent, of employees in employment. For the continued improvement of the export figure much hard work will be required in difficult circumstances.
Quite apart from my earlier reference in relation to the population, Scotland is bedevilled by emigration. A recent study in 1989 suggested that the figure had increased in one year by 70 per cent, to a gross figure of 24,700 in 1988, being an increase of 10,000 over the previous year. That may have been a freak result, but in fact the average output from Scotland is in the region of 20,000 people per year. In that group there must be many members of the community, skilled and trained, who have to leave their native land to go elsewhere because there is no work available for them.
We also suffer from a drain of graduates, perhaps the cream of the potential management referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jospeh. Indications are that Scotland's share of the graduate population dropped from 9.4 per cent, to 7 per cent, whereas elsewhere it was rising. In the year in question 33 per cent, of graduates from Glasgow University left Scotland to go elsewhere, including England and Wales, as against 16 per cent, in 1983. From Strathclyde University it is suggested that 40 per cent, of graduates left. Even taking account of students from outwith Scotland, that is a pretty horrendous figure. It is alarming when one is looking for the foundation of a strong, indigenous, innovative industry and, in particular, in manufacturing where innovation and development are the core of the existence and progress of the industry as market demands are met.
In addition to that—the farther north we go, the worse the problem gets—we have a chronic unemployment problem averaging 8.8 per cent., as against 3.7 per cent, in East Anglia. Scotland lies third in the league behind Northern Ireland at 14.2 per cent, and the north of England at 9 per cent. Whatever the reasons for that, those figures are horrendous on any view. Percentages do not matter to the individual who is unemployed because so far as he is concerned unemployment is 100 per cent, until someone can give him meaningful employment. It is quite scandalous that there is not the development within industry to take advantage of the workforce available; to use the skills and enthusiasm of the Scottish workers who, given the opportunity and backing, will provide a worthwhile human, industrial and social investment for the future.
326
Time is not on our side and that labour force will diminish and disappear unless the drain is stopped and jobs are created. We are entering an increasingly competitive market. It is an expanding one in which there may soon become available, in view of events in Europe, another pool of cheap labour on the Continent. Scotland may well lose some of the foreign investment so lauded by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I do not agree with his praise of foreign investment. One of the problems in Scotland, as I discovered—I may be wrong—is that there is a complete overdependence on foreign investment. For example, 52 percent, of Scottish manufacturing firms are said to be American owned; only five of the top 50 companies in Scotland are controlled in Scotland.
The economic history of Scotland in recent years has been one of industrial smash and grab leading to takeovers, mergers and closures dictated by centralised decisions made outwith Scotland with no concern for the industrial welfare of the country or the future of the people. We have become dominated and controlled by outside agencies setting up factories in which the decision-making process is not a Scottish orientated one, but a corporate one taken in the overall and universal interests of the parent company.
I do not regard that as a healthy basis for the future expansion of manufacturing industry in Scotland. I should like to see a turn around in that and—following the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—that we have massive investment co-operation between industry and government to ensure that we have indigenous industry ready, willing and able to carry out the job for the future and to take advantage of the expanding markets that I mentioned earlier.
Scotland, and indeed Britain, must get control of their own economies. They must not have a "begging bowl" mentality and hold up their hands in wonder because a foreigner crosses the Border with an offer to build a car in some place where there is no employment anyway because government have failed to provide it. Let us set out on a new course in a new direction away from foreign investment. Let us have our own home-based industries as a secure base for the future, not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a new privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. Though he had all sorts of grumbles towards the end of his speech I thought on the whole it was a cheerful one and that was nice to hear.
We all seem to be agreed that the long-term competitiveness of British business requires a strong manufacturing base. We have to trade manufactures in order to pay for those consumer goods which are better supplied from overseas. The question is, though we may agree about that, how can it best be achieved in this country? Here I detect, and have known for some time, a basic difference in philosophy between ourselves on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite. Generally speaking, on this side I think we support the idea

327
that the less interference in industry by government the better, whereas I suspect that the other side tend to say that the wise men of government can positively help industry by interfering. That might be a slight exaggeration, but certainly the speeches I heard today from the other side seem to support that view.
By way of example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Parry, about the Welsh Development Agency which he so ably led at one stage. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, about the people in Wolverhampton where there is 10 per cent, unemployment. I come from the Isle of Wight, which does not have assisted area status like Wales, where our unemployment rate, in the winter at any rate, is higher than that of Wolverhampton and where the statisticians of Government put us together with the South-East.
It might be said therefore that I should welcome having assisted area status. Indeed, for many years I have been trying to persuade successive governments, including Labour Governments, that that would be a good thing. However, their officials do not want us to be different; it is inconvenient to treat us as an island. They would like to see us attached to the mainland somehow, if only on paper. We do not therefore get this great benefit. However, if we received it in the same proportion as the Welsh Development Agency in relation to population we should have £1 million a year for our development board in the Isle of Wight.
I have been looking into this and I am told that having all this money—I think what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was saying about Scotland gave evidence of this—does not necessarily create successful companies. The people who are bribed to go from the Isle of Wight to South Wales, which has happened, go bust when they get there because they do not try. So it is questionable whether this interference is a good thing. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I shall also say it later in relation to another matter, that we want to have even treatment for the same kinds of people. We may have high unemployment and a low GDP in relation to the rest of the country, but we should receive the same treatment as the rest.
I believe that the best approach would be to do away with the assisted area status and then we would all be battling on the same level table. But so long as that status is there those of us in areas which are not so well provided for need to receive our share of the goodies. It comes down to the fact that industry works better when it is not interfered with by bureaucrats.
One may question what bureaucrats are. I have a definition. I would include under that heading all those who interfere with the efficient management of industrial companies without themselves being directly affected financially or otherwise by the results of their interference. I would include in that definition all Ministers, local councillors, officials of central and local government, all officials of centrally-organised trades unions; I would include all the members of single-minded pressure groups and I would also include all academics and
328
journalists without practical experience of making books balance. I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding would add fund managers. It sounds cheerful, but it is deadly serious: bureaucrats ruin business. If we want to be successful with our manufacturing process the fewer of them telling people what to do in manufacturing industry the better.
I am seeking to rush along because, unlike other noble Lords, I am assuming that we should still stick to our 13 minutes. I shall refer to the document which my noble friend Lord Jenkin partially quoted from in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to tell your Lordships what the CBI has been saying. It is that only in the past seven years has manufacturing industry turned from its decline, both in absolute terms and as a share of the total economy, which was so evident for most of the 1970s and early 1980s. By 1982—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the CBI is on his little list of interferers which do not suffer?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may continue with what I have to say and answer her in a moment or two. By 1982 manufacturing output was over 20 per cent, lower than at its peak in 1973. It accounted for less than a quarter of the total GDP. Between 1982 and 1989 manufacturing output grew by 4 per cent, a year, reaching a new record level 8 per cent, above the previous peak in 1973. In this period manufacturing exports grew by 6–2 per cent, per year. Manufacturing investment grew by 71 per cent., also reaching a new record level; namely, 11 per cent, above its 1979 peak. That was based on improved productivity of 5 per cent, per annum in the 1980s and more than twice that in the 1970s. This halted the decline of earlier years and started to make British exports of manufactured goods competitive in the world market.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, no, I would not include the CBI as bureaucrats because it does not seek to interfere. It listens to what industry has to tell it and it dares not—because it would not get subscriptions from industry if it did otherwise—tell industry what to do. All that the CBI does is repeat to people like myself and other noble Lords what industry collectively thinks. That is quite different from someone busily coming along and saying, "I am the man from the ministry (or the trade union or whatever) and I am going to tell you how to do your business".
I could go on like that but I am not going to because time is running out. I have another important point to raise and in this regard there are two comments to make: there is the decline to which those figures referred. As my noble friend Lord Joseph said, those figures were not new. I commend very much to your Lordships the book which my noble friend quoted called The Audit of War by Corelli Barnett. It shows exactly how much we were in decline in 1939, let alone in 1979.
This decline was as a result of a whole host of factors. I suspect that a good deal of it was due to the

329
attitude of people in this country. That is reflected in other countries like the United States, Canada and Australia, where the only way in which businesses are successful is if the people who are part of them concentrate their efforts in making them successful. That involves the workforce just as much as the management. These people do not get sidetracked into industrial disputes in which they have no interest and that kind of thing.
It is a decline which began at the turn of the century and got steadily worse. We must not return to that kind of situation. I have one or two suggestions which the Government might consider in order to help. There are a vast number of different ways, of which the most important is doing everything possible to ensure that exporting manufacturers and international service providers like shipping companies have equal treatment with their major competitors. If rival countries subsidise, every effort must be made to have this stopped through Brussels or the GATT as appropriate. I am referring to the subsidising of shipping. If there are no results—and for shipping subsidies there have been few results over the past 30 years—we should jolly well match the subsidies ourselves until the competitor countries stop paying them.
Somehow we are much too pathetic. I address these remarks to the Foreign Office and to the department of my noble friend the Minister of State in particular. We are much too pathetic in that we wring our hands when other countries distort the marketplace. The French, the Japanese and the Americans get in and distort back, especially concerning agriculture. In any activity that one cares to choose the French do not pretend that they have not done something and everybody accepts their protestations. Perhaps they even stop what is objected to after it has taken effect. Our government, of whatever persuasion, needs to be much more robust in response to unfair trading practices by others.
Another important contribution by government would be to resist all legislation which unnecessarily hampers business; for example, many aspects of the social charter which we were discussing last Monday. There are many other detailed points that could be made but I hope that noble Lords have the thrust of my remarks. The role of manufacturing industry in creating a sustainable balance in the economy is vital. The Government of the past 10 years have reversed an apparently unchangeable decline. The best policy is minimum interference at home and a robust policy overseas.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what is the fundamental challenge which faces mankind over the next quarter of a century? I wonder whether noble Lords would agree with me that it is how to help the developing peoples to attain a standard of life which will at least maintain life, without at the same time destroying the planet. I believe that every noble Lord in this House would agree that we cannot continue to live in a world in which about half the population is living in such poverty that it cannot
330
maintain life, and where 17 million children die every year from starvation. Yet, at the same time, if those peoples are to develop a standard of life which will maintain life by the traditional methods, there is a great danger that the planet itself will be destroyed. In this context I should like to pick up a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Williams in his opening address, when he spoke of the opportunities available today for British manufacturing industry. He stressed in particular the opportunities in high technology. It is that theme which I intend to develop in my speech.
In support, I should like to quote no wild left-wing pamphlets but a serious booklet published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs called The Greenhouse Effect. I quote first from page 21 where the author, Michael Grubb, has the following to say?
"Such difficulties will be greatly compounded by the need to include developing countries, for most of whom the question is not how to reduce carbon emissions but how to limit their rate of growth while developing, and how to finance the programmes for such limitations".
This is the kernel of the problem which faces not just the developing peoples but all humanity. The author goes on to point out, at pages 23 and 24, that the challenge was approached in the Montreal Protocol on CFCs in which the signatories pledged that:
"The Parties undertake to facilitate access to environmentally safe alternative substances and technology for Parties that are developing countries and assist them to make expeditious use of such alternatives.
"The Parties undertake to facilitate bilaterally or multilaterally the provision of subsidies, aid, credits, guarantees or insurance programmes to Parties that are developing countries for the use of alternative technology and for substitute products".
That is the burden of what I have to say. Here is a basic need for the whole of humanity, for the survival of life on this planet. Here is the opportunity for the transfer and development of technology, for the channelling of manufacturing industry into those inventions and technologies which can raise the standards of living of half the world's population without endangering the planet in the way that we have in the development of the western world —indeed, of the whole industrial world —since the Industrial Revolution.
Britain and British technicians have produced new technologies which are environmentally benign. Take the case of wave power. Wave power was largely developed in this country. But what happened to it? In 1982 the research on wave power was virtually finished and cut off because the Department of Energy's advisory council on research and development had to reduce its budget by £3 million. In the same year £200 million was being devoted to nuclear research. In fact, it was the nuclear industry which destroyed wave power. It destroyed it by the use of figures which have now been seen to be dishonest. The totally dishonest costing of wave power has since been exposed.
To whom was the study of wave power entrusted, and who is entrusted with the small renaissance of research into wave power which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, announced last year? It is entrusted to the Energy Technology Support Unit which is to be found as part of the Atomic Energy Authority. In

