Sitting of 8 January 1990

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

  ISLE OF WIGHT BILL
  Orders for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered on Thursday.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Orders for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    AIDS
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made to the social fund since its inception for loans and grants by people with AIDS; and how many of these have been refused.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am afraid that the information requested is not available. Applications for social fund payments are quite properly not required to give any information about their medical condition, and thus data on the number of applications from people suffering from a particular medical condition is not collected.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Government accept that the social fund has been a social disaster for the poor? Is the Minister aware that people with AIDS are among those who are suffering most as a result of the abolition in April 1988 of the weekly additions and special payments?
    Mr. Scott: The Government have demonstrated their concern for AIDS sufferers and the terminally ill by announcing the intention to extend entitlement to attendance allowance. Far from being a failure, the social fund has been a success because of the help that it has given at the margins of the social security system to those most in need of help. It is certainly a great deal better than the system that it replaced.
    Mr. Key: I acknowledge the work that the Government have done for AIDS sufferers. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that social security officers in local offices receive training on aspects of AIDS and how it may apply to the social fund? Will he also have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about what help prisoners on discharge receive if they leave prison HIV positive?
    Mr. Scott: I shall note those points and have a word with my right hon. and learned Friend about the matter. We seek to see that staff in our local offices are trained to deal with the range of sensitive issues with which they are presented, and I shall look at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in relation to that.
    Mr. Heffer: I recognise that the Government have moved some way in relation to AIDS sufferers, some of whom, of course, were not in any way personally responsible for what has happened to them. However, is it not scandalous that some Conservative Members have said that it was quite right for AIDS sufferers to be treated in the way that they are, when in many cases the sufferers were not personally responsible for contracting the virus? Even if it was the sufferer's fault, it is not right for them to be treated as they are and I ask the Government to have another look at the whole matter.
    Mr. Scott: Those matters are generally outwith my responsibility and are rather for health Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the first

    691
    tranche of money for the Macfarlane Trust for haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS, and recently an extra £19 million has been provided for that trust.
    Sir George Young: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a welcome transformation over the past few years of the public's attitude to AIDS sufferers which has moved from ignorance and prejudice towards sympathy and understanding? The Government should take some credit for that. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, through his Department, that where possible his local offices give help promptly to AIDS sufferers so that they do not have to wait unduly for any assistance that is available to them?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about the public's attitude and I welcome that, as he has. The removal of the six-month waiting limit for the terminally ill is a significant move towards meeting my hon. Friend's second point.

    Pensioners (Charter)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with pensioners' representatives to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): While I am not aware of any current request for such a meeting, our policies will continue to reflect our concern with pensioners' needs—as was clearly shown, for example, by the extra help given last October to some 2·5 million of the disabled or older pensioners who are least well off.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, and a lot of those people have written to hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, to tell them that they did not get a penny piece out of those so-called improvements. Why does not the Secretary of State do something about the pensioners' charter? There is all this waffle and talk about the social charter. Let us give the pensioners a square deal by abolishing standing charges and introducing concessionary fares for all pensioners. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not repay the £12 a week that has been stolen from every single pensioner in the land by this Tory Government in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Newton: Many hon. Members will recognise that what most effectively damages pensioners is a roaring rate of inflation such as we had during the latter part of the 1970s. Opposition Members cannot disguise the extent to which pensioners' average real incomes have risen faster under this Government than under the previous Labour Government, principally because the rate of inflation has been so much lower.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does not the Secretary of State understand the bitter resentment felt by so many pensioners at the way in which they are treated? Is it not the case that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings—an arrangement which was discontinued in 1980—married pensioners would be almost £21 a week
    692
    better off and single pensioners £13 a week better off next April? Why should Britain's pensioners be among the poorest in the Common Market?
    Mr. Newton: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition for reasons that relate to the absurd experience of what happened when the previous Labour Government pursued those policies. At the same time, and partly as a result of those policies, they generated a rate of inflation which seriously damaged pensioners and which meant that their incomes rose less fast in real terms than they have under the present Government.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned that point. Many retired people in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends face difficulty, because they thought that they had made provision for their retirement through savings or modest occupational pension schemes. They found that inflation in the 1970s, under a Labour Government who could not even keep the promises that they made to pensioners, destroyed those savings. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts to ensure that pensioners, particularly those in need, continue to receive better benefits.
    Mr Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His point is encapsulated in the fact, which is becoming increasingly well known, that whereas pensioners' income from savings has risen by 64 per cent. under the present Government, it fell by 16 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. Not all pensioners have the advantage of having savings. It is precisely for that reason that last October we directed so much additional help to the older and more disabled pensioners who are least well off.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reach retirement age, they will be entitled, like the majority of people who have employment pensions provided for them, to a generous pension? Does he agree that by concentrating some £200 million last October on the poorer pensioners, the Government are tackling the problem the right way rather than trying to give everyone, including the fairly well off, a much smaller amount?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for the way in which he put his point.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State mentioned his genuine concern for pensioners. Does he accept that many elderly and handicapped people still face the choice between heating and eating? Would not one way forward be for the Government to provide an allowance for the heating needs of the elderly during the winter months rather than rely on the strange system that we have now, which does not have a good level of uptake?
    Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten that when the changes were made to the old supplementary benefit system and when the current income support system was introduced, the value of heating additions was much reflected in the premiums paid to precisely those groups of pensioners about which she is rightly concerned. In other words, they are reflected in the regular weekly payment of benefit in the form of premiums for pensioners and disabled people.
    Mr. Meacher: Why is it that the 2 million poorest pensioners who depend solely on state benefits have had a zero real increase in their pensions under this Government in the Thatcher decade, while the parliamentary pay of Cabinet Ministers has been increased in real terms by no less than 79 per cent? Why is it that Cabinet Ministers have looked after themselves so handsomely, while reneging on their commitment to enable the poorest of pensioners to keep pace with rising living standards?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment the way in which the hon. Gentleman advanced his argument. He knows well that we have adhered faithfully to our commitment to increase the basic retirement pension in line with prices year in, year out, and we shall do it again next April. As I have said at least twice in this exchange, we acted last October to give significant extra help to about 2·5 million of the older and more disabled pensioners who are least well off. That reflects our concern and determination to continue doing whatever we can to help.

    Unmarried Mothers
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the level of social security payments made to unmarried mothers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): At May 1988, the annual cost of income support for families headed by an unmarried lone mother was estimated to be about £700 million. Information by marital status on other benefits paid to those families is not available.
    Mr. Favell: Has my hon. Friend anything to say about recent newspaper reports that payments to single mothers are now in excess of £1,000 million? The traditional family has no resentment when it comes to maintaining mothers who have been deserted by their husbands or treated badly by them, but what of those who leave their husbands for no good reason? What about those who have never been married, who have children? Is it not true that a young woman having a baby need not work until the child is 16 years of age, is entitled to free council housing accommodation, and costs other people about £70,000 to bring up her child until the age of 16?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government are concerned about the increasing numbers of lone-parent families, including unmarried mothers, and their reliance on benefit. We are constantly examining the benefit arrangements for them and those for other groups. It is important that the benefit system should not create incentives for lone parenthood or for dependence on benefits, but it should provide support for those who are in need. Of course, fathers should pay maintenance for their children, whether or not they are married to their mothers. The Department takes action to try to secure maintenance and it is considering actively how to make its procedures more effective. I remind my hon. Friend that decisions on maintenance payments are made by the courts.
    Mr. Frank Field: Why do the Government continue to stir up apathy on this issue? Are the Government aware that the proportion of young single mothers drawing benefit who gain help from the fathers has halved during the past 10 years? When will the Government bring
    694
    forward new plans for the House to discuss, so that mothers can make over maintenance orders to the state, with the state taking responsibility for collecting the money and paying it regularly, weekly or monthly, if the mothers want that? When are we to hear about plans on those lines? They would reinforce parental responsibilities and increase the freedom of single mothers.
    Mrs. Shephard: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting contribution to the debate. He is, at least partly, describing what is happening in Australia. The findings from a recent visit to Australia are being closely studied by my Department. I repeat that the Department is continuing actively to review how to make its own recovery of maintenance payments from fathers more effective. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Department has commissioned some independent research, involving lone parents who are served by 44 local offices, to examine the motivations and perceptions of lone parents. When the research is completed, the results will he fully examined.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend consider taking as many increased powers as may be necessary to pursue fathers through the courts and, if necessary, genetic testing to prove paternity where there is doubt?
    Mrs. Shephard: The measures that my hon. Friend describes are more suitable for consideration by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    Ms. Short: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not adopt a punitive attitude to lone parents? After all, a significant number of the members of the Cabinet have created lone parents themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is true. We heard the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), and Conservative Members should not have double standards. Is the Minister aware that the number of parents dependent on benefit has grown under the present Government because their benefits policies and cuts have created many poverty traps? Many lone parents cannot take a job because that would reduce their income. Is not the answer to restore child benefit to a proper level, to implement a national minimum wage and to allow lone parents to offset child care costs when they want to work? The Government are trapping lone parents into dependency on benefit, which is not what those parents want—and it should not be allowed.
    Mrs. Shephard: Nothing that I have said in reply to questions so far has suggested that the Department wants to take a punitive attitude towards lone parents. It simply does not want to create perverse incentives. I remind the hon. Lady that incentives for lone parents to work already exist within the benefits system. There is an earnings disregard within income support, the same adult credit is given for single lone parents as for couples in family credit. and an increase in the housing benefit earnings disregard from £15 to £25 was recently announced.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that many of my married constituents who pay to bring up their own children resent additional taxation to pay for bringing up other people's children? Can she state the amount of subsidy to local authorities through the rate support system because of the number of unmarried mothers in their areas? That situation is highlighted in my

    695
    constituency, where Middlesbrough council receives millions of pounds more than Langbaurgh council, solely because of the number of one-parent families that Middlesbrough must support.
    Mrs. Shephard: I have already mentioned the Government's concern at the increasing number of all lone-parent families. Matters relating to the rate support grant are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cash limit for social fund loans and grants from Department of Social Security offices at Finsbury park and Highgate for 1989–90 and the amount expended by 18 December in the current year.
    Mr. Scott: Information on social fund allocations to local offices is placed in the Library. Finsbury park and Highgate are included. That information is updated monthly.
    Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has not given much information that would be of help to anyone. Why is it that in the case of Finsbury park social security office, of the 139 applications for community care made grants during December, 31 were allowed but 61—nearly half—were disallowed, and the remainder carried forward to the next month? That has been happening month after month in the two offices named in my question. Will the Minister put a stop to the practice of carrying forward applications from one month to another so that applicants have to wait longer and longer for desperately needed community care grants? No increase in the cash limit is made available the following year, so in reality the amount of money available for grants to people in my area, as in many other areas of inner London, decreases year on year. People desperately in need of community care grants cannot obtain them, and they suffer as a consequence.
    Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will avail himself of the information that has been placed in the Library to help all right hon. and hon. Members assess the situation at their local social security offices. Some applications in any local office will inevitably slip from one month to the next if they are made late in the month. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his supplementary question that an extra £3 million was allocated recently to some local offices under particular pressure. Highgate office was one of the beneficiaries.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether anyone has applied for a social fund loan at the Finsbury park office, who has contracted AIDS as a result of an operation or a blood transfusion, but who is not a haemophiliac? If so, will he put those people into the same category as haemophiliacs, and ensure that they receive the welcome assistance that is now being given to haemophiliacs?
    Mr. Scott: I suspect that my hon. Friend will not expect me to know whether there are such applications at the Finsbury office, but I shall consider the matter that she raised.
    Mr. Frank Field: Would not the position in Finsbury park, Highgate and other offices be massively improved if the Government allowed local offices, as they collect back loans, to keep them to add to the social fund?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, the rate of recovery of money from loans affects the national kitty, and resources available nationally. The allocation to local offices is best met by an assessment by us, at the centre, the likely burden, and of the level of need in the local area. I should be reluctant to link the rate of recovery specifically to the resources available in local offices, as that might not reflect the level of need as well as the present system of allocation does.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received supporting the decision not to uprate child benefit in the coming year.
    Mr. Newton: Twenty six.
    Mr. Knox: The decision not to uprate child benefit does not appear to be terribly popular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the low take-up of means-tested benefits compared to child benefit, the freezing of child benefit for a three-year period hits poorer families particularly hard?
    Mr. Newton: No, I do not agree with that. It is well known that, because of the way in which the system works, an increase in child benefit does nothing for the least well-off families and for those on income-related benefits. What we have been able to do with some of the resources made available is to improve the benefit for the least well off, and for families that includes a quarter of the nation's children. We must recognise that no conceivable increase in child benefit could do as much for low-income families who are in work as family credit now does.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that he was one of the supporters of child benefit? What has changed? How can he come to the Dispatch Box now and defend the freezing of child benefit?
    Mr. Newton: The question whether one is a supporter of child benefit is different from the question whether to increase child benefit as opposed to the other steps that could be taken with the money available. What I was able to do, as I set out in the uprating statement, was to give far more help to the least well-off families than an increase in child benefit would have done, and it did far more for disabled people and families with disabled children.
    Mr. Rathbone: I applaud my right hon. Friend's intention to help the least well off. Will he assure the House that more than 50 per cent. of those who are due to receive benefits under the new system are getting them?
    Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that the take-up campaign that we waged last spring was extremely effective in raising the number of people receiving family credit, and I welcome that. The number increased by some 40,000 to about 320,000, and we are currently running a further advertising campaign, which I hope will contribute to making the benefit as effective as we would like it to be.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept that child benefit is a universal benefit, with almost 100 per

    697
    cent. take-up, and that it is paid to the mother? It is often the only income that she has to herself, of right. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say, even at this late stage, that he was wrong to cave in to the Prime Minister's Victorian attitude, and that he will uprate child benefit?
    Mr. Newton: Family credit is also normally paid to the mother. The average payment of family credit is now £25 or £26 a week, and over a third of the payments are more than £30 a week. There is no doubt that family credit does more for low-income families in work than child benefit could.

    Centenarians
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of sending greetings telegrams to centenarians in 1988, 11 and 16 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to say that in 1988 the Department sent a total of 2,142 telemessages to centenarians at an estimated cost of about £11 each. The cost includes the message itself and local and national staffing costs. The cost of sending telegrams in 1972 and 1977 is not readily available; however, 1,283 were sent in 1972 and 1,510 in 1977.
    Mr. Greenway: As centenarians already receive a telegram from the Queen, will my hon. Friend gladden that special day in the lives of those who achieve their century by offering them a choice between the departmental telegram, a certificate of age, a bottle of champagne, whisky, brandy or parsnip wine and a tin of House of Commons fudge?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend lent a happy note to this first Question Time of the New Year. Today is the birthday of seven centenarians, and given his obvious good spirits my hon. Friend will no doubt wish to join me in congratulating them. As for his specific suggestions, may I make a positive suggestion to him? If I give him the names and addresses of those seven centenarians, he may wish to conduct a straw poll to establish whether they would prefer a certificate of age, a bottle of whisky or brandy or—in particular—some House of Commons fudge!
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Declare your interest."] Yes, I declare my interest. I am retiring at the next general election, but that is another matter.
    I ask the Minister to ignore the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway): all that he is on about is grabbing money. The people who receive the telegrams are entitled to them. The hon. Gentleman should be pointing out that the welfare state, is responsible for the fact that people are living longer. That lot over there are trying to destroy the welfare state, but when we are sitting where they are we shall put that right, and defend it.
    Mrs. Shephard: Let me merely say to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his customary interesting intervention, that the increase in the number of congratulatory telemessages speaks for itself, demonstrating the Thatcher achievements in welfare.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that the oldest person in Britain lives in my constituency. She is 112½, and has received more telegrams than anyone else; she enjoys
    698
    and looks forward to receiving them. May I suggest that my hon. Friend does as I do, and takes her a bottle of whisky every time she has a birthday?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will take the advice of his hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wilson: As there is a precedent for the Department of Social Security to send people telegrams on special days in their lives, will the Minister consider extending the principle to those who reach their 16th birthdays without jobs, YTS places or entitlement to social security benefit? Will she consider the report published today by the Family Policies Study Centre, which has found independently that many of those youngsters face destitution because of the Government's evil decision to withdraw benefit entitlement? Will the Government please repent of that decision, which is causing poverty and hardship for so many 16 and 17-year-olds on the streets of our cities?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in asking such a supplementary to a question about centenarians. I remind him that there is no need for any 16 or 17-year-old to be without income: each and every one is entitled to a YTS place and the accompanying payment.

    Couples (Benefits)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the financial effect on couples who live apart for employment or educational reasons, of their treatment under the income support, family credit or housing benefit regulations as if they were living together.
    Mr. Newton: The financial effect on individual couples will vary according to individual circumstances. As a general rule, as long as both partners normally live in the household, temporary absences are ignored for the purposes of entitlement to income-related benefits.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a small minority of cases the rule that he has just outlined may lead to one family having two sets of living expenses that often have to be paid for out of one set of benefits? A reduction in a particular benefit can bring that family way below the poverty line, purely because one member of the family has decided to seek training or education as a means of bettering himself or herself.
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right about training and education. There are special housing benefit arrangements for couples who have to live apart because one of the partners is a student or is on a training course. In those circumstances, housing benefit can be paid for an unlimited period for both homes.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State accept that there are some anomalies? If one of the partners has to undergo education or training in order to try to return to employment, on many occasions the couple loses money. Will he undertake to examine the anomalies and ensure that that deterrent to either party returning to education or training is ended and that they do not lose money?
    Mr. Newton: I have already referred to one aspect of the way in which the system seeks to take account of that kind

    699
    of problem. The hon. Gentleman has made his point fairly and reasonably. I accept that this is a difficult area. These cases are relatively rare and the circumstances can be quite complicated. If there is a particular case that the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to my attention, I shall certainly have a look at it.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of social fund loans and grant applications in Department of Social Security offices in London.
    Mr. Scott: The latest information available is for November. In London as a whole, 8,500 applications were brought forward as uncleared from October. These were made up of 2,400 community care grant applications and 6,100 budgeting loan applications. There were no outstanding crisis loan applications.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister surely knows that the Government are saving a vast amount of money under the new system, as opposed to the old single payments system. It is totally unacceptable that such a backlog should be allowed to develop. Will he please look again at the possibility of introducing more flexibility into the system as a whole? It is ludicrous that certain offices underspend their social fund budget, although applications are outstanding. As that money cannot be carried over to the next financial year, it is lost. There should be some means of transferring money between offices so as to match overspend and underspend. I ask the Minister to look again at the system to see what flexibility can be introduced.
    Mr. Scott: We do, of course, monitor very carefully the social fund. It is worth pointing out that the figure that I gave to the hon. Gentleman means that, on average, 35 community care grant applications and 97 loan applications in London's local offices were carried forward. If one bears in mind that in the case of some of those loan applications the client or the applicant had already been offered a loan but had not yet accepted it, that is not too bad a record in all the circumstances. However, as I have already said, we monitor the social fund very carefully.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister look carefully at the report that has been sent to him by the leader of Southwark council—a report which received all-party support in Southwark—requesting a meeting but highlighting cases where loans had been requested but grants had been refused? Is not the system far too inflexible? Many people are turned away when they are totally impecunious. They are told that they cannot have money for a cooker, or furnishings and the rest, so they keep on coming back, hoping, believing and expecting that there must be something in the system that will provide them with the money with which to survive. At the moment, much of the delay is caused because people have to return for money since they have none, on account of the system not allowing them to have grants when they need them.
    Mr. Scott: The vast majority of refusals under the social fund are because the applicants do not meet the basic eligibility criteria. Under 10 per cent. of the refusals relate
    700
    to insufficient priority being accorded to the application; less than 2 per cent. of refusals are because it is judged that the individual cannot pay. In those circumstances, money, advice or other guidance is given to the individual concerned. I shall of course look carefully at what Southwark is sending me, but it is worth saying that in 218,000 cases where loans have been refused, community care grants have been given instead. However, those loan refusal cases are still included in the statistics.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the independent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which says that 49 per cent. of pensioners' applications to the social fund were refused and that the applications of up to 80 per cent. of young persons and unemployed people were refused? Is he further aware that among those refused was a young woman who was due to have a baby in two days' time? She was refused a grant for a bed on the excuse that she could sleep on the floor, a disabled couple were refused a grant for a cooker on the ground that they could eat out, and a crisis loan was refused to a young man on the ground that he could eat out in soup kitchens? Is this a success?
    Mr. Scott: I shall study with interest what NACAB has produced. The report was a small snapshot of a limited number of people who have been in touch with citizens advice bureaux. Moreover, the survey was taken in the first year of the social fund's operation, which I do not believe is typical of its operation since then. Our figures suggest that, far from 55 per cent. of applications being refused, 39 per cent. are refused. That compares favourably with the level of refusals which were 42 per cent. in the last year of the single payments scheme.

    Social Security Offices (Sussex)
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about staffing levels in local social security offices in Sussex.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Staffing levels in local social security offices in the Department are calculated using an agreed complementing system which aims to match staffing to work load. Under the system, staffing resources are allocated to regional offices where local circumstances are taken into account before these resources are distributed individually to local officers.
    Mr. Rathbone: I appreciate the existence of that formula, but is my hon. Friend aware that, too often, too little attention is paid to the difficulties confronted by staff in local offices who have to introduce new benefits, use new methods, co-ordinate with local government and overcome difficulties with upgrading their offices? Can she build into the equation a greater appreciation of that, and the need to delegate to managers so that they can manage more effectively?
    Mrs. Shephard: There have been difficulties at the Lewes local office during the year. Additional help in the form of casual staff, overtime, regional reserves and staff on detached duty has been made available to offset the shortfall. A new complementing system is to be introduced in April 1990. It will take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend, by being more sensitive to local office needs and taking account of local circumstances. I remind my

    701
    hon. Friend that an additional £25 million was made available during the year to help local offices with their increased workload.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Company Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss company fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I shall meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General discuss with the director the Ferranti case and the fact that the directors allowed a £250 million sting to take place right under their noses? Does the Attorney-General expect us to believe that that happened without any fraud being involved?
    Will the Attorney-General also discuss with the director the £4,000 that went through the checkout that resulted in a young mother and her baby finishing up in prison for six months? If the Attorney-General wants some equality in Britain, why does he not take Judge Pickles off cases involving young black women and their babies and stick him on City cases and let him loose there?
    The Attorney-General: With his well-known concern not to anticipate any inquiry by jumping to a conclusion, the hon. Gentleman would not want me to anticipate the result of an investigation that has been put in train by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions into matters which, among other things, are connected with Ferranti, to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend at all concerned about the rather extraordinary delay in the inquiries being made by the Serious Fraud Office into matters raised by the House of Fraser report?
    Is he worried about the Department of Trade and Industry's decision not to refer that unpublished report to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which means that even if serious fraud is identified and proved, there is nothing that he or anyone else can do about that company's assets?
    The Attorney-General: The previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the other place that he was very anxious to publish the report. I am certain that exactly the same is true of his successor. Equally, however, my hon. Friend will know of the affidavit evidence sworn by the two directors of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecution to the effect that they believed that the interests of justice required that publication of the report should be held up pending investigations which are in train. The investigations have not been limited to this country but have had to take place overseas. It is my earnest hope that they will be completed shortly and a decision taken as to their publication.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Attorney-General aware that if a small-time punter provides false information to obtain a loan or a job, a charge of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception will often result? What is the difference in
    702
    principle between that and giving false information to the European Commission to get a merger clearance for BL, except that the pecuniary advantage is much greater and will he be asking the director of the Serious Fraud Office to look into that?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that most uncharacteristically the hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he and his Department will be happy to answer any questions from the Commission about the sale of the Government shareholding in the Rover group. Discussions at an official level are continuing.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of legal aid payments in the current financial year; and how much was paid (a) five and (b) 10 years ago.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The provision for all legal aid expenditure in the current Supply Estimates is £557 million. Five years ago expenditure was £273 million and 10 years ago it was £99 million.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department on that substantial increase. Can he confirm that many more poor people are covered in legal cases by that increased expenditure, and can he explain why solicitors' and lawyers' charges are so high? Why did the cost of the Aldington case come to £1 million?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition, which deserved to be more widely understood, of the large increases in the money made available for legal aid in the past 10 years. Referring to the costs in legal aid cases, the fees paid to solicitors and lawyers vary on a scale appropriate to the weight and experience necessary for the lawyer or lawyers dealing with the case in question. The Aldington case, which was an unusual case, was a libel case and legal aid is not available for libel. However, the number of people receiving help from legal aid in the past 10 years, judged by the number of legal aid applications granted, has risen from fewer than 200,000 in 1979–80 to some 259,000 this year.
    Mr. McFall: Notwithstanding the figures that the Solicitor-General has just given, compared with 10 years ago legal aid is now available to 14 million fewer people. Poor people have been discriminated against. The less money they have the less chance they have of obtaining justice. That is the situation we are facing in 1990.
    The Solicitor-General: No. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's assumptions are correct, although I know where they come from. He will also have recognised and no doubt welcomed the announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor providing extra availability of legal aid, particularly in personal injury cases and cases involving children and pensioners which are likely to increase the numbers by up to 10 million people.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is also considerable disquiet about the

    703
    working of the scheme among the legal profession—in which of course I declare an interest—particularly about the rate of remuneration for legal aid? The delays in payment and the circumstances in which it is granted are resulting in a reduction in the number of solicitors who are willing to carry out legal aid work. Will he consider what effect that is likely to have on the Government's commitment to improved access to the legal system for poorer people in society?
    The Solicitor-General: Over the past year and a half, I have been made well aware of the concerns about the matters that my hon. and learned Friend raised. He will recognise that considerable advances have been made in improving rates of remuneration. The Legal Aid Board is urgently tackling the question of promptness of payment and the other administrative matters which are important if legal aid is to be given effectively.

    Security Services
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he was consulted over the publication of the book relating to the security services written by Mr. John Day.
    The Attorney-General: I understand that Mr. Day, in accordance with his duty, sought and obtained authority to publish his book.
    Mr. Winnick: Will not Mr. John Day, who is a former senior official of M15, recommend in his book independent oversight of the security services along lines that have been repeatedly rejected by the Government? Is the Attorney-General aware that we should at least be pleased that, unlike the Wright farce, there will be no objection to Mr. Day publishing his book, and that hence there will be a considerable saving to public funds?
    The Attorney-General: I have not read Mr. Day's book, but any question on the oversight of the security services should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's description of the proceedings brought by the Government on the publication of Mr. Wright's book, "Spycatcher". I recommend that he reads a note written by Professor Birks of Oxford university in the current edition of the Law Quarterly Review, in which he describes the "battle", as he put it, to suppress the book as one in which the Government were victorious on all points of principle.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General when he next meets the director of the Serious Fraud Office, what matters he will discuss.
    The Attorney-General: Matters of departmental interest, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Attorney-General for his most courteous letter in answer to my request that Law Officers might help hon. Members serving on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. Will he reflect on the position of Coopers and Lybrand and discuss with the Serious Fraud Office whether some of those who have been commissioned to write a report for the Government should become involved in a potential management
    704
    buy-out of the Crown Suppliers? Is that not terribly near to insider trading, and should not the Attorney-General's Office consider the ethics involved?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the kind words with which the hon. Gentleman began his supplementary question. Matters concerning insider dealing are, in the first instance, for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose Department is the prosecuting Department for the offence known as insider dealing. I shall consider the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Cambodia
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on multilateral and bilateral aid to Cambodia.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Following the very useful visit of two British officials to Cambodia in December, I have decided to provide a further £1 million to multilateral agencies for their programmes inside Cambodia in 1990–91. There has been a further meeting with non-governmental organisations' representatives in London to discuss new project proposals, and I have let the Voluntary Service Overseas know that we should be happy to support the opening of a volunteer programme in Cambodia.
    Mr. Strang: Can the Minister be sure that that aid will not go indirectly to the Khmer Rouge? There is growing concern among hon. Members about the escalating war in Cambodia. Do not recent statements by the non-Communist factions of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea make it clear that they are now fighting in collaboration with the Khmer Rouge? Is it not, therefore, high time that the Government ceased all direct aid to the non-Communist resistance if they are to comply with their declared policy of giving no aid directly or indirectly to the Khmer Rouge?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been given repeated assurances by the United Nations Border Relief Organisation that British aid is not being used by the Khmer Rouge. In the light of recent events, I again sought and received confirmation of the position from UNBRO. I join the hon. Gentleman in his concern about the war and the reported happenings over the past few days. We want to see a political solution and free elections, and we are working for that with the interested parties, especially the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. There is such confusion at times about what the three aspects of the resistance movement are saying that I do not feel that I can respond to the hon. Gentleman's last question, but he can be in no doubt that we will not give, have not given and have no intention of giving any support to the Khmer Rouge.
    Mr. Lester: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt response to the report by the two diplomats who visited Phnom Penh and on the provision of the extra £1 million. I beg her to use her considerable influence with her colleagues in the Foreign Office to continue to search for

    705
    a solution to the war. There is no point in an enlarged programme for Cambodia unless the war ends. We read in today's newspapers of the bombardment of Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. There is a desperate need for a new road from Phnom Penh to Battambang, but there is no point in constructing it until the war ends. Will my right hon. Friend use her influence with the Security Council to achieve that end?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend that unless a lasting political solution is found, there is no way in which the aid, which we will willingly give, can be properly used for the benefit of the people. We will continue the efforts that we have been making in recent months.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I welcome the Minister's announcement of additional aid to Cambodia. Does she recognise the widespread concern of the British people on the issue of Cambodia and Government policy? Is she aware that a petition was handed in today at the Foreign Office by Oxfam supporters and an all-party delegation which voiced their worry and asked the Government to reconsider their policy? We all agree that a political solution should be found. Can the right hon. Lady give us a categorical assurance that United Nations Border Relief Organisation food aid, to which we all contribute, is properly monitored? She has received reports from Oxfam supporters who have seen what is happening in the Khmer Rouge camps on the Thai border. Some of that food is parcelled up by people in those camps and goes directly to the military, including the Khmer Rouge, who are fighting inside Cambodia against the Cambodian Government.
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Lady's anxiety about the potential issue which was reported to me by Frank Judd of Oxfam at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and me on 14 November. We have repeatedly gone to UNBRO for these assurances. I shall not be entirely satisfied as long as hon. Members and the British people remain concerned about this matter. I shall continue asking for assurances and do all I can to ensure that the food intended for families and ordinary people in Cambodia is not sent to the Khmer Rouge. But I am here in London—not in the camps or in Cambodia—and I cannot say hand on heart that none of the food has gone through.
    I was aware of the petition that the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) delivered this morning to the Foreign Office. One can have endless petitions, but a political solution is needed. With the help of United Nations Security Council members, I hope that we can bring that about as soon as possible.

    Commodity Prices
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy in respect of commodity prices is adopted by United Kingdom representatives to the Lomé convention.
    Mrs. Chalker: The Lomé convention has no direct role in commodity pricing, but helps commodity dependent African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries through aid for improved production and diversification. ACP
    706
    states can also get help under the Stabex scheme, if they face shortfalls in export earnings from certain agricultural products, and under the Sysmin scheme if they face shortfalls in production or earnings from a list of minerals.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the attitude of the EEC and of North American countries towards commodity prices has been a major contributory factor in the debt crisis in much of the world? Does she agree that the latest round of Lomé convention prices on exports from ACP countries has resulted in virtually the lowest real terms prices ever achieved by those countries? They are worried about the way in which they have been treated by the EEC. Is the right hon. Lady aware that exports from ACP countries to the European Community are at their lowest level for 25 years? Those countries and many of us are worried about the growing crisis faced by the poorer countries because the richer industrial countries are closing their markets to them and forcing them into debt and low commodity prices.
    Mrs. Chalker: The answer to the hon. Gentlemen's first question is no. The answer to his second is that the Lomé convention contains no provision on commodity prices or participation in international commodity agreements. The three main areas of co-operation in commodities matters in the convention are the national indicative programmes, Stabex and Sysmin and the consultations. It is through the national indicative programmes that we seek to help countries that are heavily commodity dependent. Resources for diversification, including aid for processing, marketing, distribution and transport, are considered when individual country programmes are drawn up, and that will be happening this year.
    The best way in which to help commodity-dependent countries is to enable markets to work efficiently and openly and to strengthen and restructure the countries' economies. That we are doing, not only through the EEC but directly.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How on earth can it help to have economies working more openly when the EEC is spending £220 million every week simply destroying food and dumping it at crazy low prices, with the sole consequence of spreading death, starvation and destruction throughout the Third world? Given her responsibilily for overseas development, will the Minister make it abundantly clear that she will do everything in her power to fight against this dreadful policy of dumping food on the Third world at crazy low prices and spending lots of our taxpayers' money on dumping high-tar tobacco in places such as Africa, which in my view, is an affront to the civilised world.
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows that I have always been against subsidising the overproduction and dumping of food. I hope that he realises that Lome agreement EDF VII, which represents a 46 per cent. increase on EDF VI, gives the largest ever United Kingdom commitment to the Lomé countries. We are doing our best—through the EC programme and bilaterally, through the economic reform programmes—to help the countries, especially those that have been commodity dependent. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that dumping excess provision created in Europe is no way to solve the problem.
    Mr. Foulkes: But, specifically, does the Minister accept the importance of bananas to the economies of the West Indian islands, and the threat posed by the ending of the banana protocol in 1992? Does she recall the pledge of the Prime Minister in Jamaica in July 1987 to fight to protect their position? Will she say how far the Government have been able to fulfil that pledge?
    Mrs. Chalker: That has nothing to do with commodity prices. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that it was the British Government who fought hard for the banana producers during the recent negotiations on Lomé. The response that I have had from the banana producers has been one of gratitude for what Britain was able to achieve under the EDF discussions and the Lome convention.

    Ambulance Dispute
    3.32 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you make it clear to me, to the House and to anyone else who may read about or watch events here that you have had no request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement this afternoon, at the start of the new year's parliamentary business and in the 18th week of the ambulance dispute? It is now quite clear—and not only in my area—from statements by leading doctors and medical personnel that people are dying because of the Government's pigheadedness in refusing to settle the dispute.
    Mr. Speaker: I can confirm that I have no notification that there is to be a statement about that today.

    BILLS PRESENTED
      RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL)
      Mr. David Amess, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. David Atkinson and Mr David Sumberg, presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to set aside land, not being Crown land, within the Greater London area, for the erection of a permanent memorial to Raoul Wallenberg: 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 38.]
      LICENSING
      Mr. Edward Leigh presented a Bill to reform the law governing licensed premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
      SUNDAY TRADING
      Mr. James Couchman presented a Bill to reform the law governing retail trade on Sundays: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
      ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (SPEED LIMITS)
      Mr. John Bowis presented a Bill to amend the law relating to speed limits on roads and motorways: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
      INDECENT DISPLAYS
      Mr. David Sumberg presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the display of pornographic material in public places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
      NATIONAL SERVICE
      Mr. Tony Marlow presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for Defence to introduce a scheme allowing young people between the ages of 16 and 21 years to volunteer to fulfil a period of national community service for a period not exceeding 18 months: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
      PERFORMING ANIMALS
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell presented a Bill to amend the law governing public exhibitions by performing animals: 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 44.]
      REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
      Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to abolish the House of Lords as presently composed and to provide for a new directly elected membership based on parliamentary constituencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
      HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS)
      Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Terence L. Higgins and Mr. Gerald Bermingham, presented a Bill to secure the wearing of protective headgear by minors while horse riding; to prescribe offences and penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

      Ordered,
      That the Caldey Island Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee— [Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day

  Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is the first since 1975 to make changes to the statutory framework for public service superannuation provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972. The present system of public service superannuation has stood the test of time well and there is no need for major changes. However, there will always be a need from time to time to make minor adaptations and alterations. We have to make such changes now to meet our Community obligations on equal treatment in occupational pensions.
  The Bill also provides an opportunity to make other detailed and technical changes of a tidying-up nature. I do not think that there is anything in this largely technical and tidying-up Bill that needs to be controversial along party-political lines, and it is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend has referred to our Community obligations. Can he reassure the House that the Bill is the result of a decision by Her Majesty's Government and not by any folk in Brussels?
  Mr. Ryder: The Bill is the result of a direct decision taken a long time ago by the House. I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in it that would in any way prevent him from having the early dinner that he so richly deserves.
  Until the 1970s the rules of public service superannuation schemes were generally contained in primary legislation. Public service pensions were increased to compensate for inflation on an ad hoc basis by various Pensions (Increase) Acts passed between 1920 and 1969. In 1971, the Pensions (Increase) Act provided for public service pensions to he regularly increased by statutory instrument. The Act was amended in 1972 and 1974 to lower the minimum qualifying age for pensions increase from 60 to 55 and to provide for all pensions paid to widows of scheme members to be increased. The system was adapted by the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 to allow for the introduction of the state earnings-related pension scheme and contracting out by public service pension schemes.
  The Superannuation Act 1972 provided for local government, teachers and National Health Service schemes to be contained in regulations and gave the then Minister for the Civil Service the power to make, maintain and administer Civil Service pension schemes. No major changes to that Act have been made since then, but similar provisions were made for the police pension scheme by the Police Pensions Act 1976.
  The Bill is essential to meet the requirements of an EC directive on equal treatment. Occupational pension schemes have traditionally operated on the old-fashioned assumption that women are dependants and that men are bread winners. That assumption is no longer valid and the
  710
  Bill provides for men and women pensioners to be treated the same regarding the increase in their pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will those working for the Property Services Agency receive the same benefits as other civil servants?
  Mr. Ryder: All civil servants will be treated in the same way under this—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the PSA is privatised?
  Mr. Ryder: Yes, under this legislation. As my hon. Friend is aware, special measures must be taken at the time of privatisation, but at the moment all public servants are treated in the same way under the terms of this legislation.
  As I have said, the Bill provides for men and women pensioners to be treated in the same way with regard to the increase in their pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The Bill also makes other minor changes to the legislative framework for public service pensions. It does not make major amendments to the existing law, and we see no reason to make any changes now, because there is no longer any need to use primary legislation to amend the rules of most public service pension schemes. Regulations made under the relevant statutes can cover most changes that we may wish to make. We also consider the existing statutory arrangements for public service superannuation to be generally satisfactory. Of course, there will always he individual grievances about pension schemes and their administration. That is inevitable. Everyone would always like higher benefits and we should all like to pay less for them. But those are not matters that we can settle by changing the system. Public service pensioners also have the greater opportunities, which this Government have made available to occupational pensioners generally, to make personal pension provision or to pay additional voluntary contributions.
  Therefore, the days of large and technically detailed superannuation Acts are, I am pleased to say, long past. However, that does not mean that there will never be a need to legislate. From time to time there will be a need to tidy up the statutory framework and this Bill fulfils that more modest ambition. It will rectify a few anomalies and minor unintended consequences which may have emerged since the early 1970s. It will also make some minor but none the less desirable adjustments to the statutory framework, including some minor consequential amendments occasioned by the wider scope for making additional voluntary contributions introduced following the Social Security Act 1986. It will also extend the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the determination of employers' contributions in the teachers' and NHS schemes and the payment of injury benefits to teachers.
  Hon. Members will have seen the explanatory and financial memorandum and the Bill itself and will, I am sure, appreciate that many of the clauses are complex and technical. I shall give detailed explanations of each clause in Committee, but today I shall concentrate my remarks on the reasons behind the clauses in the Bill and briefly sketch the effect of each clause.
  Before I explain the contents of the Bill in more detail, I should make two more general points. First, the Bill does not directly alter the provisions of any pension scheme. The provisions of the schemes concerned are given in the

  711
  rules made under the Superannuation Act 1972. The second is that, although the amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 will alter the amounts by which some pensions will be increased, the changes do not affect whether a pension is paid. That is a matter governed by the rules of each pension scheme, not by the Pensions (Increase) Act.
  Clause 1 is the main clause in the Bill. Public service pensions are increased in line with prices provided certain qualifying conditions are satisfied, and this clause amends those conditions. There are three separate changes. First, the clause provides for the phasing out from 1 January 1993 of a condition under which retired female scheme members with dependent children qualify for pensions increase even if they are below the normal qualifying age of 55. That concession does not apply to male pensioners and the proposed change is needed to comply with EC directive 86/378 which requires member states to introduce equal treatment for men and women into occupational pension schemes. At present, very few women qualify for pensions increase under that condition—we know of only eight in the centrally administered schemes for which data is available. However, if it were applied to men, approximately 7,000 police pensions would have to be increased, and, in addition, if analogous arrangements were introduced in the armed forces pension scheme, it is thought possible that some 50,000 armed forces pensions would have to be increased.
  The Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to make a major extension of that kind to the conditions for pensions increase, which would result in the pensions paid to those who retire at comparatively young ages and can enjoy second careers being increased. Equal treatment for both sexes can therefore be secured only by repealing the relevant provision of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The Bill does that, but ensures that the accrued rights relating to service rendered before 1 January 1993 of the very few current and future female pensioners who benefit from this provision are fully protected.
  Second, the clause provides for all pensions paid to survivors of scheme members to he increased in line with prices. At present, widows' and children's pensions are increased, but pensions paid to widowers and other adult dependants are increased only if the survivor is over 55 or physically or mentally incapacitated or, if a woman, has a dependent child. Most public service schemes have now aligned their rules on widowers' pensions with their rules on widows' pensions, and it is appropriate, therefore, that widowers' pensions should now be increased under the same conditions that apply to widows' pensions. It is possible also in some public service schemes for pensions to be paid to adult dependants who are not widows or widowers of scheme members if certain conditions are satisfied, or if the scheme member surrenders part of his or her pension. There are very few pensions in these categories and most are already increased because of the pensioner's age or state of health. We think that it is appropriate therefore to simplify the conditions for pensions increase and to introduce equal treatment by providing for all those pensions to be increased.
  I emphasise that, in practice, these provisions affect very few women and men receiving, or expecting to receive, public service pensions. No one will lose any
  712
  accrued rights. There is little extension of existing provisions. In that sense, it represents a practical, cost-effective and reasonable response to the problem of equal treatment and the requirements of the EC directive to which I referred.
  Third, two minor extensions have been made to the conditions under which injury benefits paid by pension schemes are increased. In practice, public service pension schemes increase almost all injury benefits, even though the beneficiary may not be regarded as having finally retired on ill-health grounds or as being completely incapacitated. This clause makes sure that such payments of pensions increase in those cases are covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act.
  Clauses 2, 3 and 10 make changes to the Acts to rectify some problems that have emerged since the early 1970s. For example, clause 2 amends the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to bring the law on two small, technical aspects of pensions increase into line with the practice followed by public service pension schemes since 1965. Clause 3 amends the Pensions (Increase) Act to end a provision that gives rise to extremely small payments to pensioners but with a disproportionate administrative burden for the Department concerned.
  Clause 10 amends part of the Superannuation Act 1972 to clarify the protection given to re-employed scheme members if changes that are potentially detrimental to them are made to regulations for local government, teachers and NHS schemes.
  Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for teachers' and NHS schemes under which the costs of pensions increase may be recovered from employers through the contributions they already pay towards the cost of basic benefits. If and when the necessary regulations are made, the Government Actuary will advise on the appropriate contribution rates for employers. Employees' contributions will not be affected.
  Clause 5 amends a provision in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 under which some widows have part of their pension indexed by both the public service pensions scheme and by SERPS.
  Clauses 7, 8 and 9 make some minor technical amendments connected with the wider scope for making additional voluntary contributions introduced following the Social Security Act 1986. Clause 7 makes sure that money purchase benefits arising from additional voluntary contributions paid by scheme members are not indexed by public service pension schemes. Clause 8 relieves certain schemes of a responsibility to pay annuities purchased by scheme members where the scheme member himself has the chosen the company that will provide the annuity. Clause 9 brings money purchase pension schemes for civil servants within the scope of the existing arrangements for agreeing amendments to Civil Service pension schemes that may adversely affect the accrued rights of scheme members or pensioners.
  Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations under which injury benefits can be paid to teachers by their employers. At present, these benefits can be paid only by the Secretary of State. It is more appropriate for those benefits to be paid by the employer than the pension scheme. This clause makes that possible, and allows existing arrangements made by some local education authorities to continue until any regulations are made.

  713
  The House will see from this brief description of the Bill that it is almost wholly concerned with making minor, largely technical, adjustments to the existing legislative framework governing public service pension schemes. There are no substantial changes to that framework which has stood the test of time well. This short, modest but useful Bill will ensure that the relevant Acts can continue to provide sound framework for public service pension schemes in future years. I commend it to the House.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill appears to be modest and non-controversial, hut on close examination it is seen to contain clear signposts of the Government's rather wayward policy on pensions. Unfortunately, all the signposts point backwards. Bills such as this are rare, but they give the House a chance to examine the drift of Government policy.
  Unfortunately the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is no longer in his place. The rather convoluted answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether we were acting as a result of a European directive should have been that we are acting as a result of action from Europe. That is because the European Community which was once denounced as a rich man's club is now laying down minimum standards of fairness and justice and, sad to say, Britain is having difficulty keeping up with those. The Bill is very much part of that process.
  Public service pensions, and especially Civil Service pensions, have blazed a trail for all other pensioners. With our customary magnanimity I welcome the beneficial parts of the Bill and thank Ministers for the unusual generosity that they displayed and the way that they co-operated during work on the Bill. There were special difficulties because work on it spanned the Christmas recess.
  Clause 1 has both negative and positive aspects. The positive proposition is the extension of increases to widowers' pensions. At first sight that looks generous but that is not a trait that we instantly associate with the Government. The matter that is being tackled has been the subject of some controversy in the House. Early-day motion 600 put down on 15 March 1989 was signed by 121 hon. Members including six Conservative Members and asked for just such a reform.
  The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association contacted me today expressing some concern. Although that trade union has a membership of more than 130,000 and has waged a vigorous campaign on the issue, the only information that it had about the change was received today. It was only because of the wonders of the fax machine that I have had documents from the association on this matter. The association says that its formal consultative group, the teachers' superannuation working party, which is maintained by the Government, has not considered the Bill's proposals. The association tells me that as far as it can tell none of the trade unions represented on the working party has been consulted about the Bill or notified about its contents. Perhaps we shall hear more about that later in the debate.
  Since April 1988 all contracted-out schemes have been obliged to provide a guaranteed minimum pension for widowers as well as widows. The Civil Service scheme previously provided widows' pensions as an optional extra for women civil servants, and for that an extra 1·5 per cent. contribution was paid. From April 1988 the 1·5 per cent.
  714
  contribution was made compulsory for men and women. They have been paying for the advantage that has been offered today for some considerable time. The Government have no alternative but to give to widowers the same pension increases that widows receive.
  The negative aspect of the Bill has alarming repercussions. It is the abolition of pension increases for retired women under the age of 55 with dependent children. In the Civil Service superannuation scheme the minimum pension age is now 50. The only circumstances in which a woman would retire under the age of 55, other than on medical grounds—where pension increases are payable regardless of age—are redundancy, approved early retirement or retirement on an actuarially reduced pension. Some mothers under the age of 50 with dependent children may draw pensions from other public sector schemes with a lower pensionable age, such as the police scheme, but they are likely to be few in number. The Minister confirmed part of that today.
  The numbers involved are low, but if that is so, why bother to deprive people of the pension increases that they now enjoy? The Government's excuse is that the increases discriminate against men. That is one of the signposts in the Bill. More major decisions will have to be made in future to comply with the progressive European directive —and future directives—which says that we cannot discriminate between men and women. An enormous discrepancy which the Government must tackle before long is the age at which men and women can draw a state pension. At present there is discrimination because for women it is 60 and for men it is 65.
  It seems that the Government's reaction to the call for an end to discrimination is, not to spread the advantages, but to take advantages away from one sex so that both sexes are discriminated against. In their view, that is a reasonable way to achieve discrimination. However, the Government are discriminating down rather than spreading the advantages.
  To extend pension increases to fathers under the age of 55 would achieve equal treatment and would be a reasonable step to take. We suggest that the Government should do that instead of taking the increases away from mothers. The cost would be relatively small because at 55 fathers already qualify for a pension at the higher rate. That would be reached by annual increases.
  In principle there is no case for paying unindexed pensions to men or women of any age without children. There is room for argument about the age at which a pension should be payable and under what conditions. However, once it has been decided that someone is entitled to a pension, it makes no sense to allow that pension to be eroded by inflation. Either the person needs the pension or he does not. If he does, he needs to have its real value preserved.
  The Bill is part of a long and, in most aspects, honourable history of providing decent pensions for civil servants. The present Civil Service scheme dates back to the Superannuation Act 1859. Richard Titmuss wrote 25 years ago:
  "The civil servants were the first large organised group of workers to obtain security in their old age. The foundation of the system firmly settled by the Act of 1859, remains today: the governing principles applied more generously with the passage of time, still rule authoritatively. In 1963, the system was still a model and a goal for the vast majority of British workers."

  715
  In 1990 that still remains true. Much progress has been made in pension provision for other occupational groups. The public service as a whole has attained pension rights comparable to the Civil Service. Increasingly, occupational pension schemes in the private sector have been modelled on Civil Service advantages, with pensions based on individual earnings in the final year or the years before retirement. Where they have lagged behind is in inflation-proofing pensions and in shielding rights for people who change jobs. Sadly millions of people are still exposed and vulnerable without the strength of an occupational scheme behind them. They include the 3·5 million people who have been induced by a heavy cocktail of bribery and misleading propaganda to take out the so-called personal pension schemes. They may well rue that decision if they stay in the schemes for longer than five years.
  The greatest leap forward to the goal described by Titmuss in 1964 for securing pensions for the majority of workers comparable to those in the Civil Service was taken in 1975 when the then Labour Government's Social Security Pensions Act introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme. The scheme was based on a plan which was first published in 1957, and Titmuss was one of the authors. Its inspiration was firmly rooted in the Civil Service scheme, which had been created a century earlier and had been tried and proved.
  The comparison with Europe still prevailed. Most of our European partners now have schemes that are based on the principle that pensions should be related to previous earnings. That is one of the main reasons why our pensions lag so pathetically behind those in the rest of Europe. British pensioners still rely on a flat-rate pension for the bulk of their state pension.
  The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was a pensions revolution. It transformed the retirement prospects of the great majority of the working population. It was a considerable achievement to confer on half the working population—it was previously not covered—new pension rights comparable to final salary occupational schemes. As important but not so widely recognised was the secondary achievement of the 1975 legislation, and that was to confront the cumulative destruction caused by inflation of pension values. Again, the model was the public sector.
  The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 had the effect that public sector pensions were automatically inflation proofed. The 1975 Act protected state earnings-related pensions from the ravages of inflation and the State undertook the inflation-proofing of the guaranteed minimum pension by contracted-out occupational schemes. Thus the pensions of millions in the private sector were brought nearer to the higher standards set by the public sector. The Bill is important for the changes in the pension rights that are directly affected by it, and the reverberations will spread wider to all provisions for retirement. That is why the Opposition are convinced that it is entirely appropriate that a spokesperson on social security should participate in the debate.
  Clause 7 excludes money-purchase benefits earned by additional voluntary contributions from the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. A money-purchase pension is the annuity that can be brought from the amount of money that is available at pension age from the
  716
  approved contributions plus investment income. In theory, on reaching pension age a person can choose to buy an index-linked annuity, but it is unlikely that many people will do so. That is because an unindexed annuity will have a much higher initial value.
  Encouraging people to pay into money-purchase schemes, which is favoured strongly by the Government, is likely to result in payments of pensions that are fixed in cash terms with no protection from inflation. That is true of personal pension schemes too, except where there is a requirement to provide annuities rising by 3 per cent. a year. Even that applies only to annuities purchased that meet the minimum contribution that is required for contracting out. It would not be sensible to object to clause 7, but it illustrates a significant problem that will inevitably arise again and again from the proliferation of money-purchase schemes under which the Government are now acting. A complexity has been introduced into pension schemes that will require a great deal more legislation in future.
  There has been a remarkable change in the indexation of pensions in the past decade. In the early days of the Thatcher Government it was known that the Prime Minister thought of the Civil Service as a grossly over privileged group, and that the privilege that the right hon. Lady begrudged more than any other was the right of Civil Servants to index-linked, inflation-proofed pensions. The repeal of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 was high on her hit list. Then the emphasis changed suddenly from abolishing indexation to asking civil servants to pay for it.
  Exactly 10 years ago today, on 8 January, The Guardian published an article by Ian Aitken under the headline,
  "Search for way to end pension-inflation linking may be dropped".
  The lady was for turning. The story confirmed that the Prime Minister wanted to end index linking and social benefits in general, especially for public services. Ian Aitken wrote:
  "Ministers now seem to be agreed that an arbitrary cut off in inflation proofed pensions would have wide effects throughout the public services and in some cases would involve a breach of contract."
  Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that in February 1981, Sir Bernard Scott's committee dealt a bitter blow to the Prime Minister's plans when he found that the pensions deductions made from civil servants' wages were nearly twice those made from the earnings of employees in the private sector, so civil servants were enjoying no bargain whatsoever. More importantly, Sir Bernard not only made the point that index-linked pensions were not an indefensible privilege to the public sector—far from it—but that they should be extended to the population as a whole. The committee reported:
  "It is highly desirable as a social objective that the standard of living of those in retirement should be protected. This is clearly recognised in countries like France and West Germany, where the benefits enjoyed by pensioners are superior to those of this country and the benefits of index linking extend alike to both public and private sectors. In the United Kingdom, the full cost of protecting pensioners has yet to be recognised and fully shouldered during working life. We believe that there may be helpful lessons to be drawn from our work for the private sector pensions and their financing, as well as for the public sector."
  Nothing has changed. The report makes two crucial points on European practice and on index linking that are intimately germane to the Bill. How are we doing nine years later?

  717
  It is notoriously difficult fairly to compare pensions in different countries, but the European Commission recently made a brave attempt at doing so. It took as a standard the amount paid to a new pensioner who had worked for an average wage in manufacturing industry. Two different methods of comparison were used. I have urged the Government to adopt them both, but so far they have declined. The first method is to convert the cash amount into ecus by using a standard rate of exchange known as the purchasing power standard, which takes full account of the cost of living in each country. The pension is thus related to the value of purchases that can be made locally.
  Not surprisingly, and as was the case nine years ago, the United Kingdom came out badly by comparison. The British pension of £53 is almost half the £104 paid in Luxembourg and barely half the £101 paid in the Netherlands. Britain is only beaten into bottom place by Ireland, with £43. I must be fair and give details also of the Commission's second comparison, which takes the pension as an average of manufacturing industry earnings in each country, after taking account of tax. That system is known as net replacement ratio, and it uses the figure of 100 to represent average manufacturing earnings.
  The best countries pay pensions of nearly 90 per cent. of average earnings, while the United Kingdom and Ireland pay less than half of pre-retirement earnings, with a pension of 46 per cent. It seems extraordinary that the neglect of the basic pension in particular should continue.
  The index linking of state pensions introduced in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was once challenged, but that provision managed to survive. It would not have done so had the proposals in the June 1985 Green Paper, "The Reform of Social Security—Programme for Action" been implemented. It was the Government's clear intention to abolish SERPS, and with it the inflation-proofing mechanism, but their nerve again failed them. The scheme was savagely cut by the Social Security Act 1985, but the inflation-proofing provision remained intact. Contracted-out schemes must now provide inflation proofing of the guaranteed minimum pension up to 3 per cent., instead of the state scheme doing that for them. The state scheme still makes provision above that level.
  The Government's newly found enthusiasm for index linking—provided that someone else bears the cost—is about to bear fruit in the next social security Bill, which will require limited indexation of occupational schemes above the guaranteed minimum pension level—but apparently, only when a scheme is about to be wound up.
  The first Civil Service pension was granted in 1684 to Martin Horsham, a land waiter in the Port of London, who, in the memorable words of the Treasury Warrant at the time, was paid it because he was:
  "so much indisposed by a great melancholy that he is at present unfit for business".
  There is little in the Bill or the Government's pension policy that would have lifted Martin Horsham's melancholy and, sadly, there is much that would have deepened it.
  This is a mean-spirited, patch and prop Bill. In the past, Britain has led the world to liberate retired people from the anxiety of deep poverty. Europe is now leading Britain, coaxing and coercing the Government out of their obsolete fixations. The Bill continues a Government pension policy that is wasteful, confused and mean.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have to declare a financial interest in the Bill as I am a beneficiary of the arrangements that it makes for public service pensions by virtue of service in the colonial administration of Nigeria.
  I welcome the Bill. We should all support the details of the Bill, and I was distressed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), whose judgment is usually quite sound, appear to cast some doubt on the merits of the Bill because some of its proposals have apparently been prompted by events within the European Community. If that is so, it is a jolly good thing.
  Women's equality is not a subject on which I normally speak at great length, or with enthusiasm, because women may be equal but they are also different. However, there can be no doubt that the small amendments proposed in the Bill are good ones for women and I am surprised that they have not been made before. They are mostly self-evident and logical, because the pound paid by a woman civil servant is as good as the pound paid by a man during their service, and there seems to be no reason for discrimination between the sexes and in that respect the proposals in the Bill are to be commended.
  Apart from amending injustices and anomalies and improving pensions for public officers, there is a need for the Bill and for all pension arrangements to be index linked due to inflation—the evil and the scourge of modern times. Inflation distorts economies and causes great misery and cruelty, and it should remain the enemy of all Governments. If we can beat inflation, we shall not need to introduce measures constantly to reappraise the value of pensions to people who have earned what they are paid at the end of their service in a pension because of the contributions that they have made or that have been notionally made for them during their service. The Government should bear in mind that the financial burden of the Bill can be eased by the extent to which they are successful with their anti-inflation policy.
  A number of other more detailed matters come to mind when we discuss public service pensions. Many British citizens, resident in Britain, are pensioners of a public service that is, in fact if not in law, under the Government of the United Kingdom. For example, the pension rights of people who served in the colonial service under the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland were secured on the basis that employers' contributions would be made by the Governments concerned—successor Governments, where transfers have taken place. The value of such pensions was therefore tied to agreements between Governments, which has meant in practice that many former British civil servants serving in our overseas territories must live on a pittance. The value of their pensions has not benefited from inclusion in the general arrangements covered by the Bill, because technically their employer was not the United Kingdom Government but the result of arrangements between the United Kingdom and other countries—or for other similar reasons.
  To their credit, the Government have recently eased the problem concerning the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland by making an ex gratia payment into the fund, which has enabled pensions to be increased. That, however, is merely a stopgap measure, welcome though it

  719
  was at the time, and I hope that it will eventually be replaced by a provision consistent with the spirit of the Bill.
  Civil servants in Hong Kong are among those with similar problems. The colonial or overseas Government —not the United Kingdom Government—are bound to a pension obligation unless an arrangement has been made between the two Governments for the money to be transferred to the United Kingdom Treasury. The United Kingdom and Nigerian Governments reached such an arrangement for my pension, but, as the Hong Kong Administration are within the British colonial empire, pension arrangements are still governed by Hong Kong regulations.
  The main difficulty is that the value of Hong Kong pensions is established by the prevailing exchange rate, and the Hong Kong dollar is inclined to fluctuate. At present it is notoriously subject to the influence of world events, and to other matters that have nothing to do with the interests of the people involved. Such influences do nothing to assure those people that they will receive an appropriate retirement income, whether or not they have already retired. We want them to stay in Hong Kong, but there is still the problem of their pensions.
  Expatriate staff of the Hong Kong Administration who are on pensionable establishment will in due course retire, and their pensions will be determined by the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Surely the United Kingdom Government have a moral obligation to ensure that those people do not suffer because of the instability of future foreign exchange conditions, but are guaranteed the full value of their pensions—uprated by arrangements in the legislation referred to in the Bill—so that they need not fear the suffering experienced by other colonial service pensioners in, for instance, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  Part of our imperial responsibility is still the obligation to protect those who have served the Crown, often in an inclement climate and unhealthy circumstances. The conditions of people who maintained and controlled the government of the empire and our remaining colonies should not be prejudiced by the fact that their service was notionally directed towards a Government separate from the United Kingdom. I appreciate that this precise point is not strictly covered by the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it and that he will ensure that those who are responsible for taking this overview of our obligations to all British public servants abroad will take their cases into account so that this injustice is remedied.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). The Government ought to examine carefully the provisions that have been made for former colonial servants of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman may be right that the long and short titles of the Bill will make it difficult for the Standing Committee to consider amendments covering that point, but I hope that the Government will deal with the plight of former Crown servants. The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
  720
  I am worried about the way in which pensions legislation in general is enacted by the House. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the Bill rectifying
  "certain anomalies and unintended consequences"
  in previous legislation. The parliamentary draftsmen are doing no service to public servants who are in receipt of public service pensions by drafting legislation that is technically flawed and which, to lay persons, is completely unintelligible.
  I hope that the Government will consolidate some of the pensions legislation. I recognise that a different series of Acts governs public service pensions. They are quite distinct from the Acts that apply to most pensions, but there is an overlap between the Treasury's responsibility for public service pensions and the Department of Social Security's responsibility for other pensions.
  Has any consideration been given to the systematic and cohesive consolidation of all the statutes relating to pensions in all their different aspects? It would then be easier to understand the ramifications of the legislation, some of which has been in place since public service pensions were first given in the year 1684, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has told us.
  The hon. Gentleman also made a valuable point when he suggested that the House should examine carefully how the Government are seeking to cope with requests from the European Community, or anyone else, for a pensions system that would eliminate discrimination between males and females. Such a move would be welcomed. It is long overdue.
  The Government pick and choose between benefits. Some they are prepared to level up, while others they level down. They are breaking the spirit of European Community directives that place an obligation on member states to end discrimination. By and large, the Government are levelling down all the time. I speak as a humble Scots solicitor. I am not an expert in pensions legislation. It can be argued that what I have described breaches the spirit of the directive and could be challengeable through the European legal system. The Government must make it clear what principles they will adopt when they approach the problems that they will experience with ending discrimination between males and females.
  My overall impression, on skimming through the Bill, is that the Treasury has done a quick trawl to see where it can save the odd bob or two. The Minister shakes his head. I am more sceptical than he obviously is. Some of these provisions will save money. With his usual eloquence and competence, the Minister skipped over the fact that it was mooted that the police, fire and armed services should receive additional benefits. The idea was given careful consideration, but the decision went against them. Nevertheless, the sum involved must also be weighed in the balance.
  The pensions industry has studied the Bill. I give it a cautious welcome. On balance, it improves things. However, the Government can be accused of looking for quick ways to save the odd buck, and the House should examine that carefully before giving it a Second Reading.
  As I have already said, there is confusion about pensions legislation. Clause 2 contains quite a substantial element of retrospection. There may be reasons or cases that justify retrospection in some circumstances, but the

  721
  Minister did not mention them. Any retrospective legislation, especially if it affects pensions, should not be accepted casually.
  I shall put my Scots solicitor's hat back on and draw attention to clause 2(5). It amends the Pensions (Increase) Act 1965, but that Act was repealed by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. That is a very good trick if it can be done, but I think that it is an example of technical incompetence. I am sure that it will interest the hon. Member for Orpington, who is a distinguished observer of these matters. No doubt the Treasury has more solicitors than I could muster on this Bench. Indeed, I can muster the support of only my party leader—but that is quite considerable support, although perhaps not on pensions legislation. He is neither a Scot nor a solicitor. I am worried about slipping through legislation that purports to amendment an Act which was repealed yonks ago. We should have a word about that from the Minister.
  Clauses 3, 5 and 7 are a bit petty, but clauses 5 and 7 make sensible changes. Although I have accused the Treasury of trying to save money, I must observe that the changes in clauses 5 and 7 are justified because the double benefits that were previously available were overgenerous.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Bill is tidying up various pieces of legislation and that it is all minor and technical. Given enough time—preferably not during the Christmas recess which included Hogmanay which is a much more important festival north of the border—and given the opportunity in Standing Committee I could certainly provide a whole list of minor or consequential amendments that will certainly cost the Treasury money. I shall suggest one now.
  I am the joint secretary and treasurer of the all-party committee on pensioners, and the most obvious case that has come to my attention concerns the changes to the Civil Service pension in 1978. Civil Service widows' pensions were not made payable to widows of post-retirement marriages until the pensions legislation of 1978. That gives rise to an anomaly because widows of post-retirement marriages after 1978 are now treated much more generously than those who were widowed before then. I cannot believe that the Treasury objects to that on financial grounds because it must cost a relatively tiny sum compared with some of the other savings being made in other parts of the Bill. That is a clear example of another anomaly which could have been tidied up in the Bill. It would have had a substantial effect and removed an important anomaly which has been causing quite legitimate and justified concern among those who observe the comings and goings of the Civil Service pension funds and schemes.
  I said earlier that the hon. Member for Orpington had made a valuable contribution concerning colonial pensions. Again through the all-party committee on pensioners I have received representations from a host of different organisations. On the last day of last year I received one from the consultative committee of the Kenya local authorities superannuation fund again complaining about matters such as those raised by the hon. Member for Orpington. Technically, they may not be capable of rectification under the short title of the Bill, but given a bit of good will from the Government and a slightly longer short title, the Bill could have addressed some of those problems. They would have required some subvention from central Government funds into certain outstanding funds which are leaving former colonial servants in dire
  722
  financial circumstances. It is a missed opportunity. Small items such as that make it impossible for the Minister to say that the Bill is simply a minor and technical matter.
  The Bill embraces some important issues, and the Minister will have to convince the House of some of the financial aspects and consequences of the provisions of the Bill before I shall be entirely comfortable with it. However, I shall certainly recommend to my colleagues that on balance the Bill deserves a Second Reading.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I wish to take part in this short debate mainly to voice my concern that sometimes the House passes legislation such as this late in the evening or, as on this occasion, soon after the holidays without hon. Members understanding the full significance of the Government's intention in future years to use the legislation as a principle. I wish to discuss the principle of discrimination. I seek assurances about the Government's intentions, whether in future it will be used for levelling down rather than levelling up and whether they attach importance to the Bill in respect of pension matters before the European Commission.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that by clause 1(2)(b) the Government seek to amend a provision that currently discriminates against men who retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health but who cannot take advantage of the specific arrangements by which women with dependants can retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health. The Government aim to end discrimination against male contributors to the fund, but in so doing women's rights will be removed.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, the Minister attempted to use the numbers game in respect of the number of women who currently benefit, and said that the figure is derisory. He gave a more important answer in relation to the number of men who could qualify if the Government ended discrimination more positively by allowing equal pension entitlement for men and women.
  The Minister may argue that in calculating for the fire and police services and other employees tens of thousands of men may benefit, but that raises an issue of principle in relation to pension entitlement. Far too often when the Government have been faced with an issue of discrimination from the European Community they have chosen to remove the rights of one group to end discrimination against another.
  I signed early-day motion 88, which argued for the ending of discrimination against men who reach retirement age at 65, whereas women benefit at 60. Those who have been involved in ending that discrimination foresee under this legislation the possibility of the Government establishing the principle of levelling down by removing the rights of women rather than legislating for a universal pension age for men and women. That is a controversial matter within the European Community, and at some stage the House will return to it. The debate is continuing not only here but outside, and the Government are receiving advice from pension actuaries and others about amendments that the European Community may force on them at a later stage. Although

  723
  the amendments might affect few women, they could have significant repercussions on the debate on pension entitlement in future years.
  As I understand it, those in the pensions business who currently advise the Government say that a reduction in the male pension age to 60 would be expensive and would lead to a significant reduction in the net contribution. Therefore, rather than reduce the pension age for men, over stages the Government will increase it for women to 65. The basic pension and the state earnings-related pension scheme will be available to women aged between 60 and 65, and those retiring at 60 will receive the equivalent of two thirds of the full state pension. Women will lose their current pension entitlement at 60. Labour Members believe that to legislate for the worst elements of a scheme but to remove its best elements is no way to end discrimination between men and women.
  The principle embodied in clause 1(2)(b) will put pressure on the Government to introduce a phased arrangement under which women's entitlement to full pension at 60 will be obliterated. Women who are currently aged about 50 will retain their entitlement to full pension at 60, but those aged between 40 and 50 will see their entitlement to a full pension changed to between 61 and 64. Women under 40 years of age will have to wait until they are 65 before getting a full state pension. That means of ending so-called discrimination is unacceptable.
  Legislation covering care in the community is going through the House. More than 90 per cent. of those who care in the community are women who, voluntarily or involuntarily, give up their employment at an early age to look after an aged or severely disabled relative. It is ironic —indeed, I can find no precedent—that the House is considering legislation that will make it easier for people to care for others but a clause in this Bill will prevent women from retiring before they are 55 to look after a dependent relative and they will lose the benefits that they are currently enjoying.
  The House would not expect this or any other Government to allow such discrimination. Over the coming decades, a growing number of women will be asked to take on the job of caring in the community. They will apply to their employers to retire before they reach 55, not on medical grounds involving themselves but on medical grounds relating to a dependent husband, mother or father or child. Changes in medical techniques mean that children are living beyond their teenage years with severe physical and mental disabilities.
  The Minister may believe that this is a small, insignificant group of women. Legislation must take account not only of what is happening now but of what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. One of the damning features of clause 1 is that it fails to recognise changing trends and the needs of people who will be required to care for their elderly and dependent relatives.
  I have spoken in the House on behalf of fire authorities, as their honorary parliamentary adviser. Because of the nature of fire fighters' work, a significant number would benefit from an early retirement age, but restrictions imposed under current legislation mean that they cannot. They would have liked an amendment to allow them the same rights as women who retire below the age of 55. Not
  724
  only are these fire fighters not included in the Bill but—we never expected this—women who are now covered by legislation will be excluded.
  Although there will not be a Division on the Bill, the House must return to the long-term fundamental issues of equal opportunities and pensions. The Opposition and a significant number of Conservative Members will not accept legislation that operates on the spurious ground that removing the rights of one group of pensioners whether male or female, is equalised by the ending of discrimination against another group. That is no way to proceed with legislation. I shall not seek to divide the House—I see that you are smiling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thinking, "Thank God for that"—but I am not satisfied with the legislation.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Ryder: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again. I am grateful to hon. Members for the attention and interest that they have shown in this largely detailed and technical Bill, but I should like to stress again that it is a modest Bill and has modest scope. It amends the statutory framework in which the regulations for public service pension schemes are made. Apart from some adjustments at the margin to the law prescribing the index linking of public service pensions, the Bill does not directly alter the rules of any pension scheme. Changes to these rules will continue to be made in the usual ways, which are prescribed in the Superannuation Act 1972.
  There can be no fear that the Bill will seriously affect the pensions of those who have retired after many years of public service. I assure the House that there is no cause for such concern. The proposed changes to the qualifying conditions for pension increases—clause 1—will be introduced in a way that fully protects the accrued rights of serving public servants and those already retired. The double indexation of part of the pensions paid to surviving spouses will be phased out gradually and only the widows and widowers of scheme members not yet retired will lose this anomalous and unintended benefit. That is covered by clause 5. The ending of the extremely small payments of pensions increase on additional lump sums will be introduced for future retirements only, and this is covered by clause 3.
  I assure the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that we are not alone in work of this kind. Other European countries are affected by the 1986 directive. I know that that will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The hon. Member for Newport, West asked whether there had been consultation with various interest groups. I believe that all interest groups support the measures in the Bill, but if any have suggestions to improve it, let us have a look at them.
  I understand that the Department of Education and Science is holding discussions with teachers' representatives all the time and that a joint working party on pensions is operating now. The hon. Members for Newport, West and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asked why we did not "level-up" pension increases for retired male scheme members so that those under 55 with dependent children could receive pensions increase. As the hon. Gentlemen know, this would be a costly improvement to superannuation benefits for which either employers or employees would have to pay. During my

  725
  opening speech I set out details of how many people would be affected one way or the other. If we went down the road advocated by the hon. Members for Newport, West and for Makerfield, an estimated 7,000 retired policemen and fire fighters would be affected and it has been said that, on a conservative estimate, about 50,000 retired service personnel would benefit if payments were also made in armed forces schemes. The ultimate cost would be more than £100 million a year—for the police about £14 million and for the armed forces about £100 million.
  Mr. McCartney: Surely, in considering whether to amend the legislation, the principle should be whether the current position of women is right. We should ask whether this is a proper aspect to include in pension provisions. The Opposition say yes, in principle. We should therefore consider how it can be applied to all members of the scheme. The Minister has implied that if amendments caused a huge influx in the number of people included in the scheme, the Government might have difficulty in finding the resources needed. The Government should turn to the second, more feasible option and introduce a sheme of phasing in arrangements rather than phasing out the current arrangements for women.
  Mr. Ryder: I explained earlier why we have drafted the Bill along these lines. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for the reasons that I gave then, we believe that this is the right course. As I said, we understand that very few people will be affected. We know of only eight teachers who will be affected by the provision, although there may be more.
  I referred to the initial cost of taking the course that the hon. Gentleman advocates, which is to level up. I gave that cost as over £1 million a year, and I shall be happy to supply him with the details of that figure if he wishes.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that any proposal to phase in pensions increase for male pensioners under 55 with dependent children would be equally vulnerable to a challenge that it did not meet the requirements of EC directive 86/378, to which I referred in my opening remarks.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West answered his own question about clause 7. An additional voluntary contribution can buy an index-linked annuity if the individual so chooses. The Government support the personal pension developments but also wish to continue good occupational pension schemes, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has for several years campaigned assiduously for the concession of an additional pension for war service of former colonial expatriate civil servants. I have followed his campaign with interest for longer than the six months for which I have held my present position.
  The benefits and qualifying conditions of the colonial scheme have been modelled on those of the United Kingdom public service schemes—in particular, the provisions applying to home civil servants. There can be no special relaxation of the rules for colonial Civil Service pensioners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington also drew the attention of the House to arrangements in Hong Kong. Ministers have said, as he may know, that we do not rule out the possibility of public officers' agreements in due course, although it is not clear whether, in the unique circumstances of Hong Kong, there may be other ways of
  726
  achieving these ends. It may help if I explain that as other former colonies went into independence, the question of sterling safeguards was settled much closer to the time of constitutional change. This question is one of the matters that the Government are keeping under careful review in consultation with the Hong Kong Government. On present evidence, we are not persuaded that the current arrangements work to the disadvantage of Hong Kong pensioners.
  Ministers have stated that the Government fully recognise the particular concern of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong and will continue to keep their interests in mind in the years leading up to 1997. Particular considerations apply in respect of Hong Kong—for example, guarantees under the joint declaration that expatriates may continue to serve after 1997. No firm decisions have yet been made on special measures, such as compensation, that might be appropriate in Hong Kong's unique circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about consolidation. I agree that simplicity and comprehensibility are important in any pension schemes and underlying legislation. There are already some important consolidation measures on the statute book—for example, the Superannuation Act 1972 of which he may have even closer knowledge than I. We need to be careful that attempts to produce statutes of near-universal coverage do not make the position more complicated. I am not convinced that the time of the House would be well spent on further pensions consolidation at present. As I have said, the Bill represents a relatively simple and straightforward correction of a few minor anomalies in existing legislation.
  With his customary acuteness, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire highlighted clause 2. He is quite right that the clause is retrospective. It aligns the law with the practice of schemes. It brings the law into line with what it was thought and intended to be. I stress, emphasise and underline that no pensioner will lose out as a result of clause 2.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wondered whether the position of police and fire personnel had been looked into. The answer is yes, and no anomalies in the way in which legislation affected them were identified.
  If I have not covered any detailed points, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members or to talk to them before the Bill progresses further.
  Mr. McCartney: Some Government Departments are considering setting up agencies to deal with their work. Will any changes have to be made in the legislation in respect of civil servants who, from this year, may be working for agencies, which although attached to the Civil Service are technically outside it?
  Mr. Ryder: Not as far as I know. All public servants are treated the same under the Bill, whoever they work for and whatever the circumstances in which they work. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know if I am wrong in that judgment.
  As I explained in opening, the Bill is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is intended not to replace a system that has worked well for nearly 20 years but to adapt and improve it to meet the needs of the 1990s in a way that is fair to pensioners and current employees. Against that

  727
  background, I commend the Bill to the House. I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate— especially my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, who has given the Bill his support, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party, and the hon. Member for Makerfield. If any points need to be clarified, I shall be happy to clarify them during the next few days.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  PENSIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the following—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase in the cost of providing increases under or by virtue of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in official pensions and in other pensions within the meaning of that Act;

  (b) any increase in the cost of providing pensions, allowances and gratuities payable under section 1, 7, 9 or 10 of the Superannuation Act 1972;

  (c) any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment which is attributable to increased expenditure by any authority in consequence of—

  (i) any such increase as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;

  (ii) any provisions of the Act requiring the payment of contributions towards the cost of providing increases under Part I of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in official pensions payable under section 9 or 10 of the Superannuation Act 1972; or

  (iii) the provision of benefits for teachers in connection with injuries sustained, or diseases contracted, in the course of their employment;

  (d) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the Act;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;

  and in this Resolution—
  "official pension" has the same meaning as it has in the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971; and
  "teacher" has the same meaning as it has in section 9 of the Superannuation Act 1972.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Government Trading Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.58 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the enabling powers under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to establish trading funds. The new powers will be a major contribution to Civil Service management changes, and thus to the benefits that the Government expect from the Next Steps initiative—the creation of agencies—and the fundamental reform of the Civil Service management and financial management.
To illustrate the links between the Bill and the wider processes of management improvement, we have published the White Paper, "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies". The House, through the Select Committees that have so far taken most interest in Next Steps—the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—has generally supported the Next Steps initiative, and I hope that the Bill will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Bill and White Paper are designed to strengthen the performance of Government Departments by encouraging civil servants to take a more businesslike approach to the efficiency and quality of the delivery of Government services.
The White Paper sets out the background to the Bill. As it says, although the powers to set up trading funds are not limited to Next Steps agencies, it is expected that future trading funds will be entirely, or almost entirely, drawn from agencies. Thus the Bill takes forward the objectives underlying the Government's whole strategy for public service reform—greater freedom for managers, coupled with greater accountability for delivering agreed objectives. It will allow more organisations to operate as trading funds, which will give them greater financial freedom and greater disciplines akin to those of private sector organisations.
It may be helpful if I explain how trading fund status will help to promote those objectives. As paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper stated:
"A 'trading fund' provides a financing framework which covers operating costs and receipts, capital expenditure, borrowing and net cash flow. It has powers to borrow to meet capital expenditure and working capital requirements, and to establish reserves out of surpluses. Within this framework, it can meet outgoings without detailed cash flows passing through Vote accounting arrangements."
At present only some 20 per cent. of the running costs of Government Departments are offset by related receipts. It follows that the majority of Government activities will not be suitable to become trading funds. That does not mean that agencies dealing with those activities are second-class citizens. Indeed, much of the White Paper is devoted to improving arrangements for them. It is important that all agencies that could benefit from the more commercial discipline of a trading fund should be able to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor informed the House on 1 February 1989, when he was Chief Secretary, the main purpose of the Bill is to widen the enabling powers under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to cover bodies that are directed by statute to provide a service and where the fees are fixed by

729
regulation. As bodies such as the vehicle inspectorate and Companies house do not fall within existing powers, the main purpose of the Bill is to extend the 1973 Act enabling powers to such cases.
Trading fund status will make possible a much more businesslike approach to the delivery of Government services. However, it has one characteristic that will rightly cause the House carefully to consider an extension of the Government's powers to use that particular financial mechanism. It is that the detailed cash flows of trading funds are outside the full processes of the supply system through which Parliament authorises and controls expenditure. In recognition of that, the 1973 Act rightly requires that no trading fund can be set up without Parliament debating each proposal on an affirmative resolution order. That principle is extremely important, and it is maintained in the Bill.
The other characteristic of the original legislation, which is strengthened in the Bill, is the statutory requirement for accounting to Parliament. That is much stronger for trading funds than for the remainder of the Civil Service, and the accountability operates direct from the trading fund to Parliament.
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 arose from an early precursor of the Government's management reforms. That was the concept of units of accountable management proposed in the 1968 report of the Fulton committee on the Civil Service and the 1970 Conservative Administration's White Paper "The Reorganisation of Central Government". Although the concept is similar to that underlying changes implemented by the Government, it never really took off in the 1970s. The 1973 Act and the three trading funds still established under it—Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Royal Mint and the Crown Suppliers—are almost the sole surviving relics.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How do these proposals fit in with those for the PSA and Crown Suppliers Bill that we shall begin discussing in Committee tomorrow?
Mr. Lamont: The proposals for the Crown Suppliers and its possible privatisation are entirely matters for the Committee considering the Bill. If that Bill is enacted and the Crown Suppliers are ultimately privatised, it would cease to be a trading fund. The Crown Suppliers was one of the products of the original legislation, but it is being dealt with separately by the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
During the 1980s the Government have pursued a series of initiatives designed to secure better value for money. Government Departments have had a continuing programme of efficiency scrutinies run under the supervision of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit. The central unit on purchasing has encouraged development of better methods and greater professional skills. In the Health Service, cost improvement programmes have encouraged health authorities to identify and implement ways of providing services to patients more cost-effectively. The result of those measures alone has been total savings to date of some £3 billion. Such savings have helped to finance steady increases in priority areas of spending as well as reducing costs to the taxpayer.
Improved management can deliver better services at less cost. There is no conflict between greater efficiency and improving the quality of the service. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he was Chief Secretary:
730
"Shoddy public services should not be an option. Nor should they be tolerated."
A key element in the Government's value-for-money strategy has been the delegation of budgets and financial control to units of management and, wherever possible, to individuals. For the Civil Service, the starting point was the financial management initiative. It had one major purpose—to place responsibility for decisions on both spending and costs at the level where operations and activities are managed and delivered. The units concerned, and the people in them, were then to be accountable for the results.
The statement of principle might be simple, but implementation is more complex and difficult. It has required a major change in attitudes throughout the Civil Service, which has responded enthusiastically to the new opportunities and challenges. It has also required a great deal of hard work in redesigning systems and procedures.
Government Departments are large, varied and complex businesses combining policy and executive functions. Those factors have sometimes made it difficult to delegate down the line, to managers at working level, the clear authority to enable them to make the changes that would deliver improved value for money.
Those issues were addressed in the efficiency unit report entitled "Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps". The key recommendation, accepted by the Prime Minister in her statement to the House on 18 February 1988, was that
"to the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Government, as distinct from policy advice, should be carried out by units clearly designated within Departments, referred to in the report as 'agencies'. Responsibility for the day-to-day operations of each agency should be delegated to a chief executive. He would be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister, in consultation with the Treasury." —[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1149.]
The Next Steps initiative builds on the financial management initiative. It is a major step in delegating responsibility to Civil Service managers within clear parameters. It is designed to deliver services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. It provides a clear framework for delegation and accountability. That makes possible increased delegation to an agency, and through the agency right down to those directly responsible for service delivery, coupled with accountability for the results achieved. The agencies already set up and the announced candidates are listed in annex A to the White Paper. Taken together, they cover about one-third of the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will reply to the debate and will deal with any issues that hon. Members may wish to raise on Next Steps agencies, possible candidates and the future for them.
When an agency is set up, it is necessary to look in detail at the financial controls and accountability arrangements within which it will operate. The wide variety of Government functions means that that inevitably has to be done on a case-by-case basis. But the early experience with Next Steps has enabled us to formulate the key general principles that are set out in the White Paper. The Government Trading Bill deals with the aspects of that policy which require primary legislation to implement, and it may assist the House if I outline briefly the coverage of the Bill.

731
Clause 1 repeals sections 1 and 2 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and inserts five new sections in it. Section 1 deals with the new powers, which are the central change introduced by the Bill. They would, if Parliament approves the necessary affirmative resolution in each case, allow a trading fund to be established where its revenue consists principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided, and where it would lead to improved management efficiency and effectiveness. The White Paper—in paragraphs 4.15 to 4.19—explain how in policy terms the Government propose that those new powers would be used.
Use of the powers would be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is therefore not possible to set out in advance a clear list of candidates. However, among existing agencies, early candidates for consideration as trading funds are expected to include the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, the historic royal palaces and Warren Springs laboratory.
Section 2 deals with how the originating debt of a trading fund is determined. In particular, it allows for the possibility of varying the originating debt to take account of subsequent changes in assets and liabilities of a fund. Section 2A deals with the issue of public dividend capital to a trading fund. Annex B to the White Paper explains the circumstances in which that might be used. Section 2B deals with borrowing by funds, and in particular allows funds to borrow from Votes as an alternative to borrowing from the national loans fund. It is envisaged that the majority of borrowing by trading funds in the future will be from Votes.
Section 4A deals with winding up funds. There have been suggestions in some press reports that increased use of trading funds is designed to prepare more activities for privatisation. There is a grain of truth in this, but only a very small grain in that trading funds are a suitable regime only for the more commercially-oriented Government activities, and it is commercially-oriented activities that are likely to be most suitable for privatisation. But as the White Paper makes clear, the policy remains that described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 October 1988:
"'Next Steps' is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. I cannot rule out, however, that after a period of years agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation".—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 14.]
I should therefore make clear that section 4A is intended to deal only with cases where activities cease altogether, where funds are merged, or where they are better financed by other means within the public sector, and not with privatisation.
Mr. Dalyell: What does the Minister mean by this see-sawing? How does that proposal fit in with the proposals for the Property Services Agency?
Mr. Lamont: The Bill does not cover the Property Services Agency privatisation and the PSA is not listed in the annex. The PSA is the subject of separate legislation and my comments do not apply to it; they apply to the bodies covered in the annex.
Dr. John Marek: That is an important point. Will the PSA not be run as a Government trading fund before it is privatised?
Mr. Lamont: It will not. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers are subject to separate legislation and a separate policy which will be considered in Standing Committee.
Clause 2 deals mainly with minor and consequential amendments, but it and clause 3 also deal with important improvements in reporting and accounting arrangements.
Clause 4 deals with a separate matter which has been encompassed conveniently within the Bill. Clause 4 takes advantage of the opportunity to remove from the statute book a 1946 power over private sector corporate borrowing which is largely a dead letter already, and will be wholly a dead letter from next April. Clause 5 deals with the short title, savings, repeals and extent.
I want to conclude by drawing the attention of the House to the important provisions relating to reports and accounts. A major objective of the Next Steps initiative is to reinforce accountability to Ministers and to Parliament by clarifying managerial responsibilities. That applies to all agencies, whether or not they become trading funds. The enhanced role and accountability of agency chief executives and the introduction of framework documents are essential parts of this.
For trading funds, the 1973 Act provided for each fund to produce annual commercial-style accounts which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. The Government consider that the opportunity should now be taken to strengthen those reporting and accounting arrangements. The Bill therefore proposes bringing the Treasury's powers of direction over accounts into line with those in more recent legislation and it contains a new requirement for the production and publication of annual reports. Such reports will include, in particular, a review of performance against financial, efficiency and quality of service targets. Parliament will thus have available to it consistent annual reports and accounts for each trading fund.
For agencies that are not trading funds, the Bill would extend section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 in a way that would give the Treasury powers to require the production of commercial-style accounts for any agency. Those would be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. As the White Paper explains, the aim would be to use these powers so that agencies which were not trading funds would supplement the appropriation accounts by commercial-style accounts prepared on an accruals basis and including balance sheets.
The proposals will increase the information available to Parliament and to the general public. The way agencies are run and managed will become more open, and their performance against the targets that they have been set will be made clear. This is an important step in increasing accountability to Parliament and more widely, and one which I believe will be welcomed by this House. The Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but I hope that I have made it clear that it has major implications for the working of Government Departments and for the public sector. As such, I commend it to the House.
5.18 pm
Dr. John Marek: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but it nevertheless has important consequences for the way in which the Civil Service is run. I agree with him. In some respects, the Bill has come before the House

733
as a result of a deficiency in the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and because it is not as easy to set up Government trading funds as the Government would like.
The Chief Secretary outlined his view of the proposals. His interpretation of the Bill may be correct. However, another view may follow from the fact that the Government are obsessed with their dogma of privatisation. If the Tories win another election, perhaps many Government agencies will be liable for privatisation in subsequent Parliaments. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends say, there is not much chance of that. But anything, however unlikely, is possible. It is true that, no matter how unprofitable it may be for the country, if something can be sold or even given away with an added backhander if necessary—for example, a green dowry which may cost about £1 billion, or a sweetener if Rover or British Aerospace is involved—the Government believe that the sooner the plans are laid to do so the better.
The second view is that the Bill is a step along the road to breaking up the Civil Service and preparing large sections of it for eventual privatisation. There is also a third view. It follows from the premise not that the Government are obsessed by their privatisation dogma but that they are obsessed by their cost-cutting and so-called efficiency dogma.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Shocking.
Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary says, "Shocking." Nobody is in favour of spending more money than necessary, but there is a trade-off between spending money and delivering a service to the public. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members laugh too readily, they should remember that anybody who has wanted a passport in the past year or two will not understand what they are laughing at. People returning from the continent must wait for an hour at Dover because there are not enough Customs officials. They will not understand why Conservative Members are laughing about this important matter. It is not about spending as little money as possible. It is about spending the right amount and giving the right service to the public.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one good way of ensuring that we spend the right amount of money on a service is to create just the sort of trading fund that the Bill would allow?
Dr. Marek: I will come to that point because it is the whole object of the Bill. Certain things will be acceptable in certain circumstances if a fund is run correctly and if there are clear guidelines on how a chief executive should run it. Such an agency could deliver a service and be subject to greater scrutiny by the House. I am not prepared to believe that the Government will do anything along those lines. The Government's intention is to try to save as much money as possible.
The third view is that even this Government cannot privatise large sections of the Civil Service and that their ultimate intention is to commercialise services that are presently provided by the Civil Service.
Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers charge farmers, even though it may discourage some farmers from using that service and could also be to the detriment of the farming industry and the public. A system of low charges may ensure that farmers do not capriciously or unnecessarily seek advice, but if a trading fund is
734
formed, such services must be operated taking one year with another without making a loss. Charges could become very high and farmers would not use services as much as they should. Without any shadow of doubt, that would be detrimental not only to the farming industry but to the public as a whole.
The third view is that charges will be increased by the Government from time to time so that people will eventually pay the total cost of services provided and a commercial operation will result. We have heard that Government trading funds will set certain Civil Service activities on a more commercial basis. Of course we could set activities on a more commercial basis, but would the service to the public become better or worse? Several documents have been published over the past three or four years, but that point has not been addressed by the Government.
The Opposition are hostile to the Bill in so far as it seeks to achieve any of the aims expressed in the second or third views to which I have referred. We are profoundly suspicious about the first view which the Chief Secretary pressed upon us. There will be some advantages in some situations, and I will comment on them later.
Let us assume that the first view is correct and the Government have no intentions in respect of overtly commercial activities by agencies operating trading funds. It is all very well considering matters case by case, but we have no clear idea of how much of the Civil Service the Government want to turn into agencies, although figures such as three quarters have been given in evidence to various committees in the past. Equally, we have not heard how many trading funds will be instituted. The passport office is one candidate [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Again many Conservative Members shout, "Hear, hear." There is a fee for passports. At present, there is an unacceptably long delay for new or renewed passports. Of course that delay does not apply to Members of Parliament, because the Home Office manages to provide us with a 24-hour service. Hon. Members have nothing to complain about, but the public have a lot to complain about. Except in cases of extreme urgency, people must wait weeks on end.
Let us suppose that the passport office is to be run as a trading fund. What will be the cost of a passport? At the moment, primary legislation would be required to change the cost of a passport. I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that primary legislation would be required to change one of the crucial ingredients of the operation of a trading fund in the Home Office. Who will decide the level of charges? A certain sum was decided many years ago, and no doubt inflation has taken its toll and somebody in the Treasury advises the Home Office from time to time on what it should be in future.
If a trading fund is instituted, the passport offices would have to look after themselves and take one year with another and not make a loss. The cost of a passport could be prohibitive. If the cost of passports is not to be prohibitive, members of the public will have to wait an unconscionably long time. Most members of the public would say that a week's delay would be reasonable in the case of a new passport and they would not see any reason why a renewed passport could not be delivered by return post or perhaps one extra day at most. Because the work is seasonal, an accountant managing the trading fund would advise a month or six months waiting time in spring

735
or summer and would say that the backlog could be made up in the winter. That is largely what happens at present and if there were a trading fund, where would there be an incentive to do anything different? It would be a choice between providing a service for the public or being able to operate the trading fund so as to have a black figure on the bottom line.
Perhaps the cost of issuing a passport could be deemed to be too high and it might be decided to pass the total cost to the public. If that happened, the Government would have to provide funds out of general taxation to avoid a permanent backlog. The ultimate horror would be a two-tier system. Those who wanted a passport quickly and by return of post would have to pay double or treble for the privilege. Of course such things are not unknown under the Government because those who have the money are able to take advantage of such services while the rest of us have to wait.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is speaking about a trading fund. The Minister answered my hon. Friend's query by saying that the PSA was not relevant. Paragraph 8 of the Property Services Agency's report on the management of the civil estate says:
"The Property Services Agency are considering the introduction of commercial accounts and a trading fund to give clear information to clients and Parliament. Improvements in their information systems are necessary, however, and although significant interim improvements are being made their strategy is unlikely to be implemented before the 1990s."
That shows that my hon. Friend's question is highly pertinent to the debate.
Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pertinent and important question, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary said that there is no intention of running the PSA with a trading fund, before it is privatised. There has been some confusion about that, but now we have a clear answer which helps many people and not just hon. Members.
I was speaking about the passport offices and how they would be run with a trading fund. The Government do not approve of public expenditure and because of that I suspect that a long waiting list would be permanent and inevitable. The central issues are whether the service should be self-financing and what are the trade-offs between the cost of the service and its proper performance. There is no point in supplying new passports within a week if proper checks are not made about the applicants.
There is no point in making a service self-financing if it is deemed beneficial for it to be used but it is too expensive for the average man or woman. Women have the right to a free smear test for cervical cancer. I hope that no hon. Member can think of any circumstances in which there should be a charge for such a test because it is patently and clearly in the interests of the country as a whole that that service should be free.
As I have said, I could be convinced that some of the pitfalls and difficulties could be avoided and that the passport offices could begin to provide a proper service and have a trading fund at the same time. However—and this is crucial—it is not the trading fund that is vital but having properly paid and properly motivated civil servants. If there are enough of them and they have a high regard for their work and are efficient, thorough, precise
736
and accurate, people will have a good service. That has little to do with a commercial trading fund about which the Government are seeking to persuade us.
We have to decide whether a proposed charge for a passport is fair and reasonable and whether it is possible and sensible to operate a trading fund on a quasi-commercial basis and provide a first-class service to the public. It would be wrong to set up a fund, commercialise the passport offices, and charge the necessary amount. Passport offices make inquiries about applicants for passports. If they use the police, will the police charge for their activities? Perhaps the police already do that. I will give way to any hon. Member who knows about that. In some cases there would be an incentive for such checks to be minimal and that would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Civil Service and thus to the country.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend speaks about the police. In one aspect of police work a new system is being brought in. For the first time in police history there is a system of paying for certain forensic science services. That is a new issue of principle. I am very interested in the forensic laboratories and to me the matter is serious.
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That matter was next in my notes. The Government are interested in charges and cost cutting and eventual privatisation. Forensic science laboratories now have to receive money from the police when the police send them work to do. As a result, less work will be sent to them by the police. The police will be overstretched and will hesitate to send work to the laboratories. Perhaps eventually the forensic laboratories will have trading funds. Crime that should be solved will be unsolved. There should be no question of an accountant looking at unsolved crime and saying that at least thousands of pounds have been saved; I suspect that if we go too far towards trading funds and agencies we will end up in precisely that situation. When that happens it will provide work for many accountants. If the Government were to remain in office for a long time I would advise youngsters at school to train to be accountants. However, that is hypothetical because the Government will not be in power much longer. Much Government legislation is for the welfare of accountants and not for the good of the country or its expeditious and efficient governance.
I shall not dwell on my next two examples in the way I have dwelt on the passport example. Revenue received by Customs and Excise is well in excess of the cost of providing the service because the revenue comes from such things as value added tax and stamp duty. Let us consider ports of entry to the United Kingdom. Can one imagine Customs officers becoming really zealous in their tasks if items seized could be sold to contribute directly to the trading fund? That is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility. Customs officers in Dover could say, "We are not making a profit for the trading fund and it is nearly the end of the month. We had better search everybody leaving the ships and make them wait for an hour or two." That example may be far fetched, but the principle is sound. The commercial activity that the Government seek to encourage among civil servants is precisely that which I am describing.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the searches to which he refers involve contraband, drugs and so forth, none of which can

737
be used to contribute to the trading fund? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's example is a little wild in the context of the Bill.
Dr. Marek: I would not defend my arguments all the way along the road. However, to some extent my argument highlights the philosophy of the Government. Perhaps not contraband or heroin but the odd bottle of whisky or item of clothing from Hong Kong may be taken through Customs without being declared.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, has he noticed paragraph 4.14 of the White Paper which says:
"Thus for example the delivery of social security benefits, and tax assessment and collection are outside the powers"?
Dr. Marek: I have noticed that and that is why I have restricted my argument to the Customs and Excise which does not carry out tax collection in the strict sense in which the Chief Secretary means it. When goods are declared that is what the Customs and Excise does, but I was talking about the aspect of Customs work that involves detecting goods coming into the country which are not declared where there is an intention to defraud on the part of the persons bringing in the goods.
I do not wish to dwell on the Customs and Excise. Suffice it to say that it is not just about detecting contraband. Most of its task is to collect tax on goods which are properly declared. There is a trade-off between stopping the importation of illegal articles and ensuring that the proper duties are paid on other articles. It is also the job of the Customs officers at ports of entry to be civil to and not to inconvenience unduly the travelling public at ports of entry. At present there are long queues and much inconvenience is caused at ports of entry. It is tempting to say that any other system must be better, but that is not the answer. Nor is a trading fund the answer. Let ports of entry be properly staffed. Let there be more than one desk at immigration when 300 people come off a jumbo jet. Let the Government employ a few more Customs officers so that motorists taking their cars off the ferries at Dover, Folkestone and elsewhere can go through the formalities without waiting for one or two hours as they have to do on many occasions. That is the answer.
The Government have said that the vehicle inspectorate is a number one candidate for a trading fund. A balance will have to be struck between charging for the services that it provides and proper attention to and testing of vehicles to ensure that the public are safe and can be assured that the inspectorate is performing its functions properly. If there is a trading fund, the chief executive will be given powers to run the inspectorate at a profit. There is a danger that if he deems that it would be difficult to set charges at the market level or a high enough level he will be tempted to cut corners and tell his employees, "Do not spend half an hour testing this vehicle. Can you not do it in 20 or 25 minutes?" The Government must address the danger that corners will be cut. They must assure Opposition Members and the country that it will not happen.
The White Paper says on page 6 in paragraph 2.2:
"The main aim of the Next Steps initiative is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively".
We can call that phrase weasel words. I think that at one time or another we have all used that phrase. Such concepts are not easily defined. We interpret them in our
738
own way. I have my own interpretation of performing a service efficiently and effectively. If we read on, we see that the paragraph says,
"within available resources for the benefit of taxpayers"
There we have another example of the Government's cost-cutting ethos. It is the Government who set the resources. They will set them at too low a level and will then set the impossible task—not only to the chief executive—to carry out the functions of the agency properly and responsibly. The Government will put enormous pressure on the civil servants in the agency. Employees will have to struggle simply to keep their jobs and do them properly and accurately.
The same paragraph of the Command Paper says that agencies represent a new and distinctive development. That is what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks. There are problems with agencies. They depend on the director. A bad manager will mean, by and large, that we shall have a bad agency, if not immediately, certainly in due course.
Mr. Hind: This argument equally applies to civil servants at present.
Dr. Marek: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me in that argument. If we are to have agencies it is crucial that the chief executives are of high calibre and have management skills to enable them to make a success of running the day-to-day affairs of the agency. They must also have sufficient integrity not to buckle to the Minister at his every whim.
Government trading funds are intended for many agencies. Some agencies were not necessarily set up as a result of the Fulton committee but partly in an attempt to reduce the pay of civil servants. Agencies will result in regionalisation of pay, local pay additions and a lack of mobility for civil servants. Employees will not be able to transfer from one agency to another or return to the Civil Service as easily as they did in the past. I may be overstating the ease with which they could move in the past, but the onus is on the Government to assure us that if the Bill reaches the statute book and if agencies are set up, some with Government trading funds, the mobility of civil servants will be no worse than before.
Mr. Kemp, the project manager of the Next Steps project, is effusive in his protestations that agencies will provide a better service to the public and improve morale in the Civil Service. I have no reason to believe that he does not believe that that will be so. However, it is implied that pay will have to be differentiated on geographical grounds. That has been demonstrated. There is a hidden implication that agencies would make the Civil Service a more commercial organisation, dedicated to making a profit at the expense of the public. Sometimes that is a precursor to privatisation in a future Parliament.
All the factors that I have mentioned are worrying. Many people believe that the confrontation between management, which pursues profits, and employees has caused our economic decline this century. There is a danger that that confrontation will be introduced into the Civil Service.
To take an example of what is wrong with British industry, at the end of last week the ambulance workers' unions suggested that there should be a 15-minute stoppage of work. They did not say, "Everybody out. It does not matter what the employers say." They said, "Let us stop work for 15 minutes. Ask your employer if he or