331
other words, it is being asked to develop a research which, if it is successful, will put its own organisation and its own lobby out of business.
What has happened to Salter's Duck, the invention of Professor Salter in Edinburgh? That was abandoned in 1982. Yet in Queen's University in Belfast, in East Kilbride, in Coventry Polytechnic and in Bristol there has been continuous research, which has constantly been suppressed for lack of funds, into wave power and the creation of power through the waves.
This was a British set of inventions. Where are they used today? The Norwegians are now using British technology to produce their electricity, technology which has been virtually suppressed in this country, in the country of its invention.
Wind power has been researched in this country. There have been certain experimental stations established here, although I am sorry to say that one has just been refused in Cornwall. We should look at the extent of the use, the research and development and the expansion of wind power in Denmark. Again, that was a British invention which was sent abroad and suppressed at home. In Denmark there are wind parks and over 2,000 wind machines, and they are expanding in number. There again is a British technology which is suppressed at home but which works abroad. I could go on.
I do not know as much about solar energy, but surely solar energy would be the ideal form of energy production for a great deal of the third world. There would be no danger of contamination or pollution. Then there is energy conservation. Again, many noble Lords know more about that subject than I do. We should go to Milton Keynes and see the extent of insulation there. Is it beyond the wit of man—of our inventors and technologists—to produce insulation, not against the cold but against the heat? Is that not a possible research objective for this country's technologists? It would use cooling insulation instead of the much more environmentally dangerous air conditioning.
There is the whole subject of refrigeration. Anyone who has lived in any of the tropical parts of the third world is aware that one cannot tell people in the third world that they cannot have refrigeration; but there are different kinds of refrigeration. It is the job of our technologists and scientists to develop a form of refrigeration which does not emit CFCs into the atmosphere and so destroy the ozone layer. By a strange coincidence only this afternoon a two-page letter was delivered to me from the Bird Group of Companies. It talked about its efforts to produce refrigeration which does not damage the environment. It is worth quoting the last two paragraphs of that letter which comes from the group's environmental controller, who says:
"I believe legislation is required, or at the very least very strong guidance, to ensure that society accepts the direct costs of protecting the global environment.
"Since Swedish and German authorities are taking positive action, there is a chance for the United Kingdom to take the lead to make an important impact to reduce a significant amount of CFC being released from the traditional disposal methods of refrigerators and freezers, not to forget building insulation and packaging materials".
332
That is a British effort. But to what extent is it being facilitated by the Government? To what extent are the Government encouraging the development of such technology and its export?
Noble Lords have referred to the Aldington Report. I was privileged to be a member of that committee. If noble Lords will read those sections on exports they will see how exports from this country to the third world have been restricted, largely through lack of finance and support. I shall quote again from page 25 of the report of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which says:
"There are in addition three economic arguments to suggest that major resource transfers to the developing world can be in the broad economic interests of the developed. The first is the common general argument that a healthy developing world is an increasingly important component of a healthy world economy, which is in the interests of all countries. The second" —
I stress this point because your Lordships will also find it in the Aldington Report —
"is the specific corollary of this: some forms of resource transfer represent assured export markets, helping to ensure fuller employment in the West".
It is enlightened self-interest, but it is enlightenment which is not just for Britain but for the whole of humanity.
My final quotation comes from the paragraph 209 of the Aldington Report:
"Although aid is important, per capita income level of a developing country is a far more significant determinant of the level of trade. Britain probably has more to gain by trying to expand the purchasing power of developing countries than by direct procurement under aid schemes. The Committee have heard in evidence that markets in the developing world are expanding much faster than those in the EEC. Smaller though the base for growth may be, the Committee think that every consideration should be given to expanding trade with these developing countries by seeking to expand their purchasing power. As Sir Geoffrey Howe said recently, 'Renewed economic growth in African countries is vita] to British industry'."
That was what Sir Geoffrey Howe said, and I could not better it.
The central point that I want to convey to the House is that here are the constructive and imaginative opportunities for British manufacturing industry which will benefit not just this country, its workers and its economy but mankind as a whole. I recognise that the issue is a global one and that international action is essential. It is essential that in the next few years we bring together the scientists, who are working on environmental issues, and the decision makers. I hope to make a contribution to that. I hope that the House will recognise the magnitude of the problem and the great opportunities which are open to this country's manufacturing industry to make a constructive contribution to the saving of our planet.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will probably agree that the subject we are discussing is the most important issue that lies before us as a nation. It relates to our future wellbeing and the maintenance and improvement of our standard of living. I shall not go into detail in regard to the national figures because they have been well aired by other speakers not just today but at recent Question Times. One would not deny that

333
there has been some improvement since the trough was hit a few years ago, but those improvements are nothing like enought to put us in the position to challenge our trade rivals within the EC. Goodness knows what will happen with a united Germany, but we must progress far quicker than we have so far.
It was interesting to listen to my noble friend Lord Hatch. I agreed with him when he said that we have the know-how, the ability and expertise to help the Third World. Unfortunately, because of what has happened over the past decade, we do not have the workforce. I speak as a former skilled engineer (a factory floor worker), and due to what has happened in the past decade we have lost a generation of skilled engineers. It is as though a generation of engineers had never existed.
In my opinion it would have been to the financial benefit of this country, and of its future well being, if we had kept some of those industries which were marginally perhaps not doing too well as training grounds for the future. I think that would have been a justifiable expenditure. Engineering has always been the single biggest contributor to our manufacturing wealth because of its size. However, it has been reduced dramatically and I believe the workforce is now perhaps between a half and two-thirds of what it once was. Moreover, as regards apprentices—that is, those who used to be trained in the factories; I was one of them and, ultimately, was responsible, as a skilled engineer, for showing the younger generation how to do the job—the devastation in the figures for new trainees is absolutely appalling. Although the Government's training programme is commendable, it is not sufficient in dimension to really take up the challenge on our behalf and put us back into the position where we belong.
A short time ago I visited the engineering museum in Kensington. An exhibition was being held there for one week which was opened by Sir John Harvey-Jones. Here I am trying to make a point as to whether we are actually training the right type of people to deal with our economy. His main theme was that we were not training enough qualified engineers to match the efforts of our competitors in Europe. I think, in total, that we were roughly achieving about two-thirds of what Germany is achieving and the figure was somewhat similar as regards France. However, he produced a figure which I thought was rather amazing. I do not know whether it is because people are categorised differently, but he said that in France —which is possibly the nearest equivalent to this country as regards national wealth and GDP—the people manage to oversee matters financially with a force of 6,000 accountants, or thereabouts. However, in this country we have 30,000 accountants doing that same job. I must say that I have never found an accountant who produces anything, they only state whether people have spent money wisely or unwisely. I think that it is an indication as to our priorities.
Previous speakers today, and others in similar debates quite recently, have mentioned the insufficiency of funding as regards research and development. That is absolutely correct. Indeed,
334
some of the biggest culprits have been the employers of the past. I put recently to the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate a Question regarding the silicon chip. I still say that the Government were wrong to sell off INMOS to Thorn EMI, because the company then sold it to a foreign competitor. Therefore we lost our particular base in that industry, which is a sunrise industry.
I asked people at UMIST, which is a centre of technological excellence at Manchester University, why we were lagging so far behind. They said, "Well, there has never been enough money made available to compete with our competitors on the Continent". When I examined the figure, I found that some of the biggest culprits were our industrialists who refuse to invest money in this field. That has been one of the sad facts of life in industry in this country.
I spent my working life in the engineering factories in Manchester in Gorton and Openshaw which was known as probably the biggest workcentre in the UK. I have seen factory after factory close down —and, I should make quite clear the fact that that was not due to high wages or bad industrial relations—so that that particular area of Manchester which leads eastwards out of the city is almost a desert. Some of the finest engineering products in the country were made in that area; for example, Cravens, an internationally known machine tool company, has gone. Kendal and Gents was another internationally known machine tool company and that too has gone.
The slaughter continued until I had to move across Manchester into the "big house" as they called it; namely, Metro-Vickers, Trafford Park. When I was there, 24,000 people were employed. However, there are less than 8,000 employed there now and you can mirror that fact right along Trafford Park. The point I am trying to make is that, although there was a case for some change in the area, I believe that the market forces regime applied by this Government did absolutely appalling damage from which it will take us generations to recover.
I know that the Minister may tell me that the Government have set up an urban development corporation in Trafford Park. I am not opposed to that. However, when I questioned another Minister in this respect a few weeks ago and asked him whether the jobs that were going back into Trafford Park would be manufacturing jobs, he said that whether the development would mean just warehouses and no jobs really had nothing to do with the Government. This country cannot survive on being just a nation of warehousemen. Indeed, the Aldington Report made that quite clear. We must get back to our role as a manufacturing country, because we cannot survive on what the City of London and the service industries are doing.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me for a moment if I seem to be a little parochial. I should like to quote some figures regarding the North West. Only last evening I happened to be present at a dinner. I heard a speech made by the present Leader of the House in another place; namely, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made various claims and I do not contradict them because they showed that some progress had been made.

335
However, if I look at the figures for the North West I have to say that that progress is not mirrored there. In December 1979 there were almost 1 million people employed in that area in the manufacturing industry sectors. However, in December last year the figure had fallen to 683,000. One may say, "Oh, but the figures are going up". I do not have the full figures for 1989, but when I looked at the comparable figures I saw that they had fallen again. Therefore, what are we really talking about when we mention this brilliant recovery we have made? I do not see many signs of it.
Having been a Member of Parliament for Yorkshire, I also watched the wholesale slaughter of clothing factories which made good quality clothes. Once again, this was not caused by high wages, because no one was paid exorbitant wages and very few strikes ever occurred. However, they just went out of the window. It is part of the Government's policy that we should compete. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his speech put his finger on the point. He said that many of our companies had gone out of business because of unfair competition from abroad. Of course, that is still going on.
I return to the question of Lancashire and the cotton trade. There is one particular parliamentary constituency just north of Manchester which only a few years ago had 12 cotton mills. Now it does not have even one left. There was a debate in another place on Friday 12th February on the multifibre agreement on textiles. The relevant figures were given by a Member, Mr. Jim Lamond, and they showed the devastation which is still taking place in those areas. Therefore, there is no point in the Government making out that the figures have suddenly started to rise. They have started to rise but not in the areas that I know. In fact, they have slackened off and, in some cases, they are starting to fall. If we do not at least take the final step that I am talking about and return to where we once were, we can forget about living as a manufacturing nation.
I have a cutting from the Manchester Evening News last week. Is this a so-called success story?
"Shirt firm crash hits 2,000 jobs".
That was the area which was starting to be regenerated according to the Government. The article states:
"A Manchester-based textile company went into receivership today putting 2,000 jobs at risk.
"James Seddon (UK) Limited, with head offices in Egerton Street, Denton, announced that they had appointed Manchester accountants Grant Thornton as receivers".
I have some bad news for my colleagues sitting below me. Many of these jobs are in Scotland as well as Manchester. The article further states:
"The bulk of James Seddon's employees are based in Scotland where the company employs 1,400 people at four factories. A further 600 workers are employed in Congleton, Cheshire, and North Wales; and 280 are employed at the head offices in Denton, Manchester".
That is the latest tale from there. I would not know the details for the area, which is outside Manchester. This has just hit the press and the details have not
336
been released yet, other than that the receiver is being brought in. I was trying to obtain more information from the Member of Parliament for the area, Mr. Andrew Bennett. However he was not able to get it in time.
I put it to the Minister that, if this situation is allowed to develop, it may happen in other places. It certainly runs contrary to the success story that we constantly hear about. I like to think that if the Government have notice of this type of thing happening, they will be prepared to act to help in any way they can. The areas that I am talking about have lost job after job in almost every section of manufacturing. Another blow like this and matters will be every bit as severe, or perhaps even more severe, in Scotland.
This is not news of a nation on the up and up, as the Government claim is the case. It is contrary to that expectation. However, today's debate will have been worthwhile if the Government start to listen to some of the proposals that may be necessary. There is no question but that the abnormally high bank rate has a seriously adverse affect on investment, particularly in new plant, new factories and the production that is so badly needed. We must grasp the nettle regarding funding from the Government. They may have to chuck out their political bible of total market forces and pump money into research and development and training. They will have to help some companies to remain in business where a case is made for that, or to start new businesses. They will have to stop being totally adamant that only market forces are relevant and should operate. Unless we begin to operate on the same basis as our competitors, we who in my opinion are possibly in the second or third division now in football terms may go out of existence.
I hope that the Government and the Minister in his reply will give us some expectation that the serious situation which I consider we are still in despite the successes that the Government claim will be remedied.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for putting this item on the agenda today. I also wish to congratulate him on the excellent speech he made in introducing the debate.
One of the benefits of being the last speaker from the Back Benches is that one has heard all the speeches that have gone before and has therefore assimilated the accumulated wisdom of the speeches. However, every action has a reaction and every benefit a counter benefit. The detriment of speaking last from the Back Benches is that everybody has said everything that one wanted to say. However, I shall try my best.
I took the precaution this morning of looking again at the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I had the honour to serve on that committee. I examined the report and its recommendations. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of them.

337
For example, the Select Committee said that there was no reason to expect an automatic resurgence of manufacturing and trade when the North Sea oil surplus declined. It went on to say that new industries grow out of long-established activities and require a long timescale for development. Lost manufacturing capacity would take a long time to restore. That is what the Select Committee said. Services, investment income and inward investment flows cannot by themselves compensate for the effect that loss of the oil surplus would have on the balance on current account.
The Select Committee predicted an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely deflationary measures would be needed. That is what the Select Committee said. It also said in its report and recommendations that all people must recognise that their future prosperity depended on the success of manufacturing and trade. Governments of whatever political persuasion should adopt macro-economic policies which favour manufacturing and trade and are applied consistently.
That was said five years ago. It is as relevant today as it was then. It is a great pity that the recommendations were not acted upon by the Government at that stage. Unfortunately the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lawson, pooh-poohed what the committee had to say. He sneered at the committee and its recommendations and said that the Aldington report was a mixture of special pleading dressed up as analysis and assertions masquerading as evidence which led the committee to its doom-laden conclusion. I reckon that the committee was much better at forecasting than the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Instead of listening to what the Select Committee had to say, he chose to abuse it and refused to apply reasoned argument to the recommendations made. He also ignored the fact that the report was based on evidence from a wide spectrum of society: from industry and commerce, from economists, from universities and trade unions. That is where the evidence came from. The conclusions were reached on the basis of that expert evidence. The failure to understand what the committee was saying and to act quickly on its recommendations have led us to our present position. We have a huge balance of payments deficit, as the committee predicted, and severe deflationary measures to deal with it, again as the committee predicted.
Having plunged the country into economic chaos and crisis through his policies, Mr. Lawson has ducked out of his responsibilities and left it to someone else to clear up the mess. His reward is apparently to be £100,000, or perhaps it is £200,000 per year with Barclays Bank. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, wishes to intervene but I have only 13 minutes.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the problem we have met recently has been that the Government have failed to restrain the boom? The party of the noble Lord was urging us to adopt an even more relaxed monetary policy than
338
we had. That policy would have sucked in even more imports. That is the point that he must meet.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with respect, we are not talking about the Labour Party at the present time. We are talking about a government who have been in power for the past 10 years. It is the results of their policies that we are dealing with. We are dealing with their failure to listen to good advice from a committee of this House.
As I was saying, Mr. Lawson now has a job with Barclays Bank. If he does for that bank what he has done for the country, God help Barclays' shareholders and its customers, of which I am one. I must think about changing my account, but no doubt inertia will prevail and I shall leave it where it is in spite of Mr. Lawson.
The measures taken to deal with the crisis are self-defeating in relation to the resurgence of manufacturing industry. High interest rates will damage investment in manufacturing industry, yet a huge increase in manufacturing industry, as we have already heard from so many speakers on both sides of the House, is our only hope for a prosperous future. Even if the price for North Sea oil recovers to 35 dollars a barrel in the mid-1990s, the reduced flow of oil from the North Sea will ensure that there is no new oil bonanza to get us out of trouble. The oil bonanza of the 1980s could have helped restore manufacturing industry to a pre-eminent position. It could have done so painlessly. However, as the Government have wasted the massive oil revenues on consumer booms, largely for electoral purposes, we now have to rebuild the manufacturing base the hard way.
Reliance solely on interest rates is the wrong way to go about curing our chronic problems of high inflation and a chronic shortage of manufacturing capacity. It is patently absurd to take measures to damp down consumer demand which will also reduce investment in manufacturing industry. Other measures to reduce consumer demand are available which would not at the same time damage manufacturing industry and investment therein. Furthermore, there are measures which could and ought to be taken to boost interest and investment in manufacturing industry.
What the Chancellor should not do at this stage is to heed the siren voices of the gutless Tory wonders slithering and whining on the Back-Benches in another place who are urging that the limit for mortgage tax relief should be raised beyond the present £30,000 ceiling. To accede to that demand would merely prolong the pain of high interest rates as it would fuel further consumer demand and worsen prospects for the balance of payments. Paradoxically, it would not help those most in need of housing, that is the first-time buyers, as they are helped most by stable or falling house prices.
What then are the alternatives? First of all, excess credit for consumer purchasing must be reduced if the flood of imports is to be reduced and export potential increased. There is no need for a great panoply of direct controls. No one wants that. The Government could reduce credit simply by requiring