739
she will allow you to stop work. If that is acceptable, stop for 15 minutes." What did British industry do? It did not say, "All right, we agree. we do not think that the ambulance men and women are right and a stoppage of 15 minutes would be detrimental to the country generally, but we agree that something should be done to tell the ambulance men and women and the Government to get together and to reach an agreement." They did not say, "Production cannot be stopped in essential industries." Nor did they say, "We do not mind, but work 15 minutes later." Instead, the Institute of Directors and the CBI said to industry, "You can sue the unions if they stop work for 15 minutes."
That is an ethos which I do not want to see within the Civil Service. I do not want to see that confrontational style. By and large, the Civil Service is still administering the country on the bases of fairness and accuracy. By and large, civil servants take a pride in their work and aim for excellence in every respect. The Government have attacked that approach and made life difficult wherever possible.
When the Government took office, the pay review unit was cancelled. There was an attempt to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory. A ban was placed on trade unions at GCHQ. Research institutes became demoralised. The Bill's provisions propose the spread of agencies and trading funds. I shall need much convincing by the Government that the Bill's provisions are not merely another way of cutting staff, introducing regional pay and more contracting out, and ending national pay bargaining.
Mr. Edward Leigh: All good things.
Dr. Marek: There we have it. The hon. Gentleman says, "All good things." He is honest. I hope that what I am saying does not constitute the Government's intent. I hope also that Conservative Members will disown the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I have said, I believe that the Bill signals the ending of national terms and conditions of service.
A code of ethics is to be introduced for the Civil Service. The loyalty of a civil servant to his or her Minister is to be absolute. I do not know how that can work. For example, Inland Revenue civil servants have statutory duties when they are dealing with the tax affairs of members of the public. Lawyers have legal obligations when discharging their functions. Statisticians have professional duties. How would we resolve a potential conflict?
The Government are not interested in fairness, justice or morality. Thank goodness there are not many bent civil servants. Under the Government, however, many decent people will have to continue to wrestle with their conscience, as did Clive Ponting. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will agree that if a civil servant improperly authorises the release of letters written by the Attorney-General—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the terms of the Bill.
Dr. Marek: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
If a civil servant improperly authorises the release of letters—
Mr. Dalyell: What my hon. Friend says is especially relevant to the fact, which I believe is unprecedented, that the First Division Association has formally protested to the Government about the new guidelines for relations between civil servants and the Government. It has argued that the Crown comes into the matter at some stage. Is it not extraordinary that the First Division Association should have complained about its treatment by any British Government?
Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has made an important intervention. What he says is symptomatic of the Government's attack upon the Civil Service over the past 10 years. It is certain that a civil servant who improperly authorises the release of letters written by the Attorney-General is as bent as the Minister who asks him to do it. I do not believe that civil servants should be put in difficult positions of that sort. We are to have trading funds—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Bill.
Dr. Marek: I shall seek to explain why they relate to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There may be cost cutting in the operation of a trading fund. Vehicles may not be inspected properly, for example, because of the pressures that are on the trading fund. The chief executive may say, "We are not making a profit for the fund." That will put the civil servant in the same difficulty that other civil servants have faced in other areas of the Civil Service. That has been happening throughout the Government's existence. We are not faced with an isolated problem with the introduction and spread of trading funds. If the Government are serious, I accept that it is possible that trading funds could work in some instances, but the Government must convince Opposition Members that they are not pursuing their old dogma and attacks on the Civil Service of the sort that we have witnessed over the past 10 years. That is the central issue.
The Bill will not do much for the Civil Service or the public. We suspect that clear intentions lie behind its introduction, and if that is so they will warrant unlimited opposition. Mr. Kemp, the Next Steps project manager, envisages three quarters of the Civil Service eventually being organised on an agency basis. When the agencies have been set up and the framework agreements instituted, the unions have not been consulted. Any hon. Member who wishes to pursue that matter a little further has to read only page 7 of House of Commons Paper No. 420, the 38th report of the Public Accounts Committee. It is there made pretty clear that the unions were not consulted properly.
The next Labour Government will put matters right. Mr. Kemp will be given something else to do when that Administration takes office.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman for three quarters of an hour and I have not been able to establish so far whether it is the Opposition's intention to oppose the Bill. Will he make that clear?
Dr. Marek: I shall come to that.
The next Labour Government will not disband the agencies that have already been created but in all probability we shall not create any more. I say that because the nation's economy is in such a mess that there are many important actions that the next Labour

741
Government will have to take. We shall then see how the agencies and the trading funds have operated. At that stage we may be able to take a more considered view.
There is nothing wrong with the accountability to Parliament that is provided by the Bill. I have no quarrel with that. Besides publishing accounts, however, there should be scrutiny by Parliament over the day-to-day affairs of chief executives of agencies. That can be carried out by the Public Accounts Committee. Better still, however, the scrutiny should be available to every Member of this place. That could be provided for but at the moment I am not sure of the Government's intentions. I refer to page 18 of the White Paper. At the end of paragraph 5.10 there appears the following:
"The exact format of individual reports, and their degree of detail, will be for the responsible Minister and the Chief Executive to decide in the light of circumstances and objectives."
That is not good enough. I should like a more forthright statement about the Government's readiness to accept, first, accountability, and, secondly, scrutiny.
There is one other initiative that the next Labour Government will take because the Bill says little about responsibility to the consumer. It makes mention of delivering a service but not of accountability. Agencies could he vehicles for a much better service to the public. It will be possible to give agencies guidelines on how they should go about their activities. Such guidelines would not be dictated solely by commercial considerations, and because of the nature of the agencies it will be easier both for Parliament and the public to judge them and their success—or otherwise. That particular aspect is one to which a Labour Government will pay close attention.
The Bill has some good points, depending on which Government are responsible for enforcing its provisions. For that reason, the Government should publish a list of trading fund candidates as they have in respect of agencies. The Government should declare also how much privatisation is envisaged for the long term.
Mr. Norman Lamont: We have done so.
Dr. Marek: I am speaking of the long term. I do not wish to delay the House, but there are quotations from the Prime Minister in which she stated that it was not possible to reveal what will and will not be privatised in the long term.
As to the question of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), if the Bill receives its Second Reading, we shall press the Government in Committee on all the issues that I mentioned.
6 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his short and effective presentation of the Bill, in just 20 minutes. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke for nearly 50 minutes, and I feel sure that even his own right hon. and hon. Friends would like to see him shunted off into a trading fund. We might then be able to get on with our business.
The Bill is an important, albeit technical, measure. At present there are 10 executive agencies employing 7,000 staff. The Bill makes provision for a further 42 agencies involving perhaps 190,000 people, so we are talking big business. I welcome the Bill, which is entirely in line with Government policy. Such services need to be more
742
business oriented and geared to consumer demand and market forces. If matters of managerial judgment are involved, why should not more flexible arrangements be made in the agencies?
Annex A of the White Paper "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" presents a long list of the agencies, but few of them concern the Ministry of Defence. One relates to the Royal Air Force, but there is no agency connected with either of the other two services. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies to the debate. There is scope within the Ministry of Defence for more initiatives of the kind that we are debating.
The White Paper states that the Next Steps project manager will identify obstacles and tackle them. Can my right hon. Friend state what kind of business experience is available in the manager's office? Will it be manned entirely by civil servants? There is clearly a need for much greater business acumen, and that is particularly relevant in the light of paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper, which reads:
"Before any Agency is established, the need for the activity is reviewed and alternative options, including contracting out the work and privatisation, arc examined."
Will there be continuous monitoring of the prospects for privatisation, and will there be sufficient impetus and knowledge of the private sector in the Next Steps office to ensure that trading status is not a convenient and quiet alternative to privatisation? In many instances, privatisation may be the better solution.
Paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Bill is a response to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I take it that the Government are seeking to clarify the managerial role of trading agencies as distinct from the policy role of the relevant Ministers. When my right hon. Friend winds up, perhaps he will say whether all the Committee's recommendations have been implemented. If only some have been implemented, which recommendations have not been implemented?
The outcome of each agency's work will be set out in the framework document and "made available to Parliament". What does that mean? How much scrutiny will there be? I accept, given the different natures of the agencies, that there will be some diversity in their relationships and closeness to Ministers. The key question is whether they will be equally accountable to Parliament.
Under existing arrangements for the Civil Service, Departments are cash limited and subject to scrutiny by' the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The new arrangements will be different. The trading funds established in 1973 allowed the Government to finance activities outside normal parliamentary control. Those funds have considerable independence, including the power to borrow. Paragraph 4.3 of the White Paper states:
"Parliamentary control is obtained through:—the affirmative Order establishing each fund—the scrutiny of statutory annual accounts, and the power to examine the fund Accounting Officer."
How much scrutiny of those funds by Parliament has there been? What evidence is there that they have been successful?
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 established a strictly limited number of well-known trading funds, such as the Royal Mint and her Majesty's Stationery Office. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the

743
much longer list of smaller and lesser-known bodies that will, under the Bill, be allowed to enjoy trading fund status will receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny?
Paragraph 4.6 of the White Paper states:
"Under the 1973 Act the accounts of a trading fund are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is required to lay them before Parliament together with his report. They are then published as a House of Commons Paper. This provides a basis for Parliament to consider the performance of the funds against its financial and other performance targets."
We often hear those comforting words in our debates, but how much parliamentary scrutiny of the trading funds has there really been and how effective was it? I am not saying that I disagree with the Bill, but it is only right for this House to demand more clarification on Second Reading. The Bill is clearly needed, but as it gives the Government enormous powers Parliament has a right to the answers it seeks.
I agree that the present definition of trading status is imprecise and I welcome the new formula, which was originally outlined in paragraph 4.12 of the White Paper. However, is not the new formula so broad as to include virtually anything? That may suit those who share my ideological standpoint, but that degree of breadth may concern other right hon. and hon. Members. It is important that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassures them when he replies.
The rules of payment for the use of Government services in respect of social security benefits, for example, apply to fewer than half of all receipts and therefore will not be covered by the Bill. However, I should like to know how the figure of 50 per cent. was arrived at, for no explanation has been given. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on that aspect. Why stick at 50 per cent.? Why not make it less, or more?
I would appreciate further information on the way in which the Government intend to use what is a very generous enabling Bill. Paragraph 4.16 of the White Paper states:
"The first criterion for assessing suitability is whether, as a matter of policy, the Government considers that levels of activity and expenditure should vary in line with demands and receipts."
I do not claim to be a highly intelligent Member of Parliament, but I find it difficult to understand that particular phrase and shall be grateful for my right hon. Friend's elucidation of it. Also, if agency trading comes about, how will the arm's length relationship with other Government Departments be maintained? The White Paper does not provide sufficient assurances. How will staff performance be rewarded? Will there be increased pay or bonuses? That aspect relates to paragraph 18 of the White Paper. Finally, how will the external finance limit restrict business initiative by the staff operating in the trading funds?
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for asking so many questions. In general, I welcome what is a worthwhile and useful Bill, which will do much to increase public confidence in the agencies. I wish the Bill every success in Committee and in its later stages.
6.9 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: This is a useful Bill which will improve the present statutory provision for creating trading accounts within the public service.
I listened for about three quarters of an hour to find out whether Labour Members would vote against the Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that no one will vote against it tonight. I assume that I am correct. It was clearly inadequate to continue to rest the creation of the funds on the basis of the old legislation, and the Government are sensible to introduce the Bill.
Although I assume that it is the case, it is not clear from the face of the Bill whether the creation of any trading fund will require an affirmative resolution of the House. The Government have said that in the White Paper, and I assume that the combined effect of the two Bills is that it will require an affirmative resolution for any fund to be set up. If that is not the case, it should be put right during the passage of the Bill. The Government have said that that is their intention, and I assume that they will keep to that.
A series of possible candidates for trading funds is listed in the White Paper. A number of those listed do not lend themselves to being trading funds because they do not fall within the just-quoted definition of activities in which there can be some variation of expenditure according "to demands and receipts." That applies to a relatively small number.
When the candidates are considered, it is important that not only the trading fund operation is taken into account but how performance standards can be set for the funds. The worry is that agencies will not have adequate performance standards set and that standards will not be monitored. The White Paper says that the
"Agencies will commit themselves to substantial and measurable improvements in performance, in terms of services and their costs".
It should be made clear that the standards will be set at the beginning, and that they will weigh as heavily on the agency as the requirement to balance its books. If that is not so, we will simply get a perpetuation of inadequate standards or worse.
The passport office has been referred to, and I hope that nobody has come to the conclusion that the existing system is working satisfactorily. No one who has observed the work of the Liverpool passport office during the past two or three years can argue that it is working satisfactorily, and that was the case long before the industrial dispute. I am glad that the Government Chief Whip is in his place because he was a Home Office Minister and many of the staff in his office were helpful to hon. Members seeking to chase up passports for constituents who urgently needed them. Passport applications were extracted from a mound of applications that had not been dealt with. I had a number of experiences that led me to believe that the organisation was not being run as a commercial organisation would be run.
Late one Saturday afternoon I was on the telephone to an official in the Minister's office at the Home Office. I was working on a passport application. The Minister and civil servants in London were working on a passport application but no member of the management was in the Liverpool office to find out what had happened to it. I expect that they were out watching Liverpool or Everton. In any commercial organisation, in the middle of an industrial dispute, when it was unable to meet its requirements, the management would have been working

745
at the weekends. That was not happening in the passport office. Long before the industrial dispute arose—and there were good reasons for that dispute—there was a state of near chaos in the Liverpool passport office, and they were unable to meet the heavy summer demand.
The candidate organisations are generally monopolies and it is therefore important to ensure that there is a system to set performance standards. One cannot get a passport from anywhere other than a passport office. Those people who were shrewd enough to send their applications to the Belfast office before the dispute arose got their passports on time. In that respect it is not a monopoly, but one can get a passport only from the Government. A vehicle can be validly examined only by an inspector authorised by the Government. Many of the organisations listed in the White Paper are monopolies. We cannot simply create trading funds, and allow them to exploit their monopoly position to continue to provide a bad or an inadequate service. Therefore, it is important that trading requirements and strong performance standards are set and that they can be monitored by Parliament.
Some of the organisations that are already working under the trading fund arrangements—for example, Her Majesty's Stationery Office—would not survive for long in the real market place, or the public sector, if they engaged in the pricing arrangements that they have now. The White Paper, "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" is printed by HMSO, which claims that it has 29 pages. It has only 25 pages, as four are blank. The price of those 25 pages is £4·60. That is supposed to be commercial enterprise working in the public service. Clearly there is a long way to go to get the level of efficiency that a non-monopoly commercial organisation has to achieve to survive, and I would welcome any attempt to achieve that.
I emphasise that it is the monopolistic position that many organisations enjoy that makes it insufficient merely to set up a trading fund. If the Government-appointed agency is the only supplier—as it has to be for some things—it will take more than a trading fund requirement to ensure that the public get a satisfactory service, and that is what the Bill is about. The public should get satisfactory service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, and the present situation does not ensure that.
Dr. Marek: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to reconsider his words. A satisfactory service is perhaps too low a standard. Let us have a good, first-class service for the public.
Mr. Beith: I am prepared to accept that qualification, although to my mind a satisfactory service would be getting a passport within a week, but a good service is to get it by return of post. The way that the terms have been used shows how standards have slipped over the years. The currency has become debased. I accept that a stronger term than "satisfactory" is needed. We want to ensure that a good service can be provided at reasonable cost. The present arrangements in many areas of the public service have not ensured that.
The trading funds system is appropriate to some areas of public service, but it will have to be backed up by strong performance standards, particularly when the Government are the monopoly suppliers.
6.17 pm
Mr. James Paice: I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members welcome the Bill because it recognises that the role of the Civil Service is vital to Britain but cannot be divorced from the needs of the public; that has been one of the cornerstones of Government policy.
The Bill goes a long way towards trying to relate the structure of the Civil Service more closely to the needs of the people through the various trading funds and the staff that manage them. I think that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was trying to make that point in his lucid speech.
The Bill sets out to expose Civil Service practice to some of the pressures of commercial practice, although it cannot be 100 per cent. successful in achieving that.
We listened for more than 50 minutes to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and he made a lot of spurious points. One was the work of ADAS, which does not appear in annex A of the trading funds. Many of the points the hon. Gentleman made demonstrated that he does not know much about the subject.
ADAS, in fact, brought in a charging mechanism to demonstrate the wealth of advice from a range of private bodies that is available to farmers, whatever the activity in which they are involved. Its introduction has shown that farmers, once they have to pay, prefer to pay for advice from private bodies that have kept up with modern developments in technology and work systems: the problem is not the charges, but the evidence that has emerged that what was required was not being provided. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, consult his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), his party's spokesman on agriculture, I do not think that he will find much evidence of support for the suggestion of a subsidy to enable ADAS to provide a free service, as it used to.
It has become fashionable to regard civil servants as a cohesive group. We should not do so, however, for they are involved in a range of different activities, as is demonstrated by the number of possible agencies listed in annex A. They may be research or investigative scientists, clerks, historians, administrators or members of many other disciplines, and thus cannot be lumped together. All the agencies and candidate agencies have some impact on the public, and most have a considerable impact: the vast majority of staff are in employment or social security offices.
The overwhelming majority of civil servants are highly competent and capable. I do not subscribe to the theory that they are workshy and could not survive in the private and commercial sectors, although I know that many people hold that view; I had a good deal to do with civil servants in certain sectors before I came to the House, and I believe that the Bill will show that they are as competent as I consider them to be. The problems of poor service and insufficient accountability have been caused by the system that has operated for so many years—a system that stultifies initiative, discourages innovation of any kind and encourages people to believe themselves immune from accountability, disciplinary measures and even dismissal.
By allowing trading funds to be set up, the Bill will go a long way towards solving those problems, although it is bound to cause uncertainty among staff: everyone fears change, and many civil servants will doubtless wonder

747
what that change holds for them. While I do not dismiss their anxiety, I believe that in time it will be shown to be groundless. Trading funds will help to improve accountability, and will create conditions much more akin to those in the private and commercial sectors—conditions in which the individual can prosper. They will assist personal development and encourage the innovative processes that are so essential to a commercial operation.
I have, however, some anxieties about the Bill. First, I am keen that, where appropriate, civil servants who run the trading funds should be given terms and conditions of employment comparable with private-sector operations in the same sphere. However, while that may involve a considerable review of salary structure, it may also mean a weakening of the position of such staff—for instance, their protection against dismissal. We should remember that the Ibbs report criticised the centralised pay and conditions rules of the Civil Service for being outside the control of most managers and
"structured to fit everything in general and nothing in particular".
I hope that the Government will not simply conclude that, with agency status, those responsible for operating the trading funds will still be civil servants, with Civil Service conditions and pay scales. Some of the agencies will have to compete for staff and in terms of the quality of their service, just like private-sector operations.
My other concern is competition. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has already made some of the points that I wanted to make. Simple responsibility for a fund will not achieve all that we would wish; financial targets—for returns on investment, for example—will not bring about all the desired results. We must go as far as we can towards creating competition, perhaps even breaking down some of the agencies into two or more groups so that they can compete among themselves—on a regional basis, for instance. We must try to engender competition wherever possible.
After a few years we may find that some of the agencies are not really needed, at least within the public sector, and if that happens so be it. The hon. Member for Wrexham wanted an assurance that the Government's proposal was not the precursor of privatisation or even abandonment. Perhaps, in view of the party that I represent, it is not surprising that I find it difficult to understand the ideology that the agencies should continue regardless, and that we should not consider privatising them. Such is the rate of change in Labour's policies that before many moons have passed its members may well suggest privatisation themselves—not, I hasten to add, that they will have the opportunity to do so.
I feel that we should question some aspects of the agencies listed in annex A, which will be prime candidates for the establishment of trading funds. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and I should like to know why it is necessary for such an organisation to be in the public sector. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, some of its provision can hardly compete with what we would expect from a private-sector equivalent.
I also wonder—this will be dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service—why we need a special college for civil servants. If we wish to encourage civil servants to operate in a commercial
748
environment, they should be trained by people who already work in such an environment, rather than by people trained under the system that we are trying to change.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Is not investment in the training of British managers in the private sector very low compared with our European competitors? The private sector's record of investing in the training of British managers is very poor.
Mr. Paice: As one would expect, the hon. Gentleman's comments are some years out of date. Management training in the United Kingdom has gone forward by leaps and bounds during the past few years. Private sector investment in training has increased by at least 50 per cent. in the last three or four years. That fact cannot be disputed. The hon. Gentleman needs only to check with the Confederation of British Industry, if he doubts it.
I do not suggest that British industrial management training right across the board is adequate. However, the ability of commercial training firms to train to the highest level has been proved throughout the United Kingdom. The companies that provide private sector management training could also provide it for civil servants.
The Queen Elizabeth II conference centre is a building of renown, especially to those of us whose offices are in Dean's yard or elsewhere in the conference centre's vicinity. I was surprised to find that it is listed. I wonder why the public sector is running the conference centre. I hope that in the near future it will be funded by a trading fund, to be followed shortly afterwards by privatisation.
I have already referred to the employment service as being one of the most important potential candidates for financing through a trading fund. It employs 34,000 civil servants and it is involved with the public. Members of Parliament receive many letters of complaint from constituents. They complain about how they have been dealt with by employment service employees. It is an essential part of the public sector, but it must remember that it is there to serve the public.
The fuel suppliers branch may employ fewer than 50 people, but one has to ask why there should be a fuel suppliers branch to provide a bulk fuel purchasing service to Government Departments. Surely a trading fund ought to be established so that the fuel suppliers branch can be got rid of altogether. A multitude of private sector companies could do that job.
Much has been said about passport office delays, but nothing has been said about Land Registry delays. During the last few years I have received many letters from people who have complained bitterly about Land Registry delays. When people want to move from one part of the country to another—usually to my constituency because of the thriving economy and low levels of unemployment—they find that it is difficult to do so. Delays are due to lack of accountability. Improvements must be made.
Property Holdings, which is responsible for the management of the Government's property portfolio, ought to be run in the same way as the private sector runs such a business. If it is cost effective for the Government to have their own property holdings, that is fine; I have no fundamental objection to that. However, if it is to be cost effective, Property Holdings must be staffed and run in

749
such a way as to make it competitive with the private sector. A trading fund would ensure that it could be compared favourably with the private sector.
As for the Training Agency—formerly the Manpower Services Commission—I had a great deal to do with that organisation before I became a Member of Parliament. The Training Agency is venturing into an area that, so far as I know, is unknown to the rest of the Civil Service. There has been the introduction of private management, through the development of training and enterprise councils. Private industry will set up its own councils. Some members of the Training Agency's staff will be seconded to the training and enterprise councils to carry out administrative, operational and executive functions. Civil servants will be responsible to the private sector management. It will be interesting to watch the experiment over the next few years. It will provide civil servants with the opportunity to demonstrate all those characteristics that I described earlier as being essential if the operation is to be commercial and serve the public.
Despite the implications of some of my remarks, I believe that the majority of civil servants are competent. They have the ability to compete in a much more commercial operation. Ultimately, however, their job is to provide a service to the public, whether it be across the counter at a Department of Social Security office or behind the scenes in a research laboratory. This enabling Bill will allow most of the agencies to operate in a way that will demonstrate clearly how effective and efficient they are. I hope that in a few years time we shall be able to introduce a tranche of Bills to privatise some of the agencies. As a first step towards privatisation, I welcome the Bill.
6.36 pm
Mr. John Battle: This enabling Bill will provide the Government with enormous powers. Therefore, we are entitled to probe the Government's intentions. I should like to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) by asking a few detailed questions about some of the entries in the annex to the White Paper.
According to annex A, the Resettlement Agency
"Provides resettlement units for people without settled way of life."
The social security IT services directorate
"Provides computer and communication technology services for the DSS."
The social security benefits administration
"Assesses, issues and administers social security benefits."
According to the Chief Secretary's speech, some of those services could be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
The Government announced in November the relocation of Social Security and Health Service departments to Leeds, involving 2,000 members of staff, from the chief executive down. That move has been welcomed in Leeds, and I hope that it is a sign of the Government's commitment to a regional policy. It is a key regional centre and the staff will get a warm Yorkshire welcome when they arrive in Leeds.
The Chief Secretary said that Government Departments are complex. Will the Resettlement Agency and the social security IT services directorate and the social security benefits administration, which are candidates for agencies in under Next Steps, be funded as trading agencies? Is it intended that commercial-style accountancy should be introduced in those departments?
750
The Resettlement Agency provides homes for people with no fixed abode. They will pay rent, for which they will get a receipt. Paragraph 4.14 of the White Paper says:
"The powers extend only to bodies which generate receipts in respect of goods or services provided. Where there are no such receipts the powers could not be used. The effect is to exclude areas of Government where the payment is not directly related to the provision of the goods or services, or where such payments constitute less than half of the body's revenue … Thus for example the delivery of social security benefits, and tax assessment and collections are outside the powers."
I wonder whether the reference to collection only involves tax and whether all social security benefits are clearly outside the remit.
The social fund was a shift of policy from benefit as grant to benefit as loan—a loan which has to be repaid from benefit. I hope that there will not be a shift to commercial-style accounting in that area. Social security offices should offer a fair, efficient and just service to claimants who, through no fault of their own, need to make a claim. They have often been made to feel that they are victims or that they have committed an offence.
In a leader last January, The Times said:
"Last year one of the brighter sparks in the Social Security Department introduced an impressive prospectus for change. It proposed to remove from London the processing and basic clerical tasks occasioned by claims for income support … It also urged the treatment of claimants not as enemies of the system but as citizens deserving efficient administration."
I hope that that will indeed be the case. The Department of Social Security recently introduced a new logo for its leaflets. It appeared as a smile. Some might argue in other debates that that smile is somewhat ironic in the light of benefit reductions. But as the Department is to move to the friendlier location of Leeds, let us hope that the service will be much more efficient and friendly rather than shift towards a business intent on shaming those who claim benefits. That is the type of improved management and efficiency that we would like.
I should be most grateful if the Chief Secretary would assure me that the Government have absolutely no intention, now or in the future, that any part of social security provision should be covered by this Bill.
6.42 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: This is an excellent Bill. It takes forward much of what the Government have already done to reorganise the Civil Service. I fully support it and urge the House to vote for its Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was at pains to tell us that the Bill is worrying. More than anything else, the Bill shows up the differences of attitude between the two sides of the House. We look for efficiency and better cost management and see a role for the private sector. The Opposition want central control and maintain that the civil servant is always right and, as a result, must be left alone. If the hon. Gentleman plans to be a Minister, I urge him to be subjected to a compulsory session of "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey Appleby could teach him quite a bit. Civil Servants can look after themselves extremely well.
When we consider the delivery of necessary services by the Government, the need for improvement is hammered home to us. I am a lawyer and must say that the Land Registry is a complete shambles. Solicitors carrying out

751
conveyancing experience great difficulty getting the proper documents, and getting certificates for leases takes far too long. House transfers are delayed most unnecessarily.
The same can be said for the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea. Any solicitor or barrister who has applied on behalf of his client for a copy of a driver's licence for the magistrates' benefit and anybody who has applied for a new copy of his licence will know of the terrible problems there. The Liverpool passport office is on my constituency's doorstep. Many of my constituents who wanted to go abroad on holiday were caused great anxiety last year by the dispute there. That office has a history of inefficiency. Such difficulties must be tackled. The White Paper is an excellent document, and the Bill based on it is the way forward.
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Land Registry. Does he agree that one of the difficulties, to say nothing of the lack of resources for additional staff, is that people who try to sell homes to other people may find that they are involved in litigation about who pays the ground rent? Every day of the week, thousands of transactions involving the sale of ground rents are made in London. That causes huge delays in the Land Registry. The Government have failed to prevent such speculation, which creates difficulties for the Land Registry and the hon. Gentleman's clients.
Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the transfer of freeholds, when the occupier is a leaseholder, is a big problem. I am sure that he is aware of the Lord Chancellor's proposals, based on the Australian and New Zealand model, to introduce a new style of ownership for flats in London. That will eventually do away with the problem he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman and I experience the same difficulties in our constituencies. The same is true for much of the north of England. I accept the need for reform, as does the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McCartney: The Lord Chancellor's proposals relate exclusively to transactions in London. They do not affect transactions in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not a party political issue. The House should find time to resolve this difficulty, which affects millions of potential purchasers each year.
Mr. Hind: As an active member of the all-party leasehold reform group, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us—
Mr. McCartney: I am a member of it.
Mr. Hind: We are working with the Building Societies Association to bring forward a proposal such as that—
Mr. McCartney: I am the assistant secretary.
Mr. Hind: I said that the hon. Gentleman is an active member. He will come along and help.
The examples I have mentioned demonstrate the need for Next Steps agencies. A trading fund is the logical step for many of them—they provide services directly to the public.
The White Paper draws attention to the problems of monopolies. We should consider that problem carefully. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) said about the list
752
of Next Steps agencies in the back of the White Paper. Do the Government need to be involved in many of the functions listed there? Could they not be done equally well by the private sector? I welcome the fact that the Government are considering privatising those functions in future. Many of them could be carried out just as well in the private sector.
The trading funds that will be set up for the Next Steps agencies will not in any way reduce accountability to Parliament. Paragraph 5(1) of the White Paper states:
"Next Steps will involve no diminution in Ministerial accountability to Parliament. Indeed, the creation of Agencies will clarify managerial responsibilities and reinforce accountability to Ministers and to Parliament."
The majority of chief executives will be former civil servants. The hon. Member for Wrexham says that chief executives will feel under pressure to produce results and will not feel able to satisfy the public's need for service. But civil servants feel the same pressure and the same need to satisfy the public's requirements at the moment. That will not change except that the agencies will be treated individually. The Comptroller and Auditor General will publish a report which, along with the accounts, will be brought before the House of Commons so that we can scrutinise the operation of that part of the Civil Service. Today, much of it is subsumed into the whole and we never know how efficient individual parts of the Civil Service are. The report will provide us with a good opportunity to look at it. The funds will be created by affirmative order of the House of Commons and the chief executives will be subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General and no doubt will be called before Select Committees when it is considered that matters need to be investigated by the House. In future these matters will be safe in the hands of the House and Ministers.
I now turn to more parochial considerations. Next Steps agencies will be important for the provinces of England, Wales and Scotland because they will be self-contained units with chief executives responsible directly to Ministers, so there is absolutely no reason why they need to operate in the south-east. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent northern constituencies will agree that we have a classic opportunity to move those agencies into the provinces to create jobs in areas of high unemployment.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In Lancashire.
Mr. Hind: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no reason why many of the agencies should not move north. A number of Department of Social Security offices are located in Blackpool and before it was privatised the new headquarters of Girobank was set up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The Government have successfully transferred Civil Service jobs from the south-east to the north. That must continue. Given the technology and the communications that exist today, there is no reason why all the major offices of state should be located in the south-east of England. Next Steps agencies will be the beginning.
Mr. McCartney rose—
Mr. Hind: Let me finish this point.

753
In the past six months I have had the privilege to serve in the Northern Ireland Office as a parliamentary private secretary. A similar situation exists in the Welsh Office where Ministers are based in London but can communicate with civil servants by video and by television link so that they can have meetings with civil servants who are 100 or 200 miles away. Those jobs will provide much-needed prosperity in the regions and should move out of the overcrowded south-east where Conservative Members are desperate to protect the green belt. Up north we have the infrastructure, the housing and the quality of life to absorb those jobs.
I note that the Minister for the Civil Service is in his place. I hope that he will take on board my comments. Part of St. Joseph's college, the seminary at Upholland, is in my constituency. It is available for such an organisation as a Next Steps agency and is close to the M6 and the M58. A Next Steps agency could be set up in a class II listed building, a magnificent Victorian building in 180 acres of parkland providing a superb standard of life, as anyone living in my constituency or in that of the hon. Member for Makerfield would agree.
Mr. McCartney: I agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House should continue their efforts to achieve the transfer of jobs northwards and to create initiatives to provide new jobs in the north. The hon. Gentleman and I have recently been involved in the privatisation of Girobank. He supported the privatisation process which nearly lost us jobs in the north-west from Britoil in Wigan. The battle was not only about privatisation but about retaining the jobs in the north-west after privatisation. The hon. Gentleman was silent in the argument about privatisation and the possibility of jobs being transferred. I shall not go into his difficulties at Upholland and the fact that his constituents are up in arms about the possibility of development, commercial or otherwise, at the seminary. It may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman in view of his small majority which will not be helped by his speech today as most of his majority is probably made up of civil servants in the passport office in Liverpool.
Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems at Upholland. Perhaps he will appreciate that it is an ideal centre for a Next Steps agency. West Lancashire district council, which is Conservative controlled, has rejected the proposals by the church to develop in green belt and recognises as I do that that college could be more sensibly used for such a development.
The trading fund which underpins the Bill will provide a financial framework which will cover the operating costs, receipts, capital expenditure, borrowing and net cash flow of the Next Steps agencies. Those that are suitable will find that it will provide a more commercial and disciplined approach to the delivery of Government services coupled with a greater accountability to Parliament for the results achieved. Where it is appropriate for such trading funds to be attached to Next Steps agencies—and that will not always be the case—it will result in improved performance and improved provision for the public which they will welcome and which I am sure will be welcomed by all Members of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCartney. Are you ready?
Mr. McCartney: I was rather surprised because, to be perfectly frank, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was here before me.
Mr. Speaker: Fair enough. Mr. Dalyell.
6.58 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is a most unusual compliment, and it will be repaid.
May I make an extremely careful and hesitant comment on one of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind)? He referred to civil servants and jobs in the new agencies. I do not know all the facts, but I should like to ask one question: are we sure that it is ethical these days for Mr. Patrick Brown of the Department of the Environment to go out of the Civil Service to the National Freight Corporation, back into the Civil Service, and now out again to the Property Services Agency? I stress that this is not a personal attack. I do not know all the facts, but it is high time that a Minister made a statement on the new ethics of the Civil Service.
I remember an enormous row when Sir Clifford Jarrett, who was permanent secretary at the Ministry of Pensions, got a job with a pension fund company. The then Cabinet Secretary had to decide whether his appointment was proper. Sir Clifford Jarrett had left the Civil Service, but it now appears possible for people to join, leave and rejoin the Civil Service.
This afternoon I asked the Attorney-General whether he would discuss with the director of the serious fraud office the propriety or otherwise of Coopers and Lybrand being commissioned by the Government to do a report on extremely important institutions—the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers—when certain key people who are former employees of Coopers and Lybrand are the leaders in the management buy-out. That raises some pretty serious questions about governmental ethics. I see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury knitting his brow, but these are extremely delicate matters. A statement should be made on exactly what has changed in Civil Service ethics.
It is not every Saturday evening that I ring No. 10 Downing street, but I did so last Saturday to leave a message with one of the Prime Minister's secretaries. I said that in my opinion she should have made a statement to the House—the Minister of State, Privy Council Office has guessed on what subject—on a matter of enormous sensitivity, the protest by the First Division Association on guidelines. The First Division Association does not lightly protest, so when it does—I am not disparaging the Minister of State or being personally rude to him—the head of the Civil Service should at least make some comment.
In my speech I may ask some naive questions that may appear rather simple, but the Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. There was a time when many Members of the Opposition had recent ministerial experience, but since 1979, for reasons of which we are all aware, there has been a great change. I am not making a party point, but I think that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I am the only Opposition Member present who has any experience of government. That lack of experience makes it much harder for Opposition Members to understand the pros and cons of what a Government are doing. Having

755
been exiled between 1974 and 1979 over devolution, it is more than 20 years since, as a parliamentary private secretary, I saw the inside of a Ministry.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive a little history, but I am interested in not only the Property Services Agency but the general subject. I recollect clearly—in another context I have had to work on the papers relatively recently—that the late Sir Otto Clark and the late Sir Leo Pliatzky, who were formidable civil servants, thought that they had persuaded a number of members of the Labour Government to set up something equivalent to the Property Services Agency. They certainly succeeded in persuading Lord Armstrong of the Midland bank, not Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. When those people said that the Government had to be themselves involved to make good decisions, they were not making simply a party political point.
There is a further general point to which I hope that the Chief Secretary will respond—I know that he is deeply interested in such matters. I shall leave out the privatisation of businesses because I understand that there is a party political difference over the privatisation of electricity and water, but in the case of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency, is the Chief Secretary absolutely persuaded that he is not trying to privatise, not a business, but a governmental function? Who will make the judgments that the Government must make?
I refer to a question that the Chief Secretary answered today. It says:
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what architectural and architectural-related staff he has in the Treasury to make technical assessments of decisions by other Departments to use agents other than the Property Services Agency."
The first answer was a holding reply on 21 December. I make no complaint about that other than to say that if those proposals, which will begin to be considered upstairs tomorrow, had been properly thought out the question could easily have been answered. I have received a succession of replies from Ministers at the Department of the Environment saying "I shall answer as soon as possible", but if any thought had been given to the question an easy answer could have been written on the back of a postcard and answers to fairly obvious questions from me would have been unnecessary. The Chief Secretary replied to the question:
"No staff in such specialisms are currently employed in the Treasury. Where Departments are free to use agents other than PSA for building and maintenance work, it is for them to decide on value for money grounds, and after the usual tendering and contract procedures have been observed, whether such agents, or PSA, should be employed."
Who makes those decisions? The PSA is a function of Government. Leo Pliatzky and many others regarded that as a great problem in the 1960s, and it has not gone away. In order to make sensible decisions there must be some proper expertise.
What are the plans for full commercial accounts for the PSA or its successors from 1991 onwards?
Who will supervise and check work in the private sector? How will an objective assessment be made? If a Department does not have the necessary expertise, I do not see how an objective assessment can be made. The
756
Government's line is that the new agency's main aim is to maximise profits for the owners, but where is the independent source of advice?
The construction industry is not exactly famous for its honesty and integrity. Someone must make judgments about substandard work, shoddy materials and unreliable surveys. I may be referring to ancient history when I say this, but I remember when I was a lowly person in a Department that was run by a formidable lady, Dame Evelyn Sharp. She cried out for expertise which even the Ministry of Housing and Local Government did not have at that time. We seem to be going back to that experience.
I do not claim that the PSA is a perfect organisation. It has done many good things, certainly outside the city of London, and my constituents and many others who work for it are proud of much of what they have done, but because of the nature of their work they are likely to make mistakes. I am asking the Treasury whether, from now on, each Department is to have a commissioning and supervisory section.
Are there to be mini-PSAs in each Department? If the answer is no, how are we to avoid increased costs, undetected corruption and a dramatic lowering of standards? There must be someone who is competent to make judgments. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who has experience of local government, knows what I am talking about. The same thing applies in the running of a great city as in the running of national Government. There is a big question mark over whether any private agency can do that, let alone over the question of accountability to Parliament.
Let us take a specific example—valuation. We are told by the National Audit Office, and there is no reason to doubt it, that the value of PSA properties in 1982 was £3 billion. I can understand that, given the value of the Whitgift centre in Croydon, St. Christopher's house and Argyll house in Edinburgh and some 8,000 properties, although admittedly some are small. I am told—the Minister may say that I am wrong—that the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, which is about to be considered in Committee, deals with more than £10 billion. Incidentally, when I have asked questions I have found that many people will talk—but only because post-Ponting they trust me not to reveal sources. I gather that there has been an edict—I do not know whether Ministers are responsible—to the effect that people should not talk about their work in the PSA and issues that relate to current events. That is all very well, but may I just say that we have had certain things to say about eastern Europe and leave it at that. It is unsatisfactory to put a gag on a legitimate subject of debate.
If the PSA is to be abolished, who in government is to decide what additional property is needed by any arm of the Civil Service? Is it to be the Civil Service Department? Surely someone centrally has to decide whether other departmental property may be useful. With privatisation of the PSA come 1992, or whenever it can be sold off—the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill deals with that privatisation—who will make a decision quickly and effectively on the disposal of surplus accommodation? The Treasury may be thought to have had some interest in this aspect.
Who is responsible for the strategy of reducing the amount of vacant space to the minimum possible? Who is to judge the operational fitness of the value of the estate by adequate maintenance?

757
I shall not go on endlessly but, for reference, will mention "Property Services Agency: Management of the Civil Estate," the summary and conclusions of the National Audit Office report. My impression since 1987 has been that the PSA regional organisations have improved greatly. For all I care, Ministers can take credit for that. But why upset the apple cart and create a situation where no one will do this vital job?
What has happened to the trading fund to give information to clients and Parliament? As for the PRS scheme in 1983 to make Departments aware of the accommodation costs and administration of their policies and programmes, how is it to be achieved, and does the interdepartmental committee remain in operation?
Paragraph 9(c) of the National Audit Office report states:
"as old long-term leases fall to be renewed, the PSA has been faced with greatly increased rents and liabilities to regular five-yearly reviews".
Does that continue? This was a problem for the PSA's investment appraisal unit. Paragraph 9(f) of the National Audit Office report says:
"the PSA's investment appraisal unit reported that in 1986–87 appraisals had been wrongly omitted in 16 out of a test of 35 defence and civil cases."
[Interruption.] Ministers may be becoming impatient, because all this is a bit uncomfortable. The system has been ill-thought-out, and these points are relevant to Ministers and to the legislation. The NAO report says:
"the PSA is considering the introduction of commercial accounts and a trading fund to give clearer information to clients and Parliament."
That brings my point completely into order. The report says:
"the saving on the PRS scheme accommodation charge is intended to provide occupying departments with sufficient incentive to surrender to the agency surplus land and buildings."
The Chief Secretary is wise not to intervene at this stage because this is an extremely difficult question for the Treasury. I am not persuaded that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—is more clever or more able than Treasury Ministers. [Interruption.] Treasury Ministers are probably thankful that they will not take the Bill through Committee, because it is a can of worms. Paragraph 12 of the NAO report asks whether the Departments
"have sufficient incentive to identify surplus accommodation?"
The answer is no.
The defence estate was managed by the PSA. Who is to manage it now? There was a considerable row in the 1970s, and again in the 1980s, when, apparently, the Prime Minister actually came down on the side of the PSA against the Ministry of Defence managing its own estate.
Ah, we are greatly fortunate to have the Secretary of State for the Environment present, because the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill is his Bill. As the Secretary of State has entered the Chamber, this would be the ideal opportunity to go through with him the Coopers and Lybrand report on what happened in relation to the PSA; I should like to check with him the history of all this.
Is it not true that the first report on the privatisation of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, undertaken by a
758
Treasury official called Jeannie Turton and her colleagues—I think that those in the Box know something about this—came down against privatisation?
Is it not also true that a second report—which the Government refused to publish—from the central unit in the Treasury also came down against privatisation'? And is it not true that Dewi Jones also came down against privatisation, with certain qualifications? I know that I shall be corrected if my history is wrong.
Then the Government strongly told Coopers and Lybrand that the question was not whether the Crown Suppliers—which is a function, not a business—and the PSA should be privatised but how. Those were the terms of the question, on the Government's instructions.
Is it not also true—I am careful about privilege, and I say this, under privilege, in the form of a question—that the person who had most to do with the Coopers and Lybrand report on the TCS was Mr. Bob Etherington? Is it not also true that Mr. Bob Etherington has become the mainspring—the driving force—in the management takeover of the Crown Suppliers? I stand open to correction, and if I am wrong I shall give way to any of the four relevant Ministers who are doing me the courtesy of listening—the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I ask any one of them to tell me whether I am right or wrong about Mr. Bob Etherington's position. I think that I am properly informed, although I see that a note is coming from the Box.
Let me explain the history of the Coopers and Lybrand report. In March 1987, two reports on the Crown Suppliers were submitted to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The first, by Coopers and Lybrand in association with Samuel Montagu, discussed the feasibility of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and the second, by Dewi Jones, a consultant, looked into options other than privatisation.
Coopers and Lybrand was asked to determine the prospects for the successful privatisation of all or part of the Crown Suppliers, including the best means and forms of achieving that objective. Coopers and Lybrand took the view that, for the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers to be feasible, its lines of business would have to be capable, first, of commercial viability—sustaining adequate levels of profitability in free competition—and, secondly, of being successfully transferred from the public to the private sector. Do the Government think that those conditions, imposed by Coopers and Lybrand—itself asked to do a job by the Government for reasons, some of us might think, of political dogma—have been met?
In the meantime, Ministers have information, and I should certainly be interested to hear what they have to say about Mr. Bob Etherington's position. I can only assume that silence indicates that I am broadly correct, and so I give notice that I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will instruct the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to attend the Committee tomorrow morning and say exactly what the position is. Some of us think delicate questions of Civil Service ethics are involved.
I ought to tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that at Question Time I asked the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to examine the role of Coopers and Lybrand in the privatisation of the

759
Crown Suppliers and discuss the ethical position with the director of the serious fraud office. I choose my words with extreme care. All this is extremely close—this is why I have been asking questions—to a variant of insider trading. If the Government are going to get involved in that kind of thing, they had better be extremely careful. As some individuals have found, insider trading is an extremely serious offence in this country. There really ought to be some explanation of how people can do a job for the Civil Service and then seemingly get into a position where it appears that they benefit. I am not in the habit of making personal attacks on individuals—still less, named individuals—under the cloak of privilege, but there ought to be some clear explanation of what is happening.
Coopers and Lybrand was asked to determine the prospects for the successful privatisation of all or part of the Crown Suppliers. The company's report opened with an overview of the Crown Suppliers, its organisation, aims and activities, and divided the organisation into three main divisions—product supply and services, transport and fuel. The prospects for privatising the whole organisation were seen to depend on the sum of the prospects of the three individual divisions rather than on the characteristics of TCS as a single entity. Are the Government happy about the organisation's break-up as a single entity?
I refer to the product supply and services heading. The main business line of the division is the supply of hard furniture. Coopers thought that it would be feasible to privatise that activity, together with the related activities of floorings and furnishings supply and contract furnishing services. Coopers thought that this core business, which would supply both own design and trade pattern products, had the potential to compete successfully within an established furniture distribution industry. It could defend a high share of public sector demand and additionally develop a share of selected markets within the private sector. That was Coopers' view.
Then we had the Second Reading debate. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which, although long, was not over-long as it contained matters of considerable substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington may not be the most popular Member of the House with Conservative Members, but when he makes long speeches he always deserves an answer. I do not share his views on every subject that he has raised, but over the past few years I have learned that he had better be answered.
During a 50-minute speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend asked delicate and awkward questions about furniture supply, but until now the answer has been the proverbial lemon. The question has not been answered. The whole purpose of Parliament is to get answers. For all I know, there may be answers to my hon. Friend's questions, but they have not been forthcoming. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend cannot serve on the Commitee as he is already serving on the Committee that is considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I give notice to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State that I will find ways in Committee to go over, point by point, my hon. Friend's questions on furniture. We will not get far until we receive satisfactory answers.
760
Coopers and Lybrand thought that a major change in operating style between the Crown Suppliers and a privatised core business would be needed to adapt to a commercial environment. The business represented a relatively high proportion of the division's current revenues that could operate within the private sector on a relatively small proportion of current resources and assets. From the Bill it appears to the Opposition—although we may be wrong—that that has not been agreed. It reveals the nature of trading funds and how the Government propose to operate in that sector.
On the basis of Coopers and Lybrand's own conditions, the Government's scheme is unsatisfactory. Not all of the Crown Suppliers' activities could be privatised. For example, the procedures undertaken by the Crown Suppliers reassured customers that procurement was carried out in a manner acceptable to the Government. That added value formed part of all procurement activity and could not be privatised. The Government would not wish to rely on a private sector for that service and compliance with EEC or GATT regulations might not be possible for a private sector company.
The Treasury deals with the EEC on those matters. Have its proposals for the Crown Suppliers gained agreement in Brussels? I am told that there are real international difficulties with our Community partners and that certain aspects of the proposals for the Crown Suppliers may not have the agreement of the EEC Commission. The Treasury certainly does not yet have the agreement of the American air force, which is deeply concerned about security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is an expert on security and he will be leading for the Opposition in Committee. I am entitled to follow up one of my written questions on the American air force, which I understand has not agreed to the new arrangements and is not persuaded about the security arrangements within the Government's privatisation proposals. The American air force should not determine Government policy, but there should be some serious answers detailing its objections. Will they be met, and how can they be met? What is the legal ruling in respect of the EEC and the American air force?
Even Coopers and Lybrand said that certain lines of business could not be feasibly privatised such as Defence Contracts Organisation contracts, equipment product categories, procurement of low value products, contracted services and security furniture workshops. DCO contracts are resource intensive and would not be commercially viable in the long term. Do the Government agree with Coopers and Lybrand or not? It also said that it felt that the arrangement of DCO contracts was a valuable service that should be retained within Government. Some of those activities are highly specialised and would not readily transfer to the private sector. The transfer of the supply of security furniture would not be acceptable to the Government.
What arrangements are being made for Government transport in the four areas of operations—vehicle hire, the interdepartmental despatch service, the Government car service and vehicle workshops? All could be successfully privatised with the exception of parts of GCS and the Nine Elms workshop, which would be retained to provide high security maintenance. All feasible areas could transfer either by sale as a going concern or by closure and contracting out. In the case of the allocated fleet, where

761
continuity would be helpful, a transfer of vehicles and drivers to the relevant departments would be appropriate. In particular, the vehicle hire business would represent an attractive proposition in the private sector where it could free itself from the capital restraints of vehicle ownership and thus compete more effectively.
Coopers and Lybrand said that it was not feasible or appropriate to transfer to the private sector the provision of high security chauffeur-driven vehicles, the peripheral activity of secure mail dispatch and secure journeys from the pool. The overriding consideration was security. Although the security could not be reasonably privatised, Coopers and Lybrand said it could be operated by another public sector body such as the police force.
In future, will the Minister for the Civil Service accept Coopers and Lybrand's advice and he driven in Government cars by the police? If not, why do the Government turn down the advice of their own expensive advisers? What is the Government's position on the question of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander'? Are Government Ministers to be treated differently?
Hansard will show that I have posed some careful questions. I hope that proper answers will be given in Committee. I have no record of filibustering on any Bill, taking time unnecessarily or speaking for too long, thereby keeping out my colleagues. I warn the Government that some of us will be exceedingly persistent until we obtain answers to our questions. As I have named Bob Etherington and referred to Patrick Brown, it might be better if, in his reply, the Minister referred to the position of those gentlemen.
7.39 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I was going to make a few detailed points about the Bill, but as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not cover any of those points, I will be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow does not mind if I do not follow his points because I could not see the relevance of many of them to this debate. We are talking about Next Steps agencies. Paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper states:
"Next Steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government"—
that is, operations that will not be privatised. I believe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow was referring primarily to the Property Services Agency which will certainly be privatised if the Bill is passed.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) should look carefully at the Bill. It is for the Chair and not for him to allow me to make my points. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that it is for the Chair to take that decision.
Mr. Mans: I was not in any way commenting on the relevance of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I said simply that I was not going to follow them because I believe that the main point of the Next Steps initiative is associated with the creation of trading funds and not with the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
I was very interested in the contributions of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to maintain that if the
762
initiative resulted in a better service for consumers and the people using the services that are to become agencies, the initiative should be welcomed. I agree with that.
As far as I could follow them, I would not agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham. It seems to be Labour party policy at the moment not to disband any of the agencies that we are going to create or have already created. Rather, Labour will not create any more agencies from those that currently have candidate status. The Labour party appears to be worried about committing itself to anything at least for the next year or two. It was very interesting that the hon. Member for Wrexham said nothing positive about the Bill. He did not give us Labour's view of the Bill. He seemed to say that Labour would leave things as they are and that the creation of trading funds would not lead to a better service for consumers. That was about all that I could understand from the contribution of the hon. Member for Wrexham.
I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Wrexham. The creation of trading funds and of the wider commercial climate is a prerequisite for a better service for those who require it from those agencies. Before we can decide the level of service and the amount of resources that are to be provided, we must know exactly what it will cost. The creation of trading funds will go some way towards achieving that.
The list contained in annex A of the White Paper is relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) referred to the fuel suppliers branch. It is odd that an agency designed to cut expenditure and to ensure that we purchase fuel most economically for the public sector does not know how much money it is spending—according to the annex—or the number of people it employs. If nothing else, the Next Steps agencies will ensure that people will look more accurately at what things cost.
The Next Steps agencies will affect the RAF training organisations and the service schools in north-west Europe. Under the current financial structures the figures are not separately identifiable. The RAF does not know the exact cost of its training or of providing school facilities in north-west Europe. If nothing else, the initiative to create trading funds and new agencies will act as a discipline on those involved in those functions to ensure that they know how much it costs to provide those services. That must be a prerequisite to ensure that the services are provided efficiently and economically to the public and to the users of those services.
I welcome the Bill because it will increase accountability and the opportunity for scrutiny. I hope that it has a speedy passage through the House.
7.45 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I want to make a short contribution about two aspects of the White Paper. Before I became a Member of this House I was involved in running a very large local authority which had a budget well in excess of £100 million a year. Even with restrictions on local government expenditure, with that level of resources we provided finance and accountability in the construction of services and in their delivery. We had methods which could be deployed to improve value for money and efficiency and at the same time ensure that that efficiency and value for money was governed by the need

763
to provide services instead of a need to achieve a financial target imposed on particular aspects of local authority activities.
Against that background I want to consider the White Paper and the proposals in the Bill. I want first to refer to the Liverpool passport office about which several hon. Members have expressed a rather jaundiced view. I believe that if the employees in that passport office had not acted as they did last summer, the Government would still not have taken steps to improve the service and administration of that office. The staff brought their views to the public about the need to improve the working of the office and the level of manpower resources that should have been allocated to provide the service.
Sometimes when we debate local government services or the privatisation of services currently run by civil servants, the prerequisite for arguing for that privatisation as voiced by Conservative Members is an attack on the integrity, capability and work ethic of the people working in those services. In the final analysis, very few people who work in the public sector do so as a result of a malevolent feeling towards the people for whom they provide the service. The staff working under trying circumstances in the Liverpool passport office were the catalyst for the changes. They wanted to improve the service and we should remember that instead of attacking them when they cannot respond to our debate.
Annex A of the White Paper refers to the planning inspectorate which, according to the White Paper,
"Carries out public inquiries and appeals on planning, housing, highways, and other matters."
It also deals in two ways with rights of way, pathways, bridleways, the change of use of property, opencasting and other mineral extractions. First, they are dealt with in the time-honoured fashion of a public inquiry. The local authority may take a decision which is appealed against and the Secretary of State refers that to a public inquiry. Following that, the Secretary of State will determine whether he accepts, rejects or amends in part the recommendation of his inspectorate. Secondly, it deals with written appeals against local authority decisions. Both parties submit written evidence to the inspectorate, and the inspectorate then makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
For two main reasons, over the past few years the work of the planning inspectorate has been made difficult. First, many planning inquiries have had to be held. Secondly, local communities are far more aware of environmental changes caused by housing and industrial planning applications. In past decades, planning applications were not publicly scrutinised, but they are now challenged and scrutinised by the public. As a result, local authorities take more account of a community's views than they did previously. There is a huge backlog of appeals before the planning inspectorate. I refer to written appeals and to a substantial number of appeals that are the subject to public inquiry.
Some appeals do not relate only to small matters such as a change of use of land for housing. In my constituency, a recent planning inquiry related to opencast mining and the Secretary of State's power to impose a mineral plan on Greater Manchester county. That mineral plan included policies on the extraction of coal, shale, sand and other minerals associated with opencast mining. There was a
764
huge number of objections from local residents, Members of Parliament, heritage and environmental groups, and local authorities. Because of the backlog in the inspectorate's work, an outside planning inspector was appointed. Also, because of that backlog, the inspectorate appoints inspectors to conduct particular inquiries. In some instances that system can work satisfactorily, particularly when the inquiry reports in one's favour. However, there are instances in which an inspector has a similar background to that of an applicant. That happened in the case to which I referred.
The Government must recognise the need to provide resources for independent professional planning advice. Planning inquiries should be carried out in the most professional, independent and thorough way possible. Intolerable burdens will be placed on the inspectorate if it is included in the Next Steps initiative.
What is meant by competition in the planning inspectorate? The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is chary and wary about North-West Water polluting Morecambe bay. Does he believe that he has a better chance of preventing what is happening if competition is introduced into the planning inspectorate?
What is the role of competition in such activities? Can a Conservative Member provide technical, professional and accountable reasons why the introduction of competition into the planning inspectorate will assist the Secretary of State, local authorities or those who regularly use the system? The Government's White Paper is dogma. It is simply a list of organisations that the Government consider necessary to opt out as part of an overall policy to privatise. It fails to take account of other aspects of Government policy.
I do not believe that Conservative Members who have an interest not just in planning matters but in the environment do not want the House to retain the accountability and independence of the planning inspectorate and ensure that it operates outside the confines of the financial limitations which would be placed on it by a policy of competition. If the planning inspectorate operates at a substantially lower level than hon. Members would like, either in terms of the number of planning application inquiries that it conducts annually or the quality of its decision making, or if it does not operate in the public's interest, they should look at the reasons for the planning inspectorate's difficulties.
Mr. Hind: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper carefully he will see that not every Next Steps agency will have a trading fund and that not all of them will be privatised or even considered for privatisation. Common sense dictates that the Department appoints inspectors on the basis that they are independent and quasi-legal and are able to make important judgments for the public. That cannot be open to competition. The Government would be reluctant to consider a trading fund, never mind privatisation.
Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his perceptive intervention. Why are they included in the document if it was never the Government's intention to include such activities of the Department of the Environment? It only highlights the Government's incompetence. The White Paper was not published on a wing and a prayer. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) shakes his head. He made some valid points. I

765
agree with them all except for one important one that appears in the White Paper. The inspectorate is being considered as a "First Steps" agency and could be considered for privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with me he should not support measures such as hiving off the planning inspectorate of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have taken the opportunity to look at the White Paper. One must consider some aspects which will be imposed on the planning inspectorate. Even if this is simply an exercise in accountability, let us consider what is being suggested. We are dealing with the legislation as it stands and, according to the White Paper, the planning inspectorate is in the front line. Paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper talks about,
"a summary of key targets for the future."
What does that mean in terms of the planning inspectorate when the inspectorate deals with matters put before it by the Secretary of State for the Environment on behalf of local authorities or by the Secretary of State himself in relation to activities by his Department? At no time can the planning sector of the Department of the Environment be able to target future activities because its work is demand driven in the sense that the demand for inquiries arises from the activities of local authorities and the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper also talks about,
"a report of performance against financial, efficiency and quality of service targets over the past year, set against previous trends".
What is meant by "report of performance"? Does it relate to the way in which inquiries are carried out and the nature of the decision that is taken? The hon. Member for Wyre and his hon. Friends who support such claptrap—
Mr. Mans: Why is the hon. Gentleman voting against it?
Mr. McCartney: I have no problem about that because the points that I am making are highly relevant. A debate about the environment should be open-handed. We are talking about not introducing competition into serious matters, and in such a serious debate we do not need silly schoolboy quips. The hon. Member for Wyre is on record about a planning matter in his constituency.
What is meant by "a report of performance" in relation to the planning inspectorate? The planning inspectorate can be judged only by the nature of the decisions that it takes. Every one of those decisions has to be approved or amended by the Secretary of State irrespective of whether it is about the building of a petrochemical plant or whether a new bridleway should be built between two villages. The spectrum of activity in the Department is such that the Secretary of State is involved in every planning inquiry or written objection to his Department. In no circumstances could the Bill be used to regulate and improve the activities of the inspectorate. I hope that the Government will rethink the whole concept of some of the organisations and activities included in Next Steps agencies. I oppose the Government politically but the general public will also start to ask questions about the validity of Government policy when they see the possibility of an independent planning inspectorate being hived off to an agency and the possibility of it going to the private sector.
The Government must step back for a moment and rethink their ideology about some of the activities of public sector bodies. These bodies are in the public sector
766
for good reasons. One is because of the nature of the work that is carried out and the requirement for Parliament to retain accountability. Not only planning bodies but health, safety and training organisations are in the public sector for very good reasons. They are there not because of Socialist dogma but because of long tried and tested experience.
Some aspects of life are better organised through public accountability and cannot be left to market forces and driven by competition. That is at the heart of our opposition to the Bill. The Government see a need to create competition irrespective of the work carried out by the agencies, the need for parliamentary accountability and the conflict that is caused in the Department of the Environment. The Government want to privatise everything in sight.
Over the last 10 years the Government have used public expenditure cuts and privatisation to try to impose Next Steps agencies on local authorities. In my constituency the Wigan metropolitan council has had imposed on it privatisation of its cleaning and waste disposal services. Its services for waste disposal made a profit for ratepayers last year of over £3 million. The council is trying to protect those services and jobs and the Government are trying to impose a local government form of Next Steps agencies by which people are directly employed by a company—a "hands-off" arrangement—which runs the services for the local authority in competition.
Such things are done for the dogmatic reasons of the Secretary of State and have nothing to do with the improvement of services or accountability to the public. However, they have everything to do with hiving off profitable parts of public services to the private sector which looks to the quick buck at the expense of the long-term needs of the community. Following this debate, I wonder whether the hon. Members for Wyre and for Lancashire, West will be able to defend to their constituents the privatisation and hiving off of such an important body as the planning inspectorate, with all its consequences.
8.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I sense that the issues have been well and truly thrashed out and although there is a low growl of discontent from the Opposition I do not think that the Bill will be pressed to a vote.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) opened for the Opposition and his speech was briefer than some of those that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I remember from the Finance Bill Committee. I think that the hon. Member said that it was a technical matter and I endorse that. We are not following the route that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) seemed to follow in his eloquent speech that the Bill is about privatisation. It may come to privatisation and there are aspects of the agencies which I hope will lead to that, but that is not the predominant thrust of the Bill. Its purpose is to improve the quality of public service that is made available to our constituents.
I strongly support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) who spoke about the need to extend the process to the Ministry of Defence. He identified one or two possibilities.

767
I, too, believe that it could go a great deal further. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) talked about the Training Agency and I endorse the important points that he made. There is a critical role over the next 10 years and beyond for the Training Agency. There has been a 30 per cent. drop in the number of 18-year-olds in my constituency and there is a critical need to encourage more women in Nottinghamshire to go back to work. My hon. Friend's comments were extremely helpful in emphasising that aspect of the Training Agency.
Some hon. Members said that some agencies may need to relocate. I hope that if they do so they will come to Nottingham. There are too few national and quasi-national agencies there and I should like to see more. It is especially helpful that my right hon. Friend who will respond to the debate knows Nottingham well and while wearing his other hat as the Minister for the Arts has seen the tremendous depth and breadth of the cultural and artistic activities that go on there. I hope that he will consider it a suitable place for many agencies to relocate in future.
The Bill seeks to extend the powers of the Government to create trading funds to finance central Government activities. Perhaps the measure has not caught the imagination of the general public as readily as it should have done.
Mr. Mans: Not yet.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, the measure will have a key effect on major public services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East said, the Bill does not seek in any way to allocate fault or attack the Civil Service. Civil servants are saddled with a system that does not work effectively either in their interests as employees or in the interests of the public who receive the service.
As I flicked down the list in the annex to the White Paper this afternoon, four agencies particularly caught my eye. They were the driver and vehicle licensing centre, the Land Registry, the passport office and Companies House. Three of those are largely covered by related receipts, as defined in the White Paper. One of them is not. I am particularly pleased to hear that Companies House is an early candidate for trading fund status.
The majority of Government activities are not suitable for trading fund status, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening speech. However, 20 per cent. of Government agencies are suitable. We want that 20 per cent. to embark as rapidly as possible on the route to trading fund status. Why should we seek trading fund status for those important agencies? There are a number of key reasons. First, proper commercial disciplines should be passed on to the organisations. That brings with it a degree of self-management. The improvement and motivation of individuals is extremely important and brings initiative and some concept of size. Small is beautiful in many of the organisations. We want to encourage employees not to see themselves as part of a great amorphous mass.
The Bill is not entirely a cost-cutting measure, as some Opposition Members suggested. It is partly a cost-cutting measure, but, above all, it aims to improve the quality of
768
service to the public and the efficiency of the agencies. My right hon. Friend said in his opening speech that £3 billion had already been saved by such measures.
The criteria for suitability laid out in the White Paper emphasise the matters that are really important. It is emphasised that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. The criteria recognise that it is not only a matter of revenue and expenditure and that the importance of service to the public is predominant. There must be a genuine separation of activity where one Government Department supplies another. As far as possible we must engender genuine competition. That, too, is extremely important.
There must be a commitment to substantial and valuable improvements in performance. It is right that the full accounts should come before the House of Commons as well as reports on whether targets are being met and details of new targets for subsequent years so that we can judge the effects of those targets and ascertain whether they are being met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle spoke of the importance of adequate detail so that we can make those judgments. I understand that the Treasury will report on the general trends in the use of trading funds and assess their effectiveness. That, too, must be welcomed as part of the parliamentary process.
Some agencies may be suitable for privatisation. I hope that there will be many, but I do not believe that that is the critical judgment. The criterion must be to provide a better service. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, we must be accountable to the consumer. I believe that that view is common to both Conservative and Opposition Members.
I mentioned four particular agencies which could provide a better service to the public than they do now. I emphasise that I do not blame the civil servants for being saddled with a system that does not work effectively. I mentioned the passport office. It is a demoralised service. All hon. Members have had to deal with the problems of constituents who find at the last minute that they do not have a passport to go on holiday. We all know that the system does not work effectively. There have been problems with the Land Registry. Everyone knows that buying and selling a house is a particularly stressful aspect of life. The failings of the Land Registry are legion and we must do something about them. In my former existence I worked in the City so I know the inadequacies of Companies House. It could do much better as a result of the process outlined in the Bill.
The driver and vehicle licensing centre, too, has legion inefficiencies and difficulties. All the organisations that I have mentioned will benefit greatly from the process that we are setting in motion today. The aim is to make changes in the interests of improved management, efficiency and effectiveness. The Bill is not an attack on the Civil Service but an attack on a system that does not work. It is a significant opportunity to provide a better service to the public, more job satisfaction for the people who work in the agencies and better value for money for taxpayers and those who pay for the services. I greatly welcome it and hope that it will speedily become law.
8.14 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: Nothing is wrong in the passport office, Land Registry or driver and vehicle licensing centre that could not be remedied by an increase

769
in the number of staff. The Government have curbed appointments of staff in the Land Registry office which, combined with an increase in activity, has produced delays. It is not the fault of the hard-working civil servants. The responsibility must be laid at the door of the Government, who have made a sustained attack on the Civil Service over the past 10 years and are proud of it. Ministers repeatedly make claims about the number of staff that they have sacked. The blame is fairly and squarely at their door.
I shall make a few brief remarks about the relationship between the Bill—which is not a clear piece of legislation —and the Act that it amends, the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. The Bill puts a different emphasis on consultation and the obligation on the Minister to consult before making an order. The 1973 Act placed a duty on the Minister to consult appropriate persons. That meant that the Minister had to approach appropriate persons. The definition of "appropriate persons" was left to the Minister and was subject to judicial action in the courts if the range of appropriate persons was unnecessarily narrow.
The Minister was required to consult people. That has been subtly changed. The Bill now provides:
"he shall take such steps as appear to him to be appropriate to give such an opportunity to such persons as appear to him to be appropriate."
In other words, the Minister stays in his office and causes a notice to be put in a newspaper, specialist newspaper or magazine and takes whatever steps he deems appropriate. People then have to go cap in hand to the Minister to make representations to him. That is a change of emphasis which was not necessary because the traditional position where the Minister was obliged to consult appropriate persons is entirely adequate and satisfactory. No doubt the Minister will explain the reason for that subtle change of emphasis.
I am sorry that I was not present for the Minister's opening speech. I was attending a Committee dealing with a Bill during the relevant time. The Government and Conservative Back Benchers, with their Government-supplied briefs, have made great play of parliamentary accountability. Although not particularly in this Bill, there has been a significant removal of parliamentary accountability by a conversion from a consensus measure in 1982. I regretted it very much at the time and voted against it in the parliamentary Labour party. The Consolidated Fund has been removed from parliamentary accountability. Payments into the fund are required by the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act, that payment will enable Members to debate the measure in a proper Consolidated Fund debate and to obtain the necessary votes to initiate a debate in the Chamber.
Now that the Consolidated Fund debate has been changed into a series of Adjournment debates selected by the Speaker with the time allowed for each debate set by the Speaker, the opportunity for detailed examination on the basis of votes both in the Consolidated Fund debate and others has been diminished. I also regret the change because under the previous operation of the Consolidated Fund debate the House disciplined itself well. If the debate was on a wide and important subject, there was an opportunity for many hon. Members who were interested to take part in the debate. If the debate was a narrow one, it lasted only half an hour. The House was well disciplined.
We now have limitations imposed upon us. When there could be a long debate on a wide-ranging subject we are limited to three hours. I regret that the Consolidated Fund
770
procedure has been changed. There was no need for any change to be made, but on one morning the Government found it awkward to secure a closure. They could not get 100 Conservative Members to support the closure motion and so they decided, as it were, to shift the Consolidated Fund. The Opposition of the day—mistakenly, in my view —said to themselves, "We shall be in government one day and we might find it awkward to get a closure, so we shall agree to what the Government propose." As a result, a real element of accountability was knocked to one side. That cannot be attributed to the Bill, but it is a relevant factor and a continuing source of concern to me.
The Bill proposes that section 6 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 should be changed. The section provides an order-making power and requires that the establishment of a trading fund must be by way of affirmative resolution. That is the main pre-requisite of the section, and that is retained in clause 2(3), which sets out some changes to section 6 and the order-making powers of the 1973 Act.
As I have said, the establishment of a trading fund must be by way of affirmative order, and that means the tabling of a resolution on the Floor of the House for approval. This is extremely important. We must bear in mind, however, that there can be debate for only one and a half hours. Given the length of speeches that have been made on many occasions by Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the Chamber during the passage of affirmative orders, there has been only about half an hour left for Back-Bench Members to cross-examine the Government. Even though we say that an affirmative resolution in support of a statutory instrument is a useful procedure —the resolution is for debate on the Floor of the House, the Government have to secure its support and there must be a debate—it provides only a limited opportunity to question the Government and we should not elevate it beyond its importance.
Other powers proceed by negative procedure, including a Henry VIII clause. If some hon. Members are not aware of that term, I should explain that it is given to the power that is handed to Ministers to change primary legislation by order without any further primary legislation being required. We must remember that they is a great power. It is a relatively trivial one in respect of the Bill, but the sums that are involved for trading funds--the position is similar in the 1973 Act—can be altered, when the Bill is enacted, by a negative procedure instrument that is issued by a Minister. That is less than satisfactory.
The Government said that they would take legislation off the backs of the people. They told us that they would remove the weight of legislation which they claimed, in 1979, was burdening the people and preventing the enterprise culture from burgeoning forth. As they are fond of making comparisons with the Labour Government, let it be generally understood that they are producing more statutory instruments than their predecessors. The volume of statutory instruments is so great that it has become the primary source of legislation. In the past 18 months the Government have produced 23 Acts with Henry VIII clauses, includng the Education Reform Act 1988, which was a major piece of legislation. Given the Government's majority, we have, unfortunately, given Ministers the power to change primary legislation without introducing new primary legislation.
In a better ordered world, the Government would hve to return to the House to produce further primary

771
legislation to alter the legislation that was already on the statute book. Should not the Mother of Parliaments be the Parliament that sets an example to the rest of the Commonwealth, for example? It should do so, of course, but it does not. At the end of last year we had the opportunity to examine the procedures of other Commonwealth legislatures. Delegates came to London from 18 Commonwealth countries, including Pakistan, which we welcomed back into the Commonwealth after the restoration of democracy following the removal of the military junta and the election in which President Bhutto was elected.
Delegates, particularly the ones from Australia and New Zealand, made it clear that the power of scrutiny of delegated legislation is a real one in their legislatures. They told us that they can hold up the application of legislation if a Minister is found to be abusing his or her powers. Nothing like that exists in our legislation. We are building up a huge volume of subordinate legislation without any sort of adequate scrutiny being available to us. I am concerned, for example, that under clause 2 the Minister is allowed to change the maximum sum provided for by means of a negative procedure instrument.
Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman wants a vivid example of what has happened and of the drift that has taken place, he has only to look at the end of today's Order Paper. When the debate has come to an end the House will be asked, for the first time in my recollection, to vote forthwith on the amendable Census Order 1988. Previously such orders have been debated on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a dangerous trend, even in the detailed circumstances of the Bill.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that example. I am aware that the Census Order was considered in Committee. I am aware also that several amendments were tabled—it was an unusual order—and I pressed for the amendments to be considered. I hope that the minority parties can somehow obtain the services of one of their Members to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which they appear not to have been able to do up to now. I think that the Committee serves a useful purpose and the hon. Gentleman's remarks highlight his concern. I hope that he will be able to spread his concern to other Members of the Liberal party, the Liberal Democrat party and the other sorts of party which he helps to represent.
The issue of Henry VIII clauses is not often raised in the House. We should talk about it more, and it is my intention to do so. I have been inspired, at least in part, because it seems that other legislatures have proper and adequate scrutiny. The reality is that a Minister will not be much involved in an order-making power. A civil servant will present him with the order and he will say, "Minister, will you approve this? We must secure the order. We are running close to the limit and we need another £500 to be added to it. That should see us all right for the next two or three years." The Minister signs the order and the civil servant goes away.
The order goes before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If it is to proceed by way of the negative procedure—that is the procedure that will be used
772
to increase the moneys available to the trading funds—and if the Opposition think that it is a dangerous measure or an unusual use of such a measure, for example, they will table a prayer. If the Government follow the usual pattern, they will provide time for the prayer to be debated if it is signed by Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. If a prayer were to be signed by a group of Back-Bench Members who have a particular concern, 100 to 1 it will never be heard. The majority of instruments, including the potential instrument that is referred to in the Bill, have little chance of being debated. It is just not good enough that they can be pushed through.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that in Committee, and whenever primary legislation is being dealt with, Ministers will have to cast their eyes over the legislation. They will, of course, be briefed by civil servants. It could be a simple one-section measure, and it would be easy to secure its passage. In primary legislation, however, Ministers conduct its passage on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and so on. That means that Ministers are much more personally involved in the legislative process. Such a procedure would mean that the increase in the maximum sums available to trading funds would be dealt with in a more elaborate way. With the negative procedure process, which is implicit in the alterations that will be made to section 6 of the 1973 Act, the chances are that the instrument will never be debated.
If the Government are really concerned about parliamentary accountability, they should say, "We know that there are difficulties over allocating time on the Floor of the House; there always are. But we will ensure that the Bill is amended in Committee to bring its order-making powers in line with those establishing a trading fund, and that any increase in the maxima allowed for the total, global trading funds sum will be by affirmative resolution and not by the residual power"—which, under section 6 of the 1973 Act, is the negative procedure.
I hope, though not with great expectation, that the Minister will give an assurance of that kind. The reality is that both the Administration and the Civil Service bureaucracy, as well as Ministers, find it easier to get negative procedure instruments through this House and therefore more convenient. We say that public accountability, not convenience, should be an Administration's main criterion. The Government have made an issue of public accountability, saying that the procedure will provide for more parliamentary accountability. The Minister now has an opportunity to say, "We are determined to ensure parliamentary accountability, and affirmative instruments will be our watchword."
8.30 pm
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I am glad to be associated with the Bill because it is not only important in itself but must be seen against the background of the Government's Next Steps policy and the important reforms that are taking place in the Civil Service. The Bill provides the first opportunity for the House to have a wide-ranging debate on the Next Steps reforms in the Civil Service, which are of great importance and will do a great deal to improve further the management of the large resources for which the Civil Service has responsibilities.
I am glad that the debate has allowed right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to speak on a wide

773
range of issues relating to the reforms. There were constructive and supportive speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). We heard speeches also —some of them more constructive than others—from Opposition Members.
I was astonished by the remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and at his reaching the conclusion, having listened to the excellent and outstanding speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury —in which he demonstrated how the Bill will strengthen further the management of the Civil Service—that the Bill would lead to the break-up of the Civil Service and was about cost cutting. I inferred from his remarks that the hon. Gentleman feels that the Bill will prove disastrous for the Civil Service, but the very opposite will happen.
I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman takes the line that he does, particularly as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a member, while perhaps being critical of the Government for being too slow in implementing the Next Steps policies, was generally strongly in support of the Government's broad policy of reforms within the Civil Service. Therefore, I am all the more surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham.
Many detailed points have been made, and I trust that hon. Members will bear with me if I do not answer every one of them. Where I fail to do so, I shall make a point of writing to the hon. Member concerned with a clear response to his question.
Mr. Don Dixon: Why cannot the Minister answer every point now?
Mr. Luce: I shall be saying quite a lot in replying to the debate, so I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
I want to view the Bill in the broader context of the Next Steps policy and to examine more sharply the issue of accountability, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have raised. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in her new year message of the tasks that lie ahead for Britain in the 1990s. One of the "six great tasks" that she identified was to
"improve our public services such as health and education, and make them more responsive to people's needs."
That is very much at the heart of the proposals before the House. I have told the House on many occasions that it is my view that the Next Steps initiative—
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?
Mr. Luce: Certainly I shall.
Mr. Dalyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Prime Minister, does he—or the Prime Minister—have any comment on the protest by the Civil Service First Division Association? One of the Government's tasks surely is to satisfy the Civil Service, but in relation to the guidelines, judging by the association's protest, the Government have failed to do so.
Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have frequently jousted in this House, which I have enjoyed very much, goes wide of the Bill. However, no doubt he will seek other opportunities to probe that matter. I hope
774
that the hon. Gentleman will welcome my right hon. Friend's new year message and her emphasis on seeking to improve further the quality of Government services.
The purpose of the Next Steps initiative is to play a key role in improving the way in which we deliver Government services. I am glad that objective is widely shared both within this House and beyond. Both the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have shown a keen interest in our progress, and I am grateful for the support that both Committees have given and for their constructive criticism.
As we stated in the White Paper "The Financing and Management of Next Steps Agencies" which was published with the Bill:
"The main aim of the Next Steps initiative is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. Agencies thus represent a new and distinctive development in the Governent's policies for improving all aspects of Civil Service management."
The Next Steps initiative, as its name suggests, builds on previous measures that have brought about significant benefits for management in Government. However, it is much more than a consolidation exercise. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's first report on Next Steps in July 1988 noted that
"this change could he the most far-reaching since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the nineteenth century."
I am convinced that we are putting into effect a gradual revolution in the way that the Government go about their business.
It is nearly two years since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the initiative, and progress since then has been good. I have tried in the various parliamentary replies that I have given to keep the House informed. So far, 10 agencies have been established and we expect 20 agencies to be up and running by the summer. In addition to the 10 already established, a further 40 activities in the home Civil Service and three in the Northern Ireland Civil Service have been announced as candidates for agency status. Together, they account for nearly 200,000 staff or about one third of the Civil Service.
Next Steps is not just about numbers, although the involvement, even at this early stage, of one civil servant in three is a pretty good indicator that we mean business. Our goal is to enable civil servants to use available resources in the most effective way to provide a high-quality service to the public.
The Bill will help the Civil Service to become more responsive to the needs of customers. The 10 agencies that have been launched so far have demanding performance indicators to do with quality of service, both for the public and for internal customers, and these targets are being achieved. For example—and this may go some way towards answering the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—the customers of Companies House will say that turn-round time for document searches has improved considerably, as has the lead time for orders placed with Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The service has not just improved in terms of performance indicators. Next Steps has ensured that agency chief executives are keen to consult customers about what they want, and to meet those needs as far as possible. Agencies have been able to offer extended opening hours, premium services, and to provide offices in new locations.

775
The Bill will allow revenue-generating agencies in particular even more scope to respond to customer demand. It is worth stressing that point, because many right hon. and hon. Members were concerned about the quality of service to the public, and that is a major priority for the Government.
Next Steps agencies are also ensuring that they keep their customers in touch with what they are doing. They are training their staff better to meet customer needs. I attach much importance to that.
There has been a lot of stress on the issue of accountability, in my view quite rightly. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East and for Gainsborough and Horncastle and the hon. Members for Wrexham, for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), among others, focused on accountability. It is of such importance that I hope the House will allow me to spend a moment or two to reiterate some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I stress the importance of the greater openness that will come from the Bill and the procedures that we are adopting under the Next Steps policy. There will be much more scope for Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the agencies than there has been hitherto, and that has been recognised by some of my hon. Friends if not by Opposition Members. Agencies' objectives and performance will be more open to scrutiny than ever before, by Parliament and by others with an interest, including their customers.
Parliament will know what the Minister has asked the agency to achieve, the resources the Minister has allocated, through Parliament, for the tasks, and the targets by which performance is measured, and through the agencies' annual report, the way in which the chief executive goes about the task and the extent to which the agency has been successful. That will be expanded on in the Bill, and I have no doubt that it will be debated in more detail in Committee.
A central feature of Next Steps arrangements is the position of agency chief executives. Each has managerial authority delegated to him or her by the responsible Minister.
The Minister is and remains accountable to Parliament as a whole and its Select Committees. When a Committee's interest is focused on the day-to-day operations of the agency, the Minister will normally regard the chief executive as being the person best placed to answer the Committee—on his or her behalf—on the performance of the agency. Ministers remain fully accountable for Government policies.
Alongside these more formal arrangements, right hon. and hon. Members need to know that the day-to-day operations of agencies are still open to their scrutiny on a day-to-day basis. There will always be queries and matters to be raised on behalf of individual constituents, besides the more general need of Members to inform themselves about the way in which Government policies are being executed in practice.
We believe that it will make sense to right hon. and hon. Members to deal in the first instance directly with the chief executive of an agency or his or her staff on matters for which he or she has delegated authority. Because Next
776
Steps agencies are by their nature particularly likely to be delivering services to the public, I would expect that a good proportion of matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of their constituents or in connection with an inquiry made of them, are likely to be such operational matters. They will get a quicker response and be likely to resolve any follow-up points more quickly and to their satisfaction by going direct to the agency, rather than routing their inquiry through the Minister—who would almost certainly want to seek advice from the chief executive. That is, therefore, the course I encourage hon. Members to take, bearing in mind that it is the Minister who sets the policy, the resources and the targets for the agency and the chief executive who is responsible to him or her for the way in which the agency uses those resources and sets about achieving its targets.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will recognise this as confirming existing practice, since we already have good contacts with the appropriate Civil Service managers in our constituencies. Certainly, the experience of the existing agency chief executives is that hon. Members find it helpful to contact the agency direct and I know that many Civil Service managers welcome the additional feedback about what their customers really think and the opportunity to rectify errors and omissions when something goes wrong, which a businesslike relationship with local parliamentary representatives can bring.
Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend has told the House that there will be strong accountability. Will he confirm that every Next Steps agency will have to come to the House and be considered for the inclusion of a trading fund within its operations by positive resolution of the House, and therefore that that additional safety net will be built into the system that he is putting forward?
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, and what is clearly established in the White Paper. Any organisation that is considered as a candidate for trading fund status under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House before it is established.
Mr. Cryer: Before the Minister leaves the general point, will he say whether the chief executives will have powers to send a minute to the Comptroller and Auditor General if they disagree with any policy laid down by the Government regarding the agency under the relevant audit and exchange control Act, for example, as a permanent secretary has the right to do as auditing and accounting officer in a Government Department?
Mr. Luce: Of course, in most cases the chief executive is established as the accounting officer for his operation. The same relationship would exist as with a permanent secretary, who is the accounting officer for overall policy. I confirm that that would be the general position.
To complete my remarks on accountability, I emphasise that it will be an addition to the existing practice by which hon. Members can raise any matter that falls directly within a Minister's responsibility with him in the House.
In short, as we said in Command Paper 524:
"Establishing Executive Agencies within departments will involve some developments in the way in which external accountability is discharged. These include the publication of framework documents and the expectation that Members of

777
Parliament may often wish in the first instance to deal directly with Chief Executives on operational matters for which they have delegated authority. Ministers will continue to deal directly with inquiries about matters of policy or levels of resources, and with any cases where a Member of Parliament specifically seeks a reply from a Minister."
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, Next Steps involves no diminution in ministerial accountability to Parliament. On the contrary, agencies and their workings will be more open to inspection and more responsive, both to their customers and to examination by right hon. and hon. Members. The establishment of Next Steps agencies offers the potential for significant enhancement of the openness and quality of public services and of direct access to the people who manage them. Next Steps will in this way nourish and sustain the already firmly rooted concept of ministerial accountability.
I think that it is right to set out the position on accountability as clearly as I can, in view of the importance that the House attaches to it.
I shall briefly mention one or two other matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said about privatisation, as that subject featured considerably in the debate. The hon. Member for Wrexham, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle, for Cambridgeshire, South-East and for Lancashire, West all mentioned privatisation. Before an agency is established, alternative options, including contracting out and privatisation, are examined. Next Steps is primarily for those operations that are to remain in the Government. However, after some years it may not be ruled out that agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. When an agency is being set up and there is a firm intention of privatising it, that should be made clear. Our policy on the establishment of agencies, and on privatisation in general, remains the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle asked whether there were any candidates for either trading fund or straightforward agency status for which the Ministry of Defence was responsible. No fewer than seven, including those concerned with defence support, are included in the list. I hope that that will encourage my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who raised the same point.
Although he demanded answers to a number of questions in his long speech, I think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would almost fall out of his seat if I responded to all of them. Although most were not related to the Bill, I think it only right to deal with a point on which he challenged my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and which he raised again in his speech—the position of the Property Service Agency in the context of agency status.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly made it plain that it is planned to privatise the vast bulk of the PSA—some 20,000 staff—and measures to do so are before the House. I should add, however, that a small part of the agency will remain in Government service and could therefore be a candidate for agency status, although whether it could be a candidate for trading fund status is a matter for further consideration.
Mr. Dalyell: May I make the reasonable request that some of my other questions be answered in writing,
778
preferably before the Bill has made much progress in Committee? I believe that they are relevant to the Civil Service and other Departments. I was hoping particularly —because they were rather ad hominem—that the Minister would comment on my questions about the position of Mr. Patrick Brown and Mr. Bob Etherington. I think that they raise important questions of principle, to which some Minister may have an answer.
Mr. Luce: Such is the compelling interest aroused whenever the hon. Gentleman speaks that—as he will have noticed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment came into the Chamber this evening and heard much of his speech. I am sure that my right hon. Friend noted what he said, and I shall ensure that he is shown the full text of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about matters that are principally his responsibility.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked about the provision of social security benefits. As he said, the White Paper makes a clear reference to the matter in paragraph 4.14—which makes it plain that the delivery of such benefits would not satisfy the criteria for trading fund status—and I confirm that the service could not possibly become a trading fund agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asked about the relocation of agencies. That is principally the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General, but it would be the duty of any agency to consider whether relocation might bring about more efficiency and a better use of its resources. If it were already located in the south-east, for example, it might wish to move elsewhere. It will be the task of the Civil Service as a whole to look sharply at the benefits of relocation, and I have no doubt that every agency will undertake that task as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle also asked about experience in the Civil Service —in business, for example. I attach considerable importance to that, which is why the Government have increased the number of secondments and exchanges between the private sector and the home Civil Service; indeed, I should like to see a further increase. The Next Steps team is ably managed by Mr. Kemp, who gained accountancy experience before entering the Civil Service, and a member of Price Waterhouse is on loan to the team. I value such experience.
It is important that the right people, with the right experience, are appointed as chief executives. The Government are also anxious that the general principle of open competition should be maintained as far as possible, and that is increasingly happening. We must ensure that we obtain the best people for the job, and that as much authority as possible is delegated to them: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about the importance of delegating responsibility and accountability, and that is at the heart of the Bill and of the Next Steps policy. My hon. Friend also asked about training. Let me say again how important we consider that, and remind my hon. Friend that my office has introduced challenge funding for other Departments so that the level of Civil Service training is raised to an even higher standard.
I shall try to reply by letter to any questions that I have not answered specifically. Let me end, however, with a general issue raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr.

779
Marek), who asked about the number of candidates for trading fund status. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear in his speech, among the existing agencies potentially suitable for trading fund status are the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Warren Springs laboratory. There is, however, a long list of candidates—about 43—of which about 30 are possibilities. They represent about 50,000 of the 200,000 staff covered by the list. Although they may not all be given trading fund status, they can be taken as a guideline. The Bill will go a long way to strengthen the accountability of the agencies, particularly those suited for trading fund status.
As a result of the procedures introduced by the Bill, suitable Civil Service functions will be put on a more commercial and businesslike footing. The measures for holding agency chief executives fully accountable form a durable basis for giving agency management the tools to do the job and to provide the more efficient and effective and better-quality services which Next Steps is about. A trading fund represents a financing framework offering both independence of detailed control and clear accountability for results and value for money. That seems to me to be a most appropriate basis on which to move into the next decade.
Our Civil Service aims to achieve the highest standards of excellence. It has a high sense of duty. We have one of the finest Civil Services in the world. I believe that it will fulfil its tasks with great competence. The Bill will add to the range of tools that is available for the further improvement of Civil Service management and enhance the Government's drive towards improved financial management throughout the public services. I warmly commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter on a point of order, but the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) to whom I wanted to put this question earlier on a point of order had left the Chamber and has only recently returned. The hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the Government's trading fund agencies and to the services that the Civil Service college provides in terms of management skills and techniques. He spoke at great length about the need to privatise these services.
I notice that in the Register of Members' Interests the hon. Gentleman is a director of Framlingham Management and Training Services Ltd. Would it be in order at this stage for the hon. Gentleman to declare that interest, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others have made it clear that it is vital that direct or indirect pecuniary interests should be made known to the House? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East made such a vehement speech in support of the privatisation of trading fund agencies when the Register of Members' Interests shows that he is the director of a company that is directly involved in providing training services.
Mr. Paice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is out of date. I ceased to be a director of that company in May 1989.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has put his point of order on record. All that I need say from the Chair is that, as the House well knows, there is a Register of Members' Interests and that it is customary for any hon. Member who has an interest to declare it during a debate.

Government Trading Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or money provided by Parliament of sums required for the purpose of issues by way of loan to trading funds, subject to a limit of £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £4,000 million as the Treasury may specify by order, and

(b) payments into the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

9.1 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister was unable in the time allocated to him to cover a point that I raised in my speech. Therefore, I have decided to use the opportunity provided by the money resolution to give him another opportunity to reply to it.
The money will be subject to a limit of £2 billion, or such greater sum not exceeding £4 billion, which is certainly a lot of money swilling around. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
"The Bill provides that the aggregate of all such limits must not exceed £2,000 minion, which may be increased to £4,000 million by affirmative resolution order."
I should be grateful if the Minister could say what the effect of the amendments contained in the Bill will be on section 6 of the Goverment Trading Funds Act 1973. Subsection (3) would be amended to read:
"A statutory instrument containing an order under section 1 of this Act if made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of that House."
The affirmative procedure is thereby removed. The negative procedure takes its place.
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 refers in section 6(3) to an order made under section 2(4). The passage that I read out is the amended version of section 6(3). The Minister will no doubt be acutely aware that section 2(4) is removed. Its substitute is a clause of the Bill with which we are now dealing. New section 2B(7) says:
"The sum of the maxima in force in respect of all trading funds at any time shall not exceed £2,000 million."
Subsection (8) of new section 2B states:
"The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument increase or further increase the limit in subsection (7) above by any amount, not exceeding £1,000 million, specified in the order but not so as to make the limit exceed £4,000 million."
That lines up more or less with the money resolution that we are happily discussing.
Do the amendments to section 6, and of new section 2B, mean that the Minister can use a negative procedure instrument to raise the maximum of the trading funds, or is it just confused wording which provides the Minister with a residual power so that he does not have to use the affirmative resolution procedure? Is the Minister being given the power to decide whether he should use the affirmative or negative resolution procedure? On most occasions, Ministers, by some happy chance, seem to prefer the negative resolution procedure. I would be assured if the Minister would say that, in Committee—just so that it can be clear to the ordinary citizen—we can insert an amendment to new section 2B(8), which states:
"The Treasury may by order made by affirmative statutory instrument".
The provision would then line up with what appears to be one interpretation of the present legislation. I know that
782
the Minister likes to be positive and constructive whenever the opportunity presents itself, and I would be happy if he could give such an assurance.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce)rose—
Mr. Cryer: I have another question. I know that the Minister is keen to give me an assurance. Perhaps I should not stretch his patience, but I shall give it a try.
A lot of money—up to £4 billion—is floating around, and I am a little worried about what the Minister said about there being a lot of interchange between the private sector and the Civil Service. The trading funds are based on the idea of some form of competition developing. Perhaps the Government had something like Barlow Clowes in mind when they drew up this method of trading. The Minister said that there is a lot of interchange between the Government and the private sector through civil servants. It occurs to me that the Government must maintain a system in which civil servants are kept at arm's length from the private sector and in which there are clear rules. I am not making any accusations, but the public must be satisfied that, when civil servants advise on setting up trading funds, which the Minister argues will offer a better and more efficient service—I do not agree—they will not get so close to the private sector that they become involved and finish up as directors on boards.
The Minister knows that this issue has been raised before in various contexts. I shall give an example of what I have in mind. I remember the General Electric Company getting hot under the collar with the then Department of Industry and making representations about its desire to take over Northern Engineering Industries. Inquiries about whether GEC was influencing civil servants to make such a decision were made. It was discovered that a civil servant became a non-executive director of GEC. I asked in the House whether the civil servant, who had been in the Department of Industry, had been involved in discussions with GEC. The answer was no, but it subsequently appeared that there had been a series of secret meetings between several civil servants, including the permanent secretary at the Department of Industry, and GEC. There was contact. We asked whether secret meetings were held to be good and whether the civil servant established contacts which enabled him to assume an important position in GEC.
I recognise that I am not posing an easy question, but the Minister will have to be satisfied, and it must be clear, that civil servants will remain completely aloof from any inducements or lures to move to the private sector for their own benefit. I am quite sure that that principle guides the Civil Service, Ministers and the House. Under the money resolution which allows increases up to £2 billion and £4 billion and in which a great deal of money is involved, I should like to know how that principle will be maintained.
9.14 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Under the money resolution I wish to return to the issue of valuation in relation to the Property Services Agency which, as the Minister said in a previous speech, might be very small but nonetheless would remain.
I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a proper valuation of the Property Services Agency

783
would be carried out and at what cost. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), replied:
"It is too early to say."
It seems pretty extraordinary that we are making great changes in the Property Services Agency, which according to the National Audit Office report was valued at £3 billion in 1982 and is now valued at £10 billion—the Minister may challenge those figures if he disagrees with them—yet apparently no proper valuation has been undertaken.
Secondly, it is within the terms of the money resolution to ask the Minister to explain what physical assets in the Property Services Agency will be assigned to a privatised body and on what basis. Will such property and equipment remain in public ownership? Will it be leased to a privatised body or will it be given to such a body as a sweetener? In other words, is flotation envisaged?
It is rather unsatisfactory when a Member of Parliament raises a bit ad hominem the position of two key individuals—in this case Mr. Bob Etherington and Mr. Patrick Brown—and the Minister replies, "If you want answers to those questions perhaps you will get them from the Secretary of State for the Environment." He was courteous enough to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment had come in to hear my speech. I thank him for his courtesy, but the purpose of the House of Commons is not to be courteous but to give answers. Precisely because Ministers have had time—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right that the purpose of the House is to give answers, provided that it is to the right motion. I am having some difficulty in understanding what relevance this has to the Bill.
Mr. Dalyell: You are at some disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, because when you were out of the Chamber, the occupant of the Chair listened rather carefully to what I was saying and made no attempt to rule me out of order although I spoke at some length. I believe that I am in order under the terms of paragraph 8 of the National Audit Office report and under the terms of the Bill.
If particular cases are raised, they should, not least for the sake of the individuals concerned, be answered in the reply to the debate. Therefore, I was disappointed simply to hear that the Secretary of State for the Environment was courteous enough to come and hear me. Some answer should have been forthcoming on a rather major issue of principle.
In relation to property and equipment, will the Minister explain in terms of the money resolution how such valuable public resources are to be valued, who will be given the task and how soon such a portfolio would be completed? What assurance can the Minister give the House that such a valuation would be able to withstand public scrutiny so ensuring that the public was not ripped off in the privatisation of the PSA and Crown Suppliers?
I am entitled to ask the Chief Secretary again whether it is true that Miss Jeannie Turton chaired a committee on behalf of the Treasury that opposed privatisation. One of the central units in the Treasury made a similar report, and we know that Dewi Jones also did so. Was my description of the circumstances of the report by Coopers and
784
Lybrand correct? Was Mr. Etherington's organisation correct in its valuation? Was what I said about it factually true?
While the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill refers to the transfer of undertakings under Protection of Employment Regulations 1981, what undertakings is the Minister prepared to give in regard to any person or persons subsequently made redundant under the new private body—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who rightly said that I was not present during his previous speech. However, it seems to me that these matters are concerned with the Second Reading debate rather than with the money resolution.
Mr. Dalyell: I think, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that we are in some difficulty. The Minister quite properly conceded that there was to be a fag end of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill—honourably, he nods in assent—among the bodies that we are discussing. Surely, therefore, I am entitled to ask general questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The money resolution covers the payment of loans to Government trading funds under new section 1(5) and new section 2B(2), (7) and (8) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 relating to payments into the national loans fund or the consolidated fund; under new section 2A(5) relating to public dividend capital; new section 4A(6) relating to operations ceasing to be funded; and clause 2(1)(b) relating to increases of pensions.
Mr. Dalyell: Under new section 2A may I raise a question that has concerned the trade unions about protection from asset stripping? Given the nature of the construction industry, is it not necessary that bidders for the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers do not seek to asset-strip those organisations? The trade unions do not want a repeat of the royal ordnance factory fiasco. They therefore ask that amendments to the Bill—
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): Which Bill?
Mr. Dalyell: —are supported to ensure that windfall profits from the sale do not accrue to the Treasury. I say to the Financial Secretary that of course I am referring to the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. It is easy to assert that that Bill is not relevant to the money resolution of today's discussion. If that is so, why on earth mention the Crown Suppliers in the Bill that we are discussing? Ministers cannot have it both ways. I believe that these are legitimate questions and that they deserve some answer here and now.
9.18 pm
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): In a moment, I shall try to help the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr. Cryer), but first I should like to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I thought that I had made it plain in my reply to the Second Reading debate that many of the points that he raised about the Property Services Agency were related to the provisions that we are debating on the privatisation of the bulk of the PSA and that I would draw his worries to the attention of my right hon. Friend the

785
Secretary of State for the Environment, who will no doubt wish to comment on them. Of course I will do that, and I will do the same on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised under the money resolution. I shall draw those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should get a proper answer. Most of those issues, including the references to Mr. Etherington and Mr. Brown, do not relate to the Government Trading Bill. It would not be right or proper for me to answer those points specifically.
Mr. Dalyell: This is my last intervention. Is the Minister sure that he is right? Was not the crucial decision to go to Coopers and Lybrand for the report that was wanted—not the "whether" but the "how" report—taken inside the Treasury and Civil Service Department and not in the Department of the Environment?
Mr. Luce: Much though I should like to think that Ministers of the Civil Service are infallible, I fear that they are not. If I am wrong in these matters, I shall put it right with the hon. Gentleman by means of a letter or other contact.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the ethical standards of civil servants and the possibility of agencies being privatised. As a Minister with day-to-day responsibilities for the Civil Service, I attach great importance to the maintenance of the high ethical standards that the Civil Service already has. Certain rules, codes and guidelines on these matters can and must be followed. There are already rules and guidelines covering civil servants who wish to obtain a job outside the Civil Service. The rules involving the Diamond committee, of which the hon. Member for Bradford, South will be aware, are clear. Very high standards are maintained. Clearly, we must always ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. That is my duty and the duty of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service. There is no evidence that civil servants as a whole have any wish to abuse those rules in any way.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South made another point which should be seriously considered. I apologise for not picking up the hon. Gentleman's point earlier in my wind-up speech on Second Reading. I could have reassured the hon. Gentleman then. The Government propose to introduce an amendment to make orders under new section 2B(8) subject to affirmative resolution. This was omitted in the drafting. I hope that this undertaking, which we can consider in Committee, will reassure the hon. Gentleman and answer his main point.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or money provided by Parliament of sums required for the purpose of issues by way of loan to trading funds, subject to a limit of £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £4,000 million as the Treasury may specify by order, and

(b) payments into the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

CENSUS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13(a) (e) (f) (g)- (h) (i) (j) (k), 14(a)(vi), 14(b), 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 2 and items 2 and 3 of Schedule 3 to the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1989, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Durrell.]
The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 16.