339
the lending institutions to deposit a proportion of their liquidity with the Bank of England. Alternatively, even if the Government did not want to do that, the Chancellor could warn the lending institutions that that would happen unless they put their house in order and reduced significantly lending for consumer expenditure. In spite of what has happened, we still receive through our letter boxes every day proposals from financial institutions to borrow more and more for further consumer expenditure. The Government should do something about that.
If lending for consumer expenditure were reduced, there would be two likely results. First, the demand for credit would drop, thus easing pressure on interest rates. Secondly, the lending institutions would need to find a new home for the surplus money. They could very well find that home in manufacturing industry. That brings me to my next point, which is the encouragement of savings towards manufacturing industries. It is at present much more beneficial, and certainly safer, to put one's money in a building society. One can obtain over 12 per cent, tax free. That is available to people with relatively small amounts of savings. Why then should people take the risks involved in investing in productive industry for, say, 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, before tax when they can receive so much more without any risk or effort?
Lord Joseph: That is not true.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I know that the noble Lord does not agree with me but I have only 13 minutes in which to speak. It is time that we ensured that the rewards went to those interested in making goods rather than to those who are simply interested in making money. The Chancellor in his budget, and indeed the whole ethos of government policy, ought to be directed towards redressing that balance. The Chancellor should also consider the extension and use of capital allowances to assist productive industry as recommended by the Select Committee and indeed by the CBI in its paper which was circulated to many of your Lordships in connection with this debate.
Finally, and in spite of their dislike and apparent distrust of the NEDC the Government really ought to use an organisation with a lot of expertise and industrial experience. There is, as we all know, a greater consensus than ever before in British industry about what is necessary to revitalise British manufacturing. Why do the Government not recognise and use this new consensus? Why indeed will they not under these encouraging conditions of co-operation between both sides of industry adopt the Select Committee's recommendation that within the NEDC a separate committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry —that is in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State is Mr. Ridley—should be established to promote manufacturing industry? Unless measures other than those adopted by the Government are instituted, they will head for sheer disaster. The economy is headed for disaster and the Tory Government are headed for defeat at the next
340
election. However, that latter point is of course a good thing.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the late Lord Kaldor used to remind us frequently that the decline of manufacturing industry went back a long way. It goes back even further than the last quarter of the last century. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to that. This is an old problem. However, although it is an old problem the time for recovery is short. We talk here as if there is almost unlimited scope in time ahead of us for getting things right. But that is not so. I do not wish to play the Cassandra but, as I see the prospects ahead, they are very grim.
By 1992 we shall be competing inside the Community, but it is not only the Community that we must look at. Competition is coming increasingly not only from Japan but also from the little dragons and, when the Eastern European countries begin to recover, they too will provide tough competition. As I listened to the debate this evening I did not sense that there was any urgency to deal with these issues. However, the extent to which, despite a number of differences about methods, there is agreement about the need for a resuscitation of manufacturing industry has been encouraging. There has also been an appreciation of its importance and its economic and social value to the country as a whole. That in itself is relatively new.
In the past the Conservative Party was not greatly aware of the importance of manufacturing industry. Nor did it encourage its sons and daughters to enter manufacturing industry in order to make it as successful as it could be. As for the Labour Party I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams speak so enthusiastically about the importance of manufacturing industry, I know that it is easy to criticise because we cannot be criticised for what we did not do when in power because we have not been in power for so long. However, the Labour Party has been in power on a number of occasions. It did nothing to remove the gross overmanning in manufacturing industry which made a considerable contribution to the poor position in which manufacturing industry found itself. The Labour Party did not do so because to a large extent it was in hock to the trade unions. If it has now recovered from that, so much the better.
The Labour Party did very little about training when it had the opportunity. While I do not greatly admire many of the measures which the Government have taken on training, they have done a great deal more than the Labour Party did when in power. In terms of money that is most emphatically true. What is perhaps most encouraging is the change in attitudes towards industry as a whole. It is now regarded as valuable. That is a significant change on the part of the Labour Party, which was very critical of wealth creation.
That attitude was not confined to the Labour Party. Until very recently the intellectual climate has been anti-wealth. I defy the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to deny that the intellectual climate that he and I shared was to a large extent anti-wealth creation. The best school-leavers and best students

341
were not encouraged to go into industry. In my experience many of them were biased against it by the time they went to university. Perhaps that was not the noble Lord's experience, but it was certainly mine.
The change is very welcome and it is real. However, the urgency of the situation has not been taken on board. It is useless to think that we can get out of our difficulties by any kind of "fortress Britain" approach. I have been rather depressed by hearing from all sides of the House this evening indications of a growing protectionism as the easy way out. It is not an easy way out; it is not a way out at all. All we can do is face the growing competition and place ourselves in a position in which we can meet it. I do not deny that if we do the right things we are perfectly capable of meeting that competition. However, we have to do them, and we have to do them fast.
What are those things, on which to a considerable extent we are agreed? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that we needed to plan to raise the percentage of GNP from manufacturing industry. I entirely agree with him on that point. We need a strategy aimed at improving the position of manufacturing industry.
I think that we are also agreed —but I am not sure how widespread that agreement is—that we do not want the kind of plan which in effect gives civil servants the job of picking winners. If anybody believes that that is the way out they should study recent history. We should never again go along that road. However, that is no excuse for government not doing something and for not doing it quickly.
In particular there is the question of infrastructure. However, infrastructure will not be provided through short-term market forces. More money needs to be put into infrastructure. Let us take the case of the Channel Tunnel. I know that that will be dealt with in the next two or three years. However, we need the right railway system throughout the country so that manufacturers in the North West and North East can take advantage of the Channel Tunnel instead of wasting a great deal of time, almost certainly ineffectively, trying to take their goods through London. Without that infrastructure it will be impossible to take the opportunities to enable manufacturing industry in Liverpool or the North-East to sell their goods swiftly in Dusseldorf. That is what we need to do. It will not happen unless government money is available to support such a programme. That is just one example, of which there are many, of the need for public investment in the infrastructure of the country.
We also need to tackle our very high interest rates. As many noble Lords have said this evening, that places a very heavy burden on industry. It is not only a heavy burden on industry; unless we are careful it will place us in a very serious inflationary position. The greatest danger is that there will be big increases in wage demands. At present they are not out of hand but they could easily get out of hand. If once the expectation develops that there will be rising inflation, pay claims will be based on that expectation. Once pay claims are based on the anticipation of further inflation that further inflation
342
is bound to result. The need to reduce inflation is of the very first order of importance.
One matter which has not been mentioned this evening, to my great surprise, is that one way of doing so is to enter the exchange rate mechanism and to do so quickly. That would give us some opportunity of controlling the level of inflation. Our exchange rate would not be so threatened and we should not need to put up interest rates in order to sustain the exchange rate.
That is coupled with entering more effectively into the Community and—I was going to say throwing our weight about—using our influence inside the Community effectively so that the right competitive conditions develop. We should then obtain the full advantages of membership of the Community instead of adopting our present attitude.
In addition, as many noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned, there should be much more encouragement for investment. Our only hope in the future is as a high productivity, high technology, high wage economy. That requires investment. The CBI is surely right to ask that in the next Budget there should be increased incentives to industry to invest. There are a number of ways in which that could be done. The CBI suggests that companies should be able to write off their investment against tax more quickly than at present. The encouragement of greater investment in industry is surely a very high priority.
Of even higher priority—and all noble Lords are in agreement on this but we do not see action—is education and training. Perhaps I may quote one figure which must bring home the relevance of our inadequate training to our inadequate performance. A 1989 EC business survey shows the proportion of firms indicating that a lack of skilled labour had limited production. In 1988 in the United Kingdom the percentage was 26–3; in West Germany it was 3; in Italy it was 2; in France it was 4. Need I say more?
We have to be in the high-tech area, and an economy which can change and adjust quickly requires highly trained and highly skilled people. We are not producing them. We have made some attempts in that direction but they are nowhere near the scale that is needed. We have great talent in this country but we are grossly undereducated and undertrained.
There are some elements in the new education programme which are good but it still does not meet the educational needs of the non-academic child. We have failed in that programme to meet the real opportunity to help a large proportion of young people who do not respond to the more academic type of education but who have the capacity to respond very well to a different kind. I do not wish to encroach on a debate which will go on very hotly next week, but surely we need greatly to expand the numbers of people who enter higher education of one form or another. That is perhaps even more so in the applied forms than in the traditional academic forms.
We shall discuss next week whether present government policies are likely to encourage such an expansion. It seems all too plain to many of us that

343
they will do no such thing. Unless we do those things and do them quickly, all the rest of our beautiful schemes for building a better society will go for naught because we have to pay for them and our competitors are not there to help us. They are there to take advantage of the opportunities which are arising all around. Unless we change, they will take advantage of those opportunities and we shall drag sadly behind.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have learnt in life never to predict anything. I certainly did not prepare for this debate expecting the main onslaught on my views to come from the Social and Liberal Democrat Benches. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that the Government whom she so vigorously attacked were supported by and kept in office by the so called Lib-Lab pact. Perhaps I may also remind her—I hope not ungenerously—that her present leader in this House was a distinguished member of my party and a distinguished holder of high office. I have no intention of having a great argument with the noble Baroness, but I am deeply disappointed by that aspect of her speech.
While I am in this mood, perhaps I may also say how disappointed I am at the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, which was, once, a misrepresentation of matters connected with me personally. I certainly spoke on economic policy before the last election. I made it clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was profligate in his tax cuts. I argued, as did many of my noble friends, that they would lead to the precise consumer boom and balance of payments deficit that we now have. Many of his friends—not he—played the usual tricks with me of saying, "Oh, the noble Lord believes in high taxes, doesn't he?" That was the kind of pre-electoral trick played by some of the noble Lord's friends. He should remember that.
I believe, perhaps cynically, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will at least be tempted by that trick again next year. He will produce another pre-electoral tax cut. I shall now tell the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that I shall also attack that, even though I may be exposed yet again for political naivety as his party desperately tries to cling to power. However, I look forward to him supporting me and saying that such a profligate tax cut a year from now would be most inappropriate to the British economy. At least he would then be on the right side. I do not normally go in for acerbity in this kind of debate, but, for obvious reasons, one or two matters have put me into a slightly bad mood.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord spoke as he said he did, but the impression given by the party to which he belongs was that monetarism was restraining spending when it should be expanded.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we may have another opportunity to return to that point, perhaps when many of us write our memoirs and deal with the history of the country's economy.
344
I want to concentrate mostly on matters of principle and policy, but there are one or two factual matters which I should draw to noble Lords' attention and on which I should perhaps correct the record. The first point concerns manufacturing investment. My noble friend Lord Donoughue was right in his statement about manufacturing investment in real terms. The figure did not reach the 1979 figure until 1988. More to the point, the CBI document from which noble Lords have quoted states that, since 1988, investment intentions have weakened considerably. Manufacturers now expect plant and machinery investment to fall over the year ahead, which further confirms the point made by my noble friend. The position is worse still because, throughout the middle period of the 1980s, manufacturing investment was below the level that it had reached in the early 1970s. The record on manufacturing investment is therefore as my noble friend said and not the reverse.
Perhaps I may also comment on the balance of payments, which is the theme of the debate, and quote the Bank of England. It says that the substantial current account deficit of the last three years has largely reflected movements in trade in manufactured goods. In other words, we are entirely right to concentrate on the manufactured goods side of the problem.
Thirdly, the deterioration of the balance of payments is significant, but it is very much a phenomenon of the 1980s. It is often forgotten that, following the so called Barber boom of 1973, the Labour Government brought the balance of payments under control and, relative to national income, the balance of payments improved up to 1981.
I shall not deal with purely factual matters for much longer. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the Government stabilising the share of manufacturing exports in the last year or two. That is the figure often quoted. It is often forgotten that, during the period of the Labour Government of the 1970s, Britain's share of world manufacturing rose. It did not do so by much, but it rose nevertheless. The level at which it is currently stabilised, according to the Government's claim, is lower than the level at which we left it in 1979.I do not make many claims for our record. We do not have all that many dimensions of success, but one or two have been raised where our record is rather good. That is one that I shall not allow to be ignored.
On the question of general principles, my view of the role of government is not doctrinaire. I am neither for nor against government. I simply look at problems and ask what is our best way round them. Idelogically, I am not for or against markets. I simply ask: what will work? The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not in his place, but that kind of doctrinaire approach of a blanket statement of the less government the better troubles me. I do not see that as a principle. The noble Lord talked about bureaucracy which I found amusing, but, in my experience, if one were to ask most relatively small business men who was the bureaucrat whom they found most threatening, it would not be someone who worked in the local authority or in central