Division No. 30]

[9.23 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Lawrence, Ivan

Amos, Alan

Lee, John (Pendle)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Lightbown, David

Atkins, Robert

Lilley, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Maclean, David

Brazier, Julian

McLoughlin, Patrick

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

Mans, Keith

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Miller, Sir Hal

Buck, Sir Antony

Mills, Iain

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Chapman, Sydney

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

Neubert, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Nicholls, Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

Norris, Steve

Durant, Tony

Paice, James

Fallon, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Fookes, Dame Janet

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Forth, Eric

Pawsey, James

Freeman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

French, Douglas

Redwood, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Riddick, Graham

Goodlad, Alastair

Rowe, Andrew

Gorst, John

Stern, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Stevens, Lewis

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hague, William

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Summerson, Hugo

Hanley, Jeremy

Thurnham, Peter

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Trippier, David

Hind, Kenneth

Waller, Gary

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Wells, Bowen

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Wheeler, Sir John

Irvine, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Jack, Michael

Wilshire, David

Janman, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Winterton, Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Wolfson, Mark

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Knapman, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Knox, David

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

787

NOES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Nellist, Dave

Beith, A. J.

Pike, Peter L.

Bermingham, Gerald

Primarolo, Dawn

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Skinner, Dennis

Cousins, Jim

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tellers for the Noes:

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Meale, Alan

Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Smoking
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
9.35 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: I am delighted to be offering the first Adjournment debate of the 1990s. I hope and believe that the 1990s increasingly will become a smoke-free decade. It has started unfortunately with the minority of smokers dictating a dangerous and anti-social environment for the majority. However, I am optimistic that by the end of the decade most public places will be free of that health and environmental hazard.
Smoking is a dangerous, dirty and anti-social habit. It is now practised by only one third of the adult population, but it directly affects the other two thirds. I firmly believe in the principle that people should be free to do what they want subject only to the proviso that they do not harm or injure anyone else. If people want the right to indulge in a habit which they know may damage their health and eventually kill them, that is their right in a free and democratic society. However, when their drug has the same effect on the majority of people who do not smoke, that is not acceptable and is a gross violation of human and civil rights.
This debate is not anti-smoker; it is pro the legitimate and abused rights of the non-smoking majority. The tobacco lobby may say, "What about the loss of Government revenue from tobacco taxation?" Well, what about it? Nothing that I will suggest this evening will affect that in any way. I do not see how the establishment of non-smoking areas will reduce the consumption of tobacco products when all smokers will continue to be allowed to smoke the same amount as before. They will simply have to do it in certain areas so that they do not pose a danger to the majority who do not smoke.
If smoking is reduced as a result of the measures that I will suggest, so much the better for everyone—and for smokers in particular. Tobacco tax could and should be increased to maintain the level of revenue. As we get down to the hardened core of committed smokers, so the demand for tobacco products becomes inelastic at which point the tax can be raised as much as we like —within reason—and that will eventually increase revenue. In any case, I doubt whether the tobacco lobby is in the slightest bit concerned about the level of Government revenue. It merely uses that as a superficial and dishonest debating point.
My debate covers two essential political issues. The first relates to extending and enhancing the rights and freedom of the individual. The second involves the protection of the environment—the green issue.
The majority of people should not have to be subjected to the health risks created by smokers. Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. It is not right that you should have to watch someone else's pollution waft across you in a restaurant and land upon the food which you then must eat. Surely it is not right that you should come out of a pub or a cinema with your clothes and hair reeking of stale smoke. Surely it cannot be right that when you make a journey by train or bus you must sit in a smoke-filled cocoon which may cause eye and nose irritations. Surely it is not right that in one's place of work, where one spends most of one's waking life, one should be subjected to the selfishness of the minority. Surely it is not right that

789
schools, which must now have a health education programme, should allow pupils to see teachers create the impression that smoking is just a normal part of the adult lifestyle.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) called you, Mr. Speaker, a reasonable man. Of course all hon. Members agree with that, but what does my hon. Friend mean by a smoke-filled cocoon? When I go for my walk in the morning, everybody is hurtling around jogging and so on. They are in a smoke-filled world. My hon. Friend talks about smoking killing people. Biased medics will use anything to bolster their bias when they say that smoking kills. What about all the traffic? What about carbon monoxide? Is my hon. Friend so naive as to believe that all that kills is smoking and that carbon monoxide is almost good for us? Does he want to do away with cars, buses, trains and aircraft? Is his bias so built-in that he wants to do away with just us smokers who want to go about our harmless way?
Mr. Amos: If I had been allowed to develop my arguments, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) would have been relieved to hear that they are consistent and to the point. My hon. Friend says that his smoking pastime is harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are all concerned about the environment, but for many people that concern seems to stop short at the frontiers of the external environment and does not seem to extend to the domestic or enclosed environment. I am concerned with what happens to the ozone layer and also with what happens to individuals' lungs and hearts. It is inconsistent and rather pointless for people to worry about the effects of lead in petrol and then spend their working day in a smoke-infested atmosphere, to be followed by a couple of hours in a smoke-infested pub, and finish with an hour or two in a smoke-infested living room, regardless of the effects on their children.
Now is the time for the Government to act, and act positively. The Government are to be applauded for their initiatives to protect the external environment. They are to be encouraged in their involvement in warning the public about the scourge of AIDS and the dangers of drink driving. However, when it comes to smoking, there seems to be an extraordinary reluctance to take any effective action—everything must be voluntary. The tobacco industry's power does not frighten me, but its power to prevent the introduction of any effective measures to protect the majority of people is nothing short of scandalous.
It is entirely right that the tobacco industry's voluntary agreement to limit tobacco advertising and sponsorship should be shown for what it is. At a time when under-age smoking is a growing social menace, especially among girls aged 11 to 15, it is quite outrageous that the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship—COMATAS—should be allowed to keep many of its findings confidential. Clearly, tobacco companies have something to hide. Four major studies on how well voluntary agreements are being observed have been kept secret—one on poster advertising near schools, one on sports sponsorship, and two surveys on advertising at confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents. One can only be extremely suspicious of why they have been kept
790
secret. It was because tobacco companies kept breaking voluntary agreements that COMATAS was set up. Even so, tobacco companies still broke the agreements 41 times in 1987 alone. Clearly, as a matter of urgency, we must set up a new legally-binding agreement.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has now agreed to renegotiate the voluntary agreement on advertising and that the role of COMATAS will also be reviewed. COMATAS has limited value in its present role, because tobacco companies can veto the truth if they do not like what it is. This voluntary approach is basically a cop-out and an abdication of responsibility.
The argument that statutory measures cannot work is clearly nonsense, because other countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have already introduced measures to honour the rights of people in those countries. The argument that statutory measures should not be introduced is a dereliction of duty when one considers the effects of smoking on the culprits and the innocent victims—children, the elderly and the majority of people in general. Deaths from smoking-induced diseases in the United Kingdom, especially lung cancer and other cancers and coronary heart disease and arterial diseases, are 110,000 a year, which is equal to about 15 deaths per hour. It costs the National Health Service over £500 million a year to treat tobacco-related diseases, all of which are preventable, not to mention the time off work due to ill health.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: They are not all preventable.
Mr. Amos: They are preventable if people do not smoke. The central consideration must be the rights of the long-suffering majority who should not be expected to live and work in a smoke-infested environment.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: What about traffic?
Mr. Amos: The debate is about smoking. If my hon. Friend listens he will learn a lot and I am sure that his views will be changed by the sense and logic of the argument. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member For Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) would contain himself there might be time for him to speak in the debate and put his point of view.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am encouraging my hon. Friend to say something sensible.
Mr. Speaker: Do not encourage him.
Mr. Amos: I need no encouragement to spread truth and light throughout the world.
In the case of passive smoking, the non-smoker breathes sidestream smoke from the burning tip of a cigarette and mainstream smoke from that which has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Most people in Britain spend most of their lives indoors and tobacco smoke makes a significant and measurable contribution to the level of indoor air pollution, which is what I am concerned about. We do not have the problem of lead pollution in the home, the workplace or in school.
Tobacco smoke is highly complex and contains thousands of chemicals which are released into the air as particles and gases. Many potentially toxic gases are present in high concentrations in sidestream smoke and

791
nearly 85 per cent. of the smoke in a room is sidestream. About 60 of these substances are known or suspected to be carcinogens. How does that affect passive smokers, the people who involuntarily breath in this pollution? As well as causing annoyance by making hair and clothes smell unpleasant, involuntary smoke exposure can cause symptoms such as eye irritation, headache, coughing, sore throat, dizziness and nausea and it produces many small but measurable changes in the air passages of lungs of otherwise healthy adults. Adults with experience of asthma undergo a significant and substantial decline in lung function when exposed to sidestream smoke for one hour. People with allergies and respiratory and heart ailments will be more seriously affected.
The effects of long-term exposure are very serious. In March 1988 the Government's independent scientific committee on smoking and health published its fourth report dealing in particular with the issue of passive smoking. The committee scrutinised studies on the effects of passive smoking and found that the overall findings were consistent with an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers of up to 30 per cent. That was independent, scientific medical evidence. When that risk is compared with other cancer risks, it is found that the life-long risk from passive smoking is more than 100 times higher than the estimated effect of 20 years exposure to asbestos that is normally found in buildings.
Many people are involved and some of them are at a greater risk than the general population due to pre-existing cardiac or respiratory conditions and/or prolonged exposure in the home or workplace. There is no safe level of exposure to carcinogens. Recent studies have also found an increased risk of disease other than lung cancer in passive smokers. In addition, young children are at risk. Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life. Chronic coughs and phlegm are more frequent among the children of parents who smoke. The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health said:
"By enhancing the frequency or severity of childhood respiratory illnesses, [passive smoking] could contribute to the development of respiratory disease in adult life among nonsmokers."
The committee also found evidence of an association between exposure to passive smoking and low birth weight and said that, since active smoking confers a hazard on the health of the unborn baby, passive smoking might be expected to confer one also, albeit a smaller one.
On the basis of the independent scientific and medical evidence, the non-smoker should be protected. Experts have concluded that given the public health initiatives to minimise or eliminate involuntary public exposure to other environmental pollutants with less carcinogenic potency than several of the substances in tobacco smoke, similar efforts to prevent involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke are necessary. In the United States of America some 80 per cent. of states restrict smoking in public places and workplace smoking policies have increased dramatically in the 1980s.
Public opinion now demands the provision of a smoke-free environment in five main areas: public transport, public eating places, places of public entertainment, the workplace and schools.
792
As you are a learned man, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will be aware that 80 per cent. of the public agree that there should be no smoking on public transport. That includes 67 per cent. of smokers. There have been recent encouraging developments. For example, there is now a total ban on smoking on London Underground. British Airways has introduced a ban on smoking on all its domestic flights by public demand, including that of many smokers. I congratulate British Airways on that move and on putting up with the abuse of the well-heeled Tobacco Advisory Council. The council's only advice seems to be that people should smoke as much as they want because the medical evidence is not conclusive about the health dangers. They say, "Go ahead and smoke because it does not do you any harm." [Interruption]—a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. There is independent medical evidence which some people, to their lasting regret, choose to ignore. That is their choice.
The smoking ban on British Airways was introduced despite dire warnings about what would happen to customer demand. The opposite of what was predicted has happened. I, for one, would choose British Airways in preference to other airlines such as Dan Air, all things being equal, because I know that I will not have to take the risk of sitting in a smoke-infested atmosphere.
The challenge to British Airways is to extend the ban to its European and transatlantic flights. In the United States all domestic flights are now smoke-free. Some journeys last up to five hours. The Canadian Government has just announced a smoking ban on all domestic and international flights on all Canadian airlines. So much for the argument that it cannot be done.
Progress is also being made on British Rail. It is time for them to get rid of mixed smoking and non-smoking carriages and compartments. In open coaches the existence of a non-smoking section adjacent to a smoking section is useless. British Rail must reintroduce the concept of smoking carriages which would be easily identified by the fog inside and the empty seats.
Similarly, upper decks of buses divided between smoking and non-smoking sections do not provide a smoke-free environment for the non-smoker. The onus must shift from the privilege of the minority to damage the health and environment of the majority to special provision for the minority in secluded areas so that the rights of the majority can and will be respected.
Some eating places and pubs now give customers a choice. Where areas cannot clearly be demarcated, the onus must shift to the rights of the majority. Eating places should be clean and hygienic in the dining areas as well as in the kitchens. Fast food places are popular, especially with children and young people. It appears that 91 per cent. of the public generally and 89 per cent. of smokers agree that all restaurants should provide no-smoking areas.
Another consideration is entertainment areas. Increasingly, cinemas are making provision for the majority of their customers. The futility of dividing an auditorium into smoking and non-smoking sections has been highlighted. Entire areas should be completely free of smoke infestation.
In the workplace, we are talking again about the rights of the individual—indeed, the rights of the majority—and concern for the environment. Even 81 per cent. of smokers agree that non-smokers should have the right to work in

793
non-polluted areas. The demand is that all United Kingdom workplaces must have an effective smoking policy.
In education, the adult community has an especial responsibility to protect our children from the dangers of passive smoking and the appalling examples which smokers provide. It is about time that we had the guts to end the outrage of continuing tobacco advertising and sponsorship, both of which are designed to encourage people to smoke more. That applies especially to youngsters, who are needed to take up smoking in ever greater numbers as adults continue increasingly to kick the habit. There has been an alarming growth in smoking among young people—I am talking about 15-year-olds —particularly among girls. I have no doubt that that has been caused by the heavy advertising of the tobacco industry in women's and girls' magazines.
The Tobacco Advisory Council has limitless money to take full-page advertisements in the national daily press and evening newspapers—I have some examples with me —which seek to abuse the right of the majority to have clean air and any organisation such as British Airways, which dares to respond to its customers and brave the wrath of the advisory council in order to introduce a clean air policy.
The tobacco industry spends about £120 million a year of its obscene profits on advertising plus countless extra millions on sponsorship. Of course, sponsorship is the obvious and easy way to circumvent restrictions on advertising. It is an outrageous abuse when there is tobacco sponsorship of sporting events which are especially impressionable on young people. The aim must be to stop people smoking and to protect people from the influences of the Tobacco Advisory Council in encouraging people to start smoking, especially when set against the massive sums spent by the tobacco industry is the derisory £3 million that is spent on smoking prevention by the Government, together with the welcome extra £10 million that is to be spent over the next five years by the Government on their new teenage anti-smoking campaign.
In December, Mr. Donald Reid, the director of the Health Education Authority, said:
"One million children and teenagers alive today in Britain will eventually die from smoking if the present trend continues."
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is rubbish.
Mr. Amos: That was said at the launch of the new campaign to try to reduce teenage smoking over the next five years.
"At the launch Mr. Reid accused the tobacco industry of refusing to co-operate in moves to cut illegal tobacco sales among the under-16s. The authority had asked companies to cut off supplies of cigarettes to retailers caught selling cigarettes illegally but the tobacco industry had refused."
Mr. Reid added:
"This is not surprising since the industry must recruit 270 children to smoking today—merely to replace the 270 adults who will die from smoking.
The industry knew that if they attracted youngsters aged 11–15 they would keep them for life."
The article continues:
"The HEA's programme will also be targeted at schools with the goal of making all schools non-smoking by 1995.
An HEA booklet which is being distributed to schools claims that children are attracted to smoking through cigarette advertising, tobacco-sponsored sports events and the sophisticated image associated by smoking."
794
This is not the time for timidity. As the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health said in March 1988:
"Passive smoking is a major public health hazard in all public places. Several hundred thousand people will die in the UK as a result of being forced to breathe in other people's tobacco smoke."
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: More rubbish.
Mr. Amos: My hon. Friend shouts "More rubbish", but my remarks happen to be true. We are dealing with a serious matter which puts lives at risk and which concerns an anti-social habit. The public have a right to hear my remarks, rather than for me to be shouted down or abused by the power of the tobacco industry—though it scares me not one jot. I quoted independent scientific and medical advice.
Several hundred thousand people in the United Kingdom will die as the result of being forced to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. Those suffering from asthma and bronchitis are severely affected, as smoke irritates the eyes, nose and throat. It also makes clothes, hair, furniture and other objects reek of stale smoke. There is overwhelming public demand for a cleaner environment in buildings as well as outside, not only among non-smokers but among many smokers themselves, who recognise the problem—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Tom Sackville: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will you not, Mr. Speaker, allow my hon. Friend the Minister to reply?
Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) please to remain silent. I call Mr. Amos.
Mr. Amos: Many smokers themselves recognise the problems associated with smoking and may welcome the opportunity that a ban would provide to help them give up their habit. Such a ban could serve as an inducement. The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health remarked in 1988:
"Non-smoking should be regarded as the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, special provision being made for smokers rather than vice-versa."
In 1986 the World Health Organisation commented:
"Passive smoking violates the right to health of non-smokers, who must be protected against this noxious form of environmental pollution."
None of that can happen unless the Government accept their responsibility to introduce legislation and stop relying on so-called voluntary measures, which in many cases do not work and never can work properly. We know that passive smoking is 100 times more dangerous than breathing in asbestos dust. We should remember the outcry when asbestos is discovered in a building. It is immediately closed to the public and suitably protected workmen are called in to remove the asbestos.
There will always be a significant number of people who will not respond to voluntary measures—as one finds in restaurants when a selfish smoker is clearly causing distress to non-smokers at an adjacent table—and legislation has been tried, and works, in countries and cities throughout

795
the world, including the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Norway and Spain. Those countries have laws guaranteeing some form of protection for non-smokers that have overwhelming public support and are effective.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on his genuine and strong personal commitment to the cause that I support. I hope that the debate will strengthen his hand in bringing about new measures and in using whatever influence he can bring to bear in ensuring a clean and safe environment. The message is simple. Legislation can be used, is being used and should continue to be used. Smoking is no longer socially acceptable and we should all act on public opinion, take the lead, and provide a clean, safe and healthy environment.
10.3 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) stated that we should heed the majority, but there is of course also a minority—and they too hold an opinion. I do not approve of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) catcalling the hon. Member for Hexham when he was putting his case. However, I must admit that when I am seated behind the hon. Member for Selly Oak when he is smoking his pipe, more often than not I really enjoy the aroma and sense of flavour that reaches me. Other right hon. and hon. Members also smoke pipes, and I enjoy the sensation as much as they do.
The hon. Member for Hexham is being a little dictatorial. We have just got rid of a dictator in Romania, but here we go again. I believe that we are seeing the thin end of a very thick wedge. That is what is happening. If the hon. Member for Hexham persuades the Government to do what he has suggested, he, or some of his colleagues, will move on. They will have a total ban on smoking. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head and agreeing with me. If his constituency was in Bristol or Nottinghamshire he would not have made that speech, but would have kidded someone else into making it. Both those cities have massive tobacco factories.
I do not live in or represent a constituency in Nottingham; my constituency is outside the city. A number of my constituents work in the tobacco industry in Nottingham. I am surprised that I do not see one or two Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Nottinghamshire in their places, or standing up for the industry. I am here to defend the tobacco industry, but there are no Conservative Members representing Nottingham or Bristol here. The little fellow who sits up yonder is not here now, but he ought to have been here to defend his constituents and the jobs available to them in the tobacco industry.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mr. Haynes: I shall not give way, because other hon. Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Hexham did not write his speech. A voluntary organisation wrote it for him.
Mr. Amos: The hon. Member should withdraw that remark.
Mr. Haynes: I shall not withdraw it. I have heard that speech before. It came from an organisation that is against smoking; it is called Action on Smoking and Health. I am sure that the hon. Member for Selly Oak has also heard it before. The hon. Member for Hexham may wag his head. He was agreeing with me and now he is disagreeing, but I have heard that speech time and again.
I am defending the rights of the individual too. There is a minority in this land who wish to smoke. If the hon. Member for Hexham considers other countries he will find that they are in the same boat—they have minorities and some have majorities. The hon. Gentleman has not been here very long and he has a lot to learn. Hon. Members do not get away with the things that he has suggested tonight. I am not saying that he is not out of nappies yet, but he has a lot to learn.
I have listened to the Under-Secretary speak on many occasions in many debates, including those on smoking. I congratulate him on his work for health since he left the Ministry of Defence, although I am an Opposition Member. I praise the Under-Secretary, but I do not praise the hon. Member for Hexham, because if he lies in bed tonight and considers what he has said, he will probably have a different opinion in the morning. He should consider what I have said about jobs and the rights of the minority. He is favouring the majority.
10.9 pm
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate. I commend the sensible and balanced way that he spoke. Public opinion is shifting and my hon. Friend has captured the changing mood more accurately than did the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
I hope that every hon. Member hopes to reduce the 100,000 premature deaths caused by smoking every year. Progress has been made in the past few years, and the Government deserve some credit for their role in securing a reduction in the number of deaths. However, we must do more. We need a coherent strategy that embraces all Government Departments, including the Treasury, because excise duty has an influence on consumption, and there has been no increase in duty in the last two Budgets. I hope that that will be put right so that there is a firm fiscal boost for the preventive strategy that we all want.
The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play: there is no point in the Government's providing grants for the building of factories to manufacture cigarettes if they adopt a posture in favour of a reduction in smoking. Sports Ministers have their role to play: there is also no point in the Department of Health putting across the message that smoking is unhealthy if the Department of the Environment allows sport—a healthy activity—to be associated, through sponsorship, with smoking.
My hon. Friend's Department has a key role in this regard. I remember that, when I was given the job that he now holds, I observed two things when I entered the building: a no-smoking sign and, behind it, a chain-smoking doorkeeper. It took me a long time to establish the correct priority, and to disengage the latter from the former. I hope that the Department is now doing what it can to discourage smoking in hospitals, and at

797
district health authority meetings, for instance, and that there are plenty of smoke-free zones at Richmond house, the Department's new headquarters.
What an individual does in his own home is of course a matter for him. My hon. Friend's point was this: why should we have to inhale polluted air in places that we have to visit, such as post offices and railway stations? Do we not have a right to breathe unpolluted air? What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does with his pipe in private affects no one; what he does with it in public affects many of us. The hon. Member for Ashfield may like the flavour that follows my hon. Friend, but I must say that, although I am happy to tolerate his company and conversation, I do not like the smoke, and my wife does not like the smell of my clothes when I go home after a discussion with my hon. Friend.
We can play a role by choosing to patronise institutions that have already made progress. We can stay at hotels with no-smoking bedrooms; we can visit pubs and no-smoking bars and restaurants with no-smoking zones; and—as my hon. Friend pointed out—we can support airlines that have banned smoking. We can get the message across to producers and suppliers that public opinion is shifting, and that they can attract more customers by reponding to the changing mood than by listening to the rather reactionary voices that we have just heard.
My hon. Friend spoke of the "nanny state", but so far the no-smoking rule has been self-policing. There is little smoking on the Underground now, not because we have a nanny state but because people accept the rule. As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for smoking on the Underground, although there may have been one or two prosecutions. Exactly the same would happen if the policy was extended to discouraging smoking in public places: the prohibition would become self-enforcing. We are asking the Government to nudge the shift in public opinion even further by giving a lead along the imaginative lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on introducing such an important debate. I shall keep my remarks brief, as I know that other hon. Members may wish to contribute if there is time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir G. Young) is entirely right: a reduction in cigarette smoking will unquestionably save lives. Of 1.000 young adults who are regular smokers, 250 will die before their time from smoking cigarettes; six will die in road accidents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton that we ignore such statistics at our peril. Smoking cigarettes is dangerous, and, as a health Minister, I have a responsibility—as, indeed, we all have—to draw that fact to the attention of the public.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham that passive smoking is also dangerous, although not as dangerous as cigarette smoking itself. My hon. Friend cited the 1988 Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. To be fair, we should quote its findings a little more accurately: it identified an increase of
798
between 10 and 30 per cent. in the risk of contracting lung cancer for non-smokers who were habitually exposed to cigarette smoke, as opposed to people who were exposed to it by chance in public places. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw the committee's report to the attention of the House. He was also right to say that on good medical advice the Department of Health accepts it.
My hon. Friend also said that smoking by others in public places can sometimes be a nuisance. Recently I visited a restaurant with my wife. We were greatly annoyed when the couple who were sitting at an adjacent table started to smoke before we had even ordered our meal. The fact that people sitting adjacent to us in a public restaurant chose to smoke cigarettes ruined the prospect of our meal. It was obvious that the other people in that relatively small restaurant did not enjoy cigarette smoke, either. Smoking can be a nuisance.
As for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, it is important to recognise that smokers have rights, too. I defend the right to smoke pipes, cigarettes and cigars, but that right should not be exercised at the expense of those who do not smoke. It ought not to be exercised in public places. We must take every step possible to protect the rights of non-smokers. They are in the majority.
My hon. Friend said that there should be legislation to prohibit smoking on public transport. Smoking is already banned on the Underground, for safety reasons. As for aircraft, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming what British Airways and Air UK have done on domestic routes. Carriers have the right to ban all forms of smoking, if they so wish. The railways also have that power. I note that 80 per cent. of Network SouthEast trains already prohibit smoking, which is a higher proportion than on the rest of British Rail's network. Bus carriers also have the power to prohibit smoking. However, it would be difficult for them to enforce such a ban on the top deck of a double decker bus, particularly if there were only a driver and no conductor. My hon. Friend also referred to public eating places. An owner can ban cigarette smoking in his restaurant, if he so wishes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton that it is up to public pressure; legislation is not appropriate.
As for places of public entertainment, cigarette smoking has largely been prohibited in cinemas. Employers already have the power in workplaces to prohibit smoking by employees. They can enforce that ban through the contract of employment. In schools, it is up to the local education authority. By agreement with staff, smoking can be prohibited in staff rooms.
I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's case. He has my sympathy. However, I have to admit that I am a smoker. I smoke a pipe and I enjoy a good cigar, but I do not smoke in public places. I have stopped smoking in the Department of Health, at Richmond house. Although I still enjoy smoking, I do so in private—either in my own house, through the tolerance of my wife, or out of doors. I do not smoke in public places because I am concerned about the effect on other people, and their reaction. In public places it is good manners to refrain from smoking. The general thrust of my hon. Friend's debate is not unwelcome. The points that he has made are wise and sensible, and we should all heed them.

Schizophrenia (Constituency Case)
10.18 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise briefly a serious issue on behalf of my Fylde constituents. I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health one of the most difficult constituency cases that I have had to deal with since I became a Member of Parliament. It concerns a young man who, for the sake of the debate, I shall call David, a schizohphrenic, and the problems that his mother faces in looking after him.
I shall never forget, when I first met David's mother, her asking, "What will he do when I am gone? Who will look after David?" She was referring to facilities in the community available to look after her son. He is schizophrenic, irrational, sometimes subject to the influence of alcohol and drugs and imagines that people will murder him. He finds it difficult to live in the community. He tries hard, but his condition is serious. He repels some of the help available to him such as day care, and even the community psychiatric nurse has had difficulty.
When I first encountered the case, I felt that I was in some sort of game of pass-the-parcel. I raised the matter with the district health authority which referred me to social services; I raised it with social services which referred me to the district health authority. I found it a most difficult case to make progress with. I am raising it tonight because I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary takes a keen interest in mental health matters. I have letters from David's mother, one of which reads:
"I have nightmares about what the future holds for both David and myself—I love him dearly and have sorely tried from the beginning to be 'a prop' to him, but … at my age which is 68, I wonder what happens when I die."
This Christmas she went to his flat. He had had some surplus milk bottles which he had flung all over the place. She walked in on a carpet of glass. He had had a bad schizophrenic attack and had crushed his collection of records and cassettes.
David's mother is 68 and tries her best. She has commented favourably on the efforts that have been made since I intervened and asked Lancashire social services to help. It has provided a home help with whom he has formed some kind of relationship, but much of the help is somewhat tenuous. I asked the district health authority what might be done to help, but was confronted with a picture almost of despair. When I asked what it could do to help the seriously mentally ill or people with serious behavioural difficulties, I was told, "I am afraid that we do not have a facility to help a young man such as this. The best we can do is send him to a facility in Northampton. We have three people on whom we are spending some hundreds of thousands of pounds in providing care. Could there not be some funds for a supra-regional unit to look after people who suffer from this kind of condition?"
The White Paper on caring for people might be a blueprint for hope for mentally ill people in the community. I showed it to the local social services department for comment and was told, "We have ideas. We would like respite care, one-to-one care in the community and the opportunity to put a social worker or community worker at the young man's disposal, but where
800
are the resources? Can we be sure that in future the Government will give us the resources necessary to provide the intensive care which this type of person requires?"
The example that I have given, albeit briefly, is not unique. Schizophrenia is a widespread problem. Only today the Daily Mail wrote about it in human terms. It is a condition that many people find difficult to face. Margaret Wallace, a champion of schizophrenics and a journalist of note, recently presented an excellent television programme which showed that, to deal with schizophrenics in New York, warehouses with 750 iron beds in them are available to "look after" such people. That is a nightmare which haunts the mother of this young man.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what hope he can offer David's mother and many others that the future will not be so bleak for those who suffer from this terrible condition.
10.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has done the House a great service by raising this subject. I very much hope that the House will have the opportunity to return to it at greater length and in greater depth than is possible tonight. In the time available I shall make five brief and simple points.
First, I do not believe that there is as deep an understanding of the affliction of schizophrenia as there should be in society and in the medical profession, particularly among general practitioners and primary care services. Early diagnosis means that early help is available to the family and the individual suffering. There should be a far greater understanding of how individuals can relapse throughout their lives. Schizophrenia can arise in the late teens. I have met a number of families who, to their great despair and amazement, have seen their children lapse into schizophrenia, sometimes diagnosed too late. The children then spend time in and out of psychiatric hospitals and then perhaps relapse into a chronic condition later in life, sometimes physically assaulting their parents, which is incredibly distressing.
I share with my hon. Friend a desire to bring out into the open this terrible disease so that, whether we are politicians, consultants or GPs, we are aware of the scale of the problem.
Secondly, the Government have continued the long-standing policy of seeking to care for those with mental illness as far as possible in the community. That is a humanitarian policy, but there are limits to the degree to which we can care for those with a mental illness, in their own homes, with their parents, sharing flats or in hostels. In my judgment, there will always be a need for state provision for asylum care which can be short and long term. There will always be a need for some provision of institutional care for those with a mental illness. I do not think that it is fair to portray our policy as moving entirely away from an institutional setting to a community setting. Therefore, for my hon. Friend's constituent there will always be a need for some hospital care.
Thirdly, from 1 April 1991 the Government will be introducing a new grant payable through regional health authorities to social services departments to help them to improve facilities available in the community for the mentally ill. We recognise that social services departments

801
do not spend enough of their resources on the care of the mentally ill in the community. It is 3 per cent. of their budgets. That is not sufficient. Therefore, the new grant will help in pump-priming—in the construction of new facilities, and in hiring additional social workers to care for those in the community. I frankly admit that in certain parts of the country the service is less than adequate. It is a function of historic policies and decision taken in good faith in the past.
Fourthly, from 1 April 1991 we shall be requiring all district health authorities, before they discharge any schizophrenic patient, to ensure that there is a proper plan for caring for that individual so that the health authority, the hospital and the consultant may know where the patient is going, how he can be contacted, who his friends are and what is his method of medical and social support in the community. That is most important, and I commend
802
the Royal College of Psychiatrists for producing a code of practice broadly similar to our discharge policy for hospitals.
Finally, it is most important that the Government facilitate the construction of more community care facilities. I am very pleased to repeat the announcement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a few weeks ago about the creation of a capital loan fund. It is a major new initiative, and £50 million will be available to district health authorities to borrow from the loan fund to construct facilities in the community now and repay the money when the facilities which they replace are sold when they become empty and are no longer used. I hope that that will bring to fruition a much earlier construction of facilities in the community. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend and all those who suffer from mental illness.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Taken-over Cases
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those cases taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions since 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  Statistics concerning private prosecutions are not collected. The CPS has identified 28 private prosecutions conducted by private individuals or bodies which have been taken over by the Crown prosecution service since 1987. I will write to the hon. Gentleman listing the cases.

  John Black RN
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to give a date when the High Court will hear his application for a fresh inquest into the death of the late Petty Officer John Black, RN, in Sabinillas, Spain, in December 1983.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The case is in the Crown list, but no hearing date has yet been fixed by the court.

  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost of implementing the Courts and Legal Services Bill[Lords].

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 7 December 1989 at column 316, and to the explanatory and financial memorandum prefacing the Bill.

TRANSPORT

  Cyclists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct British Rail to consider ways in which cyclists can more easily use rail services.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail has regular contact with the cycling organisations and is aware of their needs. I understand that BR's policy is to welcome cyclists and to convey bicycles whenever possible, for an appropriate charge, provided that this will not unduly inconvenience other passengers, or displace other revenue-earning traffic such as parcels.

  Motoring Organisations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which motoring organisations he or his predecessor met over the last year; and on which dates.

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1989 Transport Ministers met representatives of motoring organisations as follows:
  462
  The Automobile Association:

  24 January

  14 June

  20 June

  19 July

  31 October

  29 November

  The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs:

  6 September

  The Institute of Advanced Motorists:

  14 December

  The Royal Automobile Club:

  26 June

  6 September

  7 November

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many flights have been diverted to Prestwick since 1 November.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has not yet published figures for this period. Preliminary information from Prestwick Airport Limited indicates that, from 1 November to 31 December 1989, the airport handled 144 air transport movements diverted from other airports.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which building surveyors, land agents or chartered surveyors were used by his Department or by the British Airports Authority, or by his or their advisers, to value land at Prestwick airport, including land not required for airport operations, when assessing the assets of the British Airports Authority for privatisation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Page 58 of the prospectus offering shares in BAA for sale records that Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks Limited, international property advisers, valued the land at the BAA airports.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement following the Anglo-French intergovernmental commission announcement that passengers will not leave their cars and coaches when travelling through the Channel tunnel with particular regard to safety aspects in the tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The intergovernmental commission was established by the Channel fixed link treaty to supervise, in the name and on behalf of the two Governments, all matters concerning the construction and operation of the fixed link. On safety matters, it is advised by the independent binational safety authority, also established by the treaty. Parliament has accepted that the safety authority is the right body to oversee tunnel safety standards. I believe that the safety authority will shortly be publishing a report which sets out the information on which its unanimous recommendation to the commission is based.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the make-up and terms of reference for his Department's working group on the assessment of the impact of railway noise with regard to the Channel tunnel link.
  463
  Mr. Portillo
  The aim will be to establish for new railway lines a noise standard at a level which equitably relates to the standard set by regulation for new highways. I hope to make an announcement shortly about the establishment of a departmental committee to carry out this task.

  LRT (Safety)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is yet in a position to announce safety and quality of service objectives for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 December 1989, c. 280]: Following is a fuller text of my letter to the chairman of London Regional Transport.

  "My predecessor wrote to you on your appointment about the challenges facing London Regional Transport. He asked you to prepare a strategy for the coming years, which could be used as a basis for setting formal objectives for you and your Board.
  Your response takes the form of the "Chairman's Planning Statement," which you are about to publish. In the light of that statement, I am writing to you about the safety and quality of service objectives I wish you to pursue. Before 1 April 1990 I shall settle with you the financial objectives for LRT covering the next three financial years.

  Safety
  LRT and its subsidiaries are responsible for the safe operation of the services they provide. The Fennell Report on the King's Cross fire underlined the need to give the highest priority to safety and to address safety matters explicitly in all LRT's activities. You have undertaken with vigour the task of implementing the Fennell Report's recommendations. You have already fully implemented 73 of the 127 recommendations addressed to LRT or London Underground, and have in hand action on the remaining 54.
  You have also now established a clear framework for collecting statistics on safety performance, setting safety objectives and monitoring and auditing safety performance at every level of the organisation. This should ensure the progressive improvement in the safety of all the services you provide or secure. I welcome the steps you have taken. I hereby endorse the safety objectives set out in Annex A to this letter.

  Quality of Service on the Underground
  Demand for Underground services has grown by more than 70 per cent. since 1982. This has put the Underground under strain and we are all agreed that the quality of service for passengers is not as good as it should be.
  Much of passengers' dissatisfaction stems from overcrowding. The only way to deal adequately with the growth in demand is to invest in increasing the capacity of the system. This is why approval has been given for a massive investment programme, including the £900 million Major Upgrading Programme and the extension of the Jubilee Line to service East London and Docklands. Urgent work is in progress on the options for another major new line to relieve congestion. In the shorter term, we must ensure that the most is made of the existing system. I am therefore setting objectives for improvement in such areas as peak capacity, reliability and the availability of lifts and escalators. I shall look to London Underground to meet these as soon as possible and, in any case, no later than 31 March 1992. These objectives are set out in full at Annex B to the Letter.

  Docklands Light Railway
  The Docklands Light Railway has been in operation for just over two years. It is now being extended to the City and to Beckton. Measures are in hand to increase its capacity still further. It is vital that the DLR provides a reliable and high-quality service, as the system is upgraded and capacity increased. I am therefore setting targets for the DLR covering aspects of service similar to those in the objectives set for the
  464
  Underground. These are set out in Annex C. Again, the targets should be met as soon as possible, and no later than 31 March 1992.

  LRT Bus Services
  Despite increasing difficulties with traffic congestion, there has been a noticeable improvement in the percentage of scheduled bus mileage actually operated, and average waiting time has been stabilised over the past couple of years. You have increased the number of routes let by competitive tender. You have also restructured London Buses Ltd. into smaller, more accountable, subsidiaries. These measures have played a valuable part in securing better quality and value for money. I now think that the time has come to build on that success by setting LRT quality of service targets for all its bus services, including those operated by London Buses and other operators on contract. The objectives are set out in Annex D.

  LRT Travel Enquiry Service
  It is important that passengers should have ready access to up-to-date information on all LRT's passenger services. I am therefore setting LRT's Travel Enquiry Service the objective of ensuring that 75 per cent. of telephone callers receiving the ringing tone should be answered within 30 seconds and no more than 10 per cent. of callers should receive the engaged tone.
  You will report to my Department and to the London Regional Passengers' Committee at quarterly intervals, the performance achieved against the quality of service objectives.
  As you know, it is also my intention to set LRT, in good time before 1 April, financial objectives for the next three financial years. These will be designed to ensure that these safety and quality of service objectives are met as efficiently and economically as possible, so that customers and taxpayers, receive proper value for money. Our officials are already in touch about this."

  Copies of the annexes to this letter have been placed in the House Libraries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Elected Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in favour of electing an executive separately from Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Written Constitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of a written constitution.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government receive representations from time to time advocating a written constitution. These could be enumerated only at disproportionate cost.

  Second Chamber
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking the establishment of a democratically elected second chamber.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government receive representations from time to time advocating abolition or reform of the House of Lords. They could be enumerated only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons (Transfers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were awaiting transfer to Thorp Arch from Durham at the end of the months August through to November.

  Mr. Mellor
  At the end of the four months for which information has been requested, the numbers of prisoners held at Her Majesty's prison Durham awaiting transfer to Her Majesty's prison Thorp Arch were as follows:

  Number

  August 1989

  38

  September 1989

  43

  October 1989

  48

  November 1989

  54

  Shamim Ayaz
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Shamim Ayaz, Ref. H 162359; Imm/15031, is to be issued with a passport to join his father in the United Kingdom; when the post in Islamabad was instructed by him to issue a visa to Shamim Ayaz; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Shamim Ayaz's application for entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom as the dependent son of Mr. Muzaffar Hussain has been referred by the entry clearance officer in Islamabad to the immigration department of the Home Office for consideration under paragraph 56 of the immigration rules and the concession announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) on 14 June 1989 at column 463. The papers arrived on 1 December and a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

  Political Refugees
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify the criteria under which political refugees are now admitted to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applications for asylum on arrival at United Kingdom ports are considered under the criteria of the 1951 United Nations convention and 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. Article 1 of the convention defines a refugee as inter alia someone who"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
  If the person has arrived from a safe third country he or she may be returned to that country to pursue an application there. A refugee who has already found protection in another country may be admitted to the United Kingdom if this is a more appropriate country of refuge.

  Prisons (Capacity)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the under or over-capacity of Thorp Arch and Durham prisons at the end of the months August to November.

  Mr. Mellor
  The details requested are set out in the table.
  466

  Durham

  Thorp

  Certified Normal Accommodation Population3 on:

  1729

  2156

  25 August

  1,002

  144

  29 September

  1,006

  150

  27 October

  976

  149

  24 November

  1,019

  146

  1 There was no change to the certified normal accommodation at Durham Prison during the period in question.

  2 Available accommodation at Thorp Arch has effectively been reduced to 150 since August to allow for a rolling programme of refurbishment, involving the installation of integral sanitation.

  3 The population details provided refer to the last Friday in each of the four months.

  Brownhills and Heywood High Schools
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the application by Staffordshire county council for section 11 money in respect of Brownhills and Heywood high schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Additional information submitted by the authority on 8 December is being considered. We hope to be in a position to take a decision on the application shortly.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to change the law to promote and encourage non and low-alcohol consumption by young people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We very much welcome the introduction, by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery) of the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill, which seeks to amend the definition of intoxicating liquor in the Licensing Act 1964 and of alcoholic liquor in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Robberies
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply statistics of robberies, and attempted robberies involving the confrontation of counter staff in the betting office, banking and building society industries over the past three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in the form requested. The total numbers of notifiable offences of robbery are published annually, and most recently in table 2.10 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1988" (Cm. 847). Information on the location of notifiable offences of robbery in which firearms were reported to have been used is given in table 3.8 of the same publication. A copy of this publication is available in the Library. Offences of attempted robbery are included in the robbery category and are not separately identified in the figures collected centrally.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors there have been to the United Kingdom from Hong Kong, arriving in each of the last 36 months for which he has figures.
  467
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available information is given in the table for British dependent territories citizens from Hong Kong. Reliable figures of admissions of stateless persons from Hong Kong are not available.

  Hong Kong British Dependent Territory Citizens admitted to the United Kingdom as ordinary or business visitors, November 1986 to October 1989

  Number of persons

  Month

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  January

  —

  1,890

  1,280

  1,510

  February

  —

  2,230

  3,360

  3,870

  March

  —

  1,570

  1,650

  2,280

  April

  —

  2,010

  2,060

  1,950

  May

  —

  2,640

  2,280

  2,600

  June

  —

  3,560

  3,380

  4,490

  July

  —

  5,370

  4,990

  5,440

  August

  —

  5,280

  4,540

  5,760

  September

  —

  3,210

  3,520

  3,960

  October

  —

  2,850

  2,890

  3,100

  November

  1,260

  1,760

  1,610

  n.y.a.

  December

  1,750

  1,980

  1,840

  n.y.a.

  Annual total

  27,100

  34,400

  33,400

  n.y.a.

  1 Provisional.

  n.y.a. = Not yet available.

  Downing Street Railings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the expected savings to the Metropolitan police following the erection of railings in Downing street.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Ambulance Duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of police man hours employed in ambulance duties per police authority, to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is that up to 31 December police forces had provided approximately the number of man hours shown in the table in assisting the ambulance service in their areas.

  Approximate number of man hours

  Hours

  Bedfordshire

  17,700

  Derbyshire

  6,900

  Dorset

  9,500

  Hampshire

  5,100

  Hertfordshire

  31,600

  Lincolnshire

  2,600

  South Yorkshire

  27,300

  Staffordshire

  1,750

  Surrey

  850

  Warwickshire

  460

  West Mercia

  6,100

  West Midlands

  35,500

  West Yorkshire

  20,700

  I understand that in the Metropolitan police district about 460 officers are usually employed in each 24-hour period assisting the ambulance service.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost per police man hour of deploying the police on ambulance duties(a) outside London and (b) in London.
  468
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The charge that is made by the Metropolitan police to the regional health authority for police officers who assist the London ambulance service is £16·20 per hour of normal duty time worked. Information about the charges made outside London is not available centrally; the level of charge is determined by the relevant police authority.

  Visas (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are waiting for interview in queues 1,2,3 and 4 at each British post on the Indian sub-continent, and if he will give comparable figures for 1988, 1987 and 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Estimated numbers of applicants in the Indian sub—continent awaiting their first interview for entry to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Post1

  Category3

  Queue 1

  Queue 2

  Queue 3

  Queue 4

  Dhaka

  End September

  1986

  640

  1,900

  130

  2,700

  1987

  400

  1,800

  140

  2,600

  1988

  230

  1,600

  150

  2,100

  1989

  120

  650

  120

  1,400

  New Delhi4

  End September

  1986

  70

  210

  460

  180

  1987

  40

  320

  600

  90

  1988

  —

  300

  400

  110

  1989

  —

  260

  330

  90

  Bombay

  End September

  1986

  120

  450

  480

  130

  1987

  560

  460

  40

  140

  1988

  30

  350

  480

  50

  1989

  —

  420

  530

  90

  Madras5

  End September

  1987

  1—

  10

  1—

  6—

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989

  —

  20

  10

  6—

  Islamabad

  End September

  1986

  880

  610

  2,100

  740

  1987

  790

  970

  2,300

  850

  1988

  1,200

  1,600

  2,400

  1,000

  1989

  250

  2,300

  1,700

  940

  Karachi

  End September

  1986

  20

  60

  100

  1—

  1987

  10

  80

  190

  10

  1988

  10

  180

  210

  4—

  1989

  1—

  30

  20

  1—

  Total Indian sub—continent

  End September

  1986

  1,700

  3,200

  3,300

  3,800

  1987

  1,800

  3,600

  3,300

  3,600

  1988

  1,500

  4,100

  3,600

  3,300

  1989

  370

  3,600

  2,700

  2,500

  1 5 or fewer

  2 There were no applicants awaiting for interview in Calcutta.

  3 Queue 1: Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old, and special compassionate cases (first—time applicants for settlement).

  469

  Queue 2: Spouses, and children under 18 years old (first-time applicants for settlement).

  Queue 3: Fiance(e)s, and other applicants (first-time applicants for settlement).

  Queue 4: Re-applicants for settlement.

  4 Data exclude persons seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom.

  5Madras did not re-open for entry clearance work until October 1986.

  6 Separate data are not available; re-applicants are included in the data for first-time applicants.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have applied over the past year for visas to visit the United Kingdom from British posts on the Indian sub-continent; how many were(a) granted and (b) refused; and what was the average waiting time for (i) interview and (ii) secured interview.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: In the 12 months ending 30 September 1989, 176,500 persons in the Indian sub-continent applied for a visa to visit the United Kingdom; during the same period 151,800 such applications were granted, including those granted on appeal, and 19,400 were refused initially. Visit applications were considered within 24 hours.

  Those applicants who then required a detailed interview were usually seen within the 24-hour period except in Madras and Islamabad where the waiting time for applicants interviewed at the end of October 1989 was two to three and eight days respectively. The average waiting time over the latest 12 months is not available centrally because of incomplete information.

  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
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The information requested in respect of financial years 1985–86 onwards is shown in the table. Comparable figures for 1983–84 and 1984–85 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil defence grant aid received by London boroughs 1985–86

  Borough

  Staff £

  Building £

  Other £

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,892

  —

  3,349

  Barnet

  —

  0—

  3,300

  Bexley

  —

  3,692

  2,765

  Brent

  —

  —

  1,822

  Bromley

  3,694

  —

  4,838

  Camden

  —

  —

  1,956

  City of London

  —

  —

  12,321

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2,014

  Ealing

  1,061

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  57

  Greenwich

  286

  —

  1,718

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1,530

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  2,361

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,301

  Harrow

  —

  —

  1,409

  Havering

  1,562

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  5,651

  Hounslow

  1,158

  —

  1,461

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,404

  Kensington and Chelsea

  680

  —

  2,218

  Kingston

  —

  —

  2,337

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  7,105

  470

  Borough

  Staff £

  Building £

  Other £

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  3,818

  Merton

  2,501

  75,000

  2,442

  Newham

  —

  —

  1,323

  Redbridge

  618

  —

  2,003

  Richmond

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  5,092

  Sutton

  —

  —

  3,433

  Tower Hamlets

  1,295

  —

  3,119

  Waltham Forest

  —

  10,003

  1,985

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  5,911

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,282

  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

  Civil defence grant aid received by London boroughs 1987–88

  Borough

  Staff (£)

  Building (£)

  Other (£)

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,179

  —

  4,186

  Barnet

  —

  —

  2,897

  Bexley

  —

  —

  6,200

  Brent

  —

  —

  1,870

  Bromley

  3,611

  —

  4,474

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,545

  City of London

  —

  —

  21,447

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2,334

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,763

  Hackney

  —

  —

  2,044

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  5,842

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,394

  Harrow

  —

  —

  11,338

  Havering

  1,568

  —

  450

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  5,715

  Hounslow

  1,248

  —

  3,341

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,796

  Kensington and Chelsea

  593

  —

  2,510

  Kingston

  —

  —

  3,326

  471

  Borough

  Staff (£)

  Building (£)

  Other (£)

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  6,429

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  2,623

  Merton

  3,633

  —

  4,298

  Newham

  —

  —

  1,599

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond

  —

  —

  2,977

  Southwark

  —

  —

  4,325

  Sutton

  —

  —

  3,671

  Tower Hamlets

  1,396

  —

  3,854

  Waltham Forest

  —

  8,831

  3,227

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  6,035

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,095

  Civil defence grant aid received by London boroughs 1988–89

  Borough

  Staff £

  Building £

  Other £

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,416

  —

  3,277

  Barnet

  —

  —

  2,078

  Bexley

  —

  —

  2,938

  Brent

  —

  —

  2,167

  Bromley

  2,365

  —

  4,312

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,902

  City of London

  —

  3,744

  5,682

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2,334

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1,778

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  4,840

  Haringey

  —

  —

  2,663

  Harrow

  —

  —

  8,986

  Havering

  1,632

  —

  4,862

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  4,111

  Hounslow

  1,299

  —

  1,553

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,858

  Kensington and Chelsea

  950

  —

  2,390

  Kingston

  —

  —

  11,177

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  7,359

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  3,833

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  1,531

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond

  —

  —

  1,648

  Southwark

  —

  —

  5,288

  Sutton

  —

  —

  3,855

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1,948

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  6,888

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,415

  Civil defence grant aid received by London boroughs 1989–90(Estimated)

  Borough

  Staff £

  Building £

  Other £

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,280

  —

  3,240

  Barnet

  —

  —

  3,070

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  4,350

  —

  4,710

  Camden

  —

  —

  3,000

  City of London

  —

  9,500

  5,800

  Croydon

  —

  —

  2,240

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  1,660

  Hackney

  —

  —

  2,240

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  4,669

  Haringey

  —

  —

  3,318

  Harrow

  —

  —

  8,560

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  5,265

  Hounslow

  1,730

  —

  2,200

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  472

  Borough

  Staff £

  Building £

  Other £

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  4,900

  —

  Kingston

  —

  —

  12,500

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  6,734

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  2,810

  Redbridge

  920

  —

  300

  Richmond

  —

  —

  1,670

  Southwark

  —

  —

  4,650

  Sutton

  —

  —

  3,500

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  6,074

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to any guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The Home Office is currently employing four accountancy firms. Contracts are awarded which provide value for money from competent firms, after consultations as necessary and where appropriate, in the light of advice given by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Arts and Design
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure was made by his Department on(a) the arts and (b) design in the last financial year.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: A number of items of my Department's expenditure—for example, the provision and maintenance of prisons and programmes for prisoners, and the production of various publications—contain elements that could be classified as expenditure on arts and—or design, but in general it is not practicable to separate and cost those elements.

  All prison education departments provide courses in art and craft work, but, because these courses are part of the total education provision, it is not possible to identify separately expenditure on them. Expenditure on the annual Koestler Trust exhibition of prisoners' art and craft is estimated to have been £20,000 in 1988–89.

ENERGY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at what point plutonium created in civil reactors under safeguards becomes no longer subject to safeguards when distributed in plutonium-contaminated wastes at Sellafield.

  Mr. Baldry
  Detailed discussions are continuing with the international safeguards authorities on the safeguards to be applied to waste containing civil nuclear material.

  Euratom Annual Safeguards Report
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received a copy of the 1988–89 Euratom annual safeguards report from the European Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State has received no such report.

  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy from what percentage of projects in England and Wales Neighbourhood Energy Action has received statistical returns.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In the latest two quarters for which information is available (April to June and July to September 1989) the response rates of projects in England and Wales providing statistical returns to Neighbourhood Energy Action were both over 99 per cent.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will itemise the progress made by the Energy Efficiency Office in developing quality indicators for Neighbourhood Energy Action projects.

  Mr. Wakeham
  All community insulation projects operating under employment training are contracted to undertake a "standard job" to a specification provided by Neighbourhood Energy Action. In addition, that organisation with the support of the Energy Efficiency Office, is continuing to develop certified training for the benefit of both project staff and trainees.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the schemes for gas-fired power stations which are known to his Department giving in each case details of the progress of applications for consent to build and operate them and the names of the organisations concerned.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Not all gas-fired projects known to my Department are in the public domain, and I must respect the wish for commercial confidentiality where it exists. The projects that have been made public, and the consents that I have so far given are:

  Company

  Project

  Consents received

  Lakeland Power

  Roosecote

  Gas burn consent

  Thames Power

  Barking

  Gas burn consent

  Hawker Siddeley

  Corby

  Gas burn consent

  Peterborough

  Gas burn consent

  Lasmo/Ranger

  South Denes

  Gas burn consent

  British Sugar

  Brigg

  —

  Shell

  Shellhaven

  —

  ICl/Enron

  Wilton

  —

  Sheffield Heat & Power

  Sheffield

  —

  CEGB

  Killingholme (A)

  Gas burn consent

  Little Barford

  Gas burn consent

  Killingholme(PowerGen)

  Gas burn consent

  Rye House

  Gas burn consent

  The stations planned by the CEGB would require capital investment approval in addition to consents from me under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909. I
  474
  shall reach decisions in due course. I cannot comment on the position on other consents or authorisations which may be required for these stations from other authorities.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact on employment in the mining industry of the proposed gas-fired power station at Killingholme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It will be for the British Coal Corporation to assess the implications for its manpower requirements of changes in fuel purchasing arrangements within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what effect the European Community directive prohibiting the use of national gas for power generation is likely to have on gas-fired power station proposals in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The use of gas for power generation is not prohibited by EEC directive 75/404; rather, its use has to meet certain criteria. The Government assess gas-powered generation project proposals against the criteria in the directive, such as the thermal efficiency and environmental impact of the plant.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate his Department has made of the likely impact of gas-fired power stations on the consumption of coal in power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department makes no such estimates; decisions on fossil fuel choice are matters for the industry. Mechanistic scenarios, which are not to be construed as estimates, illustrating the technical options which may be available to curtail emissions of the greenhouse gases from the United Kingdom are however contained in my Department's paper "An evaluation of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and measures to ameliorate them", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Section 2 of chapter 5 deals with alternative fossil-fuelled power generation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his Department's estimate of the likely increase in gas-fired generating capacity in the United Kingdom in each year to 1995;

  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the likely percentage of electricity to be generated by gas-fired power stations in each year to 1995.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This depends on the growth of demand and on decisions to be taken by the electricity industry.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, when he expects to announce his decision on the application to build a gas-fired power station at Killingholme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The CEGB has submitted two applications for my consent under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 to construct combined cycle gas turbine power stations at Killingholme. My officials are currently discussing a number of points relevant to my consideration of the applications with the CEGB, the relevant local planning authorities and other Government Departments. I will announce my decisions on the two applications when I am ready to do so.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what financial resources will be made available to the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency and electricity conservation measures.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Office of Electricity Regulation will be financed by vote with its costs covered through licence fees. It will be for the director general to assess the resources he needs and to manage those resources in the most appropriate way to meet his statutory duties.

  Close links are being established between his office and the Energy Efficiency Office to ensure that they both complement and reinforce one another's work in the important area of energy efficiency.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will amend the draft licence for electricity suppliers to allow cost-pass-through for energy conservation measures.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am reviewing the conditions in all the electricity licences with a view to publishing revised versions of the licences shortly.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East,Official Report, 18 December, columns 36–40, if he will publish the numbers of students on which his calculations are based for each year from 1990 to 2027.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table gives estimates of the numbers of students eligible for loans from 1990–91 to 2000–01 inclusive. The basis is the United Kingdom. The figures in annex E of the White Paper rest on a series of assumptions, one being that numbers remain constant after the end of the century. This assumption also applies to the revised estimates of costs and savings.

  United Kingdom numbers eligible for loans

  Year

  (000s)

  1990

  569·2

  1991

  582·2

  1992

  584·6

  Calendar Year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Number of maintained secondary schools approved for closure

  106

  117

  107

  92

  94

  (i) girls' schools

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  7

  9

  (ii) boys' schools

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  9

  7

  (iii) mixed schools

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  76

  78

  (iv) voluntary schools

  18

  33

  23

  18

  7

  (v) county schools

  88

  84

  84

  74

  87

  Number of maintained secondary schools for which proposals were approved for significant change of character

  31

  75

  18

  35

  37

  (i) girls' schools

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  (ii) boys' schools

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2

  (iii) mixed schools

  29

  74

  15

  32

  32

  476

  Year

  (000s)

  1993

  580·6

  1994

  576·4

  1995

  574·3

  1996

  581·6

  1997

  600·0

  1998

  625·7

  1999

  645·1

  2000

  655·5

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to revise the guidelines to local education authorities concerning administration of the disabled students allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  As I indicated in the reply that I gave to my right hon. Friend on 19 December 1989 at columns 219–20, guidance is normally issued to local education authorities following the revision of the mandatory awards regulations. My right hon. Friend will consider later this year what if any new guidance is needed on the disabled students' allowance, after he has reviewed the contents of the regulations in the light of representations received.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether students who become disabled during their course will continue to receive loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  An eligible student who becomes disabled will remain eligible for loans.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest of 29 November,Official Report, columns 261–2, if he will break down the information in (a) and (b) on closures and significant changes of character of secondary schools by the categories (i) to (v) which he has applied in the case of enlarged schools under (c).

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is given in the table. Figures in respect of school closures are for the total number of schools approved for closure in a given year; the equivalent figures in my answer of 29 November were net of new schools established as a result of amalgamations. Disaggregated figures by gender before 1988 are not available.
  477

  Calendar Year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  (iv) voluntary schools

  2

  3

  2

  5

  5

  (v) county schools

  29

  72

  16

  30

  32

  1 To 31 October 1989.

  Single-Sex Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by gender of pupils and name single-sex schools which have been closed since 1985.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The names of the single sex maintained and non-maintained schools that have closed in 1985 and onwards are given in the table. The table includes maintained schools that have been closed following the approval of statutory proposals; in some cases for the purpose of amalgamation.

  The table is not fully up to date as some replies from local education authorities are still awaited confirming closures in 1989.

  Independent schools are shown in the education authority in which they are situated.

  Local education authority

  School name

  Girls Schools Closed since 1985

  Barnet

  Southaw Girls

  Bexley

  Sidcup Girls School

  Bromley

  Ravensbourne School for Girls

  Rock Hill School for Girls

  Beckenham Convent School

  Croydon

  Lady Edridge Girls High

  Selhurst Girls High School

  Purley Girls High School

  Ealing

  St. Annes Convent School

  Harrow

  White Gate Senior School for Girls

  Newham

  London School of Islamics

  Waltham Forest

  Connaught High School for Girls

  Leyton Manor High School for Girls

  Warwick High School for Girls

  Leyton Senior High Schools for Girls

  Walthamstow Senior High School for Girls

  Birmingham

  Erdington School

  Longmeadow School

  Coventry

  Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic Secondary School for Girls

  Wolverhampton

  Ely House Girls School

  Knowsley

  Knowsley St. Gregorys Roman Catholic Girls Comprehensive

  Liverpool

  St. Teresas Roman Catholic Junior Girls

  Stanley Park Girls County Comprehensive

  Aigburth Vale Girls County Comprehensive

  Childwall Valley Girls County Comprehensive

  Liverpool Institute Girls High School

  Queen Marys Girls County Comprehensive

  Allerton Priory

  St. Helens

  Mount Carmel Roman Catholic High School

  Notre Dame Roman Catholic High

  478

  Local education authority

  School name

  Sefton

  St. Augustines Roman Catholic High

  Wirral

  Bebington Secondary School for Girls Oxley School

  The Marian Roman Catholic High

  Avalon High School

  Hoylake Coaching Centre

  Manchester

  The Hollies Roman Catholic High School for Girls

  St. Josephs Roman Catholic High School for Girls

  Stockport

  Priestnall School

  Trafford

  Urmston Grammar for Girls

  Stretford Grammar for Girls

  Sheffield

  Islamia Girls High School

  Bradford

  Tinakori Towers School

  Calderdale

  The Princess Mary School

  Brighouse Girls Grammar School

  Kirklees

  Hyrstlands Community Home

  Waverley School

  Batley Muslim Girls High School

  Leeds

  Springfield Park Community Home

  West Park Girls High

  Notre Dame High School

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  The Silverhill School

  Inner London

  Wandsworth Ensham

  Wandsworth Garratt Green

  Greenwich Park

  Wandsworth Mayfield

  St. Veronicas Roman Catholic Secondary

  Battersea Notre Dame High School

  Wandsworth Convent of the Holy Family

  Sternhold College

  Hugh Jones Tutor

  Elvaston House School

  Northcote Lodge

  Berkshire

  Reading Westwood Comprehensive

  Reading Alfred Sutton Girls Comprehensive

  Buckinghamshire

  Chesham the Lowndes Secondary School for Girls

  Amersham Brudenell Secondary for Girls

  Cambridgeshire

  Wisbech Queens Girls Comprehensive

  Cumbria

  Askham Church of England School

  Carleton Hill School

  Devon

  Plymouth Stoke Damerec High School for Girls

  Plymouth Public High School for Girls

  Plymouth Salisbury Road Girls Secondary School

  Withycombe House School

  479

  Local education authority

  School name

  Dorset

  Ashley Cross County Modem for Girls

  Oakmead County Secondary for Girls

  Queensmount School

  St. Marys Gate School

  East Sussex

  Charters Towers School

  St. Michaels Convent Girls School

  Essex

  Westborough High School for Girls

  Belfairs High School Girls

  Eastwood High School for Girls

  Gainsborough Lodge School

  Gloucestershire

  Colwell School for Girls

  Cheltenham Pates Grammar School for Girls

  Hampshire

  Winchester Danemark Comprehensive

  Manor Girls Comprehensive

  Queens Mead School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hallow Park School

  Hertfordshire

  Stevenage Girls School

  St. Angelas Roman Catholic Girls

  Christs Hospital School

  Poles Convent FCJ

  Rosary Priory High School

  Rosary Priory Preparatory School

  Chorley Wood College for the Blind

  Hertfordshire College of Higher Education

  Humberside

  Fifth Avenue Junior High Girls

  St. Mary High

  Rise Hall School

  Kent

  Margate Lausanne Secondary School for Girls

  Mailing House School

  Nonington College

  Lancashire

  Clitheroe Grammar for Girls

  Lindenhurst College

  Leicestershire

  Morcott Hall School

  Windsor Classical Dance Centre

  Norfolk

  Kings Lynn St. James Junior Girls

  Londsdale School

  St. Georges School

  North Yorkshire

  Mill Mount Girls Grammar

  Queen Annes Girls Grammar

  Burton Stone Secondary Modern

  St. Margaret Clitherow Roman Catholic Secondary Modern

  Northamptonshire

  Croft Lodge School

  Irchester Arkwright School

  Somerset

  Kingsbury School

  Staffordshire

  St. Josephs Convent School

  Surrey

  Sunbury St. Teresas Roman Catholic

  Warwickshire

  Rugby Dunsmore School for Girls

  West Sussex

  Convent of the Family School

  Summerlea School

  Springfield Park School

  Hatchlands School

  Summerfold School

  480

  Local education authority

  School name

  Boys Schools Closed since 1985

  Barnet

  Holmewood Preparatory School

  Haynes School

  Bexley

  Parklands School

  Brent

  St. Benedicts Community Home

  Bromley

  Ravensbourne School for Boys

  Kentwood School for Boys

  Croydon

  Norbury Manor Boys High

  Selhust Boys High School

  Purley Boys High School

  Enfield

  St. Ignatius College

  St. Ignatius College Lower School

  Haringey

  The Somerset School

  Harrow

  Harrow High School

  Hillingdon

  Park Place School

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Arundel House School

  Redbridge

  London School of Islamics

  Sutton

  Cheam CE Junior Boys

  Glastonbury High School for Boys

  Wilsons School

  Waltham Forest

  George Mitchell High School for Boys

  Norlington High School for Boys

  Warwick High School for Boys

  Leyton Senior High

  Sir George Monoux Senior High for Boys

  Birmingham

  Alderlea School

  Selly Oak School

  Coventry

  Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic Secondary School for Boys

  Walsall

  Druids Heath Community Home

  The Queslett School

  Wolverhampton

  Nordley Special School

  Knowsley

  Knowsley St. Kevins Roman Catholic Boys Comprehensive

  Liverpool

  Anfield County Comprehensive

  Alsop Boys County Comprehensive

  Collegiate Boys County Comprehensive

  Liverpool Institute Boys High School

  Hillfoot Hey Boys County Comprehensive

  St. Helens

  Campion Roman Catholic High School

  West Park Roman Catholic High School

  Sefton

  Bishops Court School

  Wirral

  Bebington Secondary School for Boys

  The Henry Meoles School

  Bishop Challoner Roman Catholic High

  The Leas School

  Manchester

  Rosehill Observation and Assessment Centre

  St. Marks Roman Catholic High School for Boys

  St. Pius Roman Catholic High School for Boys

  481

  Local education authority

  School name

  De La Salle College of Education

  Salford

  The Bezalel High School

  Stockport

  Stockport School

  Trafford

  Stretford Grammar for Boys

  Urmston Grammar for Boys

  Wigan

  Worthington Burtholme Hostel

  Sheffield

  Limb Lane School (Family Shirecliffe House)

  Calderdale

  The Heath School

  Hipperholme Grammar School

  Rastrick Grammar School

  Leeds

  Moor Grange Boys High

  St. Michaels Roman Catholic College

  Harewood Bridge House School

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Condercum House School

  Eastview School

  Castledene School

  Kenton Lodge School

  Sunderland

  Washington Hall School

  Milton Hall School

  Inner London

  Lambeth Henry Thornton

  Wandsworth School

  Wandsworth Spencer Park

  Wandsworth Sir Walter St. Johns School

  Wandsworth Clapham College

  Hammersmith London Oratory Roman Catholic

  Wandsworth John Griffiths Roman Catholic Secondary

  St. Josephs Academy Pre-Prep School

  St. Vedast Independent School for Boys

  Life Christian School

  St. Aloysius Junior Shool

  Edward Rudolf Memorial Special School

  Heathermount School

  Shephall Manor School

  Nathaniel Heckford School

  Winceby House School

  London School of Nautical Cookery

  Berkshire

  Reading Stoneham Comprehensive

  Reading Alfred Sutton Boys Comprehensive

  Reading Collegiate School

  Buckinghamshire

  Amersham The Raans Secondary School for Boys

  Cestreham Secondary Boys School

  Beckets Senior School

  Beckets Preparatory School

  Divine Mercy College

  Cambridgeshire

  Wisbech Queens Boy Comprehensive

  Cheshire

  Torpenhow School

  Derbyshire

  Fernilee Infant

  Frank Merifield School

  482

  Local education authority

  School name

  Devon

  Forde Park Community Home

  Plymouth Sutton High School for Boys

  Plymouth Public High School for Boys

  Plymouth Widey High School for Boys

  Plymouth Prince Rock Boys Secondary School

  Brunel School

  Montpelier School

  Heathercombe Brake School

  Dawlish College

  Heanton School

  Russell College (Family Dennington College)

  Ward House School

  Lupton House School

  St. Pauls College

  Swallow Cliff School

  Morice School

  Dorset

  Seldown County Secondary Boys

  Oakmead County Secondary School for Boys

  Stinsford School

  Durham

  Redworth Hall Residential School

  East Sussex

  Central Boys Club

  Strickland House School

  Great Sanders School

  Rotherfield Hall

  Essex

  Eastwood High School for Boys

  Fairfax High School for Boys

  Belfairs High School for Boys

  Copford College

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham Grammar School for Boys

  Whitefriars School

  Badgeworth Court School

  Dowdeswell Court School

  Washbournes Place School

  Advicenna College

  Hampshire

  Winchester Montgomery of Alamein Boys Comprehensive

  Heron Wood Boys Comprehensive

  Drayton Manor School

  Oakmore School

  Mile End House School

  Ark Family Units

  Kinloss School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Cathedral Preparatory School

  Cotsbrook School

  Bodenham Manor School

  Hertfordshire

  Bushey Grange Park

  St. Michaels Roman Catholic Boys

  Humberside

  Castle Howard Community Home

  Hull Grammar School

  Endike Junior High Boys

  Riley High Boys

  Marist College Boys School

  Kent

  Margate St. Johns Church of England Secondary School for Boys

  Winchester House School

  Foxbush School

  St. Vincent School

  Lancashire

  Upholland College

  Lincolnshire

  Holbeach Eastfields Hostel

  Norfolk

  Kings Lynn St. James Junior Boys

  Duncan Hall School

  483

  Local education authority

  School name

  North Yorkshire

  Nunthorpe Boys Grammar

  St. Georges Roman Catholic Secondary Modern

  Ingmanthorpe Hall School

  Nottinghamshire

  St. Hughs College

  Oxfordshire

  Smith Hospital School

  Salop

  Apley Park School

  Castle Hill School

  Somerset

  King Alfred School

  Barwick House School

  Midelney Place School

  Staffordshire

  Needwood School for the Partially Hearing

  Suffolk

  Nowton Court School

  The Development Centre

  Surrey

  Sunbury Cardinal Godfrey Roman Catholic

  Allen House School

  Warwickshire

  Rugby Dunsmore School for Boys

  West Sussex

  Fernden School

  Goring Hall School

  St. Johns College

  Pennfold School

  Dalesdown. School

  Wiltshire

  St. Probus School

  Local Management Schemes
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table to show such information as he has to hand from the schemes for local management of schools submitted for his approval by local education authorities under the headings(a) the value of the general schools budget, (b) the value of the mandatory exceptions, (c) the value of the aggregate schools budget, (d) (b) as a percentage of (a) and (e) (c) as a percentage of (a).

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A table giving such information as is available will be published very shortly.

  Teacher Shortages
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children have not been receiving full in-school education since the start of the 1989 autumn term in(a) Vauxhall constituency, (b) Lambeth, (c) the Inner London area, (d) the Greater London area and (e) nationally.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The particular data requested are not all available to the Department. At the beginning of the 1989 autumn term, some 200 primary pupils in the area of the Inner London education authority, including about 100 in Lambeth, were sent home from school because of the shortage of teaching staff. The authority was able to recruit more teachers during the term and all these pupils returned to school. Other pupils, on a rotation basis, have been sent home for short spells. The authority is continuing to monitor the situation, and is keeping the Department informed.
  484
  The Department does not have equivalent information in respect of the other London boroughs or other parts of the country.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action his Department will be taking to tackle teacher shortages, particularly in inner-city areas.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 14 November 1989 at column 235. In addition, the teaching as a career unit will be assisting in a Londonwide recruitment campaign in collaboration with the ILEA and the London boroughs. My right hon. Friend has also asked the interim advisory committee to look at measures to improve supply in areas where vacancy rates are highest—particularly in Inner London.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of graduates entered a career in teaching in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Statistics of graduates entering teaching and of the total number of graduates can not readily be compiled on a common basis, so a precise calculation of the first as a percentage of the second is not possible. The table provides the best approximation that can be made from the available data.

  (thousands)

  1(1)

  2(2)

  Ratio of to (2)

  1978

  11·9

  —

  —

  1979

  15·1

  —

  —

  1980

  15·0

  79·8

  0·19

  1981

  12·8

  82·9

  0·15

  1982

  11·3

  86·9

  0·13

  1983

  11·8

  91·7

  0·13

  1984

  11·6

  97·4

  0·12

  1985

  10·2

  99·3

  0·10

  1986

  10·4

  102·1

  0·10

  1987

  10·7

  104·0

  0·10

  1988

  —

  106·2

  —

  1989

  —

  107·5

  —

  1 Graduates newly entering full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales in the 12 months ending 31 March of the year shown.

  2 First degree United Kingdom domiciled graduates from institutions in England and Wales in the previous academic year (including the Open University). (Figures include an element of estimation).

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total numbers of teachers leaving the profession each year for the last 10 years, indicating whether the reason was(a) retirement and (b) entering a new profession.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of teachers leaving full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  All figures in thousands

  Number

  1978

  29·8

  1979

  32·7

  1980

  34·5

  1981

  33·5

  1982

  30·8

  1983

  29·4

  485

  Number

  1984

  29·6

  1985

  31·1

  1986

  31·2

  1987

  29·0

  Information on the nature of these departures is available only for the last two years, and even then does not provide a complete breakdown of destinations. The available data are:

  Year ending 31 March

  1986 per cent.

  1987 per cent.

  Percentage of teachers leaving full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England who:

  transferred to other service, full or part-time, in the maintained sector in England or Wales1

  15

  17

  transferred to teaching outside the maintained sector1

  4

  4

  retired or died

  34

  30

  others

  47

  49

  1 The Department's "Database of Teacher Records" does not provide complete coverage of the non-maintained sector nor of part-time service within the maintained sector, so these figures may be slightly understated (with the "others" correspondingly overstated).

  The "others" category in this table includes teachers leaving for alternative non-teaching employment, but also those withdrawing for family reasons. The sex and age distribution of these cases (more than half are women aged 25–39) suggests that the latter group are a substantial part of the whole.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is his policy that the 10 subjects of the national curriculum should take up approximately 70 per cent. of the school timetable and that the remaining 30 per cent. should be left for schools to use at their own discretion.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 4(3) of the Education Reform Act makes it clear that it is for schools themselves to determine how much time should be devoted to the subjects of the national curriculum. I would expect that in key stages 1 to 3 schools will devote the great majority of curriculum time to the national curriculum subjects and to religious education, as they have done in the past. In key stage 4, I would expect that schools will offer some optional subjects outside the national curriculum.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how may people are likely to be employed by the Government to run the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Jackson
  Some 130 people are likely to be employed by the Student Loans Company by December 1990. There will be some increase in numbers thereafter as the collections department staff are employed and take-up is known.
  486
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate profit levels for the Student Loans Company in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company will operate at cost. Any income will be offset against the administration costs which will be met by the Government.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the cost to the Government of running the Student Loans Company for(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f)

  Mr. Jackson
  The annual administrative costs of the Student Loans Company will be in the order of £10 million to £20 million.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated cost of transferring the Student Loans Company into the hands of the Government.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have purchased the shares of the Student Loans Company Limited at a total cost of £10. The banks agreed to make a contribution of £500,000 towards the preparatory costs of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Government intend to appoint a chairman of the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Jackson
  An official of the Department of Education and Science has been appointed chairman of the Student Loans Company.

EMPLOYMENT

  Police (Earnings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, why earnings etc. figures have been left blank for the police in the new earnings survey.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Footnotes to the relevant tables in the new earnings survey report explain why some figures for certain occupations, including police inspectors and above, have been omitted.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since June 1987 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom has fallen by 1,207,500 to 1,649,700 in November 1989 and is now at its lowest level for over nine years.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rise in the number of people in employment in the last quarter; and what were the comparable figures for other countries in the European Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the second quarter of 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the civilian work
  487
  force in employment in the United Kingdom rose by 82,000 (0·3 per cent.) to 26,033,000. Quarterly data are published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

  European comparisons of civilian employment

  Seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Q4 1988

  Q1 1989

  Q2 1989

  Changes Q1 1989 to Q2 1989

  Thousands

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  25,787

  25,951

  26,033

  82

  03

  Germany

  26,842

  27,011

  27,075

  64

  0·2

  Italy

  20,700

  20,695

  20,674

  -21

  -0·1

  Spain

  11,895

  12,053

  12,208

  155

  1·3

  Portugal

  4,322

  4,363

  n.a.

  41

  0·9

  France1

  21,264

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1 Figures for France are unadjusted and are published only for the fourth quarter of each year.

  Source: "Quarterly Labour Force Statistics 3/1989" (OECD) except United Kingdom (ED).

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any conveniently available figures for the(a) value, and (b) size of Department of Employment property being removed by the Property Services Agency; and how much priority one Department of Employment property is not being renovated, owing to shortage of funds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Employment occupies approximately 604,000 sq m of the civil estate, but figures are not conveniently available for the value of these occupations.

  Responsibility for maintenance of the civil estate, under the property repayment system (PRS) arrangements, is shared between PSA and Departments. On 24 May 1989, Sir Gordon Manzie, the chief executive of the PSA, informed the Environment Committee that, at current funding levels, it should be possible to clear the backlog of priority maintenance work on the civil estate as a whole by 1995–96. There is, however, no readily available information relating the backlog to individual Department occupations.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants have completed the UB671 since its inception; and how many have been disallowed benefit as a result, for each quarter and by each standard region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available.

  Jobstart Scheme
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have participated in the 50-plus jobstart scheme in each of the pilot areas; what was the average hourly pay earned by participants, excluding the £20 a week allowance, what was the average amount of hours worked per week by participants; and how many participants remained in employment after the allowance had ceased.

  Mr. Eggar
  Between the start of the 50-plus Jobstart pilots on 26 June and 15 December 1989 a total of 61 people were accepted on the programme. The breakdown of the number of people on the programme and their average hours and wages by area is as follows:
  488
  and Development in respect of some European countries and data for recent quarters are shown in the following table:

  Area

  Participants

  Average hourly wage £

  Average hours

  Dudley and Sandwell

  14

  2·00

  20·0

  Leeds

  27

  2·20

  18·7

  London South

  1

  2·00

  20·0

  Lothian and Borders

  19

  2·27

  17·4

  Unemployment Benefits (Adjudication)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time between a claimant's referral for adjudication and an adjudication officer's decision on grounds of actively seeking work, by standard regions in Great Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time between a claimant's referral for adjudication and an adjudication officer's decision on grounds of refusal of employment by standard Great Britain regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions—that is, the time between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision—is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases. The sample shows that for the three-month period ending 30 September 1989, the percentage of refusal of employment questions decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, for each employment service region, was as follows:

  Refusal of employment

  per cent.

  Northern

  100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  73

  East Midlands

  65

  Eastern

  94

  Southern

  73

  Western

  75

  West Midlands

  92

  SouthWest

  72

  Wales

  100

  North West

  81

  Scotland

  71

  Footwear and Textile Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what numbers of jobs there have been in(a) footwear and (b) textile industries for each year since 1979; and how many have been lost in each industry in 1989, by month.

  Employees in the footwear and textile industries (SIC 80)

  Great Britain

  (thousands)

  Footwear SIC group 451

  1989 monthly change

  Textiles SIC class 43

  1989 monthly change

  June 1979

  68·8

  —

  371·4

  —

  June 1980

  65·3

  —

  324·8

  —

  June 1981

  58·8

  —

  273·0

  —

  June 1982

  53·5

  —

  256·2

  —

  June 1983

  51·4

  —

  238·8

  —

  June 1984

  52·8

  —

  233·5

  —

  June 1985

  51·1

  —

  234·5

  —

  June 1986

  51·9

  —

  238·2

  —

  June 1987

  50·8

  —

  229·0

  —

  June 1988

  49·5

  —

  231·0

  —

  December 1988

  48·9

  —

  225·9

  —

  January 1989

  48·7

  -0·2

  223·3

  -2·6

  February 1989

  48·2

  -0·5

  219·5

  -3·8

  March 1989

  47·7

  -0·5

  218·6

  -0·9

  April 1989

  47-2

  -0·5

  217·6

  -1·0

  May 1989

  46·8

  -0·4

  216·5

  -1·0

  June 1989

  46·6

  -0·2

  217·8

  1·3

  July 1989

  46·4

  -0·2

  215·5

  -2·3

  August 1989

  45·7

  -0·7

  215·7

  0·2

  September 1989

  45·3

  -0·4

  218·1

  2·5

  October 1989

  45·2

  -0·1

  217·0

  -1·1

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of trainees in employment training for the most recent date for which information is available in Great Britain and in each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. Information is available only for the eight Training Agency regions in England and for Scotland and Wales. The latest available figures of employment training filled places are given in the table.

  Employment training

  Number in-training at 8 December 1989

  Region

  Numbers

  South East

  14,300

  London

  21,400

  South West

  12,300

  West Midlands

  23,100

  East Midlands and Eastern

  16,900

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25,600

  North West

  29,400

  Northern

  24,500

  Wales

  16,500

  Scotland

  26,400

  Great Britain

  1211,000

  1 Including a small number of trainees at Residential Training Colleges and other training providers not identified separately in the regional totals.

  490
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is supplied in the table.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Energy Projects
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will initiate a review of all statements since 1979 made to the House by Ministers having responsibility for military and civil nuclear energy projects and programmes, to assess whether they require revision in the light of official information made public under the 30-year rule on 1 January 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to meet the Heads of Government of(a) Bulgaria, (b) East Germany, and (c) Czechoslovakia, to discuss the creation of free markets in those countries.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to meet the Heads of Government of Bulgaria, East Germany or Czechoslovakia. I have no doubt that when I do meet them, economic reform will be high on the agenda.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has made to President Gorbachev regarding the political situation in eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  We and other western Governments have kept in close contact with the Soviet authorities over developments in eastern Europe. This was one of the topics at my meeting with Mr. Shevardnadze on 19 December.

  Science and the Environment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of her speech on science and environment, given as the 50th anniversary lecture of the parliamentary and scientific committee on 6 December 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  A copy is available in the Libary of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Market Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many market research and sample surveys were carried out by or for his Department in the last 12 months; what was the cost of each; what was the total cost; how many were carried out in-house; how many were carried out for his Department by outside organisations; and what percentage of the total expenditure was paid to outside organisations.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 38 sample surveys were carried out in the target period of which eight were continuous or annual surveys, for example, the family expenditure survey and the labour force survey. The remainder were ad-hoc surveys of varying size and complexity.

  Total expenditure was £954,000 with the costs of individual surveys ranging from £400 to £192,000. Twenty-two surveys were conducted in-house (cost £832,000) and 16 were carried out for the Department by outside organisations (cost £122,000). Payment to outside organisations accounted for 13 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons above the age of(a) 60, (b) 65 and (c) 70 years he has appointed to public bodies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Over 60

  Over 65

  Over 70

  1980

  3

  6

  —

  1981

  2

  1

  —

  1982

  8

  7

  —

  1983

  4

  4

  —

  1984

  3

  1

  —

  1985

  9

  2

  —

  1986

  8

  6

  —

  1987

  3

  3

  —

  1988

  11

  7

  —

  1989

  2

  5

  1

  Totals

  53

  42

  1

  The figures include reappointments.

  Fishery Conservancy Board
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many statutory pollution samples have been taken by the Northern Ireland Fishery Conservancy Board in the past 12 months; what was the cost of taking each sample; how many such samples 492
  proved positive; how many such samples resulted in prosecution in court; and how many such prosecutions were successful.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During 1988, the latest period for which complete statistics are available, 198 statutory samples were taken by the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland. Information on the cost of taking each sample is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  All the statutory samples proved to be polluting. Of these samples, 98 resulted in prosecution in court with 92 leading to convictions; four cases are still pending.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Northern Ireland Fishery Conservancy Board is funded: what is the total number of bailiffs employed by the Northern Ireland Fishery Conservancy Board; what is the number of permanent bailiffs employed; what is the average probationary period served by a bailiff before he becomes permanent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland is responsible for the conservation and protection of salmon and inland fisheries of Northern Ireland other than the fisheries of the Londonderry area of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. The board derives licence revenue from commercial fishermen and anglers to offset the cost of carrying out those functions. In addition the board carries out and receives agency fees for water pollution control work on behalf of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and providing bailiffs for public fisheries on behalf of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The total number of bailiffs presently employed by the board is 48: of these, 14 are permanent bailiffs.

  While the turnover of permanant staff is small, the probationary period for a new permanent bailiff is six months after which the appointment is confirmed, subject, of course, to a satisfactory report. This period may be extended or the appointment terminated in the event of an unsatisfactory report.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will replace the CNCC with a democratically constituted council; and if he will make a statement about public participation in the management of area of special scientific interest Strangford lough part 3.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC) was recently established under the provisions of article 3 of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and its constitution was very carefully considered. The membership of the council represents a wide range of interests and experience throughout Northern Ireland. It provides sound and balanced views on conservation matters. There are no plans to amend the legislation.

  The management of the lands within the Strangford lough (part 3) area of special scientific interest (ASSI) depends on co-operation between individual owners and occupiers and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. It is not an appropriate matter for public participation.
  493
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to involve the loughside community in the management of the Strangford lough foreshores; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The management of the Strangford lough area of special scientific interest (ASSI), which mainly comprises the Strangford lough foreshores, is a matter between the individual owners and occupiers and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. At the time the declaration of Strangford lough (part 3) ASSI was confirmed I stated that a locally based and organised voluntary group representative of the wide variety of interests concerned could be very useful to the Department in preparing its proposals for the marine nature reserve in Strangford lough. I also indicated that I hoped that local people would take forward this suggestion which I had welcomed.

  Agricultural Advisory Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of money has been received for advice given following the introduction of charges by the Agricultural Advisory Service; how many persons have been given advice; and what were the comparable figures for the equivalent period prior to the introduction of charges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following the introduction of charging by the advisory services of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in October 1988 a total of £224,000 has been received up to November 1989.

  Advice, some of which continues to be free, is given in a variety of ways both to individuals through farm visits, office consultations and by telephone and to groups through events, meetings, advisory letters, press articles, media broadcasts and publications notably "Agriculture in Northern Ireland". During any given period a farmer may get advice in more than one way. Currently our records which are compiled for each financial year are as follows:—

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Farms Visited

  16,827

  14,442

  Attendance at meetings/events

  34,006

  29,744

  Advisory letters

  20,268

  38,500

  Press articles

  416

  403

  Media broadcasts

  21

  36

  "Agriculture in Northern Ireland"

  12,125

  12,958

  Harbours
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of harbour dues for(a) boats, (b) yachts and (c) other sea-going vessels at the harbours of Portrush, Ballycastle, Bangor, Ardglass and Portstewart.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 December 1989]: The harbours at Portrush, Portstewart, Ballycastle and Bangor are owned and operated by the Coleraine, Moyle and North Down councils respectively and the information sought is not available in my Department.

  The Ardglass harbour is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. Charges at Ardglass are as follows:—
  494
  Fishing Vessels
  Over 15 tons gross—£50 per annum
  Under 15 tons—£25 per annum

  Cargo and other commercial vessles
  EC Vessels—15p per tonne per visit
  Outside EC—21p per tonne per visit
  If vessels stay over 1 week an extra 1 1 p per tonne is charged for each week thereafter.

  All other craft
  30p per metre for each week or part thereof except for vessels in a reserved area (for yachts and pleasure crafts) 15p per metre each week or part thereof.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Environmental Monitoring
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what European Community funds are being, or will be, directed to the establishment of the European Environment Agency in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) what European Community funds are being, or will be, directed to the establishment of the European monitoring and information system in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  The establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European monitoring and information system are integral parts of a single proposal. As such it is inappropriate and impossible to distinguish separate expenditure elements. The cost of establishing and maintaining the agency and the underlying network in the first year of operations is estimated at 5·5 million ecu, equivalent to about £3·8 million. Budget estimates for later years are not available.

  CORINE Programme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what European Community funds have so far been directed to the establishment of the CORINE programme; and what is the predicted annual funding of the programme in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  Up to 1989, 4 million ecu (£2·8 million) have been directed to the CORINE programme. For 1989, expenditure is estimated at 3 million ecu (£2·1 million) and for 1990 expenditure earmarked at 4·5 million ecu (£3·1 million). After 1990, it is envisaged that CORINE-related work will pass to the proposed European Environment Agency.

  European Environment Statistics Office
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what European Community funds will be directed to the European environment statistics office in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  A separate European environment statistics office does not exist. A four-year programme to develop regular official statistics of the environment is currently being proposed within the statistical office of the European Communities. The proposed budget for the period amounts to 13·3 million ecu, approximately £9·3 million, with £0·7 million earmarked for 1990, £1·9 million for 1991, £2·8 million for 1992 and £3·9 million for 1993.
  495
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to the Economic Community each year since its inception of the European environment statistics office.

  Mr. Trippier
  A separate European environment statistics office does not exist. The statistical office of the European Communities collects, co-ordinates and disseminates statistics to assist in the formulation and monitoring of a wide range of Community policies. The office is mainly concerned with economic and social statistics; its programme of work on environmental statistics has only recently begun with appropriations being met from the general budget of the European Communities.

  European Environment Agency
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his reply of 30 November to the hon. Member for Billericay,Official Report, column 368, if he will undertake a survey of businesses to determine their view of the usefulness of the European Environment Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The objectives of the proposed European Environment Agency are to assemble, coordinate and analyse environmental information to inform and support Community environment policy. There is no intention to place further burdens on industry by surveying their views on the proposal.

  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 6 December to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green concerning the seventh report of the Environment Committee of Session 1988–89, relating to the proposed European Environment Agency.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The text of my letter was as follows:"Your Committee took evidence from my officials on 8th November and produced an admirably clear report in time for the debate in the House on 12th November; we appreciate this.
  For the record I can say that Government policy is very much in line with the Committee's recommendations.

  In particular:
  Paragraph 1: The Committee's agreement with the DOE view on duties of the Agency is noted.
  Paragraph 11: The Government agrees that "in the first instance the Agency should be set up as a Community body".
  Paragraph 12: The Draft Regulation requires separate agreements to be established with third countries covering all aspects of participation; but the need to include voting rights and the financial contribution issue is noted.
  Paragraph 14: The need to recognise the value of the information holding of NGO's is important and the Committee is right to stress the advantages of collaboration between the Agency and the NGO's in this area.
  Paragraph 15: I shall be keeping the staffing implications of the proposal under review as far as my Department is concerned.
  Paragraph 16: The Committee's support for the Government bid for the Agency to be located in the United Kingdom is welcome.
  Please convey my thanks to your Committee for their speedy and helpful examination of this issue. Your findings were helpful in the discussions in the Environment Council on 28th November and you might like to know that the location of the Agency is now the only significant outstanding issue as far as Environment Ministers are concerned. You may have
  496
  seen that the Government has now offered Cambridge as a suitable location; no decision has yet been taken however at Community level."

  Housing Needs Index
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his review of the housing needs index and on the effect on the apportioning of capital funds to housing associations in the north-west of England of this review.

  Mr. Chope
  My hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning announced on Wednesday 20 December 1989, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), his decisions on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1990–91. The number of new housing association dwelling units to be approved in the north-west region is planned to increase in each of the next three years, though the proportionate increase will be less than in some other regions.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library as soon as possible a full list of non-domestic revaluations arising out of the Local Government (Finance) Act 1988.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall make available in the Library as soon as possible microfiche copies of the draft local non-domestic rating lists for England and Wales which have been sent to local authorities by the valuation office.

  Derelict Land
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the joint rolling programme submission by North Staffordshire local authorities for derelict land programme assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department will announce decisions on the regional distribution of derelict land grant resources for 1990–91 shortly. At the same time, we will announce the rolling programme which the Department is prepared to support.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his departmental library holds copies of the International Atomic Energy Agency waste management research abstracts on radioactive waste programmes in progress.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies are held by the Department.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his departmental library receives a copy of the bimonthly information bulletin on radioactive wastes and fuel reprocessing, produced by Harwell Information Services.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Yes.

  Nirex (Safety Research)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the 1988–89 report on the United Kingdom Nirex safety assessment research programme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that the report is expected to be published by the end of January 1990. Distribution of the report is a matter for United Kingdom Nirex.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make cavity wall insulation and double glazing mandatory requirements in building regulations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The thermal insulation standards in the Building Regulations 1985 have recently been upgraded, and we estimate that these amendments will achieve a saving of around 20 per cent. in energy requirements for space and water heating in new houses and other buildings. Cavity wall insulation and double glazing are methods of meeting these requirements, but there are also other ways of doing so. We consider that architects and builders should be allowed the maximum flexibility to choose for themselves whch is the most appropriate way of meeting the higher standards, which are due to come into force on 1 April.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update his Department's 1985 estimates of the amount needed to be spent on the insulation of local authority houses in England and generally on heating, insulation and works to remedy condensation.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department's most recent estimate of the amount needed to be spent on the insulation of local authority houses in England is £880 million, and on heating, insulation and works to remedy condensation £3,100 million. These figures are based on analysis of the 1986 English house condition survey. They are at 1984 prices and therefore comparable with the Department's estimates reported in 1985.

  Departmental Finance
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when MINIS 10 was completed; when it was placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement in its findings.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I reviewed the outcome of MINIS 10 on 3 October 1989 and subsequently authorised publication. Copies of MINIS 10 were sent to the Library on 15 November 1989.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year since 1978 the spending on loft and wall insulation measures in local authority housing stock, consistent with the figure of £146 million stated in paragraph 3·40 of the National Audit Office's "National Energy Efficiency".

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 19891: The figure given in paragraph 3.40 of the National Audit
  498
  Office's report was based on analysis of the 1986 English house condition survey. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Microwave Ovens (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location and make of each microwave oven within the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: A total of 14 microwave ovens in use on the parliamentary estate have been provided by my Department. They are located in either the Refreshment Department or mess facilities and comprise seven Merrychefs, five National Panasonics, one Moulinex and one Sharp.

  Craven Cottage
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what criteria he based his decision to set the date of the inquiry concerning Craven Cottage at 30 January 1990;

  (2) on what date Hammersmith council was notified that Mr. Palmer had been appointed to preside at the inquiry concerning Craven Cottage;

  (3) on what date Mr. Martin replaced Mr. Palmer on the inquiry concerning Craven Cottage; and why Hammersmith council was not given an opportunity to make representations on this matter;

  (4) when the date of the public inquiry on 30 January 1990 into the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham's compulsory purchase order of Craven Cottage was set; and when his Department received the council's compulsory purchase order;

  (5) whether he received any representations from any person concerning the appointment of Mr. Palmer to the inquiry concerning Craven Cottage.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: The compulsory purchase order was received on 30 May 1989 and the date of the public inquiry on 30 January 1990 was set on 25 September, after consultation with the parties on alternative dates in the usual way. The Department has no record of when Hammersmith council was told the name of the inspector. Mr. Stephen Marks was substituted for Mr. Palmer on 10 November after representations were received from the agents for the owners. It is not departmental practice to invite the parties to an inquiry to comment upon the choice of inspector.

  Arts and Design
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure was made by his Department on(a) the arts and (b) design in the last financial year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The Government's support for the arts, as the term is commonly used, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. I have joint responsibility with my right hon. Friend for the grant in aid to the national heritage memorial fund, and for the acceptance of land, property and works of art in lieu of tax. In the last financial year (1988–89) expenditure was split equally £3 million (£1·5 million each) and £2 million (£1 million each) respectively.
  499
  More generally my Department contributed to expenditure on the arts in 1988–89 where inner city regeneration is concerned, for example through grant in aid to urban development corporations—the London Docklands development corporation spending £75,000 in 1988–89.

  Among all its activities, PSA included, the Department aims to encourage good design especially through the public bodies it sponsors. Specifically, it has incurred expenditure of £365,000 through its sponsorship of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and contributed £12,000 as its share of the costs of the housing design awards, the other contributors being the Royal Institute of British Architects and the National House Building Council.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information on radioactivity released has been withheld in 1989 under section 8(5)(b) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is not Government policy to reveal the existence of any authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste restricted under the terms of section 8(5)(b) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Rutland Water
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call for a report from the National Rivers Authority into the progress of the investigation since 27 November into the death of dogs and sheep connected with the Rutland Water, and whether he will instruct the authority to complete its report in sufficient time to enable remedial action to be taken before summer 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am satisfied with the progress which the NRA is making in compiling its report into the causes of last year's toxic algae problem which will take account of the findings arising from the studies being conducted into animal deaths at Rutland Water. These are primarily matters for the NRA which I understand will address the question of remedial action in its report which it aims to complete this summer.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the meeting between the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 27 November, he has obtained copies of(a) the findings by Professor Codd of Dundee university regarding the toxicity of algae at Rutland Water and (b) the findings of the veterinary service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, regarding post mortems on dead dogs and sheep; when this information will be made available to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Results of the work carried out by Professor Codd to establish the toxicity of the algae at Rutland Water have been placed on the NRA public registers. The studies being conducted by the veterinary service of MAFF and Professor Codd on the animal deaths at Rutland Water are continuing and final results are not yet available.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total cost to public funds of advertising for the privatisation of water;

  (2) what was the total cost to public funds of the flotation of the water industry in fees to City advisers;

  (3) what was the total cost to the Government of the flotation of the water industry.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is too soon for these cost totals to be known. The full costs of the flotation of the water industry will be reported to Parliament in due course in the normal way.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assumptions he has made with regard to those domestic rates being paid by second home owners in Wales, in preference to personal community charge; and upon what basis such non-domestic rate income will be distributed between district councils in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have made no such assumptions. Domestic rates will not be payable by second-home owners from April 1990, whether in preference to personal community charge or otherwise. Standard community charges will be payable on domestic properties that do not constitute any person's sole or main residence; the income from these charges will accrue to the local authorities in the areas where the properties are situated—it will not be distributed between district councils in Wales.

  Income from non-domestic properties will be pooled and redistributed between district and county councils as an amount per head of population in each receiving authority's area.

  Farm Woodlands Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the operation of the farm woodlands scheme in Wales; and what is the current uptake.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has received 38 applications for planting on 286 hectares of land. Twenty-two applications in respect of 188 hectares have already been approved, three applications for 12 hectares have either been withdrawn or rejected and those remaining are being processed.

  Eggs
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a review of the overall effectiveness of recent legislation affecting the egg-producing industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is too early at this stage to gauge the effectiveness of the various measures to control salmonella, since the legislation has been introduced only recently. It will be reviewed in due course.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list(a) German expressionist, (b) 20th century Welsh, (c) Piccassos, (d) Dutch 17th century, (e) Italian renaissance and (f) French impressionist works of art in Wales, owned by the state; how much money each cost the state; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the works of art produced in (a) 1945 to 1964, (b) 1965 to 1977, (c) 1978–87 and (d) 1988 to 1989 owned by the state; if he will indicate which of those were produced either partly or wholly by public funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have no direct responsibility for any works of art within the categories listed. Information on items held by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally. Items from the Government art collection are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

HEALTH

  Medical Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to act on the recommendations of the 1986 Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development report on medical equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's response to the report, summarising action then being taken or planned on the report's recommendations, was published in February 1987. A wide programme of improvements has been implemented and further developments in the fields of research, evaluation and equipment management are being vigorously pursued. Inter alia the research and development coordinating committee of the Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry, Medical Research Council and the Science and Engineering Council, which meets quarterly, has made considerable progress in identifying and eliminating gaps and overlaps in the research and development medical equipment field to ensure that available resources are used as effectively as possible.