345
government; it would be the local bank manager. That is the kind of bureaucracy that is most threatening and most unsympathetic when it comes to small businesses. I do not care for bureaucracy, but, in my experience, one finds a fair amount of bureaucracy in private enterprise, most of all in the banks.
On the general principle of the mixed economy, perhaps I may revert to the subject which interests me most —the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in which he took broadly an Adam Smith line. I stand second to no one in my estimation of Adam Smith. I believe that there is an institute called the Adam Smith Institute and that one of the qualifications for joining is that one must guarantee that one has never read any of the works of Adam Smith.
Adam Smith had one interesting characteristic: he was tremendously interested in the facts. He was not like other economists who became more and more abstract. If one reads The Wealth of Nations, one finds a wealth of material in it. If Adam Smith were looking at the world today —this is purely speculative on my part—he would certainly ask the question, what is the proper role for government? However, he would not give the answer that he gave 200 years ago because it would not be in his nature to ignore what had happened. He would have looked at Japan, Germany and Sweden, all examples, in terms of wealth creation and affluence, of successful economies. He would have seen a greater role for government than he saw in Britain at the end of the 18th century. He would have seen —I emphasise that this is purely speculation —the kind of points that we have made on research and development and vocational training as a role for government. On the kind of points that have been made regarding infrastructure, he would have said, "Yes, that is a proper role for government". I do not doubt Adam Smith's other original view that providing a proper macro-environment was important, but he would have recognised—this is fundamental to my noble friends' contribution—the importance of infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, made many important points in that connection.
For those noble Lords who want to take an extreme view of markets, I beg them not to do so. They should look at the comedy of errors surrounding the building of the Channel Tunnel which is a private enterprise activity. They should look at the tragedy of the failure to build the rail link properly which is a public enterprise. It is difficult to distinguish the incompetence on either side. Perhaps I differ strongly from most noble Lords in that I am one of those who think that central government might well have a useful role in that area, at the very least in persuading them to come to their senses, if in nothing else.
On the question of policy, a couple of weeks ago I had my chance to talk about vocational training and so on. I shall not go over that ground again, other than to say that I do not withdraw from anything I said then and I think that the noble Lords who spoke about that have been right.
With regard to manufacturing generally, what are the worries? Surely we are worried about how
346
cautious we are in fields such as design and technology and that we are not thrusting forward as our predecessors did in the 19th century. That is where the entrepreneurship comes in. Now we seem to have "entrepreneurs"—and I use the word in inverted commas because I am always struck by their caution rather than their entrepreneurship. In particular, I am convinced that our failure lies in what is called knowledge-intensive industry. We are not pushing in that area to the degree that we should. Again that point is not unrelated to our observations on vocational training.
More generally, we must of course be more efficient; but the key is for us to get into the right product lines, which is exactly the point stressed by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and other noble Lords. The danger is that we shall become a low wage economy and survive that way with continuous devaluations as our other way round. That will not do. The reason that manufacturing is so important—and this point was made by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—is that it is the source of innovation. As that committee pointed out—and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made the point earlier this evening—the demand for services comes mainly from manufacturing. A view that feels somehow we must see these things as clashing is wrong. The two are complementary. I am not a modern-day mercantilist. I believe that whatever creates what people want is worth doing. I do not say that manufacturing intrinsically is somehow better; I simply say that producing the things that we need is what is good. Surely manufacturing is in all that.
There is a lot of time left to me, and I am particularly annoyed with two of my noble friends Lord Jay and Lord Stoddart because they took all the best points with which I wanted to deal and have left me with virtually nothing to say. However, I try to stick to the rule of not then saying, as noble Lords sometimes do, "Nonetheless I shall make those points again". I shall not say them again. However, there are a few additional remarks that I want to make.
I should like to say how glad I am that this debate has caused us to look again at the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade—the Aldington Report. I believe that most of your Lordships have said, and I certainly say, that it was right. But I should like particularly to echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Over the weekend I looked again at the report and what shocked me was the complacency of the Treasury in its evidence to the committee. I also feel that the arrogance of the Government in their response was quite insulting to your Lordships' House. Five years have been needlessly wasted because we were warned.
If anything, the outcome has been worse than our worst fears. The current account deficit in 1989—I repeat the point until it is boring, but it is true—was the largest absolutely and relatively in our history. I understand that the mortgage rate of two weeks ago is also a British all-time record. More to the point, the outlook is grim. Interest rates will certainly fall. I find it hard to believe that these figures represent permanent interest rates for the British economy. I

347
cannot find anybody, whether teenage scribblers or serious economists like myself, who can actually predict when interest rates will come back into single figures. I certainly do not care to speculate—and I am not offering free advice this afternoon to those noble Lords who are working forward markets —and I should not like to estimate when we shall see interest rates in single figures. It will probably not be for the foreseeable future.
The current account deficit on the most optimistic assumptions will clearly exceed £10 billion per annum for the next three or four years. I do not think that it has been sufficiently recognised that if we ignore revaluations of our net overseas assets due to the exchange rates, and they can be revaluations up or down depending on what happens to exchange rates, what really matters in terms of our net overseas assets is our current account. A deficit running at the rate of last year and continuing to run for three or more years at £ 10 billion per annum is worse than the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said. It wipes out our total net asset position. We shall not have a small invisible surplus. We shall not have any invisible surplus at all.
That is why I believe that we must reverse rapidly the manufacturing position. All I can hope is that in his reply the noble Lord will respond in the terms of the debate to which he has listened throughout the afternoon and evening. We are trying to say to him —leaving aside my bad temper and the fact that we got into one or two political disputes that perhaps we should not have begun —that all of us believe that there is a serious state of affairs that has to be examined.
On other occasions I have heard noble Lords in this Chamber express worries about leaving the nation defenceless. They do not wish to disarm prematurely. Because of my position, I am never allowed to join in those debates, but I am rather sensitive to what noble Lords have to say. My concern this evening is that the Government should not leave us industrially defenceless in the face of the economic battles that lie ahead.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has provided the occasion for the latest in a series of debates in your Lordships' House on the prospects for manufacturing industry. These debates have been enlivened not only by the usual robust exchanges, but also by the contributions of individual noble Lords of all parties or none, with direct and relevant experience of manufacturing industry. I include in particular the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, to which we had the privilege of listening earlier this afternoon. It was a most meritorious contribution and, like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing him again soon and often.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, links manufacturing to the idea of balance in the economy. He has argued that the present situation is one of imbalance. I should like to look at that notion of balance. In an economy the size of ours there will be important contributions both from
348
manufacturing and services, and indeed from agriculture, construction and the energy industries. The balance between those contributions in a market economy will be determined primarily by the customer. In a command economy by contrast it is the Government that seek to determine what is the right balance. The present state of the economies of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are sufficient proof of the bankruptcy of that approach. I take it that the noble Lord would agree with that. I think that the difference between us concerns the extent to which in a market economy the Government should intervene at the margin to influence the balance a little this way or that.
The major industrial countries—the United Kingdom and our main competitors —have a similar pattern of economic activity. More than half of GDP is accounted for by service industries and between 20 per cent, and 30 per cent, by manufacturing. In most of the countries, the contribution of services has tended to rise in recent years, and that of manufacturing has tended to decline. Two main reasons for this trend have been identified: first, as people become better off, their demand for more services tends to rise faster than their demand for more goods. Secondly, the manufacture of goods offers more opportunity for productivity improvements than the provision of services, so that the price of goods tends to fall relative to the price of services. Since contributions to GDP are normally measured in value terms, this accentuates the increase in the relative weight of services.
It is true that in the United Kingdom the proportion of GDP accounted for by manufacturing is lower than that in most of our competitors. There are reasons for that.
The production of North Sea oil rose from zero in the mid-'70s to 6 per cent, of GDP in 1985 and now stands at about 4 per cent.; and the financial services industry has risen as a component of GDP from 10 per cent, in 1975 to 19 per cent. now. The output of both industries is internationally traded, and both make a substantial direct contribution to the balance of payments. The declining contribution of manufacturing to GDP is in large measure the reflection of the increased contribution from those two sectors.
For these reason, I do not see the size of the manufacturing sector, or the balance in the economy between manufacturing and other sectors, as a cause for concern. What matters far more is the all round effectiveness and competitiveness of our manufacturers. Here there are areas which require attention, primarily from firms themselves, but also from Government. I shall come to these in a moment. But, first, I make no apology for reminding your Lordships of the very real achievements of British manufacturers in the past 10 years. It is necessary for me to do this, not merely to defend the Government's record, but—more importantly—to ensure that due credit is given to the efforts of the manufacturers themselves.
The volume of manufacturing output in 1989 was at an all time record. It was 32 per cent, higher than in 1981, 13 per cent, higher than the last cyclical

349
peak in 1979, and 8–5 per cent, higher than the previous record year, 1973. This rate of growth, sustained throughout the 1980s, represents a transformation from the halting performance of manufacturing output over the previous 20 years.
No less remarkable is the growth of more than 50 percent, in manufacturing productivity in the 1980s, which exceeded that in any other major industrial country. I accept that we have some way to go to match the productivity levels of the best of our competitors. There is still room for improvement. We cannot afford to relax. Our competitors themselves are not standing still. But it would be quite wrong to allow that to detract from the magnitude of our manufacturers' achievement.
Profitability in manufacturing has risen steadily throughout the 1980s, from a very low point, and returned to levels last seen in the 1960s. This has a twofold significance. Seventy-five per cent, of capital investment is financed from retained profits, so a healthy profit enables companies to sustain their investment programmes regardless of the vagaries of interest rates; and a run of better profits, and the prospect that it will continue, gives companies the confidence to invest. The investment figures bear this out. Manufacturing investment was also at an all time record in 1989. The average annual rate of growth since the low point in 1983 has been 8 per cent.
Much has been made of the deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods. This is sometimes seen as evidence of weakness in British manufacturing. I do not believe that the facts will bear that interpretation. The manufacturing trade deficit did indeed rise sharply between 1986 and 1989. But over that period output of manufactured goods rose by 19 per cent, and exports of manufactures by 28 per cent. Those are impressive figures. The deficit grew despite them because of the boom in investment and the unprecedented strength of consumer spending. The Government have taken firm action to control domestic demand. This will reduce import growth. The most recent trade statistics suggest that this is already happening. They confirm that the explanation for the rapid growth in the deficit in the past two years or so lies in the short term surge in demand, not in any long term industrial weakness.
Commentators have been right to identify the improvement of levels of skill and standards of training as one of the main challenges facing industry and Government. We believe that primary responsibility for training, and for overcoming skill shortages, should lie with employers who indeed already spend £18 billion a year on training. Government are no more qualified to tell industrialists what skills they need than to tell them what goods to produce. That is why we have decided to establish a network of employer-led training and enterprise councils, to run and develop the training and business support programmes previously run by the Department of Employment. Instead of being operated centrally by Government, they will be run by experienced businessmen, with an eye to particular local needs. The response to our initiative has exceeded all expectation. Development funding
350
has been awarded to 55 groups in England and Wales. We hope that the first TECs will be fully operational by spring this year.
Noble Lords were also right to draw attention to the importance of innovation to industrial performance. We live in a world where the rate of industrial change is accelerating, and product life cycles are shortening. Innovation will be more vital in the future even than it is now if British firms are to maintain a competitive edge in world markets. But I think that your Lordships will agree with me that innovation, like training, is primarily the responsibility of firms themselves. The most important contribution that the Government can make is to maintain an economic climate within which innovation can flourish. I believe that this Government have done that; and I am encouraged to note that industry's own funding of R&D increased by 30 per cent, in real terms in the four years to 1987, the most recent year for which figures are available.
It is surely no accident that this increase marched in step with the increase in the profitability of manufacturing companies.
But the DTI does have a direct role in the promotion of innovation, and the department plans to maintain the level of its expenditure for this purpose over the next three years at more than £ 100 million a year. The objectives of this expenditure are to encourage industry to increase its own funding of R&D and to apply new technology more effectively; to promote technology transfer and the translation of inventive capability and best practice techniques into commercial application; to encourage industry to make most effective use of its own and academic resources through collaborative R&D both nationally and internationally; and to encourage innovation by small firms, particularly in advanced technologies and in the regions.
The thinking behind these objectives is that firms themselves are best able to assess their own markets and to balance the commercial risks and rewards of financing innovation. In the long term it would not be helpful to industry for Government to take on these responsibilities. But we recognise that to rely completely on the commercial decisions of individual firms may produce a lower level of innovation than would be in the overall interests of the economy.
That is why the DTI's innovation programmes focus on the pre-competitive research necessary before commercial applications can be developed; on collaborative research, where the benefits will be widespread; and on technology transfer. The particular programmes which the DTI supports—including LINK, Eureka, SMART, and the European Community programmes—will be familiar to many of your Lordships, and particularly to the Members of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. They are designed to work with the grain of the market, and not to cloud the disciplines that rightly apply to decisions on innovation as to all other commercial decisions. But the continuing scale of DTI innovation programmes gives the lie to any suggestion that we are abdicating our responsibility.