  Nurses
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction he has as to how many(a) trained and (b) untrained nursing staff were employed in (i) the private sector and (ii) the public sector, for each of the years 1978 to 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Table 1

  NHS nursing and midwifery staff in post (excluding agency) at 30 September each year, England Whole-time Equivalents1

  Years

  Qualified2

  Unqualified3

  Total

  1978

  188,260

  159,240

  347,500

  1979

  192,010

  162,410

  354,420

  1980

  197,900

  167,950

  365,860

  1981

  212,100

  175,910

  388,010

  1982

  219,300

  174,740

  394,040

  1983

  223,620

  171,070

  394,680

  1984

  227,730

  166,010

  393,740

  502

  Years

  Qualified2

  Unqualified3

  Total

  1985

  234,130

  162,900

  397,030

  1986

  236,770

  160,470

  397,240

  1987

  239,360

  158,550

  397,910

  1988

  241,920

  155,920

  397,840

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) wholetime equivalent.

  2 Includes qualified nurses and midwives, health visitors and district nurses.

  3 Includes learners and unqualified nursing staff.

  Note: The figures have not been adjusted for the reduction in the working week from 40 to 37·5 hours introduced in 1980–81.

  Source: DH (SM13) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower

  Table 2

  Nursing staff (whole time equivalents), Independent sector hospitals, Nursing homes and Clinics, England

  Year1

  Nursing staff

  Total

  1Trained

  1Untrained

  1982

  12,208

  10,416

  22,623

  1983

  13,754

  11,918

  25,672

  1984

  15,446

  13,986

  29,432

  1985

  18,354

  17,730

  36,084

  1986

  21,683

  23,266

  44,949

  1988

  25,836

  30,611

  56,447

  1 The figures for 1988 relate to the number in post (wholetime equivalents) at 31 March, the previous years figures relate to the numbers in post at 31 December

  2 Registered nurses and midwives, enrolled nurses

  3 Nursing auxiliaries/assistants and other non-registered/enrolled nursing staff

  Source: SBH212 return 1982–1986

  K036 return 1988

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1959 the number of nurses employed by the National Health Service, with each year also expressed as a percentage change of the previous year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff in post (including agency) at 30 September each year Whole-time equivalent1

  Years

  England and Wales2

  Percentage change from previous year3

  England

  Percentage change from previous year3

  1959

  196,000

  n/a

  —

  —

  1960

  197,900

  1·0

  —

  —

  1961

  198,900

  0·5

  —

  —

  1962

  205,300

  3·2

  —

  —

  1963

  207,700

  1·2

  —

  —

  1964

  212,400

  2·2

  —

  —

  1965

  222,400

  4·7

  —

  —

  1966

  231,500

  4·1

  —

  —

  1967

  239,300

  3·4

  —

  —

  1968

  241,300

  0·8

  —

  —

  1969

  245,900

  1·9

  —

  —

  1970

  252,800

  2·8

  —

  —

  1971

  263,500

  42

  285,400

  n/a

  1972

  —

  —

  303,200

  6·2

  1973

  —

  —

  308,500

  1·8

  1974

  —

  —

  314,100

  1·8

  1975

  —

  —

  336,600

  7·2

  1976

  —

  —

  341,700

  1·5

  1977

  —

  —

  343,200

  0·4

  1978

  —

  —

  351,000

  2·3

  1979

  —

  —

  358,400

  2·1

  1980

  —

  —

  370,100

  3·2

  1981

  —

  —

  391,800

  5·9

  503

  Years

  England and Wales2

  Percentage change from previous year3

  England

  Percentage change from previous year3

  1982

  —

  —

  397,100

  1·4

  1983

  —

  —

  397,100

  *

  1984

  —

  —

  397,500

  0·1

  1985

  —

  —

  401,200

  0·9

  1986

  —

  —

  402,700

  0·4

  1987

  —

  —

  404,000

  0·3

  1988

  —

  —

  403,900

  *

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Census of National Health Service Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 The manpower figures are independently rounded to the nearest hundred (100) wholetime equivalents. Percentage changes calculated on unrounded figures.* indicates less than 0·1 per cent.

  2 England and Wales figures are for hospital based staff only whereas England figures related to total nursing and midwifery staff. In addition, because of changes and improvements in the collection and processing of the data between 1959 and 1988 the information is not strictly comparable. Figures for England only are not available prior to 1971.

  3 Includes qualified nurses and midwives, learners and unqualified nursing staff.

  4 The figures have not been adjusted for changes in the working week introduced over the period shown.

  Milk Discount Tokens
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage he intends to introduce on milk discount tokens: what discussions he has had with self-employed milk-round persons: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government currently pay the full retail price for liquid milk they buy for the welfare milk scheme at an annual cost of approximately £80 million. In view of the size and value of the Department's purchase detailed commercial negotiations have taken place with the dairy trade. Following these negotiations we intend to implement a new pricing structure that will represent a reduction of approximately 10 per cent. of the current average price paid to welfare milk suppliers.

  This decision has been arrived at after an extensive period of negotiation, consultation and consideration. There will be provision to enable this reduction to be shared between all sectors of the trade on a voluntary basis.

  People entitled to liquid welfare milk will continue to receive seven pints of milk per week entirely free of any charge.

  Hypertension
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase in the number of reported cases of hypertension there has been arising directly from the growing incidence of health scares.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no statistics on any such increase.

  Campylobacter
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 19 December 1989 concerning campylobacter, cryptosporiduim and leptospira; whether the number of incidents of campylobacter infection represents outbreaks or individual cases.
  504
  Mr. Freeman
  The figures given represent numbers of cases, not outbreaks.

  Cancer Screening
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the shortfall in cancer screening services available to women in high risk groups in Staffordshire; and what steps are being taken to provide a full service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of cancer screening services in Staffordshire is a matter for the three Staffordshire district health authorities and for Staffordshire family practitioner committee.

  However, I understand that computerised call and recall programmes have been or are being introduced for cervical and breast cancer screening in line with national guidance.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the monthly breakdown figures for courses of dental treatment completed since charges for dental examinations came into operation;

  (2) what are the monthly breakdown figures for courses of dental treatment, on the most convenient regional basis, since charges for dental examination came into operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 12 December 1989 at column 628.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the monthly breakdown figures of courses of treatment of(a) those under 18 years of age, (b) those who are over 18 years but are fully exempt from dental charges, (c) those over 18 years who are partially exempt from dental charges and (d) those who are over 18 years but are fully liable for dental charges, in the period since dental charges for examinations came into operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 12 December 1989 at column 627.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any additional dental educational programmes in mind to promote awareness of the proposed capitation arrangements for children and continuing care contracts for adults, under the current dental contract being negotiated.

  Mr. Freeman
  If, as the Government hope, the proposals for a new dental contract are accepted by the profession and implemented in October 1990, there will be an important role for postgraduate education in promoting awareness of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member. Postgraduate dental Deans and others concerned with the supply of education to dentists are aware of this potential need, and are taking it into account in their planning.

  Dental Caries
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current statistical inquiries are in train, to gain a more accurate picture of dental caries among children in particular localities, especially in inner city areas.
  505
  Mr. Freeman
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities to monitor the dental health of all age groups in the population of their areas and to plan jointly with family practitioner committees the provision of local dental services. Information about local inquiries currently in train is not held centrally.

  The Department commissioned national surveys of children's dental health in 1973 and 1983, and it is expected that a further survey will be conducted in 1993.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions there are in the contract currently being negotiated with the dental profession to adjust capitation payments to the differing workloads which will arise from varying rates of dental caries in particular localities.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the proposals for a new contract for general dental practitioners, the initial fee paid to a dentist for treating a child entering capitation will be greater if the child has large numbers of decayed teeth. This will greatly benefit dentists in localities with high incidence of dental caries. There are no proposals to adjust capitation payments to take account of regional variations in work loads.

  Dental Forms
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a new and correctly drafted supply of orthodontic dental forms FP17(O) will be generally available to the dental profession; and what steps have been taken to inform dental practitioners of the current situation with regard to consequential matters.

  Mr. Freeman
  Family practitioner committees were notified of a delay in the printing of the revised form FP17(O), and were asked to inform individual general dental practitioners. The Dental Practice Board and FPCs have dealt with questions arising from the delay. We expect the new form to be available towards the end of January 1990.

  Intensive Care Cots
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by district and by region the number of paediatric intensive care cots and the percentage change since 1980.

  Number and percentage of men and women members of regional health authorities

  Region

  Male

  Percentage

  Female

  Percentage

  Northern

  9

  60

  6

  40

  Yorkshire

  10

  62

  6

  38

  Trent

  11

  61

  7

  39

  East Anglian

  11

  73

  4

  27

  North West Thames

  10

  56

  8

  44

  North East Thames

  10

  71

  4

  29

  South East Thames

  9

  56

  7

  44

  South West Thames

  12

  75

  4

  25

  Wessex

  11

  69

  5

  31

  Oxford

  10

  67

  5

  33

  South Western

  11

  65

  6

  35

  West Midlands

  12

  75

  4

  25

  Mersey

  9

  60

  6

  40

  North Western

  9

  64

  5

  36

  Total

  144

  65

  77

  35

  506
  Mr. Freeman
  Information on paediatric as opposed to neonatal intensive care cots is not collected centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will monitor the reasons in all the cases where patients have been taken off their general practitioner's list at their general practitioner's initiative; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will specify for each family practitioner committee how many people in each of the last three years were removed from their general practitioner's list on the initiative of the general practitioner; and what percentage of them were over 65 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the removal of patients from general medical practitioners' lists is not routinely collected and none is held centrally.

  Respite Care
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will say how many beds are made available for the purposes of respite care, for each regional health authority in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. The Government consider respite nursing care services to be an integral part of NHS provision for those groups of patients who require it. However, the actual level of service to be provided by a health authority is a matter for that authority to decide for itself.

  Health Authorities
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and percentage of(a) women and (b) men members on each (i) district health authority and (ii) regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the membership of district health authorities are not held centrally. The figures for regional health authorities are given in the table:
  507
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and percentage of women chairs of(a) district health authorities and (b) regional health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  Thirty-two women (18 per cent.) are chairmen of district health authorities, and one woman (7 per cent.) is chairman of a regional health authority.

  Hospital Accommodation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals routinely make accommodation available for the parents of children detained overnight in hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally. Statistical return KHO4 includes, at district health authority level, the numbers of parents accommodated and the numbers of bed days used by parents in respect of babies up to the age of 28 days detained in hospital, but the information for the first year of this new return, in 1988–89, is incomplete.

  AIDS
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are known to be suffering from AIDS, and how many to be HIV positive, as a result of receiving a transfusion of whole blood before screening was introduced in October 1985; how many such infected people have already died; and whether the Government's compensation scheme for haemophiliacs will be extended to cover such people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The position at the end of September 1989, as reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, is that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there have been 15 cases of AIDS in people known to have been transfused in the United Kingdom, of whom 13 are known to be dead. Fourteen of the 15 are known to have been transfused before October1985, the remaining person was transfused in 1985 but the month is unknown. Of 17 known HIV seropositives transfused in the United Kingdom, 13 were transfused before October 1985, and 4 at a date as yet unknown. There are also 45 known seropositives whose country of transfusion is still under investigation.

  The Government grants to provide financial assistance for haemophiliacs with HIV infection are ex-gratia payments and not compensation. These payments recognise the wholly exceptional combination of circumstances affecting those haemophiliacs.

  We have no plans to extend the remit of the MacFarlane Trust to include those who are now HIV positive as a result of "whole" blood transfusions.

  Spinal Units
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra monies have been allocated to supra-regional spinal units consequent upon his announcement of 14 December 1989 of a cash increase for the National Health Service in 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Spinal injury services will receive a total revenue allocation of £15·4 million in 1990–91, compared with an allocation of £14·4 million in 1989–90.
  508
  I am arranging for copies of the detailed announcement on supra-regional services, which I made on 3 January on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to be placed in the Library.

  Nursing Officers
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nursing officer posts are held by(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: In the NHS in England at 30 September 1988, 18 per cent. of the posts of Sister I and above (ie Nursing Officer posts) were held by men and 82 per cent. women.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  NATO
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, of 11 December,Official Report, column 497, what other military functions, apart from training, versions and variants of NATO combat aircraft have been modified to perform.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  NATO combat aircraft have been modified to perform a variety of functions. In the case of the United Kingdom, roles of various RAF squadrons are set out in annex C of the statements on the defence Estimates of 1989 (CM 675/1).

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, of 14 December,Official Report, column 762, when the United Kingdom will provide information on the types of each of the main categories of weapon equipment holdings to the conventional forces in Europe negotiations; and if he will make this information available to Parliament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proposals that NATO has tabled in the CFE negotiations in Vienna envisage an exchange of information on national holdings between parties on signature of a treaty. The information provided by the United Kingdom will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of the aircraft in storage that are included in the current NATO total of 6,700 combat aircraft are in addition to those mentioned in footnote 4, page 27 of Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of the combat-capable training aircraft included in the current NATO total of 6,700 combat aircraft are in addition to those mentioned in footnote 5 of page 27 of Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list
  509
  the specific types of combat aircraft that have been included in the overall total of 6,700 NATO combat aircraft that are in addition to those itemised in page 27 of Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As explained in footnotes 4 and 5 on page 27 of Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts, the figures for NATO combat aircraft do not include combat-capable trainers and aircraft in storage. Those aircraft, together with versions and variants of types listed in footnote 1 which have another military function between them, raise the NATO total to 6,600. The definition of such aircraft was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Western Isles on 11 December.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy that statements taken by Hong Kong immigration officers from boat people are read back to or read by the appellant and that the appellant is allowed to amend the statements and sign them.

  Mr. Maude
  Any statements taken by Hong Kong immigration officers which require clarification are read back to the interviewees to ensure accuracy. The UNHCR and its designated agency have access to the questionnaire completed for all boat people at the start of the screening procedure so that they can assist the asylum seeker to make any further representations at the review stage.

  Mr. Tony Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the further difficult decisions concerning Hong Kong referred to in his statement of 20 December, column 363.

  Mr. Maude
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 20 December, our continuing responsibility for Hong Kong over the next eight years will involve us in a variety of complex and difficult decisions. Those decisions span the whole range of Hong Kong issues related to the effective administration of the territory and the implementation of the joint declaration. One such decision involves steps to be taken to develop democracy further in Hong Kong.

  Takrouna Monument
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to protect and preserve the monument at Takrouna, Tunisia, which commemorates the relief of that strongpoint by the Eighth Army and the Free French Forces in April 1943.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no responsibility for this monument, which is threatened by mining operations. But our embassy in Tunis is monitoring the situation and is ready to find an appropriate alternative site if necessary for the commemorative plaque.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any humanitarian assistance has been offered to authorities in Panama following the invasion of that country by United States forces.
  510
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with European Economic Community governments since the United States of America invasion of Panama; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  EC Foreign Ministers discussed Panama in Paris on 22 December.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reasons were given by the President of the United States of America for the invasion of Panama when he sought endorsement for his actions from Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  President Bush has stated that the United States military intervention in Panama had four objectives: to safeguard the lives of American citizens, to help restore democracy, to protect the integrity of the Panama canal treaties, and to bring General Noriega to justice.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to establish the legality of the United States invasion of Panama before endorsement of such action was given.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The American action was undertaken with the agreement of the leaders who clearly won the elections held last May. We had no hesitation in welcoming the establishment of democratic government in Panama and giving full support to the action that led to this. General Noriega's arbitrary rule was maintained by force. There can be no suggestion that he represented legality.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a British Minister last visited Panama.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend Baroness Young, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited Panama in November 1983.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Economic Community countries, other than the United Kingdom, have expressed official support for the United States invasion of Panama; which of them have recognised the regime of Mr. Guillermo Endara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Several EC member states made statements on 20 December. Italy, Germany and the Netherlands expressed understanding of the United States action. EC Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement on 22 December. It is the practice of the United Kingdom and other EC countries to recognise states rather than Governments, so the question of formal recognition does not arise. Heads of mission of the five EC member states with resident representation in Panama—United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain—called on Sr. Linares, the Foreign Minister of President Endara's new Government, on 4 January.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United
  511
  Kingdom exercised a veto in the United Nations Security Council on the motion condemning the United States invasion of Panama; and if he will list each occasion in the past three years when Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations has exercised a veto.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Together with the United States and France, we exercised our veto on the draft resolution on the situation in Panama because it was seriously unbalanced. Canada also voted against. Finland abstained.

  The United Kingdom has exercised a veto in the United Nations Security Council on four other occasions since January 1987:

  Date

  20 February 1987

  South Africa

  9 April 1987

  Question of Namibia

  8 March 1988

  Sanctions against South Africa

  11 January 1989

  Shooting down of Libyan jet

  Arts and Design
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure was made by his Department on(a) the Arts and (b) design in the last financial year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: Such detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but we are aware that our principal expenditure on the arts is almost exclusively channelled through the British Council, which in 1988–89 spent £13·3 million of the diplomatic wing's direct grant of £58·1 million on the promotion overseas of British artistic achievements.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total cost to his Department of the Likierman report; and if he will give a breakdown of the major areas of cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  We provided the secretariat for the steering group and the auditors study team in the review of professional liability under the overall chairmanship of Professor Andrew Likierman. The total cost of this was £26,500, of which £24,000 was spent on staff costs including accommodation and the remaining £2,500 on consultancy and other miscellaneous costs.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions are taken by his Department against accountancy firms criticised in his inspector's reports on inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Forth
  Such action as may be appropriate in the circumstances which may include disclosure of information with a view to the institution of, or otherwise for the purposes of, any disciplinary proceedings relating to the exercise by an auditor or an accountant of his professional duties.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times accountancy firms have been criticised for the audits in investigations conducted by his Department under the Companies Act; how many firms these criticisms apply to; and what action is taken by his Department when such criticisms are made.

  Mr. Forth
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department takes such action as is appropriate when accountancy firms are criticised in investigations. This may include disclosure of information with a view to the institution of, or otherwise for the purpose of, any disciplinary proceedings relating to the exercise by an auditor or an accountant of his professional duties.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries conducted under the Companies Act he has ordered since January 1979; how many have reported; how many of these reports have been published; how many of those not published have been communicated in any way to professional bodies; and how many of(a) the published reports and (b) the unpublished reports have resulted in (i) court action, (ii) any professional discipline on which he has information and (iii) action by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Inspections into the affairs and/or membership of 57 companies, some of which are linked, have begun since January 1979. A final report has been submitted in relation to 35 of those companies. An interim report has been submitted in relation to five other companies. Fourteen reports, including three interim reports, have been published relating to 17 different companies. One unpublished report has been disclosed to a professional body. Criminal proceedings have followed or commenced during investigations in relation to nine 514
  companies, in respect of which three reports relating to four companies have been published. Winding-up and disqualification proceedings have been commenced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during an investigation in which an interim report was submitted. That report is unpublished.

  Disciplinary proceedings by a professional body have followed investigations in relation to four companies in respect of which two reports relating to three companies have been published.

  Other action was taken by my Department in one investigation in respect of which the report was published and resulted in the recovery of £475,000 for creditors and shareholders.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Jim Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was, for developing countries(a) the total of outstanding export credits in 1982, (b) the total repaid each year between 1982 and 1988, (c) the total outstanding for each country in 1988, (d) the total arrears of each country in 1988, (e) the terms under which the credits were advanced and (f) the annual rates of interest charged each year from 1982 to 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The total outstanding export credits to developing countries was £14·9 billion as at 31 March 1982. This figure was published in ECGD's trading results for the financial year 1981–82. Figures for repayments each year are not available but the total outstanding as at 31 March 1988 amounted to £10·4 billion. It has been the policy of successive governments not to provide details of ECGD's exposure-experience on individual markets.

  The definition ECGD uses for arrears on credit insurance business relates to the amount of claims paid which remain outstanding for recovery, and as at the end of 1988, this figure stood at £2·1 billion for developing countries.

  The terms for export credit advanced to developing countries are governed by the OECD arrangement on guidelines for officially supported export credits. This arrangement also lays down the minimum interest rates permitted. The rates in force vary depending on the length of the credit involved and the grading of the country to which credit is extended. The rates are revised twice yearly.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons above the age of(a) 60, (b) 65 and (c) 70 years he has appointed to public bodies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Equipment (ACARD Report)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the 1986 Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development report on medical equipment, so far as they affect his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is represented on the R and D co-ordinating group on medical equipment chaired by the Department of Health; and a market
  515
  branch in my Department deals with the medical equipment sector. The Department seeks to ensure that information received about market opportunities, including that obtained from posts overseas, is disseminated widely to United Kingdom industry.

  Export Intelligence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the contract awarded to Export Opportunities Ltd. for the marketing of export intelligence was subject to competitive tender; and what the number of subscribers to the export intelligence service now is.

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. Export intelligence is available on an automated matching basis from Export Opportunities Ltd., and by on-line inquiry from Trade Network International Ltd. and from FT Information Online Ltd. The three companies are in competition with each other and the number of customers each has is commercially confidential.

  Sanitary Tampons
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was discussed at his Department's most recent meeting with tampon manufacturers; and whether he will advise those manufacturers that a warning about toxic shock syndrome should be clearly visible on the outside of tampon boxes.

  Mr. Forth
  My officials are in correspondence with the tampon industry about more prominent labelling about the use of the product. But I have no present intention of asking manufacturers to mention toxic shock syndrome on the outside of the packet.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the companies within his responsibilities in which the Government have sold their financial stake since June 1979; and which were the accountancy firms which either advised or reported on the prospectus in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  The holdings sold by my Department, together with the appropriate advisers, were British Aerospace (Peat Marwick Mitchell); Rolls-Royce (Coopers and Lybrand); British Steel (Coopers and Lybrand); British Telecom (Coopers and Lybrand); Cable and Wireless (Deloitte Haskins and Sells); Jaguar (J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Ltd.) and Rover Group (Baring Brothers, and Slaughter and May).

  Other disposals comprised various subsidiaries of companies in public ownership; and the sale of 9·5 per cent. shareholding in Short Brothers in which the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development had primary responsibility. A number of holdings in other companies have been returned to the private sector by the National Enterprise Board.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any appointments have been made to the accounting standards task force of employees of firms against whom action has been taken by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  One member of the accounting standards task group is employed by such a firm.
  516
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether at any time since June 1979 any accountancy firm found to be lacking in professional conduct, efficiency and competence by the joint disciplinary scheme has supplied inspectors for any of his Department's investigations.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to amend the Companies Acts to ensure that where reporting accountants have been criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors within the last five years, published prospectuses shall give this information.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The purpose of prospectuses is to enable potential investors to assess the merits of the investment they are being offered.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the reports published of Department of Trade and Industry investigations into accountancy firms since June 1979, showing the date of publication, date of completion of the report and the date on which the inspectors were appointed in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  Reports published by my right hon. Friend are those of inspectors appointed to investigate a company's affairs under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985, its membership under section 442, and share dealings under section 446. These sections do not relate to investigations of accountancy firms.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies went into receivership within two months, four months, six months, nine months and 12 months of receiving an unqualified audit opinion in the period 1 January 1987 to 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chief executive of Companies House tells me that the information requested is not available.

  Land Valuation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will be requiring all large companies, as defined in the Companies Acts, to incorporate valuation of land and buildings in their annual accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Member is proposing a new requirement on large companies to revalue land and buildings annually in their accounts. The present law already requires fixed assets such as land and buildings to be included in the balance sheet, and directors are required to draw to the attention of shareholders any substantial difference between the market value of land and buildings and the amount included in the balance sheet where the difference is, in the directors' opinion, of sufficient significance. However, the question of accounting for fixed assets, including the need to keep valuations up to date, is due to be considered shortly by the Accounting Standards Committee with a view to the production of an exposure draft early in the new year.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions there were for computer misuse in the years 1985 to 1989; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Forth
  The Law Commission, when publishing its recent report on this subject, pointed out that computer misuse was a relatively new phenomenon and that the criminal law as presently framed did not provide adequate protection against all forms of misuse. As a consequence there have been few prosecutions, but the exact figure is not readily available, as Government statistics do not separately identify those cases containing this element.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report a breakdown of the verifiable cases of computer misuse in the years 1985 to 1989 in the following three categories (a) unauthorised access, (b) computer fraud and (c) damage.

  Mr. Forth
  Although there are no centrally collated figures, my Department has identified around 270 verified cases of computer misuse between 1985 and 1989. Of these, approximately 42 per cent. relate to unauthorised access, 37 per cent. to computer fraud and 20 per cent. to damage. I understand that a large number of cases go unreported, and that this figure probably represents only a proportion of the true total.

  Footwear
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on negotiations in the EEC in relation to footwear imports from Taiwan and South Korea; and if he will press for immediate strict limitation of such imports to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are prepared to support safeguard action where the conditions for such action are met and the restrictions can be fully and economically justified. In our view the European Commission's report on the impact on Community producers of imports of footwear from South Korea and Taiwan does not provide sufficient justification for such action. We have informed the Commission therefore that consistently with our general approach on trade policy issues the United Kingdom Government are opposed to safeguard action on imports of footwear from South Korea and Taiwan. We have, however, suggested to the Commission that if it were to propose some form of surveillance licensing we would give this sympathetic consideration.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the number of jobs in the United Kingdom footwear industry which are dependent on the maintaining of the voluntary restraint agreement with Poland.
  518
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to estimate the number of jobs in the United Kingdom footwear industry which are dependent on the maintaining of the voluntary restraint arrangement.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of jobs displaced in the United Kingdom footwear industry by imports from(a) Taiwan and (b) South Korea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to assess the number of jobs displaced in the United Kingdom footwear industry by imports from Taiwan and South Korea.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that the voluntary restraint agreement limiting leather footwear imports from Poland remains in force for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers have considered the industry's arguments for renewing the voluntary restraint arrangement (VRA) on Polish leather footwear very carefully, but have concluded that it would not be appropriate to press the EC Commission to renew the VRA on our behalf.

  There are three considerations which support this conclusion. First, it would be inconsistent with the Government's political commitment to assist the Poles in their progress to economic, political and social reform if we were to restrict footwear imports. Secondly, with effect from 1 January 1990 all Community restrictions on Polish footwear are to be lifted and thirdly, even if the VRA were to be renewed its effects could be totally undermined by imports of footwear on free circulation via other member states.

  I have told the industry, however, that we will monitor the situation and reconsider the case for the renewal of the VRA towards the end of this year in the light of experience and in the context of the Community's consideration of its general attitude to Poland. If, in the meantime, imports of leather footwear from Poland should damage the United Kingdom industry significantly I will consider the possibility of applying either for safeguard action or for anti-dumping remedies.

  EC Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring up to date the figures for intra and extra-EEC trade of EEC countries given in the reply of 3 July 1985,Official Report, columns 190–92.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is in the table. Because of the accession to the EC of Spain and Portugal, figures for 1984, the last year included in the previous answer, are given again to indicate the effect on intra and extra-EC trade.
  519

  European Community exports of manufactures1

  billion ECU

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Spain

  Portugal

  (1) Intra-EC trade

  1984

  89·2

  42·1

  37·6

  26·8

  32·7

  28·8

  5·5

  4·2

  1·8

  10·4

  3·2

  1985

  99·8

  47·8

  42·1

  29·8

  36·2

  32·9

  6·1

  4·8

  1·7

  11·6

  3·6

  1986

  107·8

  49·0

  44·5

  31·6

  38·2

  33·3

  6·0

  5·1

  2·0

  12·2

  4·0

  1987

  116·3

  53·1

  49·7

  33·4

  40·5

  36·1

  6·6

  5·6

  2·2

  13·6

  4·6

  1988

  129·0

  66·8

  55·3

  37·7

  45·3

  43·1

  7·8

  6·0

  1·8

  16·5

  5·2

  (2) Extra-EC trade

  1984

  96·3

  44·3

  41·5

  12·5

  13·8

  41·3

  2·2

  7·1

  1·4

  11·0

  1·8

  198S

  108·8

  47·2

  45·1

  13·0

  15·2

  45·5

  2·7

  7·8

  1·4

  11·2

  2·0

  1986

  110·1

  44·1

  40·3

  12·2

  14·3

  39·1

  2·3

  7·5

  1·2

  8·0

  1·8

  1987

  109·2

  39·6

  39·1

  12·2

  14·1

  39·7

  2·3

  7·4

  1·0

  9·5

  1·8

  1988

  113·8

  47·1

  41·4

  13·7

  16·3

  43·9

  2·6

  7·5

  1·0

  10·6

  1·9

  1 Standard International Trade Classification, Sections 5 to 8.

  Source: Eurostat.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1), further to the reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, 27 November,Official Report, column 93, what is the relationship of the company inspections referred to there to the investigations mentioned in the Department of Trade and Industry's annual publication, "Companies in 1988–89" and earlier editions, as being approved since 1979;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, Official Report, 27 November, column 93, if he

  Date of Appointment

  Company name Inspectors' names

  Whether inspection is continuing or completed

  Type of inquiry

  1979

  1. 19 September 1979

  METALMAN ENGINEERING LTD. M. A. Braganza

  Completed

  s165(a)(i) CA 1948

  2. 19 September 1979

  BRYMORE (STEELS) LTD. M. A. Braganza

  Completed

  s165(a)(i) CA 1948

  3. 18 December 1979

  SAINT PIRAN LTD. G. M. Godfrey QC A. J. Hardcastle FCA

  Completed

  s165(a)(0 and si72 CA 1948

  1980

  4. 12 February 1980

  CONSOLIDATED GOLD FIELDS LTD. M. C. A. Osborne B. J. Welch

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  5. 25 July 1980

  DUNLOP HOLDINGS LTD. F. H. Pulling C. W. M. Ingram

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  6. 4 September 1980

  EUROSEAS SECURITIES LTD. M. A. F. Lyndon Stanford QC B. A. Kemp FCA

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  795/

  7. 24 August 1981

  RIAFIELD LTD. D. J. Jupp

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  8. 11 November 1981

  CORPORATE MANAGEMENT PLANNING LTD. P. J. Hanford A. H. S. Robertshaw

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  1982

  9. 8 March 1982

  EUROFLAME HOLDINGS PLC R. F. G. Day R. L. Saunders

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  10. 25 March 1982

  PHARMACEUTEX (IV) FLUID LTD.

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  11.

  DRIVEHOUSE LTD.

  520
  will list the 56 inspections under the Companies Acts since 1979, showing the date on which each inspection commenced, the names of the inspectors, the current status of each inspection and the anticipated date of publication of outstanding inspections.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table lists the details requested by the hon. Member of the 56 inspections mentioned in my previous reply. I am unable to say when reports will be published in relation to those inspections which remain outstanding.
  521

  Date of Appointment

  Company name Inspectors' names

  Whether inspection is continuing or completed

  Type of inquiry

  12.

  FURDROVE LTD.

  F. H. Pulling

  N. A. Pink

  A. H. S. Robertshaw

  13. 10 May 1982

  CUBAR CONSTRUCTION LTD.

  Completed

  s165(a)(i) CA 1948

  J. Mann

  D. Gorick

  R. Burton

  14. 24 September 1982

  ALEXANDER HOWDEN GROUP PLC

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  R. A. Gatehouse QC

  I. G. Watt FCA

  15. 8 November 1982

  MINET HOLDINGS PLC

  Continuing

  s165(b) CA 1948

  16.

  WMD UNDERWRITING AGENCIES LTD.

  S. C. Boyd QC

  P. W. G. DuBuisson FCA

  17. 19 November 1982

  SIGNAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  J. Mann

  B. J. Welch

  1983

  18. 25 February 1983

  HARTLEY BAIRD PLC

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  J. R. Sendall

  19. 11 March 1983

  GRAYLAW HOLDINGS LTD.

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  20.

  LINK SERVICE STATIONS LTD.

  Completed

  21.

  BRITISH ANZANI PLC

  Completed

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  P. W. Foss FCA

  22. 6 April 1983

  THE GREENBANK TRUST PLC

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  G. M. Abercrombie

  A. H. S. Robertshaw

  23. 7 June 1983

  WESTMINSTER PROPERTY GROUP PLC

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  F. H. Pulling

  B. J. Welch

  24. 23 August 1983

  HOUSE OF FRASER PLC

  Completed

  s172CA 1948

  J. Griffiths QC

  25. 4 October 1983

  BANK STREET SECURITIES LTD.

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  26.

  PENNINE COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS

  Continuing

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  Mr. P. W. Foss FCA

  1984

  27. 16 February 1984

  MEDWAY SECONDARY METALS LTD.

  Completed

  s165(b) CA 1948

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  Mr. P. W. Foss QC

  28. 3 September 1984

  EMRAY PLC

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  now EQUITY & GENERAL PLC

  I. G. Salter

  P. H. Bovey

  1985

  29. 9 May 1985

  HARTLEY BAIRD PLC

  Completed

  s172 CA 1948

  J. R. Sendall

  30. 27 August 1985

  MILBURY PLC

  Completed

  s432 CA 1985

  H. B. H. Carlisle QC

  M. G. Lickliss FCA

  31. 27 September 1985

  ALDERSHOT FOOTBALL CLUB LTD.

  Completed

  s442 CA 1985

  N. Bohm (Solicitor)

  A. Ridler FCA

  32. 26 November 1985

  WESTMINSTER PROPERTY GROUP LTD.

  Completed

  s442 CA 1985

  H. B. H. Carlisle QC

  M. G. Lickliss FCA

  1986

  33. 7 February 1986

  SUMRIE CLOTHES PLC

  Completed

  s442 and s446 CA 1985

  now SUMMER INTERNATIONAL PLC

  Sir Michael Kerry QC

  K. S. Carmichael FCA

  522 523

  Date of Appointment

  Company name Inspectors' names

  Whether inspection is continuing or completed

  Type of inquiry

  34. 28 November 1986

  GUINNESS PLC

  Continuing

  s432 and s442 CA 1985

  D. T. Donaldson QC

  I. G. Watt FCA

  35. 10 December 1986

  CONSOLIDATED GOLD FIELDS PLC

  Completed

  s442 CA 1985

  R. G. A. Youard (Solicitor)

  D. Anton FCA

  1987

  Completed

  s442 CA 1985

  36. 10 February 1987

  BREMNERPLC

  M. Mclver (Solicitor)

  D. J. McLeod FCA

  37. 9 April 1987

  HOUSE OF FRASER HOLDINGS PLC

  Completed

  s432(2) CA 1985

  H. Brooke QC

  H. G. C. Aldous FCA

  38. 29 November 1987

  THE ANIMAL DEFENCE SOCIETY LTD.

  Continuing

  s432(1) CA 1985

  J. F. Eden (Solicitor)

  C. H. L. Chudley FCA

  1988

  39. 10 June 1988

  JAMES FERGUSON HOLDINGS PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) and s442 CA 1985

  4 July 1988

  40. 4 July 1988

  BARLOW CLOWES GILT MANAGERS LTD.

  Continuing

  S432(2) CA 1985

  L. D. Ziman (Solicitor)

  W. M. Hoffman FCA

  41. 22 July 1988

  JAMES NEILL HOLDINGS PLC

  Continuing

  s442 CA 1985

  42.

  FRANCIS INDUSTRIES LTD.

  43.

  F. H. LLOYD HOLDINGS PLC.

  D. A. Evans QC

  B. Worth FCA

  44. 16 August 1988

  ROTAPRINT PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) and s442 CA 1985

  Miss M. H. Arden QC

  G. N. Lane FCA

  45. 24 August 1988

  ALDERMANBURY TRUST PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) CA 1985

  G. W. Staple (Solicitor)

  T. Tress FCA

  46. 20 October 1988

  CONSOLIDATED GOLD FIELDS PLC

  Continuing

  S442 CA 1985

  P. L. Heslop QC

  R. P. G. Lewis FCA

  47. 19 December 1988

  COUNTY NATWEST LTD.

  Completed

  s432(2) CA 1985

  48.

  COUNTY NATWEST SECURITIES LTD.

  M. Crystal QC

  D. L. Spence FCA

  1989

  49. 9 March 1989

  SOUND DIFFUSION PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) CA 1985

  E. J. Lawson QC

  D. Anton FCA

  50. 12 April 1989

  THE MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR COMPANY

  Continuing

  s442 CA 1985

  51.

  METAL CLOSURES GROUP LTD.

  52.

  WINCHMORE PLC

  D. A. Evans QC

  B. Worth FCA

  53. 26 May 1989

  BLUE ARROW PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) CA 1985

  Miss H. Heilbron QC

  M. D. Boohan FCA

  54. 23 June 1989

  THE BESTWOOD PLC

  Continuing

  s432(2) and s442 CA 1985

  55.

  ATLANTA FUND MANAGERS LTD.

  s432 CA 1985

  G. S. Moss QC

  J. R. Venning FCA

  56. 30 June 1989

  THE MILFORD DOCKS COMPANY

  Continuing

  s432(2) CA 1985

  R. Owen QC

  P. Powell FCA

  My answer to the hon. Member of 27 November 1989 gave the total number of companies for which inspectors have been appointed since June 1979.

  The relevant table dealing with Companies Act investigations in the annual reports presented to both Houses in accordance with section 729 of the Companies Act 1985 gives the number of appointments of inspectors
  524
  under sections 431, 432, 442 and 446 of the Companies Act 1985 or their predecessor sections as well as details of the exercise of other Companies Act investigatory powers. When inspectors have been appointed under the authority of two sections, it has been the practice since 1986 to include details of both appointments in the table.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to refer the proposed merger of Kingfisher with Dixon Group plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if in his consideration he will take into account the local monopoly considerations as recently developed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proposed acquisition by Kingfisher plc of Dixons is currently being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading who has a duty to advise the Secretary of State on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposed acquisition in anticipation of the director general's advice.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he now proposes to take to promote increased tourism from countries in eastern Europe and East Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  1988–89

  1989–901

  Offers accepted (£'000)

  Payments made (£'000)

  Offers accepted (£'000)

  Payments made (£'000)

  Regional investment grants

  East Midlands

  285

  10

  160

  117

  North East

  1,277

  234

  2,006

  917

  North West

  1,368

  299

  1,742

  762

  South West

  386

  61

  546

  185

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  842

  108

  1,538

  629

  Regional innovation grants

  East Midlands

  100

  nil

  153

  50

  North East

  859

  32

  916

  311

  North West

  760

  118

  620

  99

  South West

  204

  13

  195

  41

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  590

  44

  631

  120

  1 To end November 1989.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish figures for the numbers employed in(a) shipbuilding and (b) steel in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The relevant figures are estimated as follows:

  Shipbuilding1

  Steel1

  1979

  64,500

  162,000

  1980

  58,000

  134,000

  1981

  59,000

  96,000

  1982

  59,000

  81,900

  1983

  52,500

  67,300

  1984

  47,000

  62,300

  1985

  43,000

  60,700

  1986

  40,000

  56,900

  1987

  36,500

  55,100

  1988

  35,000

  55,200

  1989

  30,500

  354,500

  Source:

  1 DTI.

  2 Eurostat 'Labour Force (including apprentices): ECSC Products'.

  3 Average for 10 months to October 1989.

  526
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which has responsibility for the promotion of tourism to the United Kingdom. The BTA is aware of the potential of the eastern European tourism market and will take this into account in developing its marketing plans.

  Grants
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each region the take-up of(a) investment grants and (b) innovation grants; and what was the total amount spent in each year since their introduction.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The requested information, with regard to take-up and expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 (to end November) for the regional enterprise grant scheme is as follows:

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the amounts paid by the intervention fund for shipbuilding in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: Payments made from the shipbuilding intervention fund since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1978–79

  10,839,000

  1979–80

  31,912,378

  1980–81

  41,890,399

  1981–82

  49,126,517

  1982–83

  47,925,370

  1983–84

  36,231,429

  1984–85

  20,069,280

  1985–86

  25,927,629

  1986–87

  17,450,596

  1987–88

  13,644,119

  1988–89

  38,653,894

  1989 to date

  25,426,976

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the share of world shipbuilding orders won by Britain in each year since 1979.
  527
  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The percentage share of world new orders for merchant ships (in compensated gross tonnes) placed with United Kingdom yards since 1979 is as follows:

  Percentage

  1979

  2·3

  1980

  2·8

  1981

  2·6

  1982

  2·6

  1983

  1·6

  1984

  1·8

  1985

  2·7

  1986

  2·1

  1987

  2·0

  1988

  0·7

  Source: OECD; Lloyds/EC contract sources.

  Full information on world orders for naval vessels is not available.

  Schools (Technology)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increase has taken place in 1988–89 and 1989–90 in support for(a) the use of computer-aided design and (b) the use of advanced technology in schools and further education colleges.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The Department of Trade and Industry has recently spent the following amounts in order to encourage the use of advanced technology (including computer-aided design CAD) in schools and further education colleges.

  £ million

  Schools

  Further education

  1987–88

  8·5

  3·5

  1988–89

  5·5

  1·6

  1989–90

  12·9

  10·2

  1 Forecast outturn for full year.

  The 1987 further education figure includes £2·2 million spent on a scheme limited to CAD. Apart from this, it is not possible separately to identify amounts spent on CAD within either schools or further education.

  Advertising
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the total cost of advertising by his Department in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is his planned expenditure for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: Expenditure on advertising from the Department's central publicity budget was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  8·4

  1988–89

  18·8

  11989–90

  10

  1 Estimate.

  Media allocations for future years have not yet been decided.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the remit of his review of regional selective assistance; and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The internal guidelines for regional selective assistance are kept under continual review in order to keep them up to date and to consider any changes which might improve the scheme's effectiveness and value for money.

  English Industrial Estates
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the remit of his review of English Industrial Estates Corporation, and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The remit of the review was set out in my reply to the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 31 October. I expect to receive the consultants' report early in the new year.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the size of managed work space of English Industrial Estates Corporation in 1987, 1988 and 1989(a) in total and (b) in inner cities.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: English Estates' managed workspace programme was announced in March 1988. Capital expenditure was £0·5 million in 1988–89 and is expected to be £0·6 million in 1989–90. All of this expenditure was in inner city areas. In addition, English Estates provides small workshops as part of its assisted areas programme and on behalf of the Rural Development Commission.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the remit of his study of the Post Office; and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The Post Office Board naturally keeps under review a range of options for ensuring that their services meet as closely as possible the needs of both present and future customers. I am in regular touch with the board about these matters. There is, therefore, no date for reporting.

  Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of firms have taken up the consultancy initiative in each region.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: It is estimated that as of 1 December 1989 the percentage of firms is as follows:

  Percentage of firms applying for the consultancy initiatives

  DTI region

  Percentage

  North East

  5·3

  North West

  4·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·5

  West Midlands

  3·6

  East Midlands

  2·8

  South West

  3·1

  529

  DTI region

  Percentage

  East

  2·4

  South East

  2·5

  Scotland

  3·0

  Wales

  3·8

  Total

  3·1

  Dixons (Takeover)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received concerning proposals for the Kingfisher group to take over the Dixons/Currys group.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received some 20 representations about the proposed acquisition by Kingfisher plc of Dixons.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider the proposed takeover of Dixons by Woolworth.

  Mr. Redwood
  The proposed acquisition by Kingfisher plc of Dixons is currently being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading who has a duty to advise the Secretary of State on whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposed acquisition in anticipation of the director general's advice.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Coopers and Lybrand report on chlorofluorocarbons; to whom he will make it available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: My Department has commissioned two reports on CFCs from Coopers and Lybrand. The first, which examines the effect of environmental and health and safety controls on the markets for chlorinated solvents, has been submitted to the Department and will be published shortly. The second study, which complements the first, will examine the size of and distribution of current CFC and halon use within the United Kingdom and assess the technical and economic options for the recovery, recycling and eventual destruction of these substances. This study is due to be submitted in early 1990 and is expected to contain much information of interest to both Government and industry. Our intention therefore is that this information should also be made widely available, although it is too early to say precisely in what form it will be published.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations about the West German Government's intentions to ban the refrigerant gas HFA 22 with effect from January 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: The parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer are presently discussing ways in which it should be strengthened at the second meeting of the parties in London next summer. The protocol is implemented within the European Community by
  530
  regulation EC3322/88, which has as its legal base article 1305 of the treaty of Rome requiring unanimity of voting. For this reason, and because there would otherwise be serious implications for the internal market, this is a matter on which all 12 member states must work together. Her Majesty's Government's view remains that HFA 22 has an important part to play especially in helping the refrigeration industry to reduce its dependence on the more damaging chlorofluorocarbons, at least in the short to medium term.

  Abbey National plc
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations have been received by his Department from shareholders of Abbey National plc who have not yet received shareholding certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 8 December 1989]: Since the beginning of August the Department has received over 100 letters from shareholders who at the time of writing had not received their share certificates. There have been seven such letters in the last month.

  Whisky
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the European Community import duty is on a one-litre bottle of whisky, containing 40 per cent. alcohol imported from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: No EC customs duty is payable on goods produced in the United Kingdom when imported into another member state. The duty levied on a litre bottle of whisky containing 40 per cent. alcohol imported into any member state from either the United States of America or Japan is 14 pence.

  GATT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will specify the final European Community proposals on agriculture in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Along with other major participants in GATT, the European Community has now tabled outline proposals for long term reform of agricultural supported policies. The Community proposals are designed to meet the agreed objective of substantial and progressive reduction in support, over a period of time. The Community proposes a programme of reductions, measured against a 1986 starting level, on the basis of an aggregate measure of total support. Some changes in the operation of export subsidies and in the mechanisms of import protection are also envisaged. Ideas are put forward for the treatment of developing countries and for moves towards the harmonization of measures relating to animal and plant health.

  In Council discussions, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs supported the Commission view that submission by the Community of a paper of this kind would make a helpful and constructive contribution to the Uruguay round negotiations as a whole.
  531
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the United States proposal within the Uruguay round in the general agreement on tariffs and trade for quantification in standard form of all aspects of agricultural support systems.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  A range of proposals have been tabled by the United States, EC and others in the negotiation. Several make reference to the possible use of an aggregate measure of support which can quantify the impact of a wide range of policies. The United Kingdom believes that an aggregate measure provides a useful negotiating tool which by placing countries on a common footing would facilitate an agreement to reduce support and protection worldwide.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priority Her Majesty's Government attach to achieving a compromise between the respective positions taken by the United States of America and the European Community during the general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round negotiations on agriculture; and what is his policy towards the Cairns group proposals for bridging the gap between the European Community and the United States of America.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government strongly support the objectives of the agricultural negotiations within the current GATT Round. We are working closely with our Community partners and with other countries, including the United States, to achieve a successful outcome. The proposals of the Cairns group are an important and constructive contribution to the negotiations. All parties recognise that compromise will be needed to achieve success.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on levels of investment in manufacturing industry in the last decade.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent full year for which information is available is 1988. Manufacturing investment at 1985 prices including leased assets, is estimated to have been £11·3 billion in 1988, compared to £10·7 billion in 1978. The 1988 figure is the highest recorded and amounts to an average growth rate of 8¼ per cent. a year from the 1983 level. Under the last Labour Government, manufacturing investment grew by less than 2= per cent. a year averaged over the whole period of office.

  Manufacturing Industries
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regions in England have seen a reduction in constant value terms in manufacturing industries from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply. Current prices estimates for regions of manufacturing gross domestic product are published annually and 532
  provisional figures for 1988 may be found in "Economic Trends" No. 433, November 1989, pages 92 and 93: a copy is available in the Library. Constant price estimates, however, are not made because there are no regional price indices.

  Trade Gap
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total trade gap for the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available information was published on 29 December 1989 in table 1 of the monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Balance of Payments (Oil)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table showing in current and 1985 prices the balance of payments surplus with the European Community in(a) crude oil and in other petroleum products and (b) other goods in 1970, 1979, 1985, 1988 and the current year to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates for trade with the EC on a balance of payments basis are available only at current prices. Information about trade in crude oil and other petroleum products is not readily available for the EC; the following table shows trade in all fuels as the closest available substitute.

  Balance of trade with European Community countries1

  Balance of payments basis

  £ billion, current prices

  Fuels2

  Other Goods

  Total Trade

  1970

  -0·1

  +0·2

  +0·1

  1979

  +1·2

  -3·9

  -2·7

  1985

  +9·2

  -11·6

  -2·5

  1988

  +2·5

  -16·0

  -13·5

  19893

  +1·5

  -13·4

  -11·9

  1 Present membership in all years

  2 SITC (Rev 3) Section 3

  3 Not seasonally adjusted

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many electricity disconnections the South of Scotland electricity board undertook in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, expressed as a percentage of the total of domestic users.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of domestic customers disconnected by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and the percentages these formed of the total number of domestic customers in the last four financial years, is set out in the table.
  533

  Disconnections Financial Years—1 April to 31 March

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Number of Domestic Customers disconnected during year

  7,874

  10,622

  11,546

  9,627

  Number of Domestic Customers as at 31 March

  1,421,734

  1,422,139

  1,445,151

  1,510,496

  Percentage of Domestic Customers disconnected

  0·55

  0·75

  0·80

  0·64

  River Pollution
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he plans to strengthen existing sanctions available to river purification boards and local authority water and sewage departments when they detect breaches in the voluntary codes for toxic disposals into rivers;

  (2) if he will take further steps to give additional powers to river purification boards to prevent commercial toxic pollution reaching rivers;

  (3) what proposals he has to change existing powers available to river purification boards to enter commercial premises and require specific action by owners to limit damage being done to rivers by toxic waste.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Anyone discharging trade effluent to sewers or to controlled waters without such consent as may be required by the local authority or without consent from the river purification authority is liable to prosecution. The powers available to river purification authorities to control the pollution of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters were recently improved and strengthened by the Water Act 1989. We are considering the making of regulations, including standards for the storage of chemicals on premises, which will further strengthen defences against such pollution.

  It is our intention to include measures in this Session's Environmental Protection Bill which will impose tighter controls over the most dangerous substances and certain processes and make new pollution control arrangements for multiple waste streams.

  Speech-impaired Children
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children with speech and language disorders have been placed in specialist residential schools in England from each region and island area in Scotland; and what assistance is available to Scottish parents in locating and selecting such schools for their children.

  Mr. Lang
  Information about the number of children with speech and language disorders placed in special residential schools in England is not held centrally. Parents wishing to send their children to such schools should seek assistance and advice from the regional and islands psychological services.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been given by his Department to ensure that speech and language disorders can be properly identified in examinations conducted for the purpose of a record of needs under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 as amended by the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Lang
  Guidance and advice to education authorities assessing children for the purpose of opening and keeping a record of needs under section 60 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is given in Scottish Education Department circulars No. 1083 and 1087,534
  copies of which will be sent to the hon. Member. The circulars do not give advice on particular learning difficulties such as speech and language disorders, since circumstances and special educational needs will vary with each individual child.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the number of pre-school and school-aged children who are affected by speech and language disorders in each region and islands area in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Local Authorities (Chief Executives)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salaries paid to chief executives of each local authority in Scotland; and if he will give details of the income of the elected council leaders in those authorities for the 1988–89 financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland d he will give details of the differences in income to councillors as a result of the changes in allowances applicable from 1 April 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The overall resources available for councillors' allowances in Scotland will be no less than at present. Details of how the resources are to be distributed have yet to be finalised after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have proposed that the amount available to individual authorities should be determined by the type of authority, the workload of that authority, the number of constituents and the number of councillors. Within that basic framework, we are also willing to consider sympathetically any reasonable proposals for banding by population which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities can devise, provided these command a broad measure of support from authorities.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the changes contained in the Housing and Local Government Bill regarding allowances paid to councillors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 28 November at column 112.

  COSLA
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities; and whether he discussed the effects of the Coal Industry Bill on the environment.
  535
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 27 November to discuss his revenue support grant proposals for next year and other local government finance matters. The Coal Industry Bill was not raised at the meeting.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of instances of drug and alcohol abuse reported to the children's panel.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not separately available. Drug and alcohol abuse are not by themselves grounds under section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for referral to a children's hearing to consider compulsory measures of care. They may often be a feature of greater behavioural problems which attract such grounds as "beyond parental control" or "lack of parental care".

  Colliery Tips
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has for clearing up and ensuring the reclamation and landscaping of former colliery tips.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency is the Government's principal agency for environmental improvement in Scotland. As such, it deals with a wide range of environmental problems including those resulting from former colliery tips. The agency has an ongoing programme for the reclamation and landscaping of disused bings where there are no private sector interests.

  Colliery Closures
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the collieries closed since May 1979 in Scotland; and if he will give details of the numbers of jobs lost at each colliery.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish collieries that have closed since May 1979 are named in the table. In each case the numbers of jobs recorded refer to men on the colliery books at the end of the previous financial year. I understand that there have been no compulsory redundancies associated with these closures.

  Year and colliery

  Men on colliery books

  1980–81

  Lady Victoria

  638

  Roger

  86

  1981–82

  Bedley

  697

  Kinneil

  547

  Polmaise

  271

  1983–84

  Cardowan

  1,092

  Highhouse

  301

  Sorn

  202

  1986–87

  Comrie

  534

  Polkemmet

  35

  536

  Year and colliery

  Men on colliery books

  1987–88

  Seafield/Frances

  647

  1988–89

  Barony

  403

  Solsgirth

  805

  1989–90

  Bilston Glen (including Monktonhall)

  731

  Plate Mill
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he discussed the sale by Japan of the second-hand plate mill to British Steel when he visited Japan during the summer recess.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Highway Information Management System
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will request all Scottish regions to standardise on the highway information management system, the computerised system developed by Devon county council, which has been chosen as the preferred system by five of nine Scottish regions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The Scottish Development Department has endorsed the recommendation of the Scottish County Surveyors' Society highway database and management information system working party following a comprehensive trial of two of the available routine maintenance management systems, one of which was developed by Devon county council. The choice of the alternative system for use on trunk roads has been made following the recommendation of the Scottish County Surveyors' Society.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 28 November to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro),Official Report columns 188–89, what was the number of responses which welcomed the merger of the Nature Conservatory Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland; and what was the number which disapproved of the proposal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: Of the 159 respondents expressing a view, 98 supported the proposals in principle and 61 were opposed to the merger. A list of those expressing support was provided in answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The list of those opposed is as follows.

  Aitchison, Dr. C. I.

  Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group

  Baker, Dr. R.

  Banff and Buchan District Council

  Bat Group of Britain

  Botanical Society of Edinburgh

  British Association for Nature Conservation Scottish Branch

  British Mountaineering Council

  British Trust for Ornithology

  Brown, A.

  537

  Campbell, N.

  Central Scotland Raptor Study GC0

  Cobham Resources Consultants

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Dumbarton District Council

  Friends of the Earth (Scotland)

  Geological Association, The

  Gordon District Council Director of Planning

  Grant, Dr. M. C.

  Hardie, P. A.

  Holdgate, M. W.

  Houghton, Dr. A.

  Johnston, J. Laughton

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council

  Kincardine and Deeside District Council

  Loch Lomond Park Authority

  Moray District Council

  Nethersole-Thompson, Mrs. M.

  NCC Trade Union Side

  Packard, Professor A.

  Brian K. Parnell and Associates

  Parsons, Professor I.

  Poore, D.

  Potter, D.

  Raby-Jolley, I. G.

  Ramblers Association, The

  Ramsay, A. D. K.

  Ratcliffe, Dr. D. A.

  Reid, C.

  Robb, H.

  Roger, J. Grant

  Rowbottom, M. G.

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The

  Scottish Ornithological Club, The

  Scottish Railway, Path and Cycle Route Project

  Scottish Rights of Way Society

  Scottish Scenic Trust

  Scottish Wildland Group

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Scottish Wildlife Trust—Lanark Group

  Smiley, Dr. W. K.

  Smith, Dr. R.

  Smith, A. J.

  Stirling-Aird, P.

  Stirling District Council

  Thomson, Dr. D.

  Thorpe, J.

  Watlin, Dr. R.

  Watson, D.

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

  Youngman, R. E.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken on the importation of parrots and other rare birds from South America and Senegal, in the light of the meeting between the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) at Whitehall court.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 December 1989 at column 350.

  Food Processing (Safety)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had on safety regulations for the food processing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.
  538
  I met representatives of the Refrigeration Industry Board on 13 November 1989. These and many other interested bodies have been consulted on proposals for amendment of the Food Hygiene Regulations to extend temperature control to certain foods for retail sale in order to protect public health.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the food industry about food safety measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Ministry continues to consult widely in the food industry on food safety matters.

  Food Production
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he has had with consumer groups and others on the subject of food production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ministers of this Department maintain regular contacts with consumer groups, as well as the agriculture and food industries, to discuss topics of mutual concern including food production matters. I recently met with representatives of these interests to hear at first hand their initial reactions to the Food Safety Bill.

  Green Pound
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the current effect on United Kingdom farmers of the disparity in the green pound.

  Mr. Curry
  The recent fall in sterling has caused United Kingdom MCAs to increase from their previous levels. This situation may change with further movement of sterling. I shall watch the position closely during the Community price review which has just begun.

  Minke Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request an emergency meeting of the International Whaling Commission in order that they may discuss the current slaughter of minke whales in the Antarctic by Japanese hunters.

  Mr. Curry
  The Japanese Government are well aware of our views on their programme of whaling in the Antarctic for research purposes. We have consistently taken the lead within the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in questioning its validity in the light of the concerns raised by the IWC scientific committee. In response to the IWC resolution Japan has made some changes to the plans including reducing the number of minke whales to be taken. The IWC will discuss this revised programme at its next annual meeting.

  Beagles (Deaths)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to make a statement about his Department's inquiries into the deaths of the 79 beagles en route to Sweden referred to in his
  539
  answer of 1 November, Official Report, column 211, and on any other steps that can be taken to ensure that this possibility does not arise again.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department's inquiries are now complete. Charges have been laid against three defendants under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I believe that existing legislation provides sufficient safeguards but vigilance will always be necessary to prevent a recurrence of this kind of incident.

  Alar
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will secure from the United States Environmental Protection Agency the evidence which led the agency to ban the use of the apple spray Alar on the grounds of its health damaging properties.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have the EPA's published review document, all the relevant studies cited therein, and all the raw test data provided by the registrant.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries exporting apples to the United Kingdom do not allow the use of Alar.

  Mr. Maclean
  Daminozide, the active ingredient of the pesticide product Alar is not approved for use in Italy and its approval has been withdrawn in the United States following the voluntary cancellation of its registration for food crop uses by the manufacturer.

  Food and Drink Products
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an environmental labelling scheme to cover food and drink products.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. "Environmental" claims are permitted under current food labelling legislation so long as the claim is true and not misleading to consumers. I am aware of requests for more detailed information on food, particularly on what might broadly be termed "green" issues. I have therefore asked the food advisory committee to carry out a comprehensive review of current labelling legislation and practices and to report back with any recommendations that it thinks appropriate.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the pesticide safety unit's review of pesticides that currently hold his Department's approvals but which are banned or restricted in use in other countries will be completed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The advisory committee carries out reviews of individual products when scientific evidence suggests these are necessary. It has started the routine review of all pesticides which were approved prior to 1981, irrespective of their status in other countries, which will take several years to complete.

  GATT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has for consulting representatives of United Kingdom consumers about the agricultural negotiations in the Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  540
  Mr. Curry
  I and my officials, and our counterparts in the Department of Trade and Industry, are in regular consultation with representatives of United Kingdom consumers on this subject.

  Import Restrictions
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions exist on the import into the United Kingdom of agricultural products from(a) New Zealand, (b) Australia and (c) Canada; and what steps he is taking to have them reduced.

  Mr. Curry
  Imports of agricultural products from these, as from other, countries are subject to the rules of the common agricultural policy. Agricultural policies, including import barriers, are currently under discussion in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. The objectives of the negotiation, which the United Kingdom supports, include substantial, progressive reductions in support and protection, including the lowering of import barriers. The United Kingdom is working with our Community partners and other governments, including those of New Zealand, Canada and Australia, to ensure a successful outcome to these negotiations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the co-ordination between local social security offices and local councils in relation to the payment of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We attach high priority to good liaison between our local offices and local authorities and when difficulties arise we seek to remedy them promptly.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department or the transitional payments unit has maintained league tables of outstanding TP3 forms awaiting return from local authorities.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: Inquiry forms TP3 were issued to local authorities in respect of over 484,000 applicants. The return of those forms has been closely monitored by the transitional payments unit. Seven local authorities each have in excess of 100 forms outstanding and in total around 3,000 applications cannot be assessed because inquiry forms have not been returned from over 200 local authorities.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary or State for Social Security what information he has about the number of people in the London borough of Lambeth currently entitled to housing benefit, distinguishing between(a) certificated housing benefit, (b) uncertificated benefit, (c) assistance with rates, (d) assistance with rent, (e) council tenants and (f) private tenants and owner occupiers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest complete information is in the table.
  541

  Receiving Income Support and Housing Benefit

  Receiving Housing Benefit only

  Assistance with;

  Assistance with;

  Rent and rates

  Rent only

  Rates only

  Rent and rates

  Rent only

  Rates only

  Local Authority Tenants

  15,568

  159

  —

  4,691

  77

  284

  Private Tenants

  4,849

  746

  75

  1,728

  556

  58

  Owner Occupiers

  —

  —

  614

  —

  —

  332

  Note: Certificated and standard housing benefit ceased to exist when income support replaced supplementary benefit from April 1988.

  Source: Local authority caseload returns: November 1988

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the working population are investing in occupational or personal pension schemes.

  Mr. Newton
  Of those currently in full-time employment, we estimate that over 70 per cent. are members of occupational or personal pension schemes. In addition, some 50 per cent. of all pensioners and 70 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have an occupational pension.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the increase in pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in pensioners' average net incomes for(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

  Mr. Newton
  In the five years from 1974 to 1979, pensioners' average total net incomes rose by 3 per cent. In the seven years from 1979 to 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, they rose by 23 per cent.

  Income from savings is a significant factor in this improvement. Between 1979 and 1986 pensioners' average income from savings rose by 64 per cent., whereas in the previous five years it had fallen by 16 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of recently-retired pensioners he estimates has sources of income in addition to the basic state retirement pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that in 1986, 70 per cent. of recently retired pensioners had an occupational pension and 85 per cent. had income from savings.

  Computers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the improvement in the level of service offered by his Department as a result of its computerisation programme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Computerisation has improved accuracy of payments and the speed of response to benefit inquiries. It has speeded up the availability of renewed order books. Letters to claimants are clearer and more complete. In addition, computerisation has enabled the relocation of benefit processing from London to areas where it is easier to recruit and retain good staff and this is already showing improvements in all aspects of service.

  Carers' Premium
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the new carers' premium to be introduced into income support.

  Mr. Scott
  We expect the new £10 premium, being introduced next October, to help 10,000 carers through income support, and a further 20,000 carers through housing benefit or community charge benefit.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what proportion spending on the disabled has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people increased by 90 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly award paid through the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 14 December 1989, the average weekly award paid to those receiving regular payments was £61·35.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if owner-occupiers and tenants supported by the independent living fund whose income above income support levels is required to supplement independent living fund contributions are entitled to rate rebates;

  (2) whether adults, all of whose income above income support levels is required by the independent living fund to offset financial help from the independent living fund, will be entitled to community charge rebates.

  Mr. Scott
  People with incomes at or below income support levels are entitled to the full value of an award from the independent living fund. For people with incomes above income support, the ILF has to determine the amount to be offset against the ILF award. In making this calculation the fund makes allowance for the amount of rent, rates or community charge that the applicant has to pay after any housing or community charge benefit.

  Any resulting payments received from the independent living fund are totally disregarded in the calculation of the income-related benefits. Entitlement to housing or community charge benefit is, therefore, calculated in the normal way and depends on the claimant's circumstances (age, family status, disability, number of children), the level of outgoings such as rent and rates or community charge, and the amount of income that is not disregarded.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to alter the existing structure and increase the resources provided for the social fund; and what steps he is taking to ensure that decisions made in regard to grants were equitable in one area of the country against another.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend recently announced that we have made available an additional £3 million for local offices facing the heaviest pressures on their budgets.

  We have no plans to alter the existing structure of the social fund. Its discretionary nature enables social fund officers to look at each application on its merits. This means that decisions on similar cases will, quite properly, differ. We are, however, taking action, for example, by regional monitoring of decisions and by regular seminars for social fund officers, to ensure the highest possible standard of decision-making across the whole country.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the 100 social security offices which are to have their social fund allocations increased as a result of particular pressures, referred to in his written answer of 19 December to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the 96 local offices that have received increased social fund allocations for 1989–90 are in the Library.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give consideration to amending directions 10 and 28 of his social fund directions to allow claims for the cost of redecoration in cases where applicants within the social fund manual, paragraphs 6380 and 6505, may only be decorating one room, and the cost of this may be below £30.

  Mr. Scott
  No. The main purpose of the social fund is to provide for expenses that are difficult to meet out of normal income. We believe that it is reasonable to expect

  National supplementary benefit income support limits, nursing and residential care homes and additions for personal expenses

  April 1985 £

  November 1985 £

  July 1986 £

  April 1987 £

  April 1988 £

  April 1989 £

  1 April 1990 £

  Nursing homes

  Elderly and others

  138·60

  170

  170

  175

  185

  190

  200

  Mentally ill

  148·60

  180·

  180

  180

  185

  195

  200

  Drug/Alcohol dependent

  148·60

  180

  180

  180

  185

  190

  200

  Mentally handicapped

  168·60

  200

  200

  200

  200

  205

  215

  Physically disabled under pension age

  198·60

  230

  230

  230

  230

  235

  245

  Terminally ill

  198·60

  230

  230

  230

  230

  235

  245

  Residential care homes

  Elderly

  110

  120

  125

  130

  130

  140

  150

  Very dependent or blind elderly

  —

  —

  140

  145

  155

  155

  165

  Mentally ill

  120

  130

  130

  130

  130

  140

  150

  Drug/Alcohol dependent

  120

  130

  130

  130

  140

  140

  150

  Mentally Handicapped

  140

  150

  150

  150

  160

  165

  175

  Physically disabled under pension age

  170

  180

  180

  190

  190

  200

  210

  Others

  110

  120

  125

  130

  130

  140

  150

  Greater London extension

  —

  —

  17·50

  17·50

  17·50

  23·00

  23·00

  Addition for personal expenses

  8·50

  8·95

  905

  9·25

  9·55

  10·05

  10·55

  1 Proposed

  544
  people to budget for small expenses from their regular weekly income without help from the social fund. However, a social fund crisis loan may be considered for an amount below £30 if the applicant has no other resources and there is a serious risk to the health or safety of the applicant or a member of his or her family.

  Housing Benefit (Transitional Payments)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for housing benefit transitional payments have been generated by the London borough of Ealing.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There have been 3,170 applications from people living in the London borough of Ealing.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning the £5 per week increase for Department assisted residents and patients in private nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received a number of representations about our proposals for next year's uprating. Subject to parliamentary approval, the overwhelming majority of people in nursing homes receiving income support in April 1990 will be entitled to up to an additional £10 for help with fees. The limit for the mentally ill is increasing by £5, meaning an increase of £15 in two years.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by year, for the past 10 years, the increases in allowance per week for(a) patients in residential private nursing homes and (b) residents in retirement homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The available information is set out in the tables.
  545
  Notes:

  1. Prior to April 1985 each social security office set two maximum amounts that could be paid in respect of fees in homes, one for residential care homes and one for nursing homes.

  2. Claimants in addition to the appropriate limit receive an amount payable for personal expenses.

  3. Present limits can be increased by up to £23 in London.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the final edition of the low income statistics calculated on the old basis covering 1983, 1985 and 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The final edition of the low income statistics calculated on a family unit basis was published in May 1988. This covered 1981, 1983 and 1985. We have no plans to publish any further low income statistics on this basis.

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the estimated cost of uprating social security benefits for disabled people in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of the social security budget the uprating in benefits for the disabled will take up.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated cost of the April 1990 uprating of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled in Great Britain is £599 million in 1990–91. This represents 1·1 per cent. of total planned expenditure.

  Information about costs of benefit in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his review of disability benefits is examining methods within the state system to provide payments to disabled people to enable them to employ their own care attendants.

  Mr. Scott
  Existing benefits—notably attendance allowance and the disability premiums—make some provision to enable disabled people to pay for care. We are reviewing those benefits, but in the context of the Government's aim in the White Paper "Caring for people" (Cmd 849) to establish the right framework for the delivery of good quality local services for community care.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many organisations and individuals have sent their comments on the report by the Occupational Pensions Board Protecting Pensions to his Department; if he will name them; and if he will make copies of the responses available in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  One hundred and forty two representations were made to the Department during the consultation period last year. Many of these were made in confidence. It is for those who made comments to make them publicly available if they wish to do so.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, in tabulated form, the net income after housing costs of a divorcee with a son aged six years,546
  receiving maintenance of £20 per week, housing benefit of £271 per calendar month and paying private rent of £385 per calendar month, and earning (a) nothing, (b) £15 per week part time, (c) £30 per week part time, (d) £50 per week part time, (e) £75 per week part time, (f) £75 per week full time, (g) £100 per week full time, and (h) £150 per week full time.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: The information is set out in the table.

  Net income after housing costs at various levels of net earnings

  Net Earnings (per week)

  1 Net Income After Housing Costs (£pw)

  a. Not working

  57·76

  b. £15 part-time

  72·76

  c. £30 part-time

  72·76

  d. £50 part-time

  75·40

  e. £75 part-time

  78·81

  f. £75 full-time

  81·63

  g. £100 full-time

  83·60

  h. £150 full-time

  94·37

  1 Net income after housing costs is based on an eligible rent for housing benefit purposes of £60pw and rates of £9·93pw.

  Note:—The assumptions and methods are those used in the tax benefit model table, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the timetable for extension of computerisation began on 23 October and name the offices concerned; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the pilot exercise report.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: The timetable for extension of computerisation from October 1989 is a lengthy document and therefore I have placed a copy in the Library rather than publishing it in the Official Report. I have also placed a copy of the pilot exercise report in the Library.

  Child Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who have and will become dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit as a result of the decisions not to uprate child benefit fully in line with inflation in each of the appropriate years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: It is impossible to give any meaningful estimate to the number of people who have or will become dependent on income-related benefits as a direct consequence of not uprating child benefit in April 1988, 1989 and 1990 because the effects cannot be viewed in isolation. It is important to remember that eligible populations and their constituents for all the income-related benefits change constantly as family incomes and circumstances change. Gross earnings have risen, and our policies to reduce tax and national insurance contributions have succeeded in enabling

  547
  families with children to keep more of their earnings. In addition, we have channelled extra help to families with children through the income-related benefits.

DEFENCE

  WE-177 Bomb
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles, of 14 December,Official Report, column 821, what other contractors, apart from British Aerospace, are involved in the assessment of options for the replacement of the WE-177 free fall bomb.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A contract has also been placed with Hunting Engineering Ltd.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles, of 14 December,Official Report, column 821, what information he has as to when the current assessment studies of the options for the replacement of the WE-177 free fall bomb, will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is expected that our studies will be completed later this year.

  Atomic Energy
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any information on the implementation of the 1958 Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters has been withheld under sections 3(4) or 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958; and if he will make a statement on his current policy of withholding archive material.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Atomic records are retained in the Department under section 3(4) of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to discuss records that are so withheld from public release.

  General Dynamics
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers on 14 December,Official Report, columns 821–23, what future purchases from General Dynamics have been discussed with that company as part of the negotiated memorandum of understanding.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assurances have been given to General Dynamics relating to replacement battle tanks for the British Army;

  (2) what deadlines have been given to each company asked to submit proposals for replacement battle tanks for the British Army.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As I told the hon. Member in my answer of 14 December 1989 (Official Report, Vol. 163, col. 822), the details of the invitations to submit proposals are commercial in confidence. No assurances have been given to General Dynamics relating to replacement battle tanks for the British Army other than that its proposals will be considered. It remains our aim to make a decision by the end of 1990.

  Arms
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the brokerage fees accruing from the Ministry of Defence's management of the Al Hamamah Saudi arms deal to the end of December.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Trident
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the latest estimated cost of Trident.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The current estimate for Trident is £9089 million at 1988–89 prices and an exchange rate of £1 = $1·76. It is intended to announce a revised estimate shortly.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British nuclear test veterans have written to the Government asking for compensation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has received about 120 claims from individuals seeking compensation for damage to health allegedly due to their participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon test programme. In addition, a number of representations have been made by test veterans' organisations concerning compensation for their members.

  Berlin Saddle Club
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people in Berlin take advantage of the facilities provided for the Saddle Club; what proportion are(a) officers and officers' families, (b) other ranks and other ranks' families and (c) civilians;

  (2) what charges are made for the use of the Berlin Saddle Club facilities;

  (3) what is the cost to public funds, including military personnel of running the Berlin Saddle Club.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend Lord Arran will write to my hon. Friend.

  Residences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residences are currently owned by his Department in London; who occupies them and on what conditions; and how many are currently empty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence owns 19 properties classed as official service residences within the Greater London area. They are normally occupied by entitled senior service officers filling specific posts; those officers are required to pay the appropriate accommodation charge. Two are currently vacant pending the completion of maintenance work.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any military assistance or co-operation has been given or offered to the United States authorities in respect of the invasion of Panama.
  549
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why British troops were present when the United States of America invaded Panama; how many were there; from what branch of the armed services they came; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from the resident defence attache and his staff at the British embassy, no British military personnel were in Panama at the time.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Papers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is(a) the annual cost and (b) the nominal average cost per Member per week of the production of (i) the Order Paper plus blues, (ii) the daily Official Report and (iii) the Vote bundle.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  (a) Annual cost of production of:

  Order Paper plus blues

  2,727,439

  (ii) The Daily Official Report

  2,745,393

  (iii) The Vote Bundle

  4,714,676

  (b) The nominal average cost per Member, per week of the production of:

  (i) The Order Paper plus blues

  19·94

  (ii) The Daily Official Report

  17·01

  (iii) The Vote Bundle

  34·47

  Notes:

  1. Production costs relate to the 1988–89 parliamentary Session.

  2. Publishing and distribution overheads are excluded (they are not production costs).

  3. Blues' includes Notices of Questions and Notices of Motions.

  4. Assumes one copy of each publication daily per Member.

  Secretarial Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members employ from their secretarial allowance(a) none, (b) one, (c) two, (d) three, (e) four, (f) five and (g) six or more employees.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As at 31 December 1989, the number of staff directly employed by Members and paid by the Fees Office out of the office costs allowance are as follows:

  Number of staff employed

  Number of employing Members

  (a)

  —

  24

  (b)

  193

  193

  (c)

  538

  269

  (d)

  372

  124

  (e)

  104

  26

  (f)

  40

  8

  (g)

  26

  4

  Totals

  1,273

  648

  Notes:

  1. The numbers of staff shown relates to persons directly employed by Members. They do not include persons who are fee earning, agency workers, or staff provided under an arrangement with a firm
  550
  or business organisation.

  2. A total of 648 Members are shown—this reflects the position as at 31 December 1989 (ie excluding the late Mr. J. Heddle and Mr. G. Adams who has not taken his seat).

  Members' Employees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the latest figures for the numbers of employees of hon. Members paid via the Fees Office, who are covered by contracts of employment; and whether he intends to take steps to increase the numbers.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As at 31 December 1989, 1,273 staff employees of Members were paid via the Fees Office. Copies of the main terms and conditions of employment in respect of 781 staff have been furnished to the Fees Office at that date, leaving 492 staff—some of whom have been recently appointed—outstanding. The Fees Office continues to provide advice and guidance to individual Members seeking clarification on specific points of contractual detail, and I am satisfied that all reasonable steps are being taken to encourage adherence to the terms of the governing resolution.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ivory Poaching
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being offered to African countries willing to destroy all ivory stocks seized from poachers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not offer assistance to African countries in response to their willingness to destroy ivory stocks seized from poachers, but we are committed to projects specifically to assist wildlife management and to help to deter and eliminate poaching.

  Hungary
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on aid to Hungary.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Planning for the programme of £25 million over five years previously announced is under way. Our embassy in Budapest has been inviting appropriate contacts to submit ideas for possible financing from the fund. The programme commences substantively in April.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review United Kingdom aid to Pakistan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  When I visited Pakistan last month, I was able to review our aid programme with its Prime Minister and her Ministers. I signed new aid agreements worth £35 million, on behalf of ODA and CDC, for the Karachi water and sanitation project and the Sukkur barrage project.

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will have discussions with the Government of Bangladesh on development issues.
  551
  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. The next meeting in our annual sequence of bilateral aid talks will be held in London later this month. I am also planning to pay my first visit to Bangladesh in February.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the further implementation of the agreement on rain forests negotiated by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) with the Brazilian Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British experts visited Brazil on several occasions between August and December and identified a number of well-defined possibilities for collaborative projects in tropical rain forests and urban environment. Detailed proposals are now being prepared by the Brazilian authorities for our consideration. I wrote to the hon. Member on 3 November and again on 20 December giving details of progress on the more advanced projects.

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the levels of grant aid in pounds sterling given to Fiji for each year since 1980 and for each month during 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested is as follows:

  United Kingdom grants to Fiji 1980–1988 (£ Thousand)

  Year

  Total grant aid

  Financial aid

  Technical cooperation

  1980

  2,996

  20

  2,976

  1981

  2,649

  135

  2,514

  1982

  2,358

  —

  2,358

  Beneficiaries1 of higher rate relief on mortgage interest by range of total income: 1989–90

  Range of total income (£)

  Number of tax units (Thousand)

  Gross amount of interest qualifying for relief (£ million)

  Cost of excess over basic rate relief (£ million)

  Average basic rate relief (£)

  Average excess over basic rate relief (£)

  Number of non-aged lax units (Thousand)

  Singles

  20,001–25,000

  20

  55

  2—

  760

  50

  20

  25,001–30,000

  80

  265

  25

  830

  340

  80

  30,001–40,000

  60

  215

  30

  910

  550

  55

  40,001–50,000

  25

  100

  15

  900

  540

  25

  Over 50,000

  25

  90

  15

  960

  580

  20

  Total

  210

  725

  90

  870

  420

  200

  One–earner couples

  20,001–25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,001–30,000

  105

  320

  25

  760

  210

  105

  30,001–40,000

  110

  355

  50

  800

  480

  110

  40,001–50,000

  50

  155

  25

  790

  470

  45

  Over 50,000

  55

  180

  25

  820

  490

  50

  Total

  320

  1,010

  125

  790

  390

  310

  Two–earner couples

  20,001–25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,001–30,000

  80

  240

  10

  760

  120

  80

  30,001–40,000

  325

  1,015

  105

  780

  320

  325

  40,001–50,000

  110

  345

  45

  800

  430

  110

  Over 50,000

  130

  425

  65

  830

  490

  130

  Total

  2,020

  225

  790

  350

  645

  All

  20,001–25,000

  20

  55

  2—

  760

  50

  20

  552

  Year

  Total grant aid

  Financial aid

  Technical cooperation

  1983

  2,752

  706

  2,047

  1984

  2,097

  291

  1,805

  1985

  2,254

  395

  1,859

  1986

  1,975

  16

  1,959

  1987

  1,953

  70

  1,883

  1988

  1,208

  39

  1,168

  Provisional figures for 1989, not completely comparable with the above are £1,384,000, of which £32,000 was grant financial aid and £1,352,000 was technical co-operation.

  All these figures exclude expenditure by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table on the same general basis as that provided in his written reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 29 July 1988,Official Report, columns 728–30, on the cost to the Exchequer of mortgage interest relief for higher-rate taxpayers in a full year at the current basic rate of mortgage interest; and if he will add a forecast for 1990–91 on the same basis, allowing for separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates of excess over basic rate relief on mortgage interest in 1989–90, based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes, are given in the table. Estimates for 1990–91 are not available.
  553

  Range of total income (£)

  Number of tax units (Thousand)

  Gross amount of interest qualifying for relief (£ million)

  Cost of excess over basic rate relief (£ million)

  Average basic rate relief (£)

  Average excess over basic rate relief (£)

  Number of non-aged tax units (Thousand)

  25,001–30000

  265

  825

  60

  780

  220

  265

  30,001–40,000

  495

  1,585

  190

  800

  380

  490

  40,001–50,000

  185

  600

  85

  810

  460

  180

  Over 50,000

  210

  695

  105

  840

  500

  200

  Total

  1,175

  3,760

  440

  800

  370

  1,155

  1 Includes about 250,000 tax units who are kept out of higher rate tax by this relief.

  2 Less than £2·5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing by range of income the numbers of single persons and married couples(a) with and (b) without wife's earned income below and above age 65 years in receipt of mortgage interest relief and the average relief per mortgagee in each case in a full year at the current basic

  Single people and married couples receiving mortgage interest relief by range of total income 1989–90

  Non-aged mortgagors

  Aged mortgagors

  range of total income

  Number with mortgage interest relief Thousands

  Average tax cost of relief per mortgagor £

  Number with mortgage interest relief Thousands

  Average tax cost of relief per mortgagor £

  Singles

  Up to £5,000

  240

  440

  20

  280

  £5,001 to £10,000

  770

  610

  20

  350

  £10,001 to £15,000

  650

  740

  10

  570

  £15,001 to £20,000

  400

  860

  1—

  530

  £20,001 to £30,000

  290

  940

  1—

  410

  Over £30,000

  110

  1,490

  1—

  1,050

  Total

  2,450

  750

  60

  410

  Married couples with wife earning

  Up to £5,000

  40

  500

  10

  200

  £5,001 to £10,000

  210

  550

  10

  500

  £10,001 to £15,000

  700

  620

  10

  450

  £15,001 to £20,000

  980

  700

  10

  420

  £20,001 to £30,000

  1,070

  800

  1—

  260

  Over £30,000

  640

  1,240

  10

  800

  Total

  3,660

  800

  50

  480

  Married couples with wife not earning

  Up to £5,000

  120

  470

  20

  390

  £5,001 to £10,000

  590

  610

  40

  2·50

  £10,001 to £15,000

  940

  650

  10

  160

  £15,001 to £20,000

  620

  760

  10

  220

  £20,001 to £30,000

  490

  820

  10

  320

  Over £30,000

  210

  1,460

  10

  970

  Total

  2,970

  740

  90

  330

  1 Less than 5,000.

  Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Ministers (Expenses)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowance is made against tax in respect of food and travel expenses incurred by Ministers of the Crown whilst employed on official duties.

  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers of the Crown, like all officeholders and employees, are entitled to tax relief under the schedule E expenses rules for those travel and subsistence costs that are necessarily incurred travelling in the performance of their duties.
  554
  rate of mortgage interest; and if he will add a forecast for 1990, allowing for separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Lilley
  Provisional estimates for 1989–90 are given in the table. They are based on projections of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes. Estimates for 1990–91 are not available.

  Water (VAT)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to impose a value added tax on water; and to which description of consumer it will apply.

  Mr. Ryder
  In order to comply with a judgment of the European Court, the provisions of section 19 of the Finance Act 1989 extend the standard rate of VAT to supplies of water used in connection with certain industrial activities with effect from 1 July 1990. Supplies to domestic consumers will remain zero-rated.

  Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the rate of inflation since 1986 of the increase in the price of assets, including houses; what was the increase in(a) overhead costs of employers and employees respectively and (b) wage increases granted to employees; and if he will provide regional as well as national figures.

  Mr. Ryder
  Increases in mortgage interest payments, including the lagged effect of house prices, contributed two percentage points to the annual rate of RPI inflation in the year to November, compared with half a percentage point in the year to January 1987. There are no official figures available for the overhead costs of employers or employees. Figures for average earnings are published in the Employment Gazette and New Earnings Survey, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the United Kingdom and in the Group of Five leading industrial nations.

  Mr. Ryder
  More comparable inflation rates for members of the five leading industrial countries are given in the following table:

  More comparable consumer price inflation rates

  Latest figures1

  United Kingdom2

  6 ·1

  United States of America

  4·4

  Japan

  2·6

  Germany

  3·4

  France

  3·7

  1 Figures for the United Kingdom and France are for November, the United States of America and Germany are for October and for Japan, September.

  2 The United Kingdom figure is for RPI excluding mortgage interest payments; figures for other countries exclude estimates of owner occupiers' housing costs as appropriate.

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

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

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the rate of wage and price inflation since 1986 of the increase since 1987 in the real exchange rate against the deutschmark measured in terms of relative export prices regionally and nationally.

  Mr. Ryder
  The relationship between wage and price inflation and changes in the bilateral deutschmark-sterling real exchange rate cannot be separated from the effects of exchange-rate movements against third currencies and other influences on wage and price inflation in both countries.

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in real terms after tax of a
  556
  married couple with two children and no tax allowances, other than personal allowances, for each of the male employees itemised in the written reply of 13 December from the Department of Employment to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, Official Report, columns 658–59, showing the increase in gross real earnings between April 1979 and April 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information is given in the table.

  Increases1 in real earnings2 after income tax3 married man with two children4, between April and child benefit of a 1979 and April 1989

  Point on Earnings Distribution

  Manufacturing

  Percentage increase Non-manufacturing

  Manual Males

  Lowest decile

  6

  7

  Lower quartile

  11

  11

  Median

  16

  15

  Higher quartile

  20

  19

  Highest decile

  25

  21

  Average earnings

  17

  16

  Non-Manual Males

  Lowest decile

  20

  17

  Lower quartile

  26

  26

  Median

  33

  35

  Higher quartile

  41

  42

  Highest decile

  47

  52

  Average earnings

  39

  41

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

  2 Earnings are those for full-time males on adult rates in Great Britain.

  3 For April 1979, income tax is based on the tax regime in the Finance Act 1979.

  4 Two children, both aged under 11.

  Source: New Earnings Survey data and RPI (all items).

  Child Care
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 3 November,Official Report, column 361, he will examine the disparity in respect of parental payment for day child care facilities.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am not aware of such a disparity.

  Tax Subsidies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider introducing tax subsidies on British Rail season tickets as a means of reducing road congestion and environmental pollution.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new intitiatives he plans to reduce the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government will not reduce interest rates until that can be safely done without risk to inflation.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure he has for the percentage that taxation represents of the gross domestic product; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is given below.

  Taxes as percentage GDP1

  per cent.

  1979

  28·3

  1988

  30·4

  1 Taxes cover taxes on income, expenditure (including local authority rates) and capital. GDP is GDP(A) at market prices.

  Capital Inflows
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of short-term capital inflows into the United Kingdom in the first three quarters of 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information on transactions in the main categories of United Kingdom

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings—1988–89

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  19·51

  35·53

  51·55

  83·59

  129·33

  231·85

  334·37

  436·89

  641·93

  949·49

  1,974·69

  NICS

  11·53

  17·30

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  VAT

  —

  9·52

  12·82

  19·98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15·15

  18·96

  27·22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·68

  9·35

  12·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  31·04

  85·18

  115·75

  171·23

  156·78

  259·30

  361·82

  464·34

  669·38

  976·94

  2,002·14

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15·2

  18·5

  20·1

  21·7

  25·2

  30·2

  32·6

  34·1

  35·8

  37·0

  38·5

  NICS

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·0

  5·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·9

  7·4

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  4·0

  3·6

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  24·2

  44·4

  45·1

  44·6

  30·6

  33·7

  35·3

  36·2

  37·3

  38·1

  39·1

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  12·35

  28·37

  44·39

  76·43

  117·87

  220·39

  322·91

  425·43

  630·47

  938·03

  1,963·23

  NICS

  11·53

  17·30

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  VAT

  —

  8·73

  12·32

  20·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16·82

  20·63

  28·89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·52

  8·73

  11·37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23·88

  78·74

  109·14

  164·26

  145·32

  247·84

  350·36

  452·88

  657·92

  965·48

  1,990·68

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  9·6

  14·8

  17·3

  19·9

  23·0

  28·7

  31·5

  33·2

  35·1

  36·6

  38·3

  NICS

  90

  90

  90

  71

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·5

  4·8

  5·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·8

  81

  7·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  3·9

  3·4

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  18·6

  410

  42·6

  42·7

  28·3

  32·2

  34·2

  35·3

  36·7

  37·7

  38·8

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  0

  15·84

  31·86

  63·9

  97·83

  17319

  260·33

  36118

  566·22

  873·78

  1,898·98

  NICS

  7·95

  15·76

  2102

  34·60

  45·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  54·90

  VAT

  —

  —

  9·87

  13·82

  21·42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19·54

  22·99

  29·65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  9·29

  9·92

  1114

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7·95

  70·30

  99·61

  160·71

  143·73

  22809

  315·23

  41608

  62112

  928·68

  L953·88

  558
  external assets and liabilities in the first three quarters of 1989 was published on 14 December in the quarterly balance of payments press notice, CSO(89)143, a copy of which is in the Library. It is not considered meaningful to distinguish short-term capital flows.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report up-to-date figures on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) in the Official Report, 10 January 1989, columns 633–56.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for 1978–79 to 1988–89 were placed in the Library of the House earlier this year (as noted in Official Report 13 April 1989, column 624). Revised estimates for 1988—89, and estimates for 1989–90 were given in reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 1 December 1989 (Official Report, col. 464). I regret that those estimates for 1988–89 for a married man with two children contained an error. The amended tables are below.
  559

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·0

  8·2

  12·4

  16·6

  19·1

  22·5

  25·4

  28·2

  31·6

  34·1

  37·0

  NICS

  6·2

  8·2

  8·2

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  4·3

  3·1

  2·1

  1·1

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·4

  5·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  10·2

  9·0

  7·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  4·8

  3·9

  2·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6·2

  36·5

  38·9

  41·8

  28·0

  29·7

  30·7

  32·5

  34·6

  36·2

  38·1

  Married, 2 children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  -2·15

  13·87

  29·89

  61·93

  103·37

  205·89

  308·41

  409·93

  615·97

  923·53

  1,948·73

  NICS

  11·53

  17·30

  23·07

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  27·45

  VAT

  —

  8·69

  12·76

  21·59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16·67

  19·71

  26·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·42

  8·85

  11·96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9·38

  63·95

  94·28

  149·26

  130·82

  233·34

  335·86

  437·38

  643·42

  950·98

  1,976·18

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -1·7

  7·2

  11·7

  16·1

  20·2

  26·8

  30·1

  32·0

  34·3

  36·0

  38·0

  NICS

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  7·1

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·1

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·5

  5·0

  5·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·7

  7·7

  6·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  3·9

  3·5

  3·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7·3

  33·3

  36·9

  38·7

  25·5

  30·3

  32·8

  34·1

  35·9

  37·1

  38·6

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings—1989–90

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  21·61

  39·11

  56·61

  91·61

  142·87

  254·87

  366·87

  478·87

  702·87

  1,038·87

  2,158·87

  NICS

  11·10

  17·40

  23·70

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  VAT

  —

  10·59

  14·22

  22·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15·96

  19·96

  28·72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  8·42

  10·25

  14·25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  32·71

  91·48

  124·74

  184·48

  170·61

  282·61

  394·61

  506·61

  730·61

  1,066·61

  2,186·61

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income tax

  20·10

  36·38

  52·66

  85·22

  132·90

  237·09

  341·27

  445·46

  653·83

  966·39

  2,008·25

  NICS

  10·33

  16·19

  22·05

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  VAT

  —

  9·85

  13·23

  20·61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  14·85

  18·57

  26·72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·83

  9·53

  13·26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  30·43

  85·10

  116·04

  171·61

  158·71

  262·89

  367·08

  471·27

  679·64

  992·20

  2,034·06

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15·4

  18·6

  20·2

  21·8

  25·5

  30·3

  32·8

  34·2

  35·9

  37·1

  38·6

  NICS

  7·9

  8·3

  8·5

  6·6

  5·0

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  1·4

  1·0

  0·5

  VAT

  ·—

  5·0

  5·1

  5·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·6

  7·1

  6·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  4·0

  3·7

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23·4

  43·6

  44·6

  43·9

  30·5

  33·6

  35·2

  36·2

  37·3

  38·1

  39·0

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  13·97

  31·47

  48·97

  83·97

  130·63

  242·63

  354·63

  466·63

  690·63

  1,026·63

  2,146·63

  NICS

  11·10

  17·40

  23·70

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  VAT

  —

  9·73

  13·69

  22·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·67

  21·68

  30·42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  8·22

  9·55

  12·45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  25·07

  84·49

  117·59

  176·91

  158·37

  270·37

  382·37

  494·37

  718·37

  1,054·37

  2,174·37

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  13·00

  29·27

  45·55

  78·11

  121·52

  225·70

  329·89

  434·07

  642·45

  955·00

  1,996·87

  NICS

  10·33

  16·19

  22·05

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  VAT

  —

  9·05

  12·73

  20·77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16·44

  20·17

  28·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  560 561

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·65

  8·88

  11·58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23·32

  78·60

  109·39

  164·57

  147·32

  251·51

  355·69

  459·88

  668·25

  980·81

  2,022·67

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10·0

  15·0

  17·5

  20·0

  23·3

  28·9

  31·7

  33·3

  35·2

  36·7

  38·3

  NICS

  7·9

  8·3

  8·5

  6·6

  5·0

  3·3

  2·5

  2·

  1·4

  1·

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·6

  4·9

  5·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·4

  7·7

  7·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  3·9

  3·4

  3·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17· 9

  40·2

  42·0

  42·1

  28·3

  32·2

  34·1

  35·3

  36·7

  37·7

  38·8

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0·58

  18·08

  35·58

  70·58

  109·21

  191·08

  286·28

  397·73

  621·73

  957·73

  2,077·73

  NICS

  9·59

  15·89

  22·19

  34·79

  46·40

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  55·49

  VAT

  —

  10·96

  15·25

  23·83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20·40

  24·00

  31·19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  10·10

  10·78

  12·15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  10·17

  75·43

  107·80

  172·54

  155·61

  246·57

  341·77

  453·22

  677·22

  1,013·22

  2,133·22

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income tax

  0·54

  16·82

  33·10

  65·66

  101·59

  177·75

  266·31

  369·98

  578·35

  890·91

  1,932·77

  NICS

  8·92

  14·78

  20·64

  32·36

  43·16

  51·62

  51·62

  51·62

  51·62

  51·62

  51·62

  VAT

  —

  10·20

  14·19

  22·17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·98

  22·33

  29·01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  9·40

  10·03

  11·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9·46

  70·17

  100·28

  160·50

  144·75

  229·37

  317·93

  421·60

  629·97

  942·53

  1,984 ·39

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·4

  8·6

  12·7

  16·8

  19·5

  22·7

  25·6

  28·4

  31·7

  34·2

  37·1

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  7·9

  8·3

  8·3

  6·6

  5·0

  4·0

  2·8

  2·0

  1·0

  VAT

  —

  5·2

  5·4

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·7

  8·6

  7·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  4·8

  3·9

  2·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7·3

  35·9

  38·5

  41·1

  27·8

  29·4

  30·5

  32·4

  34·6

  36·2

  38·1

  Married, 2 children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  -0·53

  16·97

  34·47

  69·47

  116·13

  228·13

  340·13

  452·13

  676·13

  1,012·13

  2,132·13

  NICS

  11·10

  17·40

  23·70

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·74

  27·4

  27·74

  27·74

  VAT

  —

  9·60

  14·08

  23·87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·36

  20·58

  27·64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  808

  9·65

  13·07

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  10·57

  69·41

  102·48

  161·79

  143·87

  255·87

  367·87

  479·87

  703·87

  1,039·87

  2,159·87

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income tax

  -0·49

  15·79

  32·07

  64·62

  108·03

  212·21

  316·40

  420·59

  628·96

  941·52

  1,983·38

  NICS

  10·33

  16·19

  22·05

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  25·80

  VAT

  —

  8·93

  13·10

  22·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16·15

  19·14

  25·71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  7·52

  8·98

  12·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9·83

  64·57

  95·33

  150·50

  133·83

  238·02

  342·20

  446·39

  654·76

  967·32

  2,009·18

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  -0·4

  8·1

  12·3

  16·5

  20·7

  27·2

  30·4

  32·3

  34·5

  36·1

  38·1

  NICS

  7·9

  8·3

  8·5

  6·6

  5·0

  3·3

  2·5

  2·0

  1·4

  1·0

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  46

  50

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·3

  7·4

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic rates

  —

  3·8

  3·4

  3·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7·6

  33·1

  36·6

  38·5

  25·7

  30·5

  32·8

  34·3

  35·9

  37·1

  38·6

  Notes to tables

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances. Earners, including working wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  2. The two earner married couple is assumed to have combined earnings equal to the various multiples of average earnings. In calculating disposable income it is assumed that these earnings are split between husband and wife in the ratio 60:40.

  3. For the married couple with two children, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence.
  562 563
  These were £256·30 per week in 1988–89, and estimated to be £280·00 per week in 1989–90, using the Government Actuary Department's assumption of 91 per cent. growth over 1988–89 as published in the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  5. The estimates of indirect taxation are derived from the 1985 family expenditue survey, and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with similar incomes and composition, and estimated payments of VAT, other indirect taxes and rates are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between the estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  6. 1989–90 figures are converted into 1988–89 prices by assuming that the RPI is 71/2 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than the previous financial year. This is consistent with the forecasts published in the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the public spending planning total for 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The public expenditure planning total for 1990–91 has been set at £179 billion, as set out in the Autumn Statement.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the trade deficit for 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to table 2·3 of the Autumn Statement.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to change the nature of company car taxation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  EEC Inflation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average rate of inflation for the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  The average EC inflation rate is published each month by the OECD in "Main Economic Indicators".

  Industrial Investment
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he plans to introduce to stimulate industrial investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Investment in all sectors of the economy has been stimulated by confidence in the long-term prospects for the economy. Manufacturing investment is at a record level and the CSO's latest survey of manufacturers' investment intentions projects further growth over the next two years.

  Members' Salaries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow hon. Members to receive their House of Commons salary in European currency units.

  Mr. Ryder
  Members' salaries are a matter for the House and are paid in accordance with the resolution of 21 July 1987. The resolution would need to be amended if Members' salaries were to be denominated in European currency units.

  PSBR
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net public sector borrowing requirement or debt repayment for 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest forecast is for a net public sector debt repayment of £121/2 billion in 1989–90, as set out in the Autumn Statement.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom cigarette market was accounted for by cheap foreign imports in the years 1980 to 1989 inclusive; and if he will list the Budget tax increases on cigarettes for each of those years.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: Figures on cheap foreign imports are not available. The table shows the share of imports in home consumption of cigarettes in the years 1980–89 and the rates of specific excise duty in place after the Budget. An ad valorem duty of 21 per cent. of the listed retail selling price applies to all cigarettes.

  Cigarettes

  Share of consumption Per cent.

  Excise Duty Rates Specific Duty (£per 1,000 cigarettes)

  1980

  1·7

  13·42

  1981

  1·4

  18·04

  1982

  1·7

  20·68

  1983

  1·9

  21·67

  1984

  6·4

  24·97

  1985

  11·2

  26·95

  1986

  12·4

  30·61

  1987

  11·6

  30·61

  1988

  9·6

  31·74

  1989

  7·4

  31·74

  1 January to October average

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many married women with children have unearned income.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: It is estimated that approximately 4 million married women with children have some income from investment.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest estimate of the cost of bringing in independent taxation in 1990–91 next April.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for

  565
  Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 18 December, Official Report, col 26, for the reduction in income tax liabilities in 1990–91 due to the introduction of independent taxation.

  The corresponding reduction in income tax receipts in 1990–91 is £500 million.

  The estimated effect on the receipts of capital gains tax in 1990–91 is unchanged from the tentative figure of £50 million published in the 1988 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Fixed Profit Car Scheme
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 564, about the fixed profit car scheme, if he will give details of the mileage bands and car engine sizes whereby the taxable amount is fixed.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: Under the fixed profit car scheme arrangements the car engine sizes taken into account are those up to 1000cc, 1001 to 1500cc and over 1500cc. The number and width of the mileage bands vary according to the mileage allowances reimbursed under each particular employer's mileage allowance scheme. For every band a "fixed profit" is calculated and employees are taxed on the fixed profit for the band into which the mileage driven on business falls.

  Whisky
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is the United Kingdom excise duty on a one litre bottle of whisky containing 40 per cent. alcohol imported from(a) the United States of America and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 December 1989]: A total of 630·8 pence in both cases.

  Architectural Staff
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what architectural and architectural-related staff he has in the Treasury to make technical assessments of decisions by other Departments to use agents other than the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: No staff in such specialisms are currently employed in the Treasury. Where Departments are free to use agents other than PSA for building and maintenance work, it is for them to decide on value for money grounds, and after the usual tendering and contract procedures have been observed, whether such agents, or PSA, should be employed.