351
In the light of these considerations we have decided to make some changes in the DTI's organisation. These will focus the industrial expertise of the department where it is most needed and most effective. I have already referred to key priorities spanning all industrial sectors, including collaborative research projects, technology transfer and standards and also other important matters such as the response of business to environmental issues. At present, these activities are covered for each sector by market divisions which also cover international trade issues, market information and the promotion of policies for which other DTI divisions are responsible such as 1992 and business/education links.
We have concluded that these activities will be better managed by separate divisions and branches each concentrating on a set of policies or programmes. Expertise will then be focused on information technology, on manufacturing technology, on the environment and business, and on market assessment. Divisions with policy responsibilities for matters such as international trade, the single market, business/education and deregulation will be responsible for communicating with business direct, rather than through the "market" divisions as at present. The focus of responsibility, and lines of communication, will both be clarified.
Where my department discharges continuing government responsibilities towards specific industrial sectors—aerospace, shipbuilding, vehicles, industrial materials and steel—these responsibilities will be handled, so long as they continue, by task forces which focus on the sectors in question. The task force approach will also provide a capability for responding flexibility to specific but temporary issues affecting industry and commerce. Perhaps I may add that DTI's regulatory role in sectors such as insurance, financial services, radiocommunications and telecommunications will continue to be discharged through divisions which concentrate on the regulation of these sectors.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the increased prosperity to which our policies have contributed has benefited all parts of the country. The unemployment rate in the development areas has been almost halved, from 20–2 per cent, in March 1986 to 11–4 per cent, in December 1989. This figure is still too high, but nonetheless represents a significant improvement.
One of the main successes of regional selective assistance has been in supplementing the natural attractions of the United Kingdom and the favourable business climate for inward investment. The latest in a long line of inward investment projects benefiting from regional selective assistance was the £50 million investment announced only yesterday by Kayo Seiko in a plant to manufacture ball bearings in South Yorkshire.
Perhaps I may now return to the noble Lord's Motion. The Government accept that manufacturing industry will continue to play a vital role in the British economy. But the balance between the
352
various sectors of manufacturing, and between manufacturing and other economic activities, will be determined ultimately by the market, and increasingly that market will be the international one.
The past 10 years have seen a very substantial improvement in the performance of British manufacturing industry, for which most of the credit must go to the companies themselves. But the policies of this Government —the withdrawal from detailed intervention, the priority given to the right economic climate, the insistence that DTI programmes should work with the grain of the market —have made a significant contribution. The Government are not complacent, and nor, I hope, is industry. Competition will remain intense in international markets in the 1990s, and the challenges will in some ways be more complex than those of the 1980s. But I have no doubt that industry will be in a better position to meet those challenges if the policies of the present Government remain in place than if the clock is turned back to the interventionist and corporatist approach still favoured by the party opposite.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what I suppose is his reply to the debate. I am most grateful also to the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Until the ministerial intervention it had been an extremely interesting debate. There was a great deal of common ground between both sides of the House on the diagnosis, although there were political differences about the prescription for the cure.
I am afraid that the Government's response was predictable. It was obviously written well in advance of the debate. The impression that it gave —and it remains with me—is that there is no cause for concern. When I opened the debate I said that recognition of the fact that we have a structural problem is the start of the solution. It is perfectly clear that the Government have not recognised that there is a problem. So be it. That is their position. I beg leave to withdaw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Grounds for medical termination of pregnancy]:
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ["two") and insert ("three").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. This is essentially a probing amendment. It is based on my view and the view of many others that abortion, particularly late abortion, is abhorrent. I took this line at Second Reading. Is it not horrible that England has now become the abortion capital of Europe? It is especially the social abortions that I and many others find so repulsive.
One of the most moving moments of my life was at the Albert Hall in 1987 during David Alton's presentation. We saw 2i million paper darts released from the ceiling and falling to the ground, each one representing a fetus which had been aborted since 1967. The figure is now some 3 million. While I concede that many of those fetuses would have been aborted for medical reasons, many among them would have been aborted for convenience sake. How many of those fetuses might have become lawyers, doctors, musicians, statesmen, and how many of these lives might have been saved if three doctors had had to approve the abortion rather than two?
It goes without saying that the later the abortion the more traumatic it becomes for the fetus, the mother and the medical staff. The pain suffered by the fetus during abortion was discussed at some length at Second Reading but little was said about the mother. Perhaps I may briefly quote from a letter written to David Alton which indicates that the mother suffered terrible trauma. The letter says:
"I will always remember the young nurse who was given a parcel to take to the incinerator. On the way it whimpered. She returned, and gave in her notice there and then. We are chasing away the most caring nurses because they cannot take this destruction".
I should also draw attention to the speech at Second Reading of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who spoke so movingly about the horror experienced by many of the doctors and nurses involved in late abortions.
The Bill lays down in Clause 1 that two doctors must certify that the termination of pregnancy, however late, is necessary in the interests of the mother or the child. But is "two" the right number for a decision of this magnitude? I have heard that it is often possible to get two doctors to collude in approving an abortion. The addition of one to this number would in my view and in the view of several others to whom I have spoken seem likely to reduce the possibility of collusion. Perhaps I may suggest that of these three doctors, one should be a consultant, one an abortion expert and the other the family doctor. This is to my mind a very grave decision. I hope that the Committee will discuss this matter in the serious way in which it should be discussed. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that the noble Viscount will not press the amendment. I should like to point out one or two difficulties about it. The amendment applies only to the post 24-week cases. That is its effect. If this were carried, we should have two doctors for a gestational period up to 24 weeks and three doctors afterwards. One can imagine the borderline problems which would be aggravated by that provision. The question will be asked, "Are you a three-doctor woman or a two-doctor woman?" We
354
all know that in any event doctors allow an error margin of two weeks. This would mean that there would have to be a third doctor in the anteroom waiting to be called in if it was decided that the woman had passed the 24th week.
There is another side to this. All inquiries into the cause of late abortions have mentioned the delays caused by getting through the system. Already it is difficult to get together two doctors to listen to what are very often heart-rending stories of a woman who is to receive the abortion. If there were three doctors to get together, they never would get together. I believe that this amendment would cause delays to occur within the administration. That is not what the noble Viscount wants.
I can see the point behind this. The noble Viscount is looking for some reinforcement of the stiffer conditions which are provided for in the Bill. However, this is not the way to do it. Indeed the Bill contains words to emphasise the nature of the new criteria. As I said on Second Reading, when we legislate words must mean something. They must mean the construction which is usually put upon them. Therefore when we say that it is "essential" that an abortion shall be needful on certain grounds, the law means "essential". Doctors concerned should understand that it means "essential" and not just "desirable".
I believe that all in all we could not possibly accept this amendment in Committee. It would create more difficulties than it would remove.
Lord Winstanley: In opposing the amendment moved by the noble Viscount I should like to ask him to acknowledge, which he did not do in his opening speech, that many of those in favour of this Bill and many of those in favour of the original 1967 Act—and I was a sponsor of that Act—are just as much opposed to abortion as is the noble Viscount. I hope that he will acknowledge that.
It is not that we believe in abortion. We merely believe that there are circumstances in which the termination of a pregnancy is the only proper and correct procedure in the interests of the patient, the family and society as a whole. However, we regard it is a regrettable procedure but one which is periodically necessary. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, will acknowledge that we are not all pro-abortionists for a moment but we recognise that abortion takes place.
When I was working at a hospital in Salford at one time I had control of a ward of 30 women. That ward consisted entirely of patients suffering from septic abortions—illegal abortions. The consequences of illegal backstreet abortions were tragic and I saw many of them. I am happy to say that, partly as a result of the 1967 Act and these new practices, wards such as that no longer exist. Therefore, it really is a dream to believe that abortions would not take place but for this legislation. There would be more illegal abortions and we should go back to the kind of tragedies with which I had to wrestle as a young doctor.
The noble Viscount has specified that there should be three rather than two doctors. It is difficult to say

355
why three should be better than two. He went on to say that one should be a consultant, one a general practitioner and the other plucked out of the air somehow, and I am not quite sure by what means. However, I believe that Members of the Committee should be aware of what happens at present. The usual practice is for one doctor to be the patient's family doctor who knows the patient, the patient's family and the circumstances, and the other is usually a reputable consultant of the particular specialty relating to the patient's condition. That seems to me to be wholly admirable. To bring in a third party who has no direct contact with the patient or the patient's family—and it is unlikely that there would be a third doctor who had that contact—would be inadvisable in every way and would not provide a greater safeguard.
I oppose this amendment. I do not believe that it helps in any way. I do not even believe that it helps the position which the noble Viscount takes up. I hope that this Committee will not accept the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: Although my views on the availability of abortion are very much closer to those of the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Winstanley, than those of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, I have some sympathy with his amendment, in principle at any rate.
I did not take part in the debates on the 1967 Act because I was far too much of a new boy for that. However, I seem to remember—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will correct me if I am wrong—that when the Bill emerged from the House of Commons to come to this House there was some sort of tacit compromise or agreement to the effect that precautions should be taken to ensure that the two doctors whose approval was necessary before abortion could take place should not act in collusion in any way.
However, the Bill was rushed through this House in enormous haste. I believe it was shortly before the Recess. I seem to remember that the Third Reading took place at 2 o'clock in the morning, which is not the best time of day for getting things right.
Lord Ennals: That Bill went through this House two years before the 1969 General Election. It was not rushed through this House at all unless your Lordships wished it to be so.
Lord Monson: I think that I am right in saying that the Bill was rushed through because it was shortly before the Recess or something of that nature. However, the Third Reading did take place in the small hours of the morning. In any event, for whatever reason, the precaution about the two doctors not being in collusion was not written into the Bill. That is the point.
There is a problem as regards the drafting of the amendment as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The fact that it refers only to abortions taking place after 24 weeks is a snag in
356
itself. Therefore, my noble friend might think it worthwhile not to press this amendment this evening but to come back with an amendment at the next stage to ensure that the good practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred —that is, that the two doctors concerned should not be in the same partnership or group practice —is written into statute. That seems to me to be the right way to go about it. It will ensure that what is normally good practice is confirmed in statute. That is the way to go about this matter and not to stipulate a minimum of three doctors.
Lord Ennals: I was not able to take part in the debates in 1967 because I was a Minister at the time. However, I gave my personal support to Mr. David Steel. When I became a Minister of State and later Secretary of State for Health I thought that it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State to see that the legislation was administered as fairly as possible.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that before that legislation we had a chaotic situation. It was absolutely disgraceful. On Second Reading I referred to what was going on in back streets and the hardship and cruelty that women, who were sometimes young and ignorant, suffered from a situation which they did not understand. It was deplorable. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, it is not that we are pro-abortionists. We would all like to see the avoidance of abortion by all sorts of methods. However, the technique of having two doctors is very widely known in legislation. For example, it applies to all sorts of provisions in the Mental Health Act where there needs to be two voices, one not tied to the other. However, doctors are very busy people and to produce three would create a real difficulty.
I suspect that in proposing this amendment the noble Viscount would really like 13 or even 300 doctors because he is opposed to the whole concept of abortion. If he wishes to carry that through, then he should propose a more substantial amendment. I believe that this is a silly way to deal with the matter and I do not believe that it would help at all.
Lord Rea: I should like to re-emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this would actually delay the abortion so that a woman who wanted to have her abortion at, say, 23 weeks might find it takes her a week or so more to find three doctors. She would then be in a more dangerous situation.
Abortion is now very safe when it is carried out very early, preferably before three months. I know that this Bill concerns abortions after 24 weeks; but the point should be emphasised that the amendment would add to the time before the woman was able to obtain an abortion, particularly in some parts of the country where it is difficult to get even two doctors together to perform a National Health Service abortion. As well as delaying the time of abortion, it would actually push the unfortunate woman into the private sector, even though she wished to have an abortion under the National Health Service.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I should like to underline the point about administrative delay made by the noble Lords, Lord Rea, and Lord Houghton. In a dozen or so years' experience as president of the National Council for One Parent Families I have been concerned with what may be the most tragic group of girls who suffer the regrettable consequences —as my noble friend Lord Winstanley described them —of abortion; the very young, the 15, 16 and 17 year-olds.
Those instances raise the most horrifying implications for the girls, their families and for society generally. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House received considerable evidence that administrative delays to abortions were one consequence of the operations of the National Health Service. We were repeatedly told that, and it was given as one reason for late abortions, which we all know are to be avoided at all costs. We should set the very proper desire of the noble Viscount to promote stiffening of the conditions contained in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, against the fact that requiring three doctors instead of two must inevitably add greatly to the delays within the system. For that reason, and for the other reasons given, I wish to oppose the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I feel like a stranger in this masculine Chamber when we are talking of women and their problems. There seems to be a minimal number of women who can put something of their ideas into this Bill.
I want to say briefly that as a doctor's wife, when we ran a practice in the East End, there were two groups of women who needed to come for late abortions. The first group were middle-aged women who had five or six children, whose husbands were unemployed. The women came to our surgery and said, in their own words, "Doctor, I thought I was just not getting it on the change, but now I think I am, falling on the change". There would be a pregnant woman in her late 40s who had already brought up a family and who could not face a situation where she had to deal with a new child.
I vividly remember one of these cases when my husband had to tell a woman that she was pregnant and that it was not just the change. He could not help her because this was before the act sponsored by David Steel. She went home, did something terrible to herself and she died. The result was that these children were motherless and the unemployed father had no wife. I do not know what good that did to anybody. I shall never forget that situation.
I shall also never forget a situation which occurred when a woman in a similar circumstance came to our East End surgery at Shoreditch. My husband had to tell her that he could not help her. Later, the police came. They said, "This woman, your patient, was admitted to hospital and died last night. You sent her in so we will charge you with septicaemia and abortion". My husband could only say that if she had been his patient she would not have died of septicaemia. It was an awful situation for us in this poor little surgery in the East End having policemen coming in and saying "Did you do this, and did you
358
do that?" That made it absolutely vital for us to feel that the law was wrong. Unfortunately, it was not until a long time later that things changed. It was because of those many experiences that I was so supportive of the David Steel legislation.
Reading all that has happened about the reports in Romania, of the ghastly results of the abortion restrictions and the restrictions on family planning, I believe that we must take a new view of these things. As I seem to be one of the few women speaking tonight, perhaps I may say in regard to the period of 24 weeks—whatever it may be—that women know how to get around that. We do not tell a doctor when we last "saw", as we used to say in Shoreditch. It may have been last week or the week before. I do not think there are many doctors who will say to a woman —and certainly could not have said to me—"You are 20 weeks" or "You are 22 weeks pregnant and can therefore have an abortion this week but you cannot have it next week".
The whole situation is stupid. What we really need to do is improve our family planning provisions and try to make it less possible for women to want a termination of a pregnancy. There is nothing more traumatic for a woman than to have a termination of pregnancy. Let us try to work out what the reasons are for a woman wanting a termination of her pregnancy. They are very complicated and very difficult. I have great respect for my noble friend Lord Houghton, but the only answer in what we are trying to do tonight is to improve family planning. Where there is a disaster, we should be compassionate and helpful for any woman who is in a situation where she feels it is impossible to go ahead with her pregnancy. This is something very personal and it is nothing which your masculine Lordships tonight can really make rules about.
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): I was not going to intervene on this amendment. I start by repeating, as I believe Members of the Government always do, our neutrality on the issue of abortion. I take the opportunity of repeating that again this evening. Perhaps I may pick up on one or two points, particularly those made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and then developed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
Parliament has decided that abortions may be lawfully carried out in circumstances specified in the Abortion Act 1967. The Government have a duty to see that the provisions of the 1967 Act are properly applied until and unless Parliament chooses to change the law. Having said that and having repeated the Government's neutrality on that issue, as regards this amendment it would add another step to the process through which a pregnant woman, at an already emotional and distressing time, has to go when seeking the termination of her pregnancy.
The prospect of a third consultation might well deter some women from seeking medical advice even when they had valid grounds under the Act passed by Parliament in 1967. It is also likely to add to the delays which can occur in some areas of the country and may result in the termination being carried out

359
at a later stage of gestation than would otherwise have been the case.
Viscount Buckmaster: I am grateful for the very fruitful exchange of views that we have had. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("its twenty-fourth week") and insert ("the specified period").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to all three amendments standing in my name and then move each of them serially in numerical order as they are called. They all stem from the very wise advice given to the House at Second Reading by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman; namely, that in our own minds we should decouple the abortion issue from the fertility legislation issue though the Long Title of that Bill permitted us to couple them if it was our wish. I believe that we took that view. I have discussed the matter at some length with my noble and learned friend. His view still is that we should polish up both Bills with as much spit and polish as we can at the Committee and Report stages and then leave the other place to decide for itself, in the light of its own wisdom, whether to recouple them or not. It will be open to any honourable Member in the other place to move this Bill as an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill when the time comes. I accept my noble and learned friend's advice.
For the purpose of our business this evening I consulted him in order to check the text of the Bill brought forward by my noble friend Lord Houghton. He is "my noble friend" for the purpose of this Bill, but not always on every occasion. We went over the Bill very carefully and he helped me with the drafting of these amendments. I am very grateful that my noble friend Lord Houghton supports these drafts.
Lord Ennals: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Is he suggesting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, actually agrees with the amendments that he is proposing? I am not quite certain of the drift of his argument.
The Earl of Halsbury: Yes, he certainly did agree. He was always helping me with a little spit and polish over the wording from time to time. I will come to that if the noble Lord will allow me to tell the story in my own way. We held a meeting of what I might call the survivors of the Brightman Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was in the chair and my noble friend Lord Houghton was present. I understand the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was also present because I see him nodding. I was invited to be present and we went over the whole issue.
We debated one or two points and I withdrew one or two ideas that I put forward because they were not acceptable. They would stand in the way of unanimity. On Monday of this week I received a
360
letter from my noble and learned friend saying that he had influenza and that it was rather doubtful that he would be able to attend the debate this evening and asking that I should convey his apologies to the Committee. I received a letter from his secretary this morning saying that he was in hospital and confirming that he would not be here this evening. I am sure that the Committee will be unanimous in accepting his apologies and in asking me to convey good wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery and a quick return to your Lordships' House which he embellishes so often.
The amendments stand in my name and they are three-fold. One of them is putting a little sandpaper over something which is rather dubious. The words,
"capable of being born alive",
have been queried by many people on many occasions. So I have sought to insert,
"capable of being born alive and surviving to maturity with or without the aid of a life-support device".
In a normal birth the first life-support device is to hold the child up by the ankles and to slap his bottom so that he takes his first breath. The next means of life support is at his mother's breast. If that is not possible, medical science may devise other means of keeping alive what in effect is a fetus, by feeding it through a tube or by attaching a heart device such as is used in heart surgery to keep the blood circulating. It may be that in due course and with the advance of medical science that may be possible. That is why I drafted the amendment to specify that the child should be,
"capable of being born alive and surviving to maturity with or without the aid of a life-support device".
The next two amendments are concerned solely with taking this issue out of the way of confrontational manoeuvring and putting the responsibility for deciding whether the period should be 28 or 24 weeks where it belongs; namely, in the hands of the Secretary of State as suitably advised. That is the effect of the amendments.
The only difficulty I had in drafting the amendments was in deciding who were the people who ought to advise the Secretary of State on this matter. Once again, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Houghton, who came to my rescue. There are a very large number of medical bodies which conceivably might be asked and which might be affronted if they were not asked. On the other hand I wanted to keep the party small and select and not to have too long a list of people to consult. My noble friend suggested to me that I should specify the bodies which were represented in the 1985 Committee. That was referred to on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, as reported in Hansard for 14th December 1989, col. 1497.
With that brief introduction to what I have in mind, I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I greatly respect the noble Earl and I liked his way of explaining the matter. I am sorry that I intervened part of the way through his remarks. I share with him the deep regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is unwell, for I am certain that he would have been with us today. I am

361
speaking for myself, as I will if I get up again, and not for any of my colleagues.
I rise because I seriously doubt the widsom of the amendments being proposed, even though they have been discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and with my noble friend Lord Houghton, for whom I have the most profound respect. I admire what he did before 1967, during 1967, and since that year. He has shown a constancy on this issue which I believe is to be totally admired and appreciated.
I support this Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. I have looked carefully through the report of the Select Committee and, though a number of noble Lords got together afterwards and had a cup of tea or a couple of drinks, that discussion was not reflected in the meetings of the Select Committee. It did not come forward with this recommendation. In fact it came up with the recommendation that my noble friend Lord Houghton has encapsulated in the Bill.
I believe that one of the merits of this very short Bill is that it does no more and no less than carry into legislation the recommendations of the Select Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
These amendments create new difficulties for us. I understand the wish of both noble Lords that this issue should not be one for annual debate or attempts through Private Members' Bills over successive years, as has been the case, not every year but probably in two out of every three years. I can understand that it would be nice to be rid of this. However, I do not believe this is the way, because I do not think that it will work.
For me these amendments create a profound difficulty. They require the Secretary of State to make a judgment. The amendments that have been tabled, and which I understand are supported by my noble friend Lord Houghton, set out a number of qualifications. Amendment No. 6 states:
"The 'specified period' means the period of 24 weeks or such lesser period as the Secretary of State shall from time to time by order determine for the purposes of this Act".
I recognise that there may be medical evidence that leads one to say that perhaps 22 weeks is more appropriate than 24 weeks. It then states:
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the period of pregnancy at which a child in utero is then generally considered to be capable of being born alive".
A third qualification is that he will be required to consult with five professional bodies and, fourthly, if he wishes to make a change, it will require the approval of both Houses.
I have to say that it is the Secretary of State who is called upon to make a judgment. Speaking as one who held the office of Secretary of State for three years, it is not a responsibility which should be imposed upon him. To put it at its extreme—or it may not be very extreme—let us suppose that the Secretary of State is a Catholic. There is nothing wrong in having a Catholic Secretary of State. Of course not. Many of my best friends are Catholics. I know that the views that are expressed in this
362
House and elsewhere by Catholics are based on their own deeply-held convictions, so I make no criticism of the fact that Catholics take a particular point of view in relation to abortion. But let us suppose that we have a Secretary of State who is a Catholic. First, what would be the reaction of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child? It would have achieved a victory; it would be delighted if this amendment were carried because it would then bring pressure to bear, not on Parliament but on whoever was the Secretary of State. If that Secretary of State were a Catholic he would be under the most profound pressure to act in a way that many of us might not think was fair, and I believe it would place an intolerable burden upon him. I do not think that that would be fair to him and I do not think that it would be wise.
The belief that that would avoid a controversy, that the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child would pack up its bags and go home and that Pro-Life would be heard no more, is not true. They wish to see the end of this legislation or a change in the legislation in a very major way. They will not give up the battle. They will simply change the target, and the target will be the Secretary of State and not Parliament. I do not think that that is right and fair to a Secretary of State or in the interests of Parliament. In my view, these decisions are so controversial that they should not be taken by the Secretary of State. For us to try to shift responsibility from Parliament to the Secretary of State would be quite wrong.
My advice is to take no risks. This is a very important Bill and I hope that it will be taken seriously in another place; but with this amendment it would be taken in a different way from that which is intended. I think it would be seen by those who oppose the current legislation, and who may even oppose this Bill, as being a victory.
That is not just my view. I am not saying that we should always accept the views of the BMA—by no means—but it is valid to say that I have a letter from the BMA dated 19th January. I quote:
"The BMA supports Lord Houghton's move to amend the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in order to lower the gestational age limit of viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. However, we have no mandate to support any variation of the 24 week limit and could not therefore support Lord Halsbury's amendment to the Bill.
"We believe that 24 weeks' gestation marks a physiological and anatomical boundary below which the lungs are not expected to function. Advances in clinical medicine have made it possible for a number of babies of 24–28 weeks gestation to be saved."
So there is no support, as far as I can see, from the main representative bodies of the medical profession.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: Will the noble Lord give way? I had a talk on the telephone this morning with the writer of that letter. I said, "I quite appreciate you have not got a mandate to support it, but have you got a mandate to oppose it?" She said, "No". In other words, what the noble Lord has been reading is really written in an entirely agnostic mood.
Lord Ennals: I put it on record that that is the advice that I have received from the BMA. I was interested to hear about the telephone conversation, but that cannot be read into the record because there are two sides to any telephone conversation. I simply read this into the record as the views of the BMA as we know them.
Baroness Jeger: If I may have permission to speak again, I should just like to say to my noble friend that he is talking absolute rubbish. I am the only woman speaking here, and I can tell him that none of us tells our doctors when we are 22 or 24 weeks. There is no way in which the many doctors whom I have loved and worked with will accept that a woman can be absolutely honest about when, as they used to say, she last "saw". I think it is stupid for us to be wasting time tonight on 22 or 24 weeks. A woman who wants termination of a pregnancy will get it, and the sooner Parliament recognises that the better.
Lord Winstanley: My first inclination was to support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and this group of amendments. It seemed to me that their inclusion in this Bill would marginally improve it in that it might help avoid the confrontational situations which arise from time to time as a result of Private Members' Bills in another place, or indeed in this place. It also seemed to me to make it possible for the statute as it stands to be varied in the light of recent medical discoveries and what was happening scientifically in the medical field without the necessity for new primary legislation.
I had some doubts when I saw the words in subsection (2D):
"The period of pregnancy at which a child in utero is then generally considered to be capable of being born alive".
I thought that "generally considered" seemed to be rather vague. However, subsection (2E) states that before making such an order the Secretary of State should consult various people. It seemed to me that that prescribed it in such a way as not to allow a Secretary of State to make a wholly idiosyncratic personal decision on these matters. He would have to consider the factors outlined in this group of amendments. That was my first inclination.
I have listened very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I see certain dangers in giving powers of this kind to a Secretary of State, whoever he may be. It even seemed to me that there was the remote possibility, should there be some kind of convulsion in British politics, that my honourable friend Mr. David Alton might become the Secretary of State. On more mature reflection I have decided that the likelihood of that is not such that it should cause me undue anxiety at this moment.
I understand the point that one is in difficulties as one is giving great powers to an individual Secretary of State, but are they not hedged in with subsection (2E)? I do not think that a Secretary of State could make a wholly idiosyncratic decision on the basis of his own views. Were he to do so, surely that would be ultra vires.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Lord sits down, I know what the views happen to be of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal Paediatric Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association about the Government's NHS Bill. They are all opposed to it. But has the Secretary of State taken any notice of them? He is not required to do so.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord may know what the royal colleges' views are on the amendment at the moment. This is an amendment to provide for a change in circumstances from time to time in the light of changes in medical knowledge and practice. The noble Lord cannot possibly know what their view will be in the light of those changes.
Lord Ennals: The noble Lord misunderstood me. I know what their views are in relation to the NHS reorganisation Bill because those organisations have made their views clear, and the Secretary of State has taken no notice whatsoever.
Lord Winstanley: I am well aware that Secretaries of State are not always obliged to accept the advice which they are obliged to seek.
Lord Ennals: That is right. That is the point.
Lord Winstanley: I am not sufficiently naive not to know that. I know it. Nevertheless, I believe that the Act, as it would be if it were amended by this group of amendments requiring a Secretary of State to act in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would surely be ultra vires. However, we must wait and see. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, says about this point and what the Minister will say on behalf of the Government. This is not a matter upon which the Government can remain wholly neutral because the amendment requires certain government activity. As I said, my first inclination was to support the amendment. I have been alerted to certain dangers by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I do not totally ignore them. I shall remain open-minded until I have heard other speeches on this group of amendments.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has made an interesting debating point but I am sure that even he will admit that he is not comparing like with like when he puts, on the one hand, the semi-reform of the National Health Service and abortion law on the other. Surely the fact remains that for 22 years, since 1967, Parliament has failed to change the Act. That surely is a telling point in support of my noble friend Lord Halsbury.
Viscount Caldecote: I support the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on the amendment for these reasons: first, we are all well aware of the difficulty of changing the law on this complex subject. Secondly, one of the most repugnant activities that we observe is when at one end of a hospital doctors and nurses are working hard to save the lives of premature babies while at the other end fetuses of the same gestation

365
are being aborted. That is to some extent due to the advances in medical skill that enable premature babies to be saved to the benefit of everyone in society. The amendment would help overcome that problem because it would enable the Secretary of State to take quick action as medical science advanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made the point that it would be an impossible task for the Secretary of State. He speaks with great authority. I have never been a Secretary of State for Health or any other Secretary of State, and I apologise if he feels that my suggesting that he might conceivably be wrong is presumptuous. From a common sense point of view subsection (2D) gives clear guidelines to the Secretary of State under which he should operate with the advice of expert medical opinion.
Lastly, the noble Lord made the point that this is a matter for Parliament. The amendment makes it clear in subsection (2F) that the final sanction is an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Surely all the requirements about which the noble Lord seemed to be worried are met by the amendment. For the reasons I gave at the beginning, I believe that the amendment is a good one and I hope that we accept it.
Baroness Lockwood: I sympathise with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in the moving of his amendment. In particular, I sympathise with the view that he was advancing, that we would like to take this subject out of the realm of political controversy and base it on the advice of the medical people involved. I would like to feel that I could accept that approach, but I find that there are a number of difficulties in relation to it, some of which my noble friend Lord Ennals has already outlined.
My noble friend Lady Jeger referred to the complete involvement of women in the subject. A great deal of ill feeling and resentment would be caused if a major amendment were made to the Abortion Act by virtue of an order which, although it might be subject to an affirmative vote in both Houses, would not be capable of being amended by either House. If we were to proceed along those lines, we should not be taking the Abortion Act out of the realm of political controversy. The area of that political controversy would move from the parliamentary sphere to pressure on the Executive and the Secretary of State.
Whenever an amendment was advanced —I hope that any amendment would be based on knowledge arising from the advance in medical science—I should like to think that the debate would not take place without the advice of some of the learned institutions listed in the amendment. I do not believe that the amendment adds an additional safeguard. I would expect the information to be available to both Houses of Parliament and in particular to the women's organisations which have followed the history of the Abortion Act, not just from its inception in 1967 but before then, through all the educative work that was taking place before the Abortion Bill was introduced and finally passed. I am not convinced that the amendment would do
366
what the noble Earl suggests that it would and what both he and I should like it to do.
Lord Reay: There is one further possibility that the Committee has not considered: let us suppose that there is a disagreement between the five bodies representing the health professionals—there is no reason for them all to take the same view on this topic—will the Secretary of State have to adjudicate? Surely that is not the right route. The right place for the decision to be taken is, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has said, Parliament, but not in the way suggested in the amendment—by approving an order—but by being allowed a full debate on the subject, because it is of importance to the people of this country, and they have a view. There are many views other than those of the medical people that must be taken into account when any decisions on this issue are made.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who put his case, as always, powerfully, lucidly and persuasively; nevertheless, I must admit that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on this matter. In particular, I was a little alarmed by the arguments we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. They said that, because it is very difficult to persuade Parliament to change the law, we should give the right to change the law to someone else. That is an argument which has been made a good many times before in this country's history. However, it has generally not been viewed with favour in Parliament.
I understand very well the sort of weariness which the constant recurrence of this issue may generate. I can understand a desire to make the issue go away and that we should have some other way to deal with the matter. However, I think that the amendment creates problems. In the first place, a decision of the Secretary of State must be a matter of potential censure and therefore must also be a matter of party discipline. At present, we only have one Chief Whip in the House. However, I am sure that he can think of two among his noble friends whom wild horses would not bring into the same lobby together on this issue. I can see several problems arising from trying to make this a matter of disciplined organised party decision. But, more important, I am concerned about the constitutional implications of the amendment moved by the noble Earl. At this point perhaps I should apologise to him because, while I was trying to outline to him what was concerning me earlier this afternoon, three unexpected guests turned up while I was in the middle of putting my case. Therefore, more of what I have to say will be a surprise to him than I would have wished.
We have before us a Henry VIII clause. It is a clause which authorises the Minister to vary the primary legislation. Doubtless many noble Lords here present have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, speak on this subject. There are circumstances where such clauses may be acceptable, but it would take some effort to convince me that

367
this is one of them. We are laying down law the breach of which may carry penalties. That is really the job of Parliament. That is what we are here for, and it is the job we are sent here to do—
Baroness Jeger: Is the noble Earl saying that I am to have a baby when your Lordships tell me to do so?
Earl Russell: No, I said no such thing. Indeed, I would not presume to do so.
However, since there is to be law of the land then someone has to make it. That is our job. If we abdicate it, I fear that we may end up feeling a little like King Lear.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not know whether anything I can say will influence the Minister in the reply which he has before him and which has already been written. However, it will probably save me making two speeches if I can just explain my own position in relation to this amendment. Not for the first time the noble Earl and I have come together to try to overcome an impasse in parliamentary treatment of a highly controversial moral issue. Our first collaboration took place on the laboratory animals problem; that is, the use of animals in research and for other so-called vivisectional purposes.
It took a long time to bring any agreed solution to Parliament, but the noble Earl laid the path in introducing a Bill. We had a Select Committee on the matter in this place, we discussed the matter further and, eventually, it was possible to find a consensus among warring elements on this question. That gave the Government the promise that if they introduced a Bill sufficient agreement upon it was assured to enable legislation to be passed without undue difficulty. That is what happened. Moreover, that is what led to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Further, that was the first amendment to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
However, we are considering an amendment to an Act which was carried in 1967 and the first amendment to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. We have witnessed some 15 attempts in another place to amend the 1967 Act without success. Had the procedure contained in this amendment been in place five years ago then the recommendations of the committee composed of the bodies mentioned in its schedule would have been implemented by the Government of the day. Moreover, we should have been spared much of what has happened since in attempts to get the gestational limits of abortion reduced and a tightening up of the criteria in relation to them.
But what have we had? We have had the most disgraceful spectacle of parliamentary futility in my 40 years' experience. Year after year we have awaited the lottery taking place in another place to see what Bills can be brought forward by Private Members. Each Session we waited wondering whether another abortion amendment Bill would be introduced. In most cases there has been. But they have all fallen because of lack of time, obstruction, frustration and
368
acute controversy which no one seems to have been able to reconcile.
Then the Government were persuaded to adopt a stratagem to overcome the impasse so far as concerns the other place. They had the force to introduce a Bill on embryology as a government Bill because the matter was so pressing and there was such important work in progress. They had to have a Bill, even though they were to leave certain moral issues in it to free votes in both Chambers. However, the contrivance employed by the Government was to draw the terms of the Long Title to the Bill so wide that it could encompass amendments to the abortion law.
The Bill which is now before the Committee was introduced not to spite anything; it was introduced to try to persuade those who wanted a change in the abortion law to do it this way and not to interpose controversy on abortion to disrupt an already difficult problem of embryology and research in human embryos for fertilisation and other purposes. That is what this is really all about.
In another place they are all weighting the propaganda. The Order Paper is littered with Early Day Motions containing the most mischievous nonsense. It is all ready for the great controversy when the embryo Bill arrives. Then it will be ripped open by abortion. I wished to try to produce a Bill, a model from your Lordships' House. With it we could stand on the steps of another place and say, "This is the solution".
I was a member of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. I much deplore the absence tonight through illness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, because I was relying on him to fortify my own inadequate efforts to get it across to Members of the Committee that we had the answer. But in introducing the Bill I felt tied to the agreed unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee. Everything in the Bill, apart from a few trimmings that had to be introduced to make it a Bill, reflected the agreed conclusions of the Select Committee.
I knew the difficulty that in a Private Member's Bill in this House we do not have the right of passage in the House of Commons. Only a government Bill has free passage between the two Houses. The House of Commons has the right of entry here. We have not the right of entry there. Therefore the Bill could fall on the threshold of the House of Commons if nobody wished to take it up. It has no claim to be heard in the House of Commons. Had we included abortion amendments in the embryo Bill, then what we had put in that Bill would have gone to the House of Commons as part of the Bill. However, eventually—and I think wisely—we kept abortion out of the embryo Bill. We have it now and we are all on our own.
I say to the Government that this is a method which the noble Earl thought of and which greatly attracted me, after some initial scepticism. It is a means of avoiding, year after year in Parliament, the perpetual row about abortion. We spend millions of pounds of public money in abortive attempts to resolve questions of whether the gestational period

369
for abortion should be between 28 weeks and 24 weeks or 24 weeks and 18 weeks. It is dreadful, shameful. This is a colossal failure of Parliament not to resolve its procedural difficulties, represent the public interest and get a conclusion on a matter which has been hanging about ever since the Abortion Act 1967.
Let me say this to some people who are fundamentalists on the matter. I think that the Roman Catholics and others who take a fundamental view of the subject should consider what their motives are. If they are to destroy the Abortion Act 1967, to ban all abortions in Britain, if that is their ultimate aim, let me refer them to the Romanian revolution a few weeks ago. On the third day of the biggest upheaval in central Europe, women rose and said, "You must abolish the suppression of abortion in this land". The Salvation Party which has taken over the rule of Romania did so. It made a public appeal for contraceptives to be sent to Romania because the women were parading in the streets in a state of considerable agony about the problem.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am in full spate. I do not want any help from my noble friend, with great respect. My engines are going all right at the moment! I wish to get this stuff off my chest because I believe that it is an issue of considerable constitutional importance.
When I was in the Labour Government we decided that no Private Member's Bill on a matter of considerable public interest should fall for lack of time. It is the only occasion upon which that concession has been made to Private Members' Bills. The Government have stubbornly resisted all attempts to obtain extra time to enable the House of Commons to reach a conclusion. Under that procedure, we are landed with stalemate after stalemate.
I say to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government that if this is not satisfactory to them, will they please say what is? If the Secretary of State does not wish to take on responsibilities which are so controversial that he wishes to keep free of them, let Parliament resolve them, if it will fall to Parliament to do so. What right have the Government to snaffle parliamentary time and occupy it fully for their own works, and deny time to the House to resolve a problem which has bedevilled our debates now for 20 years? What is Parliament for? Ever since the Balfour reforms in the early part of this century, at the beginning of every Session the Government have put down a sessional order to annex all the time of Parliament for the Session except for a few scrappy bits on Fridays and Mondays which Members may use for their own purposes.
Among those purposes is to be found one of the most controversial moral issues in this country and elsewhere. The Government should tell us what the answer will be to that dilemma. The Government
370
may say the answer lies in another place when in a few weeks' time it receives the embryology Bill. Members in another place can put something in the Bill then. They can insert provisions into that Bill but it will be in the form of amendments to a Lords Bill and it will have to come back here. Are we now going to start a battle between the two Houses? Where is the will for consensus and where is the will for resolution of this problem? If we cannot solve it, we should refer it to a body that can.
We found a solution as regards animal matters with a Home Secretary who was very reluctant indeed to take on board ethical matters relating to the use of animals. He wanted help to make a judgment upon that matter. My first impression in this case was that the advisory body to the Home Secretary, or to the Secretary of State for Health, should be a powerful committee, similar to the animal procedures committee under the 1986 Act. It should have an independent chairman with a right of approach to Parliament and the obligation to make a report to Parliament. There should be an obligation upon the Secretary of State to disclose any difference between himself and the advisory committee if he declines to accept its recommendations. But the animal procedures committee is not an advisory committee, it is a statutory committee. We could have a statutory committee in this case if we wished. It seems so elaborate in this case merely to move by one digit or more the gestational age of 24 weeks. It was out of proportion to have about 27 people on a committee of that kind presided over by an independent chairman of great stature.
The body that deals with animal matters has the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, a man of great repute, to sit in judgment on what the Home Secretary should be advised to do with regard to the use of animals.
Matters such as these can be tackled in that way. The Home Secretary's problems over ethical judgments were taken care of and the problems of the Secretary of State could be taken care of under the terms of this amendment. If such a body existed it could make a report to the public expressing its views. The Government could then introduce an order to implement the recommendations of that body. If that is acceptable, will the Government please tell us what they think the future of this controversy will be? Until we have a better consensus and until we are willing to meet somewhere in the middle of this Chamber and get this problem settled for a few years to come, there will be no end to controversy on abortion. There will be no end to the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and no end to Pro-Life or to the other bodies, many of which exist on money from dubious sources. There is plenty of that money available. They also exist on mischievous and indeed evil propaganda. In those circumstances we have a responsibility here and now or at a later point in the Bill to attend to this matter really seriously. We should see whether we can resolve this matter with a faltering, palsied government as well as with a fractious House of Commons in the public interest and in the interests of legislation in Britain.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord referred to the views of Roman Catholics. Does he accept that a number of Roman Catholics are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, and I am one of them, but that I would in no way attempt to impose my views on the rest of society? Does the noble Lord also accept that I personally found it deeply offensive when the views of Roman Catholics on this issue were related to the dreadful events we have seen in Romania? I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw the analogy that he appeared to make.
Lord Monson: I, too, have considerable sympathy with the amendment of my noble friend. Moreover, I fully understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, wishes to remove the matter of all future modifications of the abortion law from the parliamentary arena. Nevertheless there are considerable dangers in concentrating so much power into the hands of a future Secretary of State. That has already been mentioned on more than one occasion this evening. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will tell us whether he envisages that in every case the views of each of the distinguished bodies referred to in subsection (2E) of Amendment No. 6 would be made public before the Secretary of State arrived at his final conclusion. Will my noble friend also say whether he is satisfied that no Secretary of State would ever act against the advice of those five distinguished bodies, if the amendment were to be agreed to?
Lord Butterworth: I wish to speak briefly as a member of the Select Committee. I must confess that I much preferred the first thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to his second thoughts in supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I do so for this reason. It seems to me that the Bill as drafted crystallises the considered views of the Select Committee, including those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It crystallises certain important rights for women. I am therefore very reluctant to intervene in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, accepts the amendment because it might avoid a procedural row on the subject every year or every other year. That seems to me to be a trivial reason compared to saying what we think is right. If noble Lords are convinced that the Bill sets out what the House wishes, then it is not appropriate to delegate to the Secretary of State power to change it even though such a change would require the approval of both Houses.
Therefore, tonight I urge your Lordships to pass the Bill as it stands as drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord Craigmyle: I am very hesitant to become involved in the debate because unfortunately I was not able to be present for the Second Reading of the Bill because I was in Tanzania visiting a medical mission. That was a worthwhile reason for being absent, but my absence means that I am somewhat out of date as regards the way the debate has flowed.
372
My first inclination is to support the noble Earl. It seems a very slight piece of Henry VIII legislation and one which would prevent recurrent arguments in another place and in your Lordships' House as to what is the correct number of weeks to be specified in the Bill. It does not go very far. It does not do very much to the Bill.
In speaking on Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that the noble Viscount might have made more radical amendments. I had in it mind to put down more radical amendments. I then realised that what I should have proposed would have so changed the nature of the Bill that your Lordships would have dismissed them out of hand as wrecking amendments, and would have been quite right to do so. Therefore I confine myself to giving two cheers for the noble Earl.
The reason for the lack of the third cheer has already been very well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. What will happen to the Bill when it goes to another place? In whatever form we send it to another place someone—and I believe that it takes only one honourable Member—will shout "Object" and the Bill is dead. So far as I can see we are wasting our breath in trying to improve the Bill.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may again remind the House that this Government, like its predecessors, is neutral on the ethical issue of abortion. Questions relating to time limits have traditionally been matters which successive governments have left to the conscience of individual Members of both Houses of Parliament. I should also like to remind the House that, as most noble Lords recognise, we are not talking about time limits —as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, suggested—we are talking about means of altering those time limits should that ever be necessary.
The noble Earl's amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State power to make an order following wide consultation with a number of professional bodies, and others, and, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to specify the time limit for abortion in the 1967 Act. I understand and sympathise with the reasons that have prompted the noble Earl to move his amendments. I appreciate that experience, especially in another place, suggests that it is difficult to secure Private Members' legislation on sensitive issues such as abortion on which opinion is likely to be divided. Thus the amendment would appear at first glance to offer an attractive way out of that difficulty. It appears to make it possible, subject to parliamentary approval, quickly to change the time-limit in the light of the latest medical opinion about when a fetus is viable. I hope that the Committee will not be seduced by those arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who, as all noble Lords know, is a distinguished former Secretary of State, made what I think was the most important intervention in the debate. He said that it was not a responsibility that a Secretary of State should have to bear. I imagine that he was thinking personally and saying that it was not a responsibility which he as Secretary of State should like to have had or

373
which it would have been fair to have thrust on his shoulders. He cited the case of a possible Catholic Secretary of State. I agree with what he said. It should be a matter for Parliament and not for any Secretary of State of whatever religion or conscience he happens to be.
The Government's view is that such a duty as would be imposed by the noble Earl's amendment would be wholly inconsistent with the neutral role to which I referred earlier. Moreover, there are much wider constitutional implications. The amendment would place in the hands of the Executive the power to take the initiative on decisions about a highly sensitive topic on which many people, including Ministers, hold strong and conflicting views.
It is worth indicating to the Committee that, if accepted, the amendment would place a significant burden on the Secretary of State of the day. In deciding even after those detailed consultations which the amendments envisage on the appropriate time-limit, it would ask of him to exercise the judgment of Solomon. Because of its sensitive nature, people who felt strongly that a change in the time-limit was needed would continue to press, perhaps even annually, for an amending order. The subject would be for ever on his desk. Surely abortion time-limits are too important an issue for Parliament to delegate to the initiative of an individual Secretary of State and his conscience.
The Government's line on abortion—and this is true of previous governments—has always been one of neutrality. Speaking from the Dispatch Box, I cannot give my own views on abortion. They are irrelevant. The Government must remain neutral. To accept the amendment would be a denial of that neutrality. For the Government to do anything other than resist, although I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, would be an abnegation of that neutrality. I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of I lalsbury: I do not know that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment as opposed to testing the opinion of the Committee. I should like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made. I am not sure that I understand the question of the Henry VIII procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is a historian and I am not.
We should discriminate clearly between advice, judgment and decision. The decision lies with the other place and with this place on an affirmative order. The judgment as to whether to put it forward is that of the Minister in the hope that he will get it through. The advice that he receives is advice from anyone who likes to give it to him. There is a common law right intrinsic in the subject to be advised by whomever one pleases. The responsibility for taking that advice is one's own. The Bill merely provides that there are certain statutory persons from whom one must take advice. That can include advice from other people. Then there is the question of whether the advice that they give him will be published. Why should it not be published? They can publish at their pleasure. There is no need for a statutory obligation on the Minister to publish the
374
advice that he is given. The advisers can do that for themselves. They all have publishing facilities.
I now turn to a most extraordinary assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, which was denied by his noble friend; namely, that Catholics would behave in a manner totally implausible from the standpoint of what they believe. Can one imagine a Catholic doing other than rejoice at being able to lower the limit at which an abortion becomes legal? It seems to me that the attribution of a kind of blocking action to a Catholic Minister of State is complete nonsense.
Lord Ennals: I was implying that it was an intolerable burden to place on any Secretary of State and particularly on a Catholic Secretary of State.
The Earl of Halsbury: I come now to a very sensitive area. The arguments to which I have listened deny that a Secretary of State is a man as opposed to a milksop and on the battlefield when the political bullets begin humming he will put his tail between his legs and run away. Added to that, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that he had been a Secretary of State and should know. Well, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe that it is true of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I do not believe that it is true of the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, and though he tries to make me believe it is true, I still do not.
Behind all this discussion is a very simple proposition: legislation is a batch process. Noble Lords will know what I mean by a batch process as opposed to a continuous process. Typical of a batch process is an Irish stew. One begins it, puts it in one pot, finishes it and then eats it. A continuous process is like an oil refinery. Crude oil goes in at one end in a continuous stream and refined oil comes out at the other end. That is a continuous process.
Legislation is a batch process which occurs only every so often. It is now 23 years since the last successful attempt to tackle this subject. Meanwhile tempers have frayed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is indignant about the way people are behaving. However, I think that the ultimate indignity was the gross attack made on Sir Bernard Braine, the Father of the House of Commons, a few nights ago by pro-abortion hooligans who beat him up after he had addressed a meeting. We do not want to descend to that level.
Legislation is a batch process. We only do it every quarter of a century on any one subject. I am trying to enable the Secretary of State to catch up with the continuous process of the advance of medical techniques on the scientific front. That will go on continuously. There will always be an advancing front of medical knowledge and skill whereon parliamentary legislation lags behind by anything up to a quarter of a century.
This Bill, fortified by my amendment —and I must add my grateful thanks to my noble friend for the valiant way in which he stood up and supported it—achieves what I think is necessary. I have had support for it from both sides of the Committee

375
and disagreement with it from both sides of the Chamber. There is therefore only one solution. Notwithstanding the hour, I shall test the opinion of the House.
9.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Beaverbrook, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Buckmaster, V.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Craigmyle, L.

Northfield, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dormer, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jeger, B.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boardman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Borthwick, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carter, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Roskill, L.

Flowers, L.

Russell, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seear, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Walpole, L.

Henley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.40 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out line 21 and insert—
("(3) The principal Act and this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: I shall not press an amendment of this importance at this hour. Indeed I have no mandate to speak for Northern Ireland. But I am aware of the distress in Northern Ireland caused by exclusion from the benefits of the Abortion Act 1967. We so easily say "this Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland". We overlook that it is part of the United Kingdom and that unless there is very good reason to the contrary it should have the benefit of the laws that apply to the United Kingdom.
I have before me a whole book about the problems in Northern Ireland. It is time that its problems were ventilated. I remind the Committee that 15,500 foreigners come to Britain for an abortion. Of those 35 per cent, come from Ireland; 1,800 from Northern Ireland and nearly 4,000 from the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland and Belgium are the only two countries in Europe without abortion laws. Belgium is in the course of changing its position of completely banning all abortions. The Republic of Ireland is not. It has written an anti-abortion clause into its constitution. But Northern Ireland receives a kind of reflex action from the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is a country of one God and two faiths; and a nice mess it all is.
It is deplorable that 1,800 women from Northern Ireland have to go to the expense of coming here, paying their fares and paying for accommodation when they get here. Many of them no doubt go into private clinics because they cannot be here long enough to go into National Health Service hospitals. This burden is put upon women who are in great distress, or they would not undertake this kind of hardship. I believe that Parliament should take rather more notice of the consequences of the abolition of a degree of self-government in Northern Ireland and government by regulation with no democratic processes. We all know about the difficulties there.
However, I am somewhat encouraged by correspondence which has taken place between the Department of Health and a friend of mine. It seems that if there is a significant shift in public opinion in Northern Ireland, the Government would respond to that. It may be that there are difficulties in public opinion expressing itself in Northern Ireland on this matter.
By this brief reference to Northern Ireland I believe that we should encourage those who feel that a change should be made to lift up their voices and impress upon the authorities that some alteration in their plight should take place. I shall not distress the Committee or take up further time by going into the details about the position in Northern Ireland. Members of the Committee know the situation as well as I do, and know of the conflicts, bigotry and all the sad occurrences which we so deplore and which have been going on for such a long time and for which there seems to be little prospect of an end in sight. It is quite shocking that we must have that as part of the United Kingdom and exclude from Northern Ireland benefits which have been given elsewhere.
That is all I have to say. There is a hope that the Minister is waiting for sufficient signs of desire for change to try and set that in motion. Therefore, I

377
hope that this brief reference to Northern Ireland will encourage women's organisations there to speak up and let their views be known. On the other hand, I believe that the Government should be ready with an outstretched hand to take advantage of overtures to debate the matter, or to try to resolve it without waiting for pressure to build up elsewhere on this subject.
Therefore, I beg to move this amendment only for the purpose of ventilating this little plea on behalf of the women in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will make a sufficiently favourable reply to enable me to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am very happy to support this amendment. I believe that the closer Northern Ireland is integrated into the rest of the United Kingdom, the better for all concerned. Quite apart from that, it goes without saying that no woman, in consequence of amendment being agreed to, will be forced into having an abortion against her will. Those, whatever their religious faith may be, who oppose abortion in principle will continue to spurn abortions no matter what the law might be, as is their privilege.
On the other hand, those who happen to feel a greater affinity with the more liberal ethos prevailing on the British mainland would at last be in a position to avail themselves of an abortion in the unhappy event of medical or other circumstances making that desirable.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene in this debate—I am not sure whether it is the beginning or the end. For the record, the Abortion Act 1967 which legalised abortion under certain circumstances does not, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, extend to Northern Ireland. The provisions of that Act were not originally introduced in Northern Ireland because the Government considered the reform of social law in the Province to be a matter for the devolved Government at Stormont where views on these matters sometimes differed from those of Members of Parliament at Westminster. I am advised that no elected Northern Ireland politician has ever called for changes in the Northern Ireland abortion law.
Successive governments have taken the view that any legislation on abortion in Northern Ireland should be determined only after full consultation with the people of Northern Ireland themselves. If necessary, such consultation would be likely to take the form of the issue of a consultative document containing proposals for legislative change to political parties, other bodies representing the public (such as the local district councils), the main churches, relevant medical, nursing and professional bodies and all known interested organisations and groups in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the issue of health matters is available for legislation by a devolved administration. Imposing Great Britain's legislation
378
in this field on Northern Ireland, especially without any local consultation, would be most unusual.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman made a very powerful case. I listened to it with a great deal of interest. I take the point about no Northern Ireland politician having called for this, but my noble kinsman has imposed a very exhaustive process of consultation, slightly more exhaustive, if I may say so, than has usually been asked for by the Government. Perhaps I may ask my noble kinsman this: if the elected representatives of Northern Ireland at Westminster were to ask him for change, would he consider the possibility of accepting what they ask?
Lord Henley: On the spur of the moment I am not sure how I should answer that question. I am sure that if the elected representatives of Northern Ireland raised this matter it would be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Monson: Does the issue rest entirely with elected representatives? Will the Government on their own initiative start a process of consulting public opinion? That is what matters.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that it would be for the Government to start the process of consultation, but if one felt that this was the view of the Northern Ireland people, the Northern Ireland elected representatives and all the other bodies I mentioned, certainly it would be something to be taken into consideration.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I did not expect very much more than we got. I fully understand that we could do with a little more eruption in Northern Ireland on this question and then notice will be taken of it. Why so much liberal opinion in Northern Ireland is suppressed is difficult to understand, but there is an ethos about Northern Ireland which I am sure would be very unpleasant for many of us, and they are probably suffering from it in matters of this kind.
I agree that it is very difficult for the Government in present circumstances to impose, as it were, the abortion law on Northern Ireland if there is strong resistance to it. I must admit also that in such opportunities as there have been for wider representation on this subject, the results have been extraordinarily poor from the woman's point of view. We can only conclude, therefore, that there is something very peculiar about Northern Ireland. We shall have to wait until it becomes a little more rational and a little more open minded on this matter.
Very shortly the Republic of Ireland will be the only member of the EC without an abortion law and Northern Ireland will have the disadvantage of being next-door neighbours and will presumably be an oddity in European affairs. It will be part of a member of the EC not having any abortion facilities, the other part having fairly civilised schemes. However, I can do no more than beg leave to

379
withdraw the amendment and hope that this starts a little spark of fresh activity somewhere which may bear fruit in due course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL: IMMIGRATION CONTROLS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: IMMIGRATION CONTROLS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: CUSTOMS CHECKS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: CUSTOMS CHECKS
  CHRISTMAS BONUS
  CHRISTMAS BONUS